When translating the first few chapters of Genesis, there are some places where the word adam raises some interpretational questions. The reason for this is the Hebrew word adam can be translated in various ways depending on context: as “man,” “mankind/humankind,” or as the proper name “Adam.”
I was just reading through Genesis and noticed an interesting way in which translations approach Genesis 5:1–2. Each approach indicates a slightly different take on how the translation of adam should influence the rest of the passage. In order to help demonstrate the choices the translations make, I start with my own overly-literal translation showing where there are some translation ambiguities in parentheses:
Hebrew
זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תּוֹלְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֽוֹ׃ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בְּרָאָ֑ם וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָ֗ם וַיִּקְרָ֤א אֶת־שְׁמָם֙ אָדָ֔ם בְּי֖וֹם הִבָּֽרְאָֽם׃
My Translation
This is the book of the generations of (Adam/man/mankind). In the Day that God created (Adam/man/mankind), in the likeness of God he created (him/it/them). Male and female he created them and blessed them, and he called their name (Adam/man/mankind) on the day he created them.
There are three instances of adam that must be translated into English. How the second instance of adam is translated will then influence how the Hebrew pronoun is translated into English.
ESV
This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
All modern English translations that I know of translate the first instance of adam as the proper name “Adam.” The ESV follows a very formal approach and renders the second instance as generic “man” and renders it to refer to Adam specifically by translating the pronoun as “him.” They keep linguistic consistency and use “Man” (equivalent to mankind) in the third instance.
NASB
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created
The NASB follows almost the exact same process as the ESV, except the translators opted for “mankind” instead of “Man” in the third instance.
NET
This is the record of the family line of Adam. When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind.
The NET follows a more functional translation approach, and so renders the second instance of adam as “humankind,” which then leads to the pronoun being translated as “them.” They keep their linguistic consistency by also translating the third instance as “humankind.”
NLT
This is the written account of the descendants of Adam. When God created human beings, he made them to be like himself. He created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them “human.”
The freer nature of the NLT is reflected in its sentence structure. The second instance of adam becomes “human beings,” which leads to the pronoun being rendered as “them.” The third instance then becomes the generic “human.”
Tyndale Bible (1534)
Thys is the boke of the generacion of man In the daye when God created man and made hym after the symilytude of god Male and female made he the and called their names man in the daye when they were created.
William Tyndale is the earliest person to translate Genesis directly from Hebrew into English (the Wycliffe Bible is from the Latin). Interestingly, Tyndale translates all three instances of adam as “man.” This seems quite likely due to the influence of Martin Luther (see below). The translation of “man” in the first instance continued through the Coverdale and Matthews Bible. It seems that “Adam” was introduced into the modern English translation tradition through The Great Bible of 1539, and this has remained the preferred translation ever since.
Other Languages
In English, there is almost unanimous consistency with translating the first instance of adam as the proper name “Adam,” with the only real dissent being the earliest modern English translations. There is some disagreement over whether to understand the second instance as generic “man/mankind” or a more specific “man” that refers to Adam. The third instance of adam is almost universally understood as the generic “man/mankind.”
The picture of how to translate these instances of adam becomes a little more interesting when we look at other languages. There are some surprising differences in approaches in the way they are approached.
Greek Septuagint (LXX)
αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν Αδαμ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν. ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Αδαμ ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
Translation
This is the book of the generations of (men/human beings), on the day the God created Adam, in the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them and called their name Adam on the day he created them.
The LXX is the oldest translation of Genesis, being translated somewhere around the 3rd or 2nd century BC. The translation renders the first instance of adam as the plural “men/human beings,” and the second as “Adam.” The choice I find to be the most interesting is how the LXX translates the third instance as the proper name “Adam.” This marks it out as unique and it seems to have impacted subsequent translations.
Latin Vulgate
Hic est liber generationis Adam. In die qua creavit Deus hominem, ad similitudinem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam creavit eos, et benedixit illis: et vocavit nomen eorum Adam, in die quo creati sunt.
Translation
This is the book of the generation of Adam. On the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and blessed them. And he called their name Adam, on the day when they were created.
The Vulgate has the tradition of translating the first instance of adam as the proper name, “Adam.” I believe this tradition is what has influenced the vast majority of English translations preferring “Adam” here. The second instance could be understood as either generic or specific “man.” It shows the influence of the LXX in the third influence by giving humanity the name of “Adam.”
Martin Luther’s German Translation
Dies ist das Buch von des Menschen Geschlecht. Da Gott den Menschen schuf, machte er ihn nach dem Bilde Gottes; und schuf sie einen Mann und ein Weib und segnete sie und hieß ihren Namen Mensch zur Zeit, da sie geschaffen wurden.
Translation
This is the book of the lineage of man. When God created man, he made him in the image of God; And he created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name man when they were created.
Martin Luther opted for the meaning of “man/human being” each time (the German word “Mensch” carries a similar meaning as the English generic “man”). At no point did he see any of the three instances of adam being the personal name of “Adam.” I believe it is this translation that influenced Tyndale’s translation.
Spanish Reina-Valera (1960)
Este es el libro de las generaciones de Adán. El día en que creó Dios al hombre, a semejanza de Dios lo hizo. Varón y hembra los creó; y los bendijo, y llamó el nombre de ellos Adán, el día en que fueron creados.
Translation
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day in which God created the man, in the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them, and called their name Adam, on the day in which they were created.
The Reina-Valera follows the translation tradition found in the Latin Vulgate, which is influenced by the LXX. The first and third instances are both rendered as the proper name “Adam,” while the second appears to prefer a more generic rendering of “man/human being.”
Final Thoughts
Personally, I think the first instance of adam is something of a double entendre. This is the generations of both Adam and humanity; it is almost a pun. The second is probably best understood as a generic collecting “man/mankind,” as is the third. Translating the third instance of adam as the proper name “Adam” seems like a strange choice, but has apparently persisted for some time.
All this really goes to show is that all translation inherently is interpretation. The Hebrew usage of adam is ambiguous, and perhaps even intentionally so. Translators must choose which aspect of adam is being highlighted: the specific figure of Adam, a generic reference to “the man,” or as indicating humanity as a whole. If the text in the original language was meant to be ambiguous and carry a double entendre, it may be best to render a word with something that can be equally ambiguous in English (i.e. like “man”). But if it is specific, the meaning should be brought out clearly. These are just the choices that Bible translators are constantly faced with, even in seemingly small points such as these.