Justin Brierly, host of the radio show Unbelievable?, invited Denis Alexander, Peter Enns, and Fuz Rana to discuss the historicity or non-historicity of Adam and Eve. You can listen to the show here.
Darrell Bock and Richard Averbeck addressed the same topic in part 2 of the recent The Table podcast (part 1 compares the biblical creation account with one ANE accounts). You can listen to the podcast here.
the archives near Emmaus 
These guys are missing the point when they demonstrate Genesis 1-2 is similar to non Jewish ANE cosmology. It is, no doubt. In fact, it’s about 90% Egyptian cosmology and 10% Babylonian from what I’ve read.
The problem is that Jesus uses the murder of Cain as partial Divine cause to pronounce judgment on Jerusalem. He sure seems there to be speaking as Yahweh, not for Yahweh.
That kind of thing is exactly not what we see in the narrative, that type of inconsistent, departure from the norm conduct between Jesus as Yahweh and Yahweh pre Incarnation.
Jesus treated Adam, Noah, the flood and such as historic events and people. Enns has attacked Paul’s theology relative to Adam, next he has to take on The Lord Himself. Adam is real with me until Enns can convince me he knows more than Paul and Christ Himself does about the ancient narrative.
That’s a very tall order.
Thanks for pointing me to these resources.
Oh, and AWESOME picture by the way. I love it – cave man, agriculture, industrial revolution and the age of information… nice
Yes, thanks for the links Brian. The picture is clever implying a regression of modern man. The only problem with it is that it’s based on that old picture from the 1960’s that gives a false impression of evolution. There are still people that think evolution means humans came from chimps. They don’t understand the idea is that both humans and chimps have a common ancestor.
Can it really be argued that there is no historical basis for ‘Eve’ when indeed genetics itself points to one woman from whom we all descend (speaking of Mitochondrial Eve)? Science’s ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ isn’t actually incompatible with biblical Eve, even if it may be congruent with some theologies built up from that.
Similarly, that there is a much later Y chromosomal Adam is also not contradicted by the bible, even if ‘Y-Chromosomal’ Adam shows a better correspondence with Noah, than Adam (the idea being that there was a genetic bottleneck in the male lineage we all share much later historically than the genetic history we all inherit from Mitochondrial Eve). Therefore, theological arguments about the Historicity or non-Historicity of Adam and Eve could merely be theological solutions in need of an actual problems (since no problem here seems to exist).
Historically, theologians have shown great capacity to be ignorant of contemporary science, just as scientists have shown great capacity to accept exaggerated theological characterizations at face value.
I suspect here too – it is no different .. which is why I rarely get excited about discussions like this ….
Thomas, you are correct about the image, but you raise another question. If human’s and apes had a common ancestor, couldn’t that imply devolution as much as evolution – logically? In other words, could not a common ancestor have been a more evolved upright species, with apes the residual bi-product of continuous devolution?
Since we don’t actually have that common ancestor, and since it is though natural selection only selects for ‘advantage’ there’s no logical reason devolution is prohibited, since devolution could provides advantage if it results in a species being more suited for some particular environment or habitat …
Problems only arise when we follow that Gen 2 is a retelling of the 6th day of creation instead of a new special creation for a special purpose. While we can determine that Adam lived about 5800-6000 years ago yet we can be certain mankind is 100000+ years old.
As far as genetic purity goes why would the genetic makeup of Eve be any different than the first woman made on 6th day even though one was made and other formed.
Robert, I agree. While I am not a young earth creationist (to use a label), agree with their argument that neither geological, anthropomorphic chronologies, nor reliable dating methodologies have been proven certain.
Current methodologies (to propose anthropomorphic datings) don’t match ones even a generation ago, and likely won’t match them a generation from now. Likewise, all of these methodologies contain presuppositions which science hasn’t bothered to prove correct ..
I am likewise willing to consider the idea that [Gen 2] is a specific narrative against the backdrop of a more general one ..
I don’t understand what you’re asking about genetic purity though. Mitochondrial Eve basically proves we have all inherited mitrochrondial DNA from a common mother at some point in the past (which is kind of what the bible implies). That the bible claims this should be amazing to scientists who have only arrived at this same conclusion recently. It has nothing to do with purity however. I haven’t considered the genetic implications of being formed vs being born, though I have considered the bible’s narritive of the rib against the metaphors of forming an XX-chromosome pair (female) from XY-chromosome pair (male) … (Interestingly you could make a female’s XX from a male’s XY, but you could not do it the otherway since females don’t carry the distinct Y chromosome.)
Andrew
What I am saying is the Elohim used the exact genetic formulation for Eve as they did for 6th day woman. Lets say the Elohim created 10 wives from Adam’s rib then all genetic markers would lead back to all ten regardless of whose line they were in. The Elohim could have created 1000’s of women the 6th day at the same time which the different ethnics coming from the men created. Is it not strange we can not be traced back to one male.
Patrick,
Peter Enns is not attacking Paul’s theology relative to Adam, nor does Peter Enns claim that he knows more than Paul and Christ Himself do about the ancient narrative. Peter Enns is merely suggesting that a different INTERPRETATION of Genesis may be more appropriate.
Paul, why?
… because our current understanding of science doesn’t fit with our current understanding of theology? How does this possibly prove the orthodox view false, or science true?
I criticize Enns as much for having a low view of orthodoxy as a high view of science, all without warrant (at least he makes no effort to provide warrant, he simply presupposes science is true, and orthodoxy antiquated). Since both views are somewhat whimsical relative to the voguish trends of academia, and therefore subject to change, Enns’ “more appropriate interpretation” is as likely to be a solution in search of a problem as it is to be more appropriate.
If anything, there is reason to believe the biblical account is sufficiently detailed, and the trend of the progress of science clear enough to suggests that science is (yet again) converging on the bible, not the otherway round, so in face Enns’ thinking of making the bible match man-thinking science is exactly backwards.
Andrew T,
As Peter Enns stated in the podcast, he is not a scientist, so he therefore is not in a position to provide warrant.
Assuming that you are referring to a more “traditional” interpretation of the Bible, I’m curious as to how you conclude that “science is (yet again) converging on the bible, not the otherway round,” noting, for instance, that Y chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived long before the traditional Adam and Eve of Genesis.
I think too many Christians are spending too much effort trying to make Genesis be something that it isn’t, namely a story of science and history, when God’s message in Genesis is theological.
Denis Lamoureus makes a good case for the failure of scientific and historical concordism in Genesis 1-11 in his book “Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution,” as does Peter Enns’ in his (and Jared Byas’s) very interesting (and much shorter) new book: “Genesis for Normal People: A Guide to the Most Controversial, Misunderstood, and Abused Book of the Bible.” I highly recommend both of them.
Science denied (until recently) we all shared a common female ancestor (meaning a woman who donated to us all her DNA), the bible not only affirmed it but it was a point of ridiclule. Science, which now has a short memory about this, believed in cradles of civilizations, so mutiple donors into our DNA pool. However in 1978, Allan Wilson, of the University of California, Berkeley, with doctoral students Mark Stoneking and Rebecca L. Cann discovered what was already in the bible, that from one woman we all descend. Yet theologians now deny ‘Eve’ – go figure. The same type of skeptical outlook is true of Y-chromosomal Adam, and man whose DNA we all have – yet what is the trend in biblical studies now but to proclaim the non-historicity of Adam and Eve though there is at least evidence for a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve (or perhaps a genetic Noah, and a genetic Eve). Modern science (specifically genetics) has disproven the antiquated mocking views of 19th-20th century skeptical scientists, and apparently moden, but ignorant of science, theologians who are only now understanding the scientific views long discarded.
Similarly, science for millennia long denied the universe had a beginning. It argued mockingly the universe was eternal, and so was matter, though traditional theologians argued to the contrary because of the bible. So did philosophy hold an eternal universe. Yet the discovery of the universe’s background radiation (and so the ‘Big Bang’) proved decisively that the bible’s claim the universe had a beginning was true (now practically unrefutable given how compelling the evidence).
Again, scientists aren’t historians, so they can tell you lots about what scientists believe today, but they seem completely ignorant of the once popular, voguish scientific notions now on the dust-bin of history, long discredited. Contrary to romantic notions of science, science does not establish truth, science cannot be used on non-repeatable, non-observable phenomenon (such as the emergence of life from non-life), science is not comprehensive (meaning it is restricted to the sand box of the physical), completely reliant upon the metaphysical (such as logic and reason), but otherwise blind to it, and scientific belief is ever-changing, voguish, and rarely able to derive consensus.
Although I agree Genesis, like the rest of the bible, is primarily ‘theological’, that doesn’t mean it, or the rest of the bible, lacks valid scientific belief, even if it is not expressed in scientific language. That would be like saying ‘because it is theological, it cannot be historical. Bunk. As evidence I would point out two examples.
[Isa 40:22] uses ancient language and analogue to describe the earth, but it’s a pretty good image, accurately describing the earth as a round object in the heavens (“circle of the earth”). The same is true of the Hebrew in [Pro 8:27] which describes the earth more anciently, but still correctly as “being a circle inscribed in the face of the deep (meaning space)”. Most impressively, at least to me, is [Job 26:10] which sees not only the circle of the earth (the orb) in space (the boundary between light and darkness) but also the earth’s remarkable feature that it contains an abundance of water unlike any other planet (‘the face of the water’ is our blue planet, a necessary precondition for life (in a scientific sense). [Job 26:10] especially shows a modern scientific view of earth, even if the ancient witness didn’t possess an appropriate scientific vocabulary to describe what he saw – the point gets across … (I’d point to others also, such as [Job 26:7] which sees the earth hung on nothing, quite contradicting ancient ideas the earth was supported like a pillar, and also notes that the northern sky is void of stars, unlike the southern sky (because the tilt of the earth has our northern hemisphere facing out of the plane of the galaxy, whereas the southern sky looks into the plane of the galaxy – and I’d point out additional references to the ‘foundations of the earth’, references long thought to be figurative, poetic, ridiculed, now proven correct and known to be true (google ‘variation of moho depth’ or ‘orogeny’ – under earths mountains, protruding into the mantle are deformations in the moho, not unlike the part of the iceberg beneath the waterline acting as foundations for tectonic plates – the larger the mountain, the greater the Moho depth)
No, the bible is theological, but I’ve not yet found its science or history to be false.
Thomas:
I understand, but it was the best image to connect evolution with online radio interviews and podcasts. 🙂
It’s provocative in faith circles, Brian. You’ve provoked discussion. I have no problem with that …
Andrew T,
Re your “No, the bible is theological, but I’ve not yet found its science or history to be false.”:
The following is from Denis Lamourex’s book “Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution”:
Fig. 5-1. The Failure of Scientific Concordism (p. 150):
Flat circular earth with ends, foundations & underside
Flat circumferential sea around earth & bordered by horizon
Firmament overhead in heaven & set on foundations
Sun, moon & stars set in firmament
Sea of waters above in heaven held up by firmament
Earth is immovable
Stars occasionally fall to earth
Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds
Bats are birds
Rabbits & rock badgers are ruminants
Male reproductive seed contains a miniature person
Female reproductive organs are seedless
Seeds die before germination
[Soil] is the only cause of seed growth
Females are the only cause of infertility
Demons cause epilepsy, blindness, deafness, etc.
Fig. 7-1. The Failure of Scientific and Historical Concordism in Genesis 1-11 (p. 242):
Birds created before land animals
Origin of snakes without legs after humans
Origin of thistles & thorns after humans
Origin of suffering and death after humans
Origin of flesh eating after flood
Orign of cultural advances in a few generations
Destruction of all humans on earth by [the Flood]
Repopulation of earth from [Middle East] after [the Flood], etc.
And Denis Lamoureux discusses each one of these in the boook.
Once again, I think too many Christians are spending too much effort trying to make Genesis be something that it isn’t.
Paul, perhaps Denis Lamoureux and I read the bible differently, perhaps our exegesis differs and therefore our understandings do not align.
With deference to Denis’s Lamourex’s book, I’m not concerned with Denis’ views, but whether or not the Bible’s narrative is rational, and true.
Theologically, the Bible’s narrative is rational and true. The point is that it is a waste of time and energy, and more importantly, determental to Christian evangelism, to attempt to argue that the Bible is scientifically accurate and that Genesis 1-11 are to be read literally. If Christians continue to make this unnecessary argument, we are going to lose a significant portion of the current generation of young people, and the generatiion after that.
As OT scholar Bruce Waltke stated on March 24, 2010: “If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult–some odd group that is not really interacting with the world.”
I don’t know what you mean by reading Genesis 1-11 ‘literally’. What Genesis 1-11 actually says, what the purpose of the narrative is, and how you interpret that are 3 different things.
Genesis 1-11 establishes that God is creator, man is creature. This is theologically true, scientifically true, and historically true. The purpose of the narrative may be to establish that God is God, and man is not but even so – you cannot read Genesis 1-11 and not see scientific or historical implications.
If you happen to read Genesis 1-11 and conclude that according the narrative the earth took 6 days to create, that is an exegetical problem, and not a scientific or historic problem. While I agree that resolving such problems present no immediate benefit to the propagation of the Gospel, they do provide secondary benefits in that working through exegetical problems in particular instances often have application else-where.
You see arguments about resolving questions of science in Genesis as ‘unnecessary’, but if indeed the bible is the word of God I can’t see how you can compartmentalize it like this, for if indeed the bible is the word of God, it should influence all of our thinking, and not just our theological thinking. (Since you keep naming dropping so called experts in your book references, so will I; check out the debt science owes to theology by checking out ISBN-13 978-1848311503. That Science owes anything to theology in its intellectual heritage shows you that you cannot read Genesis without thinking scientific thoughts ….
Therefore your argument about Christians wasting their time looking for science in Genesis, is really a waste of time …
Oh, and just so you know – I don’t believe in evolution, so citing experts who affirm it to be true is something equivalent to affirming experts who believe the world to be flat … it carries no persuasion in my thinking ..
Paul
Genesis was written down for the sole purpose of history for Israel and for Israel to understand the purpose for the Elohim choosing a separated people which actually starts with Gen 2 when Elohim formed HaAdam for his special purpose. Gen 1 was provided to show contrast with the special creation and separated people. The people of the 6th day were good to their purpose and without sin because they never entered a Covenant relationship with requirements. without a law sin does not exist. The truth is they were not even in need of redemption but were always in the need of the blessings and knowledge of the true Creator . The whole setting of Genesis is what we call the middle east of which the descendants of Adam populated along with some 6th day people that Cain went out amongst of which soon polluted the bloodline of Seth. So again The Elohim set out to separate by choosing Noah and family when He flooded the area. Not that much later the Elohim sets out to separate protect a bloodline by choosing Abraham then only pure seed of Shem by making special promises through Covenants to the pure seed of Shem of which we understand why Isaac was chosen and why his wife had to come from Abraham’s family then Jacob who chose from Shem’s bloodline and is also the reason Tamar produced the the bloodline to Yahshua. Genesis also provides the means to bring the blessing and knowledge of the Elohim when Joseph’s sons where given first born status to actually be the nation of Israel who would become the fullness of the gentiles(Multitude of nations bad translation) that would actually bring the blessing of the offspring of Judah (Yahshua) to all families on earth.
Robert, you’re suggesting a theological interpretation of Gen 1 and 2. As far as I can tell what you’re suggesting is consistent with the text theologically.
However, Paul’s point that reading Genesis apart from theological concerns impedes the progress of the Gospel has not been satisfied by your observation, nor has the claim that aside from theological considerations these texts do have scientific and historical implications ..
Personally, I am open to the idea that Adam and Eve represent a first type of man and woman (say an elected couple) as opposed to defacto arche-types. I don’t believe the Hebrew makes it clear Adam and Eve were necessarily created at exclusion of all others, and before all others in the natural sense, and so such a view is not non-biblical.
I also accept your suggestion that there is continuity and essential substantial similarity between the Adamic covenant, the Noahide covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, and ultimately the new covenant. Peter seems to imply as much when he shows that the New Covenant was implicit in the Noahide covenant and that there is a general correspondence [I Peter 3;18-21][2 Peter 4:4-10]; and of course there are ample examples of Yahshua’s own words (and Paul’s) showing essential correspondence between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant.
Andrew
I dont see Paul’s point even relevant in the Creator’s Plan and Fulfillment of it. Of which Gospel could it impede upon, the Promise to Abraham and his descendants or the blessing of all families ?
As far as science they do well trying to understand their own ego but on the other hand if you are speaking of critical thinking common sensual people who truly seek to understand the earth and mankinds history through physical evidence then yes I accept their science and conclusions that the earth and mankind is way older than 6000 years but whether it is 10’s of thousands ,millions or billions years old they can only guess. We know that Chinese history dates back to before Adam by 500 years.
Robert, are we talking about the same Paul? I was referring to Paul Bruggink above …
Yes
“However, Paul’s point that reading Genesis apart from theological concerns impedes the progress of the Gospel has not been satisfied by your observation,”
But maybe I am not reading it in your context?
Paul,
Enns has attacked Paul’s theology as it relates to “in Adam we all die” . I’ve read it.
My problem with “no historic Adam” has nothing to do with interpreting Genesis or even Paul’s assertions because we all should interpret scripture in the light of The Lord Jesus, not Paul or tradition.
It has to do with Jesus’ comments about Abel and Cain relating to divine judgment on Jerusalem.
Enns has to either (A) ignore that comment, (B)claim it is falacious historicity or (C)that Jesus acting there as Yahweh departed from the consistent development in the OT text of how Yahweh pronounced judgment using reality and not myth.
His logic would be of interest to me.
I’ve read some excuses like ,”Jesus knew better, but, He had more important issues than correcting the Jews mythical beliefs”. Since Jesus was judging ancient Israel as Yahweh with what He termed the worst tribulation before or since, I doubt He used mythical nonsense to assign guilt on the crew that murdered Him and “missed the visitation of Yahweh” since it had been predicted starting with Moses using reality based flaws.
Patrick, the problem is what people mean in their nuanced use of ‘historic Adam’. That I absolutely affirm a ‘historic Adam’ does not mean I’m exegetically required to affirm that narrow interpretation of a single Adam existing before all others, (though even this view would indeed be a possible view of a ‘historical Adam’). I’m willing to consider a broader exegesis on this for two reasons; first, this narrow interpretation of Adam (meaning no other extant humans around) is not the only possible solution to be found in the text, second I absolutely see ‘election’ in Genesis and so not only is a broader interpretation possible, it is suggested (with that said, I don’t have a problem with the narrow interpretation either)
With that said, how people understand ‘historic Adam’ nuances not only how they read Genesis, but also how they read Jesus’ words, Paul’s words etc. If one is inclined towards a narrow view of Adam, one is going to see that same view in Christ’s words. So Enns’ obligation to address the words of Christ, Paul, Peter or whoever, in their treatment of Adam in their theology is a function (in part) of one’s own exegesis. Don’t get me wrong, Enns thinks too highly, and too uncritically, of science and its views, but at the same time his treatment of Christ’s (or Paul’s) view of Adam is not necessarily unreasonable.
Won’t it be nice when science finally catches up with the bible, and Christians can stop feeling guilty for believing in the historicity of Adam and Eve?