I find Josephus useful because he's not a religious writer or a philosopher. He's simply a historian. By reading his writings we can learn what the Jews were being taught concerning their own origins.
I took the opportunity to read some Athanasius' writings concerning Genesis. I didn't read much, but I got the impression he considered Adam to be an actual person as opposed to a philosophical construct.
Great! St. Athanasius is a boss, and you will benefit from every page he writes. I'll talk about him and then Josephus.
You are absolutely right in saying he didn't think that Adam was a philosophical construct. He certainly thought there was a first man. However, he didn't think that the account of Adam was a literal historical account, or that the events described in the Fall were literal. Here are a couple of quotes to that end:
"... the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden."
Against the Gentiles (Part 1)
"But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things-namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall surely die." (Gen. 2. 16 f) " Ye shall surely die"-not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption."
On the Incarnation of the Word (1.3)
Read the whole books, of course, even if you decide not to agree on this particular point. I almost never use the term, "sublime," but these books are sublime. That aside...
This gets a bit into the aforementioned derailment, but here it is: Everybody among the ancients thought there was a first man. If we put ourselves in their position, we should ask, "how else could it be?" The question is whether a person thinks that the story of Eden is a factual account of that first man, or whether it's figurative (as in the first quote).
One of the things that leads to the dichotomy between authors (especially Jewish authors) is the fact that "Adam" literally means, "The Man." In the first passage I cite, it seems plausible that St. Athanasius was aware of this. After all, if he didn't know it, it's a little bit funny to have him say, "the one who was named Adam in Hebrew," as though the Hebrew-ishness of the name were relevant. No, the name "Adam" is useful in referring to the first man in telling the story.
His whole discussion of the Fall (in both books) is about contemplation, as opposed to performing an action. The trees are figures of the things that God has given them (and us), but contemplation of themselves is prohibited. We might get more into what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents, specifically, or the Tree of Life. But the point is that it isn't a
literal garden (at least from St. Athanasius' perspective), and he spends a great deal of time discussing the nature of the Fall. The first quote, in fact, is one of the few in which he makes explicit reference to the figures in the text, themselves, in relating them to the Fall.
---
I definitely take your point about Josephus and using an historian to think about what was being taught at the time. As I said, I haven't read Josephus (except for his autobiography), but I've read basically everything that is orthodox from the first and early second century that we have. If I take your point about Josephus as expounding upon what was already being taught, however, then it fits into that knowledge in an interesting way:
The Christians (originally a sect of Judaism) suddenly started finding Christ (and references to the Christ as Jesus) _everywhere_ in the Old Testament. Taking passages figuratively basically made the New Testament a direct and logical follow-up on the Old Testament. Finding references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, figures of Jesus and his suffering, death, and rising, abound. You basically can't find a Church Father from the first or early second century who didn't do this. After the destruction of the temple, as Christianity developed in a direction of increased inclusiveness of Gentiles, I think that there was a backlash that tried to de-emphasize figure. Josephus appears at exactly the right time in history to embody that movement. One side takes Genesis figuratively because it ties everything to Jesus, and the other reacts against it.
I think the NT is clear enough when it's speaks of figurative people: it labels their stories as parables.
And I believe even Augustine, who loved drawing additional meanings from the scriptures, believed that Adam was an actual man, especially in his later writings.
Myself, I think the desire to see these OT people as figurative isn't driven from the text or from ancient traditions. I think it's driven by some modern Christians who believe they have no alternative but to do so. If it works for their faith, then that's cool I guess. But I don't think it's necessary.
They don't always label the parables as parables. The parable of the Good Samaritan and the Great Banquet are examples. We recognize them as parables because we're familiar with that kind of story and we know Jesus (and Rabbis, in general) frequently used parables to make points. Further, we've been told that these were parables by our teachers and everyone we know who has spoken of them. It seems natural that they should be parables. But the text doesn't actually say it. It's an inference we have to make.
And we could be wrong. Maybe Jesus actually knew of a Samaritan who did this thing that he says, and his story was especially useful for the occasion. But we read it figuratively -- we treat it as a parable, although nothing in the text indicates it.