Did Adam and Eve exist?
No.
Then again, George Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree, and Paul Revere never yelled, "The British are coming," either.
So what's the big deal? We regularly embellish actual events (in the case of Revere) or invent them (as with Washington) to point toward a larger symbolic truth. Why, then, should anyone be dismayed that all the archeological, historical and, most importantly, genomic evidence ever collected points to the implausibility that two persons named Adam and Eve once lived in a paradisiacal garden and gave birth to all humanity? Because the recent hubbub about Adam and Eve -- and the increasing number of Evangelical Christian scholars who don't read their story literally -- isn't actually about our supposed ancestral grandparents. Rather, it's about authority, insecurity and the fear of chaos.
Biblical Authority
Fundamentalist Christians regularly give two significant reasons for accepting the story of Adam and Eve as historically and scientifically accurate. The first deals with the integrity of the Bible itself. If one element of the biblical story isn't historically accurate, the argument runs, then you can't trust any of it. I call this the "link chain" notion of biblical authority because, as with chains, the Bible is suddenly only as strong as its weakest link. Creation of the world in seven days? Absolutely. Jonah in the belly of a whale for three? No problem. And Joshua stopping the sun in its tracks for one? Why not? Doubt any one of these stories, and the veracity of whole Bible, according to conservatives, vanishes into thin air.
The difficulty with this view is that the Bible never presents itself as a scientific or historical textbook. Rather, it is a collection of testimony, confessions of faith made by persons who had been so gripped by their experiences of God they had to share them using whatever literary and cultural devices were at hand. Poetry, metaphor, simile, myth, parable, story, advice, analogy -- all these and more are employed by biblical authors who were more poets than historians, more muses than scientists, and more interested in faithful persuasion than rational explanation.
Theological Insecurity
The second argument against reading Adam and Eve as mythic story rather than historical account is that later theologians, most notably the Apostle Paul, base some of their theology on the Adam and Eve account. Lose Eden, the theory goes, and you've lost Paul as well. This I name the "house of cards" understanding of theology, because if any single element of a larger theological argument appears flimsy then the entire confession is at risk. This creates for conservatives tremendous insecurity about the validity and integrity of Christian theology that must be kept at bay at all costs.
The Apostle Paul, however, betrays no such insecurity. Striving to describe mysteries that surpass him, Paul presses language to its limits in order to witness to God's work in Christ. Paul is not trying to explain divinity but rather pay homage to it. For this reason he reaches for familiar stories, symbols and characters to give voice to his testimony of how the man crucified as a criminal unexpectedly emerges as God's divine solution to our human plight. Working at times with Adam and at others with Abraham, drawing comparisons to the sacrificial system of Judaism at some points and Greco-Roman house ethics at others, Paul stretches language and metaphor to render God's accomplishment as vivid and accessible as possible rather than reduce it to historical or even theological formulas. Jesus is neither a data point in Paul's larger rational argument nor a cog in some machinery of salvation; rather, he is the narrative linchpin and interpretive key that holds together and makes sense of all of Israel's stories and, indeed, all the stories of the world.
Fundamentalist Fear
Make no mistake, however: There is something much deeper at stake in these arguments for those who defend a literal reading of the Bible. In its bluntest form, it goes like this: Lose confidence in Adam and you might as well give up on Jesus as well. Because if Genesis' account of Eden is mythic rather than historical, then how can you trust any of the Gospel reports about Jesus. Comparisons with Washington and Revere and countless others we might offer fall short at this point, as we're not talking merely about the father of our country or a silversmith turned patriot. This is Jesus, after all, the One confessed by Christians to be the Son of God. And so here lies the great fear that gnaws at the heart of fundamentalism: How can I believe -- in the Bible, Jesus and God (probably in that order) -- unless I know for certain that all these things happened just as they were told?
Beyond overlooking that there are different kinds of writing in the same book - at turns more mythic, poetic, or historical - this insecurity-driven view gravely confuses faith and knowledge. Faith, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, "is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (11:1). This implies that there is an irreducible element of tension inherent in the life of faith that literalist readings of the Bible attempt to dispel. Across its pages, however, the Bible calls the faithful not to the safe haven of absolute knowledge but instead beckons believers into the stormier but far more interesting waters of faith, hope and love. Where knowledge demands cognitive assent, faith calls for equal measures of courage and imagination. Faith, that is, invites us to embrace mystery rather than merely solve a puzzle.
Fact And Fiction
Throughout Tim Burton's "Big Fish," Will Bloom demands the truth about his father Edward. Thus far he has only heard various and far-fetched stories his father has told, many of which don't add up. "Most men, they'll tell you a story straight through," his father tells him. "It won't be complicated, but it won't be interesting either." But Will wants the facts, believing that only in this way will he know the truth about his father.
In particular, he wants to know where his dad was the day he was born. Near the end of the film, the Bloom's family doctor lays it out:
Your mother came in about three in the afternoon. Her neighbor drove her, on account of your father was on business in Wichita. You were born a week early, but there were no complications. It was a perfect delivery. Now, your father was sorry to miss it, but it wasn't the custom for the men to be in the room for deliveries then, so I can't see as it would have been much different had he been there. And that's the real story of how you were born. Not very exciting, is it? And I suppose if I had to choose between the true version and an elaborate one involving a fish and a wedding ring, I might choose the fancy version.
By the end of the film, Will recognizes that his father is the stories that he has told. Fact and fiction, actual detail and fanciful elaboration, fallible man and larger-than-life myth -- together they combine to offer something larger than mere chronology, giving Will a glimpse of truth.
Adam And Eve Redux
So back to Adam and Eve. There are, of course, two creation accounts in Genesis. The first (1:1-2:3) pulses with the divine cadence of orderly creation, setting the rhyme and meter for understanding the harmonious ebb and flow of work and rest, creation and goodness, male and female. It was most likely the work of a priest, attuned to the rhythm of the week and the worship of the creator God. The second story (2:4-3:24) undertakes no less than to portray the condition of humanity and to address questions as sublime as the complimentary differences between men and women and as problematic as why this good life is so marred by strife, discontent and hardship.
The differences between the two are as palpable as they important for those with the courage to notice, revealing the distinct and complimentary confessions the ancient Israelites offered about their confidence in God and the nature and destiny of humanity. Yet read these stories literally and all the artistic nuance and poetic beauty of these distinct confessions is immediately flattened by the need to have them conform to post-Enlightenment ideas of rational verifiability imported in the mid-19th century to repel attempts to read the Bible as a historical document.
If, however, we look to Genesis not for historical datum from which to construct a pseudo-scientific cosmology we find a different story all together. It's a story about the insecurity that is endemic to humanity and the ever-present temptation to refuse the identity that comes from the vulnerability of authentic relationship in favor of defining ourselves over and against each other. Read this way, the story of Eden is the history of humanity writ small, and Adam and Eve are, indeed, the parents of us all. It's a more complicated story, for sure, than we've sometimes been offered, but it is also more interesting and compelling and, ultimately, one I'm inclined to believe.
Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR
RealClearReligion - Evangelicals Questioning Adam and Eve?
NOT an Onion Headline: Evangelicals Admit Adam and Eve May Not ...
Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam & Eve | Jesus Needs New PR
COMPLETE NONSENSE. This pseudo-theologian writes polemic. How are you supposed to have archaeological evidence for 2 people who lived in the forest 6000 years ago? How are you supposed to have HISTorical when they didn't even invent writing yet? But Most importantly there IS genomic evidence for Adam and Eve my friend, David. I clearly remember how in my anthropology class 4 years ago our professor told us that all humans come from ONE maternal lineage. He then conveniently said, "that doesn't mean we all come from one mother, but one lineage." This has been shown from mitochondrial DNA. Well where does one lineage come from if not from one mother? The same has been found for one father, from looking at the Y-Chromosome of males. These genomic ancestors ("mitochondrial Eve" and Adam) are estimated to have lived around 30,000 years ago, yes a little longer than 6000, but again, dating methods, especially with these things, are in their infancy; DNA was barely discovered 50 years ago. 30,000 years could very well be redated. But David Lose is just playing the "everyone agrees with me card" by citing popular opinion that Adam and Eve didn't exist. The man knows nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Jesus Christ brought up the fact that man was created--Matthew 19:4 and asked : "did you not read...?"
Taking certain parts of the bible literally would be harmful only to people who are in fear of man. Fear of ridicule from the intellectual crowd. As you know-- fear of God is more important than fear of man. Jesus said at Matthew 10:28--"Do not become fearful of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but rather be fearful of him who can destroy both the body and the soul in Gehenna ( which is symbolic of everlasting destruction). The word fear in the bible has a number of shades of meaning. The prophecy of Jesus at Isaiah 11:2 expresses that Jesus had a fear of God. This fear was not dread but was a profound reverence and awe of God, his Father.
When Jesus returns will he really find anyone with faith on the earth? Too many seminaries teaching higher criticism -- undermining the truth of God's word---faith needs to built up -- not torn down. Remember - the bible is written for the meek ones of the earth -- not for the ones who want a pat on the back from peers and intellectuals. If that is what you crave-- then your reward will be in full!
"Read this way, the story of Eden is the history of humanity writ small, and Adam and Eve are, indeed, the parents of us all. It's a more complicated story, for sure, than we've sometimes been offered, but it is also more interesting and compelling and, ultimately, one I'm inclined to believe."
David Lose forms a premise, a compelling theory of intellectual thought and concludes that he is inclined to believe the Bible as well. I.e., that Adam & Eve did exist.
"Did Adam and Eve exist?
No."
What he meant in his concluding statement was that the STORY of Adam & Eve, read in a certain way ("a story about the insecurity that is endemic to humanity and the ever-present temptation to refuse the identity that comes from the vulnerability of authentic relationship in favor of defining ourselves over and against each other") says something about the "history of humanity writ small" -- that is, symbolically -- which he is "inclined to believe." That's a completely different thing than believing in Adam & Eve. For instance, Shakespearean plays may also say something about the "history of humanity writ small"; that doesn't mean people who are "inclined to believe" those deeper truths Shakespeare is pointing out actually believe his plays depict historical characters.
The real question is why are you reading something into his concluding statement that simply is not there?
My interest is not to diss believers, but we do want a place at the table so that kids are given a fair education. The state of things in much of our country is to discourage most children from a life of inquiry and curiosity. If old folks want to believe they have all the answers, that's fine, but we want young minds to get all the information without the dogma.
According to the TALMUD Lilith is Adam’s first wife. In the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism In the 13th Century writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi ha-Cohen Adam's first wife was Lilith, who was created in the first Genesis account. From the 8th–10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam. Lilith claimed that since she and Adam were created in the same way they were equal, and she refuses to submit to him, and deserts him. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservienÂt to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with the Archangel Samael, Satan.
With the literature of the Kabbalah, Lilith became fixed in Jewish demonologyÂ. The Kabbalah further enhanced her demonic character by making her the partner of Samael (Satan) and queen of the realm of the forces of evil.
The term "Old Testament" is a Christian concept. And no Christian canon of the Bible ever contained a book of Lilith. At least on that point, you are mistaken.