I'm going to have some thoughts on your approach here, which probably depends on your intended audience, but you ran into one of my minor annoyances: use of the word “helpmeet,” which I consider to have been possibly a translation error, but more likely a printer’s error. In your quote, you correctly separated the words: “ will make him an help meet for him” but in your post, you pushed them together as people often do (although the KJV translation here does not).
The Hebrew is עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ, which literally means "a helper" (who is) "appropriate for/equal to/corresponds to him." An old way to say that latter bit was "meet for him." But that's archaic, and I expect that some printer, not recognizing the word, smushed it together with the previous word and came up with "helpmeet" which distorts what the verse says. The impression I get from your writing is that it calls for her to be subordinate, which is pretty much exactly opposite of what the Hebrew says.
Well, it depends on what you mean by 'it'. As is pointed out below, in the NT the husband wife relationship is very explicitly laid out in the area of subordination/subjection.
Now as far as 'help meet for him' transforming into 'helpmeet' I think that that is a transition from the initial phrase into a noun. The 'track that a train runs on' becomes a 'train track', etc.
As far as it being an English translation problem, however, you also have the French:
L'Éternel Dieu dit: Il n'est pas bon que l'homme soit seul; je lui ferai une aide semblable à lui.
and the German:
Gen 2:18 Und Gott der HERR sprach: Es ist nicht gut, daß der Mensch allein sei; ich will ihm eine Gehilfin machen, die um ihn sei.
and the literal:
And Jehovah God saith, 'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper—as his counterpart.'
Is there a translation in these languages that you prefer? Not for the word, for the whole passage?
'train track' includes the words you mentioned. It is a noun phrase shorted into a shorter version of itself. But the original phrase in "a help meet for him" is properly divided into "a help" and "meet for him." Taking one word from each part changes the meaning from one of fitness (she is appropriate to him) to a gift (she is a 'helpmeet' and he is going to receive it).
As for your suggested translations, the French captures some of the original. The French semblable à lui indicates that she is comparable to him, but naturally loses the "opposed to" meaning. The German doesn't even get that much. But that's not uncommon with translations, especially of words and phrases that imply multiple things.
The etymology at https://www.etymonline.com/word/helpmeet makes this clear (and if I had thought to look it up first, I would not have had to rely on speculation):
"See help (n.) + meet (adj.) "proper, appropriate," also "fit (to do something)." By 1670s it was hyphenated, help-meet, and mistaken for a modified noun."
Also, if you look Google "helpmate" you see it as "late 17th century (as helpmeet ): from an erroneous reading of Gen. 2:18, 20, where Adam's future wife is described as ‘an help meet for him’ (i.e. a suitable helper for him). The variant helpmate came into use in the early 18th century."
And back at the OED etymology:
The Hebrew 'ezer kenegdo (King James Version "help meet") is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means "alongside him," "opposite him," "a counterpart to him." "Help" is too weak because it suggests a mere auxiliary function, whereas 'ezer elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.
So I am not as clever as I thought; this was known and I hadn't bothered doing my research :)
A better translation might be, "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a suitable companion."
The word 'companion' is used elsewhere. I'm not sure how you would make a noun out of it. And it doesn't seem to get at any parts of what the words mean, so I'm not sure how it would help. Where is the sense of 'active intervention on behalf' in 'companion'? When Adam was naming the animals none of them were suitable... in what sense? The obvious senses are sexual and mental.
Again, the NT fills in what the OT only implies: that the wife is to be subordinate to the man, and to help him carry out the task that he was given. The relationship is much, much deeper than that, but it is not shallower.
Yes, the word 'companion' is used elsewhere. There is no perfect translation for 'ezer' in any language I know that completely captures its meaning. That's why, when I want to know what the Bible actually says, I don't rely on a translation; I go to the original Hebrew.
The OT does not imply that the wife is to be subordinate; in fact, this passage makes that clear. The word 'knegdo' has a meaning of correspondence, not inferiority. As Mathhew Henry wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry#:~:text=The%20woman%20was%20made%20of,his%20heart%20to%20be%20beloved.), "The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved."
Well, no one denies that she is 'comparable' to him... not just basic biology but for lots of reasons.
As for Matthew Henry's poetical take on Eve's creation... yes, but... I'm afraid.. .he had a bit more to say than that:
(3.) A suitable wife is a help-meet, and is from the Lord. The relation is then likely to be comfortable when meetness directs and determines the choice, and mutual helpfulness is the constant care and endeavour
1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1Ti 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1Co 11:8, 1Co 11:9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands.
I. The duty prescribed to wives is submission to their husbands in the Lord (Eph 5:22), which submission includes the honouring and obeying of them, and that from a principle of love to them. They must do this in compliance with God's authority, who has commanded it, which is doing it as unto the Lord; or it may be understood by way of similitude and likeness, so that the sense may be, “as, being devoted to God, you submit yourselves unto him.” From the former sense we may learn that by a conscientious discharge of the duties we owe to our fellow-creatures we obey and please God himself; and, from the latter, that God not only requires and insists on those duties which immediately respect himself, but such as respect our neighbours too. The apostle assigns the reason of this submission from wives: For the husband is the head of the wife, Eph 5:23. The metaphor is taken from the head in the natural body, which, being the seat of reason, of wisdom, and of knowledge, and the fountain of sense and motion, is more excellent than the rest of the body. God has given the man the pre-eminence and a right to direct and govern by creation, and in that original law of the relation, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Whatever there is of uneasiness in this, it is an effect of sin coming into the world. Generally, too, the man has (what he ought to have) a superiority in wisdom and knowledge. He is therefore the head, even as Christ is the head of the church. There is a resemblance of Christ's authority over the church in that superiority and headship which God has appointed to the husband. The apostle adds, and he is the Saviour of the body. Christ's authority is exercised over the church for the saving of her from evil, and the supplying of her with every thing good for her. In like manner should the husband be employed for the protection and comfort of his spouse; and therefore she should the more cheerfully submit herself unto him. So it follows, Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ (Eph 5:24), with cheerfulness, with fidelity, with humility, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing - in every thing to which their authority justly extends itself, in every thing lawful and consistent with duty to God.
Again, the issue for Christians is that the NT gives an authoritative interpretation of the OT... thus no amount of working with the words will overcome that.
While researching my next post on the subject, I found another Matthew Henry quote:
II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris - at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.
>>o a gift (she is a 'helpmeet' and he is going to receive it).
Ummm... yes. There are several verses that seem to back that meaning up:
Gen 34:8 And Hamor spoke with them, saying 'The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter. I pray you give her unto him to wife.
Gen 34:21 'These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for, behold, the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
Jer 29:6 take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply ye there, and be not diminished.
Jdg 1:12 And Caleb said: 'He that smiteth Kiriath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.'
Do you know of any passage that speaks of giving a son to his wife?
And to ask again, do you know a good English translation that you trust for this entire passage?
I'm going to have some thoughts on your approach here, which probably depends on your intended audience, but you ran into one of my minor annoyances: use of the word “helpmeet,” which I consider to have been possibly a translation error, but more likely a printer’s error. In your quote, you correctly separated the words: “ will make him an help meet for him” but in your post, you pushed them together as people often do (although the KJV translation here does not).
The Hebrew is עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ, which literally means "a helper" (who is) "appropriate for/equal to/corresponds to him." An old way to say that latter bit was "meet for him." But that's archaic, and I expect that some printer, not recognizing the word, smushed it together with the previous word and came up with "helpmeet" which distorts what the verse says. The impression I get from your writing is that it calls for her to be subordinate, which is pretty much exactly opposite of what the Hebrew says.
Well, it depends on what you mean by 'it'. As is pointed out below, in the NT the husband wife relationship is very explicitly laid out in the area of subordination/subjection.
Now as far as 'help meet for him' transforming into 'helpmeet' I think that that is a transition from the initial phrase into a noun. The 'track that a train runs on' becomes a 'train track', etc.
As far as it being an English translation problem, however, you also have the French:
L'Éternel Dieu dit: Il n'est pas bon que l'homme soit seul; je lui ferai une aide semblable à lui.
and the German:
Gen 2:18 Und Gott der HERR sprach: Es ist nicht gut, daß der Mensch allein sei; ich will ihm eine Gehilfin machen, die um ihn sei.
and the literal:
And Jehovah God saith, 'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper—as his counterpart.'
Is there a translation in these languages that you prefer? Not for the word, for the whole passage?
'train track' includes the words you mentioned. It is a noun phrase shorted into a shorter version of itself. But the original phrase in "a help meet for him" is properly divided into "a help" and "meet for him." Taking one word from each part changes the meaning from one of fitness (she is appropriate to him) to a gift (she is a 'helpmeet' and he is going to receive it).
As for your suggested translations, the French captures some of the original. The French semblable à lui indicates that she is comparable to him, but naturally loses the "opposed to" meaning. The German doesn't even get that much. But that's not uncommon with translations, especially of words and phrases that imply multiple things.
The etymology at https://www.etymonline.com/word/helpmeet makes this clear (and if I had thought to look it up first, I would not have had to rely on speculation):
"See help (n.) + meet (adj.) "proper, appropriate," also "fit (to do something)." By 1670s it was hyphenated, help-meet, and mistaken for a modified noun."
Also, if you look Google "helpmate" you see it as "late 17th century (as helpmeet ): from an erroneous reading of Gen. 2:18, 20, where Adam's future wife is described as ‘an help meet for him’ (i.e. a suitable helper for him). The variant helpmate came into use in the early 18th century."
And back at the OED etymology:
The Hebrew 'ezer kenegdo (King James Version "help meet") is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means "alongside him," "opposite him," "a counterpart to him." "Help" is too weak because it suggests a mere auxiliary function, whereas 'ezer elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.
So I am not as clever as I thought; this was known and I hadn't bothered doing my research :)
A better translation might be, "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a suitable companion."
The word 'companion' is used elsewhere. I'm not sure how you would make a noun out of it. And it doesn't seem to get at any parts of what the words mean, so I'm not sure how it would help. Where is the sense of 'active intervention on behalf' in 'companion'? When Adam was naming the animals none of them were suitable... in what sense? The obvious senses are sexual and mental.
Again, the NT fills in what the OT only implies: that the wife is to be subordinate to the man, and to help him carry out the task that he was given. The relationship is much, much deeper than that, but it is not shallower.
Yes, the word 'companion' is used elsewhere. There is no perfect translation for 'ezer' in any language I know that completely captures its meaning. That's why, when I want to know what the Bible actually says, I don't rely on a translation; I go to the original Hebrew.
The OT does not imply that the wife is to be subordinate; in fact, this passage makes that clear. The word 'knegdo' has a meaning of correspondence, not inferiority. As Mathhew Henry wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry#:~:text=The%20woman%20was%20made%20of,his%20heart%20to%20be%20beloved.), "The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved."
And k'neged in general is indicative of something being comparable to something else, not subordinate. https://www.facebook.com/56347292809/posts/the-hebrew-phrase-middah-keneged-middah-means-measure-for-measure-referring-to-a/10151716242052810/
Well, no one denies that she is 'comparable' to him... not just basic biology but for lots of reasons.
As for Matthew Henry's poetical take on Eve's creation... yes, but... I'm afraid.. .he had a bit more to say than that:
(3.) A suitable wife is a help-meet, and is from the Lord. The relation is then likely to be comfortable when meetness directs and determines the choice, and mutual helpfulness is the constant care and endeavour
1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1Ti 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1Co 11:8, 1Co 11:9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands.
I. The duty prescribed to wives is submission to their husbands in the Lord (Eph 5:22), which submission includes the honouring and obeying of them, and that from a principle of love to them. They must do this in compliance with God's authority, who has commanded it, which is doing it as unto the Lord; or it may be understood by way of similitude and likeness, so that the sense may be, “as, being devoted to God, you submit yourselves unto him.” From the former sense we may learn that by a conscientious discharge of the duties we owe to our fellow-creatures we obey and please God himself; and, from the latter, that God not only requires and insists on those duties which immediately respect himself, but such as respect our neighbours too. The apostle assigns the reason of this submission from wives: For the husband is the head of the wife, Eph 5:23. The metaphor is taken from the head in the natural body, which, being the seat of reason, of wisdom, and of knowledge, and the fountain of sense and motion, is more excellent than the rest of the body. God has given the man the pre-eminence and a right to direct and govern by creation, and in that original law of the relation, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Whatever there is of uneasiness in this, it is an effect of sin coming into the world. Generally, too, the man has (what he ought to have) a superiority in wisdom and knowledge. He is therefore the head, even as Christ is the head of the church. There is a resemblance of Christ's authority over the church in that superiority and headship which God has appointed to the husband. The apostle adds, and he is the Saviour of the body. Christ's authority is exercised over the church for the saving of her from evil, and the supplying of her with every thing good for her. In like manner should the husband be employed for the protection and comfort of his spouse; and therefore she should the more cheerfully submit herself unto him. So it follows, Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ (Eph 5:24), with cheerfulness, with fidelity, with humility, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing - in every thing to which their authority justly extends itself, in every thing lawful and consistent with duty to God.
Again, the issue for Christians is that the NT gives an authoritative interpretation of the OT... thus no amount of working with the words will overcome that.
While researching my next post on the subject, I found another Matthew Henry quote:
II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris - at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.
(Commenting on Genesis 3:16)
>>o a gift (she is a 'helpmeet' and he is going to receive it).
Ummm... yes. There are several verses that seem to back that meaning up:
Gen 34:8 And Hamor spoke with them, saying 'The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter. I pray you give her unto him to wife.
Gen 34:21 'These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for, behold, the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
Jer 29:6 take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply ye there, and be not diminished.
Jdg 1:12 And Caleb said: 'He that smiteth Kiriath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife.'
Do you know of any passage that speaks of giving a son to his wife?
And to ask again, do you know a good English translation that you trust for this entire passage?