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."
60 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]).
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.
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
Studying roots is part of diachronics/etymology.
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.
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,
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
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.
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
not sure if this was noted as I speed through the comments:
should be noted how the lxx translates one instance of Elohim as singular (The first occurrence in 3:5) but then translates the second as plural.
now admittedly I don't know Hebrew very well and the "preposition K" (Biblehub) might have something to do with it, I'm not 100%
But it should be noted whenever the plural forms of "God" appear in a "neutral" reference (either YHWH or false gods) from my observation the LXX always translates it as what it literally is ("angels" for instance in about 3 places.)
". For if, since all heavenly things, earthly things, and things under the earth, are subjected to Christ, even the angels themselves, with all other creatures, as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods"
(https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iii.xxi.html)
an interesting snippet when I searched Gen 3:5 here: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Gen%203:5
this writer acknowledges the angels are called "gods" (like moses in the LXX is called "a god") without any hint of straying from monotheism
note: the tho I have isolated this snippet, it has no bearing on how the text was quoted and a simple reverse Google search will show as such
Post a Comment