Re: The puzzle of Adam

Peter - Comments are interspersed below. For some reason your text doesn't
seem to have the usual markers in this reply so my comments are in braces
{ }.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@dplanet.ch>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 12:46 AM
Subject: The puzzle of Adam
..................................................

The stories of creation, of Eden, of Noah's flood, and of the tower of
Babel, as well as the genealogies, are written in a way which seems to
require at least some historical background, in the sense of having a
basis in facts. That doesn't necessarily mean that every word has to be
taken "literally" (if this is meant to exclude metaphors,
anthropomorphisms, etc.). But it does exclude the view that Gen.1-11 is
or contains (broken) myth, without any basis in (non-theological) fact.
The concept of "broken myth" denotes the adaptation of pagan myths by
way of changing the theology from polytheism to monotheism. My view does
not exclude divine miracles, either, where there is sufficient textual
evidence for their occurrence. But I refuse to use miracles as a gimmick
to evade conflicts within the text or between the text and what we know
from science.

    {One would expect stories about creation & primordial history to be put
in terms that made sense for people of the cultures, places &c in which they
were written. Thus it's no surprise that the early chapters of Genesis are
set in Mesopotamian locales & that they apparently make use of traditions
from earlier cultures
in those areas, traditions that retain some accurate historical detail
(names &c). If this is what you mean by "historical background," fine. But
there's no reason to insist that that must mean anything like a connected
historical account.
    These early chapters of Genesis do contain broken myth, in Brevard
Childs' sense, though not to the exclusion of historical details.}

Let me start with Eden. In Gen.2:5-15, an effort is made to precisely
specify where Eden was located, namely in what is now southern Iraq,
which between about 4500 and 2500 BC was Sumer. Now, such a precise
geographical indication, as given by the four named rivers, would not
make any sense at all in a text meant to convey strictly nothing but
theological, psychological, or philosophical ideas. It is not the stuff
of myths, nor of a theological pamphlet. By the way, the text does not
equate the "garden planted by the LORD God" with Eden, but locates the
garden either in the eastern part of Eden or east of Eden (Gen.2:8,
"gan-b@^eden miqerem"). Thus, the story of Adam and Eve and their fall
is explicitely placed in a geographically restricted area partially
known to the original readers of the text (in Moses' time or up to 2000
years earlier, when writing first appeared in Sumer).

Similarly, through the remarks made in passing about some individuals
mentioned in Gen.4-5, the time-frame of these events is restricted to a
period of a few thousand years BC, in the upper Neolithic.

Now evidently, if Gen.2 were a creation story, these indications
(apparently meant to be historical) would be in severe conflict with
what we know about the origin of the first humans. In Gen.1, we
obviously do have a creation story. Gen.1:1-2:4 uses the verb "bara'",
which specifically designates divine creation out of nothing, a few
times, as well as other expressions for divine (possibly mediate)
action. As appropriate for a creation story, the geographical focus of
Gen.1:2-2:4 clearly is the whole earth, without any regional restriction
on it.

In contrast, the text of Gen.2:5-25 never uses "bara'" and is clearly
restricted to a region and time which do not fit with what we know about
the origin of the first humans. The "puzzle of Adam", therefore, cannot
be solved while believing Gen.2 to be a creation story.

    {Gen.2:4a-25 is not a "bara story" or a story of cosmic origins. But
this does not mean that it is not a "creation story" in the sense of an
account of the origins of humanity and elements of the world important to
humanity. Plenty of accounts that we call "creation stories" in other
cultures are limited in this way. It is quite natural for people to seek
first some understanding of themselves and only gradually expand their view
to questions about the larger cosmic order.

    Gen.2:4a-25 is a story of the origin of the first human beings and of
other animals. There is simply no suggestion that there are any other
humans or humans /in posse/ outside the boundaries of Eden when the events
described here takes place. Furthermore, the fact that the origins of both
Adam and Eve are described in ways very different from the normal way in
which human beings come into the world argues against the idea that at the
same time there are already other creatures who are the same biologically as
this man & woman and are reproducing in the ordinary manner.

    It seems to me that the "severe conflict" that you are trying to avoid
by your argument is a result of your thinking that the historical &
geographical details in early Genesis require those texts to be "historical
accounts" in some approximation to the modern sense of the term. As I said
above, this is just not necessary.

    & lest there be confusion, I should add that by speaking of these texts
as "stories" and referring to their cultural conditioning &c, I am
definitely not denying that they are authoritative theological texts.}

This is the crucial point, in my opinion, - the key for a possible
solution to the puzzle of Adam.

The erroneous traditional interpretation of Gen.2 as a creation story
has necessarily led to the observation that the "two creation stories"
are in conflict with each other, and, consequently, at least one of them
cannot describe historical facts. The only things that are therefore now
usually read from Gen.1-2 are theological (and psychological) truths.
Any satisfactory solution to the "puzzle of Adam" is in this way
excluded a priori.

{You need to define more precisely what "the puzzle of Adam" is. If it's
the question of when and where the first human creatures appeared, I don't
think you're going to get much help from Genesis. If it's questions about
what it means for us to be creatures of God and why all people are sinners,
then that is precisely a theological question.}

Now, if Adam lived sometime in the late Neolithic in Sumer (the town of
Eridu would about correspond to the region of Eden), not all humans
living today can be his descendents (although an argument has recently
been made to the effect that all - except possibly some tribes
completely isolated for the last 8000 years - might have some of his genes).

But how does this fit with the doctrin of original sin and its
inheritance? I don't believe the Bible teaches this doctrine. What it
does teach is that all humans are sinners and need to be reconciled to
God by way of the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the
cross. This includes all humans created in God's image according to
Gen.1:27.

God's image is what characterizes humans and distinguishes them from
animals. According to archeological finds, specific human
characteristics must be attributed to hominins at least as far back as
30,000 years ago, if not much earlier. Therefore, there have been
genuine humans much earlier than Adam, as well as contemporaries of his,
many of whom lived far away from Sumer.

{But Gen.2:4a-25 says nothing at all about humanity being created in the
image of God. That is an important theological concept at a higher level,
but should not be used to interpret the stories of the creation (yes!) and
sin of humanity in Gen.2 & 3.}

Does Paul, in Rom.5:12, claim that sin came into humanity by Adam's
fall? No. Specifically, he doesn't say sin, and so death, spread to all
humans because of Adam's fall, but "because all sinned". And he
continues with the question of accountability. Some may have sinned, but
yet not be accountable for it in the same way as those having the law,
because "sin is not counted when there is no law" (v.13). He illustrates
this with the law of Moses, which was not available to people from Adam
to Moses. In spite of this, they all sinned and died. In his message
addressed to the philosophers on the Areopagus of Athens, he said: "the
times of ignorance God overlooked" (Acts 17:30), as these Athenians were
not accountable for their sins, because they apparently hadn't heard the
Gospel (or Moses' law) before.

This leaves us only with the possibility of interpreting Rom.5:12 in
terms of Adam being the federal head of humanity, but not the first
truly human being. In 1 Cor.15:45 & 47, Paul quotes Gen.2:7, calling
Adam "the first man", but he contrasts him with Christ, whom he calls
"the last Adam" and "the second man", indicating that "the first man"
was not meant to designate the temporally first of all humans, as Christ
clearly is neither the second nor the last of all humans, but rather
that Adam is the first of the two compared. And indeed, Rom.5:12-21
doesn't deal with biological descent or biological inheritance at all,
but with two humanities distinguished on the basis of spiritual life,
the one characterized by the fallen (and not yet redeemed) Adam, the
other by Christ. This comparison shows that neither biological
inheritance, nor any time sequence is relevant here at all. OT believers
are saved by the blood of Christ, just as NT ones. Jesus said: "before
Abraham was, I am", and: "Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day - he
saw it and was glad" (John 8:56,58). I understand this to mean that
Abraham sort of appropriated his salvation through Christ by believing
God's promises, however veiled they were at that time, and that Christ's
death on the cross was effective to redeem Abraham who lived 2000 years
earlier.
...............................................................

{Certainly the extreme Augustinian idea that original sin is literally
"inherited" cannot be deduced from Gen.3 or Rom.5. But the Augustinian
tradition is correct in emphasizing the universal character of sin and its
seriousness. In particular, the fact that _all_ human beings are sinners
means that we are sinners from the beginning of our lives, from our origin
(i.e., "original sin originating"). Now as far as understanding the need
for salvation is concerned, this is all we need to say. The fact that we
can't trace this sinful condition back to some 1st human couple does _not_
(pace a lot of anti-evolutionary arguments) obviate the need for Christ.

But it does pose questions about the doctrine of creation. For if _all_
humans beings are sinners for their entire lives, and have been all the way
back to whatever we understand the first groupof humans to be, then we have
to ask _why_ humanity is in this condition. It's not enough to say "we just
are" because that implies that God created humanity sinful - i.e., that God
is the creator of sin.

Thus it's necessary to ask how & why humanity _became_ and continues to
become, sinful. But this is necessary for an adequate understanding of
creation & sin (as well as salvation), & not in order to salvage some
historicity for Gen.3.}

The idea of "federal headship" does not work. A parallel with the role of
Christ fails: Christ is not the representative of humanity simply because
of God's arbitrary choice of a particular /Homo sapiens/ but because, /inter
alia/, he is the natural Son of God. He is not even - strictly speaking -
"a" human person because his /hypostasis/ is that of the 2d Person of the
Trinity. I.e., God did not choose a particular human being & then become
somehow united with him in Nestorian fashion. He is, OTOH, what God has
always intended humanity to be - thus relativizing the importance of
understanding who "Adam" was. Christ is the "last Adam" as the
eschatological fulfillment of humanity, though of course not the last human
to be born in a temporal sequence.

That being the case, the idea that Adam was the 1st "federal head" of
humanity and that somehow his sin is imputed to other humans, really solves
very little. Besides this being a quite arbitrary act of God, it hardly
explains why all human beings from their origin commit actual sins.}

 
Received on Fri Nov 26 09:28:20 2004