Why I Believe in a Historical Adam
As a Christian who has become convinced of the authenticity and divinely inspired authority of the Bible, and as a scholar who investigates the Hebrew Bible and its ancient Near Eastern context, there are textual, logical, and theological reasons to affirm Adam and Eve as historical figures. I did not say there are scientific reasons to affirm the historical Adam and Eve, firstly, because of the classic definition of science itself, “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” Since the origins of humanity cannot be learned through experiments or observations, what we presently have are scientific theories, all of which require some degree of faith to believe. Secondly, well-respected scientists, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, and atheist, continue to debate for and against the merits and fallacies of various kinds of evolutionary hypotheses versus various creation beliefs.
Follow with me as I briefly present some logical, textual, and theological reasons why I believe in a historical Adam and Eve. Before proceeding, however, let’s define historical, and why history matters.
Historical Writing and the Bible
History writing, simply stated, is recorded text in which, as best as we can discern, the intent of the author was to record actual events or people. The methods and styles of history writing (historiography) are different among different cultures, and what is considered proper or acceptable history writing changes through time and also between cultures. To what degree is history writing a science or an art; does it use scientific methodologies or narrative literature; does it include speculative, analogical descriptions or only raw data. One thing in common across all cultures and recorded time, history is always written with an intention, and it always includes and excludes parts of the historical record.
The Bible contains many different genres: narrative, poetic, laments, prophetic, apocalyptic, to mention just a few major categories. A careful reading of the Old Testament and literatures of the surrounding cultures also reveals that within narrative, the method and style of history writing in the Bible reflects the predominating methods and styles of their current predominating cultures, although always with a twist (both speaking into the culture in a way the people of the time can understand, and also speaking against the prevailing cultures in a way intended to be transformative for the people of God). Yet, modern readers of all times can understand and be likewise transformed by careful, intentional attention to the Bible.
Many modern Christians are claiming that a historical basis to the biblical narrative does not matter, because, they say, the Bible is only making theological claims. This argument, however, does not hold up. An underlying principle of theology of the Bible is that God is a God who acts: God shows up and moves in history. God is incarnational, not an abstract theory or theology of the mind only. By trying to separate the God of history from the God of theology (which means, of course, “the study of God”), we become somewhat gnostic, disembodied, lacking a meaningful existence with a past, present, or a future. In other words, efforts to cut apart history from theology in the Bible destroys the very fabric of the theology. If God does not act in history, God becomes distant, abstract, and incapable of moving in our own lives. Our faith becomes cut loose from time and events. We are on our own only with good ideas about a distant “God.” As theologian L. Newbigin stated, “At the heart of the Christian message was a new fact: God has acted—and let us remember that the original meaning of ‘fact’ is the Latin factum, ‘something done.’” (in, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship, Eerdmans, 1995, 4).
And as theologian G. E. Wright wrote, “Biblical theology is first and foremost a theology of recital, in which Biblical man confesses his faith by reciting the formative events of his history as the redemptive handiwork of God. The realism of the Bible consists in its close attention to the facts of history and of tradition because these facts are facts of God.” (in, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital, Allenson, 1952, 38).
Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam and Eve
Logical Reasons to Believe
One of the big controversies among modernists, scientists against a historical single pair is the efforts to trace the genetic and biological line of humanity as homo sapiens. The human Genome Project and similar efforts to track human DNA and origins conclude that humanity can be traced to a handful of original humanoids, or a few hundred, or a few thousands. The results vary depending upon the methodology used to determine the number, but most scientists argue that humanity could not have come from just one pair. For Christians holding a high view of Scriptures, this does not pose a problem for the following reason. According to the biblical text, Genesis 6:1-4 refers to vague and strange happenings among human beings with some other form of possible humanoids or spiritually corrupt creatures resulting in the birth of the mysterious Nephilim. This combined with the widespread corruption, lawlessness, and violence certainly could have involved various kinds of rape, bestiality, and the propagation of humanity intermingled with non-homo sapiens, which the biblical text indicates took place for possibly a few hundred years (Genesis 7:2 tells that Noah was 600 years old when the flood waters began).
Other ancient Near Eastern Literature also contains stories of strange creatures, and super-heroes resulting from intermingling of humans with “gods” (i.e. non-humans). This supports rather than detracts from the biblical narrative. The Bible throughout both speaks into the culture (speaking to and explaining), and speaks against the culture (as a polemic, describing how and why the Lord God of the Bible is different from the beliefs and practices of the surrounding cultures). As a result of the flood, there was a reboot of the proliferation of humanity from Noah and his wife, and their three sons and three daughters-in-law. The Bible provides the genealogy of Noah, but says nothing of the biologic heritage of these four women involved who populated the land after the deluge. Therefore, although I believe there was one original pair of humans as we know today, it is unnecessary for biblical reasons to argue that present humanity came from only one pair, when biblical history itself attests a subsequent re-population after a period of time with some seemingly strange breeding in Genesis 6:1-4. (As a note of interest, flood narratives also proliferate worldwide, with expected similarities and differences from the biblical Flood. You can simply google “list of flood myths” to pull up a global list of flood literature from the ancient Neolithic periods, Bronze Age, Iron Age, and more recent from the Middle East (ancient Near East), Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific, and the Americas.) The Bible itself, with attestation from the literature of other early cultures, points to some obscure events culminating in a deluge followed by repopulation.
Textual Reasons to Believe
Several factors in Genesis, and other parts of the Old and New Testaments indicate the intent of Genesis 1-5 is to communicate a real, historical man and woman as created by God. These are: 1) the use of genealogies in tribal cultures and in the Bible as the foundation of family narratives. The very structure of Genesis is built upon the 10/11 “generations” or toledot formulae. Genesis 4 and 5, along with 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 4:23-38, assume a genealogical record that begins with Adam and extends to the Messiah, Jesus Christ in Luke. All other genealogies in the Old and New Testament are derived from these early genealogies, and continue the lineage, including Noah in Gen 5 and 10; Abram/Abraham in Gen 11; David in 1 Chronicles 2 and Ruth 4:18-22 and David’s descendants; and Jesus Christ in Matt 1 and Luke 4. The Bible is filled with partial genealogies and points to the importance of the historical record. What is commonly called the “primeval narrative” in Genesis 1-11 is textually solidly linked without separation to the “patriarchal narratives” in Genesis 12-50, through Abraham’s genealogical record beginning with Noah’s son Shem in Genesis 11. To extract the genealogies from the Bible’s historical record is to remove the theological core of God’s actions in and through history, in and through real human beings.
To state that the people in the Bible are historical does not take away from seeing each figure as an archetype, a pattern, or an example to follow, learn from, or avoid. The New Testament teaches that everything written in Scriptures, Old and New, exists to instruct, correct, warn, and train so that the followers of God may be equipped for every good work, and have hope (2 Timothy 3:14-17; Romans 15:4; Hebrews 8:5, 10:1). We will look at this further in the final part.
Theological Reasons to Believe
The entire basis of the story line of redemption and salvation is grounded in Genesis 1-4, the narrative of that explains what it means to be created in the image of God, the purpose of humanity for those who choose to follow God, and the lengths to which God chooses to go to lead humanity into God’s presence and right relationship with God, in order to restore His intended plan for humanity and creation.
The entire theodrama of the Bible is based upon God’s plan and purpose for a physical creation to reflect the spiritual realm, with God working in and through real, physical people, places, and events to make Himself and His ways known throughout the earth. As the Pharaoh of the Exodus narrative states in Exodus 5:2, “Who is the LORD (Yahweh) that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD …” We see throughout the Bible, God revealing Himself to humanity. In the opening scene of creation, God reveals Himself through what and how He creates: planning, speaking, evaluating, declaring, “It is good!” and making humanity the crown of all that is made with the purpose of representing God Himself within the physical universe. Next in the scene in the Garden, God reveals Himself through His acts, His word, and His presence. In Genesis 1-2 humanity is contrasted with all other ancient literature about the making of human beings. Only in Genesis 1-2, along with Psalm 8, and the rest of the Bible is humanity put almost on par with God, “a little lower than God,” like God Himself. For a couple excellent expositions on humanity as God’s image read Catherine McDowell, The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, (Eerdman’s, 2015), and on the Garden as God’s Sanctuary-Temple, read G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (InterVarsity Press Academic, 2004).
The theodrama of the Bible continues through the story of history of the redemption of those who respond to God’s call for salvation, from Gen 4:26, during the time of Adam’s grandson, Enosh, son of Seth, when people began to call upon the name of the Lord. This theme of salvation recurs with Abraham in Genesis 12:8, through the prophet Joel 2:28-32 [Hebrew Joel 3:1-5]; by Peter in Acts 2:17-21; and by Paul in Romans 10:13.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, Jesus ties together Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-7. Paul uses the “first Adam” in contrast to Christ as the “second Adam” in his theological treatise of the salvation narrative in Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:20-23, 42-49), contrasting that people are either “in Adam” or “in Christ” as the headwater, or originating source of two humanities. The New Testament, especially Paul, also make much of Abraham as the father of our father, Abraham whose genealogical record proceeds from Shem, the son of Noah, in Genesis 11, and Noah, who’s genealogical record proceeds from Seth, son of Adam, in Genesis 5. Paul’s theological arguments throughout depend upon narrative and historical record as presented in the Old Testament. And finally, John’s Revelation concludes with Garden imagery in Revelation 22:1-15, drawing us back to Gen 2.
The Old Testament, like the New, is a theological history. The acts of God, the ways God reveals Himself to humanity, and the ways God calls and draws humanity back to Himself, are all to specific people through specific places, and times in history. Simultaneously, God’s acts of redemption in history are intended to speak to all people in all times. Therefore, we do see analogies, patterns, and cycles throughout the Scripture. But, proper hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) requires reading the narratives within their geographical, historical, cultural, and literary context.
Question Regarding STH:s Textbook Selection
There was also a question by some regarding the textbook selected for the STH course, Introduction to the Old Testament, called A Survey of the Old Testament, by Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton. Here is my response. There is no perfect textbook for this course. There is no textbook survey of the Old Testament that fully agrees with my theology, or that of my colleagues at STH, on every issue in the OT, and there are dozens of theological issues, such as: the unity of Genesis; creation; the authorship of the Pentateuch and Isaiah; the authority of Scripture; the historicity of the Moses, Exodus, ancient Israel, David, Solomon, and Daniel; the nature of prophecy; to name only a few. Of the span of theological issues, this textbook has fewer difficulties than the other academic textbooks that provide an introduction to the Old Testament. Furthermore, part of the teaching process is to train students to evaluate everything they read, and hear, in light of Scripture. No student should read a textbook and swallow it whole, without asking questions. Training a student to think biblically and theologically is a vital part of the process of education. What is more, as an academic institution, we are not to preach our views to students, but to give them the different views in biblical studies, interact with them, and support the students in developing their own decisions.
When it comes to the book of Genesis and question of the historicity of Adam, most academic textbooks that survey the Old Testament hold to a historical-critical view of Genesis, or to an evolutionary view of the earth and humanity. Of the two authors of the textbook being used: Hill has not publicized his position, Walton is an “archetypal creationist.” However, the textbook does not present either of their opinions, but simply a small glimpse of the current range of views in biblical scholarship. The selection I made for this course offered through STH is the best of available options I have been able to find so far. I am open to suggestions.
Faith is not a leap into thin air, and we do not need to put our brain on pause when reading and interpreting the Bible. This was a very brief overview of a few key concepts that support the in-depth reasons I believe in a historical Adam, historical Jesus, and the theological historical basis of the Bible.
Ingrid Faro