“You don’t need me to tell you that human civilization is very, very old.”
So began Yale professor Christine Hayes’ introduction to the Hebrew Bible course. She’s right, of course. The earth, and humanity, has been around a lot longer than 4,000 B.C., a date traditionally accepted by orthodox Christians and, unsurprisingly, Joseph Smith, as the approximate date of creation.
As I’ve studied Joseph’s revelations over the last two years, I’ve come to understand that he was very much a Bible literalist. And why wouldn’t he be? Everyone in his day was, so I would be surprised if he weren’t. His revelations make mention of “Adam,” “the first man,” (D&C 84:16) and the “7,000 years of the earth’s temporal existence.” (D&C 76) This is consistent with an 1830 Christian worldview.
But in the year 2021, we know a little better. And, perhaps, unsurprisingly, so did the prophet-writers of the Book of Mormon. My working theory is that the humanity long pre-dates 4,000 BC and that the Hebrew Bible, rather than a story of humanity, beginning with the first man, “Adam,” is rather a history of the people we know as Hebrews. It’s their story. Their family. Their tribe. And I think the Book of Mormon supports this view. The term “Our First Parents,” which appears a number of times in the Book of Mormon, I believe may reveal that history is, in fact, much older than Christians, including Mormons, have traditionally considered.
THE HEBREW BIBLE ISN’T A HISTORY OR SCIENCE BOOK
One of the big mistakes Christians of various stripes have made over the years is a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible. We treat it as history book or science book when it is neither of those things. This has exposed sincere believers to ridicule from atheists and the broad number of individuals operating under the umbrella of “science,” who, incidentally treat the Hebrew Bible as “invented history” and “bad science.” You can search “Young Earth Creationism” and find an infinite number of videos discussing “what the Bible got wrong.” Rather than treat the Hebrew Bible as a literal description of creation, I’d think we’d be wise to treat it as what John Walton calls “an act of communication” to a certain people at a certain in in history with a certain worldview.
Archeologist William Dever said,
“We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That’s a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean. The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that’s doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that. I like to point out to my undergraduate students that the Bible is not history; it’s his story—Yahweh’s story, God’s story.”
It’s worth noting that Genesis 1 was written by the Priestly source sometime during or after the Babylonian exile.
4004 BC – The Date of Creation?
How did 4004 BC become the de facto date of creation? If you guessed the Hebrew Bible, you’d be correct. In 1650 BC James Ussher published “Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti” (“Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world”) which fixed the date of creation at October 22, 4004 BC. Ussher arrived at this number in part by using the the ages and chronology of the Patriarchs. In 1701 Ussher’s date was essentially canonized when it was added to the margin of the King James Bible–the Bible Joseph Smith used.
There are, however, difficulties with the KJV chronology. The chronologies of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the Masoretic Text (the source of the KJV translation). Adding the ages of the Patriarchs in the LXX, we come to a potential creation date of 5,500 BC. That’s an additional 1,400 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch adds about 240 years. We also needn’t assume the ages of the Patriarchs listed in the Hebrew Bible are literal years. Further, Genesis 5, (Adam to Noah), and Genesis 11 (Shem to Abraham) are post-Exilic insertions by the Redactor, who was likely Ezra the priest. I also recommend this video by the YouTube channel “Inspiring Philosophy” which discusses the numerology of the Patriarch’s ages. Scholarship generally agrees that the ages are numerical representations, but no one has yet cracked the code.
Joseph Smith would have been naturally and understandably ignorant of these things. It does call into question the validity of some of his revelations and theology, which we’ll get to below. But I think it’s pretty safe to say that people have been around for much longer than 4,004 BC.
OUR FIRST PARENTS
“First parents” is one of those phrases that struck me as interesting. When I started to research it, I found it’s a very common phrase in Christian literature dating back centuries (but absent from the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament). It always refers to “Adam and Eve.” In the Book of Mormon Adam and Eve are referred to “our first parents,”
“And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents…” (1 Nephi 5:10-11)
Two items of note here that indicate the Book of Mormon is a cultural translation. First is the use of the contemporary phrase “first parents.” The second is “the five books of Moses.” What Nephi’s talking about is the Torah, a phrase that likely had little if any meaning for 1830s New Englanders. The Brass Plates are a greatly expanded record of creation and the Hebrew people which contains the commandments of God. (See 1 Nephi 13 and Mosiah 1:3).
In the Book of Mormon there multiple sets of “first parents.” Jacob said,
“Now in this thing we do rejoice; and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them with thankful hearts, and look upon them that they may learn with joy and not with sorrow, neither with contempt, concerning their first parents.” (Jacob 4:3)
He refers the family of Lehi as the “first parents of the Nephites.” The Book of Omni recounts the discovery of the Jaredite record:
“And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons. It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.”
As we near the time of Christ, Nephi declares to his sons, Nephi and Lehi:
“Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem.” (Helaman 5)
There are three sets of “first parents.”
1) The Nephite’s “first parents” — Adam and Eve — who came out/were driven out of the allegorical garden
2) Jared’s “first parents” who came out from the Tower.
3) Lehi and Sariah, the “first parents” who came out of Jerusalem
“First parents” seems to indicate a new society, or new group of people, or those led to a promised land. A new covenant, perhaps?
HYPOTHESIS
What if “Adam and Eve” aren’t the first “man and woman on earth,” but the first parents of a particular family line–the people we know as Hebrews or Israelites? And that the Hebrew Bible and the Brass Plates are their story. Or as William Dever said, “Yahweh’s story.” The story of God revealing Himself to man and ultimately choosing Abraham and the Israelites as His personal witnesses before His condescension, during His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ (2 Nephi 9), and after the resurrection?
We read in Helaman 8,
“Our father Lehi was driven out of Jerusalem because he testified of these things. Nephi also testified of these things, and also almost all of our fathers, even down to this time; yea, they have testified of the coming of Christ, and have looked forward, and have rejoiced in his day which is to come. And behold, he is God, and he is with them, and he did manifest himself unto them, that they were redeemed by him; and they gave unto him glory, because of that which is to come.” (Helaman 8)
Alma said:
“And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning.”
And then there’s this passage,
“Yea, and behold I say unto you, that Abraham not only knew of these things, but there were many before the days of Abraham who were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shown unto the people, a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them.” (Helaman 8)
How many years constitutes a “a great many thousand years?” I suspect it’s more more than the 4,000 years between “Adam” and Christ outlined in the Bible.
I propose there were many, many contemporaries of “Adam.” There had to have been. Who did Cain marry? Why did Cain get a mark to protect him if there were only a handful of people on planet earth? How did Cain build a city by himself? “Adam and Eve” could have analogous to Lehi and Sariah–the patriarch and matriarch of a family group that existed with other family groups or even entire cities or civilizations. This also solves the “incest” problem with Adam’s son’s marrying Adam’s daughters.
One evening while searching YouTube for videos about “pre-Adamic races,” I came across a comment that perfectly encapsulated what I had been trying to articulate,
“…interpret Genesis in light of the rest of the Pentateuch – God forming and calling out particular men and women, for his purpose of obtaining thru them a people for Himself, in His image. The story of Adam and Eve isn’t the story about first humans, but rather about the first of God’s people, His tribe. If God wants to form a particular human out of the dust of the earth, it’s His earth, no problem. The final result was a demonstration that no matter how well formed, cosseted, and educated (“Do NOT eat…”) they were, they could not rise above dust.
The Old Testament is about families/tribes, not races. There is but one human race, of one blood, but there are many tribes, each with their own territorial claims and loyalties. Biblical writers never thought about races the way have in the modern West. For them, all the differences in appearance and capabilities were about family traits, characteristics inherited from it’s first families and reinforced by tribal custom. It’s not just a Jewish thing, it’s universal across the whole earth.
With Adam, male and female, God introduces Himself to humanity, and the story of humanity’s relationship with God begins. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, humanity without a relationship with God is little different than the beasts of the field. The Bible has always been the good news, from the very beginning.”
This makes a lot of sense to me.
JOSEPH SMITH’S REVELATIONS
Joseph Smith believed “Adam” was the first man:
“And of Enos, and of Seth, and of Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon earth.” (Luke JST)
“And the first man of all men, have I called Adam, which is many.” (Moses 1:34)
“And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man…” (D&C 84)
“And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days…” (D&C 27, 1835 version)
“Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the “Ancient of Days,” or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael…” (Instructions on Priesthood, October 5, 1840)
In D&C 77, a Q&A on the revelation, we read,
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”
If we accept Joseph’s understanding that the earth was created in 4,000 BC, we should already be in seventh 1,000-year period, the so-called “Millennium.”
I’m persuaded that Joseph Smith’s revelations aren’t actually revelations from God, but Joseph Smith’s own theological perspectives based on a literal reading of Genesis. I think the examples cited above are good examples. His revelations reflect his worldview and understanding, which is why theology and religion of Joseph Smith is so different from that of the Book of Mormon. Joseph believed humanity began at 4,000 BC, yet the Book of Mormon authors may have understood humanity’s history differently–and correctly.
BOOK OF MORMONISM 
Take into consideration that Adam and Eve lived in a Terrestrial world before the fall, of which science has no frame of reference. We have no models telling us what a Terrestrial world is like. The Earth entered a Telestial state with the fall of Adam, entering its temporal existence, which might only be ~7000 years old.
LikeLike
Hello. Thanks for stopping by.
This hypothesis presumes Joseph Smith’s revelations were correct. Given that Joseph Smith’s prophetic track record is 0%, and that the majority of his revelations contradict the Book of Mormon, I don’t put much stock in anything he had to say or allegedly “revealed.”
The story of Adam and Eve, in my opinion, is very clearly allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. That’s not to say it’s a “lie,” but these early stories in Bible are didactic, not scientific history.
LikeLike
Thanks!
This is the first article I have come across on this site, so I guess I was making some assumptions. Because Adam was being spoken of as a real person, and wording from the Book of Mormon was being used to support the hypothesis of the article, I was assuming a belief, or at least a reliance on the belief on those two points. I admit to my confusion. Does this site accept the Book of Mormon as a religious text? Casting doubt on Joseph Smith automatically casts doubt on the validity of the Book of Mormon, which invalidates the entire argument of the article. The argument becomes that because some random person referred to multiple men throughout his religious/non-historical text as first fathers, that Adam, presumably a real person, was not necessarily the first human, but the father of a certain lineage.
Or does this site rather explore the possibilities of what one could theoretically believe by a reading the Book of Mormon as a religious text?
LikeLike
Thanks for responding. Always to hear from you.
My position is that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be and that Joseph Smith’s only mandate was to transmit and publish it in English. I don’t uphold Joseph Smith as a prophet, nor do I support the idea of a “restoration.” While at Bountiful Jesus plainly laid out the gospel: faith, repentance, baptism of water and fire, love God and man, and endure to the end. He then said “whoso declares more or less than this, and establishes it as doctrine, the same comes from evil.” Do we believe that or not? If we accept that, we must necessarily throw out 95% of Joseph Smith’s doctrines as coming from evil: proxy baptism, exaltation, apotheosis, lineal priesthood, temple ritual/ordinances, second comforter, physical Zion, etc. Very early on Joseph, who was highly influenced by Sidney Rigdon, began to deviate from the simplicity of the Gospel. Even the original Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ reflect a more traditional view of Christianity, which is consistent with the Book of Mormon. But by 1832, the Church had already started to drift. This was prophesied by Jesus in 3 Nephi 15 and 16, in which he called the LDS the most prideful people on earth, full of all manner of evil, abominations, etc.
I don’t accept the claim or idea that casting doubt on Joseph Smith casts doubt on the Book of Mormon. Everything must be weighed on its own merits, not because its association with someone. Perceived bad men can tell you the truth and perceived good men can lie. We should measure ideas, not men (or women). I believe those of us grew up on the LDS tradition have the responsibility to measure Joseph’s doctrines on their merits, not because “Joseph Smith said.” That’s an appeal to authority. It’s also important because I believe Joseph was slowly descending into mental illness. His son, David, was institutionalized most of his adult life. Six male heirs suffered from mental illness, two committing suicide. By Nauvoo Joseph had turned quasi-dictator, consolidating ecclesiastic, civil, social, judicial and economic power in himself. The claims became more and more grandiose. His behavior became more militaristic and erratic. He was not a well man.
So, that’s where I am at. I believe what the Book of Mormon claims for itself, but I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet. Feel to respond if you want. Thanks, again!
LikeLike
Thank you for clarifying your position. Your arguments and stance on the subject make sense now 🙂
I have often considered the possibility of people in the Americas outside of Jared and his descendants and Lehi and his descendants. Ether tells us that all the Jaredites were destroyed, but perhaps some remained. And if people came into the Americas over the Bering Straight, the Book of Mormon makes no mention of them, but as you pointed out in the article, the Bible, and presumably the Book of Mormon, are not necessarily historical texts, but religious. Even Mormon designated the Book of Mormon as such.
As for Adam, I have often considered that God created the great apes, and it wasn’t until the spirit of man was put into the animal that the animal became man. It would fit with the scientific models we have explaining evolution.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I can see where you are coming from. Re: evolution, how might we explain Jesus’ appearance to the Brother of Jared?
“And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to” (Ether 3:15-16)
Evolution is pretty untenable hypothesis. In order for man, or any mammal to exist, he must have a heart, lungs, stomach, colon, urinary tract, rectum, mouth, brain, reproductive organs, eyes, etc. If any of these are missing, he doesn’t last very long. Further, we’d need a male and female to evolve at precisely the exact same time in order to reproduce. Some argue that given enough time, things work out, but time is the enemy because all biological matter decays. Entropy is the enemy. As far as I know, no one can explain the chemical processes required for life.
I don’t immediately recall Mormon inferring the BOM wasn’t an historical text. Can you refresh my memory? I am of the view that the BOM is theological work, a historical work, and a literary work. We tend to overlook the literary aspects, particularly hyperbole, which is a common feature of scripture. When we read, for example, about the final battle of Cumorah, Mormon lists each of his lieutenants and “their ten thousand,” but in my view, “ten thousand” clearly conveys the magnitude of the slaughter rather than an actual number. “Ten thousand” has literary precedent in the bible, but it was also a very common idiom in the early 1800s to describe a large, but indefinite, number. “Thousands and tens of thousands” was used pretty much the same way we use “million” today. The trick in reading a text like the Book of Mormon is determining what these words and phrases meant to the original audience.
As for “adam,” I’m sure you’re aware that “adam” is the Hebrew word for man,yet is used to refer to a singular being. That’s why I’m more persuaded the Garden of Eden is an allegory used to teach divine truth rather than historical events. I’m fine with this and if someday a real Garden of Eden is found, I’m fine with that too.
I really appreciate the comments. Thanks for stopping by!
LikeLike
The stance I have about animals becoming men does disagree with what Lehi taught about Adam, so I am hesitant to accept that the garden of Eden was allegorical. With the argument that science has no idea what a world without death looks like. Lehi more than anyone drives me to believe the story was literal.
LikeLike
I appreciate your comments too. Thanks!
My uncle is a doctor, and he was the one that came up with the human/animal hypothesis, mainly because of our tailbone. Evolution does not happen quickly, as the theory goes. It is a series of adaptations that accumulate over time. We’re talking millions of years. Uh, literally millions of years 🙂 Scientists estimate that the common ancestor between humans and the great apes was about 6 million years ago. The first life on Earth was an estimated 3-4 billion years ago. Those time frames allow me room to believe in evolution. It is easy for me to believe that multicellular organisms came from single cell organisms. That nervous systems developed to allow the cells to communicate. The vascular system developing to allow the transfer of waste and nutrients between cells. That vascular systems developed a pump as the organism grew larger, the nervous system a central network (the brain). We are talking about billions of years. Humans have used selective breeding to alter organisms within a few thousand years, a far lesser amount than a million years.
The reason I doubt evolution is because of Lehi. Because he mentioned that if Adam had not fallen then he would have remained in the garden of Eden and all things would have remained in the same state after which they were created, having no end. Believing in a world without death allows for a vast amount of time to have passed while Adam was chilling in the garden. It also alters the conditions of the world during the time in the garden such that they are not reproducible by modern scientists. It gives an alternate explanation to evolution that is not dismissed by science.
When God said that he created man in his image and in his likeness, and in Ether when he said the same thing, he did not mention the process he used to create men. It is within the realm of possibility that he used evolution as that tool, until the animal resembled God and God put the spirit of man therein. But then, does God have a tailbone? Why does he have a tailbone?
Mormon didn’t say it was a religious text per se. He did often say that his focus was on the gospel, and the teachings of the prophets, the history being in the other plates, but you are correct that he did give the history as accurately as he was able with the resources available to him.
I did not know that about Adam’s name. Thanks for sharing.
So I guess we are assuming creationism. If God created two people first, or many people first, what is trying to be accomplished by differentiating the two? Do you try to align what the scriptures teach us with secular historical records and find the time frame to short? My ruminations come from trying to reconcile the scriptures with science. Where do your ponderings come from?
LikeLike
2 Nephi 2:22, And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
LikeLike