Was the man named Adam in Genesis 2-4?

Note: This is part of my observations about the parts of the Hebrew Bible that I've been translating to for fun and for learning.

I think most, if not all of the English translations uses the name Adam in Genesis 2-4 as a name to refer to the first man. However, if one looks at the Leningrad Codex -- which is the oldest and most complete form of a Hebrew Bible manuscript that we have so far, and is the basis for most, if not all of the English translation of the Old Testament -- that isn't the case.

Throughout Genesis 2-4, the word used is הָאָדָם (ha'adam). First, the word אָדָם ('adam) literally means, "person, human." Second, the definite article הָ (ha) is attached to אָדָם ('adam). The definite article is translated as "the," and is used as a way to designate a title to someone or something, it's never used as a name. For example, I cannot be referred to as, "the Aaron," because that is neither my title nor my name. I'm simply refer to by name, "Aaron," which is my name and has no definite article. Therefore, it's more accurate to translate הָאָדָם (ha'adam) as "the human," and not as a name.

There is one exception to this in Genesis 4:25, which does read אָדָם ('adam) without the definite article הָ (ha). Does that mean that the human now has the name "Adam"? It's possible, but I'm unconvinced. Elsewhere in many different sections of the Hebrew Bible such as Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Ezekiel, to name a few, the use of אָדָם ('adam) refers to humans rather than a particular Adam. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), which is a critical edition of the Leningrad Codex (meaning that it provides a lot of analysis and tools to help one form a better understanding of the Old Testament texts), suggest emending the definite article הָ (ha) onto אָדָם ('adam) in verse 25.

So with that, why do the English translations translate הָאָדָם (ha'adam) as "Adam," but not "the human"? I'm not entirely sure why; it dumbfounds me, quite honestly. Perhaps, it's because the woman is named "Eve," so they feel the name to compliment it with a male name. I find this to be extremely unconvincing choice if that's the reason.

Tangent: in Hebrew, the name of the woman is actually חַוָּה (Hawwah), which sounds similar to חַיָּה (Hayah) "life." I honestly don't know how "Eve" got into the English translation, but that's not our concern as of now. In addition, the name Hawwah only appears twice in Genesis 2-4; most of the time, she is referred to as אִשְׁתּוֹ ('ishto) "his woman/wife," or הָאִשָּׁה ('ishah) "the woman/wife."

I have a one or two guesses as to why English translations translate הָאָדָם (ha'adam) as "Adam," but not "the human," but it takes some time to explain, which I may (or may not) do in another post.

So does the human ever get named Adam? Most likely in Genesis 5. Verses 1-3 read,

" ¹ This is the scroll of the generation of אָדָם ('adam), when God created אָדָם ('adam), in the likeness of God He made him (or them), ² male and female He created and blessed them, and called their name אָדָם ('adam) when they were created: ³ And אָדָם ('adam) was a hundred and thirty years and begot in his likeness, as his image, and he called his name Sheth." (my translation).

The use of אָדָם ('adam) here is complicated. First, it should be noted that the definite article הָ (ha) is not used. Second, the uses of אָדָם ('adam) differs from one another throughout the verses.

For example, the use of אָדָם ('adam) in verse 2 seems to be clear: "male and female He created and blessed them, and called their name אָדָם ('adam) when they were created." The use of plurals as well as the two genders clearly shows that אָדָם ('adam) here refers to humans, not the name.

Verse 3 is also clear as well: "And אָדָם ('adam) was a hundred and thirty years and begot in his likeness, as his image, and he called his name Sheth." The fact that an exact age was given, it would be weird to then translate אָדָם ('adam) as "human," but it is more fitting to translate it as a name, "Adam."

So how about verse 1? Even after examining verse 2 and 3, the use of אָדָם ('adam) is still ambiguous in verse 1. More precisely, the first use of אָדָם ('adam) is definitely unclear, which can be translated either as "human" or "Adam." Is the genealogy about humans in general or the line of Adam, specifically?

The second use of אָדָם ('adam) is a little bit more clear: "...when God created אָדָם ('adam), in the likeness of God He made him (or them)." The phrase "in the likeness of God," recalls the creation of humans in the first account of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:4, which then is followed by verse 2 with the phrase "male and female He created and blessed them," also recalling Genesis 1:1-2:4. Therefore, the second use of אָדָם ('adam) in verse 1 can be translated as "human," with some confidence.

Since the second use of אָדָם ('adam) can probably be translated as "human," the first use of אָדָם ('adam) can be translated as "human" as well, but again, that is uncertain.

Overall, הָאָדָם (ha'adam) in Genesis 2-4 should be translated to as "the human" rather than the name "Adam," and it is only then in Genesis 5 when אָדָם ('adam) can be considered a name, albeit in certain contexts. Even then, אָדָם ('adam) in other parts of the Hebrew Bible tends to refer to human beings.

Of course, I could totally be wrong about all of this (I feel like this disclaimer should be a given with every post), but this is where my basic knowledge of Biblical Hebrew has led me to.

Observations on Genesis 2:2

As I attempt to translate Genesis, I've noticed some unique literary bits and textual variations that I find fascinating. I will be sharing these findings with you.

The first one is a textual variation found in Genesis 2:2. The Leningrad Codex (the Hebrew text) reads, "and God completed on the seventh day his work that he had done, and he stopped on the seventh day from all his work that he done." The Septuagint (a Greek translation), the Samaritan Pentateuch (the first five books in Samaritan), and the Peshitta (a Syriac translation) read, "and God completed on the sixth day his work that he had done, and he stopped on the seventh day from all his work that he done." I assume that all the other translations such as the Vulgate (a Latin translation) and the Targum (an Aramaic translation) reads the same as the Leningrad Codex.

Why is there a variation? I'm no textual criticism expert, but here's my hunch: perhaps, the translators of the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Peshitta may have attempted to "fix" the text so that it can read logically. How is it that God finish all his work on the seventh day, and somehow stop working on the same day, especially if this is suppose to be the precedent for Sabbath observance? Also, what was God working on on the seventh day? We only know up to the sixth day.

However, this is presuming that these translations were "fixing" the text; it could be possible that they were copying a Hebrew text that reads, "sixth day," making it an actual, original, yet different reading. There's even the possibility that the Leningrad Codex made the change. But I don't know for sure.

As for the "seventh day" reading, I think that it is still a viable reading: though we don't know exactly what work God was doing on the seventh day (perhaps it refers to the totality of his work), there could be the implication that when God stopped on the seventh day, the cycle of evening then morning followed, which still gives precedent for Sabbath observance.

With that, how do the English translations read? It seems that most, if not almost all, follow the Leningrad Codex, reading, "seventh day." A notable exception is the CEB translation, which follows the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Syriac, reading, "sixth day."

I'll just leave it at here. Personally, I follow the Leningrad Codex, although I think the three translations are worth considering. I simply follow the Leningrad Codex because I don't think the alternative translation "sixth day" has enough exegetical significance to warrant the change. Basically, I find either reading plausible, but you'll have to fall unto one side when making a translation.

Some Facts About Pacific Islander American

I'll admit: I don't know much about Pacific Islander Americans. In addition, it was hard to find good information about Pacific Islander Americans, their history and contribution to the U.S. Perhaps I wasn't searching hard enough and would count this as my fault.

I did, however, find a fact sheet about Pacific Islander Americans by, surprisingly, the White House, more specifically, White House Initiative on Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders (WHIAAPI). It doesn't specify when was it compiled so I'm unsure of its relevancy nor under what administration, but my hunch is that it should be recent enough to be relevant. The title of this fact sheet is called "Fact Sheet: What You Should Know About Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI's)." I wanted to post the entirety of the fact sheet, but copying and pasting has created a weird format that makes it difficult to edit. Typing it all out will take too much time for me. So, I opted to highlight important facts that everyone should know. With that, here are the facts about Pacific Islander Americans:

Indigenous Peoples:

• Native Hawaiians, Samoans and Chamoru are indigenous peoples to the State of Hawaii, the U.S. Territory of American Samoa and the U.S. Territory of Guam respectively.

• 8 out of 10 Pacific Islanders in the U.S. are native to the United States.

Demographics:

• Pacific Islanders include diverse populations who differ in language and culture. They are of Polynesian, Micronesian and Melanesian backgrounds.

• The Polynesian group is the largest and includes Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans and Tahitians.

• The Micronesian group, which is the second largest, includes primarily Chamoru from Guam but also includes other Chamoru and Carolinian from the Mariana Islands, Marshallese, Palauans and various others which include but is not limited to Pohnpeian, Chuukese, Kosraen, and Yapese from the Federated States of Micronesia.

• Of the Melanesian group, which would include Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji, Fijian-Americans are the largest in this group.

Migration:

• Including the State of Hawaii, 73% of the NHPI populations lived in the West, predominantly in the states of Hawaii and California. These two states had more than 500,000 Pacific Islanders combined. Washington was the only other State that had more than 15,000 Pacific Islanders.

Population:

• According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 874,000 reported Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders, which account for 0.3% of the entire U.S. population.

• Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, as a group, experienced 2.4% growth between 2007 and 2008, third overall among race groups; Asians and Hispanics were second and first respectively.

Language:

• There are at least 39 different Pacific Island languages spoken as a second language in the American home.

Health:

• In California, Pacific Islander children have the highest rates among all children who are overweight or obese, putting these children at heightened risk for cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancers.

• Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders generally experience poorer health than the American population as a whole: they are more at risk for developing and dying from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases.

Poverty:

• Almost 20% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders live in poverty while over 16% lack health coverage.

• Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders living below poverty: 18% (U.S. average living below poverty: 12%).

• Poverty rates are higher among Pacific Islanders who have a per capita income 27% below the national average.

Education:

• Only 29% of Pacific Islanders between the ages pf 18 and 24 are enrolled in a college or university, which is comparable to African Americans. In contrast, 39% of non-Hispanic whites and 57% of Asians in the age range are enrolled in college.

• Research has found that AAPI's with higher socio-economic status (SES) were three times more likely to begin college at a selective institution than those in lower SES, with Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders less likely than Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans to begin college at a selective institution.

• The importance of disaggregation of data within the AAPI community can be seen in bachelor degree attainment rates among ethnic sub-groups from a high of 69.1% for Asian Indians to a low of 9.4% for Samoans.

Housing:

• Pacific Islander renters experience consistent adverse treatment at the rate of 21.5 percent, which is about the same level for African American and Hispanic renters.

• Most Americans reside in an owner occupied home while most Micronesians rent. This difference is especially pronounced in Hawaii.

Apparently, I've typed more than half of what was on the fact sheet. Honestly, this was depressing to read and write. It just shows that the Pacific Islander American community needs to have more recognition and be supported. Nevertheless, I learned that there is extreme diversity within the community; it is always good to learn about different communities that you aren't totally familiar with. I wish I was able to provide more to this topic, because this fact sheet doesn't do justice for what this community is about.

If you want to read the whole fact sheet, you can click on this link below:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/asian-americans-initiative/what-you-should-know.pdf