Humankind vs mankind in LEB translation of Gen 1:27
Wouldn't be the most accurate translation of "hadam" is "mankind."
LEB translates "hadam" as "humankind."
Asking for a friend.
Comments
-
Is your friend suggesting the english mankind has a different meaning than humankind?
On the hebrew side, things get more interesting. The Targums treat the meaning as 'Adam'. The guy. Of course, the Genesis author does go to the prosaic trouble of insisting, both genders.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I understand the nuances of language evolution and the intent behind more inclusive terms. However, I believe in adhering to a literal translation approach, as facilitated by tools like Strong's Concordance. According to Strong's, 'אדם' (adam) fundamentally refers to man or mankind, capturing the essence of humanity in its original context. This concordance helps us stay as close as possible to the original Hebrew text, providing a direct bridge to the ancient words without the overlay of modern linguistic adjustments. The choice to use 'mankind' is thus not about excluding or prioritizing one gender over another but about maintaining fidelity to the ancient text as it was written and understood in its time. It's about preserving the historical and cultural context of the Bible, respecting the precision of the original Hebrew words.
0 -
I understand the nuances of language evolution and the intent behind more inclusive terms. However, I believe in adhering to a literal translation approach, as facilitated by tools like Strong's Concordance. According to Strong's, 'אדם' (adam) fundamentally refers to man or mankind, capturing the essence of humanity in its original context. This concordance helps us stay as close as possible to the original Hebrew text, providing a direct bridge to the ancient words without the overlay of modern linguistic adjustments. The choice to use 'mankind' is thus not about excluding or prioritizing one gender over another but about maintaining fidelity to the ancient text as it was written and understood in its time. It's about preserving the historical and cultural context of the Bible, respecting the precision of the original Hebrew words.
0 -
I do not see a significant difference in meaning between "mankind" and "humankind." Other translations also use words like "humankind" or "human beings" here. "Humanity" would also be an option. Hebrew lexicons identify the usage here as collective.
0 -
Ram Teodosio said:
I understand the nuances of language evolution and the intent behind more inclusive terms. However, I believe in adhering to a literal translation approach, as facilitated by tools like Strong's Concordance. According to Strong's, 'אדם' (adam) fundamentally refers to man or mankind, capturing the essence of humanity in its original context. This concordance helps us stay as close as possible to the original Hebrew text, providing a direct bridge to the ancient words without the overlay of modern linguistic adjustments. The choice to use 'mankind' is thus not about excluding or prioritizing one gender over another but about maintaining fidelity to the ancient text as it was written and understood in its time. It's about preserving the historical and cultural context of the Bible, respecting the precision of the original Hebrew words.
A literal approach to translation still covers the use of "humankind" here. The choice of "humankind" also reflects "the essence of humanity in its original context." The decision was not driven by inclusive translation principles. I would say that "humanity" or "humankind" are also preserving the precision of the meaning of the Hebrew in its historical and cultural context.
0 -
My friend says:
I appreciate your insights, and your explanation has led me to agree that both 'humankind' and 'humanity' indeed capture the essence of 'אדם' in a manner faithful to its original context and meaning. The notion that these terms are not merely modern adaptations but genuinely reflect a literal interpretation of 'אדם' resonates with me. Having used Logos since its fourth edition, it's intriguing that this nuance has only just come to my attention. My regular readings from the NIV1984 version, which uses 'mankind,' contrast with the later NIV versions' shift to 'humankind.'
My preference for conservative translation stems from a desire to engage with the text as directly as possible, seeking to reflect and meditate upon it without modern biases, despite potential awkwardness in English. This approach is about striving for a translation that maintains as much of the original wording's integrity as possible. However, following your explanation, I am now inclined to consider 'humanity' as potentially even more accurate than 'mankind.' It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It’s my hope that our conversation enlightens others who might question whether translations like the LEB are becoming 'overly inclusive.' Your perspectives have certainly enriched my understanding and appreciation of the translation process.
0 -
I appreciate your insights, and your explanation has led me to agree that both 'humankind' and 'humanity' indeed capture the essence of 'אדם' in a manner faithful to its original context and meaning. The notion that these terms are not merely modern adaptations but genuinely reflect a literal interpretation of 'אדם' resonates with me. Having used Logos since its fourth edition, it's intriguing that this nuance has only just come to my attention. My regular readings from the NIV1984 version, which uses 'mankind,' contrast with the later NIV versions' shift to 'humankind.'
My preference for conservative translation stems from a desire to engage with the text as directly as possible, seeking to reflect and meditate upon it without modern biases, despite potential awkwardness in English. This approach is about striving for a translation that maintains as much of the original wording's integrity as possible. However, following your explanation, I am now inclined to consider 'humanity' as potentially even more accurate than 'mankind.' It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It’s my hope that our conversation enlightens others who might question whether translations like the LEB are becoming 'overly inclusive.' Your perspectives have certainly enriched my understanding and appreciation of the translation process.
0 -
I appreciate your insights, and your explanation has led me to agree that both 'humankind' and 'humanity' indeed capture the essence of 'אדם' in a manner faithful to its original context and meaning. The notion that these terms are not merely modern adaptations but genuinely reflect a literal interpretation of 'אדם' resonates with me. Having used Logos since its fourth edition, it's intriguing that this nuance has only just come to my attention. My regular readings from the NIV1984 version, which uses 'mankind,' contrast with the later NIV versions' shift to 'humankind.'
My preference for conservative translation stems from a desire to engage with the text as directly as possible, seeking to reflect and meditate upon it without modern biases, despite potential awkwardness in English. This approach is about striving for a translation that maintains as much of the original wording's integrity as possible. However, following your explanation, I am now inclined to consider 'humanity' as potentially even more accurate than 'mankind.' It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion. It’s my hope that our conversation enlightens others who might question whether translations like the LEB are becoming 'overly inclusive.' Your perspectives have certainly enriched my understanding and appreciation of the translation process.
0 -
Ram Teodosio said:
It seems we might need to share these insights with the compilers of Strong's Concordance.
Strong's Concordance was published in 1890, and the compiler passed away in 1894. This is one reason we need to continue updating our research tools for Biblical Hebrew and Greek. I believe it improves our understanding to use the insights we get from modern study to update our lexicons and dictionaries.
LEB is intended to be a very literal representation of the Hebrew and Greek in English. It's not perfect, but I think it does a pretty good job most of the time.
0 -
Ram Teodosio said:
Wouldn't be the most accurate translation of "hadam" is "mankind."
Absolutely not - mankind is associated with/may be etymologically derived from a root meaning "to think" and therefore emphasizes the intellectual side of humanity. Human is associated with/may be etymologically derived from a root meaning "humus" is much closer in meaning to "hadam"/earth.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thanks, MJ! It is always greatly appreciated when you chime in.
For future inquiries, just to elaborate on your point, here's what I've researched (aka ChatGPT4) based on your point:
The link between "Adam" (אָדָם) from Hebrew and the Latin "humus," meaning earth or ground, reflects similar thematic elements across cultures about the origins of humanity. While "Adam" directly connects to "adamah" (אֲדָמָה), denoting ground or earth in Hebrew, it emphasizes the creation of the first human from the earth itself, a concept mirrored in the etymology of the word "human" through its Latin roots.
The Hebrew concept embodied in "Adam" underscores the material from which humans were created—earth, signifying a deep connection to the ground as part of our origin story. This connection is not just a physical one but also carries spiritual and moral implications, reflecting humanity's humble origins and its responsibilities towards creation.
In both the Hebrew narrative and the Latin etymology, there's an implicit reminder of humanity's mortality and our earth-bound nature. The idea that humans return to the earth after death is a common theme, reflecting a cycle of life that ties us back to our elemental origins. These concepts encourage humility, a sense of stewardship for the earth, and an understanding of our place within a broader ecological and spiritual order.
So, while "Adam" and "humus" come from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, they both express a profound understanding of humanity's connection to the earth, serving as a reminder of our origins, our place in the world, and our ultimate return to it. This shared theme highlights a universal aspect of human identity and our relationship with the natural world.
0 -
Thanks, MJ! It is always greatly appreciated when you chime in.
For future inquiries, just to elaborate on your point, here's what I've researched (aka ChatGPT4) based on your point:
The link between "Adam" (אָדָם) from Hebrew and the Latin "humus," meaning earth or ground, reflects similar thematic elements across cultures about the origins of humanity. While "Adam" directly connects to "adamah" (אֲדָמָה), denoting ground or earth in Hebrew, it emphasizes the creation of the first human from the earth itself, a concept mirrored in the etymology of the word "human" through its Latin roots.
The Hebrew concept embodied in "Adam" underscores the material from which humans were created—earth, signifying a deep connection to the ground as part of our origin story. This connection is not just a physical one but also carries spiritual and moral implications, reflecting humanity's humble origins and its responsibilities towards creation.
In both the Hebrew narrative and the Latin etymology, there's an implicit reminder of humanity's mortality and our earth-bound nature. The idea that humans return to the earth after death is a common theme, reflecting a cycle of life that ties us back to our elemental origins. These concepts encourage humility, a sense of stewardship for the earth, and an understanding of our place within a broader ecological and spiritual order.
So, while "Adam" and "humus" come from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, they both express a profound understanding of humanity's connection to the earth, serving as a reminder of our origins, our place in the world, and our ultimate return to it. This shared theme highlights a universal aspect of human identity and our relationship with the natural world.
0
