On the noun אִישׁ in Genesis 4:1

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

In the schematic clause in question, the term אִישׁ refers to a participant in the depicted situation, in terms of that situation. Thus this noun is carrying out one of its classic discourse functions. The usage is utterly conventional—and therefore it should occasion no surprise.

Yet for centuries, this naming statement has been an interpretive crux. As noted by the commentator Claus Wes­termann, it poses a challenge partly because אִישׁ is normally not a label for a new­born infant (1984:289–90), for whom other specific Hebrew terms exist.

However, if the speaker is not interested in her son as an infant per se, there is no reason to expect that she would label him as such.

Speiser’s rendering ‘a life’ (Anchor Bible) accords with the view of some interpreters, including the 12th-century commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra, who have pointed to a spotlight on human mortality in the previous paragraph (3:22–24). In that context, Eve as a new mother must be calling attention to the perpetuation of humankind. However, if that were truly her intent, then we might expect instead a more specific label, like נֶפֶשׁ ‘person, life’ or אָדָם ‘earthling’. Moreover, there is no indication that mortality is Eve’s own immediate concern.

Many lexicographers construe אִישׁ in this verse as specifying a male child (e.g., TDOT = Bratsiotis 1970:239). True, Eve is speaking about her son uniquely; and in unique or specific reference, the Hebrew language requires our noun’s users to match its referent’s social gender, by choosing either the masculine or feminine form. Thus Eve’s use of אִישׁ is indeed expres­sing a non-womanly referential gender (Stein 2008c; 2013a). However, that linguistically con­strained fact is only incidental.

Nothing in the context sug­gests that Eve is proffering a contrast on the basis of gender or sex. Furthermore, if Eve were seeking to specify that she did not bear a daughter ​​​​​​​(assuming she could imagine such a creature), arguably other labels would have been more con­ventional, namely בֵּן ‘son’ (Gen 4:25–26; 16:11, 15; 35:17; Exod 1:16, 22; and many others—but cf. Jer 20:15, an ostensible counter­example) or even יֶלֶד ‘boy’ (Exod 1:17–18). Hence the notion that Eve has specified a male child is hard to justify. (Cf. Septuagint ἄνθρωπον ‘human being’ and Vulgate hominem ‘human being’—rather than specifically male terms.)

Meanwhile, scholars such as Naḥmanides construe our noun as meaning ‘an adult male in potential’—a metonymic construal: the infant stands for the man. This can be considered the plain sense only if a more straightforward reading is not available (but see below). It assumes that Eve is looking beyond her imme­diate experi­ence of the miracle of birth, which generates no meaning in and of itself. Would the text’s ancient audience imagine that the prospect of her son’s adulthood is really what leaves the biggest impression on her at that moment? Unlikely.

Happily, a readily coherent and informative construal emerges upon recognizing that אִישׁ is the default term for a participant upon schematically framing a situation. Eve’s remark is indeed the epitome of framing a new situation of interest for her interlocutor (presumably her husband). In other words, she profiles the referent of אִישׁ simply as the party whose presence defines the situation. Moreover, her utterance’s verb-first syntax focuses on depicting the unprecedented situation as she sees it (in order to explain how it inspired her son’s name), rather than on her off­spring per se. (In the process, Eve piously frames the momentous situation as resulting from a collaboration with her deity.)

Certain other biblical instances of אִישׁ (not to mention the nature of its prototypical usage) confirm that this term is not age-restricted. In Num 30:4; 31:18, 35; and Judg 21:14, its feminine form אִשָּׁה denotes girls (or females too young to be married). And in Isa 66:13, אִישׁ is the label for a distressed infant in need of maternal soothing.

For a more detailed discussion of this verse, see Stein 2022:297–300.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘a male child’ is not tenable, as discussed above.

Nor is the traditional (and NRSV) rendering ‘man’; although in the era of the King James Version ‘man’ was not an age-graded term (see Stein 2022:300n60), it has since come to be restricted to adults when used in a specifying reference. Due to that age-restricted specialization, ‘man’ is nowadays a misleading rendering in this case, as discussed above.

Meanwhile, to render אִישׁ as ‘person’ (as in CJPS) carries a disadvantage: it represents Eve as focusing on that newborn participant, rather than on her main interest: the situa­tion as a whole. To that extent, ‘person’ likewise misses the mark.

The best available idiomatic English equivalent seems to be a combination of terms: ‘some­one new’. In that phrase, the indefinite pronoun serves to individuate the refer­ent, while the adjective appropriately calls attention to the remarkable situation.