On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 09:47:11 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
DL>Now if you asked me directly what I think of the "two Adam" theory,
here
>is my answer: it is another concordism hermeneutic, the product of the
>incorrect introduction of 20th century categories into the exegesis of an
>ANE text (do read Dennis L. Durst's latest post, I think he is right on).
>In a word, it is eisegetical. You cannot employ intellectual categories
>in an intellectual milieu where they have never existed--they would have
>no meaning.
Disagree. The two-"Adam" model does not depend only on this
lexigraphical issue of the meaning on 'Adam. We are dealing with the
apparent tension between what the Bible picture of the recency of Adam
and the scientific picture of the antiquity of man. If God is the
ultimate Author of the "books" of nature and the book of Scripture,
then it is reasonable to expect them to agree.
Ruling out even the possibility of seeing how they might ultimately
agree (in the case of Genesis 1-2), by the throw-away line "another
concordism hermeneutic, the product of the incorrect introduction of
20th century categories into the exegesis of an ANE text", is IMHO
prejudging the issue.
The two-"Adam" model is simply a re-examination of what the Bible
actually does say about Adam - it actually doesn't mention him in
Genesis 1, and the first time the Heb. 'Adam is translated as "Adam"
is in Gn 2:19-20. The same sort of re-examination has been made of
other Bible and science tension points. eg. the days of Gn 1, a global
Flood, etc.
Assuming that Gn 1-11 is not just unhistorical mythology, if the "man"
of Gn 1:26-27 is a *category* (e.g. Homo) and the "Adam" of Gn
2:19-20ff is an *individual*, then in principle the anthroplogical
evidence for the antiquity of man and Biblical evidence for the
recency of Adam, can both be right.
Only if it is asserted that Gn 1 "man" and Gn 2 "Adam" must be
absolutely identical, then the two-"Adam" model is falsified
from the outset. But the two accounts are clearly different, being
even on two different source tablets (see Harrison IOT, p548). And
conservative Christian scholarship has for centuries regarded the
creation accounts of Gn 1 and Gn 2 as different but complementary.
I will be posting a paper on the two-"Adam" model, so I request
you maintain an open mind until you see the whole argument. If you
haven't read it, you might try and get Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was
Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969, where the two-"Adam" model
was first (?) published. BTW I do not necessarily agree with every
last detail of what Pearce wrote in "Who Was Adam?", but I doubt that
today he does either.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------