Message 1 of 2 (848825)
02-15-2019 11:28 PM
I was reading a book, with the section:
â€œFirst Adamâ€ and â€œSecond Adamâ€ in 1 Cor 15:45â€“49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage
by Menahem Kister, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in:
The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature
Reimund Bieringer - 2010
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 355
Note also Gen. Rab. 14:10 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 134), where Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Hiyya infers from Gen 2:7c that Adam was first created with a tail like an animal. 14 â€œFor not all flesh is alike, but there is one (kind) for men, another ...
Here is a broader quote
The Hebrew expression nepesh hÌ£ayya and its Greek rendering, ÏˆÏ…Ï‡á½´ Î¶á¿¶ÏƒÎ±, â€œliving soul,â€ occur in Gen 1:24 and Gen 2:19 (cf. also Gen 1:21 in the Hebrew), and in these contexts it refers to the animals.
A plausible interpretation for he usage of this expression in Gen 2:7 could be that it was perceived as designating the lower faculties of the human being, common to both human beings and animals.13 Especially important is Gen 1:24, in which Godâ€™s actions on the sixth day of creation, before creating the human being(s), are described as follows: â€œAnd God said, â€˜Let the earth bring forth living soul according to its kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.â€ A possible way to harmonize Gen 2:7 with Gen 1:24â€“27 is to assume that â€œliving soulâ€ in Gen 2:7c refers to human beings inasmuch as they have the same â€œsoulâ€ as non-human creatures.
I found the text online:
(I looked like hell for the Neusner translation, but failed)
This is the actual Midrashic text.
And man became a nefesh hayyah (E.V.
'living soul'). Judah b. Rabbi said": This teaches
that He provided him with a tail, like an animal, but sub-
sequently removed it from him for the sake of his dignity.
I am not going to comment on any implications for biological evolution.
Or anything else (such as "soul" issues).
(actually, I thought of something)
Creationists have had a difficult time interpreting ER 1470.
In 1985, Gish said, ER-1470 "may not have been human-like at all", while the author of Bones of Contention: a Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils( Marvin L. Lubenow) said, it had "true human status".
I have learned that almost every inconvenient fact, to a theory, gets ignored. This Midrash might not be worth a wisper as it is just a small line in an ocean of ancient Jewish text.