ADAM WAS A HERMAPHRODITE?
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness…. So, God created man in
his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them”. (Genesis 1:26, 27)[1]
Rabbi Sandra Kviat is a
progressive liberal who has written various, somewhat controversial, articles
on numerous biblical topics in a series entitled, “The Bible says What”? In
January of 2019 she wrote an article in Jewish News entitled, “The Bible says
What? Adam is Male and Female in the First Creation Story”.
There are a number of items in this
article that I take issue with. The
first has to do with one word in the scriptural quote she uses, “And God
created Adam in God’s image, in the image of God, God created it”.[2] I have searched various versions, nearly 60
different translations both English and Hebrew, in addition to various lexicons
and commentaries and found nothing indicating that this Hebrew word could be
translated as “it”. Furthermore, this
word may not even appear in the original Hebrew in this passage, that being
said, it does appear in the LXX. As
such, later Hebrew translations insert the word אֹתָֽם which translates
into English as either “they” or “them”, not “it”. Its insertion in the LXX indicates it as a
plural pronoun. The word is considered to be a dummy pronoun. Dummy pronouns are utilized where antecedents
are not present, unlike traditional pronouns which can stand in the place of a
noun, phrase, or a clause. Dummy
pronouns reference nothing in particular but can still function grammatically.
This term “it”, as it appears in the
dictionary, can be applied in a number of different ways. Its function is as a
non-specific, relaying no particular type of information, something unknown.
The second way in which the word is defined in the dictionary is as, “used
to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about
to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded”. [3]
(Emphasis added) Its primary use is in reference to things inanimate. What it looks like is that Rabbi Kviat has
performed an eisegetical approach to interpretation of the text, which is the
opposite of an exegetical approach. In
exegesis, the interpreter draws from the text its particular meaning based on
the reading as it is. By contrast, eisegesis
expresses the interpreter’s own ideas or particular bias. אֹת֑וֹ (hu) translates as his,
him, it, them, their et cetera. So, the verse could
have used “it” as a translation. But as
with all interpretations of scripture, one of the rules of interpretation in
hermeneutics is the rule of context. The entire first chapter of Genesis is
divided by 10-11 paragraphs, depending which translation you use. Each paragraph commences with a conjunction,
“and” or “then”. This type of
conjunction is referred to as a co-ordinating conjunction. This type of conjunction works to connect
words, phrases, and clauses. The primary co-ordinating conjunctions include the
words and, or, and but. Some authors do not view “then” as a
conjunction, while many others do.
Therefore, you may find some translations which include the word “then”
for each paragraph of Genesis one, while others will use “and”.
One of the distinguishing features of
Hebrew narrative grammar is the regular use of one single particle (Heb. vav.)
prefixed to the first word of a clause to connect one clause after the
other. Often it simply means “and”, but
it can mean “then”, “so”, or “now”, depending on the kind of word to which it
is attached and the flow of the narrative.
In general, if it attaches to a finite verb at the beginning of a clause
it keeps the narrative action going forward in some way. If it attaches to a anything other than a
verb (i.e., a noun, adjective, preposition, another particle) it is called disjunctive
and insets information into the narrative but does not move the narrative forward.[4] Genesis 1 comprises a list of the creation of
the world, or the history of creation. In
virtually every instance, the vav is attached to a verb in that list making
the vav consecutive which indicates that narrative keeps moving forward as
part of that list as indicated by the phrase “And (or “then”) God said”
repeated at the beginning of each paragraph.
As such, no new information is being added to the text, Adam’s being
created as a hermaphrodite for example. Rabbi Kviat argues that there are two
creation accounts, there are not. The
first creation “story” is a generalized creation account. The second creation account is more
specifically focused on the creation of man, and 2:18 further indicates that Adam
was alone.
The whole idea of Adam’s being created as a hermaphrodite
fly in the face of God’s instruction in verse 28 to “be fruitful and multiply”
as in a majority of cases hermaphrodites are infertile or sterile. Furthermore,
why would God create Adam as a hermaphrodite and not the animals that preceded
him? There is no indication from the text that they were created as
hermaphrodites so to do that with the creation of Adam would be inconsistent. Also,
verse 22 states that after He created the sea creatures and the birds, He gave
the instruction to “be fruitful and multiply”. Following through on that
imperative is not possible if the creatures God made were created as
hermaphrodites. Furthermore, the problem is that, given the definition, the
term “it” is used to represent a person…whose gender is unknown, it is contrary
even to Jewish mysticism as the gender is known to be both male and female, a
hermaphrodite. A hermaphrodite is an animal or plant having both male and
female reproductive organs, structures, or tissue.[5] This being the case, a hermaphrodite is not a
third gender, it is an amalgam of male and female structures which appear as
part of the organism.
Some have argued that the Jewish Talmud lists
eight different genders. While it is true that this list exists within the Talmud,
it is not true that the list represents eight separate genders. I will explain.
1. Zachar, means male, 2. Nekevah, means female. After
this the waters get a little murky. 3. Androgynos, refer to those who possess
both male and female characteristics. 4. Tumtum, refers to
those who lack sexual characteristics. 5. Aylonit hamah, are
those who identify as female at birth but later naturally develop male
characteristics. 6. Aylonit adam, refers to those who identify as
female at birth but later develop male characteristics through
human intervention. 7. Saris hamah, are those who identify as male
at birth but later naturally develop female characteristics. 8. Saris
adam, are those who identify as male at birth and later develop female
characteristics through human intervention. You will notice that I have
underscored the only two genders which actually exist for each. Number four, Tumtum,
is the only one from the list that does not specifically refer to any
particular gender. However, it is a safe bet that if the other seven do mention
the specific genders of male and female, that the reference to “sexual
characteristics” in number four probably refer to male and female characteristics
as well. So, you are still only left with two genders.
But did God really create Adam as a
hermaphrodite and split the two of them later? This view is only expressed in
the Jewish mystic writings. Rabbi Kviat is not the first to suggest that Adam
may have been a hermaphrodite, such a view is believed by many, especially
those who follow Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is a medieval publication ca.1300
A.D. which is a multi-volume commentary of The Kabbalah. Some have argued that Spanish
Rabbi Moses de León was the author of the Zohar though orthodox Jews attribute
it to 2nd century Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai. The term Kabbalah
translates as, reception, tradition, or correspondence and
is a form of mystic Jewish thought and interpretation of the Midrash, which is
a commentary of Torah.
“When the
blessed Holy One created Adam, he created him with two faces. So, the yod faces
backward…they were not turned face-to-face…The blessed Holy One said to her,
‘turn back for I intend to split you and transfigure you face-to-face, but you
will arise elsewhere’”. (The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. One).
The pronoun “her” is a reference to the
letters of the Hebrew alphabet as they present themselves to the Holy One
requesting, he use them as the first letter to create the world. Furthermore, Rabbi
Yirmeya ben Elazar has said,
“Adam was first created
with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: ‘You
have formed me behind and before and laid Your hand upon me’ (Psalms 139:5).
Similarly, it is written: ‘And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from
the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man’ (Genesis 2:22). Rav and
Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female
face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail
[zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve”.[6]
The Hebrew verb צוּר (ṣûr), in
Psalms 139:5, means to bind, confine, or barricade, not
“formed” as Rabbi Elazar has translated the word. Verbs can be passive or active, they can
contain past, present, or future tenses.
Passive verbs are terms in which the subject is the one being acted upon;
active verbs are terms in which the subject is the one performing the act. Though many translations insert the English
verb “have”, it does not appear in the Hebrew, nevertheless, the verb which
follows it, previously indicated, is a passive past tense transitive verb. A literal reading of the Hebrew simply reads,
“behind and in front, encircle I (me), and place/put, upon I (me), palm/hand you
(your)”. While translation of the Hebrew verb into English indicates a present
indicative, in the Hebrew the verb צוּר (ṣûr) is in the past
tense. Stems used with Hebrew verbs
appear as either qal, pa’al, or niphal.
The verb צוּר (ṣûr) is a Qal stem of which there are three
possible ways this verb it could be translated.
Three of the primary possibilities I have already listed, but the very
last possible way the verb could be translated is “formed”, which Rabbi Elazar
has used as the primary, which clearly, it is not. The qal stem translates as
“little” or “simple”. So, David is indicating
that God binds, confines, or barricades him presently. Rabbi Elazar is indicating that the verb is
past tense, which is correct, but he then refers it back to the creation of
Adam, which is not correct. If you
analyze the context in which the verse appears you will notice that this
chapter is divided by 6 paragraphs depending on the translation. The first paragraph comprises six verses
which indicate a pattern of use. Four of
the six verses employ the words “know(n)” יָדַע (yâḏa‘) or “knowledge”
דַּעַת (ḏa‘aṯ) and terms related to it, indicating God’s knowledge of
us and all our ways. The context
suggests nothing relatable to creation or the creation of Adam in particular. The Hebrew word for “formed” is an entirely different
word, קָנָה (qânâ) which appears in v.13 and, in context, refers to
the “inward parts” not the outward appearance.
Furthermore, David uses personal pronouns in reference to himself
regarding his own creation, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted
me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made”. (vv.13-14, emphasis added) Those pronouns are
not in reference to Adam’s creation.
Furthermore, the Hebrew term which appears
in Genesis 2:22 specifically states that God took one of the ṣēlāʿ of
man. Almost without exception this word has been translated as “rib” but has
also been translated as “side”.
But even given the
preference of “side” for “rib,” we should not conclude either from this verse
or from 1:27 that the first human being was androgynous. This particular
concept goes back at least to Aristophanes’ discourse on love in Plato’s
Symposium (189–93). According to Plato there were originally three kinds of
beings, who were joined back-to-back, like Siamese triplets. Each being had the
faculties of two human bodies. These creatures could be either masculine,
feminine, or bisexual. After an unsuccessful attempt to rebel against the gods,
Zeus carved each of the three types of being, splitting them into either two
men, or two women, or one man and one woman. Upon demonstrations of remorse for
their rebellion, Zeus rejoined the severed halves by making possible their
copulation.
A similar teaching prevails in later Jewish
(Tannaitic) tradition. Thus, to the question “How did male and female come into
being?” the answer was given that God took a side of man and from this half,
made woman; only the two together restore the wholeness of God’s original
creation (Midrash Rabbah Gen. 8:1). But when God created Adam, he created him
bisexual (ʾndrwgynws). Parallel remarks are made by Rabbi Shemuel ben Nahman
(see Midrash Rabbah Lev. 14:1).
Such teaching goes beyond the statements of
Genesis.[7]
(emphasis added)
In the aforementioned quotation we have
the introduction of a new term, “androgynous”. What is the difference between
someone who is androgynous and someone who is a hermaphrodite? Is there a difference? Historically the words have been used
interchangeably to refer to an individual with male and female reproductive
organs. But the latter term has fallen out of favour with most people,
preferring “androgynous” or “bisexual” as an adequate replacement. It is believed that this term more adequately
encapsulates the ideology of the LGBTQ2S+ community as the term is also used in
reference to someone with an attraction to someone of the same sex. It is also
used as a sexually exclusive claim, in other words someone who wishes to identify
as neither male nor female, someone who considers themselves to be gender
neutral or non-binary. However, the
etymology of the term “androgynous” is used exclusively in reference to someone
with both male and female reproductive organs. Certainly, the quote above bears
this out. So, for those who wish to
argue that Adam was not a hermaphrodite but was simply androgynous, it wouldn’t
matter as both references attribute male and female reproductive organs are present
with the individual, regardless of what term you wish to use.
My argument is that the
passage Rabbi Kviat refers to, does not support that Adam was created as a hermaphrodite
or androgynous. Regardless of how she wants to spin her interpretation of the
text.
[1] Unless
otherwise noted, all Biblical references are in the English Standard Version,
with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).
[2] https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/the-bible-says-what-adam-is-male-and-female-in-the-first-creation-story/
[4] J.
Daryl Charles, ed., Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), 9.
[5] “Hermaphrodite.”
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermaphrodite.
Accessed 23 Aug. 2021.
[7] Victor
P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT): The
Book of Genesis 1-17 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), OliveTree
Bible Software.
Comments
Post a Comment