One Catholic Bible translates Genesis 3:5 this way:
"God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.”
Footnote: Like gods, who know: or “like God who knows.”
Maimonides (Rambam) writes:
"Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, 'and ye shall be like Elohim' (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence 'and ye shall be like princes.' Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration" (Guide for the Perplexed I.2).
Friedländer tr. [1904], http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp012.htm
Bruce Waltke Remarks on Genesis 3:5:
like God, knowing. The Hebrew word for “knowing” is yōḏēʿa, a masculine plural participle. The meaning is ambiguous. On the one hand, the plural can be used as an honorific form for God, in which the given translation is legitimate.⁴⁸ On the other hand, it can be a countable plural, in which case the translation should be “you will be like divine beings, knowers of good and evil.” The latter meaning is more probable, since, after they eat of the forbidden fruit, the text says unambiguously, “They have become like one of us, knowers of good and evil” (lit., Gen. 3:22). In any case, the serpent makes God appear to be restricting them from full humanity.
Nahum Sarna (JPS Commentary on Genesis, page 25):
like divine beings Hebrew ’elohim is a comprehensive term for supernatural beings and is often employed for angels.3 Any possible ambiguity inherent in the use of the same word for “God” and for “divine beings” is here removed by the plural form of the verb “know” (yode‘ei) and by verse 22 (“one of us”). As tractate Soferim 4:5(4) points out, “the first ’elohim [in this verse] is sacred, the second non—sacred.”
Robert Alter Translation:
"For God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will become as gods knowing good and evil."
58 comments:
Of what "gods" would eve know? & what "gods" would know function and disfunction?
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/14-14.htm
Personally, I favor the "you will become like God" rendering (NWT, et al.). This post is not so much about the right way to understand elohim, but rather about possible ways to understand the noun. But it's the serpent who utters the words in Gen. 3:5. If we believe it was really Satan, then I don't see why he wouldn't have known about many divine beings. The angels are "divine" in the sense that they're mighty ones or superhuman beings. Eve could have known about angels or she might have comprehended the idea of divinity--being superhuman. But this is not my problem: Sarna sets forth the idea and the Catholic Bible. On the other hand, Maimonides says the text probably refers to rulers.
I don't chiefly view the world in terms of function/non-function. We've had that discussion before too. However, why wouldn't angels or superhuman beings know function/disfunction? Why would such knowledge (per se) be limited to a wholly transcendent being.
http://thebiblenet.blogspot.com/2016/08/keruvim-cherubim.html?m=1
Not had chance to check all details but was suprised to see referenced a Hittite root word. We have already discussed Hittite sword imagery.
Thanks, Duncan. I did focus on the Hittite references when visiting the blog. I'm not sure about his background or training, but he discusses a lot.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/knowledge-good-evil/amp/
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-carchemish-chimera-anatolia-david-lyons.html
I believe Gen. 1:31 states that all God was was good. In other words, goodness characterized the whole creation. Leslie Stevenson writes that good in Genesis is a value term: it tells us something about how God valued what he had made.
See https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2896.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7451.htm
https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/hebrew-thoughts.html?article=893
https://books.google.com/books?id=6lCVzr4cT9QC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=ra%27+evil+robert+alter&source=bl&ots=0g5xNbhDPS&sig=ACfU3U3UmisaIL6qR9lTTXzFQMtDMWM3rg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7kOHIrpDnAhXEnOAKHd5sCkoQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ra'%20evil%20robert%20alter&f=false
See page 281, footnote 24.
NET Bible Comment on Gen. 1:4: tn The Hebrew word טוֹב (tov) in this context signifies whatever enhances, promotes, produces, or is conducive for life. It is the light that God considers “good,” not the darkness. Whatever is conducive to life in God’s creation is good, for God himself is good, and that goodness is reflected in all of his works.
See note 32 for Gen. 2:9 in NET.
More than one person has asked the question - was Adam and Eve amoral?
Why was the tree of the knowledge of good as well as evil? The way some have proposed to understand it does not have this problem.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4311-cherub
More on the Hittite.
https://sites.google.com/site/biblecodestoday/wickedness-hebrew
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7e6701bd-90ae-4fa3-b269-79e1dad9f504
Just because the tree represented the knowledge of good and evil does not mean that Adam and Eve had to be amoral. How is that even close to a necessary inference? :)
The tree represents something, so we conclude that Adam and Eve are amoral? Jehovah put life and death before Israel, but that certainly did not mean that Israel was amoral.
Furthermore, one definition of amoral is "lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something."
What part of the narrative remotely suggests that Adam and Eve had no moral sense or were unconcerned with right and wrong? Additionally, if they lacked moral sense, why would God punish them when they took from the tree?
Here are four views of what the tree potentially signifies: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/tree-of-knowledge
It's simply untrue that ra cannot mean "evil" in a moral sense. I've already posted material which refutes this idea, but let's try again:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ra.html
Since that website mentioned "Genesis," apprently meaning Gesenius, note what he actually writes about ra:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h7451
http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
See the note for Genesis 2:9 at this link.
https://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/word-studies/111wicked,evil.html
https://www.jewishlinkbwc.com/index.php/features/11242-words-with-the-same-three-letter-roots-must-they-be-related
Applicable to two letter primitive roots also.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/3-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/30-15.htm
It is worth comparing the Hebrew of these two verses carefully.
Including the invisible aleph-tav & the definite articles.
IMO English translations obscure far to much.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/1-39.htm
See how some translation use "good OR evil" rather than "good AND evil"
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/44-34.htm
"the evil" when no definite article is present - fast and loose with the text.
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/27-10.htm
You might call a cow bad but it is not a moral designation. "In good order" would be better as would "in bad condition".
Could you call the cow evil?
https://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/14-17.htm
Note the definite articles here also.
"The only prophet they could come up with was Micahiah, but he only spoke evil things. We just assume that the word evil here means a bad report or a report that is not pleasing to hear. Yet the word used for evil in the Hebrew here is ra which is spelled Resh Ayin. Generally all words in Hebrew have at least three letters to make up your triliteral root. When we have two letters like this it is generally a word which has a Semitic origin and is common among all or most Semitic languages. In its Semitic origins the word ra has the idea of self-serving or selfishness." - need to check this.
Note this:-
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/17-1.htm
Not bad or evil.
So we should ignore the lexicons, most commentators, Hebrew scholars and journal articles when they say there is a sense in which ra mean moral/ethical evil? So the ancient judges stoned adulterers because they were dysfunctional and not because they were practicing immoral acts? And why did the Hebrew Bible speak of certain actions as "detestable" or abominable?
IMO, Nahum Sarna brings out how Genesis portrays evil and its not simply in terms of dysfunction.
No, I would not call the cow evil in Lev. 27:10, but what the Hebrew lexicons teach us is that ra means "evil" (morally) in certain contexts. Compare Isaiah 45:7. BDB, Gesenius, and HALOT point this out. It's simply false that ra never refers to moral evil/wickedness.
Regarding definite articles in Hebrew, have you read the journal article by James Barr? I'm working my way through it now.
From TWOT, page 854:
rä ·a · designates experiences which entail physical pain (Num 16:15: I Chr 16:22; Ps 105: 15), or emotional pain (Gen 43:6; Num 11:10-11), in the case of Naomi the loss of family (Ruth 1 :21; cf. I Kgs 17:20).
In the moral and religious realm of meaning, the verb denotes activity that is contrary to God's will. Bildad alludes to this aspect of meaning in Job 8:20, and the prophets Isaiah (31:2) and
Zephaniah (1: 12) state it more strongly. A phrase which highlights God's evaluation of action is "in his sight" which appears three times in relation to the verb (Num 22:34: Prov 24: 18; Mic 3:4).
Another way is to contrast ra'a' activity with God's good acts (Josh 24:15) or with good people. The latter uses a participial form and is confined to the Psalms (26:5: 37:9; 92:11 [H 12]).
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2011-March/045583.html
As Gesenius points out, we are not talking about one word or one root (being so short it could have been 4). Probably one word was originally with ghayin instead of ayin. So can we really talk about the usages of ONE word?
Gesenius is popular in the English speaking west but his interpretations are far from the only options or approach. I have a couple of modern ones in modern Hebrew that are popular in Jerusalem scholarship. Problem is I am not so good at reading the modern Hebrew but I was trying not to muddy things in my mind.
Arguing about this at the moment is fruitless, but just bear in mind how many actual independent sources you are or are not quoting:-
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-hebrew-and-english-lexicon-of-the-old-testament-9780198643012?cc=gb&lang=en&
For the record, I'm not just relying on Gesenius or BDB, but other lexicons and commentaries. I also quoted TDOT and could cite more.
Duncan, you don't need Gesenius or BDB to know that ra may denote moral evil at times.
I think this is the three letter root that has been referred https://biblehub.com/hebrew/verau_7489.htm
https://www.messie2vie.fr/bible/strongs/strong-hebrew-H7489-raa.html#concordance
https://www.quora.com/If-a-Hebrew-word-was-once-originally-written-with-a-Ghayin-instead-of-an-Ayin-would-that-change-the-meaning-or-pronounciation-of-that-word
Note the assertions and reply by Benner. Randal Buth said similar.
This paper is worthy of note:-
https://www.academia.edu/19923621/Greek_Bible_and_Hebrew_Lexicography_Gesenius_use_of_the_Septuagint
Posted before but always worth considering:-
https://www.academia.edu/11305545/The_Septuagint_and_the_Hebrew_Bible_Old_Testament_A_Conversation
Something that Gesenius did not agree with particularly in his methods:-
http://www.jewfaq.org/root.htm
Also note https://biblehub.com/hebrew/yaroa_7489.htm
Also :- https://biblehub.com/hebrew/meraa_7490.htm
James Barr gave a warning about overly relying on Hebrew etymology or roots:
https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2008/11/07/poythress-summarizes-james-barr/
https://books.google.com/books?id=MSZwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=james+barr+hebrew+etymology&source=bl&ots=iukPFFvkp7&sig=ACfU3U1v1udPBcYh9Tet_QWWAg7Dffp9MA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvjofzuZbnAhUDVN8KHXmfCRw4FBDoATAGegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=james%20barr%20hebrew%20etymology&f=false
He can give a warning and I understand why. As I already said here, we could be looking at several words not just one even though the look the same now (this is not something gesenius liked). However we do have a demonstrable phenomena of primitive two letter roots (whatever they may mean) that are expanded to a three letter root system by repeating the second letter. So ra becomes raa (but it seems more prominent in later texts).
Looks like Barr has tied himself in knots. IMO it is not a leather bottle but rather a gourd bottle. The fact that wine is usually matured in a skin bottle is immaterial. Hebrew being about function tells us that it is just a bottle in both instances but we do have examples from African witchcraft practices that a gourd bottle is used.
As for roots they are as precarious as anything else in BH. I do not confuse etymology with roots. Root have been engineered. That why the primitive two letter get expanded to three.
"Attempts to use etymology instead of the current meaning of a word, even when the current meaning is well known. " - In what way would a word be well know?
"The Hebrew word dabar sometimes means “word,” sometimes “matter” or “thing,” depending on the context." - What about the implication of Genesis chapter 1?
http://primaltrek.com/gourd.html
Also part of the eastern experience.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1520589?seq=1
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/scientists-solve-mystery-world-traveling-plant
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bGwokCBSWkIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=hebrew+ob+bottle+gourd&source=bl&ots=VBa80I-gnd&sig=ACfU3U1HX-6Vo0ZljxeKZ8wXOla_MXBFGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZo9ybtZfnAhVHiFwKHbZnAGsQ6AEwD3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20ob%20bottle%20gourd&f=false
This has flawed argumentation against it meaning a bottle.
CF Daniel 5:11
I see no reason not to say that a person has the bottle in them (as a skill).
Studying roots is part of diachronics/etymology.
Is diachronics equivalent to etymology?
Arabic:-
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/biliteral-two-letter-2-letter-root.209990/
Interesting for comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza
Diachronic approach is the study of what words mean through time (historically).
One definition for etymology:
"the history of a linguistic form (such as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language" (M-W)
Another website states: "Etymology is the diachronic study of words."
The meaning of a word may be well known by attested examples of its use and by reading the word in context. We also have ancient commentators who shed light on word meanings. For example, in Greek the word meaning for Logos seems to be well known because of its many attestations or uses in literature.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1962.11659774
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/etymology
Etymology is consequently an integral part of the broader discipline of diachronic lexicology.
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/6-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/8-21.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/yetzer_3336.htm
Is this key to understanding "evil"?
"Evil is not a cosmic accident. It does not just happen. Natural disasters happen. Disease, drought, accidents, epidemics happen. Evil is the conscious act of an individual or group committing inhumanity upon another individual or group in an effort to achieve a personal goal. Evil is not an idea or a concept, it is deliberate action or inaction. Evil is defined as a selfish act or behavior with the intent to benefit one’s self or one’s interests irrespective of harm to others and without responsibility and remorse.
The Hebrew Bible and rabbinic tradition view human beings as born with an inclination to evil (yetser ha-ra) spurred by sexual impulses and the desire to acquire material goods. In fact, these inclinations are necessary to procreate and build stable societies. If unrestrained, these natural impulses can become excessive and potentially evil. The inclination to good acts (yetzer hatov) occurs with the tension between physical and intellectual development, to reason and choose. It is an ongoing struggle in which Jews cannot and should not be passive. Jews perceive the active struggle against evil as a primary task of humanity."
https://huc.edu/evil-matter-intent
CF 1 Timothy 6:8-10
So does ra'a in of itself mean evil or does the context around it imply evil. A broken (disfunctional) intent?
My contention has been that ra denotes moral/ethical evil in some contexts, but not in others. I also made a distinction between diachrony and etymology: they're different but closely related,
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/45-7.htm
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/237/what-did-isaiah-intend-with-his-unusual-usage-of-create-in-isaiah-457
See https://books.google.com/books?id=icxBAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=diachronic+linguistics+study+of+root+words&source=bl&ots=W5HXjHcHSy&sig=ACfU3U0N6zkTD_8pbnG2HAicF1uRyxNIAA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_yPP8upvnAhXhxlkKHa5hC0E4FBDoATACegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=diachronic%20linguistics%20study%20of%20root%20words&f=false
This book calls etymology a discipline of "diachronic linguistics"
So while etymology does not exhaust diachronic linguistics, it is part of diachrony.
For ra as moral evil, compare https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil.htm
See also https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7563.htm
One needs to look at Hebrew poetry for clues:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20397/what-is-stronger-%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%A2-rasha-wicked-or-%D7%97%D7%98%D7%90-chatta-sinner-in-the-hebre
I would read as broken and missing the mark(goal).
https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil.htm
One can see the bias of this page where it refers to "evil beast". That are assuming that the base meaning is "evil" and I am not.
I don't take issue with most of what you write in your last comment, but I disagree with not reading ra, raa and so forth, as wicked or evil in some contexts. I'm not saying the word(s) always denote evil/wicked, but in certain settings, they do. Ps. 37:10 is an example of this meaning.
As for biases, we all have those, to some extent or another.
Just came across something very interesting:-
https://www.sefaria.org/Siftei_Chakhamim%2C_Genesis.3.15.2?lang=bi
"The form נשיפה is used. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say expressly, “You shall bite him (תשכנו)”? (Gur Aryeh) But Re’m explains: ישופך is an expression that connotes crushing [a blow] to the [snake’s] head. However, תשופנו is an expression that connotes the hissing of a snake. Nevertheless, for the sake of eloquence, the Torah often equates words [that sound alike] even though their meanings differ."
Focusing on "נשיפה" - heavy breathing
https://context.reverso.net/translation/english-hebrew/breathing+out
Thanks, Duncan.
Some final comments on this thread:
https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/glossary/rasha/
Notice how rasha is explained on this website.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J3s5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA342&lpg=PA342&dq=define+rasha+hebrew&source=bl&ots=w_T81XVdUx&sig=ACfU3U3uGmiT20psNcJ7tKbLuSw2OZ0HsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO8aro953nAhVmU98KHa_CBQc4FBDoATAGegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=define%20rasha%20hebrew&f=false
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/r/r-si-ay.html#.Xiv4gB6nw0M
A concrete usage of Rasha can be found at 2 Samuel 22:22.
Post a Comment