Re: BIBLE:first humans

David Campbell (bivalve@isis.unc.edu)
Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:49:31 -0500

>What I often have difficult understanding is that if the story of Adam and
>Eve are allegorical and that they did not literally exist (I believe the
>word Adam can loosely be translated as "man" or "human" in today's
>politically correct language) who can one say was the first biblical person
>had a real existence?
>
Probably the most important evidence that Adam is intended as an individual
comes from Paul's epistles, rather than Genesis. Jesus' role as a second
Adam (Rom. 5, etc.) makes more sense if Adam is an individual (though is
not totally incompatable with a more figurative view). This agrees with
the molecular evidence for a very small population as the common ancestor
of all modern humans.
I don't know of any archaeological confirmation of a specific individual's
name until the monarchy, though the cultures mentioned earlier certainly
existed.