Hosea 6:7

[S_Walch]

The text doesn’t mention any covenant of God with Edom, rather says that “but they are like Edom, they pass by a covenant, there they treat me underhandedly.” This would be a reference to a national character trait, not to a treaty.

Oddly enough, this is more or less how the LXX translates the verse (though taking 'adam to refer to a man in general, and not to Edom or Adam the person, and reading the singular not plural for בגד):

αυτοι δε εισιν ως ανθρωπος παραβαινων διαθηκην εκει κατεφρονησεν μου
But they are like a man passing by a covenant; there he thought lightly of me

I too don't see exactly how this is in reference to Adam the person. A question would be is how often in Scripture is Adam blamed for breaking a covenant? This may help with understanding the meaning, and therefore translation of אדם in the verse, as a reflection of Hosea's thinking (whom I believe doesn't ever talk about Adam at all, bar this possible one reference).

[Jemoh66]

This means the Masoretic pointing on this verse preserves a pronunciation that goes back 1200 years. I suspected as much, but only intuitively. It seemed to me that if כְּאָדָ֖ם didn't make sense, then the only reason to point it that way would be because of tradition, rather than out of interpretation.

Jonathan Mohler

[Galena]

A couple of points:
1. As Karl is to Strongs I am to LXX, I give it no authority at all.
2. Here is Ellcott's commentary on verse 7:
But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.
(7) Critics differ much as to the interpretation of this verse. The marginal rendering supplies the strongest meaning. God made a covenant with Adam, and promised him the blessings of Paradise on condition of obedience. He broke the condition, transgressed the covenant, and was driven from his Divine home. So Israel had violated all the terms on which the goodly land of conditional promise had been bestowed. For the other references to Adam in the Old Testament see Psalm 82:7; Job 31:33. (See Excursus.)
EXCURSUS B (Hosea 6:7).

Buhl, in Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft, Part 5, 1881, throws some light on the enigmatical phrase keAdam, by pointing out that Adam is employed in many places to express all the other races of mankind as opposed to Israel. Thus, he translates Jeremiah 32:20, “Thou who didst perform wonders in Israel, as well as in Adam.” Similarly Isaiah 43:4, on which Delitzsch remarks that those who do not belong to the chosen people are called Adam, because they are regarded as nothing but descendants of Adam. In this passage the emphatic position of the Hebrew pronoun hemmah lends significance to the contrasted term Adam. The meaning, therefore, is—the Israelites, who should be a chosen race, belong now, through their violation of the covenant, to the heathen: have become, in fact, Lo’Ammi. (Comp. Hosea 1:9.) The word “there” in the last clause may refer to some local sanctuary, notorious for idolatrous corruption. This is confirmed by the mention of localities in the next verse. We prefer, however, to understand it (with the Targum of Jonathan) as referring to the Holy Land.

[S_Walch]

1. As Karl is to Strongs I am to LXX, I give it no authority at all.

The two are hardly the same thing in this regard.

Strong's was no Hebrew Scholar, and was in effect actually making a concordance for the KJV keyed to Hebrew/Greek words of his assign, with Strong's being 2500 years removed from BH.

The LXX on the other hand is a 2000+ year old translation a lot closer to the original writings, and even closer than the Masoretic vowel points. Plus as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, the LXX should not in any way, shape or form just be ignored outright. It contains mistakes, yes, but ignoring it is folly.

For the other references to Adam in the Old Testament see Psalm 82:7; Job 31:33.

In what way are these verses references to Adam the person? Could they not easily be simply "men", "a man" or "mankind" in general?

Psalm 82:7:
However, you will die like [a man/human beings/mortals], and you will fall like one of the princes.

Job 31:33
Have I concealed my transgressions like [a man/human beings], to hide my iniquity in my bosom,

Buhl, in Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft, Part 5, 1881, throws some light on the enigmatical phrase keAdam, by pointing out that Adam is employed in many places to express all the other races of mankind as opposed to Israel. Thus, he translates Jeremiah 32:20, “Thou who didst perform wonders in Israel, as well as in Adam.” Similarly Isaiah 43:4, on which Delitzsch remarks that those who do not belong to the chosen people are called Adam, because they are regarded as nothing but descendants of Adam. In this passage the emphatic position of the Hebrew pronoun hemmah lends significance to the contrasted term Adam. The meaning, therefore, is—the Israelites, who should be a chosen race, belong now, through their violation of the covenant, to the heathen: have become, in fact, Lo’Ammi. (Comp. Hosea 1:9.) The word “there” in the last clause may refer to some local sanctuary, notorious for idolatrous corruption. This is confirmed by the mention of localities in the next verse. We prefer, however, to understand it (with the Targum of Jonathan) as referring to the Holy Land.

This, essentially, backs up the LXX as taking אדם to refer to a man/mankind (ανθρωπος can refer to mankind collectively, as well as a single man) in general, and not a direct reference to the person of Adam.

[kwrandolph]

This is what I like about these discussions—a person can put up an idea, and have it shot down.

I put up the idea that the Masoretes could have added the wrong points, that they should have added those for the country of Edom. But in watching the rest of the discussion, that idea doesn’t fly.

No, I don’t believe that the Masoretes preserved a pronunciation from Biblical times. Rather they preserved that the verse refers to the idea “as a man is dishonest”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

S_walch, Hallo, you said:
How are these referring to Adam instead of men?
Psalm 82:7:
However, you will die like [a man/human beings/mortals], and you will fall like one of the princes.

Job 31:33
Have I concealed my transgressions like [a man/human beings], to hide my iniquity in my bosom,

It's quite simple, the whole context of the psalm ends more rationally and in synchronisation with the idea of Adam being intended since everyone knows that men die, but the emphasis is referring to the status that Adam had before the fall, especially in proximity to the idea of 'gods'. The thrust of the psalm refers to the high status of individuals in the same manner that Adam had, not ordinary men. Translating men or mankind removes power from the poetry and nuance intended.

In the case of Job it is clear that Adam HID his transgression by hiding, Job's comment alludes quite clearly here to this whole idea. Once again, everyone knows that men hide their faults and sins. Have I hidden my sins as most men do somehow does not fit the thrust of Job's complaint. Rather by alluding to Adam he makes a statement that impacts without judging the rest of mankind which in Job's case is totally out of character.
Kind regards

This is what I like about these discussions—a person can put up an idea, and have it shot down.

I put up the idea that the Masoretes could have added the wrong points, that they should have added those for the country of Edom. But in watching the rest of the discussion, that idea doesn’t fly.

No, I don’t believe that the Masoretes preserved a pronunciation from Biblical times. Rather they preserved that the verse refers to the idea “as a man is dishonest”.

Karl W. Randolph.

I hope one of those bullets was not mine
Ok Karl, I am finally asking since you bring it up quite a lot, I would like to know your reasons, bulleted if possible so that I may pick on one and ask for further elaboration if needed, why do you 'appear' to be quite convinced that the Jewish scholars and scribes during the years 500 and 1000 AD are not entirely reliable? How have you come to this point in your belief? How much of the scholarly world would share this kind of reasoning?
kind regards