In my articles on Genesis 1 & 2 I argue that the question posed by Genesis 1:26,27 is “how can “Adam – ha-adam” be both singular and plural?”. And the answer given in Genesis 2 is by the fact that “woman – ishah” is made “out of “Adam ha-adam” who is an “man – ish”. So, “Adam ha-adam” remains an “ish” but is now also an “ishah”. So now “Adam / ha-adam” is both a singularity and a plurality.

I propose that in order to understand and know how to translate “Adam / ha-adam” we need to keep in mind this singularity / duality theme and aspect to “his” nature.

Increasingly modern commentators emphasize the plurality connotations of the words “adam” and ha-adam” and so they translate both “adam” (v26) and “ha-adam” (v27) as “man / mankind”, even though one has the article “the” and the other does not. If they were consistent they would translate v26 as “mankind” and v27 as “the mankind” which does not make sense. They then even change associated pronouns from the singular to the plural in order to achieve their “plurality” definitions of “adam / ha-adam”.

Yet, I agree with them, parts of verses 26 and 27 emphasize the plurality (v26 “them”) and gendered duality (v27 “male and female them”. However, these are in the grammatical context of emphasizing the singularity (v26 “Adam” and v27 “ha-adam” “him”). By changing the singularity of “Adam / ha-adam / him” to the plural “mankind” the translators have missed what the text is doing and the questions it is raising in regards to the singularity / plurality of both man and God.

So, I am proposing that in 1:26,27 we should not translate “Adam / ha-adam” as “man / mankind”.

I wish to explore 2 further grounds from the text of Genesis for this.

In the second, I want to explore the relationship of the use of “Adam” and “ha-adam” in Genesis 4 and the related use of “Adam” in Genesis 5.

However, first, I want to explore how “Adam / ha-adam” is used throughout Genesis 2 to 3.

This has already been ably done by Scott Smith in a reply he wrote on the blog “Biblical Hermeneutics”. The blog question title was “Can Adam in Genesis 2 be interpreted as referring to “humanity” rather than a specific man?”

Here is the link to this discussion

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/33526/can-adam-in-genesis-2-be-interpreted-as-referring-to-humanity-rather-than-a-sp

In the blog Scott’s reply is the second of two replies and it starts at point 4.

Below is most of what Scott says (in the purple text, anything interspersed in black is a comment by me). There is only one major point on which I disagree and that is his point 1 in regard to Genesis 1:26 “and so is clearly intended as a collective term equal to mankind by the use of the plural to refer to the singular term” which I will discuss in a further below. However, with Scott’s analysis of Genesis 2 and following I heartily agree.

Scott says

So one must consider those possibilities when looking at the term in the early chapters of Genesis. A number of grammatical factors can come into play with respect to helping identify usage, and then context should be considered as well. To keep it simple here, there are two things to note about the use of the term ‘adam prior to chapter 2. NOTE: All English quotations are from the NKJV.

1. The first use of ‘adam in Gen 1:26 is an anarthrous (lacks the “the” article) singular² that is immediately referred to by a 3rd masculine plural verb (יִרְדּוּ֩, “let them have dominion”), and so is clearly intended there as a collective term equal to mankind by use of the plural to refer to the singular term. [One this point I do disagree with Scott (and every other translator/commentator) is when Scott concludes Genesis 1:26 ” is clearly intended as a collective term equal to mankind by the use of the plural to refer to the singular term”. I propose in my two articles on Genesis 1 & 2 that the singular and plural uses are not to be taken as the singular referring to the generic or corporate, rather they should be left as they are in order to reveal the singularity / duality reality of adam. I propose that it is this singularity duality of Adam that is the corporality of mankind, and it is the nature of this singularity duality (woman out of man) that, at one and the same time, both distinguishes Adam from the animals and renders him to be in the image of God. However, with nearly all of Scott’s following analysis I heartily agree.]
2. The second use of ‘adam in Gen 1:27 is articular (has the “the” article), so literally “the ‘adam” or better, “the man.” That reference is immediately referred to by a singular masculine pronoun (“in the image of God He created him“), and then a sexual distinction of “male and female He created them” (referring back to the prior reference to mankind). The lack of using the plural for the initial statement is significant in understanding the articular usage later.

So in the context of Genesis, the sexual distinction occurs earlier than chapter 2, since 1:27 refers to it as well, and that in the context of making an explicit singular statement to a masculine individual.

Moving to chapter 2, ‘adam is found as follows:

• v.5 anarthrous, referring generally to “man” having yet been created (i.e. no individual human was yet created). [This may be true, but I think using the terms consistently throughout the text, we should take it to be the specific named man Adam on view again. As I will show later regarding Genesis 4 &5 it is the specific named man “adam – Adam” who is the “ha-adam the adam or as Scott calls him “the man””.]
• v.7 articular, referring to the creation of “the man,” with again a singular masculine pronoun reference following that “into his nostrils” God breathed life, and “the man” (a 2nd articular reference) “became a living being.”
• v.8 articular, “the man” was put in the garden.
• v.15 articular, “the man” is declared to have been put in the garden for a purpose.
• v.16 articular, “the man” is commanded about what he can and cannot eat in the garden.
• v.18 articular, “the man” God determines was not good to be “alone,” and it is “him” who the LORD plans to make a helper for.
• v.19 articular, “the man” (twice; the NKJV has Adam, the proper name, but see below) has animals brought to him to name.
• v.20 articular, “the man” has finished naming, but “for [the] man” (this second use in the verse is an anarthrous ‘adam, but that is common when tied to a preposition, and thus becomes definite by context of referring back to the articular form before).
• v.21 articular, “the man” is put to sleep (again, “his rib” is a singular masculine reference back to “the man”).
• v.22 articular, “the man” (twice), referring to the rib fashioned into the woman who is presented to him. NOTE: She is called the אִשָּׁה (‘issah; woman) here still in contrast to the ‘adam as an individual, male being (not as some “gender-neutral being” as the OP summarized Harper’s position).
• v.23 articular, “the man” spoke about his helper.
• v.24 does not have ‘adam, but an anarthrous אִ֔ישׁ (‘ish) for “a man” in contrast to the ‘issah as a general statement about how marriage will work once children are being born.
• v.25 articular, “the man” and “his” (again, masculine singular pronoun referent) woman (‘issah, generally translated as “wife,” so NKJV).

These contrasts to the articular “the man” (‘adam) to “the woman” (‘issah) continue in chapter 3, with two anarthrous exceptions, both occurring when used as objects of a preposition (3:17, 21); yet those in context undoubtedly refer to “the man” (or maybe his name, Adam). It is not until Genesis 4:25 that another, non-prepositioned anarthrous use of ‘adam occurs, and that use is in reference to it being now considered his actual name, most likely for the first time in the text.³ [See my comments below on the parallelism in 4:1 & 25 that equates “adam – Adam” with being “ha-adam the adam/man” of Genesis 2 & 3, and as would further argue, of Gen 1:26 “adam – Adam” and 1:27 “ha-adam the adam/man”]

Why use ‘adam as a name as late as 4:25 for the first time? The simple answer is that now there were many other “men” on the earth (at least Cain and Abel), where previously in chapters 1-3, there had only been “the [one and only] man” that needed to be referenced. [It is to be noted that in Gen 4:1 & 25 we are particularly told the names of everyone involved ie. the woman is given her name “Eve”, and boys are given their names Cain, Abel and Seth, and “ha-adam” referred to in this context in 4:1 sounds like it should be a name, and is subsequently changed to one at his next mention in 4:25.] That is, the articular use of ‘adam stands in Genesis chapters 1-4, prior to 4:25, as a stand in phrase to refer to this one and only man, who does not need a name until more males are on the earth, at which time the designation for mankind (that he is the first of) also becomes his name.⁴

Conclusion

So while lexical grounds allow for “humanity” as a meaning, there is essentially no contextual grounds to consider any of the articular references of ‘adam to be anything other than the “male” prototype human that God initially created. All the pronouns reference the individual, the continued use as a comparison to the later created woman demonstrates the masculinity is inherent in the individual, and the conversion of the term to a proper name after other males come on the scene implies an original masculine reference all along.

So, my summary of what Scott (and the text of Genesis 2 to 3) is saying about the articular use of “ha-adam” is that it is being used to refer to a specific unique (one and only) man who is male as opposed to a female , and who is an “ish / man” as opposed to an “ishah / woman” ie. it means “THE man”.

Now for the second aspect, to explore the relationship of the use of “adam” and “he-adam” in Genesis 4 by comparing v1 with v25. I provide the parallel Hebrew for each verse and then I provide the associated (colour coded) English translations one above the other in order to more clearly show the parallelisms between the two verses.

Genesis 4

4 And ha-adam knew his wife (ishtow) Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain

²⁵  adam  knew his wife (ishtow) again; and she bore a son, and named him ^[m]Seth,

To be noted.

1. These are parallel passages using similar words and and order of words, though they are not identical in every aspect. Verse 1 is in respect to the birth of Cain. Verse 25 is in respect to the birth of Seth. In both we have “knew”, “his wife” and “she bore”.

2. In verse 1 it is “ha-adam” and verse 25 it is “adam”.

Every translation that I checked (Vulgate, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Youngs) translated v25 “adam” as the name Adam. So, there is seeming universal agreement that in 4:25 “adam” means “Adam”.

These two parallel verses1 & 25, each using the different form “ha-adam” and “adam”, seems to be the transition between the two terms, to the latter form “adam” being the personal name “Adam”.

In this regard, it is to be noted that v1 use of “ha-adam” is in the context of the use of the the name “Eve” being used of the woman (ishah).

4 And ha-adam knew his wife (ishtow) Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain

There is no need for the text to include the woman’s name Eve other than to emphasize that it is of specific named persons the verse is speaking of. The implication is that “ha-adam” is not just “the man” but it is also his name, even though the Hebrew language convention is not to have “the” as part of a name. This is then confirmed in the next mention of “adam” v25 when “ha-adam” is replaced by “adam / Adam”.

The whole import of this parallel use of “adam / ha-adam” in verses 1 & 25 is that “the adam” IS “Adam”.

And the implication is that “adam / Adam” IS “ha-adam / the adam” of Genesis 2 & 3.

That is, “ha-adam / the adam” of Genesis 2 & 3 is none other than Adam.

So, when one thinks of “ha-adam / the adam” then one should do so recognising it is “adam / Adam” that is being spoken of. This is in contra-disctinction to some modern commentators who disparage the apostle Paul when in 1 Tim 2: 13-14 he refers to Genesis 1-3 speaking of Adam and Eve. Clearly, if these commentators believe that the text of Genesis 1 to 3, on its own terms as understood by them, does not allow us to acknowledge the text is truly about the real and unique persons Adam and Eve, then their understanding of the text is not in accordance with that of Paul. It should not be our aim to understand the text independently of Paul, but to seek to understand it as he did. It is in this regard, that I have written the first 2 articles on Genesis 1 & 2 seeking to understand how Paul understands Genesis 1 & 2 in view of his statement in 1 Cor 11:7 “man (and presumably not woman) is the image ….. of God”.

Conversely, when one thinks of “adam / Adam” then one should do so recognising that it is “ha-adam / the adam” of Genesis 2 & 3 that is being referred to.

3. There is no indication in these verses (4:1,25) that “adam” nor “ha-adam” is referring to generic or corporate mankind. They are about the equivalent actions of an individual, of the same individual. The whole import is that it is a specific, unique individual that is spoken of. And as Scott Smith has pointed out in his article, “ha-adam” in chapters 2 & 3 refers to “this one and only man”.

4. As the text then moves on, in chapter 5, we are given the specific family history of this man Adam. We have just been told in 4:1,25 that “the adam” is in fact “adam / Adam”. And here we are being given his (Adam’s) family history and line.

Yet, the text has interposed in this sentence about the personal historical genealogy of the man Adam, a repetition of Genesis 1:26,27.

In 5:1 “adam” is referred to twice, first in relation to the genealogy and second in relation to the re-iteration of the creation account of 1:26. There is clearly an equating of the two things by which we are being told that the one spoken of in regard to creation “adam” is in fact the very same individual named “Adam” that is mentioned in the genealogy. It is the same unique individual person that we are being told about in both cases, and this is re-enforced further by the use of pronoun “him” in “in the likeness of God He made him” in 5:1. The text could not be stronger in its emphasis that it is “Adam” who is made in the likeness of God. And as we saw earlier, 4:1 & 25 tells us that it is Adam who is the man/adam spoken of throughout Genesis 2 & 3. Also, at the beginning of 2 & 3 we have mentioned “adam” in that “and adam (there was) not to culitivate the ground”. If 4:1 is correct in equating and identifying “ha-adam” as “adam – Adam” then we should also read 2:5 as referring to Adam. Similarly, back in Genesis 1:26 it is Adam who is the “adam” of v26 who is “the adam/man” of verse 27.

Since, we have here in 5:1, in this defining the one created as the person Adam, a repetition of 1:26, and so I propose that thus we have here a defining of what is meant in 1:26 by “adam”.

Yet, a number of translators cannot help themselves but take every opportunity they can grasp to change “adam – Adam” who we have been told in Genesis 4 is “ha-adam / the adam” to a generic or corporate “man – mankind”. They even do this in the very passages that are telling us that “adam – Adam” is “ha-adam / the adam”.

So, the NIV

5 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind “adam – Adam” , he made them in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “adam – Adam”^[a] when they were created.

They do this to match their translations of Gen 1:26

so, the NIV

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make mankind (adam – Adam) in our image, in our likeness,

When we are reading any text and we come across the use of a word that may be indeterminate from its immediate context, what we usually do is to look further in the book to see if there is a context in which its definition is clearer or even better when its definition is purposely given. This is exactly what Genesis 4:1,25 combined with Genesis 5:1 in relation to the Hebrew “adam” does. It defines for us “adam” as “Adam” and it tells us that “ha-adam” is “the (one and only) adam”. In 1:26 if we are unsure how it is being used, whether it is referring to an individual or it is a generic/corporate use, then when we come to the combined 4:1,25 and 5:1 we should be in no doubt. In these latter passages we are being emphaticially told the term “adam” is the name of the man “Adam”. To then, in this very passage 5:1 (and hence also in 1:26) to translate “adam” as “mankind” seems to be unjustified.

The point of Genesis 1:26,27 and Genesis 2 is to tell us about Adam and who we are as a result of who he is. It is to tell us about the true nature of our corporality. Adam is the one who is like God, in that he is both a singularity and a gendered duality. The plurality and gendered duality of mankind is not one of independently created men and women. The man was not created from the dust of the ground along with the woman being created from a separate piece of the dust of the ground. If so, they would just be like the animals and not like God. Rather, the corporality and plurality of mankind is through the gendered duality of man and woman that has its source in a singularity, in its creation from a single piece of dust. It is thus that Genesis 1:26 and 2:5 “adam” is Adam just as 4:25 is Adam.