Recommended Book Review: In Quest of the Historical Adam; A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

 

The book has been recently published in 2021. We used pdf version of the book from z-lib.org which has 675 pages. Every chapters contains lengthy footnotes making the book actually 387 pages i.e. approx. 57% effectively!

The book has 4 parts:

Part 1: Importance of Historical Adam, only one chapter

Part 2: Biblical data concerning the Historical Adam, Six chapters

Part 3: Scientific evidence and Historical Adam, Five chapters

Part 4: Reflections on the Historical Adam, only One chapter   

There are total 44 figures used throughout the book.

Christian eager minds, who study evolution, have query about Adam and Eve. Early chapters of Genesis don’t seem to support evolution while scientific fields do not have any space for creation story like Genesis 1-3. It might be well known that the church has been teaching traditional recent creation either with strict position or reinforced by classical Gap theory[1] to match up with science. They usually place the creation of Adam and Eve in 4000 BC.

As, William Craig puts, there are around four view of Adam and Eve:[2]

1. The Traditional View: Real people created several thousand years ago
2. Real people created recently but not universal ancestor of humanity. They were selected out of wide population outside the garden
3. Historical people, universal common ancestor, but extremely ancient perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago   
4. The Mythical view: They were non-historical people but simply a Hebrew myth. Adam has been depicted as typical representation of humanity.

In his book, he seems to present very close position to the third stance.

When it comes to the conflict of any field with the Bible, it is most certain that Christians would thumbs up the scripture. Alban Douglas writes, let us be like the Negro lady who said, "I believe the whale swallowed Jonah because the Bible says so. If the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale I'd believe that too! "[3] But, as David Snoke gives alarm, “At the very outset, let me say that my experience in science has affected my interpretation of the Bible. For some people, this is a cardinal sin. This is one of the most important issues before us. Is it ever permissible to allow our experience to affect our interpretation of the Bible?”[4], should scientific discoveries affect the way we interpret the early chapters of Genesis?  

What William Craig does is that he first navigates through Genesis 1-11 to filter its genre and then moves towards how far modern science has reached in locating distinctive human in the human evolutionary scenario. He states clearly in preface that his book can be fatal to readers rather resolving Genesis vs Science arena. He admits no matter how we explain early chapters of Genesis, we are in lot of trouble with lot of people. Christian eager minds themselves can get upset after reading his book. Hence, he pleads for an open-mind. To maintain harmony, he avoids sarcastic and often offending terms such as ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ and replaces with more friendly terms like ‘traditional’ and ‘revisionist’.

First, in Part 1, Chapter 1, he works in proposing significance of Adam to be a Historical person.[5] He then goes on Genesis 1-11 as chapters that doesn’t require literal understanding by clarifying what a ‘myth’ is. He insists that even if one resist concordist view[6], it is plausible to note Genesis 1-11 belongs to non-literal genre.[7] He supports his proposal by discussing how ancient audience understood the world stretching the chapter discussion to contemporary myths of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Ancient Near East in this chapter and following chapters.[8]  

In Part 2, he presents how to understand a ‘myth’ the way he proposes it and how Genesis 1-11 almost fits in that framework.[9] He adds how Genesis 1-11 takes a historical interest which isn’t same as historicity. Genealogies has been considered to be backbone of Gen. 1-11. To avoid misconception with the word ‘myth’, he prefers to use ‘Proto-History’ to show why Genesis 1-11 belongs to Mytho-History. With the help of ANE myths, he insists that myth is not required to be taken literally. Hence, Gen. 1-11 is about real people and real events clothed with mythical language. To make readers feel comfortable with the proposal and be firm to inspiration of Bible, he presents ten fundamental truths from Gen. 1-11 that is not affected even if we take those accounts non-literally. He also explains how extra-canonical Jewish literature and NT provide enough fuel to consider Adam and Eve as historical people.

In Part 3, he takes us to an extremely different scenario. This part is perhaps challenging to bear. He discusses how far modern discoveries in science about history, evolution, genetics, etc. can help us to locate historical Adam and Eve. He presents Ice Age[10] as a probable period when Adam and Eve must have lived in between 2.5 million years and 12 thousand years ago. He presents a case regarding what makes certain creature to be eligible to fit in human category. After that, he goes on exploring various Hominiodea on the basis of the criteria[11] to be human. He concludes that archaeological signatures from technology, economy and social organization and evidence from symbolic behavior places the last common ancestor with Homo Heidelbergensis about 1 million years to 750 thousand years ago. Being well conscious of challenges, he has discussed temporal and geographical challenges to his proposal.[12]

In final Part 4, he assures it is plausible to regard Gen. 1-11 as Hebrew mytho-history.[13] Using both scripture and science, he presents enough fuel to consider a Historical Adam and Eve. He also argues that human is to be identified with Neanderthals as well. He discusses Image of God in association with his proposal. He discusses body-soul dualism along with Adam’s contemporaries. It is glad to know that he admits the quest of historical Adam can never be concluded due to incompleteness of data and provisionality of science.    

Comments on this book:

He has been a reputed Christian theologian, philosopher and apologist with magnificent contribution in Christian apologetics. This work is really adorable. Honestly, I don’t have any expertise on this subject that makes me capable to comment on his work. Meanwhile, I have noted certain issues that I would like to present as my personal comment on his work.

1. His proposal of Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history seems tenable enough to convince eager minds that Genesis 1-11 is not actually dealing with things that our modern mind is attempting to ask such as making sense of 6 days creation, vegetarian world, talking snake, amazing tree of life and knowledge[14], unbelievable long life-spans, disputable age of the earth and so on.[15] Seriously, he has made case that we cannot satisfy ourselves intellectually on these topics. They remain fantastic elements for our mind more likely as mythological frameworks.
2.  He seems to embrace antiquity of the world but disregards concordist interpretation like day/age and alternative day/age views of Genesis.[16]
3. He seems to reject the view that ancient took their bizarre description of the world literally such as solid dome, flat earth, etc. He insists these were mere figurative languages or to be precise, they were phenomenal description.[17] Ben Stanhope[18] seems to disagree with his assertion.[19] His most recent book ‘(Mis)Interpreting Genesis’[20] has opposite argument to that of Craig’s.
4. He has spent enough pages to explain and clarify how to understand myth and whether Hebrews borrowed from surrounding cultures just because they have similar accounts.[21]
5. For OECs and YECs, his proposal might seem to be ‘Escaping Approach’ i.e. to escape from challenging questions by simply saying Genesis 1-11 belongs to mytho-history genre.[22] Dr. Kimball has also brought a similar case in his book ‘How (Not) to Read the Bible’.
6. He attempts to make us assure that taking Gen. 1-11 as a Mytho-history doesn’t demean divine inspiration of the scripture.
7. Christians may misunderstand his work against Sufficiency of scripture dogma as he has admitted one needs to navigate even pagan surrounding cultures to understand the context of early chapter of Genesis.[23] This has been a typical objection from YECs although they have also used surrounding cultures’ data to prove a younger earth.[24]
8. Critics might charge him for forcefully proving Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history using ANE context.[25] This can be a serious allegation for forced compromise to fit modern science.
9. The book can be stumbling block to those who embrace inerrancy and infallibility of scripture since he discusses plenty of inconsistencies in narration.[26]
10. It is obvious that he is not rejecting Genesis as history. It is history but takes framework used as metaphorical and figurative language of myth. He admits Genesis is about real people and real events in primaeval history.       

It is guaranteed that this book will be of great volcanic eruption in Christendom. But it is also guaranteed that Christian eager minds will get to learn many information about hermeneutical exegesis, Ancient Near East cultures, and scientific updates. It is certain that no single scholars would agree with one another[27] and there are ongoing research and debates in this subject. It is better for us to be open to all sorts of proposal and keep updating ourselves with where scientific discoveries shall take us. Gen. 1-11 has their own theological messages to us even if they are to be taken as non-literal accounts. We need to weigh both sides since it is interpretation that matters whether it is Bible or Science. The cardinal/fundamental doctrines remain the same for us.

For a critical review by RTB team: Click here

---

[1] Read the book by Dr. Brain J. Bailey, Genesis: The Book of Beginnings.

[2] Tactical Faith, Was a Biblical Adam a Real person? Dec. 12, 2020, 17:52 min. https://youtu.be/GzS5Zgy8eHI

[3] Alban Douglas, Hundred Bible Lessons, Lesson 16.

[4] David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, Baker Books, 2006, Pdf p. 8

[5] Doctrine of Historical Adam threatens to undo deity of Christ.

[6] Three views have been discussed with their weaknesses. (1) the attempt to extract modern scientific information from scriptural passages—for example, taking Gen 1:1 to teach big bang cosmology; (2) the attempt to interpret scriptural texts in light of modern science—for example, day-age and gap interpretations of Gen 1; and (3) the attempt to integrate the independently discovered findings of contemporary science and biblical theology into a synoptic worldview.

[7] Divine revelation and accommodation with contemporary world embed theological truths. It is inspired theological truth but uninspired cultural husks. Biblical authors’ statement were phenomenal in character.

[8] Just because authors believe and describe bizarre picture of the world doesn’t mean they are teaching those things.

[9] Gen. 1-11 resembles to ANE in structure of narration and themes.

[10] It seems during Pleistoscene epoch the origin of human race are to be sought i.e. 2.5 million years-12 thousand years ago  

[11] Abstract thinking, planning depth, behavioral, economic and technological innovativeness and symbolic behavior.

[12] Read Chapter 12

[13] As in Chapter 4, Gen. 1-11 are traditional, sacred narratives set in a primaeval age, featuring a deity as a central character, that seek to anchor realities present to the pentateuchal author in a primordial time. Sometimes fantastic, but untroubled by inconsistencies, they were objects of belief for ancient Israelites.

[14] Start from 3.05, even Ben Stanhope admits he is confused about tree of knowledge: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5uh0dl09d_M&feature=share

[15] Read Chapter 4 and 6

[16] Read Chapter 1 and 4

[17] Read Chapter 6

[18] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOq_6_nZwTxqfZK__dnjwSQ/about

[19] Read: https://www.bstanhope.com/2021/12/a-response-to-william-lane-craig-on.html?m=1

[20] https://apologeticsimpact.blogspot.com/2022/01/recommended-book-review-misinterpreting.html

[21] Read Chapter 4

[22] In Chapter 4, he discusses 6 days narration, talking snake, mysterious trees, Noahic Flood, etc. as fantastic elements and mythological in tone. It is obvious that he doesn’t even have satisfactory answers to these questions but he has been working as facilitator in his defender classes to explore all possible interpretations. This is adorable aspect of Dr. Craig.

[23] Read Chapter 1

[24] https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/, accessed on 4/7/2022, 10:22 pm

[25] Read Chapter 1-6.

[26] Read Chapter 4

[27] For e.g. Just check the view of Gen. 1-3 presented by Dr. Craig with Dr. Heiser at https://drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compatible-genome-research/

Consider the difference between analysis of 6 days by Prof. Lennox in his book ‘Seven Days that Divides the World’ with Craig’s critic on Chapter 4.

These differences go on the list with many scholars such as Dr. Ross, Walton, Swamidas, etc.