In my previous post I summarized C. John Collins’ thoughts on Adam and Eve in the Hebrew Scriptures. In this post I will do the same regarding his section on Adam and Eve in Second Temple Jewish Literature (c. 516 BCE to 70 CE).
Collins notes that Judaism at this time was quite varied. The Judaism that survived the war with Rome was that of the Pharisees. It was the “mainline” Judaism of the day and it was able to adapt to a post-temple world. What interest Collins though is whether or not the views on Adam and Eve were uniform at a time when Judaism was not (pp. 71-72).
Collins senses that it was:
Book of Tobit:
“The clearest and most complete statement about Adam and Eve from the Apocrypha comes in the book of Tobit (from somewhere between 250 and 175 b.c.)…Tobias says these words as part of his prayer (Tob. 8:6):
[O God of our fathers,] You made Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself (p. 73).”
Wisdom of Solomon:
“…in 2:23–24 he says,
23 for God created mankind for incorruption and made him in the image of his own character, 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.
“Most people suppose that the author is recounting the story of Genesis 3, seeing the serpent as “the devil’s” mouthpiece. He takes it as an historical event that shapes contemporary life (cf. 1:13–14; 7:1; 10:1) (p. 74).”
Book of Sirach:
“This author mentions the creation of man, and the fall with its consequences, mostly in passing (Sir. 14:17; 15:14; 17:1; 33:10 [Hebrew 36:10]; 40:1). In one passage (25:16–26) he makes use of the “fall story” to explain a current malaise, namely the situation in which one’s wife is evil. In 25:24 he says, From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die (p. 74).”
And
“…the citation in Sirach 49:16 makes it clear that he did take Adam to be an historical person. He is recalling worthies from the history of Israel in chapters 44–49 (“let us now praise famous men,” 44:1), leading up to his contemporary Simon (II), son of Onias (high priest ca. 219–196 b.c.). He begins with Enoch and Noah as the first named “famous men,” then goes on to Abraham and so forth through Biblical history. Just prior to his extended praise of Simon, he finishes with Nehemiah (49:13), and then returns to Genesis, naming Enoch and Joseph (49:14–15). He completes the run-up to Simon in 49:16:
Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation.
“The way he mentions all these men in this context indicates that he took all of them as historical figures (p. 75).”
Philo:
“Philo, with his interest in philosophical allegory, does not say clearly whether he thought Adam to have been historical. In his discussion of Genesis 2:7, he seems to distinguish the man of Genesis 1 from the man of Genesis 2: the heavenly and the earthly man, he calls them (Allegorical Interpretation, 1.31) (p. 75).”
Josephus:
“He calls Adam “the first man, made from the earth” (Antiquities, 1.2.3, line 67). He also says that the gracious God of Israel is the one source of happiness for all mankind (Antiquities 4.8.2, line 180), which is connected to his view that all people descend from Adam. This conviction of common humanity apparently underlies his notion that all people should worship the true God, and his explanation for the admission of Gentiles into Jewish worship (Against Apion, 2.23, 37 [lines 192, 261]). Josephus is more representative than Philo of the Judaism we find in the other Second Temple sources (p. 76).”
What I gather from Collins’ work in this section is that (A) he presupposes the Book of Genesis and the Hebrew Scriptures to be inerrant and authoritative in what they say so (B) the question is whether the reader is interpreting these Scriptures correctly and (C) one way to test our interpretation is to see how other readers understood Scripture. It is apparent intercanonically that Adam and Eve are archtypes whom the authors understood to be real people at the beginning of human history. Likewise, Jews at the time of Jesus may have shown interpretive flexibility, but other than Philo’s allegorical reading most assumed that Adam and Eve were more than figurative.
In my next post I will examine how Collins understands Adam and Eve to be presented in the Gospels. What do you think of these Second Temple sources? Do they matter for interpreters today? If so, how? If not, why not?
the archives near Emmaus 
Hey Brian,
Many thanks for this post.
I’m reading Conor Cunningham’s Darwin’s Pious Idea and from what I can gather from your post, he stands at odds with Collins. According to Cunningham, the problem with readings like this is that they are insufficiently Christological. As Cunningham argues, “all such talk of whether Adam was historically real or not rests on atheistic presumptions… Adam, the idea of a Fall, and so on can be revealed only in Christ – if we are to remain faithful to the Church Fathers. It is folly to interpret the Fall or the existence of Adam in either positivistic terms or strictly historical terms, in the sense that there is no Fall before Christ. That is to say, there was but a glimmer of its occurrence, and this glimmer was only about Christ and not about some historical event of the same genus as the Battle of Trafalgar” (378).
Does Collins address this idea? That is, the idea of Christological interpretations of scripture and the idea that if Adam is “a type of the one to come” (Rom. 5:14), then we need not limit ourselves to strictly historical readings.
Thanks again,
Robb
Robb
Good question. Though I haven’t arrived at his coverage of Adam/Eve in the Gospels or Paul it doesn’t seem that he will take the discussion that direction. If he does I’ll be surprised. It seems that his main concern has to do with the historicity of Adam. On the other hand, this view may work with Enns’ view. I will keep it in mind as I read these two books.
Thanks, Brian!
I’m entirely suspicious that Judaism during the second temple period (of whatever form) was reflective of the pre-exilic Israelite religion, even the religion of the prophets, being instead an invention and product of Babylon. Having said that, I less suspicious of the Judaism of the Essenes. Still, it’s interesting you say ‘Collins notes that Judaism at this time was quite varied.’ I don’t doubt that. Nor do I doubt that ‘Judaism that survived the war with Rome was that of the Pharisees’. (I’d even
add the modern Jews who are atheists are reminiscent of the direction the Sadducees were going (denying life after death).
I wonder why Collins didn’t also mine the Dead Sea Scrolls for views on Adam and Eve. That likely would have provided views closer to the period he was interested and there’s a ton there. For example an extra-biblical recounting of the Adamic story can be found in:
1Q/4QInstruction
1QH The Thanksgiving Hymn
4Q167 (Hosea Pesher)
4Q381(A Creation Psalm – Qumranic Pseudepigraphic Psalm)
4Q504 (Words of Light (speaks of Adam and conditions in Eden))
4Q511 (Unknown wisdom text concerning Adam)
11Q12 (1QJubilees, 11QJub)
11QPsalms (Hymn to the Creator)
… as well as 4Q374, 4Q370, 4Q377, 1QSb, 4Q418 81, 4Q545, 4Q541, 4Q468b and others. Even the pseudepigraphon Apocalypse of Moses has additional extra-biblical views of Adam and Eve.
The Dead Sea Scroll treatment of Adam and Eve certainly dealt with them literally; contributing additional stories about them after they were expelled from Eden, additional theological insight into the nature of the fall etc.
In response to your question “What do you think of these Second Temple sources? Do they matter for interpreters today?”:
Generally, as someone who works outside of the field of Biblical Studies, I am concerned that Second Temple sources often seem to be swallowed without much chewing. It may be repulsive to some to suggest, but I think that it is reasonable to expect us to struggle with the idea that Christ’s coming was a corrective for that epoch’s forms of Judaism. If that is true to any degree, then it follows that it is the reasonable that we question the degree of value that Second Temple Judaism’s perspectives on Adam and Eve’s historicity have for Christian interpretation and theology.
Brian, in answer to your question, 2nd temple sources do matter for interpreters today, but for interpreters of Paul rather than Geneses (which was already written by the 2nd temple era). It helps to establish that Paul thought Adam to be historical.
Andrew
I agree that it is very surprising that the DSS get no direct attention. He mentions them in passing, but says no more (at least in this section). Maybe he will cover them somewhere else, but this seemed like the place to do it.
Bryce
Indeed, there is a danger that we read these sources as assume that the apostolic readers would have reached the same conclusion. That ignores the diversity of Judaism and maybe even more importantly the contribution of Jesus himself to the early church. That said it is good to know what was going on with Jewish interpreters so we don’t read the Gospels or Paul in a vacuum.
Thomas
Agreed with the caveat that they help us know what Genesis “meant” to Jews at that time (e.g., Genesis has a unique place in Christian discourse post-Darwin from its place prior….the reader’s context matters). I assume this is what you are saying.
Brian, I was not thinking about Genesis place in Christian discourse post-Darwin. I must be confused about the meaning of the term interpretation. Maybe you could clear it up for me. I was under the impression that the first task of interpretation was to establish the meaning of the text for the original authors and hearers. I know from the title of your blog we should find Christ in the OT but where is the line between interpretation and speculation. Are we free to use the methods of the 1st cent. Christians like one of your former professors thinks. Anyway my comment was just related to the 1st cent. A.D. and before. I meant to point out that, what later readers (2nd temple) thought, would be irrelevant to the original readers, as they wouldn’t know what it was that they thought. Paul , on the other hand, did read 2nd temple lit.(he talks about the rock that followed them, a detail not given in the bible). Josephus was a contemporary of Paul. If Josephus thought Adam was historical and the 2nd temple sources thought so too, it would seem that Paul would also.
Brian: I agree. My worry about the field is probably more due to the fact that many people I have encountered who use its methods don’t think with that level of nuance.
Thomas: I think that 2nd Temple lit only establishes what Paul probably thought before his conversion. Beyond that (chronologically), I think that the link between Paul’s thought and that of 2nd Temple lit is weakened due to new variables.
I think Collins is right about 2nd temple era authors thinking Adam was the first human. I’am sure OT and NT authors thought so as well. Why wouldn’t they think so if they had no evidence not to think Adam was historical? Most of the evidence against a historical Adam has only come about in the last three centuries. So of course most people up until then would think there was a first man and a first woman and for Christians and Jews that would be Adam and Eve. Today we have strong evidence that Adam was not a historical person. Collins telling us what people from 400 B.C. thru 1 A.D. thought does nothing to counter the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Thomas
Sorry to confuse. I should have been clearer. In essence all I am saying is that “meaning” includes the interpreter and the questions the interpreter brings to the text. I think we agree that Second Temple readers don’t matter to the more ancient readers of Genesis (in whatever state it was in at that time).
Today we have strong evidence that Adam was not a historical person.
Really? What evidence would that be? How do you come up with evidence that someone did not exist, to make such a big presumption?
I was not talking about just anybody but a particular character described in the Bible. If you think God made a clay doll the breathed on it to make it alive, then placed it in a garden, then created a woman from his rib, then a talking snake got them to eat forbidden fruit…well then you can believe in the historical Adam of the Bible. The scientific evidence against such a person existing as the first human is overwhelming. If you are interested there are many others more qualified than I to explain it. You can start by checking out the biologos blog or reading the books of Francis Collins or Denis Lamoureux
‘thomas,’ if the evidence is SO overwhelming, why is your response filled with emotional, condescending snarky ridicule? there actually is much scientific evidence that there was one common ancestor–promulgated by none other than the francis collins you reference.
Five to seven centuries after the Second Temple literature, the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b) has an account of the creation of Adam as a golem:
R. Johanan3 b. Hanina said: The day consisted of twelve hours. In the first hour, his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second, it was kneaded into a shapeless mass. In the third, his limbs were shaped;4 in the fourth, a soul was infused into him; in the fifth, he arose and stood on his feet; in the sixth, he gave [the animals] their names; in the seventh, Eve became his mate; in the eighth, they ascended to bed as two and descended as four;5 in the ninth, he was commanded not to eat of the tree, in the tenth, he sinned; in the eleventh, he was tried, and in the twelfth he was expelled [from Eden] and departed, for it is written, Man abideth6 not in honour.7
This is not a canonical passage of course, but Genesis 2 says: “…then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature,” and this is the passage the Midrash discusses.
Fast forward to today. A naive literalistic hermeneutic would suggest that God manifested corporeally in Eden and made Adam with hands as a child makes a mud pie, then with the act of breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, dust/water becomes flesh, bone, sinew, blood, organs, muscles, nerves, brain and so forth.
This may be the version we teach children in Sunday School, but it is a child’s fairy tale. But I think that even among YEC adherents one would find at least a plurality that would hedge when asked if this is what they really think happened, even if it is what Rabbi Johanan ben Hanina thought. Yes, God certainly could do it this way, but I don’t think for a moment this is an account of what actually happened. Pete Enns certainly doesn’t and I would wager that even John Collins would not be comfortable with this sort of account.
Professor Collins is correct when he says that most Hebrew readers understood Adam and Eve as historical, real people, and it’s clear that most NT thinkers did as well. And I believe him when he says he believes they were historical – but I would really like to know if and how much he would hedge if asked about details, but I would hesitate to pose such questions directly before figuring out a context and a venue in which they could be posed without being too confrontational.