| HEBREW WORD PATTERNS RETAINED IN ENGLISH in Genesis 2.4b-3.24 The questions raised in this article are intended to provoke thought about current ways of interpreting the story of the Garden of Eden. I will focus attention particularly on two of the main characters in the story, the man and woman in the garden, on their mutual relationship and their relationship with the ground. I will also comment on Eve's name and on the link between the woman and the tree "in the middle of the garden". My path will be mapped out by a series of words from the Hebrew text. These are: ha-adam and ha-adama, which I translate as "the groundling" and "the ground"; ish and isha, "man" and "wo-man"; tsela, "rib" or "side"; knegdo, "as its counterpart"; H'awwa, kol h'ay and ets ha-h'ayim, translated as "Life", "all that lives" and "the tree of life". Close study of the vocabulary of the Hebrew text has proved a liberating experience. I made this discovery in the following way. I have frequented the book of Genesis for many years with the purpose of writing a new English translation of the Hebrew text. The title of this translation is At the start... Genesis made new.* To do this work, I followed the literal, word for word method pioneered by Buber and Rosenzweig.* Following the Buber method meant first of all opting to work from the Hebrew text: this implied a rejection of other influences whether they stem from Greek, Latin or, in this case, previous English translations. I worked through the text (in fact, I worked through it many times), looking for a word in the target language to convey the import of each given Hebrew word in all its contexts. This was a demanding task. It involved plunging into a "world of words", first the Hebrew words, then an endless world of English words. I would search through concordance, lexicon, dictionary and thesaurus, checking words in other English versions of the Bible often to discard their solutions, testing out possible translations for each word of Genesis as it occurs in every context of the Bible until I was satisfied that I had reached the limits of my lexicographical research. Sometimes this process involved a waiting period of days, months, or even years. I carried words in my head and heart, hoping for the inspired moment when the English equivalent of a particularly difficult word would present itself. Translating Genesis this way, I could truly say with Hamlet, "Words, words, words!"* This word for word method has specific consequences. Once the translator's choice is fixed, a word is repeated in the target language whenever it is repeated in the original. I pushed fidelity to the Hebrew text further by searching for paronyms (words that derive from the same root) to correspond to Hebrew paronyms, by reproducing Hebrew assonances and wordplay, by following Hebrew word order closely and by reflecting the rhythms of the Hebrew verse through the lay-out of the English text. In this way, word patterns in the Hebrew text emerged in the translated text. These word patterns appeal to the ear of the listener as well as to the eye of the reader. They suggest ways in which a Hebrew listener might have heard and understood the text. As they have often been effaced in the translation process, commentaries have have tended to develop without them. Their restoration in an English version therefore suggests fresh ways of interpreting the text. This article will look at some of these "fresh ways". The argument will pick up the words and word patterns mentioned above and use them as clues for interpretation. Furthermore, as I proceed, I will make comparisons with Ellen Van Wolde's work. I have used the phrase a "world of words" in my first paragraph deliberately. It evokes the title of Van Wolde's recent work Words become Worlds.* My path will sometimes coincide with hers. In her book, Van Wolde studies the first eleven chapters of Genesis, establishing "networks of meaning" through the linguistic analysis of "iconic" relations between words. "By using the linguistic code, new combinations are formed, new relations are found between words which together form a new and unique whole" (ibid, p. 30). Van Wolde and I sometimes reach similar conclusions by following different paths. However, where I have tried to bridge the gap between the Hebrew text and the English listener/reader by means of a new translation, Van Wolde uses the technical language of semiotics to communicate her semantic findings to other Hebrew scholars. Nonetheless, plunging into the world of biblical words, as we have done, has inspired us both to understand the texts in a new and more positive way than heretofore. After this introduction, let me broach the declared subject of this article. The first word pattern to be discussed is formed by Hebrew ha-adam and ha-adama. Commonly translated as "the man" and "the ground", in At the start... Genesis made new, following the principles described above, these words are translated as "the groundling" and "the ground". (Possible variants are "the human" and "the humus"). For the reader's facility, both words appear in italics in the following quotation, as does the corresponding possessive adjective "its", which I will comment on below. I quote Genesis 2.5-9a because it provides a striking example of verbal repetition. On the day YHWH Elohim made earth and skies YHWH Elohim planted a garden in Eden in the east The English words, "groundling" and "ground", like the original Hebrew words, adam and adama, are paronyms. The novelty of the translation "groundling" may at first disturb the listener/reader. Nevertheless, it presents several advantages: the relationship between the two words with their common syllable "ground" is made obvious in the translated text; repetition emphasizes the importance of this relationship; the conjunction of the two paronyms guides the listener/reader to perceive where and how their relationship is propounded in the text. The following statements are thus enhanced: before it is put in the garden, the destiny of "the groundling" is "to serve the ground" (2.5); God forms "the groundling" from the "soil of the ground" (2.7). These statements about "the groundling" and "the ground" at the beginning of the garden of Eden story are balanced by similar statements at the end of the story when God declares that it "will return to the ground" (3.19) and when God expels it from the garden "to serve the ground from which it was taken" (3.23). The word pattern observed here provides two clues for understanding the text. First, human life is said to follow a cyclic pattern: the groundling comes from the ground and will return to it. Secondly, the groundling's vocation to serve the ground is established from the outset, before God puts it in the garden. Whereas it is commonly concluded that God imposes a sanction when the groundling is expulsed from the garden to toil with the ground, the above pattern signals that the service of the ground, independently of any toil that may or may not be attached to that service, is itself part of the groundling's initial destiny. The third word written in italics in the quotation is "its". Following Phyllis Trible,* I prefer the neuter form of the possessive adjective "its" to the masculine "his". In the first account of creation, "the groundling" is neither male nor female but both "male and female" (1.27). In the second account, which concerns us here, ha-adam, "the groundling" remains a generic term. After the appearance of woman, ha-adam, "the groundling", sometimes refers to the human being, "male and female", sometimes to the male alone, but in the latter case careful observation shows that the woman is always mentioned. It is as though one said "the bear and its mate" or "the human and its mate". The first element in these phrases, "bear" or "human", refers to the nature of the couple: male and female share the same nature; both are "bear" or "human". In the same way, when reference is made to the groundling and his woman, both male and female share the nature of the groundling. I note, in passing, that Van Wolde also puzzles over how best to translate the pronoun for ha-adam: "it" or "he"? She chooses "he" and justifies her choice by calling "he" a "linguistic, unmarked, i.e. neutral form" (ibid, p. 16). I think, however, that the English language resists this manipulation and that "he" is clearly masculine. Because translations have often lead the reader to think otherwise, it is important to realise that the name "Adam" does not appear in chapters 2 and 3. "Adam" first becomes a proper name at the end of chapter 4, when adam loses the definite article ha. The translation "groundling" for adam presents a further advantage: it avoids the confusion created by the single translation "man" for the two Hebrew words adam and ish. (Besides reflecting verbal links, a word for word translation avoids overlapping: "groundling", adam, is different from "man", ish. Similarly, "ground", adama is different from "earth", aretz). In the following quotation the term "man", ish, appears in the text for the first time: YHWH Elohim made a swoon fall upon the groundling The distinction between "groundling", adam, and "man", ish, is important. It acts as a clue indicating that there is an evolution in the text: first there was "the groundling", described as "male and female" in Genesis 1.27: then there was "the groundling" who was seen to be alone (2.18): subsequently "the groundling" fell asleep to wake up as "man" facing "wo-man". There is a reminiscence here of the separation of the light and the darkness (1.4), earth and seas (1.9-10), day and night (1.14) in the first account of creation. In Genesis, God produces a new pair "man" and "wo-man". Many English versions translate adam and ish by one word "man". This was perhaps more justifiable in the past than it is today. The Oxford Dictionary even provides an interesting example of the plural "men", used for "human beings" in this context: "The Lord had but one paire of men in Paradise" (1597). Such a sentence, however, is inacceptable today, when "a pair of men" clearly means two males.* "Man" and "wo-man", like Hebrew ish and isha, are not paronyms but, like ish and isha they share a common syllable. The hyphen introduced in the English translation draws attention to the similarity and dissimilarity between the two words. As "man" appears for the first time when "wo-man" first appears, the listener/reader realises that the two are complementary. Thanks to her appearance, "man" recognises himself as "man", related to "wo-man". In the above paragraphs, I have tried to show how the translations "groundling" and "ground", "man" and "wo-man" serve as clues that guide the listener/reader's understanding of the text. The vocabulary of the English translation is in itself suggestive of the exegesis developed above. In contrast, Van Wolde is not concerned with the relationship of words in the target language. She writes of ha-adam as "the human" or "the human being" (ibid, p. 13 ), of ha-adama sometimes as "the earth", sometimes as "the ground" (p. 13), and of ish as "man", "male man" or "husband" (p. 27). Independently of this difference of vocabulary, however, we interpret the text in a similar fashion. Van Wolde's semantic analysis leads her to comment on adam/adama and ish/isha as follows: "In his relation with woman, isha, the human no longer refers to himself as adam as a being differentiated from the adama, but as ish as a being differentiated in man and woman. This is the crucial issue: the human being is a relational creature. As a human being, he derives his identity from his relation with the earth, as a male, he derives his identity from his relation with woman" (p. 17). When commenting on adam/adama and ish/isha, Van Wolde makes further observations which may interest ecologists: "The relation between the human being and the earth takes priority, as it forms the framework of the relation between man and woman" (p. 28) and "God's concern for the earth involves his making 'caretakers' capable of working the earth on a long term basis" (p. 106). These statements contrast with other commentaries on Genesis which teach that "man" was made to "dominate" the earth. According to Van Wolde, the earth is of primary importance in God's eyes. This suggests to me a possible early Sitz im Leben for the garden of Eden story when the human being recognised it was subordinate to creation and the "groundling" accepted to serve the ground". Today, when environmental claims are strongly felt, we seem to have come round in full circle. To return to the human couple, the reading "rib" or "side" also bears on the way in which man and woman are presented in the story. Both translations "rib" and "side" for Hebrew tsela have found a place in rabbinical exegesis. A word for word translation prefers "side" to the more current "rib", however, because it opts for only one English word to translate each Hebrew word and "side" is the word used to translate tsela in all biblical contexts except this one. "Side" expresses man/woman equality: when woman is "built" from the groundling's side, man remains, so to speak, on the other side. Theirs is a side by side relationship. Here again in the choice of wording I differ from Van Wolde, who adopts the traditional translation "rib" for tsela. Nevertheless, I agree with her interpretation when she writes that tsela "expresses the equality or correspondence between the two parts of the human being: man and woman" (p 18). An examination of Hebrew knegdo, "as its counterpart", reveals something more about the nature of this "equal and corresponding" relationship. Before the appearance of woman, "the groundling" is described as being "alone" (Gen 2.18), a state that God calls lo tov, "not good". God therefore decides to make it a help which is qualified as knegdo: I will make for it a help as its counterpart (2.18) The root neged, found in knegdo, expresses closeness and opposition. The English word "counterpart" also expresses closeness (one definition, given in the Oxford Dictionary is "exact copy"). At the same time "counterpart" contains an element of opposition: "counter" means "opposite" (cf. "to encounter", "to run counter"). Like knegdo, the phrase, "as its counterpart", points to the double nature of the man/woman relationship: man and woman are close to each other and opposite one another. This suggests that they will "help" each other not only because they are similar in nature and share a common destiny but because they are different from one another, they can act independently and confront one another. When analysing ezer knegdo, "a corresponding help", Van Wolde points out that the partners are "equal" or "corresponding" (ibid, p. 18) but does not comment further on possible implications of knegdo. Interestingly, esteemed English versions disregard both the elements of equality and of opposition. The Revised Standard Version, for instance, describes the future woman as "a helper fit for him", a phrase doubly suggestive, to my mind, of woman's subordination to man. The final word pattern I wish to analyse is H'awwa, kol h'ay, ets ha-h'ayim, which I translate as "Life", "all that lives" and "tree of life". After the woman has eaten of the tree, after the divine words addressed to the serpent, the woman and the groundling, the groundling gives his woman a name: The groundling called his woman's name Life (Eve) In the various versions, the name H'awwa is usually transposed as "Eve". Sometimes a reference to the meaning of the name is found in a footnote. In The Revised Standard Version, for instance, verse 3.20 reads "The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living". In the accompanying footnote one can read "The name in Hebrew resembles the word for living". As a result of this procedure, few readers attach particular significance to the name Eve. In general, it is understood that verse 3.20 points to Eve's motherhood. However, while it is true that in chapter 4, Eve will give birth to sons, two of whom will father the human race, at this point in the story the first couple has no descendants. Van Wolde develops an interpretation of Eve's name by drawing attention to the expression "her seed" (3.15) and to woman as mother in verse 3.16, which speaks of woman's labour at birth. She concludes "woman is responsible for human survival" and "When she is given a new name in 3.20, it is precisely this life-giving function for which she is named" (ibid, p. 11). Again, without denying the truth of this conclusion, I question whether physical motherhood is the main point of verse 3.20. To investigate this further I would like to come back to the wording of the verse: The groundling called his woman's name Life (Eve) Verse 3.20 presents a typical naming pattern. As in other naming patterns in Genesis, a new name is given here along with an explanation justifying the name. If the naming verse is to retain its sense, the link between the name and its justification must be preserved in the target language. "Word for word" translators do this by proposing a translated version of the name in the text. Here are some examples: "Chawwa, Leben" (Buber and Rosenzweig, 1930); "Eve, vive" (Flegg, 1946); "Hava-Vivante", (Chouraqui, 1982); "Havva/Life-Giver" (Fox, 1983): "Life" (Eve) (Korsak, 1991). H'awwa derives from the root h'ava, "to live", "to dwell", cognate with the root h'aya, "to live", "to be alive". The h'ay of kol h'ay derives from the root h'aya. The etymology of these words is, however, less important than the assonantic link, which indicates to the listener/reader that these two words are directly connected. When the meaning of H'awwa is reinserted in the text, the explanation given for a name is read with correct emphasis. Verse 3.20 reads "The groundling called his woman's name Life, for she is the mother of all that lives", as opposed to "The groundling called his woman's name Life, for she is the mother of all that lives". In short, the link between woman and life is the main point of this naming verse. The question is in what direction is it pointing. One possible answer is that it is pointing in the direction of the "tree of life". Verse 3.20 links H'awwa with h'ay and the latter word is found in a plural form with the meaning "life" in ets ha-h'ayim, "the tree of life". It is necessary to re-examine the content of the story to see whether this verbal connection is justified at a deeper level. In chapter 3 the central reality around which the action turns is "the tree in the middle of the garden". This tree is at the heart of the woman-serpent discussion. It is also the centre of the woman's activity. An examination of the nature of the tree will reveal the nature of the woman's act when she eats of the tree. In Genesis 2.8-9, the tree "in the middle of the garden" is the tree of life: YHWH Elohim made sprout from the ground At the beginning of chapter 3, the position "in the middle of the garden" is occupied by the tree of which they (the man and the woman) are not to eat (3.3), namely "the tree of the knowing good and bad" (2.17). This identification is confirmed by the serpent (3.5) and by God (3.22). In verses 2.16-17, God teaches that the fruit of this tree will bring death. This reality is denied by the serpent (3.4), who emphasizes instead that the tree will procure the gift of knowing. The tree "in the middle of the garden" thus appears as "the tree of life", the "tree of the knowing of good and bad", the tree of death, and of no death. Because this is an initiatory text, the reader/listener recognises here his/her own experience. If the symbolic nature of the tree is decoded, the message reads as follows: by eating of the fruit of the tree "in the middle of the garden", the woman becomes life's channel bringing within the sphere of human experience all that life represents for good and bad. In human experience, death follows on, is part of, this knowing of good and bad. The story goes on to tell that one aspect of life is denied the human being, however, i.e. life forever, again symbolised by "the tree of life", this time guarded by "the Cherubim and the scorching, turning sword", when the human couple is expelled from the garden (3.24). In the garden nothing separated the couple from God. Now they are expulsed from God's intimacy to assume their human destiny. A final comment on the Hebrew word for "tree": Hebrew ets, like certain English words, has the same form in the singular and plural (cf. English "sheep"). Translators generally give preference to the plural form in Genesis 3.8. The Revised Standard Version here reads "the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden" (3.8). Following Buber and Chouraqui, in At the start... Genesis made new, I translate as follows: The groundling and his woman hid from YHWH Elohim The tree is in the middle of the garden. The human couple ends up in the middle of the tree. This is an admirable way of expressing in symbolic fashion that man and woman embrace the destiny prepared for them by God. The study of Hebrew words and word patterns has lead me to query accepted interpretations of Genesis 2 and 3, first as regards the relationship between human beings and the earth, second as regards the relationship of man and woman, third as regards the nature of the transgression committed by the human couple. Here again I will refer to the work of Van Wolde. When commenting on the building of the tower of Babel, she writes "in respect of the meaning of the text all agree: the tower builders commit a sin against God" (ibid, p. 84) and "I wonder whether this is the sin that the people commit and even whether they are committing a sin at all" (p. 94). However, I think that the question Van Wolde raises about sin in chapter 11 could be raised much earlier. The same question could be asked about the man and woman in the Garden of Eden. The last word pattern studied above suggests that this story is not about sin but about life. I do not wish to imply that Genesis ignores the problem of evil. On the contrary, Genesis teaches that "sin" enters the human heart and that the human being must struggle to overcome it but that is part of another story told in chapter 4, when Cain kills his brother Abel. Although Van Wolde does not mention "sin" in connection with the Eden story and notes that the expression "good and bad" is to be preferred to "good and evil" (p. 36), the expression "good and evil" re-occurs several times in her book (pp. 15.24.32). It seems that, despite a clear analysis of Hebrew words, it is difficult to break with prevalent negative interpretations of the Garden of Eden story. I query other vocabulary Van Wolde uses in the same vein. The "pain" and "suffering" of woman (p. 24) and the terms "rule over" and "domination" applied to man (p. 27) suggest retribution for misconduct. "Seduced" (p. 9), "sanction", "transgress", "prohibition" (p. 15), "God blames" (p. 25), "forbidden tree" (p. 43), "punishment" (p. 44) are terms with strong overtones. This vocabulary is current in translations and commentaries but it cannot be traced back to the Hebrew text. This article has concentrated on word patterns in the Hebrew text, which have been retained in my translation At the start... Genesis made new. These patterns, whether repetitive, paronymical, assonantic, or reflective of wordplay, suggest exegetical insights concerning the garden of Eden story. These insights affect issues which are at the heart of contemporary debate. To put it differently: are there lessons still to learnt from the garden of Eden story? * Mary Phil Korsak, At the start... Genesis made new, Louvain Cahiers 1992, Doubleday, NY 1993.
|