Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1.pdf/227

181 —

Zaretan," on the Jordan, near tlic spot where the It is Israelites crossed tlw river on dry f.'round. proliablv to he idcntitied willi the modern Tel O. B. L. Daniiih!

ADAM KADMON

MONI

Adam, Book of

THE JKWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

181

(more

correetly.

?AD-

"man"; Kudiidiii nr or "ciriiiinal "): The various philosophieal (Gnostie) views eoncerniufr the original man are, in spite of their ditrerenees. intimately related, beiiij; a compound of Oriental mythology. Greek pliilosophy. and rabbinical theology. The first to use theexpression "original man," or "lieavenly man," is Philo, in whose view the ymK/x;, or ui'imviuq ar*'/"''~"C,"as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any ccirruptible or earlblikc^ essence: whereas the earthly man is made of liio.se material, called a lump of clay " (" I)e Allegoriis Legum," I. xii.). The heavenly man. as the perfeit image of the Logos, is neither man nor woman, but an incorporeal intelligence purely an idea; while the earthly man. who was created by God later, is per ceptible to the senses and partakes of earthly ([ualities Philo is evidently ("I)e .Miinnic doctrine of ideas; taking the ]irimcn-dial Adam as the idea, and the created man of llesh and bh)od as the "image," Th.-il Philo's philosophic views are grounded on the Midrash, and not vice versji, is evident from his seemingly senseless statement that the "heavenly man," theoi'vmiwf SvCpuTof (who is merely an idea), is "neither man nor woman." This (loci rine, however, Ijeeomes quite intelligible in view of the following ancient Midrash, The remarkable contradiction between the two above-quoted pa.s.sages of (Jenesis could not escape the attention of the Pharisees, to whom the Hibh- was a subject of clos<' study. In explaining the various views concerning Eve's erealion, they taught (Er. Xii, Gen. R. viii.) that Adam was created as a man-woman (iindroi/i/ii/ix), explaining napJl ^^t (Gen. i. 27) as "male and female" instead of " man and woman." and that the separation <d" the sexes arose from the 8iibse(|uent operation ujion Adam's body, as related in the Scripture. This explains Philo's statement that the original man was neither man nor woman. This doctrine concerning the Logos, as also that of man made "in the likeness" (" I)i' Confiisione Lingiiarum," xxviii.), Ihough tinged with true Philonic coloring, is also based on liii' theology of the Pharisees. Kor in an old Midiash (Gen. R. viii. 1) it is remarked " Thou hast formed me behind and Ixfore ll'^. cxxxix. .")) is to be explained^ before the first and after the l.isl day of Creation.' For it Midrash. is sind. 'And the spirit of Gml moveil upon till' face of the waters,' meaning the spirit of the .Messiah "the spirit ot.Vdam "in the pandlel passage, .Midr. 'I eh. to cxxxix. .'); both readings are essentially thcsjinie], of whom it issjiid (Isa. xi. 2l. '. d the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon iiim.'" This contains the kernel of Philo's philosophieiil doctrine of the creation of the original man. He calls him the icha of the larlhly .Xdani, while with the rabbis the mi (spirit of .dam) not only existed before the creation of the earthly Adam, but

lyuiiiKiiii

Ai/'iiii.

.

llihrcw fur

' lirsl "

was preexistent jireexisting a step.

Adam ^admon

to the whole of creation. From the or Jlessiah, to the Logos is merely

Adam,

The above-iiiitin-Ktiilnii>iit"

Ik Num. It. x, uliiri' .iliiii> Ix Mtylnl. imi us ii-iuiillyi " Ilii-Itl«hnn" (the Ilrsti, lull " llii-l>niliiiiiia " (theertKliiHl). ('oiiiimr*lh(i viT>' iini'leiii ('.xprfKHlun "iialuult ha-kadmimi " (tlivurlglniil

avnx'iiUlliuiU'vIl).

llliistnilliiif llio

Sellmt (Divine

.Mtrlliules).

(From (iiul.uTK,"Thr Kalit'kUh.")

I

one of clay for the material world. The earthly Adam came first into view, although created last. The first .dani was of tlesh and blood and therefore subject merely "a living sold " the second Ailam to death was "a life giving spirit " a spirit whose body, like the heavenly beings in genenil. was only of a spiriThe apparently insupenible diflicnlty tual nature. of the Pauline Chrislology which confronts the expounders of tin' New Testament (see, for instance, lloll/mann, " Lehrbuch <Kr Neu Teslamentlicheii Theologie," ii. 75 it /»(/.) di.sappeurs entirely when As a pupil of refereuec is inudu to the Midnisli.

—

—