Adam

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The firstman and the father of thehuman race.

Etymology and use of word

There is not a little divergence of opinion amongSemitic scholars when they attempt to explain the etymological signification of theHebrewadam (which in all probability was originally used as a common rather than a proper name), and so far no theory appears to be fully satisfactory. One cause of uncertainty in the matter is the fact that the rootadam as signifying"man" or "mankind" is not common to all theSemitic tongues, though of course the name is adopted by them in translations of theOld Testament. As an indigenous term with the above signification, it occurs only inPhoenician and Sabean, and probably also in Assyrian. InGenesis 2:7, the name seems to be connected with the wordha-adamah ("the ground"), in which case the value of the term would be to represent man (ratione materiæ) as earthborn, much the same as in Latin, where the wordhomo is supposed to be kindred withhumus. It is a generally recognized fact that the etymologies proposed in the narratives which make up the Book of Genesis are often divergent and not always philologically correct, and though the theory (founded onGenesis 2:7) that connectsadam withadamah has been defended by some scholars, it is at present generally abandoned. Others explain the term as signifying "to be red", a sense which the root bears in various passages of theOld Testament (e.g.Genesis 25:50), as also in Arabic andEthiopic. In this hypothesis the name would seem to have been originally applied to a distinctively red or ruddy race. In this connection Gesenius (Thesaurus, s.v., p. 25) remarks that on the ancient monuments ofEgypt the human figures representing Egyptians are constantly depicted in red, while those standing for other races are black or of some other colour. Something analogous to this explanation is revealed in the Assyrian expressionçalmât qaqqadi, i.e. "the black-headed", which is often used to denote men in general. (Cf. Delitsch, Assyr. Handwörterbuch, Leipzig, 1896, p. 25.) Some writers combine this explanation with the preceding one, and assign to the wordadam the twofold signification of "red earth", thus adding to the notion of man's material origin a connotation of the color of the ground from which he was formed. A third theory, which seems to be the prevailing one at present (cf. Pinches, TheOld Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria andBabylonia, 1903, pp. 78, 79), explains the rootadam as signifying "to make", "to produce", connecting it with the Assyrianadamu, the meaning of which is probably "to build", "to construct", whenceadam would signify "man" either in the passive sense, as made, produced, created, or in the active sense, as a producer.

In theOld Testament the word is used both as a common and a proper noun, and in the former acceptation it has different meanings. Thus inGenesis 2:5, it is employed to signify a human being, man orwoman; rarely, as inGenesis 2:22, it signifies man as opposed towoman, and, finally, it sometimes stands formankind collectively, as inGenesis 1:26. The use of the term, as a proper as well as a common noun, is common to both the sources designated in critical circles as P and J. Thus in the first narrative of the Creation (P) the word is used with reference to the production ofmankind in both sexes, but inGenesis 5:14, which belongs to the same source, it is also taken as a proper name. In like manner the second account of the creation (J) speaks of "the man" (ha-adam), but later on (Genesis 4:25) the same document employs the word as a proper name without the article.

Adam in the Old Testament

Practically all theOld Testament information concerning Adam and the beginnings of thehuman race is contained in the opening chapters of Genesis. To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article. Attention, however, must be called to the fact that the story of the Creation is told twice, viz. in the first chapter and in the second, and that while there is a substantial agreement between the two accounts there is, nevertheless, a considerable divergence as regards the setting of the narrative and the details. It has been the custom of writers who were loath to recognize the presence of independent sources or documents in thePentateuch to explain the fact of this twofold narrative by saying that the sacred writer, having set forth systematically in the first chapter the successive phases of the Creation, returns to the same topic in the second chapter in order to add some further special details with regard to the origin of man. It must be granted, however, that very few scholars of the present day, even amongCatholics, are satisfied with this explanation, and that among critics of everyschool there is a strong preponderance of opinion to the effect that we are here in presence of a phenomenon common enough in Oriental historical compositions, viz. the combination or juxtaposition of two or more independent documents more or less closely welded together by the historiographer, who among theSemites is essentially a compiler. (See Guidi,L'historiographie chez les Sémites in theRevue biblique, October, 1906.) The reasons on which this view is based, as well as the arguments of those who oppose it, may be found in Dr. Gigot'sSpecial Introduction to the Study of theOld Testament, Pt. I. Suffice it to mention here that a similar repetition of the principal events narrated is plainly discernible throughout all the historic portions of thePentateuch, and even of the later books, such as Samuel and Kings, and that the inference drawn from this constant phenomenon is confirmed not only by the difference of style and viewpoint characteristic of the duplicate narratives, but also by the divergences and antinomies which they generally exhibit. Be that as it may, it will be pertinent to the purpose of the present article to examine the main features of the twofold Creation narrative with special reference to the origin of man.

In the first account (Ch. i, ii, 4a)Elohim is represented as creating different categories of beings on successive days. Thus the vegetable kingdom is produced on the third day, and, having set the sun and moon in thefirmament ofheaven on the fourth,God on the fifth day creates the living things of the water and the fowls of the air which receive a special blessing, with the command to increase and multiply. On the sixth dayElohim creates, first, all the living creatures and beasts of the earth; then, in the words of the sacred narrative,

he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. AndGod created man to his own image: to the image ofGod he created him: male andfemale he created them.

Then follows the blessing accompanied by the command to increase and fill the earth, and finally the vegetable kingdom is assigned to them for food. Considered independently, this account of the Creation would leave room fordoubt as to whether the wordadam, "man", here employed was understood by the writer as designating an individual or the species. Certain indications would seem to favour the latter, e.g. the context, since the creations previously recorded refer doubtless to the production not of an individual or of a pair, but of vast numbers ofindividuals pertaining to the various species, and the same in case of man might further be inferred from the expression, "male andfemale he createdthem." However, another passage (Genesis 5:15), which belongs to the same source as this first narrative and in part repeats it, supplements the information contained in the latter and affords a key to its interpretation. In this passage which contains the last reference of the so-calledpriestly document to Adam, we read thatGod

created them male andfemale . . . and called their nameadam, in the day when they were created.

And the writer continues:

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years and he begot sons and daughters. And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Here evidently theadam or man of the Creation narrative is identified with a particular individual, and consequently the plural forms which might otherwise causedoubt are to be understood with reference to the first pair ofhuman beings.

In Genesis, ii, 4b-25 we have what is apparently a new and independent narrative of the Creation, not a mere amplification of the account already given. The writer indeed, without seeming to presuppose anything previously recorded, goes back to the time when there was yet no rain, no plant or beast of the field; and, while the earth is still a barren, lifeless waste, man is formed from the dust byYahweh, who animates him by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. How far these terms are to be interpreted literally or figuratively, and whether the Creation of the first man was direct or indirect, seePENTATEUCH,CREATION,MAN. Thus the creation of man, instead of occupying the last place, as it does in the ascending scale of the first account, is placed before the creation of the plants and animals, and these are represented as having been produced subsequently in order to satisfy man's needs. Man is not commissioned to dominate the whole earth, as in the first narrative, but is set to take care of theGarden of Eden with permission to eat of its fruit, except that of the tree of theknowledge ofgood andevil, and the formation ofwoman as a helpmeet for man is represented as an afterthought on the part ofYahweh in recognition of man's inability to find suitable companionship in the brute creation. In the preceding account, after each progressive step "God saw that it was good", but hereYahweh perceives, as it were, that it isnot good for man to be alone, and he proceeds to supply the deficiency by fashioning thewomanEve from the rib of the man while he is in a deep sleep. According to the same narrative, they live in childlike innocence untilEve is tempted by the serpent, and they both partake of the forbidden fruit. They thereby become conscious ofsin, incur the displeasure ofYahweh, and lest they should eat of the tree of life and becomeimmortal, they are expelled from theGarden of Eden. Henceforth their lot is to be one of pain and hardship, and man is condemned to the toilsome task of winning his sustenance from a soil which on his account has been cursed with barrenness. The same document gives us a few details connected with our first parents after the Fall, viz.: the birth of Cain and Abel the fratricide, and the birth of Seth. The other narrative, which seems toknow nothing of Cain or Abel, mentions Seth (Chap. v, 3) as if he were the first born, and adds that during the eight hundred years following the birth of Seth Adam begat sons and daughters.

Notwithstanding the differences and discrepancies noticeable in the two accounts of the origin of,mankind, the narratives are nevertheless in substantial agreement, and in the esteem of the majority of scholars they are easiest explained and reconciled if considered as representing two varying traditions among the Hebrews — traditions which in different form and setting embodied the selfsame central historic facts, together with a presentation more or less symbolical of certain moral and religioustruths. Thus in both accounts man is clearly distinguished from, and made dependent upon,God the Creator; yet he is directly connected with Him through the creative act, to the exclusion of all intermediary beings or demigods such as are found in the variousheathen mythologies. That man beyond all the other creatures partakes of the perfection ofGod is made manifest in the first narrative, in that he is created in the image ofGod, to which corresponds in the other account the equally significant figure of man receiving his life from the breath ofYahweh. That man on the other hand has something in common with the animals is implied in the one case in his creation on the same day, and in the other by his attempt, though ineffectual, to find among them a suitable companion. He is the lord and the crown of creation, as is clearly expressed in the first account, where the creation of man is the climax ofGod's successive works, and where his supremacy is explicitly stated, but the same is implied no less clearly in the second narrative. Such indeed may be the significance of placing man's creation before that of the animals and plants, but, however that may be, the animals and plants are plainly created for his utility and benefit. Woman is introduced as secondary and subordinate to man, though identical with him in nature, and the formation of a singlewoman for a single man implies thedoctrine of monogamy. Moreover, man was created innocent and good;sin came to him from without, and it was quickly followed by a severe punishment affecting not only the guilty pair, but their descendants and other beings as well. (Cf. Bennett in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s.v.) The two accounts, therefore, are practically at one with regard to didactic purpose and illustration, and it is doubtless to this feature that we should attach their chief significance. It is hardlynecessary to remark in passing that the loftiness of thedoctrinal andethicaltruths here set forth place the biblical narrative immeasurably above the extravagant Creation stories current among thepagan nations of antiquity, though some of these, particularly theBabylonian, bear a more or less striking resemblance to it in form. In the light of thisdoctrinal and moral excellence, the question of the strict historical character of the narrative, as regards the framework and details, becomes of relatively slight importance, especially when we recall that in history as conceived by the other biblical authors, as well as bySemitic writers generally, the presentation and arrangement of facts — and indeed their entire role — is habitually made subordinate to the exigencies of a didactic preoccupation.

As regards extra-biblical sources which throw light upon theOld Testament narrative, it is well known that the Hebrew account of the Creation finds a parallel in theBabylonian tradition as revealed by the cuneiform writings. It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss the relations of historical dependence generally admitted to exist between the twocosmogonies. Suffice it to say with regard to the origin of man, that though the fragment of the "Creation Epic", which is supposed to contain it, has not been found, there are nevertheless good independent grounds for assuming that it belonged originally to the tradition embodied in the poem, and that it must have occupied a place in the latter just after the account given of the production of the plants and the animals, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Among the reasons for this assumption are:

(Cf.Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Creation", also Davis,Genesis andSemitic Tradition, pp. 36-47.) As regards the creation ofEve, no parallel has so far been discovered among the fragmentary records of theBabylonian creation story. That the account, as it stands in Genesis, is not to be taken literally as descriptive of historic fact was the opinion ofOrigen, of Cajetan, and it is now maintained by such scholars as Hoberg (Die Genesis, Freiburg, 1899, p. 36) and von Hummelauer (Comm. in Genesim, pp. 149 sqq.). These and other writers see in this narrative the record of a vision symbolical of the future and analogous to the one vouchsafed to Abraham (Genesis 15:12 sqq.), and toSt. Peter inJoppe (Acts 10:10 sqq.). (See Gigot,Special Introduction to the Study of theOld Testament, pt. I, p. 165, sqq.)

References to Adam as an individual in the laterOld Testament books are very few, and they add nothing to the information contained in Genesis. Thus the name stands without comment at the head of the genealogies at the beginning of I Paralipomenon; it is mentioned likewise in Tobias, viii, 8; Osee, vi, 7;Sirach 35:24, etc. TheHebrewadam occurs in various other passages, but in the sense of man ormankind. The mention of Adam in Zacharias, xiii, 5, according to theDouay version and theVulgate, is due to a mistranslation of the original.

Adam in the New Testament

In theNew Testament references to Adam as an historical personage occur only in a few passages. Thus in thethird chapter of St. Luke's Gospel thegenealogy of the Saviour is traced back to "Adam who was ofGod". This prolongation of the earthly lineage ofJesus beyond Abraham, who forms the starting point inSt. Matthew, is doubtless due to the more universal spirit and sympathy characteristic of ourthird Evangelist, who writes not so much from the viewpoint of Jewish prophecy and expectation as for the instruction of theGentile recruits toChristianity. Another mention of the historic father of the race is found in theEpistle of Jude (verse 14), where a quotation is inserted from theapocryphalBook of Enoch, which, rather strange to say, is attributed to theantediluvian patriarch of that name, "the seventh from Adam." But the most important references to Adam are found in theEpistles ofSt. Paul. Thus in1 Timothy 2:11-14, the Apostle, after laying down certain practical rules referring to the conduct ofwomen, particularly as regards public worship, and inculcating theduty of subordination to the other sex, makes use of an argument the weight of which rests more upon thelogical methods current at the time than upon its intrinsic value as appreciated by the modern mind:

For Adam was first formed; thenEve. And Adam was not seduced; but thewoman being seduced, was in the transgression.

A similar line of argument is pursued in1 Corinthians 11:8-9. More important is thetheologicaldoctrine formulated bySt. Paul inRomans 5:12-21, and in1 Corinthians 15:22-45. In the latter passageJesus Christ is called by analogy and contrast the new or "last Adam." This is understood in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of allmankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so alsoJesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritualfamily of theelect, and potentially of allmankind, since all are invited to partake of Hissalvation. Thus the first Adam is a type of the second, but while the former transmits to his progeny a legacy of death, the latter, on the contrary, becomes the vivifying principle of restored righteousness.Christ is the "last Adam" inasmuch as "there is no other name underheaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); no other chief or father of the race is to be expected. Both the first and the second Adam occupy the position of head with regard to humanity, but whereas the first through his disobedience vitiated, as it were, in himself thestirps of the entire race, and left to his posterity an inheritance of death,sin, and misery, the other through his obedience merits for all those who become his members a new life ofholiness and an everlasting reward. It may be said that the contrast thus formulated expresses a fundamental tenet of theChristian religion and embodies in a nutshell the entiredoctrine of the economy ofsalvation. It is principally on these and passages of similar import (e.g.Matthew 18:11) that is based the fundamentaldoctrine that our first parents were raised by theCreator to a state ofsupernatural righteousness, the restoration of which was the object of the Incarnation. It need hardly be said that the fact of this elevation could not be so clearly inferred from theOld Testament account taken independently.

Adam in Jewish and Christian tradition

It is a well-known fact that, partly from a desire to satisfypious curiosity by adding details to the too meagre biblical accounts, and partly withethical intent, there grew up in later Jewish as well as in earlyChristian andMohammedan tradition a luxuriant crop of legendary lore around the names of all the important personages of theOld Testament. It was therefore only natural that the story of Adam andEve should receive special attention and be largely developed by this process of embellishment. These additions, some of which are extravagant and puerile, are chiefly imaginary, or at best based on a fanciful understanding of some slight detail of the sacred narrative. Needless to say that they do not embody any real historic information, and their chief utility is to afford an example of thepious popular credulity of the times as well as of the slight value to be attached to the so-called Jewish traditions when they are invoked as an argument in critical discussion. Many rabbinical legends concerning our first parents are found in the Talmud, and many others were contained in theapocryphalBook of Adam now lost, but of which extracts have come down to us in other works of a similar character (seeMAN). The most important of these legends, which it is not the scope of the present article to reproduce, may be found in theJewish Encyclopedia, I, art. "Adam", and as regards theChristian legends, in Smith and Wace,Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT