TSELA
Regarding the word's etymology and meaning.
It appears evident, from the data, that the word
tsela means either:
essentially a rib, and by extension side, be it of a person, hill,
building, compartment, etc;
or
essentially side, and by extension rib, or some other component
part of a side,
be it a room, compartment, or some building material.
Be the elemental meaning curved (as Strong) or
angle (as Knoch), the earlier usage of the term would naturally
seem to be applied to a living thing, or natural object, before it's use with reference
to a building. Words develop additional meanings as they come in contact with
varied usages, increased technology, more detailed society, culture, and
learning, and thus assume meanings based upon extension, or implication, beyond
the basic essential, or original, meaning. Rib would seem to be the
original meaning of the word, based upon it's elemental form, with side
as its extended meaning. All of its later uses have the single common meaning of
side, or something related to side. Angularity is
not in view at all in these later uses, except incidentally or accidentally.
Mr. Knoch, however, appears to have
based his definition of the word, as hollow cell or vault,
on the last usages of the word, in Ezekiel, as it is used of the rooms built into
the side of the Millennial Temple. Mr. Knoch infuses an incidental
characteristic of these rooms into the definition of the word itself. However
the characteristic of the rooms as tapered is dependant on the dimensions and
configuration of the wall itself, not upon the word tsela,
especially if we are correct, and side is the extended meaning,
for in such a case angularity, even if an element in the basic meaning of the
word, is not at all a part of the word side as the extended meaning
of rib.
It should always be kept in mind that a word's
etymology is not its definition. The etymology, which is the basis
for Concordant ELEMENTS, may give a hint to the word's
original meaning, or how the word came to be, but the elemental rendering of a
word is not to be confused with it's meaning, or definition.
Rendering the original words into their etymological ELEMENTS
was first intended to develop a consistent vocabulary for the Concordant
Version. Secondly, they were intended for use as the super literal sublinear renderings in the
Version. Thirdly, they were to demonstrate to the English reader how the word might appear
to a reader of the original tongue, with each element of the original word
separately and literally translated. The ELEMENTS were
never intended to be the definition, or meaning, of the word. Meaning is
determined by a word's use in context, not it's etymology.
Especially is this true when the contextual meaning of the word is an extension
of it's basic, or essential, meaning. The original, and subsequent, Concordant translation
of this one word, tsela, is an egregious example of the Concordant Method being
taken to an unfortunate extreme.
Mr. Knoch states that the Hebrew word tsela is
not the equivalent of the Chaldee word used in Daniel, ala. He does
not explain why this is so. Other sources affirm that they are
equivalents. Mr. Knoch has assigned this Chaldee word, the standard definition
RIB. He has also assigned it's Greek equivalent pleura
the standard definition RIB. However, in the New
Testament, the word pleura is only translated by it's variant side. Mr.
Knoch allows that side and rib can be variants of the same word.
Pleura is the LXX rendering of both ala in Daniel, and tsela
in Genesis. In neither case, Daniel or Genesis, is the meaning that of a clean,
anatomical rib, a specific bone, but a portion of the side of a body which
includes ribs and flesh.
MR KNOCH'S ARTICLE
We must understand the context in which this
article was written.
Concordant Publishing Concern began as a
collaboration of Vladimir Gelesnoff and Adolph Knoch in 1909. In 1910 they
announced their intention of producing a translation of the Scriptures. The
Concordant Method was first outlined in April, 1910. Work was begun on both the
Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with the New Testament taking
priority. Tentative translations of the New Testament began to appear starting
in 1913. The finished product began to be published in installments in 1919 (the
first installment published in 1920, and two installments in 1921.) The first
Complete Edition was published in 1926. (For details of this history, see
Concordant Antiquities.)
In July 1927, it was noted in the Editorial of
Unsearchable Riches magazine, "Meanwhile preliminary work is proceeding
[my emphasis] on
the Hebrew vocabulary." A description follows of how the work is being done. Then
this: "At the same time a tentative translation of the Psalms is under way, as
its many parallelisms afford the best possible test of the word standards which
have been chosen. We may publish some of our results from time to time, as the
Lord allows." The first published portion of the Old Testament was the book
of Genesis, published in 1957.
The article we are dealing with appeared in 1920,
as the work of preparing the Hebrew vocabulary was in it's preliminary stages. It would appear
that this preliminary decision, concerning the meanings of the Hebrew
tsela and the Chaldean ala, having been made
early in the process, was never revisited. In the 1957 edition of
Genesis, tsela is translated "angular organs" and "angular
organ" respectively, with Mr. Knoch commenting, on page 38, that the
definition of tsela is "an angular enclosed space."
While Mr. Knoch does not engage in the
extraordinarily fanciful speculation which Jeff Priddy does, he still does
engage in his own bit of speculating when he writes "The breasts of the male are
a vestigial reminder that humanity was originally bisexual." This statement
cannot stand however. Other anthropoid mammals, have a similar physique, with
the male pectoral muscles being undeveloped, and the female having fully
developed mammary glands. Surely Mr. Knoch is not saying that these other
creatures, too, were originally created hermaphrodites, and then separated into
their respective genders. In both Mr. Knoch's case, and Jeff Priddy's case,
these unbridled speculations lead down paths no one cares to go. And there is no
need for these speculations, if the Scriptures are simply allowed to mean what
they appear to mean.
The interesting thing to note is that Mr. Knoch
does not, in fact, deal with the passage in Genesis to any significant degree.
The main thrust of the article is how he arrived at his definition of the key
word tsela. I believe his logic is circular, and therefore flawed.
He bases his definition, as I pointed out earlier, on the last uses of the word,
in Ezekiel. By a circuitous, multi-stepped series of deductions, he concludes
that the definition of tsela is first a cell, then tapered, then hollow.
Having come to this conclusion by this series of
deductions, Mr. Knoch proposes, quite correctly:
"Having arrived at the conclusion that it was not a rib,
but a cell of some kind it behooves us to inquire from the Scriptures
themselves what its nature was and also to seek corroboration for our
position in the facts found in our physical frames. We need not fear any
disagreement between Scriptural truth and physical fact. They must and do
agree. If they do not we are wrong. If they coincide in our interpretation
of their testimony we are probably in possession of the truth."
But Mr. Knoch does not quote from the account itself
(Genesis 2:15-24). Rather he quotes from a verse from Genesis 1 (v27), and the
summary of the account found in Genesis 5:1-2. "A fact which is usually overlooked,"
Mr. Knoch tells us, is "that
humanity was created male and female (Gen.1:27)." Here is his first
clue that Adam was created bisexual. However, this verse cannot be taken
to mean that. This is a description of the events of the sixth day, the day God
created Adam. God first declares His intention to create mankind, who in their
plurality, would be given sway over the whole earth. God's creation of mankind
begins with the creation of Adam, the individual, usually translated "him," but
translated "it" by the CV. The concluding statement, "Male and female He creates
them," is not a statement of what happen that day, but a statement of His
future intention to create a woman. The creation of mankind was not completed by
the creation of Adam. Neither is verse 28 something that happened that day, but
was to happen in the future, after Eve was created, for it says that God blessed
"them."
Mr. Knoch seeks further proof in the summary of
Genesis 5:1-2. But this summary provides no proof. It too distinguishes the
singular Adam from the plural male and female.
The account itself, however, provides us with
details which do not corroborate Mr. Knoch's position. In failing to quote the
account itself, Mr Knoch does not explain, for example, the phrase "one of his
angular organs" (v.20). Adam clearly had more than one tsela. And
if God only removed one of them, then Adam still would have had however many he
had to start with, minus one. He also does not explain the phrase "this was once
a bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh." What was removed from Adam was a
bone and some flesh. Body organs, including the organs of gender, are fully
composed of flesh. There is no bone involved. In failing to explain these
significant details of the account, Mr. Knoch's theory stands deficient.
Continuing "to seek corroboration for our position
in the facts found in our physical frames," Mr. Knoch asks:
"And do not the facts of the physical world
perfectly confirm this interpretation? How could the removal of a rib change
Adam from an hermaphrodite to the exclusively masculine structure of his
descendants? Such a combination of the sexes is true today of most plants and
some worms and mollusks."
Mr. Knoch has not yet proven his proposition, yet
in asking this question he assumes it is a fact. He has not proven that Adam was
in any way different from his male descendants. Appealing to the world of lower
life forms provides no evidence either. Animals or plants which have both
genders found within them were created that way for the purpose of existing and
reproducing that way. They are able to function sexually. Mr Knoch, thankfully,
does not get into the speculation of exactly how Adam appeared, whether he had
all the internal and external genitalia of both sexes. But one doesn't require a
great deal of imagination to realize that Adam would not have been able to
function in a sexual way as a true and complete hermaphrodite.
JEFF PRIDDY'S ARTICLE
Taking his cue from Mr Knoch's earlier article, Jeff begins
begins his article by alleging that the account of God creating Eve from a rib is ridiculous.
Why? If God can create the world by speaking; if God can form man out of
dust, and breathe life into him; then there is nothing ridiculous about
God building a woman out of a rib. That is, unless you've already
accepted another theory, and are simply trying to make the opposing view
seem ridiculous. This ploy is not new, neither is it
useful.
Unlike Mr. Knoch's earlier article, Jeff does, at least, quote the two verses
which, in my estimation, completely contradict this theory, but he doesn't
seem to notice what they actually say. First, Gen 2:21-22—"And taking
is He one of his angular organs and is closing the flesh under
it." That sure sounds to me like, whatever this "angular
organ" was, Adam had more than one of them. Is he
suggesting that Adam had, in addition to his own sexual apparatus, two
wombs? From the text, Adam had at least two of whatever it was that
God removed, and when one was removed, Adam still should have had at
least one of them remaining. Second, Genesis2:23—"This was once bone of my bones and
flesh from my flesh." This says that it was not just fleshy substance
which was taken from Adam, but bone was involved as well. How could this
verse possibly apply to the uterus, as Jeff insists?
Next, Jeff rehearses Mr. Knoch's circuitous deductions, to
explain how tsela is an "angular cell, vault, or chamber."
And while Mr. Knoch is not specific on the shape of the
"angular organ" God removed from Adam, Jeff is quite bold to tell us exactly what
it was, a womb, and where it was located on Adam's body. He invites us to do our own
scientific experiment. However this experiment, explained in a separate box
within the article, titled "See for
yourself!" contains some very bad science. Jeff suggests that the "suture-like structure" at
the base of the scrotum is evidence of the removal of a womb from
Adam, a scar, if you will. This is simply not a fact. In reality this
superficial ridge, called the raphe scroti (lit. seam of the
scrotum), indicates the fact that the scrotum is divided into two
pouches, each containing a testicle. Gould's Medical Dictionary
gives these definitions: "raphe. A seam or ridge, especially one
indicating the line on conjunction of two symmetrical halves"; "raphe of the
scrotum, a median ridge dividing the scrotum into two lateral halves; it is
continuous posteriorly, with the raphe of the perineum, anteriorly with the
raphe of the penis."
Acquired characteristics
are not passed on to descendants. None of Abraham's descendents has yet
been born circumcised! No matter what happened to Adams body,
whether a broken bone that healed, a surgical procedure which removed an
organ (be it a rib or this alleged "womb"), the results
would not be passed along to his descendants, either as a "missing
rib," or as this "suture-like structure" in their flesh. Does
Jeff
really think that God, acting as Surgeon, would have left a scar?
Jeff says, "Adam contained both sexes." Does he
mean that he had all the organs of both sexes, internal and external?
He has only made reference to the removal of a uterus. In fact he
states that God removed "the one organ that made Adam all in himself." What then became of the other female
parts? Mr. Knoch suggested that the male breast is a vestige of man's
original bisexual condition. Jeff's speculation seems to differ. Neither
speculation has any real, i.e. scriptural, evidence.
There is nothing in the Scriptural account to suggest
that Adam "contained both sexes." And there's nothing in the Scriptural account to suggest
that Adam was constitutionally different after this operation when
tsela was removed from his body and the woman built from that
removed part. In fact it was in this pre-Eve
condition, when he was (according to both Jeff and Mr. Knoch) complete, that it was
revealed to him his need for a helper, a counterpart. Before the operation
he recognized that he was
incomplete, i.e. alone. After the operation he was still incomplete,
until presented with his
counterpart, Eve. (Note that the Concordant rendering of "complement" in
Gen 2:20 is an idiomatic rendering, and does not coincide with the New testament
word complement, that-which-fills).
Jeff writes:
"Our newfound truth is more evident here (in the sexual
union) than anywhere, and here we see more than ever the absurdity of 'rib.'
What does a rib have to do with a man's desire for a woman? Does man long for
his lost rib?"
A silly question. Who ever
said a rib did have anything to do with sexual attraction? This
is simply a further attempt to make ridiculous the true account of Eve's
creation. God could have made a woman from
any portion of Adam's body, and it still would have been from
him.
Complement simply means that which fills. It does not imply lack.
Jeff is suggesting that the reason for sexual desire between
men and women is because Adam had his womb removed. How, then, does Jeff explain
the sexual attraction of all the other animals. Were they, too, created
bisexual?
But I might ask my own
version of Jeff's silly question, "What does a womb have to do with a man's desire
for a woman? Does a man long for his lost womb?" While not intending to be crude or graphic, I've heard of
men being referred to as "leg men," or "breast men,"
etc., but I've never heard of any man being referred to as a "womb
man." How ridiculous! Men's sexual desire seems to be motivated
more by external, visual, or tactile stimulus. The womb, if anything,
would potentially be a turn-off, since it's more associated with the
consequences of sexual desire, i.e. pregnancy! Far too cerebral (not to
mention responsible) for some men. It isn't the womb which is
necessary for "sexual union," only the external female genitalia.
Sexual desire is not based upon what God removed from Adam, but what God
built into Eve. Adam was a male. God made Eve a female. Males and females
are attracted to each other because that's the way God made them. This is true
of mankind, and living souls. It's about chemistry, not Adam's desire for his
"lost organ."
Jeff writes:
"If God had taken a rib from Adam,
then in Genesis 2:2-22 (where the event is described), we would see the
Hebrew equivalent of the Chaldee 'ala,' used in Daniel 7:5 to
describe a proper, anatomical rib. But that word is not here. Instead,
we see the Hebrew word 'tsela,' which means 'a hollow,
angular vault.'"
First, Strong's Dictionary (and other sources) says
that the Aramaic ala does corresponds to the Hebrew tsela, and that both mean
rib. It ought
to be clear that even in Daniel 7:5 the meaning of ala is not simply
"an anatomical rib," as Jeff alleges. The picture is of a bear with
three ribs in it's mouth. Can you imagine seeing a bear with three
ribs in it's mouth, all cleaned of flesh, three simple "anatomical
ribs"? Or is it not a piece of a prey's carcass composed of three
ribs, with the flesh attached? This usage is clearly similar to the
case of Adam's rib.
Second, referring to the word tsela, if you compare
The Concordant Vocabulary of the O.T. with the Hebrew Dictionary contained
in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, you will see that their definitions are very
similar, if not identical. Where Strong has curved, Knoch has angle. But
both include the definition of a wall, or side. Neither
hollow, nor vault, is a necessary
part of the definition or etymology of the word. Those attributes, as I
showed earlier, come from later usages of the term. It should be clear that
what Genesis says is that God took
from a rib from Adam's side, as well as some flesh. Interestingly
enough, the situation in Genesis is exactly the same as in Daniel.
While Jeff insists that tsela cannot
mean rib, basing his opinion on the Concordant Method, he fails to
consider that, on the same basis, the definition of womb must be
excluded as well, because there is already a Hebrew word for womb, rchm in
Concordant
Vocabulary of the O. T.
Jeff places stress on the word "complement," which he
defines as "that which fills a lack." But Jeff's definition of complement is
incorrect. "Complement" does not denote, or entail, the idea of a
lack or deficiency, even though it could be used to connote this,
by metonymy. But, as with all figures, unless there is a compelling
reason to conclude that such an associated idea is clearly in view, one
may not simply claim it to be so. All that the word itself signifies is
"that which fills" (however it may be in any particular case). It is
simply mistaken to claim that the presence of a complement entails the
existence of a lack.
The use of the term
complement is based on the CV translation of Genesis 2:20. However Mr. Knoch clearly says that the word in Hebrew, with it's literal elements
as-front, is only idiomatically translated
complement (Genesis, pg. 38, note on 2:18). Note the following:
Pentateuch and Haftorahs says regarding the
phrase meet for him, that "the Hebrew term
k'negdo may mean either 'at his side', i.e. fit to associate with;
or, 'as over against him,' i.e. corresponding to him" (Soncino
Press, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, page 9).
Theological Wordbook of the New Testament defines "the compound keneged,
i.e. as 'that which corresponds to' (Gen 2:18,20)" (Moody Press, Theological Wordbook of the New Testament, page 550).
The term does not, therefore, correspond
literally with the New Testament word
pleroma, in it's literal meaning, filling, or in it's variation, complement,
but only idiomatically.
Jeff concludes that Adam was first made
incomplete by the removal of the tsela. The text does not say this.
The text says that Adam was lead to the conclusion that he was alone by
God's having him go through the process of naming all the animals that
lived. Through that whole long process, involving not simple giving
names to the animals but coming to know enough about each one to name it
intelligently, Adam was driven to the conclusion that unlike all the
animals who had male and female counterparts, he, mankind, alone, had no
female counterpart. Mankind was created incomplete, i.e. with no female.
Adam was not created
complete, then made incomplete by the removal of the tsela.
He was created in an unfinished condition. The removal of the
tsela was for the purpose of completing of the creation of
mankind, by the subsequent building of the woman. Consider what did God do after
He had made the woman. He presented her to Adam, just like He had just
done with all the other animals, to see what Adam would call her.
Adam recognized that she had been taken from him, bone and flesh. She
was his helper, his counterpart, his complement if you will, completing
the creation of mankind. Eve does not replace what was removed from
Adam, but completes the creation of mankind, by being man's female
counterpart.
SUMMARY
For me, the data seems abundantly clear, that God built Eve from a portion of Adam's
side, including a rib and attached flesh. The theory that Adam was a hermaphrodite is scripturally unnecessary, unwarranted and unprovable.
Inaccurate and unscientific speculations serve no reasonable purpose,
but rather, they only distract us from the scriptural data. On Mr. Knoch's part, who first proposed this theory, it
appears to be based on a premature and incorrect decision regarding the
definition of this word tsela. Mr. Priddy uses his
own unique brand of creative thinking in attempting to support this
incorrect theory, accepted unquestioningly from Mr. Knoch's earlier
writing. I'm not for a moment
casting doubt upon the Concordant Method. But that method is not helped
by this novel and unwarranted translation of the word tsela.
Truth is not aided by error.
|