Abnormal Interests

To show that Hebrew myn may indeed be a technical term referring to classifications of plants and animals will take a little more digging. If you don't want to plow through a lot of the gory details in strange languages skip down to where I have highlighted "Now that all that is behind us, what does it mean?" for a discussion of this issue and the thrilling conclusion (Just in case you can't remember the one I already gave away.).

The Hebrew root מין (myn) occurs 36 times in the Hebrew Bible. Normally that would be more the enough occurrences to establish the range of meaning from context. Of these, 22 are in the masculine and it is these masculine forms that are the focus of this post. The problem is, of the masculine forms, eight of these occurrences are in formulaic phrases in Genesis 1; six are in similar phrases in the Genesis 6 and 7 flood story; eight are in descriptions of unclean animals. The feminine forms are all in the context of the appearance of God or idolatrous behavior (the idols themselves). When it comes to the masculine forms, only Ezekiel 47:10 is in a context that is not clearly formulaic. What this means is that there are only three, perhaps four, different contexts out of which to develop an understanding of the meaning of the word. That isn't much to work with. But here goes.

In masculine forms (always with the preposition ל[l] and appropriate pronoun suffixes) myn refers to:

• plants in general (Gen 1:11, 12); birds in general (Gen 1:21, 6:20, 7:14);
• specific birds (ostrich, raven, sea gull, etc.) (Lev 11:14, 15, 16, 19, Dt 14:13, 14, 15, 18, [some of the Dt passages are identical with the Lev passages];
• fish (Gen 1:21 [including sea monsters], Ez 47:10);
• animals in general (Gen 1:24, 6:20, 7:14, likely the first occurrence in Gen 6:20 also);
• specific animals (cattle, weasel, mouse, great lizard) (Gen 7:14, Lev 11:29];
• creeping things (Gen 1:25, 6:20, 7:14);
• specific creeping things (locust, bald locust) (Lev 11:22 [twice]).

Note for further reference: "specific" birds occur only on Lev. and Dt. "Specific animals" also tend to be in Lev. "Creeping things may not have been thought of as animals at all.

Of the ten times the root occurs in the feminine, five of the times relates to graven images (Ex 20:4, Dt 4:16, 23, 25, 5:8). The remaining five occurrences refer to appearances of God or his numinous or lack of same (Dt 4:12, 15 ["saw no form" in the fire], Job 4:16 ["It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance. A 'form' was before my eyes . . ."], Nu 12:18 ["the form of the Lord"] and Ps 17:15 ["and I shall be satisfied beholding your form."].

The etymology of the root is not clear. It does occur in Aramaic and Syriac but in largely Biblical contexts. It also occurs in Rabbinic literature where there are some interesting examples. "Cucumbers and melopepons are considered the same myn (T'rumoth II.6.)." "You must not separate T'rumah (a Heave Offering) from one myn to redeem fruits of another myn. (T'rumoth II.4). The myn of seeds is often referenced in Rabbinic literature. But these are all late when compared with the Biblical text. There may be an Arabic cognate but it seems to have a quite different range of meaning: "split", particularly splitting the ground when plowing. But, of course, it is the division between myn groups that may provide the origin of the word, pure speculation on my part. Also, the root may occur in a personal name at Ugarit (2117:50) but this is just a list of names. No help from Ugaritic.

Boy, this sure feels like graduate school. However, I don't feel forty years younger. It isn't like riding a bicycle; you do forget.

I'll get back to the Rabbinic material in a minute. I now want to look at how the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) translated the Hebrew into Greek. The reason I like to look at the LXX is that it provides a data point on how scholars in the mid 3rd century BCE understood the Hebrew. The LXX should never be taken as "gospel" but its translators were much closer to the original Hebrew than we are. Of course, they were also extremely Hellenized. In addition, there are LXX manuscripts that are, except for the Dead Sea Scrolls, older than any Hebrew manuscripts. Care is of the essence. When the New Testament authors quote the "Old Testament" they often, but not always, seem to be quoting the LXX. The LXX translates all the occurrences of myn in Genesis with the Greek word γένος. This word, which is cognate with our "genus," has a range of meaning from descendant, to family, to class or kind. We not only have "genus," we also have "genealogy." Sometimes it even means descendant from a common ancestor. (Josephus, Antiquities 15:3:1)." But one should not make too much of this. So, in every case in Genesis, whether it is the Genesis 1 creation story or the flood story, the LXX translates myn, γένος. Note: myn does not occur in the Genesis 2 creation story. The LXX translators of Leviticus and Deuteronomy consistently translate myn in the masculine with őμοια from őμοις. Őμοις has the semantic range from "like" to "similar" to "of the same nature." The complete phrase, τα őμοια αΰτή (This symbol set is a little limited. I can't figure out how to do breathing marks and some other diacritical marks are not right) means something close to "the likes of it (them)." Yes, I'm straining a bit to avoid a pre-mature conclusion.

Why did the LXX translators prefer one translation for Genesis and another for Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I'll tell you. I do not know. Perhaps there were different translators.

Ezekiel 47:10 provides an abnormally interesting case. Here the LXX paraphrases the Hebrew, "Its fish will be of a great many (kinds), like the fish of the (Great) Sea"

I want to look closer at T'rumoth II.6 and then at the Aramaic Targum Onkelos translations. A passage in Babylonian Talmud Seder Zera'im, T'rumoth II, Mishnah 6 reads in translation "Cucumbers and melopepons [a kind of pumpkin, fruit squash or gourd] are considered the same myn" At least it is the same myn for T'rumah purposes. This is part of an extended commentary on Leviticus 22. Leviticus 22 is a speech of Yahweh to Moses, concerning how the "holy things" offered are to be treated. T'rumoth II.6 is intended to clarify the details and "build a fence around" Lev 22. The passage appears to imply a rather weak definition of myn. Cucumbers and melopepons of some kind are considered the same myn. Two problems arise if one wants to claim that T'rumoth II.6 shows that myn has a loss, non-technical definition. First, the context involves a discussion of what counts as repayment. It makes clear that "better kinds" are allowed be used to repay "lesser kinds" but not the other way around. In this context, cucumbers and nelopepons are said to be equal kinds. The second problem is that Rabbi Judah, in the next sentence, indicates that Cucumbers and melopepons are "two kinds". It does appear to me that the Rabbis were at least a little vague on what constituted a kind. However, not too much weight can be put on a passage like T'rumoth II.6 however tempting it may be.

I have not done an exhaustive review of the Biblical passages in Targum Onkelos but I have looked at a few representative passages. Targum Onkelos is a translation (some would say paraphrase) of the Pentateuch (Torah) into Aramaic. It was finalized sometime in the fifth century CE but much of it is older. In Genesis 1:11 lmynw is translated lznyh. The Aramaic root is zn' or just zn. This is a fairly broad term with a range of meaning from quality to sort. Note for example, B'rakboth 32 "filled stomachs are a bad sort (zn')". While a late passage, it is instructive with regard to the range of meaning of zn'. The same Aramaic root is used in all the passages in Genesis 1 where myn appears. The Targum for Genesis 6 and 7 also uses the same root. In Leviticus, the Targum used the same root. This is interesting in the light of the fact that the LXX translators used a different Greek work in Leviticus than they used in Genesis. Its not that Aramaic lacked have the Semitic root myn. They had it and they used it. For example, Targum Jerusalem on Lev 11:4 says, "the myn' to which its mother belongs" referring to a mule and "all of them are considered the same 'myn, regardless of their parentage." Targum Jerusalem is really a commentary on Targum Onkelos.

To complete the record, Jerome choose the Latin "genus" with proper accommodation for gender and number, etc. to translate Hebrew lmyn in all but three places. In those places where he used "species." Those three places are instructive for what they don't tell us as much as for what the do. In Gen 1:25 the Vulgate uses species for the beasts of the earth and genere for reptiles. In Gen 1:21 it uses species for fish and sea monsters, but genus for winged birds. In Ez 14:10 the Vulgate uses species. It's hard to know what to make of this. There is a tendency to use genus for specific animal kinds and species for groups of kinds. But I'd hate to have to defend this. Note that with regard to winged birds genus is used, also with regard to plants.

Now, this is where I am supposed to review all the secondary literature. But this is a blog post and not a peer reviewed paper. I did take a quick look at what was out there and didn't find much useful. The first two pages of Google listings were all from conservative religious or creationist sites. If anyone knows of good, peer reviewed, material on this subject, something published in JBL, Journal of Semitic Studies, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenshaft(No not that one, I'm not ready to relearn German. Yes, Prof. Knierim, I was never very good at your native language.) or the like, let me know. I'll probably be plagued by this and dig into it myself.

Now that all that is behind us, what does it mean?

First, let me summarize the material that most rational readers skipped. While the root myn with the preposition l occurs some 22 times in the masculine with a meaning in the general range of "kinds," the limited number of contexts make it difficult to arrive at a firm definition from context. With the single exception of Ez 47:10), all occurrences are in the creation, flood or clean/unclean food context. There is little or no help from cognate languages like Arabic, Aramaic, or Ugaritic. The ancient translations are not very helpful either: LXX uses γένος in Genesis and őμοις in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Targum Onkelos uses the Aramaic root is zn' consistently. Aramaic zn' should be understood more broadly than would be required if it was used only in the limited biological since. The Vulgate uses genus most often but uses species three times. There is some small evidence that some Rabbis, but not all, used the Hebrew root to cover more than a single plant (fruit) type but only in a very specific ritual context.

Ezekiel 47:10 is instructive because it is not in the creation, the flood, or the clean/unclean animal contexts. Ezekiel 47:10 involves a promise to provide a great many fish, of many varieties. This, if it were all we had, would be a very casual use of myn, not in any way a technical term. As we say, "There are many fish in the sea."

But I think the Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy occurrences tell a somewhat different story. These books mention individual animal populations as belonging to various myn categories: raven (Lev. 11:15), nighthawk (Lev. 11:16) ostrich (ib), mouse (Lev 11:29), bald locust (Lev 11:22) and so on. The Genesis groupings are larger: plants (Gen 1:11), birds (Gen 6:12), animals (ib) and so further. But individual animal populations are clearly implied. These things are important, at least in Leviticus, not because of the act of creation of all the plants and animals but because they each fall into ritually clean and unclean categories. It is important, for ritual purity, to know which is which and that all similar ones should be treaded in the same way. The texts tell us that the divisions of all living things, so important to and sustenance ritual life, are rooted in creation and sustained through the flood. In addition, the limited number of contexts provide some support to the idea that the root myn in the masculine is a technical term.

The "preponderance of the evidence" indicates that the authors of Genesis and Leviticus, perhaps only the Priestly authors (but that is for another post) did indeed use the root myn as a technical term relating to plant and animal types. On the other hand, this root has no relationship to any modern scientific definition of "species."

References:

Boyd, R, & Silk, J. B., How Humans Evolved, 3rd edition, W. W. Norton and Company, 2003

Brown, F; Driver, S. R.; & Briggs, C, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, The Clarendon Press, 1959

Glare, P.G.W., Oxford Latin Dictionary, The Clarendon Press, 1985

Gordon, C., Ugaritic Textbook, Analecta Orientalia 38, Pontificium Inst. Biblicum, 1965

Jastrow, M., Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950

Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R, Greek-English Lexicon with Supplement, 9th edition, The Clarendon Press, 1968

Mandelkern, S., Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae Atque Chaldaicae, Schocken Publishing House, LTD, 1967

Plus the texts of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, the Vulgate, Targum Onkelos and the Babylonian Talmud