Are Adam and Eve *Both* Dogma?

[theistgal]

Hi theistgal,

It’s because science can trace humanity back to a single male, or a single female, but not to a single couple. (Apparently humans were not monogamous back then). I’m asking this question to try to reconcile science with dogma in my mind.

(And i dont think that first man was named Adam, I think Adam is the hebrew word for “man” and Adam is symbolic of the first man, or perhaps even a first group of men)

Yes, but once again … if you accept that there was a “first man” named Adam, which presumably means you accept the Church’s teaching on that point, why not just go the extra inch-and-a-half and accept Eve too?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, but once again … if you accept that there was a “first man” named Adam, which presumably means you accept the Church’s teaching on that point, why not just go the extra inch-and-a-half and accept Eve too?

Because science says that we’re not all descended from the same couple. We can all trace our family trees back to one man, but not to one couple.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

From “Communion and Stewardship,” a 2004 Curia document produced under Ratzinger’s watch by the International Theological Commission:

Thank you, it sounds like they left the door open to polygenism there.

 

[TMC]

Hi,
Can you name me somethign written about this by the current pope, so I can go find it and read it? I would appreicate it.
Neil

The 2004 Curia document quoted above almost certainly reflects (or at least does not conflict) with the Pope’s views. He also wrote extensively on the topic as a theologian. The link below is to some excerpts from a book he wrote in the 90’s called “In the Beginning…”

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

A quote:

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

 

[theistgal]

Because science says that we’re not all descended from the same couple. We can all trace our family trees back to one man, but not to one couple.

Has “science” stated that definitively, as a fact which must be accepted?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Has “science” stated that definitively, as a fact which must be accepted?

Oh I don’t know… but I think they often turn out to be right. If it’s good enough for the pope, its good enough for me.

 

[theistgal]

Oh I don’t know… but I think they often turn out to be right. If it’s good enough for the pope, its good enough for me.

Don’t get me wrong - I have no problem with the theory of evolution; nor do I have any problem with people who say they just don’t take the story of the Bible literally. I just wondered how one could say they believe in “Adam” but not “Eve” - seems like if you’re going to swallow the camel you may as well swallow the gnat too.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Don’t get me wrong - I have no problem with the theory of evolution; nor do I have any problem with people who say they just don’t take the story of the Bible literally. I just wondered how one could say they believe in “Adam” but not “Eve” - seems like if you’re going to swallow the camel you may as well swallow the gnat too.

Hmmm… maybe I should explain in more detail

I think the Garden of Eden story is symbolic.

Traditionally, even if considered symbolic, we had to believe that there were a first man and first woman who committed a first sin which led to the fall and original sin.

Modern science is showing that not only is the timing and the cosmology and pre-history in Genesis incorrect, but also the notion that we are all descended from one couple who we inherited original sin from is unlikely.

We can still cling to the idea that there was a first human being, who committed the first sin, without stretching what science tells us. But to cling to the idea that there were two first human beings at the same time who both cooperated in this sin is difficult to reconcile with science.

So, as I am imagining it, the first homo sapiens would have had children with a number of female hominoids who were not completely human, but their offspring were homo sapiens and had souls. The first male homo sapien committed the original sin and we all are descended from him and inherited it from him.

 

[Ahimsa]

The first male homo sapien committed the original sin and we all are descended from him and inherited it from him.

But in Genesis, it was the woman, not the man, who first succumbed to the serpent, thus the woman committed the original sin.

Which might mean that the first Homo sapiens was a woman.

Another conundrum: What gender was “Adam” before “Adam” was split into a male and a female?

 

[mlldrl]

Because science says that we’re not all descended from the same couple. We can all trace our family trees back to one man, but not to one couple.

I’ve heard that through mitochondrial DNA science trace all humans back to a common mother since each of us get our mitochondrial DNA from our mother alone but I’ve never heard anything about being able to trace back to a common father. You said that science can trace back to a common man or woman, can you provide a link to an article on this?

M

 

[ForMary]

Hi theistgal,

It’s because science can trace humanity back to a single male, or a single female, but not to a single couple. (Apparently humans were not monogamous back then). I’m asking this question to try to reconcile science with dogma in my mind.

(And i dont think that first man was named Adam, I think Adam is the hebrew word for “man” and Adam is symbolic of the first man, or perhaps even a first group of men)

What part of the Old Testament implies that **monogamy **played a role in marriage? Abraham, Jacob, David…all had multiple wives, were given servants to father with, or had affairs, and this is just the top three of our forefathers.

According to the creation story, God told Adam (not Eve) that he wasn’t to eat from the tree. Additionally, God put Adam in charge of the garden. That made Adam responsible for Eve eating of the tree and Adam, of course when he did.

Regardless of the single pair, do we really want to dwell on what literal connotation can be marked as dogma? If we do, then we are all brothers and sisters of incest.

Personally, I’d rather look at the message of the story which is that God created all things, even human beings and that we are all of one family, made in the image and likeness of God.

And true, like many names they were derived based on the descriptions of what they actually were, Eve was named by Adam and means (roughly) “to breathe life into.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve heard that through mitochondrial DNA science trace all humans back to a common mother since each of us get our mitochondrial DNA from our mother alone but I’ve never heard anything about being able to trace back to a common father. You said that science can trace back to a common man or woman, can you provide a link to an article on this?

M

From Wikipedia:

Mitochondrial Eve and the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all living male humans, known as Y-chromosomal Adam, have been established by researchers using tests of the same kinds of DNA as for two individuals.[4] Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam is estimated to have lived around 60,000 years ago. The MRCA of humans alive today would therefore need to have lived more recently than either.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But in Genesis, it was the woman, not the man, who first succumbed to the serpent, thus the woman committed the original sin.

Which might mean that the first Homo sapiens was a woman.

Another conundrum: What gender was “Adam” before “Adam” was split into a male and a female?

Well… didn’t sin enter the world through Adam? Anyway, I suppose Adam could represent the first human, even if the first human was female.

I suppose maybe Adam represents a first population of humans which all somehow sinned together? But thats even more of a departure from how its been traditionally understood.

 

[Ahimsa]

Well… didn’t sin enter the world through Adam? Anyway, I suppose Adam could represent the first human, even if the first human was female.

It’s possible that when someone says “sin entered the world through Adam”, that the “Adam” referred to is the “pre-surgery” Adam, who could be said to have been both “Adam-and-Eve”. So, Eve would simply be part of the larger “pre-surgery Adam”. Thus, “sin entered the world through Adam” would be true, because the “pre-surgery Adam” included “Adam-and-Eve” as one.

I suppose maybe Adam represents a first population of humans which all somehow sinned together? But thats even more of a departure from how its been traditionally understood.

Well, that’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.

 

[buffalo]

Well… didn’t sin enter the world through Adam? Anyway, I suppose Adam could represent the first human, even if the first human was female.

I suppose maybe Adam represents a first population of humans which all somehow sinned together? But thats even more of a departure from how its been traditionally understood.

Whatever you are musing about, the clear consistent Catholic teaching has been Adam and Eve were our first parents and Eve came from Adam.

God could have simply created Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserted them into the timeline wherever He wished regardless of what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[TMC]

Well… didn’t sin enter the world through Adam? Anyway, I suppose Adam could represent the first human, even if the first human was female.

I suppose maybe Adam represents a first population of humans which all somehow sinned together? But thats even more of a departure from how its been traditionally understood.

Happily, I just discovered that the Pope recently preached on precisely this issue.

On Christ, the New Adam, “God Himself Has Entered History As New Source of Goodness”

Please read the homily, its quite good. My take on it is that the Pope is saying that the entry of evil into the good of creation remains a mystery, and that Genesis 3 is an attempt to explain that mystery. But that the important thing for Christians is to always understand original sin in the context of Christ’s redemption –

in the faith of the Church the awareness matured of the dogma of original sin it is because it is indissolubly connected with the other dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. The consequence of this is that we must never treat the sin of Adam and of humanity in a way that is detached from the salvific context, namely, without understanding it on the horizon of justification in Christ.

 

[cerad]

Because science says that we’re not all descended from the same couple. We can all trace our family trees back to one man, but not to one couple.

Science has not as of yet worked out a system for tracing ancestral couples. However it appears that the most recent male ancestor of all people lived about 60-70 thousand years ago while the most recent female ancestor goes back to around two hundred thousand years. It’s not an unreasonable assumption that the various male mates of the most recent female ancestor are probably our direct ancestors. Science just does not know yet.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What part of the Old Testament implies that **monogamy **played a role in marriage? Abraham, Jacob, David…all had multiple wives, were given servants to father with, or had affairs, and this is just the top three of our forefathers.

According to the creation story, God told Adam (not Eve) that he wasn’t to eat from the tree. Additionally, God put Adam in charge of the garden. That made Adam responsible for Eve eating of the tree and Adam, of course when he did.

Regardless of the single pair, do we really want to dwell on what literal connotation can be marked as dogma? If we do, then we are all brothers and sisters of incest.

Personally, I’d rather look at the message of the story which is that God created all things, even human beings and that we are all of one family, made in the image and likeness of God.

And true, like many names they were derived based on the descriptions of what they actually were, Eve was named by Adam and means (roughly) “to breathe life into.”

Well, I’m dwelling on what has already been marked as dogma, since we can’t just back out of that. We need to reconcile existing dogma with science.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t know of any faithful and reasonable theory that would NOT have Adam and Eve as two real historical persons at the start of the human race. The theory that the human race began with many persons, rather than two, is ruled out by Humani Generis 37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. I also think that it is contrary to the Faith to postulate any theory that has no Divine intervention at all in the origin of the human race. So evolution by itself cannot explain the origin of the human race. We might accept evolution as a partially correct partial explanation, but it would be contrary to the Faith to accept evolution as the whole explanation for the origin of life and of humanity.

 

[ForMary]

Neil_Anthony,

To address the following…

It’s because science can trace humanity back to a single male, or a single female, but not to a single couple. (Apparently humans were not monogamous back then). I’m asking this question to try to reconcile science with dogma in my mind.

unfortunately we must dwell…

Well, I’m dwelling on what has already been marked as dogma, since we can’t just back out of that. We need to reconcile existing dogma with science.

If Catholic dogma includes
The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Then suppose Eve conceiving children with Adam, Cane, Able, other sons, as well as daughters of Eve conceiving with Adam and brothers and so on and so forth…all of the possible myriad combinations.

This could, satisfy dogma (albeit distastefully) in addition to providing a hypothetical possibility that the human race stems from one single human pair.