Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Literal translations of Biblical names?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Literal translations of Biblical names?

    Could someone offer possible literal translations for Biblical names such as:

    Adam
    Eve
    Cain
    Abel

    I've been trying to get a grasp on how the original Hebrew speakers would have heard certain names and words. Today, most english names have roots in other languages and we rarely know what they mean (unless we look them up). But this was different in early history, correct? I'd be curious how certain names would have been heard?

    For instance, Eve is said to have named Cain based on him being an acquisition. Cain is a transliteration, but how would it be rendered literally? The only example I can think of where names are not transliterations is Native American names such as Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Standing Bear, etc. In those cases they are translated literally. Is this similar to how original Hebrew speakers heard names?

  • #2
    I would think so, yes.

    Abel I was recently seing as meaning "vanity", but I am not a Hebraist myself.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Calminian View Post
      Could someone offer possible literal translations for Biblical names such as:

      Adam
      Eve
      Cain
      Abel

      I've been trying to get a grasp on how the original Hebrew speakers would have heard certain names and words. Today, most english names have roots in other languages and we rarely know what they mean (unless we look them up). But this was different in early history, correct? I'd be curious how certain names would have been heard?

      For instance, Eve is said to have named Cain based on him being an acquisition. Cain is a transliteration, but how would it be rendered literally? The only example I can think of where names are not transliterations is Native American names such as Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Standing Bear, etc. In those cases they are translated literally. Is this similar to how original Hebrew speakers heard names?
      Adam (אָדָם, 'adam): Mankind, humanity, sometimes of an individual male, reddish (perhaps like clay). Surprisingly, unlike almost everything else of significance in the creation narrative, ’adam is not named when created on the sixth day, or when he is formed from the earth in Genesis Chapter 2. The actual naming of ’adam does not occur until Gen 5,2, where, like in Gen 1,26, 'adam refers explicitly to the couple, male and female, which is given the name ‘humankind’. 'adam is closely related to the word 'adamah, which means 'ground', 'earth' in the sense of dirt (not the planet). Mankind comes from the earth and returns to the earth (Gen 2,19). The individual man whom we today call Adam, is never actually given a name in the Hebrew Bible.

      Eve (חַוָּה, chawah): Unlike Adam, who is never given a name, Eve is named twice. At first the man rather crudely named her merely 'Woman' (Gen 2,25), but later after they are spared from immediate death on account of their disobedience, he gives her a true name (3,20), an ancient form of the word for 'life'. It can also mean 'village', and to this day, the women are the true center of all village life. The men go off and hunt and gather, make war, drink and carouse, but the women make sure everything is taken care of properly back home in the village.

      Cain (קַיִן, qayin): In Gen 4,1 the biblical author makes a word-play on the name Cain (qayin) and the verb qanah (to acquire, buy, create, make) when Eve says she has acquired/made a man (with Yahweh). Qayin could be a (copper) 'spear', or in Aramaic a (copper) smith, and it may be related to the Kenite tribe (in Hebrew spelled with a Q) of Moses' father-in-law'. One might also think of Cain as evoking the Canaanites, but this is a different word in Hebrew, spelled with a K rather than a Q and signifying traders, merchants. The word 'Cain' is closely related to qiynah, which is a a funeral dirge, which is also evocative of Cain's role as the first murderer.

      Abel (הֶבֶל, hevel): The meaning of the 'hevel' is 'mist' or 'fog', as he too like the fog disappears quickly from the scene, leaving no progeny. It is the same word that Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) uses in the theme of his book: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, says Qoheleth. One might also say, Fog of fog, all is fog. Or, what is the ultimate meaning of our short life, if we all die so soon like Abel?
      Last edited by robrecht; 01-24-2017, 06:46 AM.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Adam (אָדָם, 'adam): Mankind, humanity, sometimes of an individual male, reddish (perhaps like clay). Surprisingly, unlike almost everything else of significance in the creation narrative, ’adam is not named when created on the sixth day, or when he is formed from the earth in Genesis Chapter 2. The actual naming of ’adam does not occur until Gen 5,2, where, like in Gen 1,26, 'adam refers explicitly to the couple, male and female, which is given the name ‘humankind’. 'adam is closely related to the word 'adamah, which means 'ground', 'earth' in the sense of dirt (not the planet). Mankind comes from the earth and returns to the earth (Gen 2,19). The individual man whom we today call Adam, is never actually given a name in the Hebrew Bible.

        Eve (חַוָּה, chawah): Unlike Adam, who is never given a name, Eve is named twice. At first the man rather crudely named her merely 'Woman' (Gen 2,25), but later after they are spared from immediate death on account of their disobedience, he gives her a true name (3,20), an ancient form of the word for 'life'. It can also mean 'village', and to this day, the women are the true center of all village life. The men go off and hunt and gather, make war, drink and carouse, but the women make sure everything is taken care of properly back home in the village.

        Cain (קַיִן, qayin): In Gen 4,1 the biblical author makes a word-play on the name Cain (qayin) and the verb qanah (to acquire, buy, create, make) when Eve says she has acquired/made a man (with Yahweh). Qayin could be a (copper) 'spear', or in Aramaic a (copper) smith, and it may be related to the Kenite tribe (in Hebrew spelled with a Q) of Moses' father-in-law'. One might also think of Cain as evoking the Canaanites, but this is a different word in Hebrew, spelled with a K rather than a Q and signifying traders, merchants. The word 'Cain' is closely related to qiynah, which is a a funeral dirge, which is also evocative of Cain's role as the first murderer.

        Abel (הֶבֶל, hevel): The meaning of the 'hevel' is 'mist' or 'fog', as he too like the fog disappears quickly from the scene, leaving no progeny. It is the same word that Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) uses in the theme of his book: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, says Qoheleth. One might also say, Fog of fog, all is fog. Or, what is the ultimate meaning of our short life, if we all die so soon like Abel?
        That's interesting.

        The question then is:

        Were they named that because of the meanings? Or did the meanings come from the names later?

        For example, did Adam come to mean "mankind" because Adam was the first man? Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.
          Hebrew WAS around. It is the language God spoke with Adam in all probability (Aramaic might be a candidate too).
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            That's interesting.

            The question then is:

            Were they named that because of the meanings? Or did the meanings come from the names later?

            For example, did Adam come to mean "mankind" because Adam was the first man? Considering Hebrew wasn't around then probably, I would think so.
            The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis where 'adam is unambiguously used as a name is in Genesis 4,25 and 5,3-5. On the basis of those texts, you could make a case that it was originally understood to be the name of a single man. Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did, and the tendency of later translators and Masoretes tended to variously understand the earlier text of Genesis in this way, at the risk of obscuring the deep significance of the collective and symbolic force of ’adam in these Hebrew narratives.

            The LXX first uses the transliteration Adam (rather than a translation) at Gen 2,16, when Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree of life, but note that while he is addressed with one singular 2nd person verb in 2,16, this is immediately followed by three 2nd person plural verbs in 2,17. The LXX uses the transliteration more than other translations, but not exclusively after 2,16 (see 2,18.24 4,1 and 5,1). Does the Greek translator sometimes translate and other times transliterate ‘Adam’ because is trying to evoke the polyvalent sense of the Hebrew original that was otherwise lost in Hebrew? The Vulgate first uses the transliteration at 2,19, the naming of the animals. The Masoretic text does not vocalize the Hebrew consonantal text as a name until 3,17 (cursing of the ground) and 3,21 (making of clothes). Luther did not use the name Adam until Gen 3,8, after the fall of man. The King James Version followed the Vulgate in starting to use Adam at 2,19. Is Adam to be understood strictly as a name? That very much depends on what translation you read:

            MT arthrous: 1,27; Chapter 2: 14x (2,7bis.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1 Chapter 6: 6x; Chapters 7-25: 10x
            MT anarthrous: 1,26 2,5 (w אַ֔יִן)] [2,20* 3,17.21 (w לְ)] 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5 16,12
            DSS arthrous: 1,27 2,15.16.19; cf 1,26 plural verb 1,27 them
            Sam anarthrous: 1,26 2,5.7.25 3,8 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5
            Sam arthrous: 1,27 2,7.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23 3,9.12.20.22.24 4,1
            - Cannot say if 2,20 3,17.21 are arthrous or anarthrous because of prepositions
            LXX Anthropos: 1,26.27[o] Chapter 2: 6x (2,7bis[o].8[o].15[o].18[o].24; 4,1 5,1 Chapter 6: 11x; …
            LXX Adam: Chapter 2: 10x (2,16[o].19bis[o1x].20bis[o1x].21[o].22bis[o].23.25[o]); Chapter 3: 9x (3,8[o].9bis[o1x].12[o].17[o].20.21[o].22.24[o]); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
            Vulg Adam: Chapter 2: 8x (2,19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
            Vulg Homo, homines: Gen. 1,26-27 2,5.7-8.15.18.24 4,1 5,1
            Luther 1545 Adam: Chapter 3: 8x (3,8.9.12.17.20.21.22.24); 4,1.25 5,3[1x!]
            KJV Adam: Chapter 2: 6x (2,19bis.20bis.21.23); Chapter 3: 5x (3,8.9.17.20.21); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
            NRSV Adam: 4,25 5,1.3.4.5
            Last edited by robrecht; 01-24-2017, 08:34 AM.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did,
              In other words, you feel disagreeing with a hagiographer and with God is good enough for you?
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                In other words, you feel disagreeing with a hagiographer and with God is good enough for you?
                I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  Hebrew WAS around. It is the language God spoke with Adam in all probability (Aramaic might be a candidate too).
                  really hans, you should not be contributing to threads in biblical languages. You have absolutely no knowledge in the area. I trust robrecht's answers and comments. He is a first class biblical language scholar. You could learn a lot just from reading his posts.

                  Remember the old saying, better to be silent and seem a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?
                    I think he is referring to Luke's genealogy maybe?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis where 'adam is unambiguously used as a name is in Genesis 4,25 and 5,3-5. On the basis of those texts, you could make a case that it was originally understood to be the name of a single man. Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did, and the tendency of later translators and Masoretes tended to variously understand the earlier text of Genesis in this way, at the risk of obscuring the deep significance of the collective and symbolic force of ’adam in these Hebrew narratives.

                      The LXX first uses the transliteration Adam (rather than a translation) at Gen 2,16, when Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree of life, but note that while he is addressed with one singular 2nd person verb in 2,16, this is immediately followed by three 2nd person plural verbs in 2,17. The LXX uses the transliteration more than other translations, but not exclusively after 2,16 (see 2,18.24 4,1 and 5,1). Does the Greek translator sometimes translate and other times transliterate ‘Adam’ because is trying to evoke the polyvalent sense of the Hebrew original that was otherwise lost in Hebrew? The Vulgate first uses the transliteration at 2,19, the naming of the animals. The Masoretic text does not vocalize the Hebrew consonantal text as a name until 3,17 (cursing of the ground) and 3,21 (making of clothes). Luther did not use the name Adam until Gen 3,8, after the fall of man. The King James Version followed the Vulgate in starting to use Adam at 2,19. Is Adam to be understood strictly as a name? That very much depends on what translation you read:

                      MT arthrous: 1,27; Chapter 2: 14x (2,7bis.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1 Chapter 6: 6x; Chapters 7-25: 10x
                      MT anarthrous: 1,26 2,5 (w אַ֔יִן)] [2,20* 3,17.21 (w לְ)] 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5 16,12
                      DSS arthrous: 1,27 2,15.16.19; cf 1,26 plural verb 1,27 them
                      Sam anarthrous: 1,26 2,5.7.25 3,8 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5
                      Sam arthrous: 1,27 2,7.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23 3,9.12.20.22.24 4,1
                      - Cannot say if 2,20 3,17.21 are arthrous or anarthrous because of prepositions
                      LXX Anthropos: 1,26.27[o] Chapter 2: 6x (2,7bis[o].8[o].15[o].18[o].24; 4,1 5,1 Chapter 6: 11x; …
                      LXX Adam: Chapter 2: 10x (2,16[o].19bis[o1x].20bis[o1x].21[o].22bis[o].23.25[o]); Chapter 3: 9x (3,8[o].9bis[o1x].12[o].17[o].20.21[o].22.24[o]); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
                      Vulg Adam: Chapter 2: 8x (2,19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
                      Vulg Homo, homines: Gen. 1,26-27 2,5.7-8.15.18.24 4,1 5,1
                      Luther 1545 Adam: Chapter 3: 8x (3,8.9.12.17.20.21.22.24); 4,1.25 5,3[1x!]
                      KJV Adam: Chapter 2: 6x (2,19bis.20bis.21.23); Chapter 3: 5x (3,8.9.17.20.21); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
                      NRSV Adam: 4,25 5,1.3.4.5
                      It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.
                        I think you may have misunderstood. I did not say something like 'only those texts in the Bible', but rather, "The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis ..." My intent is merely to best understand the meaning intended in the earlier narratives of Genesis, not to refute later theological reflection or interpretations based on those narratives by other authors. For example, I think you will see some of this same deeper significance in the writings of St Paul, where he understands Adam not merely as an historical man but also as a type of the coming one (Rom 5,14). We are all dying insofar as we are all ‘in’ Adam, but we shall all be made alive ‘in’ Christ (1 Cor 15,22). While Paul reads Adam as a name as early as Gen 2,7 (perhaps following a Greek text akin to the Samaritan text tradition I mentioned above or perhaps just making an allusion), he nonetheless still provides a preceding gloss which retains part of the Hebrew significance (‘the first human’), and significantly this ‘name’ Adam is shared by ‘the last Adam’, Christ (15,45). Paul is here speaking of the first human, but Christ is also the 'second human' (15,47). If he were only understanding the first man in a purely historical sense then the second man would not be Christ but Cain or Abel or Seth. We are ‘in’ Adam and ‘in’ Christ, the second Adam because of this collective understanding of ’adam as mankind. Likewise, Paul retains the ’adamah dimension of ’adam and incorporates it with the collective sense: 'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust … As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust … Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven' (15,47-49).
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?
                          When it comes to Genesis : Moses.

                          + His sources, whether written and oral, back to Adam.
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            really hans, you should not be contributing to threads in biblical languages. You have absolutely no knowledge in the area.
                            For one thing, I did start learning Greek, though mostly pre-koiné (Attic broadening more to Ionic and Homeric than to koiné).*

                            I also know Hebrew has two "tenses" if that is the right word, a normal future being expressed in present and a prophetic in perfect tense.

                            But seriously, I don't think you are referring to linguistic proficiency which can be gleaned by careful reading of the texts. I think you are referring to linguistic theories, which are another thing.

                            I'll take Church Fathers over modern linguists any day, and when a modern linguist pretends Tower of Babel can't have happened as described because PIE, I prefer doubting PIE over doubting Holy Writte.

                            * I forgot most. Ask John Reese if I didn't even mistake the Ionic form aiei for the Attic and Koiné form, which really is aei.
                            Last edited by hansgeorg; 01-24-2017, 10:04 AM.
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think "Adam" is like the word "Earth" - just like "Earth" means "dirt" - "Adam" means "man"

                              But just like "Earth" is also a proper name of the planet. So "Adam" is the first man's proper name.

                              Did we name the planet after dirt? Or did dirt come to be called "earth" because of the name? Doesn't really matter.

                              Adam could have been his actual name, but since he was the first human, it also came to be the name for the species, Mankind. Basically in English his name would be Man. But it would not only be his proper name, but the name of the species he started.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X