Page 30 - AECA.org.uk ¦ Koinonia 68

Men’s understanding of Adam is, however, not limited to one historical
individual. Although he does not appear to accept Bulgakov’s meta-historical
5
Adam, Solovyov’s term ‘vsechelovek’ is central to his understanding. The
creature Adam therefore forms a unity with all other spiritual creatures that
can be called ‘human’.
The qualitative difference of the human finds its origins in a single,
historical event of spiritualisation that happened once for all time, but it leads
to the continued procreation of spiritual creatures. The appearance of ‘Ugly’ in
A Tale of Human Origins, with his dreams and ‘strange’ character, is an event that
marks a qualitative shift in creation, leading to the creation of similar creatures
through his relations with a similar young woman. Since it is observable that
we, as these creatures, are still living according to these resources, ‘Adam’ must
be ‘more than a biological person or separate individual’ , but incorporate every
6
one of us.
Men looks to Biblical and Patristic sources to support this
understanding of ‘Adam’. In the OT it is used to refer to ‘humanity’ more often
than as a name, but the term denotes a collection of individuals rather than an
abstract idea. OT writers often identified an ancestor eponym – such as ‘Adam’
– with their descendants. That Genesis 2 and 3 appear to be referring to one
individual Adam may not be significant in the light of this .
7
Men sees Patristic support for the concept of ‘vsechelovek’ in the
writings of Origen, Symeon the New Theologian, and the Cappadocian
Fathers, who refer to Adam as a collective noun – whole Adam – or in the case
of Symeon, ‘Christ came into the world for the sake of Adam’. This usage
continues in the Orthodox liturgy – on Holy Saturday (’the salvation of Adam’)
8
and at Easter (’He resurrected the complete Adam’) . It should be noted that
Men is not claiming that ‘Adam’ should be understood exclusively as a collective
noun for all individual humans. He wishes to claim merely that it can be and
has been on numerous occasions in Patristic sources and the Church liturgy.
Nonetheless, for theological/philosophical reasons, Men claims that it is
the most significant way of understanding the term. It is the foundation for his

5 Usually translated as ‘universal human’
6 Men: Magicism and Monotheism Appendix 8 Part 5
7 Men in fact says in Appendix 8 part 7 of Magicism and Monotheism that the first human(s) could
have been one, two or hundreds – it is not really important. He sees humanity coming into the
world in the same way as the God-man Jesus – quietly, unobtrusively. It is the outstanding
qualitative difference that matters.
8 Examples given in Men: Magicism and Monotheism Appendix 8 Part 7

28