The Lost World of Adam and Eve (8 page)

Proposition 6

ʾ
ādām
Is Used in Genesis 1–5 in a Variety of Ways

Understanding the varied use of the term
ʾ
ādām
is essential to sorting out the early chapters of Genesis. But before we even get to that issue, there are two important observations to make. The first is that the word
ʾ
ādām
is a Hebrew word meaning “human.” Regarding this observation, the fact that it is Hebrew indicates that the category designation (“human”) is imposed by those who spoke Hebrew. Adam and Eve would not have called each other these names because whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew. Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium
B.C
. That means that these names are not just a matter of historical reporting, as if their names just happened to be Adam and Eve like someone else’s name is Bill or Mary. Although I believe that Adam and Eve are historical personages—real people in a real past—these cannot be their historical names. The names are Hebrew, and there is no Hebrew at the point in time when Adam and Eve lived.

If these are not
historical
names, then they must be
assigned
names, intended by the Hebrew-speaking users to convey a particular meaning. Such a deduction leads us to the second observation. In English, if we read that someone’s name is “Human” and his partner’s name is “Life,” we quickly develop an impression of what is being communicated (as, for example, in
Pilgrim’s Progress,
where characters are named Christian, Faithful and Hopeful). These characters, by virtue of their
assigned
names, are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. Consequently, we can see from the start that interpretation may not be straightforward. More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history.

In terms of the variety of uses of these words in Genesis 1–5, we find that, in some cases,
ʾ
ādām
refers to human beings as a species, in others it refers to the male individual of the species, and in some it refers to the designation of a particular individual as the equivalent of a personal name.
1
Morphologically (i.e., by form), the single distinction is whether it has a definite article (= “the”) attached or not. When it has the definite article, it cannot be understood as a personal name. (Hebrew does not use a definite article on personal names.) Syntactically (i.e., by its role in the sentence), the single distinction is whether it is treated as a corporate plurality or as a singular being. The following data summarize the use of the word
ʾ
ādām
in the book of Genesis:

• Twenty-two times with definite article: Genesis 1:27; 2:7 (2x), 8, 15, 16, 18, 19 (2x), 20, 21, 22 (2x), 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 20, 22, 24; 4:1
  
• Three times with attached preposition: Genesis 2:20; 3:17, 21
  
• Nine times with no definite article or preposition: Genesis 1:26; 2:5; 4:25; 5:1 (2x), 2, 3, 4, 5
  

The interpretation of most of these data is largely uncomplicated, but a few difficulties are encountered. The major irregularities are as follows:

It seems unusual that the indefinite form is used in Genesis 1:26, then the definite article is used in Genesis 1:27. This is further complicated when the latter half of the verse refers first to the singular (“he created
him,
” Hebrew;
NIV
“them”) and then to the plural (“male and female he created
them
”). Taking our lead from Genesis 2:5, where the context indicates a generic sense, we would understand Genesis 1:26 as generic: “God said, ‘Let us make generic humanity (the human species) in our image.’” Note that this coincides with previous creative acts of living beings. God created animals, birds and fish en masse. For humans, this particularly makes sense since the verse proceeds to talk about them in the plural (“they may rule”), indicating that a corporate focus is intended. In Genesis 1:27, the definite article is used because the subject,
ʾ
ādām,
has already been introduced in the last verse. The use of the singular (“created
him
”) reflects the collective (which in Hebrew often uses singular modifiers), and the return to the plural (“male and female he created
them
”) clarifies that one individual is not both male and female (i.e., hermaphrodite).

• Genesis 4:25 does not have the definite article, though one would expect it because of its presence in the very similar statement in Genesis 4:1. By context, it cannot possibly be generic. The alternative is to take it as a personal name, which is inconsistent (because of Gen 4:1), though not impossible. The editors of the modern critical edition of the Hebrew Bible contend that the article was inadvertently omitted in copying, though no Hebrew manuscripts offer the alternative.
  
• Genesis 5:1 contains two occurrences without the definite article. The first appears in the title and could be judged as a personal name in keeping with the titles of the same sort that occur throughout the book. The second one, however, seems anomalous. Nevertheless, once we realize that the verse is referring back to Genesis 1:26, the interpretation as a generic usage is logical.
  
• The three occurrences that feature the attached prepositions are pointed by the Masoretes as indefinite. They do not make sense as indefinite, and the form of the consonants could be either definite or indefinite. Like the modern editors of the critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, I would favor the definite form.
  2
  

The analysis in figure 1 suggests then that only Genesis 4:1, 25 remain anomalous. The term is generic in Genesis 1:26-27; 2:5; 5:1, 2 and archetypal or representational in all those with the definite article in Genesis 2–3. The use as a personal name is only in the genealogical section, Genesis 5:3-5, and in the title to that section (Gen 5:1).

Figure 1. Use of the word
ʾ
ādām in the book of Genesis

Consequently, we can see that the profile of Adam is complex rather than straightforward. These chapters are not just giving biographical information on a man named Adam. Larger statements are being made. When the generic is used, the text is talking about human beings as a species. When the definite article is being used, the referent is an individual serving as a human representative. Such representation could be either as an archetype (all are embodied in the one and counted as having participated in the acts of that one) or as a federal representative (in which one is serving as an elect delegate on behalf of the rest).
3
In either case, the representational role is more important than the individual. Only in the cases where the word is indefinite and by context being used as a substitute for a personal name would the significance be tied to the individual as an individual, historical person.

The text itself gives us what we need to make these determinations. The use of the definite article tells us that
ʾ
ādām
is being used to refer to something beyond the person. Then the determination between archetype and federal representative is made based on the circumstances of the context. If what is being said of
ha
ʾ
ādām
(the form with the definite article) is true of all humans and not of just this one individual, then we can conclude that he serves there as an archetype. If, in contrast, the definite article is used and
ha
ʾ
ādām
is acting as an individual on behalf of others, we can conclude that he serves as federal representative.

Proposition 7

The Second Creation Account (Gen 2:4-24) Can Be Viewed as a Sequel Rather Than as a Recapitulation of Day Six in the First Account (Gen 1:1–2:3)

Most people reading Genesis 1–2 believe that Genesis 2:7 begins a more specific account of what happened on day six of Genesis 1—a recapitulation giving more detail. They draw this conclusion because day six reports the creation of humanity, and they see Genesis 2 as a description of how God formed that first human being. That view understands Genesis 2 as doubling back to elaborate on a part of Genesis 1 (day six). We need to examine whether such a conclusion is the only possibility.

While it is easy to see how this conclusion can be drawn, one does not have to read very deeply into the text to detect problems with that reading. First of all, there seem to be some problems in the order that is given for those who are inclined to interpret these texts as representing historical, material sequences. If Genesis 2 is read as a recapitulation, Genesis 2:5-6 is confusing. It says that there were no plants when God created humans, yet plants come on day three and humans on day six in Genesis 1. Another sequence problem is that God created the animals first and then humans on day six. In Genesis 2, Adam is formed before the animals.
1
The second problem exists for those who consider the days to be twenty-four-hour days. That the events of Genesis 2 could all take place in a twenty-four-hour day (among them, naming all the animals, which apparently is completed because no helper was found) stretches credulity.

Given these problems, it is worthwhile to go back and reconsider the question of whether Genesis 2 is detailing day six or an event that comes later. Therefore, we must consider what evidences the text offers and whether it is possible to read these two accounts as sequels. If they are sequels, we do not have to worry about fitting Genesis 2 into day six. But if they are sequels, it means that the people in Genesis 1 may not be Adam and Eve, or at least not only Adam and Eve. The question would then be why we have a forming account like Genesis 2 sometime after the creation of people as reported in Genesis 1.

Furthermore, if Genesis 2 is a sequel, it would mean that there may be other people (in the image of God) in Genesis 2–4, not just Adam and Eve and their family. That has certain advantages when reading Genesis 4. In Genesis 4, Cain has a wife (Gen 4:17). The option that he has married his sister has never been an attractive one, though many have embraced it as seemingly the only possibility. We also find that Cain fears that “whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen 4:14) when he is driven from the L
ORD
’s presence. Who he is he afraid of? If he is driven away from the L
ORD
’s presence, then he is also being driven away from his family. This suggests that there are people other than his family in the land. Finally, we note that Cain builds a city (Gen 4:17). The term
city
would not be appropriate unless it was a settlement of some size for many people. We would conclude then that the text actually implies that there are other people.
2
We then have to explore how such a reading of Genesis 2 would make sense.
3

Genesis 2:4 serves as an introduction to the second account: “This is the account [
tōlĕdōt
] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the L
ORD
God made the earth and the heavens.” The literary formula “this is the account of
x
” occurs here and ten other times in the book of Genesis. It stands as one of the formal characteristics of the book. In all the other occurrences in the book, the
x
is the name of a person. The formula introduces either a narrative of that person’s sons or a genealogy of that person’s descendants. In other words, it tells about what came after that person (though it sometimes overlaps with the life of the person) and what developed from that person. In Genesis 2:4, it is not a person’s name. Using the same logic, we would conclude that the section being introduced is going to talk about what came after the creation of the heavens and the earth reported in the seven-day account and what developed from that. In other words, the nature of the introduction leads us to think of Genesis 2 as a sequel.

That leads us to question what the usual relationship is between the texts on either side of the introductory formula. As can be seen from figure 2, most of the uses of the introduction transition to a sequel account; a few, however, do not.

Figure 2. Uses of the introductory formula in Genesis

One example (Gen 5:1) has parallel genealogies that are joined by the introductory formula. Yet, Genesis 4:25-26 has already returned to Adam, so the introduction technically transitions between Adam and his descendants—a sequel relationship. Three of the examples (Gen 11:10; 25:19; 37:2) can be identified as recursive. In each of these, the section before the transition follows a family line deep into later history. The introductory formula then returns the reader to the other son in the family (the more important one) to tell his story. In these cases, the text does not feature parallel genealogies like the lines of Cain and Seth, and the text does not bring the reader into the middle of the previous story to give a more detailed account. There is no detailed elaboration even though there may be overlapping. The remaining six examples introduce sequel accounts.