Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

Hi Yigal,

I'm very aware of the limitations of the Stone edition, but as far as 
"standard" 
translations go, I offered it to offset a notion that Christian translations 
(NIV,
KJV, RSV, etc.) are the standard. The sense of the passage, as discussed in 
Midrash Rabbah Genesis, and also by Rashi and the Rambam, show that 
the verb after the particle is ambiguous in this case. The interpretation of 
the
passage in the Midrash, which looks at the Hebrew "huxal" at every angle, 
certainly cannot be ruled out.

Tory Thorpe



Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote: Tory, the Stone edition is 
actually a terrible choice if you wish to 
understand the Hebrew literally. It's so-called translation is actually a 
compendium of various interpretations taken from different sources. In this 
case, SOME of the commentators, such as the midrash Genesis Rabba, followed 
by Rashi, understood the Hebrew "huxal" as being derived from "xol" - 
"profane", and understood Enosh's generation as the first to call idols 
divine. Other commentators, such as Ibn-Ezra and Seforno, oppose this 
interpretation, and prefer "then people began to call in the name of the 
Lord" - they began to pray to God.

Yigal Levin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tory Thorpe" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Son of man vs. Enosh


> Here's another. From the Stone Edition of the Chumash (ArtScroll Series):
>
> "And as for Seth, to him also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. Then 
> to call in the Name of Hashem became profaned."
>
> Tory Thorpe
>
>
> Harold Holmyard  wrote: davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote:
>> I'm not sure what "line" you refer to. My inquiry is earnest and if
>> you have a direction in which you suggest I go, it would be
>> appreciated. Even better, what do you say the verse is saying in light
>> of my original question?
>
> HH: The line is the slant you are trying to give the verse. What the
> verse is saying is what the standard translations say it is saying. I
> have never seen an alternative in any major published translation. Do
> you have an alternative example to offer? You don't seem to understand
> Hebrew. Just stick with the major translations and commentaries
> available. They are reliable. Sometimes there is disagreement among
> them, and those are cases for closer investigation. This is not one of
> them, as far as I know. Are you translating the verse without recourse
> to standard translations? Here are a few:
>
> KJV: Gen. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he
> called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
>
> NRSV: Gen. 4:26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At
> that time people began to invoke the name of the LORD.
>
> NIV: Gen. 4:26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.  At that
> time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
>
> HCSB: Gen. 4:26 A son was born to Seth also, and he named him Enosh. At
> that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew