Over on Biologos Pete Enns has a post arguing that Adam is Israel.
YES.
12 Responses to “Adam Is Israel”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks:
-
-
March 9, 2010
[...] Science & the Sacred, Peter Enns argued that Adam is Israel in Genesis 2-3. Daniel Kirk quickly assented, and then repented, suggesting that it might be more accurate to argue that Israel is Adam. I think [...]
Leave a Reply:
My Books
“YES” … Really?
Even if we think that Genesis 1-11 was added to the cannon in the Persian period and may therefore reflect theological understandings on the situation at the time, one cannot escape the very non-Israel universal tone of the creation accounts. While written certainly in a mythic genre, these texts are clearly talking about how the world as we understand it came into being. The connections to Israels story are interesting, but I would read them the other way around. Israel say itself as was the new humanity, and Canaan the new Eden. Israel fails like Adam before her, and therefore Jesus comes to fulfill Isreal’s vocation to be truly human. etc…
It seems that Enns’ is trying this “angle” to avoid reading Adam in Genesis as “human and all humans are descended from him.” This is an unnecessary move. Once we recognize the mythic genre of Genesis’ creation narratives, we are not compelled to read Adam as referring to a single literal human being. The inspired Genesis stores speak truthfully about who we are, who God is and what went wrong in his good creation. That Israel fails in a similar way is hardly surprising.
Enns’ observations are intriguing, even interesting. But fail to convince that this is the most natural or helpful “angle” read this passage.
Maybe I’m filtering Enns too much through my own ideas, because I don’t see a whole lot of difference between your positions, Ed. When I say “Yes,” the bigger picture for me is that these are written to introduce the story of Israel, an apt beginning–and, if not to show that Adam is Israel at least to show that Israel is Adam. Maybe that’s the better way to put it?
The echoes from later in the story, when God terms the promise to Abe, Is, and Jac, that they will “be fruitful and multiply” is a clear indication that the seed of the patriarchs is standing in for humanity.
The universal scope is there, but I’d say for the purpose of putting Israel at the center of God’s plans for the cosmos, to depict them as the ones through whom God had taken up the original plan to have humanity “rule the world on God’s behalf.”
The 2d story also has interesting echoes of later stories, especially the description of the tabernacle, etc.
If we say “Israel is Adam” does that more accurately state it in your view?
While I enjoy Enns’ work, I am not persuaded by the redefinition of Adam as Israel. This redefinition is simply a Westernized imagining.
Jewish thinkers including Paul (a Pharisee) did not connect Israel to Adam. In fact, Adam (thereby Eve) was connected to the Imago Dei (Gen 1:27). Paul seems to express image and role in his discussion on head coverings in 1 Cor 11.
Jewish tradition, I believe, uses both creation stories to interpret the other. First, Gen. 1 revealed humanity in the image of God. Second, Gen 2-4 reflects what it means for humans to live in the image of God (Gen 2-4): What does freedom of choice look like? How are humans distinct/separate from animals? What is humanity’s relationship to God? How is life sacred? These questions are dispended through the lens of Adam (Eve) as the Imago Dei.
Enns’ redefinition disturbs me a bit. I still need to think this through more.
Angela, I would suggest that your list of questions are Westernized thinking, much farther removed from Judaism than Enns’: “What does freedom of choice look like?” That’s a question deeply tied to the Greek philosophical tradition and afterward in the west. “How is life sacred?” Again, a question far removed from the story of Israel. Etc.
I think I disagree with everything in this comment, Daniel ; ).
Especially in the later Hellenistic period that most interests you Daniel (i.e., the time of Paul), how are these questions more essentially tied to “Greek philosophical tradition” than to “Judaism”? Philo and Josephus go straight to these kinds of questions, especially when discussing people/adam, creation, likeness to God, and Genesis 1-3. They even explicitly unpack these questions in terms of Platonist and even Stoic moral-psychologies, without the slightest hint that such ontological-metaphysical assumptions are somehow essentially “Greek thought” that fundamentally differs from “Jewish thought” and that they thus must consciously try to synthesize.
We can even go to the Jew whose extant writings drive your interests here, Paul. He has obviously Platonist (with a little Stoic) conceptions of the soul, its problems, and how Christ fixes it/them. Does this make him somehow less Jewish and more Greek? Why do you assume a bifurcation between Jewish and Hellenistic philosophical? This may obtain for some people whose writings are extant, but I fail to see how this intrinsically relates to the level of someone’s “Jewishness.”
Ok. I repent in sackcloth an ashes.
Except for the ways that your comments affirm that these are categories derived from Greek traditions and therefore irrelevant for helping us understand how Gen 1-3 might have functioned as an introduction to the Pentateuch…
Why the bifurcation? Because of the massive difference between x-y as expressed in its Jewish context in the first century and its expression in a post-Jewish context in the 2d and following. For starters. Then there’s the problematic attempts to read Paul’s ideas of the soul in Platonic categories…
I do not feel as bad about this inadvertent thread hijacking since you made another Adam Israel post…
I do not claim such “Greek categories” to have significant relevance for understanding Gen 1-3 in its 5th century post-exilic context. I contest your assumption that some kind of inherently “Jewish” way of thinking exists in opposition to some inherently “Greek” way of thinking about the kinds of questions Angela raised; especially if by “Jewish thinking” you mean something essentially opposed to Hellenistic philosophical fields of position-takings that is relevant for approaching both Gen 1-3 and Paul.
Can you offer me examples of “the massive difference between x-y as expressed in its Jewish context in the first century and its expression in post-Jewish context in the 2d and following”? I am not really clear about what you mean here…perhaps I do not think Jewishly enough ; ).
Any evidence to substantiate your claim that attempts to read Paul’s ideas of the soul in Platonic categories are problematic?
To be clear, I am not trying to contest that various positions and assumptions characteristic of some 1st century Judeans — especially ones associated with what we often term “Apocalyptic” Torah-centered eschatology — constitute central dynamics of Paul’s thought. I just fail to see how that necessarily militates against Paul (or ancient Judean sources about Adam and Israel) engaging various topics and concerns characteristic of Hellenistic philosophical fields and.or also thinking in such categories as well.
Howdy Angela,
Apart from whether or not I agree with what Enns says about Adam and Israel, your comments about Jewish thinkers and Jewish tradition caught my attention. Can you think of many instances among the extant works of “Jewish thinkers” that discuss the image of God and, also, contrast that with some understanding of Adam-Israel? You may be a bit surprised with this.
Also, off the top of my head I can think of numerous Judean sources that move directly from Adam to Israel, presume some sort of “connection” or Israel-identity for Adam, etc.
Just a thought. Interesting comment!
Oh, Stephen, you are a sly one.
Ok, ok, so I was being over the top. I repent.
First, though, it is important to recognize that there is a Greek philosophical tradition that thinks very differently about God, humanity, spirituality, purity, etc. from what we find in the Bible.
For the point of the original post, where the issue is how Gen 1-3 fit together with the story of Israel, I would humbly submit that making such distinctions is quite useful.
Further, even when looking at later Judaism, there is merit in keeping the distinction in mind. You brought up Josephus. That’s a perfect case in point. His descriptions of the Jewish sects are so clearly written in terms of GrecoRoman philosophical schools that most scholars think that a “real” description of these Jewish sects needs to be “translated” out of the idiom of the philosophers and into other categories.
Because you’re my friend, I’ll address another aspect of your question with a playful taunt: If you don’t think there’s a difference in the way that Paul and Justin Martyr thought through theological issues I say that PhD program of yours has you too much in theory books and you need to get your monkey butt back in the primary sources.
Having thus defended myself, I overall concede defeat. It is important to understand the ways in which Hellenization impacted Jewish thinking both wittingly and unwittingly in the late- to post-biblical periods. I repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Perhaps, the way that I formed my questions are Westernized but the ideas are grounded in Judaism.
Freedom of choice as filtered through obedience (as seen in Deut 30).
Sacred= Life blood (the importance of humanity is due to the fact that it is in the image of God; the significance of blood is deeply rooted in Judaism).
These ideas are foundational to the story of Israel.
Hey, Stephen!
Since he has conceded defeat and repented in sackcloth and ashes, I’ll say no more…Except that, I loved your question, “Can you think of many instances among the extant works of “Jewish thinkers” that discuss the image of God and, also, contrast that with some understanding of Adam-Israel?”
Yet, I am not sure if you are saying that these sources that are from “off the top of my head” are blatantly presuming Adam is Israel? I’m interested, what are your sources? In what way are the sources supporting an Adam-Israel identity?
For Judaism, I believe, Gen 1-3 would depict an Israel-Creation identity (rather than an Adam-Israel Identity) in that questions regarding nature, the relationship between humanity and Creator God are woven into the fabric of Israel’s story.
Thanks for your thought.