In Pt. 22 I shared Enns’ thoughts on Paul’s interpretive culture. In this post we survey the various “Adams” of Jewish interpreters as presented by Enns.
According to Enns this Adam is “delivered from his transgressions,” unlike Paul’s Adam who appears to be punished for them. Death is the fault of Satan, not Adam. Enns writes:
According to 2:23–24, death entered the world “through the devil’s envy,” not through Adam’s disobedience. (Equating the serpent with the devil is itself an interpretive move, since in Genesis the serpent is simply a cunning creature.)” (Kindle Locations 2374-2375)
Life of Adam and Eve:
Adam is created in the image of God and Michael commands the angels to worship him. Satan rebels against this idea attacking Adam, but God aims to protect him.
Sirach:
Enns writes:
“This author portrays Adam not as a victim or the font of human misery but the most exalted figure in all of creation, yet as one who also lacks wisdom, is mortal, comes from the earth, and returns there. Sirach places no blame on Adam for the misery of humanity. Rather, this author blames Eve for death: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (25:24) (Kindle Locations 2385-2387).”
Jubilees:
Enns argues that Adam is presented as a priest and that the narrative is shaped by “Israel’s cultic life.”
Philo:
Adam is created perfect, but each subsequent generation brings decline. There is no “Fall,” but when Eve is created Adam seeks “pleasure” and therefore his relationship with God declines.
2 Esdras:
Enns says that this book comes close to the view of Paul. He writes:
This book addresses the present and future status of Israel by explaining the predicament they find themselves in presently: subject to the Romans, with the Jerusalem temple lying in ruins. The answer is found in what happened to the first man, Adam. His transgression affected all of humanity by introducing death, although individuals are still responsible for their own moral path (3:4–27). Among all the nations, this author tells his readers, God has chosen Israel eventually to reestablish the dominion that would have been conferred on all humanity if Adam had not transgressed (6:53–59). Israel is true humanity (Kindle Locations 2415-2419).”
2 Baruch:
This book shares views similar to Paul’s as well. Enns writes:
“This author sees Adam as the cause of everyone’s “corruption” (= death; 23:4; 48:42–43), but Adam is not the cause of anyone else’s sin. Humans imitate Adam when they sin and so have personal moral responsibility to decide whether to follow in Adam’s footsteps (Kindle Locations 2433-2435).”
What do these various and mixed interpretations of Adam say about Paul?
“Paul may not make Adam into a priestly figure, but he too is driven in his exegesis by what he has experienced as fundamental to the new phase in God’s plan: God’s purposes are now fully revealed in the crucified and risen Messiah. Paul’s point is central to Christianity, but that does not mean his use of Adam stands alone as a straight reading of the story. Ancient interpreters were not neutral observers of the text—which is often considered to be a model of biblical interpretation in the modern world (Kindle Locations 2397-2401).”
And:
“Paul’s Adam is a vehicle by which he articulates the gospel message, but his Adam is still the product of a creative handling of the story. In that sense, Paul’s handling of Adam is hermeneutically no different from what others were doing at the time: appropriating an ancient story to address pressing concerns of the moment. That has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the gospel (Kindle Locations 2447-2450).”
In my next post I will finish these preliminary discussions by surveying how Enns views Paul as an interpreter of Scripture then we can get to Enns’ interpretation of Paul.

October 24, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Let’s suppose that this subtext (Enns has identified) does exist in the creation narrative and that each of his ancient sources reflect this – does Enns make a case one way or the other that this narrative is unwarranted (unnecessary or unfounded)?
Suppose that Israel’s cultic life has indeed shaped the narrative – so what? If Israel was elected from all the nations of the earth [Psa 147:20] to be the tribes of God’s inheritance [Jer 10:16] and His portion [Jer 51:19], just as Adam was elected from all the creatures of creation to the image of God, this shaping that Enns is sensing is purposeful. If Isarel’s cultic life is reflective of it’s elective history, and the Adamic role elective, wouldn’t this element naturally resonant in later creation narratives?
Perhaps Enns has missed what other early Exegetes have not.
October 24, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I think it’s worthwhile to note that every reference to Adam and the Genesis 2-3 story comes from late (2nd-century BCE to 2nd-century CE) works, like those listed above, that post-date nearly the entire Tanakh. Genesis is of no theological import in the older scriptures, and indeed, there is no reason to think it had even been written yet. The majority of the chapters of Genesis are also missing from the 27 copies found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Garbini (Myth and History in the Bible) puts the completion of the Pentateuch at around 200 BC, with Genesis being its last addition. In spite of its prominent position at the front of the modern Bible, the Genesis 2 creation story and Adam were mere afterthoughts in the development of Judaism, not foundational scripture. A real search for the origin of evil in the Bible and Jewish tradition should probably start with Enoch.
October 25, 2012 at 8:27 am
Very true, the dating of Genesis 1-2 does complicate matters as far as reliance is concerned.
Pingback: Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 24): Paul and his Bible. | Near Emmaus
Pingback: a blt Biblical Studies Carnival « BLT
Pingback: Series of posts on the historicity of Adam. | Near Emmaus