One of my old teammates at IWU posted a linked on his Facebook page the other day. It pertains to William Craig Lane's discussion of the historical Adam debate. WCL is a widely published professor of philosophy and you can find his discussion here. It got me thinking...
As you can infer from this little interchange, the debate around the historical Adam--was he or wasn't he, and if he was, can we somehow prove it?--has enjoyed a certain level of popularity as of late. This is directly linked to the convergence of scientific research and bringing an age scholarly discussion into the realm of popular Church culture. In particular, we can thank Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" (which is very good by the way) and other European scholars for this. For a teaser, check out these Youtube videos here, and here.
There is a lot riding on this conversation, including how Christians should understand creation and evolution. This is why this discussion creates such passionate responses. Certain people are quick to call others "liberals" (of some sort) if they stray from a certain set of ideas, and others often call certain people "simplistic" or "naive" if they hold to particular conclusions. But instead of piling it on in this post--trying to find the problems with either particular view point--I want to take a textual approach to this discussion, and in doing so I want to explain why I think this debate is particularly frustrating.
...and I totally realize that I am only one voice in a debate that has been and will continue to be hashed out from multiple angles...
From the outset, it is my opinion that the problem is not inherently a scientific one. Rather, I believe that the core issue in the historical Adam debate is Paul's exercising of interpretive principles that make me uncomfortable. And Paul's ideas really force the conversation of a "historical Adam." Let me explain.
One of the first things that you need to do when sitting down to interpret any portion of Scripture is ask "What kind of text is this?" It is a question of genre, and this is critical because we want to know 1) what the text is demanding and trying to communicate and 2) what type of questions to ask of it. Quite simply, it is improper to ask the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. One's ability and willingness to properly classify and respect the genre prevent this. So in the case of those texts in Genesis 1-11, it is widely accepted that this portion of Scripture is an ancient cosmology. It is trying to describe the present order and structure of the universe. By implication, it is also trying to explain how it came into being (...often times when we want to know why something is the way that it is we explain its origins).
However, we have to emphasize the word "ancient" in all of this. You see, we--modern people who live on
this side of the scientific revolution--tend to understand the order and structure of the universe in scientific terms...for obvious reasons. However, science, biology, and other realities were not even in the biblical writer's frame of reference. Furthermore, and we know this from comparative studies, the biblical writers were using the same images, ideas, themes, motifs, etc. as other pagan writers. Thus, the creation accounts were not trying to give specific biological, chronological, or scientific insight into the creation and order of the universe. Rather, they were describing the universe in a frame of reference that was thoroughly ancient near eastern. It is my opinion, therefore, that those people who try to align scientific data (positively or negatively for that matter) with the statements of Genesis are asking the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. [...and I know that there will be people who just flat out disagree with me. But I am just not going there right now.] The intentions of Genesis are more theologically polemical than anything.
If this were the end of things, there would be minimal problems. But we have Paul and his typological argument for Christ's significance (cf. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Typology, in its most basic sense, refers to an interpretive method that explains the significance of people, events, and institutions in light of other people, events, and institutions within a framework of history. It has always been a popular method of interpretation within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it was very popular among the earliest Christians for explaining the implications of Christ. In Paul, Christ and Adam are explained in terms of other...they need each other. But more fundamentally, the typology needs history.
The result is an interesting one. Paul apparently understands Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a historical person, which imports a level of meaning that is not demanded by Genesis as an ancient cosmology. Remember, Israel's cosmology is fundamentally concerned with communicating the revolutionary concept that God Almighty, Yahweh, perfectly created the universe and it was good and orderly. Humanity screwed it up with its selfish endeavors. It is not trying to make specific scientific or historical claims. By implication, the governing rules of Genesis 1-3 allow for the interpretation that Adam and Eve may symbolically portray another reality. So, in my mind the frustration arises not because of the genetic search for the "first man" or "mitochondrial Eve." No...it is frustrating because it appears that we have a pillar of the Church interpreting the text in a way would that would solicit some very negative feedback if he were taking one of my exegesis courses. It is worth repeating, Paul moves beyond what the original writers of Genesis intended, adding another layer of meaning to the plain sense of the sense.
Did Paul get it wrong? Did he misunderstand Genesis 1-3? No, I am not going to say that. Paul was a highly trained Rabbi, and first century rabbinic exegesis was a well established interpretive method during his day (Although, I am nor afraid to admit that I have a hard time tracking elements of it.). Furthermore, Paul was endowed with a certain level of spiritual insight that no longer exists. What I will say is that 1) Paul understood Adam's humanity in light of Christ's, Adam's significance in light of Christ's and 2) the writer of Genesis 1-3 did not intend to make specific anthropological claims...only theological ones. This is the difficulty, and this is what frustrates me.
As you can infer from this little interchange, the debate around the historical Adam--was he or wasn't he, and if he was, can we somehow prove it?--has enjoyed a certain level of popularity as of late. This is directly linked to the convergence of scientific research and bringing an age scholarly discussion into the realm of popular Church culture. In particular, we can thank Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" (which is very good by the way) and other European scholars for this. For a teaser, check out these Youtube videos here, and here.There is a lot riding on this conversation, including how Christians should understand creation and evolution. This is why this discussion creates such passionate responses. Certain people are quick to call others "liberals" (of some sort) if they stray from a certain set of ideas, and others often call certain people "simplistic" or "naive" if they hold to particular conclusions. But instead of piling it on in this post--trying to find the problems with either particular view point--I want to take a textual approach to this discussion, and in doing so I want to explain why I think this debate is particularly frustrating.
...and I totally realize that I am only one voice in a debate that has been and will continue to be hashed out from multiple angles...
From the outset, it is my opinion that the problem is not inherently a scientific one. Rather, I believe that the core issue in the historical Adam debate is Paul's exercising of interpretive principles that make me uncomfortable. And Paul's ideas really force the conversation of a "historical Adam." Let me explain.
One of the first things that you need to do when sitting down to interpret any portion of Scripture is ask "What kind of text is this?" It is a question of genre, and this is critical because we want to know 1) what the text is demanding and trying to communicate and 2) what type of questions to ask of it. Quite simply, it is improper to ask the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. One's ability and willingness to properly classify and respect the genre prevent this. So in the case of those texts in Genesis 1-11, it is widely accepted that this portion of Scripture is an ancient cosmology. It is trying to describe the present order and structure of the universe. By implication, it is also trying to explain how it came into being (...often times when we want to know why something is the way that it is we explain its origins).
this side of the scientific revolution--tend to understand the order and structure of the universe in scientific terms...for obvious reasons. However, science, biology, and other realities were not even in the biblical writer's frame of reference. Furthermore, and we know this from comparative studies, the biblical writers were using the same images, ideas, themes, motifs, etc. as other pagan writers. Thus, the creation accounts were not trying to give specific biological, chronological, or scientific insight into the creation and order of the universe. Rather, they were describing the universe in a frame of reference that was thoroughly ancient near eastern. It is my opinion, therefore, that those people who try to align scientific data (positively or negatively for that matter) with the statements of Genesis are asking the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. [...and I know that there will be people who just flat out disagree with me. But I am just not going there right now.] The intentions of Genesis are more theologically polemical than anything.If this were the end of things, there would be minimal problems. But we have Paul and his typological argument for Christ's significance (cf. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Typology, in its most basic sense, refers to an interpretive method that explains the significance of people, events, and institutions in light of other people, events, and institutions within a framework of history. It has always been a popular method of interpretation within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it was very popular among the earliest Christians for explaining the implications of Christ. In Paul, Christ and Adam are explained in terms of other...they need each other. But more fundamentally, the typology needs history.
The result is an interesting one. Paul apparently understands Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a historical person, which imports a level of meaning that is not demanded by Genesis as an ancient cosmology. Remember, Israel's cosmology is fundamentally concerned with communicating the revolutionary concept that God Almighty, Yahweh, perfectly created the universe and it was good and orderly. Humanity screwed it up with its selfish endeavors. It is not trying to make specific scientific or historical claims. By implication, the governing rules of Genesis 1-3 allow for the interpretation that Adam and Eve may symbolically portray another reality. So, in my mind the frustration arises not because of the genetic search for the "first man" or "mitochondrial Eve." No...it is frustrating because it appears that we have a pillar of the Church interpreting the text in a way would that would solicit some very negative feedback if he were taking one of my exegesis courses. It is worth repeating, Paul moves beyond what the original writers of Genesis intended, adding another layer of meaning to the plain sense of the sense.Did Paul get it wrong? Did he misunderstand Genesis 1-3? No, I am not going to say that. Paul was a highly trained Rabbi, and first century rabbinic exegesis was a well established interpretive method during his day (Although, I am nor afraid to admit that I have a hard time tracking elements of it.). Furthermore, Paul was endowed with a certain level of spiritual insight that no longer exists. What I will say is that 1) Paul understood Adam's humanity in light of Christ's, Adam's significance in light of Christ's and 2) the writer of Genesis 1-3 did not intend to make specific anthropological claims...only theological ones. This is the difficulty, and this is what frustrates me.
I absolutely agree. It is tempting to link Adam (a name that generally means "man" or "dirt") to a symbol, especially in such a fable-like context. However, the New Testament demands a true Fall by a true man in order for a true man to come and fix it.
ReplyDeleteBesides, what do we do with the genealogy in Luke tying Christ to Adam?