Nope.
Males are mentioned first in both accounts; so that doesn’t render the proverb invalid, but the question is how comprehensively it is to be understood.
In the story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” Goldilocks was the first to the table, and so from it I could coin the proverb “first to table, last to leave.”
Obviously, however, she was the first to the table within the confines of the story only. The bears had lived there well before she came along, and been to the table many times.
The proverb is true enough, but not entirely accurate for the wider context from outside the immediate story.
So, Paul speaks quickly to correct the false implications which arise from taking the proverb too far. To wit:
“For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake… However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” – 1 Corinthians 11:8-9,11-12 NASB
Obviously, Paul is delimiting the supposed implications from the proverb, by counterarguing that the point is moot in the Lord, in light of the way God has made things work.
That there were (or, if you prefer, may have been) other “imago Dei” females prior to Adam, whom he had never met, outside his story, does nothing to diminish the “true-enough” nature of the proverb.
Wisdom 7 concludes the section you’ve cited by saying that every man has come into being the same way. That’s hardly an argument for the inceptive special creation of Adam… so, what’s your point?
“I also am mortal, like all men,
a descendant of the first-formed child of earth;
and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh,
2 within the period of ten months, compacted with blood,
from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.
3 And when I was born, I began to breathe the common air,
and fell upon the kindred earth,
and my first sound was a cry, like that of all.
4 I was nursed with care in swaddling cloths.
5 For no king has had a different beginning of existence;
6 there is for all mankind one entrance into life, and a common departure.” Wisdom 7:1-6 RSV
As for Tobith 8:6, it serves as exactly the same kind of background context as the Genesis 2 ff. story itself.
But, in the context of a Geneaological Adam understanding, it does nothing to negate the possibility of “imago Dei” humans preceding Adam and Eve.
The wider passage in Tobith is:
5 “God of our ancestors, you are worthy of praise.
May your name be honored forever and ever by all your creatures in heaven and on earth.
6 You created Adam and gave him his wife Eve to be his helper and support.
They became the parents of the whole human race.
You said,
‘It is not good for man to live alone.
I will make a suitable helper for him.’
7 Lord, I have chosen Sarah because it is right, not because I lusted for her.
Please be merciful to us, and grant that we may grow old together.”
What Hebrew word for “created” is used in Tobith? How is that supposed trump the lack of “bara” in the Hebrew of the Adam and Eve story? Are you in the habit of using non-canonical literature to “correct” canonical literature?
This has certainly turned into an argument between two specialists. In the end, it’s good to know that resolving this is not a soteriological matter. The Lord obviously loves us both.
What’s the problem with “imago Dei” human beings having been created before Adam, who are part of the quiet background context for the later Adam and Eve story, who as the first fallen couple, become the geneaological ancestors of all subsequent, and universally fallen, humanity?
Cheers, @Andrew_Loke !
