Another Try at a Sequential Reading of Genesis

What I would need to be more persuaded is evidence that Paul believed this. Are there other Pauline texts you have in mind (beyond Rom 5:13)? Any evidence that Paul is tapping into a Second Temple tradition that believed this? Otherwise, I’m left with maybe he did, maybe he didn’t (and then decide whether it matters or how it matters). I’m open but naturally skeptical and cautious.

2 Likes

Well, I’m silly enough to think that my rejection of the “Mosaic law” interpretation for Romans 5 as not making any sense is already a point well made.
That 5:13 is an otherwise nonsensical qualification, and it is meant to comment upon the status of those who preceeded Adam, and thus were not culpable for sin, since they did not yet possess the “knowledge of good and evil” a sophisticated moral framework, nor a “nomos” that they had transgressed.
One oblique reason why many attempt to make Adam and Eve the sole progenitors is to make sense of Adam’s claim that Eve be “the mother of all the living.” Few have considered this as a defiant act of a man steeped in sin, who directly contradicts God’s revelation that “in the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.”
That Adam names her thus is right before the expulsion from the garden seems to confirm this observation as an act of defiance. Any number of other observations can be made, though I know I’m stretching your comfort zone a bit by sketching outside the usual box.

If you recall this thread, our host is not neutral on this question, either. I do have a reputable friend who’s inclined to agree with a sequential reading, in general, and who notes that Walton relates the story of “adam” made imago Dei before Adam.

My position has evolved on this. Though I think it’s plausible, I no longer think a sequential view is required. We can take it either way, still account for people in the Image of God outside the Garden. In the non sequential reading Genesis 1 still zooms in on one story of creation, that of Adam. Genesis 2 could still refer to a larger creation of people too, of which Adam is one of many.

1 Like

ME: Isn’t the real traditional reading the way that the Jewish rabbis would see it over thousands of years?

@deuteroKJ YOU: Reference? That’d be interesting to study.

The best I can do with five minutes of internet research with cartoons blaring and three year-old whining, page 33 of the document on this link references an apparently large school of Jewish thought which translated 1:27 as “the man”.

See last paragraph of page 33

PS- as near as I could tell no side in the debate at the time (5th century), Christian or Jewish, took 1:27a to refer to more than a single man (or maybe a single couple).

1 Like

Paul’s clearest contrasting typology is in comparing Adam with Jesus, and thus this dominates his thinking, without obliterating any other nuances.
What would you hope to find with regards to an “imago Dei humanity existing prior to the story of Adam and Eve” view as textual confirmation? It’s significance is that it allows for a very ancient origin for humanity, while allowing for even a very recent dating for Adam and Eve (earlier than the Neolithic. however, in my view).

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. - Hosea 6:7 NASB
“Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,Because I feared the great multitude, And the contempt of families terrified me, And kept silent and did not go out of doors? - Job 31:33-34 NASB

2 Likes

The “prooftext” against the “Adam not the first created human” view is this:
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul .” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 NASB
The problem with using this as a refutation is that, this is an observation of contrasting theological types, not an according of temporal geneaological specificity.
Adam is no more required from this to be the “first man ever” than is Jesus “the last man ever.” The text is not naming their ordinal specificity, just their unique qualifications vis-a-vis their historic roles and positions among all humanity.

1 Like

@Guy_Coe I agree these texts don’t dismiss the thesis, but neither do they teach it. I don’t suspect to find a prooftext showing Paul had “outside the Garden” inhabitants or a sequential reading of Gen 1-2 on his mind at all. That’s OK–I don’t need Paul or any other NT writer to believe or teach it (as long as they don’t teach contrary to it). It seems the “answer” lies in looking at viable readings of the OT text and then considering what role science/history assists the decision process.

2 Likes

Gentlemen, I think the teaching of scripture is clear that Adam was the first man and that Eve was the first woman. I don’t see how it is possible to evade Genesis 3:20:

“Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”

Where does it say “first” in Genesis? Careful not to read your presuppositions into the text.

You are right that it is a presumption, but if we did a Bayesian probability analysis I think you would see it is a very reasonable assumption.

Why assume what the text doesn’t explicitly say?
I’ll repeat what I said above, and it’s not an attempt to evade the meaning, but to understand the meaning in context.
One oblique reason why many attempt to make Adam and Eve the sole progenitors is to make sense of Adam’s claim that Eve be “the mother of all the living.” Few have considered this as a defiant act of a man steeped in sin, who directly contradicts God’s revelation that “in the day that you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die.”
That Adam names her thus right before the expulsion from the garden seems to confirm this observation as an act of defiance --or of at least questionable truthfulness.
Adam chooses to name her exactly what she is not. What the two of them now have going for themselves is a deathly failure, in comparison to what God would have freely given at the right time. Fortunately, He has a plan of redemption for them, having taken the wrong way round.

I’d rather say the obvious. Scripture is silent on the matter. Your personal assumptions do not carry the same weight as God’s Word.

Besides, depending on how we define “human”, Adam and Even can be the first “humans” ever anyways.

Well, it also seems obvious that the text can be read sequentially without running afoul of orthodoxy, however one rectifies the myriad of other details in the text.
To be clear again on this public thread, GA has no particular position on this question; it addresses the science, which is compatible with a surprising number of alternative scenarios.

@anon46279830
You do understand that the prophecy was regarding a child born 700+ years before Jesus, right?

I guess you endorse the Pesher-method of interpreting DOUBLE prophecy out of a single circumstance?

@swamidass,

Considering the benefits to the narrative of having a sequential reading… what additional support would we obtain by NOT making the case for it?

I don’t know who Pesher is George, but I know who St. Matthew is.

2 Likes

The Pesher method of prophecy was to examine all prophetic works and find cases where a prophecy about one thing was ALSO believed to be a prophecy about other things at different times. It was used quite a bit by the Essenes.

No, my assumptions don’t carry the same weight, but my epistemology doesn’t require 100% certainty either. I interpret the text based on authorial intent. I think it’s clear that the author of Genesis believed that Eve was the first woman in a unique sense just as he believed Adam was the first man. We could speculate about ways to avoid that conclusion but the Bayesian probability would be extremely low.

I think you are on the right track here.