What does it mean that God named male and female “Man”?

Explanation:

The narrator is about to offer the genealogy of Adam, but before he does this, he harkens the reader back to Genesis 1:1–31.⁴ He does this in Genesis 5:1–2 by using the familiar creation phrases, when God created, in the likeness of God, male and female he created them, and he blessed them.⁵ Adam and Eve have sinned, and Cain has killed Abel, but before the narrator continues with the genealogy of Adam, he reminds his reader that the genealogy is connected to God’s creative work in Genesis 5:1–2. The narrator adds one point of interest that is missing from Genesis 1:1–31, which is that after God made male and female, he named them אָדָם (mankind/humankind). The author’s point is that there would be no genealogy of Adam unless God first created the species humankind.⁶

Counterargument:

Unfortunately this interpretation does not suit Genesis 5:3. In Genesis 5:2 the narrator reiterates that God created male and female, blessed them, and named them אָדָ֔ם. He then opens Genesis 5:3 with וַֽיְחִי אָדָם, which means, when Adam lived. Notice that the narrator uses the same noun, אָדָם, to open Genesis 5:3 that he used near the end of Genesis 5:2. It would be confusing if the narrator had two referents in mind, given that he uses the two nouns in such close vicinity. Thus, we should conclude that both nouns have the same meaning. With this in mind our question becomes, Does the translation humankind fit with the context of Genesis 5:3? Here the answer is no. Genesis 5:3 is about the age of Adam when he gave birth to Seth, and Genesis 5:4 follows this up with the length of Adam’s life preceding the birth of Seth. Since Adam is the best translation for the term אָדָם in Genesis 5:3, we should assume Adam is also the translation for אָדָם in Genesis 5:2.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it fails to understand that context is what drives the meaning of a term, not vicinity. The closeness of a word in context has little bearing on the meaning of a word. For example, if one states, After using his hand to point to the hand, the hands knew the time, we can see that the same term hand is being used in three different ways in one sentence. If we understood that the larger context had to do with deck hands working on a boat who want to know when it is time to put the traps in the water, we can deduce clearly that hand means something different in each use. The fact is, it does not matter that the terms are close to each other when it comes to meaning. What matters is their meaning in light of the context. In light of the content and grammar of Genesis 5:2 it is most likely that the author has humankind as the referent in mind (see Interpretation 1, arguments 2 and 3).

Explanation:

The term אָדָם has a variety of meanings, including the proper name Adam as well as man and humankind. In order to decide on which meaning is present in Genesis 5:2 we must look at the immediate context. When we do this, we find the narrator harkening back to Gen 1. He reiterates the fact that God created man male and female, blessed them, and named them אָדָם. Given that God uses the term אָדָם to name the male and female, we have good reason to expect that this name is gender-neutral.⁷ This expectation is confirmed when we discover that the name God gave to the male and female is אָדָם, which can be translated humankind.⁸

Counterargument:

In fact, the whole focus of Genesis 5:1–3 is on the man, Adam. First, Genesis 5:1 harkens back to when God created man, and in Genesis 5:3 the text is about Adam’s genealogy. We also know from Genesis 1:1–31 that God created man first. We should keep these factors in mind when we translate אָדָם in Genesis 5:3. When we do, we see that the mostly likely translation is the one given by the ESV: Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man.

Response to counterargument:

It is true that the author harkens back to Genesis 1:1–31, but we should not fail to remember that in Genesis 1:1–31, God creates not only the man but also the woman. In Genesis 1:27 we read, So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. We also learn at the end of Genesis 2:1–25 that the man and the woman who marry become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Further, Genesis 3:1–24 tells the story of the fall, where God treats Adam and Eve as a family, and both receive punishment. Thus, the narrator has established not only that man was created but also that woman was created as a helper for man, and together the two become one flesh. Thus, when God creates and blesses male and female, he has equal parties in mind and calls the name of their species אָדָם (humankind).

Explanation:

A quick analysis of the grammar of Genesis 5:2 suggests that when God names the male and female אָדָם, he gives them the generic name humankind. We can deduce this because there is a pronominal suffix attached to the noun שֵׁם (name), which tells us the gender and number of the word: third-person plural.⁹ This means that we would translate the phrase וַיִּקְרָ֤א אֶת־שְׁמָם as, “and he called their name…” What follows is the term אָדָם. Given that the narrator has their (third-person masculine plural) name in mind, we should translate אָדָם to be consistent with this construction. Thus, the mostly likely translation is humankind because it is generic and works with the third-person masculine plural pronominal suffix their.

Counterargument:

While it is true that God names both the male and the female, this does not rule out that the name God gives them is Man. In other words, the third-person masculine plural pronominal suffix does not exclude Man as a coherent translation.

Response to counterargument:

Our argument is not that no translation of אָדָם other than humankind is possible. Rather, the fact that the narrator uses the plural pronominal suffix suggests that the name given by God should suit both subjects. Since one of the two subjects is female and אָדָם can be translated to capture the generic species of human, it is more plausible to translate אָדָם as humanity so as to capture both the male and the female, rather than Man, which only seems to capture the male.

Possible weaknesses:

The one possible weakness of this view is that four popular Bible translations do not use it. The ESV translates אָדָם as Man, and the RSV follows suit. The NIV and the NASB2020 opt for Mankind, which is consistent with this view, but still, the terms mankind and humankind are not identical. Of course, if these terms have an identical referent, then a case could be made that the term humankind is more appropriate, given its gender neutrality.

Explanation:

There are several possible ways to translate the term אָדָם. Although humankind is an option, the Septuagint translates the term with the Greek Αδαμ, Adam.¹² Added to this, while the narrator uses the term אָדָם in the generic sense of man in Genesis 5:1, he also uses it in verses Genesis 5:1 and Genesis 5:3 as the proper name Adam. Thus, it is likely that the Septuagint writers were correct to translate the term Adam.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this view. First, while the Septuagint can help us decide on an ambiguous passage, our first step is to consider a term in light of the original Hebrew. If the original Hebrew favours one interpretation over another, we should accept that interpretation, even if it goes against the Septuagint. In this case, we have strong reason to reject the Septuagint translations for something more appropriate. The notion that God named the male and the female Adam is difficult to square, especially since אָדָם could just as likely mean man or humankind, both of which would make more sense of the context. One could plausibly argue that God named the woman man in the sense that man could be used in a generic sense to refer to humanity in general, but it is somewhat strained to think that God would give the woman the name Adam. In fact, she has already been given the name Eve because she is the mother of all living (Genesis 5:1).

Second, the argument that since the narrator used the proper name for Adam in verses Genesis 5:1 and Genesis 5:3 we should assume he also uses it in verse Genesis 5:2, will not do. The reason is that terms must be understood based on context, not frequency of use. Further, the narrator also uses the generic term man in Genesis 5:1, so why should we assume he does not use it in a generic sense again in Genesis 5:2?

Explanation:

The term אָדָם is used four times in Genesis 5:1–3. In Genesis 5:1a the term is used to denote the proper name Adam, and in Genesis 5:1b it is used in the generic sense of man. When we reach Genesis 5:3 the term is used again to denote the proper name Adam, as the narrator introduces Adam’s genealogy. In between Genesis 5:1 and Genesis 5:3 we find the term again, when God creates and names the male and female אָדָם. Given that the narrator has used it in a generic sense in Genesis 5:1 and will use it momentarily to refer to the person Adam, we can conclude that the author uses it in Genesis 5:2 as a double entendre.¹³ In other words, the author uses the term אָדָם to refer to both man in a generic sense and Adam.

Counterargument:

When an author uses a term as a double entendre, we expect the term to denote two separate ideas, both consistent with the context. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Genesis 5:2. The reason is that in Genesis 5:2 we read that God created the male and the female, and it is not consistent to call the female man or Adam. If Genesis 5:2 stated that God created the male and called him אָדָם, the double entendre would be perfectly consistent, because the male that God creates is called both man and Adam. Still, we should not overlook the fact that the text says God created male and female and named them אָדָם. If אָדָם can be translated so that it is consistent with God’s creating the male and female, then we should take it as such. Of course, we do have that option because אָדָם can mean humankind. Thus humankind is a more consistent translation.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it seems to undercut the interpretive principle that the best interpretation should naturally suit the immediate literary context.¹⁴ While it is possible to translate אָדָם as Adam or man it is hard to see why God would name the female Adam or man. Thus, we should see if there is another interpretive option for the term אָדָם that suits the context. Since there is a better option, unless we have further compelling evidence from the text, we should opt for the more naturally consistent translation.