Adam: did he exist? Do we need him to have existed?
Kevin DeYoung listed ten reasons why one should believe in a historical Adam in “10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam” . James McGrath responded point-by-point in “Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam” . In summary, these are the points made:
(1) The Bible doesn’t distinguish between “history” and “theology”.
(2) The biblical creation story intends to inform the pagan cultures that “this is how it really was.”
(3) Genesis 1-11 are not mere “poetry” but intend to describe history.
(4) Adam in Genesis 2 is connected to Abraham in Genesis 12.
(5) The genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 include Adam.
(6) Paul affirmed a historical Adam.
(7) Most Jews and Christians have affirmed a historical Adam.
(8) If we don’t go back to Adam “ we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature.”
(9) Adam is necessary for the doctrine of original sin.
(10) Christ as the “second Adam” presupposes a first Adam.
I recommend reading both posts. If you would like to do so then return to share your thoughts they’d be most welcome.
What do you think of DeYoung’s list? Do you think they are good points, bad points, or a bit of each? What do you think of McGrath’s counter points?
February 7, 2012 at 10:00 am
There are at least two good scientific reasons for thinking that the human family descends from two people:
(1) The Y-DNA genetic signature that is wholly passed down from father to son and the mitochondrial DNA genetic signature that is wholly passed down from a mother to her offspring both trace back to a single ancestral line; hence implying that the aforementioned genetic signatures must have been invariant across the original human population (if there is such a thing).
(2) The latest in anthropological research suggests that the human family originated from a single source and not multiple sources.
Moreover, the argument that’s been used to rule out the possibility of humanity descending from two people is critically weakened by the fact that we currently lack good models for predicting the rate of increase in genetic diversity over time.
In short, there are currently no good scientific reasons for Christians to abandon the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve and at least some good scientific reasons to suggest that the traditional understanding might, after all, be true.
February 7, 2012 at 10:01 am
Interesting question. The purpose of Genesis doesn’t necessarily seem to be to record the historicity of Adam and Eve (whether or not they are historical figures), rather it’s purpose seems to:
* point out why God is worthy of our worship (by denoting the creature/creator distinction);
* point out why man needs redemption (by recording the source of our rebellion against God);
* point out the consequence of that rebellion (death and rejection from paradise); and
* proscribe God’s way of grace despite our rebellion (Satan’s way of deception).
Essentially, affirming a historical ‘Adam’, whether for good or bad purposes, seem to be incidental to the purpose of the book.
February 7, 2012 at 10:11 am
For my part, the right way to think about this question is in terms of whether there is such a thing as the human family. If there is such a thing, as predicted by Scripture, then there must have been a designated initial population (by whom else if not God?) from which we are all descended, but if something like the current evolutionary model now favored in academia is correct then really there is no such initial population as our kind is just another tributary of life’s ever-evolving stream whose initial population can only be artificially designated.
February 7, 2012 at 10:13 am
Somehow, I can’t help but entertain the suspicion that DeYoung’s real argument is that “Reformation orthodoxy demands it.”
February 7, 2012 at 10:22 am
Andrew T,
“Essentially, affirming a historical ‘Adam’, whether for good or bad purposes, seem to be incidental to the purpose of the book.”
Incidental or not, Scripture does affirm that humanity is descended from two people and that leaves us with two viable options: Either stand with Christian tradition in affirming this particular claim of Scripture or admit that Christian tradition and Scripture are wrong on this point but that such a mistake should not unsettle our central convictions concerning the person and work of Christ. The approach suggested by people like Peter Enns that says that the man in Gen 2-3 either an abstract figurehead of mankind or some kind of proto-Israel and that Scripture does not necessarily teach that humanity descended from two people is (in my opinion) fundamentally dishonest and can’t hold up over time.
February 7, 2012 at 10:22 am
NW,
interesting–and refreshing–scientific insights. i can’t help but think mcgrath’s real argument is a sputtering, stammering, ‘but reformation orthodoxy demands it,’ so that’s reason enough it can’t be so!
February 7, 2012 at 10:23 am
I thoroughly agree with Andrew, and confess myself a bit mystified at NW’s statements, given that my understanding of Collins’ recent work on our genome in fact called into severe question the possibility for ancestry from a single pair of people. I’d be interested for them to post their sources on this thread, if that seems appropriate.
But at any rate, I side strongly with McGrath.
Each of DeYoung’s points (in my opinion) presents his interpretation as if it is the only reasonable way to read our scriptures in a theologically consistent, or exegetically responsible way. This is wrong. He is fully entitled to his opinion, and I will listen carefully to him. With that said, I will also listen to the many faithful believers whose work I respect, to gain insight into how our scriptures and our science may enmesh themselves to the greater glory of our common creator.
In the end, I believe the most faithful witnesses will be the ones who are secure enough to hold their scriptures very tight… and their interpretations of them very loosely.
February 7, 2012 at 10:29 am
Sorry about the scatter shot comments but I don’t feel like interacting with DeYoung’s biblicism. It is true that Scripture affirms that humanity descended from two people (the one point behind DeYoung’s ten points) and that would have been enough to settle the discussion among Christians a few centuries ago but that is no longer the case.
February 7, 2012 at 10:39 am
pauljpastor,
“I thoroughly agree with Andrew, and confess myself a bit mystified at NW’s statements, given that my understanding of Collins’ recent work on our genome in fact called into severe question the possibility for ancestry from a single pair of people.”
It’s all bluster, the scientific understanding of Collins and the rest of the biological community hasn’t advanced to the point where they can speak authoritatively over such things. Think about it, we don’t even know how these bodies work in the present let alone their murky primeval origins. Speaking as a professional scientist, you can take it to the bank that we know far less about such things than we let on.
The real problem for Collins and many others is that he’s tired of the Christian community having a theory of human origins that is inconsistent with that of the scholarly community, but if DeYoung’s biblicism shouldn’t settle the matter then neither should Collins’ social angst.
February 7, 2012 at 10:53 am
By the way, it’s worth mentioning that in keeping with the now dominant paradigm of human origins that the biological community originally expected the Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA genetic signatures to trace back to multiple lines of origin, similarly with the anthropological community in originally expecting that humanity had multiple places of origin.
February 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm
@NW: Was the earth created in 7 twenty four hour periods? Some (passionately) say YES! Others (equally forcefully) say NO (basing their arguments on the literary genre of Genesis).
If the literal existence of ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ are incidental to the purpose of Genesis when you say “Either stand with Christian tradition … or admit that Christian tradition and Scripture are wrong ..” what you are doing is missing the point, and reinforcing your particular interpretation over the intent of the author. If the author’s purpose of Genesis was to establish the foundation of sin and forgiveness, for example, does it really matter if the יום (yowm H3117) found in [Gen 1:5] was a 24 hour period or not?
My point was not to deny that humanity originated from one man and one women. Rather my point was to point out that it wasn’t important given the apparent purpose of Genesis. When reading the bible we need to have some sense of what IS and IS NOT important to the author of the text (rather than us).
I think see the point.
February 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I’m not qualified to comment on the origins of the human species. I don’t know whether you could video tape the creation of the first human. And if you could, I don’t know if that human would have been created simultaneously and instantaneously along with others as males and females called into existence by God Almighty, Gen. 1:27, or whether that human was a man created by God intimately scooping up clay and blowing life in his body, Gen. 2:7. I suspect that neither of these things happened as told in the Hebrew stories. I suspect it would be difficult to capture with a video camera exactly when the first human or humans came into being.
What I know, is that the truth contained in Genesis is much, much more relevant to my life than chromosomes or DNA or mutation or any of that. What I know, is that there is an Almighty aspect of God that I feel on the edge of the Grand Canyon and an intimate nature of God that I feel while holding a new born.
I guess if forced to answer whether De Young’s list is a compelling reason for me to use the Bible to answer a science question I would say it is not. But mostly, I think the Bible answers questions that matter a lot more than science questions.
February 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm
NW: Your posts boil down to a version of: “Who are you going to believe, the Bible or your lying eyes?”
I’ll believe my lying eyes, thank you.
Pingback: The Bible and Science and Evangelism: A Boat Too Far and the Literality of the Biblical Stories? « The Evangelical Calvinist
February 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Although I haven’t thought much about this issue, I really do not see a problem with believing Adam did not actually historically exist. Sure, Paul quotes him and a couple genealogies trace through him, but perhaps that was an ancient way of referencing “the beginning”? Perhaps, as Andrew has been getting at, the author of Genesis intended to something else – something beyond mere “historical” facts?
Also, I’ve just started reading Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam, so I’ll definitely have more to process after a few chapters. But as it is, I have no problem in believing that Adam did not actually exist. Of course, it helps that I’m not an inerrantist and therefore not seeking to tie together apparent loose strings just so my theology is nice and neat, which DeYoung seems to be doing.
February 8, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Just read McGrath’s points and I would have to say I agree with him. Like I said above, DeYoung seems to be defending his own theological presuppositions than anything else.
February 9, 2012 at 5:44 am
I thought DeYoung’s argument could have been more effective with fewer points. (Force-fitting to ten is not always a good idea.) Nonetheless, it was far more compelling than McGrath’s.
McGrath was arguing a faith-based position. That is, he obviously accepts that science has spoken definitively and finally on human origins to the extent that any biblical account or allusion to creation of an Adam and Eve must be flawed, and thus feels no need to establish or prove the point. I wish my faith in God was as strong as his faith in science.
It’s hard to see McGrath’s argument as anything other than naturalism speaking against the supernatural. Given his assumption, I don’t see how he allows for any of the supernatural events in the Bible – including Christ’s resurrection – if he so easily dismisses the supernatural event of human creation.
February 9, 2012 at 5:48 am
Greg, isn’t your retort to NW the motto of the Flat Earth Society?
February 9, 2012 at 7:53 am
Tim Law provides another response here: http://timothymichaellaw.com/2012/02/08/kevin-deyoungs-misunderstandings/ .
February 9, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Andrew T,
“Was the earth created in 7 twenty four hour periods? Some (passionately) say YES! Others (equally forcefully) say NO (basing their arguments on the literary genre of Genesis).”
The “days” of Gen 1:1-2:3 are indeed ordinary days but only at the level of metaphor as they were not meant to be interpreted historically. It’s a nontrivial claim but it can be demonstrated.
“If the author’s purpose of Genesis was to establish the foundation of sin and forgiveness, for example, does it really matter…”
Even if some of the historical claims of Gen 2-3 are only incidental and do not underpin the theological center of the narrative it remains to demonstrate that the same claims do not also underpin the theological center of Rom 5:12-21 (pace Augustine and the Reformers). Now, according to my admittedly Pelagian reading of Rom 5:12-21 such is not the case, which is why I can live with the possibility that tradition and Scripture are wrong on this point, nevertheless many would not agree with such a theological move and in any case it is surely more preferable to side with Scripture and tradition on this point so long as it hasn’t been decisively refuted.
Greg,
What exactly do your “lying eyes” tell you? Just looking around doesn’t seem to settle the matter for me.
February 9, 2012 at 1:42 pm
@NW: I have no problem with your assertion ‘tradition’ is wrong. I couldn’t agree more. Tradition IMHO is often more incorrect, than correct.
Futhermore, I agree, that in saying if some claim in Gen is incidental and does not underpin the theological centre of the narrative it must also be demonstrated that the same claim does not also underpin the theological centre some other scripture (you cite [Rom 5:12-21]). However, in the instance you’ve given, it doesn’t appear you believe this to be true.
For the sake of discussion we can discard claims about how long it took to create the earth. I assume you see the genesis claim about one man ‘Adam’ and one woman ‘Eve’ to be the essential ingredient in [Rom 5:12-21]? Is that the ‘historical claim’ that underpins the Romans quote, you believe?
If so, I’d point out that the [Rom 5:12-21] ignores the fact Genesis stipulates Eve sinned first. The Romans quote doesn’t even cite Eve. It uses Adam as the harbinger of sin and Jesus as the harbinger of salvation.
If the purpose of Genesis was to establish the foundation of sin and forgiveness, do you reject the claim Adam was first responsible for rebellion against God (whether or not he was the first man, and whether or not he had exactly one wife named Eve)?
See my point was, and is, that the fundamental claims of Genesis are what matters here, and what remaining citations in the bible build upon. I don’t believe the bible will fall apart whatever one proves about the number of first humans, or the length of creation, because frankly I don’t think those things are what the narrative is about.
February 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Andrew T,
I think we’re mostly in agreement on these matters to the point where I now lack the desire to hash out the finer points of whatever disagreement we might actually have.
February 10, 2012 at 4:02 am
Sorry coming in a few days late on the discussion. I think Peter Enns helpfully answers each of DeYoung’s objections in his new work, The Evolution of Adam. A very good read.
February 10, 2012 at 8:27 am
@Scott:
I aim to read Enns book this year.
February 11, 2012 at 6:48 pm
As a historian, I’d say that Genesis is not a ‘historical book’ in the sense of primary source material, or in the way that modern historical work is done (any work could be considered historical in various ways). Typically anything pre-4000-5000BC is considered pre-history; history can only be done with written sources. The only way to accept Genesis’ account of Adam as historical would be on the basis of theology; and this theology would need to include the presupposition that the inspiration of the Bible implies a sort of literal meaning (literal in the sense that if it is not obviously a poetic, parable, etc. based story, it is recording real events).
February 11, 2012 at 6:58 pm
To add:
This question is a theological question, and if it is theological, we may have to question the language used, and what it entails: ‘historical Adam.’
February 12, 2012 at 1:06 am
barobin,
If “history can only be done with written sources,” how does eyewitness testimony ever get written down in the first place? Does this mean first generation written sources – such as David Halberstam writing about what he saw and heard in Vietnam – do not count as history? If this is the case, then only second and subsequent generation written material count as history, and all history is thus based on non-historical sources.
February 12, 2012 at 12:10 pm
@Mike
Modern technology adds an interesting twist to the questions of what counts as historical sources. Now we have technology that allows anyone to be an ‘eye witness’ without being at the event physically. I watched 9-11 take place live on TV, and yet I was not there; so am I an eyewitness (not a question I am asking you, but an example question historians who’d study the methods of history would ask)? With situations like Halberstam, his recordings would count as primary historical sources. However,recordings, pictures, video camera interviews, etc. are a small piece of the overall human epoch… I mean, we’re talking about a 150 years out of 7,000years.—-Most historians deal with texts—and will jump to other disciplines (especially in ancient history) for other bits of information (archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics,papyrology, etc.).
Your first question about how do eyewitness accounts get written down in the first place is an extremely broad question— There could be numerous answers given here—-i.e. Luke writing down oral/eyewitness accounts to give to someone.