In Genesis 1-3, key terms are repeated in a way that makes up part of the distinct style of these narratives. In order to express in English what can be found in Hebrew, it makes sense to try to express each key Hebrew term by a corresponding English term. This, at least, would be the ideal.
When it comes to gender, the translator also has to deal with additional concerns, including the desire to produce an English translation which is accurately captures the sense of the Hebrew when it comes to gender relations, and dealing with the wordplay found in the original text.
Perhaps a good place to start will be with Adam’s exclamation upon seeing Eve for the first time.
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה־זֹּאת׃
This time!
Bone from my bone, and
Flesh from my flesh!
This will be called isha,
Because from ish this was taken.
So we have a term for a female human, isha, which the term derives from a term for a male human, ish. We are fortunate in English to have a pair of terms that relate in both meaning and form roughly the way these Hebrew terms do: man and woman.
Great! Now let us consider Genesis 1:26-7.
And God said, Let us make adam in our image, according to our likeness. … And God created haʾadam in his image; in the image of God he made it/him; male and female he created them.
As the verse makes clear, this term, though grammatically singular and masculine in Hebrew, has a meaning that can collectively include all human beings, male or female in fact. And so we might decide to translate adam as something like humankind.
And God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness … And God created humankind in his image; in the image of God he made them; male and female he created them.
This is a perfectly reasonable translation of Genesis 1:26-27. But translating adam by a gender-neutral term has ironic consequences a bit further down the road.
If we are going to consistently translate adam in a gender-neutral fashion, we come next to Genesis 2:6, “and there was not yet any human being to work the ground”. So far, so good. In Genesis 2:7, we read that “YHWH God formed a human being from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living being.” So far, so good. Genesis 2:8, “YHWH God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the human he had formed.” So far, so good. We continue along the same lines for a while.
The trouble comes in verse 18, when YHWH God decides that the human should not be alone, and decides to make it a partner. God anesthetizes the human and removes a rib, and here the trouble begins.
“And YHWH God built the rib which he took from the human into a woman, and brought her to the human … And they were both naked, the human and his wife, and they were not ashamed.”
Then, starting in Genesis 3:8,
They heard the sound of YHWH God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and the human and his wife hid themselves from the face of YHWH God among the trees of the garden. And YHWH God called to the human being, and said, Where are you? … And the human said, The woman you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate. And YHWH God said to the woman, What have you done? … And to the woman he said … and to the human he said … and the human called his wife’s name Eve … And YHWH God made for the human and for his wife garments of leather …
If we gained something by translating adam as “human” in Genesis 1:26-27, it seems that we give up all that ground and then some by the repeated use of language like “the human and his wife” in Genesis 2, 3, and 4.
Perhaps referring to humanity in general as ‘man’ might strike some as difficult or offensive. But referring to the first couple as ‘the human and his wife’ is, if anything, much more difficult for English-speaking ears.
The NRSVUE tries to make the best of things by reading adam as “humans” in Genesis 1:26-27, while reading it as “man” later. This is not necessary so bad a choice.
Translation, unfortunately, inevitably involves compromise.
Leave a Reply