man, woman, male, female
rrodriguez 15 Aug 2008 13:48
These two verses have some interesting dynamics, I think. Here are a few points I noticed as I translated:
- The first verse speaks of "the creation of humanity" [ἀνθρώπων]. Ἄνθρωπος is one of those words at the center of the controversy over gender-neutral translation, especially because in earlier English the masculine-gendered term "man" served to refer to humanity as a whole. That situation is changing (or has changed), so many translators (cf. NETS, NRSV [e.g., at Matt. 4.19; cf. also NLT]) prefer a non-gendered term such as "humanity" or "people." BDAG says of ἄνθρωπος, "a person of either sex, w. focus on participation in the human race," and "a member of the human race, w. focus on limitations and weaknesses," and only at the third entry lists, "a male person." Louw-Nida is similar, listing (in this order) "human being," then "man," and then "husband."
- Our passage clearly has this general, non-gendered use of ἄνθρωπος in view, for a couple of reasons:
- ἀνθρώπων here translates the Hebrew אדם (’ādām), which could have been rendered Ἀδάμ (though see no. 3, below)
- despite the singular τὸν Ἀδάμ and αὐτόν later in 5.1, the plural ἀνθρώπων (which I've rendered as a collective singular ["humanity"]; even "people" is a collective singular, and the English plurals "humanities" or "peoples" are too cumbersome to effectively communicate what's going on here) easily matches up with the explicitly gendered terms ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, which together are comprised by ἀνθρώπων
- this last point is continued throughout the rest of 5.2 with the three uses of αὐτοῦς
- This isn't to suggest that 5.2 is that straightforward. What surprises me is the tension between the two assertions, (a) God created humanity (ἀνθρώπων; 5.1), and (b) he called their name "Adam" ([!!] τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Αδαμ; 5.2). This doesn't shift ἀνθρώπων back toward a more emphatically male-gendered referent; rather, it pulls the referent of Ἀδάμ away from the explicitly male-centered idea of "man" or even "Adam" and suggests that male and female together were called "Adam."
- We could argue that the LXX alters the meaning of the Hebrew text, which refers to the ספר תולדת אדם (sēpher toldōt ’ādām; "the book of the generations [plural] of Adam"). The Hebrew text introduces Adam's genealogy (which follows in 5.3–32), which looks forward from Adam; the LXX refers to "the creation" (γενέσεως; lit. "the birth," "history," or even "lineage"; cf. BDAG s.v.) not of Ἀδάμ but of ἀνθρώπων, which looks backward to the origins of the human race.
- But the earlier point (no. 3, above) reveals the way that the LXX picks up the emphasis of its Hebrew exemplar. As I've suggested elsewhere (see point no. 5, here and point no. 1.b. here), the account of humanity's creation in Genesis 1 is significantly less hierarchical (in terms of gender, at least) than is the account in Genesis 2. Gen. 5.1–2 echoes and picks up the idea of greater equality between the sexes from Genesis 1 rather than emphasizing the sexual differentiation that is one of the primary points of Genesis 2–3.
The strikingly complex vocabulary in these two verses (viz., ἀνθρώπων, ἄρσεν, θῆλυ, Αδαμ, and αὐτόν/αὐτούς) promises to repay the attention we give it. When the translators rendered 5.1 in such a way that could suggest that specifically Ἀδάμ — and not the male and the female together — was created in God's image, they also — intriguingly — clearly said that God called their name, the-man-and-the-woman's name, Ἀδάμ. As so often with the biblical text (even in translation), things are not as straightforward as they seem at first glance.