An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
BDJ
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:15 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by BDJ »

Interesting indeed. Christian readers mostly prefer 'began', while rabbinic judaism goes with 'profane'. Both have religious motives for their prefrence, not linguistic.

But all agree that the generation of Enosh knew the name of God. They differ in how the name was (ab)used.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by John2 »

I'm wondering how the word "people" is derived from Gen. 4:26. I only know the letters and vocabulary and have never been good at grammar (in Hebrew or English). I don't understand the language of grammar so I could use some help here.

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/4-26.htm

http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-26.htm

וּלְשֵׁ֤ת גַּם־הוּא֙ יֻלַּד־בֵּ֔ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו אֱנֹ֑ושׁ אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה׃

"Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD."
... since the passive הוחל is ambiguous the sentence's subject is indefinte. Who was it that initiated that action of calling on the name of the Lord? Was it Seth, Enosh, or someone else? A common approach in ancient translations was to render an indefinite passive verb in the active form. When this practice was used to remove the ambiguity of the passַ֔ive הוחל in Gen 4:26b, the active form resulted in a translation of "they began to profane." The shift in meaning from "they began" to "they profaned" is predicated on the more common usage of the root [חָלַל]. The original meaning of
[חָלַל] was "to untie" or "loosen" with the sense of "to begin" (c.f. Gen 6:1). But its predominate meaning in the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and post-biblical Hebrew is to profane or desecrate. Thus the verse began to be read as, "At that time people profaned the name of the Lord."

https://books.google.com/books?id=NnnVm ... an&f=false
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_2490.htm
This importation of idolatry into the interpretation of Gen 4:26b is often explained on the basis that MT הוחל has been associated with [חָלַל] in the sense of "profane." However, as Fraade points out, although there is plenty of play on the root [חָלַל] and similar-sounding forms in rabbinic literature, the connection of [חָלַל] in the sense of "profane" with Gen 4:26b is not clearly attested until the Jewish mediaeval commentators Ibn Ezra and Kimchi. Moreover, it seems much more likely that, rather than the meaning "profane" for [חָלַל], it is the occurrence of BH קרא in the verse that has generated the rabbinic view, succinctly represented in the Palestinian Targums, that in the days of Enosh people began to misuse the divine name in their pursuit of idolatry.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XQcyA ... an&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by semiopen »

GENESIS 4:26b
Author(s): SAMUEL SANDMEL
Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 32 (1961), pp. 19-29

looks like pretty good analysis when searching "genesis 4:26" enosh on jstor.
The verse, after telling that a son Enosh was born also to Seth, states that "then there began the calling on the name of Yahwe."
The awkwardness of the translation stems from the MT, where we encounter זא לחוה ,a ho'phal of ללח ,meaning "to begin."
But, on the other hand, medieval Jewish interpreters of the more literal and rational disposition,
such as Ibn Ezra and Sforno, did not succumb to the traditional fancies. Ibn Ezra not only assures us that לחוה must mean began and
not profaned, but he proceeds to give a grammatical analysis in his own terminology to show that "profane" is ruled out.
Then there is the usual diversion to LXX etc.

Anyway, it goes on for 11 pages and the Rabbinical view on the technical Hebrew issue is not taken very seriously.

The thing is we should look at what the sages say with respect, and their interprestations (I accidentally invented a better word for "interpretations") give the Cain/Lamech thing priority over Seth/Enosh. That argument seems quite strong to me, and even if it's wrong - why did some guy stick that in there? Maybe just a rogue 2nd temple enosh slut who got lucky.

Blenkinsopp in Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A discursive commentary on Genesis 1-11 - https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Un-crea ... lenkinsopp has an interesting discussion of this, I guess more from a theological point of view.

This is pre-flood and you have gentiles worshiping YHWH... maybe that's evidence of some early tradition but that seems a little too early to me.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by semiopen »

John2 wrote:I'm wondering how the word "people" is derived from Gen. 4:26. I only know the letters and vocabulary and have never been good at grammar (in Hebrew or English). I don't understand the language of grammar so I could use some help here.
I'm not the right person to answer this but -

וּלְשֵׁ֤ת גַּם־הוּא֙ יֻלַּד־בֵּ֔ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ אֱנ֑וֹשׁ אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה׃


אֱנ֑וֹשׁ - Enosh also means Mankind (just as Seth also means buttocks - sit).

Sandmel, in the article given above, asserts that the meaning is quite clear, but I didn't notice him mentioning the pun. Somebody has mentioned the possibility that this is actually two lines written by two different J guys.
BDJ
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:15 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by BDJ »

Genesis 4:26 is a good example of "One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard (Ps. 62:12)". It seems clear how - from medieval times - Christians ("began") and Rabbi's ("forbade") interpreted this verse.
But can we derive what the author(s) of Genesis 4:26 intended to say? Not definitively, but I'm inclined to say that the 'original' meaning of 'began' is more probable.
This opinion is based on the Documentary Hypothesis. Gen 4:26 is the last verse in a story written by "J". Then follows a chapter (5) by "R". The next verse by "J" begins a new chapter, Ch 6: " And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
I read this as starting a new story (about the flood), and not a continuation of the story about Eve and her offspring. The "R" author - later -combined these 2 independent story into a narrative through the insertion of Chapter 5.
Hence, for "J" 4:26 can only reflect on the preceding verses: Eve begat Seth, and Seth begat Enosh. And that makes sense: Eve recognises God for giving her Seth, and the people acknowledge God's role in general.
So "J" belonged to the "began" camp. What about "R"? Not 100% evident to me, but "R" may have belonged to the "forbade' camp. R linked Enosh into the beginning of the Flood story (through Ch 5), where God is dissatisfied with His creation. R suggests that this may have started in Enosh' time.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by semiopen »

I was going to comment on BDJ's last post but fortunately noticed I'd made a ghastly error previously when I said Genesis 4 was P.

Richard Elliott's color coding confused me. He has Genesis 4 all in green (J) except 25-26 turns into blue background (R) and finally -
Then it was begun to invoke the name YHWH
in green. Which seems to be Friedman's take on the missing "people" John2 asks about.

Anyway, there is no question that the Documentary_hypothesis is a huge improvement to the theory that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it's just not all that convincing anymore.
Opposition to the documentary hypothesis increased when R. N. Whybray in 1987 renewed some traditional arguments with far greater consequences in his book The Making of the Pentateuch.
Additionally, some scholars have abandoned the documentary hypothesis entirely in favour of alternative models. Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum saw the Pentateuch developing from the gradual accretion of small units into larger and larger works, a process which removes both J and E, and, significantly, implied a fragmentary rather than a documentary model for Old Testament origins.[59] John Van Seters, using a different model, envisaged an ongoing process of supplementation in which later authors modified earlier compositions and changed the focus of the narratives.[60] The most radical contemporary proposal has come from Thomas L. Thompson, who suggests that the final redaction of the Torah occurred as late as the early Hasmonean monarchy (c. 140-116 BCE).[citation needed]
While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis, notably its claim that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two-thirds of the 20th century.
The main issue seems to be dating the Jahwist.
Julius Wellhausen, the 19th century German scholar responsible for the classical form of the documentary hypothesis, did not attempt to date J more precisely than the monarchical period of Israel's history.[9] In 1938 Gerhard von Rad placed J at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BCE, and argued that his purpose in writing was to provide a theological justification for the unified state created by Solomon's father, David.[10] This was generally accepted until a crucial 1976 study by H.H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist ("The So-called Yahwist"), argued that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century.[11] A number of current theories place J even later, in the exilic and/or post-exilic period (6th–5th centuries BCE).[12]
Other scholars, however, continue to argue against this view. Citing linguistic evidence from the development of biblical Hebrew and J's seemingly being aware of neither "the fall of the kingdom of Israel nor of the dispersion of the northern tribes", Richard Elliot Friedman and others argue that J was composed before the exile, and even prior to the Assyrian defeat of Israel in 722 B.C.E."[13]
It seems to me that if Genesis 1-11 is exilic or later (and I'm not sure why one would think otherwise) all of this speculation is quite dubious.
BDJ
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:15 am
Location: Netherlands

Re: An Alternative Translation of Exodus 6:2-3

Post by BDJ »

I think the jury is still out on the DH. Yes, the DH has its problems, but so do the alternative theories. There doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence for any hypothesis at this moment. But I find the DH useful to explain many issues in the Pentateuch.

Compare the Pentateuch origins with the New Testament; suppose we only had copies of the Diatesseron, and had no info on the canonical gospels (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html); would we be able to conclude with certainty that the Diatesseron is a compilation of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John|?
Post Reply