A reader writes:
There has always been a large strain in traditional Judaism that believed Creation and Adam and Eve stories were allegorical, not literal. For example, see the Rambam, or Maimonides. From Wikipedia:
Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.[26]
Before him Saadia Gaon set rules in the same spirit when allegoric approach can be used, for example, if the plain sense contradicts logic.[27] Solomon ibn Gabirol extensively used allegory in his book "Fountain of Life", cited by Abraham ibn Ezra.[28] In 1305 Shlomo ben Aderet wrote a letter against unrestricted usage of allegory by followers of Maimonides, like Jacob Anatoli in his book "Malmad ha-Talmidim".[29] In spite of this, Gersonides copied Maimonides' explanation the story of Adam into his commentary on Genesis, thinly veiled by extensive usage of the word "hint".
The main point of Maimonides and Gersonides is that Fall of Man is not a story about one man, but about the human nature. Adam is the pure intellect, Eve is a body, and the Serpent is a fantasy that tries to trap intellect through the body.
Also, I must have missed that day in yeshiva when it was taught that "according to Genesis, there were humans outside of Eden awaiting Adam and Eve," as your reader put it. A citation from him/her would be useful.
Another is on the same page:
Genesis merely indicates that after Cain was banished for murdering his younger brother Abel, he married and had children. Genesis is utterly silent on the origin of his wife. One could just as easily conclude that she had been born from Adam and Eve, but that was never mentioned because doing so was peripheral to the religious message of the text. "According to Genesis" isn't a helpful way to think about the question of Cain's wife because Genesis doesn't say anything at all about where she came from. If you're relying solely upon the story as a history of human origin, then it's an even bigger jump to conclude that she came from some other human population than it is to conclude that she was born from Adam and Eve.
Another clarification:
I am enjoying the Adam and Eve discussion, but one of your readers made a classic mistake, and one that needs to be corrected: Virgin Birth concerns Jesus's birth, while Immaculate Conception concerns Mary's birth.
The Virgin Birth is a historic dogma that was explicitly included in the New Testament and can be found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both of these books teach that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin who did not have sexual relations with a man prior to conception. The Virgin Birth has been traditionally accepted by all branches of Christianity – Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic alike.
The Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, is a dogma that developed over the centuries, finally given its final form by Pope Pius IX in 1854, via the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus". It teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by the singular grace of God, concieved and born without the stain of original sin. This specific doctrine has not been generally accepted by Protestants and Orthodox Christians, although it is now defined as Roman Catholic dogma.
Another:
One thing that always bothered me: If Adam and Eve were the first humans in existence, why are they always portrayed as having belly buttons?
It's questions like these that got me kicked out of Sunday School.
(Image via the tumblr "befuddleme")
The Dish 