And God created (the) man in His own image
In the image of God created He him
Male and female created He them.Genesis 1:27 as I say it should be properly translated. The first segment is referring to a specific man, not the human race as a whole. A definite article is before the first "man". See for yourself in the interlinear of this verse. The "ha" in front of Adam is properly translated "the" or sometimes "of". This verse is a list of three things God did to fulfill His stated intent in verse twenty-six, not the same thing repeated three times with slightly different phraseology.
I used to spend a lot of time on the Peaceful Science forum. For months I had maintained that this verse has been mis-translated. For months they had said a real Hebrew scholar would demonstrate this belief to be in error. I had called for one repeatedly. Finally on this thread at the "Peaceful Science" forum on of them was kind enough to engage me, reluctantly at the first. While he started out assuring me I was wrong, by the end of it he could only say that there "could be" a good reason for the traditional translation- not that he had one at the moment. I reproduce the dialogue here with my words in black and his in blue, with narration in yellow highlight. When we cite each other, the quotes we have of each other are in a blue-shaded box with our symbol and screen name in front of it. Please ignore the large black arrows. Each new comment is separated by a row of asterisks. So don't pay attention to the brown space between squares of dialogue. The comments are separated by asterisks. The conversation is easier to follow here because a couple of others were jumping in and out and disrupting the flow.
*******************************
Kenneth TurnerHebrew Professor
I’m an OT/Hebrew Professor. You’re mistaken about the necessary reference of the singular pronoun in v. 27. As you note the antecedent (‘adam) is a collective noun (thus always grammaticlly singular, whether referring to an individual or group). If it’s is meant to be a group, then a subsequent pronoun could either be singular (to show grammatical congruity) or plural (to show conceptual congruity). Both are legit in Hebrew…only larger context can decide.
Also, be careful not to make too much of the article in v. 27. Though Hebrew is closer to Greek in the use of articulation, they are not identical. The article could simply be a reference back to the ‘adam in v. 26 (I.e., this ‘adam).
****************************************
deuteroKJ: You’re mistaken about the necessary reference of the singular pronoun in v. 27. As you note the antecedent (‘adam) is a collective noun (thus always grammaticlly singular, whether referring to an individual or group)
Well Professor I am glad to see you here. I do hope to pick your brain a bit about this and other passages.
Now when I speak of a collective noun I am referring to verse 1:26*. That is a collective noun. I should think that the antecedent to the “o-tow” in the second segment of verse 27 is the ha-adam in the first segment of verse 27. After all the verb is different in verses 26 and 27. His intention is to make (asah) in verse 26. What He does to bring that intention to reality is create (bara) in verse 27.
So is the antecedent to the “o-tow” in the second segment of verse 27 the “ha-adam” in the immediately preceding first segment of verse 27 or is it the “adam” back in verse 26?
*with the caveat that the Body of Christ is also collective and it too can be described with a singular pronoun. I do in fact think that’s what its saying here and in 1:27 but it is my guess that this is not what you meant when you were tying o-tow to a collective noun.
**************************************
The pronoun goes back to 27a, but I’m suggesting that ha-adam in 27a need not be distinct from adam in 26. In fact I don’t see a good reason to separate them-neither by the change of verbs (the two do overlap semantically quite a bit) or the presence of the article in 27a.
Btw I’ve enjoyed much of what you’ve written on this site (I’m one of those lurkers). Sorry for the first correspondence was on a point of disagreement.
**************************************
deuteroKJ:
Let me back up a bit and be more specific. We do speak loosely and say “this is a collective noun” but “Adam” is not a true collective noun. Examples of true collective nouns are things like “bunch”, “board”, “herd” etc. Collective nouns like that refer to a group of things and yet still have a plural form, while at the same time they always refer to a group of whatever is in the collective.
This is not the case at all with a-dam. Rather this is just a noun which has the same form whether singular or plural. It is a case of an irregular noun where the single and plural forms are unchanging, like (the example I think I gave in the book) deer.
So then I can say “In four days we can legally hunt deer” and this refers to the entire species. It is collective in that sense, just as 1:26 is referring to a collective.
But should I say “Last year I got an award for the deer I shot” then the presence of the definite article “the” indicates that it is referring to a specific deer or (because singular and plural form is the same) a group of deer. The article clarifies that I was not claiming to have eradicated the entire species. Notice that my prior reference to the species deer (“we can legally hunt deer”) and my use of the definite article (“the deer I shot”) does in a sense refer back to deer as a concept or the whole group of them but it is wrong to say that this reference means the deer specified by the definite article is equal to the entire species of deer or even the concept of deer.
Now it may still be unclear whether I have taken a single animal or a group of them, owning to the identical form of the noun in singular or plural. So if I follow on with this statement and say “He had the biggest antlers of any taken that year” then you know that I am referring to a single deer because I followed the reference to the deer I had taken with a singular pronoun.
Now you are the expert in Hebrew, and therefore I accept that what you say is possible in Hebrew, but considering what I have written above, your point about what is possible in Hebrew sounds extremely awkward when you lay it all out in English.
26: “Let us make Man in Our own image, and let them…” note a plural pronoun. Though I don’t think its in the Hebrew the context of the plural reference to God and 27c sort of demands it. That’s why the vast majority of translations give it a plural pronoun, though a few don’t use a pronoun here. The only one I can find that uses a singular pronoun is the
Douay-Rheims Bible. Now you are aware that I don’t take translations as binding when they translate the Hebrew inconsistently, but here the use of the plural seems justified.
Douay-Rheims Bible. Now you are aware that I don’t take translations as binding when they translate the Hebrew inconsistently, but here the use of the plural seems justified.
deuteroKJ:
27a. “So God created THE man in His Own image.” The article IS there. You are one of the few people on this board confident in your understanding enough to see what is there. Now you have suggested that the singular pronoun be “this” as in referring to the noun He spoke of creating in 26. That is, man as “mankind” or humanity. Consider how that reads. “So God created this mankind in his own image”.
Is there another mankind out there that we might think He was referring to? Indeed, verse 26 is not even strictly the same object as that in 27a, even if it is a collective because 26 describes the idea of mankind. Until 27a there is no actual and extant mankind to refer back to.
So while I understand that definite articles can be used to refer back to an already given example of something, this isn’t quite that. So one might say “King David went out to battle. THE king ordered his army to surround Moab.” Yes, in that case the definite article refers us back to David. But that’s because A) David was not the only king in creation so an article to make the ordering king more specific adds clarity to the text and B) There was already a David there to refer back to. He actually existed. Did Mankind already exist in 1:26? Does the article add any clarity to the text if it is only referring to humanity as a whole in this situation?
The vast majority of translators (with good reason that’s the key) assign a plural pronoun to the adam in verse 26. The Hebrew explicitly pairs both a definite article and a singular pronoun with the adam in 27a-b. It is not until you get to 27c that the pronoun switches up to plural again, matching what is implied in 26.
Look, you are the expert in Hebrew, and so if you say its possible, if one threads the needle just so, that I am mis-interpreting the passage then I accept that it is possible, if one threads the needle just so, that I am mis-interpreting the passage. But isn’t it also at least as likely that I am getting it right? That 27a and b refers to a single individual and 26 and 27c refer to multiple individuals? The grammar, as you are describing what it could be, sounds awkward and as forced as it can be in English.
**********************************************************
(And Dr. Turner has a good answer for my objections, but he also leaves an opening for what follows....)
Revealed_Cosmology:
As you note, there are two types of collective nouns. I use the example “flock of sheep”–flock is the group collective; sheep is the other type (what you call irregular). Terminology isn’t the issue; it seems we basically see this the same way.
Revealed_Cosmology:
Yes, that’s what happens in translation. As the old saying goes, “Translation is treason.” There is always a trade-off, a fudging that must take place from one the patient language to the target language. In this case, the use of the definite article is not exact between Hebrew and English (though it’s pretty close). The same goes for resumptive pronouns (i.e., a pronoun that refers back to an antecedent).
Revealed_Cosmology:Actually the verb “let them have have dominion” is plural in the Hebrew. (And there it is)
Revealed_Cosmology:
I’m suggesting the article in 27a naturally refers back to the adam just mentioned in 26 (I used “this” as shorthand for “the one just mentioned”). There’s no need to force an awkward Engllsh translation. Assuming it is the same adam, the English translations are right to translate with “humanity/humankind” and not translate the definite article.
Revealed_Cosmology:
This seems off base. A definite article doesn’t necessarily mean your choosing one of many. Even in English we can say “the universe,” “the earth,” “the sun,” “the messiah,” “the church,” etc. Still, a Hebrew definite article need not be translated with “the” or anything (see above). Besides, you have the something similar (concerning the article, not singular/plural) in Gen 2:5-7 – "there was no adam [no article; perhaps fits your “idea”?] to work the ground…“the LORD God formed the man [with article].”
Your idea vs. object is too abstract for the Hebrew mindset (especially for it to show up in its grammar). It’s the general pattern in the creation days in Gen 1 for God to make a statement about intent to create (e.g., “let there be”), and then the description fulfilling that intent. Why break this consistency in the creation of adam? (I grant there are other discontinuities with adam in Day 6, but I don’t this as one of them.)
Revealed_Cosmology:
No, not likely. The grammar could be construed this way theoretically (or maybe I should say hypothetically, since we’re on a science blog), but its not the most natural reading to me. Thus, I would need strong warrant from other clues to consider it as a live option. But every angle I consider says otherwise–the general pattern in Gen 1; the poetic parallelism in v. 27; the later references to image in the Bible (against the ANE backdrop); the consistent translation and interpretation in the guild (and maybe church history, but I don’t know that); etc.
I don’t know what the rabbis did with this, but it’s the kind of thing up their alley. You might find some support among them.
Revealed_Cosmology:
I hope I’ve cleared this up above. I was explaining the function of the article, not how the English should be translated. Our present translations are just fine.
And now I must get back to other things. Thanks for the iron sharpening!
(I consider this the high-water-mark of his case against my view of the text. From here on out, it all goes my way, as he is good enough to recognize.)
**********************************
Thank you for pointing that out. This appears to strongly confirm the interpretation I am giving for these verses. You say it may be that ha-adam in 27a is only referring back to the adam in 26, but if so why is that adam is paired with a plural verb in 26 and the ha-adam in 27a is paired with a singular pronoun in 27b?
Translation may be treason but that’s an awkward fit in any tongue. A much better fit is that 27 is a list of three things done to fulfill God’s intent in 26.
That is just what I am saying is happening too. As I see it you are going “He said He was going to do X and then it says He did X”. I am saying “He said He was going to do X and then it says the things He did in order to do X”. I see that as what the other days do as well. If there is any difference its that in the previous circumstances He ordered some part of creation to do something and then helped. With man, He did it Himself.
That’s too bad. I guess I will have to find another Hebrew scholar who can continue this where we left off, because this conversation is by no means completed on my end. As for our present translations- they are getting better. For example most of them shifted from the old translating ha-adam in chapter two as “Adam” to the more correct translation of “the man”. They just haven’t made that final step yet and moved to consistency by extending that to the ha-adam in chapter one.
(He then reports back that he just meant for today and he would love to continue the discussion later. I have not included that exchange. Note the change on his return as far as how valid he considers the idea.)
***************************************
deuteroKJKenneth TurnerHebrew Professor
Good question. Assuming my position for now, one could argue that it’s simply stylistic (i.e., the narrator liked variety, and this would form a chiasm of plural [26], singular [27a], singular [27b], plural [27c]). Or, one could add a theological nuance: Taking advantage of the collective noun, the narrator wants to emphasize that image of God applied individually and corporately (counter-intuitively, the plural focuses on individuals; the singular focuses on corporate). This is done elsewhere. One thinks of the “seed” (another collective noun) in Gen 3:15 and 22:17-18 (though this example may help your case), or in another vein the David’s “son” in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7), which refers both to a succession of sons (i.e., dynasty) and to the greater Son. My own work in Deuteronomy shows the tension in the alternation of the singular “you” vs. the plural “y’all” (perhaps the only time Southern English is helpful!). The point is there could be a good explanation for the phenomenon within the traditional reading.
Revealed_Cosmology:
I’d have to think about this more on whether there’s a real distinction intended. It’s also possible different phrases are being used without too much distinction (though, I admit, it’s possible depending on authorial intent). The main differences with Day 6B (humans) that I see are: more time/text spent on it; divine deliberation (“Let us”); the lacking “according to their kinds”; the status as image of God; the added “very good” which is also delayed as a reflection on all 6 Days and not just Day Six (though “good” lacking in Day 2 since, as Waltke quips, God hates Mondays too!); and the use of the definite article “the sixth” (it also appears on “the seventh” in 2:3, but not Days 1-5; though I’m not quite sure the significance of it; I wonder what this does to our previous discussion of the article).
************************************************
I do think it helps my case. As I suppose you know, Galatians 3:16 throws that collective noun thing out the window and says that because it says “seed” instead of “seeds” in Genesis 22 that it is referring to Christ and not all the physical offspring of Abraham. And that’s fine too because we know that the true sons of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham- the body of Christ is a collective even if Christ is singular. The spiritual reality of what is happening goes to the edge of what human language is able to convey, and perhaps beyond it.
Genesis 3:15 helps my case too, for the same reasons. And as a bonus, it negates the claim that 3:20 is evidence against an adamic race before the man Adam. “Mother of all the living” is a strange thing to say about someone who had just gotten them both killed. But it makes sense if Yahweh-Elohim told them that the 2nd Adam would come, God’s only begotten son, through the seed of a woman and redeem mankind. All “in Christ” are the living. The Christ-centered model makes sense of what otherwise does not, either in context of the passage or bounced against the evidence from the natural world that there were people before the time period Adam must have lived in if the text is accurate.
So we do see a pattern here in Genesis where the ambiguity in nouns being collective or singular are later discovered to point to Christ and Christ is both singular as the man and collective as in the believers which comprise His body. This is of course like the idea of the person of a king standing in to represent his nation. So really 1:26-27 fits into the same pattern.
Have you a link? I’d like to read it, both for itself but especially to figure out if it says anything about the Christ-centered model.
(Notice that he has gone from telling me that my interpretation is wrong to saying that there "could be a good explanation within the traditional reading- while not having one to offer at the moment)
Isn’t the real traditional reading the way that the Jewish rabbis would see it over thousands of years? I should think they would not have a problem with what I am saying about “the man” and the verbs and pronouns. They would be fine with the idea that “man” in 26 is a plural thinking ahead to the race as a concept while 27a and 27b were singular (Adam). That’s what they believed anyway. Of course where I take it from there is not something they would approve of, but I just mean structurally and what the words are saying. The “traditional” reading from 1611 to today may be different but I suspect if one goes before that it would not be. You are in a much better position to say than I of course.
No need to get side-tracked by these jewels hidden in the word here and it takes a long time to build the case where it all fits beautifully together, but I do think I have been shown the significance of these things and write about it in the book 1
******************************************************
deuteroKJKenneth TurnerHebrew Professor
That’s a cheeky thing Paul does there 
He took advantage of the difference between Hebrew and Greek grammar to make his theological point (since Greek sperma can take a plural form). His point about Christ as the ultimate seed is a good Christological reading (already nestled in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text). This does not discount the original meaning, which also includes a plural referent.
He took advantage of the difference between Hebrew and Greek grammar to make his theological point (since Greek sperma can take a plural form). His point about Christ as the ultimate seed is a good Christological reading (already nestled in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text). This does not discount the original meaning, which also includes a plural referent.
This helps me see better how you’re arriving at your position on 1:26-27. I’m OK with a sound Christological reading (especially when a NT author employs it!), but I myself am a bit cautious to start finding things in a text without warrant, nor do I want a Christological reading to dismiss/discount earlier layers. Perhaps we have different hermeneutical grids at play here. I prefer Christotelic to Christological, though I’ve shifted in the past couple of years to think more Christologically.
The purpose in Deuteronomy is to show corporate solidarity across generations of “Israel.” It’s part of the argument in my book: https://books.google.com/books?id=SDRMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=kenneth+turner+death+of+deaths+in+death+of+israel&source=bl&ots=49tEYqeUUH&sig=luXOXhIkW6-RQRx_mKB5Eef-oTU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwvfC6iMzcAhUtwVkKHXy5CtMQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=kenneth%20turner%20death%20of%20deaths%20in%20death%20of%20israel&f=false 1
Reference? That’d be interesting to study.
Are you suggesting the Christian reading of Gen 1:26-27 changed in 1611?
Ah, one day I’ll get to it
********************************************
The issue then I suppose is the metric one uses to decide how many dots have to line up before something is “warranted”. I don’t discount the earlier layers. I am one of those here that does NOT ascribe to a straight-up sequential reading of Genesis. I am thus keeping more of the original layer and view than most here. There was an historical Adam and Eve and that is a part of what this text is talking about here. But Christ is also there in the text, as are the adamites outside the garden which makes the parallels between Christ and Adam stronger than it would be were his role the father of humanity.
As for the different grids, we are many members but one body. I think we can each emphasize the thing that we do while still seeing and proclaiming value in the part that the other emphasizes.
Well it is an indication that he valued the Septuagint relative to what would be the Masoretic text more than we do today. It is useful to consider both. This is the kind of thing I think an apostle can do that I can’t! That and the Gal. 4 comparison of the two women as two covenants being “what the law really says.” Still, if those are authoritative examples of how far the text can be stretched to insert Christ (while not denying the reality of the underlying events) then what I am doing is well within the bounds of sound handling of the word. Indeed it explains things that even an expert like you have some difficulty coming up with a better explanation for.
I thought you might know offhand of a link but I’ll give it a look. Thanks for your link.
I am suggesting that this period saw the word translated from Greek and Hebrew to the King’s English and other European languages around this time so that the translation of the text went through the hands of a very small number of people who had only a fraction of the knowledge and documents we have available today. And these people were connected to one another in thought and culture so that if they got something a little off then it would be copied and repeated until it gained momentum as “tradition”. This would be so even if the underlying case from the text was not so strong as the tradition which supported it. This is, in my view, exactly what happened with the tradition to translate “ha-adam” as “Adam” in chapter two, as the King James and other early versions have done. It stood that way for centuries even though those with the right training knew what it literally said was “the man”. Finally, in the last 70 years or so the reality of what was in the text of chapter two overcame the tradition about how it was supposed to be interpreted. Most of the most recent translations properly translate it “the man” now. This momentum has not extended to 1:27…yet.
**********************************************
See last paragraph of page 33
PS- as near as I could tell no side in the debate at the time (5th century), Christian or Jewish, took 1:27a to refer to more than a single man (or maybe a single couple).
How do you harmonize that Christ was "created" as "them man" with the fact that Christ wasn't created. Jesus is the begotten Son of God. He did not take on flesh until his incarnation. I have problems with referring to Christ as "created". But I really don't think you need the "Christ centered" model from Genesis by interpreting 1:27 as Christ in order to have an older humanity from Chapter 1.
ReplyDeleteGod the Son is uncreated. The Man is a fusion of uncreated God and Created Man, just as Christ was during the incarnation. He didn't take on a nature like ours until the incarnation, but there are plenty of scriptures that say that God is not visible to anyone but God, yet there was an OT figure of God who seemed to have a human appearance. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPly3A6fGo
ReplyDeleteThis also figures in to solving several paradoxes in the bible. Did you know that when we read in the gospels where Jesus calls Himself "the Son of Man" that the actual Greek reads "the Son of THE Man"? He is both the Son that is Given AND the eternal Father, per Isaiah 9:6. As the one who formed Adam, He is Adam's father. So Christ is His own son (descendant) on the human side, as well as Son of God on His Father's side. What does it mean? It is too wonderful for me to know. Hopefully the theologians will work out the details.
ReplyDelete