Alice C. Linsley
In what sense are Adam and Eve real? In biblical parlance they represent the first humans created by God. As such, we must relate them to the oldest known human populations over 3 millions years ago. In this sense they are best described as meta-historical.
Must they be historical persons to be real? Clearly, not. To Abraham's Nilotic ancestors the idea of a meta-historical archetype was not foreign. Neither did they require that something be historical to be true or real.
In this essay we look at five approaches to understanding Adam and Eve.
1. Literal Interpretation
In this view, Adam and Eve were the historical first parents of humanity. Many who hold this view also hold to a young earth creationism, placing Adam and Eve only about 10,000 years ago. They are not concerned with reconciling this view with the fact that the oldest human remains are millions of years old or that the Genesis genealogies reveal that Cain [1] and his brother Seth married into the royal house of Nok (Enoch). This would make Nok a contemporary of Adam.
2. Allegory
In this view, the story of Adam and Eve explains how humans fell from innocence to a state in which they experience suffering and death. An allegory is a literary and artistic device in which characters represent an idea or a religious or moral principle. Those who hold this view need not insist that Adam and Eve were historical persons. An example of the allegorical approach is Philo's commentary [2] which looks at the history of mankind, beginning at Genesis 2.
3. Federal Headship
Others view Adam as the “federal head” or head male who brought all of humanity into sin. They argue that Adam must therefore be an historical person. They cite Hebrews 7:9-10: “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Here federal headship rests with Abraham, from whom Levi descended. Levi, who received tithes from his brothers, is said to have acted while still in the loins of his "father" Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20).
Of course, this misses the point that it was Eve who first sinned, not Adam. She who was the crown of creation, who stood upright with her head to the heavens, submitted herself to the will of the lowest of creatures - one that moves with its belly near the earth. Eve's agreement to do the will of the serpent represents an inversion of the hierarchical order of creation.
Likewise, instead of listening to God, Adam listened to his wife and became like the serpent, eating dust all the days of his toil. Adam’s fall recalls his origins from dust: "And God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7).
4. Typology
In Romans 5:14, Paul declares that Adam “is a figure (tupos) of him that was to come”, i.e., Christ. Charles T. Fritsch [3] wrote that “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity.” By this definition we can’t say that Jesus is like Adam or like Melchizedek. Instead we must hold that Adam is a type of the true Man Jesus and Melchizedek is a type of the One Priest whose ministry is Messianic and eternal.
Typology can be approach from another angle. Instead of prefiguring, a type can be understood as a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament by a reality, embodiment or antitype found in the New Testament. According to this view, Adam is but a shadow (skia, following Colossians 2:17) of the eternal Form Man, who is Christ Jesus.
Typology must always be considered against the backdrop of the pattern of Reality. The use of antitupona, rendered “figures” (KJV) or “pattern” (ASV) in Hebrews 9:24, leads us to explore the pattern shown in Scripture and explored by the Church Fathers. Typology is fruitful because there is a pattern. It is the very weave of Reality and runs deeper than we generally recognize. We discover it when we explore the couplets found in Scripture: Two Passovers and Two Drunken Fathers, 2 Tabernacles: the earthly and heavenly, and 2 trees at the sacred center (here we have another type of the "tree in the midst of the garden" which has as its antitype the Cross at the center of all things, seen and unseen).
5. Myth
Some see the Adam and Eve story as an origin myth. Myths, like dreams, speak in symbols. Symbols pose meaning at the deepest level by presenting relationships. Adam is made from the red earth, which is the meaning of the word adamah. This may also be a reference to the place Adamah in west central Africa and to the ruddy skin color of the Nilotic peoples who give us this origin story. Myths lift up relationships such as flesh to spirit, woman to man, and heaven and earth, and also contain clues to the origin or source of the myth. The Adam and Eve story finds its closest parallels to origin myths of East Africa.
The cultural context of the Genesis creation stories is African [5]. That being so, we must try to understand the story in the context of creation stories held by African tribes. For example, we note the similarities of the Garden of Eden story to the story of Gikuyu and Mumbi, the first ancestors of the Gikuyu (East Africa). Here is a portion of that story:
Now you know that at the beginning of things there was only one man (Gikuyu) and one woman (Mumbi). It was under this Mukuyu that He first put them. And immediately the sun rose and the dark night melted away. The sun shone with a warmth that gave life and activity to all things. The wind and the lightning and thunder stopped. The animals stopped moaning and moved, giving homage to the Creator and to Gikuyu and Mumbi. And the Creator, who is also called Murungu, took Gikuyu and Mumbi from his holy mountain to the country of the ridges near Siriana and there stood them on a big ridge. The He took them to Mukuruwe wa Gathanga about which you have heard so much. But He had shown them all the land - yes, children, God showed Gikuyu and Mumbi all the land and told them: "This land I hand over to you, O Man and Woman. It is yours to rule and to till in serenity, sacrificing only to me, your God, under my sacred tree.
It is evident that Gikuyu and Mumbi are the first ancestors of the Gikuyu. They are not conceived by the Gikuyu as the progenitors of all humanity. Likewise, it is not necessary to insist that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of all humanity. Instead we may understand them as the first ancestors of the people who gave us Genesis. This concept of the first ancestors or heads of tribes and clans is found throughout the Bible. Midian is the head of the Midianites; Jacob is the head of the Israelites, and Lot is the head of the Moabites.
In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible the word adamah is rendered as “land” 105 times, as “ground” 67 times, as “earth” 37 times, as “soil” 6 times, and as “country” twice. It never refers to an historical person.
In what sense may we speak of Adam and Eve as real? The question reveals a shortcoming in the Western approach to Scripture. We tend to equate real with historical, an equation that would have struck the ancients as strange. Our approach is informed by Empiricism which views as real only what is material and finite.
The biblical worldview, on the other hand, allows for metaphysical realness in the Platonic sense (although Plato likely borrowed his binary idea of Form and Image from the ancient Egyptians). Genesis presents Adam as real, not in the Empirical sense, but in the sense of archetypes. In Platonic thought, the temporal and material is a reflection of the eternal and immaterial. The temporal passes away, but the eternal can neither pass away nor can it be corrupted or changed. St. Paul is a great master of the method and he views Adam as the archetype of the God-Man. Adam, the temporal and material points to Jesus Christ. Adam experiences corruption and passes away. Christ is ever without corruption and eternal. When Adam was made in the image of the eternal true Form, he was made in the Divine Image. In His incarnation, Christ our God was eternally 'begotten' of the Father, but without corruption since His existence is from before time.
6. Archetype
Adam and Eve as archetype does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they are also ancestors. The ancient Afro-Asiatics regarded ancestors as archetypes and archtypes as ancestors. A problem comes when we insist that they lived as the historical first parnets of all the people in the world. When we make this statement we force the Bible to say something that it doesn't say. In fact, we make it say the opposite of what it says, because analysis of Genesis 4 and 5 reveals that Cain and Seth married the daughters of an African chief name Nok (Enoch) and where there are chiefs, there already exists a social fabric, laws, traditions, language and artifacts. Cain and Seth are themselves associated with the symbols of authority. So if Adam and Eve are ancestors, they are ancestors of Cain and Seth's people who are identified in Genesis as Kushites.
NOTES
1. The genealogical information found in Genesis 4 and 5 reveals that Cain and his brother Seth married sisters. These brides were the daughters of an Afro-Asiatic chief named Nok (Enoch in Hebrew). The Nok civilization is dated between 12,000 and about 2000 years ago and is related to the Naqada civilization. Cain likely lived close to the time of Noah’s flood which would have been during the Guirian Wet Period between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago.
2. Read http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book2.html
3. Read Charles T. Fritch here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/fritsch.html
4. Read Wick Broomall here: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/126-a-study-of-biblical-typology
5. Read about the cultural context of the Genesis creation stories here.
Reading reading: Christians Debate Genesis and Evolution; The Genesis King Lists; Bishop Ussher Goofed; Adam and Eve as Archetypal Ancestors; The First Verifiably Historical Persons in Genesis; Eve's Sin
In what sense are Adam and Eve real? In biblical parlance they represent the first humans created by God. As such, we must relate them to the oldest known human populations over 3 millions years ago. In this sense they are best described as meta-historical.
Must they be historical persons to be real? Clearly, not. To Abraham's Nilotic ancestors the idea of a meta-historical archetype was not foreign. Neither did they require that something be historical to be true or real.
In this essay we look at five approaches to understanding Adam and Eve.
1. Literal Interpretation
In this view, Adam and Eve were the historical first parents of humanity. Many who hold this view also hold to a young earth creationism, placing Adam and Eve only about 10,000 years ago. They are not concerned with reconciling this view with the fact that the oldest human remains are millions of years old or that the Genesis genealogies reveal that Cain [1] and his brother Seth married into the royal house of Nok (Enoch). This would make Nok a contemporary of Adam.
2. Allegory
In this view, the story of Adam and Eve explains how humans fell from innocence to a state in which they experience suffering and death. An allegory is a literary and artistic device in which characters represent an idea or a religious or moral principle. Those who hold this view need not insist that Adam and Eve were historical persons. An example of the allegorical approach is Philo's commentary [2] which looks at the history of mankind, beginning at Genesis 2.
3. Federal Headship
Others view Adam as the “federal head” or head male who brought all of humanity into sin. They argue that Adam must therefore be an historical person. They cite Hebrews 7:9-10: “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” Here federal headship rests with Abraham, from whom Levi descended. Levi, who received tithes from his brothers, is said to have acted while still in the loins of his "father" Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20).
Of course, this misses the point that it was Eve who first sinned, not Adam. She who was the crown of creation, who stood upright with her head to the heavens, submitted herself to the will of the lowest of creatures - one that moves with its belly near the earth. Eve's agreement to do the will of the serpent represents an inversion of the hierarchical order of creation.
Likewise, instead of listening to God, Adam listened to his wife and became like the serpent, eating dust all the days of his toil. Adam’s fall recalls his origins from dust: "And God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7).
4. Typology
In Romans 5:14, Paul declares that Adam “is a figure (tupos) of him that was to come”, i.e., Christ. Charles T. Fritsch [3] wrote that “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity.” By this definition we can’t say that Jesus is like Adam or like Melchizedek. Instead we must hold that Adam is a type of the true Man Jesus and Melchizedek is a type of the One Priest whose ministry is Messianic and eternal.
Typology can be approach from another angle. Instead of prefiguring, a type can be understood as a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament by a reality, embodiment or antitype found in the New Testament. According to this view, Adam is but a shadow (skia, following Colossians 2:17) of the eternal Form Man, who is Christ Jesus.
Typology must always be considered against the backdrop of the pattern of Reality. The use of antitupona, rendered “figures” (KJV) or “pattern” (ASV) in Hebrews 9:24, leads us to explore the pattern shown in Scripture and explored by the Church Fathers. Typology is fruitful because there is a pattern. It is the very weave of Reality and runs deeper than we generally recognize. We discover it when we explore the couplets found in Scripture: Two Passovers and Two Drunken Fathers, 2 Tabernacles: the earthly and heavenly, and 2 trees at the sacred center (here we have another type of the "tree in the midst of the garden" which has as its antitype the Cross at the center of all things, seen and unseen).
5. Myth
Some see the Adam and Eve story as an origin myth. Myths, like dreams, speak in symbols. Symbols pose meaning at the deepest level by presenting relationships. Adam is made from the red earth, which is the meaning of the word adamah. This may also be a reference to the place Adamah in west central Africa and to the ruddy skin color of the Nilotic peoples who give us this origin story. Myths lift up relationships such as flesh to spirit, woman to man, and heaven and earth, and also contain clues to the origin or source of the myth. The Adam and Eve story finds its closest parallels to origin myths of East Africa.
The cultural context of the Genesis creation stories is African [5]. That being so, we must try to understand the story in the context of creation stories held by African tribes. For example, we note the similarities of the Garden of Eden story to the story of Gikuyu and Mumbi, the first ancestors of the Gikuyu (East Africa). Here is a portion of that story:
Now you know that at the beginning of things there was only one man (Gikuyu) and one woman (Mumbi). It was under this Mukuyu that He first put them. And immediately the sun rose and the dark night melted away. The sun shone with a warmth that gave life and activity to all things. The wind and the lightning and thunder stopped. The animals stopped moaning and moved, giving homage to the Creator and to Gikuyu and Mumbi. And the Creator, who is also called Murungu, took Gikuyu and Mumbi from his holy mountain to the country of the ridges near Siriana and there stood them on a big ridge. The He took them to Mukuruwe wa Gathanga about which you have heard so much. But He had shown them all the land - yes, children, God showed Gikuyu and Mumbi all the land and told them: "This land I hand over to you, O Man and Woman. It is yours to rule and to till in serenity, sacrificing only to me, your God, under my sacred tree.
It is evident that Gikuyu and Mumbi are the first ancestors of the Gikuyu. They are not conceived by the Gikuyu as the progenitors of all humanity. Likewise, it is not necessary to insist that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of all humanity. Instead we may understand them as the first ancestors of the people who gave us Genesis. This concept of the first ancestors or heads of tribes and clans is found throughout the Bible. Midian is the head of the Midianites; Jacob is the head of the Israelites, and Lot is the head of the Moabites.
In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible the word adamah is rendered as “land” 105 times, as “ground” 67 times, as “earth” 37 times, as “soil” 6 times, and as “country” twice. It never refers to an historical person.
In what sense may we speak of Adam and Eve as real? The question reveals a shortcoming in the Western approach to Scripture. We tend to equate real with historical, an equation that would have struck the ancients as strange. Our approach is informed by Empiricism which views as real only what is material and finite.
The biblical worldview, on the other hand, allows for metaphysical realness in the Platonic sense (although Plato likely borrowed his binary idea of Form and Image from the ancient Egyptians). Genesis presents Adam as real, not in the Empirical sense, but in the sense of archetypes. In Platonic thought, the temporal and material is a reflection of the eternal and immaterial. The temporal passes away, but the eternal can neither pass away nor can it be corrupted or changed. St. Paul is a great master of the method and he views Adam as the archetype of the God-Man. Adam, the temporal and material points to Jesus Christ. Adam experiences corruption and passes away. Christ is ever without corruption and eternal. When Adam was made in the image of the eternal true Form, he was made in the Divine Image. In His incarnation, Christ our God was eternally 'begotten' of the Father, but without corruption since His existence is from before time.
6. Archetype
Adam and Eve as archetype does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they are also ancestors. The ancient Afro-Asiatics regarded ancestors as archetypes and archtypes as ancestors. A problem comes when we insist that they lived as the historical first parnets of all the people in the world. When we make this statement we force the Bible to say something that it doesn't say. In fact, we make it say the opposite of what it says, because analysis of Genesis 4 and 5 reveals that Cain and Seth married the daughters of an African chief name Nok (Enoch) and where there are chiefs, there already exists a social fabric, laws, traditions, language and artifacts. Cain and Seth are themselves associated with the symbols of authority. So if Adam and Eve are ancestors, they are ancestors of Cain and Seth's people who are identified in Genesis as Kushites.
NOTES
1. The genealogical information found in Genesis 4 and 5 reveals that Cain and his brother Seth married sisters. These brides were the daughters of an Afro-Asiatic chief named Nok (Enoch in Hebrew). The Nok civilization is dated between 12,000 and about 2000 years ago and is related to the Naqada civilization. Cain likely lived close to the time of Noah’s flood which would have been during the Guirian Wet Period between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago.
2. Read http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book2.html
3. Read Charles T. Fritch here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/fritsch.html
4. Read Wick Broomall here: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/126-a-study-of-biblical-typology
5. Read about the cultural context of the Genesis creation stories here.
Reading reading: Christians Debate Genesis and Evolution; The Genesis King Lists; Bishop Ussher Goofed; Adam and Eve as Archetypal Ancestors; The First Verifiably Historical Persons in Genesis; Eve's Sin
12 comments:
Ms. Linsley, interesting discusssion. Years ago, one of my college religion profs was #2; the same who said about Joshua 6, "My God would never command or condone that (vs 21)." Another was #4, and originally a philosophy major in his own undergrad work; had a Platonic viewpoint and a rigorous mind. ...It's challenging to talk to modern "conservative" Christians who regard as heretical those that might understand Adam/Eve non-empirically; as typology. They think I'm undermining Scripture (and Christian witness) when I discuss Gen 1-11 as anything other than literal, chrono (no gap) human history. Your research is helpful.
Best and blessings,
Brent
Someone once asked me what is the point of the Adam and Eve story if it is "only a myth"?
The point is that God made us in the Divine Image to enjoy His fellowship and He is restoring that Image through the Divine Person Jesus Christ.
Dear Ms. Linsley,
Why, do you suppose, that Holy Tradition treats Adam and Eve as literal persons if they are only figurative?
The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete speaks of a seemingly literal Adam: "I have rivaled in transgression Adam the first formed man" and a seemingly literal Eve: "Woe, to thee, miserable soul! How thou art like the first Eve!"
The icon of the Resurrrection clearly shows Christ pulling a real Adam and a real Eve from Hades. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
I read the article in RTE. Very good! I really appreciated the discussion about binary opposition - although I confess I didn't understand it all! I was wondering if there is a deeper meaning to binary opposition that either was not discussed in the article, or was but I didn't understand. I'm referring to the mystical foundation of binary opposition. Do you see that in the Holy Trinity? Is there a hint of that in Rublev's 'Holy Trinity' icon? Two of the angels facing each other?
Thank you for taking the time to speak with RTE...and for this site!
Nilus
Nilus,
I'm not sure that Holy Tradition treats Adam and Eve as real in the historical sense, though it is best to err on the side of literal interpretation when uncertain. If Holy Tradition is about the divine Person of Jesus Christ, then Adam and Eve must be understood in reference to HIM. This is where the Apostle Paul's writings prove most informative. He treats Adam as a type of Christ. Adam is the first man by whom death enters the world. Christ is the True Man by whom Life enters the world. Adam who was made in the divine image has that image restored in the Incarnation.
Is the Great Canon of St. Andrew stating something about Adam and Eve contrary to what St. Paul has written? I don't think so.
The icon of Christ pulling Adam and Eve from Hades is also typological, applying to all humanity covered by His blood, not to Adam and Eve alone.
The Theotokos is shown between 2 angels, reflecting that she is holy and in God's presence, even as God was conceived inside her. This is a binary arrangement of the two angels facing each other with wings extended over the Ark of the Covenant. God was said to dwell between the angels.
The worldview of the Afro-Asiatics who gave us Genesis, the foundation to the Bible, is binary. Read more on this here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/03/circumcision-and-binary-distinctions.html
And here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/09/pleromic-blood-and-gender-distinctions.html
And here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/03/blood-and-binary-distinctions.html
I'm glad that you liked the Road to Emmaus interview. I hope it might help us to look more deeply at Holy Tradition and Scripture.
Alice Linsley said:
"The icon of Christ pulling Adam and Eve from Hades is also typological, applying to all humanity covered by His blood, not to Adam and Eve alone. "
But certainly Adam and Eve too.
If Adam and Eve are historical the benefits of the blood of Christ apply to them, of course.
The Bible doesn't insist that they are historical. If they are the first human couple created by God they would have lived about 3 million years ago. Yet Cain and Seth can't be said to have lived before about 12,000 years ago. And the genealogical data provided in Genesis 4 and 5 reveals that their brides were the daughters of a man named Nok (Enoch). This Nok would have been a contemporary of Adam and Eve, so they couldn't have been the only original humans.
Ms. Linsley,
Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose's 'Genesis, Creation, and Early Man'? He takes a quite literal view of Genesis. I guess there are varying opinions as to just what is literal and what is figurative though....I belive that Dr. Peter Bouteneff of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary wrote a book on the same subject and takes view similar to your own.
One thing that I think is important to note though, is that even though icons can be typological, they seem always to be based upon real events and real persons. I by no means am an expert though. I am a convert (6 years this Pascha!), so am still learning.
Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss these topics. I am learning to not be dogamtic about things that are not salvific, so I confess that I may be completely wrong about the historical reality of Adam and Eve!
Father Seraphim Rose (1934-1982) also proposed that the six days of creation ended about 6,000 years ago. He also believed in a catastrophic worldwide flood and insisted that this is the view of the Church Fathers and the teaching of the Church until modern times. Fr. Rose is incorrect in asserting that the Holy Fathers interpreted Genesis in a uniform way. I've written about his book on Genesis here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/10/eastern-orthodox-approach-to-genesis.html
I think it is important to try to understand what Genesis actually says on the deeper level since the whole of Scripture rests on this pre-Jewish foundation.
Hi, personally I read Genesis 1-11 as being historical narrative. The text makes no distinction between chapters 1-11 and 12 following. Since the Jews saw Abraham as a historical figure, it is hard to see why an abritrary and textually unsupportable distinction should made between these two sections.
You mention Plato, but he wrote considerably later than the composition of the book of Genesis, so it is difficult to see what bearing his views could have on our interpretation. Certainly, there is no evidence that the Jewish Scriptures share his views, and the NT is very skeptical of Greek 'wisdom' (see 1 Corinthians).
However, I post not to debate the points, but to ask for a clarification. I can't see any evidence that Genesis 4 and 5 say that Cain and Seth married sisters who were daugters of Enoch. Please could you clarify where this idea comes from?
Thanks so much,
Tom.
Genesis 1-3 contains mythological elements of a very ancient character: the Tree of Life, the Serpent, God walking in the garden. These motifs originate in Africa. See this:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/05/african-religion-predates-hinduism.html
I mention Plato because he and many other ancient Greeks drew on the more ancient Afro-Asiatic ideas that had crossed to Europe from Africa many thousands of years ago. See this:
http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/ancient-hominids-sailors-seas.html
St. Paul was familiar with Greek philosophy. There was a prestigious Academy of Philosophy in Tarsus. Paul applied the idea of the true form (Christ) as the ontological source of the reflection (Adam). In a sense Paul was reclaiming the Afro-Asiatic approach to meaning, as did Jacques Derrida in our century. See this:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/09/genesis-and-jacques-derrida.html
We meet the first historical persons in Genesis 4 and 5, the lines of Kain and Seth, his brother. The two lines intermarried and analysis of the data reveals that this is probably the oldest authentic list of rulers in existence. Read more about this here:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2010/07/analysis-of-genesis-4-and-5-king-lists.html
The ancient Afro-Asiatics told history through genealogy so it is true that Genesis 4-12 is a unified history.
Hi Alice. Love your blogs! Have you explored the possibility of Egyptian Ausar (Osiri) and Auset being Adam and Eve. I would think ancient Egypt would have more details on them. I find it intriguing because Ausar and Auset are usually depicted with Heru. And it seems intriguing given that their "the first couple." Just curious.
Zajigirl, welcome to Just Genesis!
Yes, it is intriguing. Here we have the ancient Horite triad. It aligns with the Gospel of Jesus, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.
Egyptologist Sir E. A. Wallis Budge wrote,
"The new religion (Christianity) which was preached there by St. Mark and his immediate followers, in all essentials so closely resembled that which was the outcome of the worship of Osiris, Isis, and Horus that popular opposition was entirely disarmed."
Even today the Coptic Christians of Egypt maintain that they represent the oldest Egyptian religion, that of their Horite ancestors.
I don't see a parallel with Adam and Eve so much.
Post a Comment