Well, if the question of Adam's historicity is strictly a matter of personal interest, then I suppose I could say the same about a lot of Orthodoxy's teachings!
It is true that the overwhelming preponderance of Orthodox teachers have taught the historicity of Adam and Eve and the literal/historical version of Genesis 1 and 2, and post-Nicea it is, I assume, the formal position of the Church. So I defer to that, with a qualification, that to treat it only as such misses the point entirely. And I doubt that any of the Church Fathers have commented on Genesis without focusing primarily on the allegorical and typological significance of Adam and Eve. So what would be the allegorical and typological significance of Adam's "rib?" That would be the only point to the discussion as far as I see it...as a way of defining and understanding human nature and human relationships. The first thing that comes to mind is that it is significant in what it doesn't claim. It does not claim, for example, that Eve is the product of sexual relationships between Adam and some other animal, or some angelic being, or some alien from another planet. But that man and woman are of the same nature and substance and are not inherently alien to each other, and are designed to live in harmony, etc. And that our spiritual destinies are closely intertwined. I hate to sound like a theological prig, but there is no point to the account apart from its spiritual/allegorical significance. And so one can surmise that it was written (by Moses) as a theological treatise primarily, and not as a literal/historical document. One not so obvious point needs to be made in these types of discussions, which is that historical facts have no meaning. So to say that Genesis 1 is an historical account is a meaningless statement in and of itself.
God certainly doesn't seem to to think that historical facts have NO meaning. He wrought our salvation in the midst of history. We would still be in our sins if the Word did not become flesh at a specific time and in a specific place and actually rise from the dead on the third day.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Certainly, the historicity of certain events is of more central importance than others, and your point about moving beyond a literal/historical understanding of Genesis is well-taken. I worry, however, that unless we insist on, say, the actual, physical creation of the world by God, through His Son, in His Spirit, we risk compromising a central feature of Moses' witness.
Edited by Evan, 24 October 2010 - 06:22 PM.