@swamidass, have you interacted with the view that “all the living” (Gen 3:20) is limited to “seed of the woman” in 3:15 (= humans of faith) in distinction to the (also human but non-believing) “seed of the serpent”? I’m sorry if I missed or forgotten this in your writings or PS posts.
This reading focuses on the special use of “life” (which is what “Eve” means) in the Eden narrative, particularly the Tree of Life that promised everlasting life in God’s presence. Since its counter “death”–result of eating the other Tree–could easily be interpreted as separation from God’s presence, it’s not a leap to consider “life” in the same manner. And the toledot of Gen 2:4-4:26 ends with reestablishment of communion with God through Seth (the antithesis of Cain, a seed of the serpent).
Assuming you find importance to Eve as the SPECIFIC mother of the living… her role, like that of Adam’s, becomes a UNIVERSAL presence (even if not the ONLY Universal female ancestor), extending to all humanity by the time of the birth of Jesus.
The soteriological reading wouldn’t make a genealogical claim one way or the other. But it does focus on what you say: her role like Adam’s (and I’m thinking particularly of his role as the first king…but this is a larger argument). In this reading, Adam’s label for Eve as “mother of all the living” is a pronouncement of faith, thrusting us to read for those in the subsequent story (ultimately leading to Jesus) that qualify as “the living.”
There’s overlap, but not necessarily buying all that that might entail (it’s been a while since I read that old discussion). I’m really just thinking out loud here. I went down this rabbit trail today as I was preparing some lecture material to make my case for why I locate Eden in Canaan (albeit symbolically).
If we are meaning “mother” as in ancestry, then, if Eve existed, we all descend from her. I think it is ends up being both anti-scientific understanding and anti-orthodox understanding to argue there are two lineages of human alive today. This view has a long and dark history, perhaps as bad as polygenesis.
The idea appears in the gnostic gospel of Philip, some Jewish midrash, and also as a recurring version of racist theology. Most recent big name associated with it was a in the 1950’s in a famous faith healer. I do not think this is a good direction to go.
No, I’m not thinking any of that. The view is not about ancestry/genealogy at all (and certainly would not speak to genetics)–it’d be agnostic on these points–but about seeing all humanity as divided spiritually between those in-step with YHWH and those not in-step.
While it doesn’t contribute to GA model directly, it would be another reading of the text that downplays any significance to genetics. (BTW, I don’t hold this view…it’s just something that I came across that I thought worth pursuing in dialogue.)
I think the case for this is stronger from the statements from Jesus saying that the Pharisees are children of the Serpent. In this sense, it can only mean in a figurative sense, not as a literal ancestry. I don’t think it is possible to connect this to the “mother of all the living” statement about Eve.
Regarding “mother of all the living”, there are several ways to take it. If we agree with it, we can say that Eve becomes mother of all the living. Alternatively, we could say (@Guy_Coe) that it is a rebellious statement made by Adam against God’s curse. I don’t think the view that Eve is ancestor of everyone, but Adam is not, really holds much water.
This would be the major point of contention. The view I set forth would say it is possible. While I see something of the logic of defining “life” (and “death”) in non-biological terms, what I struggle with the view is that it presupposes an overly positive (i.e., faith-filled) understanding of Adam at the time of his pronouncement. I tend to think the statement has a negative tone by limiting the emphasis on Eve as a “mother” instead of his equal image-bearer to fulfill the creation mandate.