A must-read paper on Genesis

I’m a product of my culture, as are we all. That much is true. And I generally tend to think science gets it right most of the time, unless it’s a field like evolutionary psychology which has a lot of bunk. Apparently most non-DNA forensics is pretty bad, too. Usually a close enough look at the methodology will tell you whether to take something doubtful seriously.

Science-as-reported-by-the-media is a somewhat less reliable category, of course.

By ‘true atheist’ you mean what? Someone who interacts with the world without filters or preconceived notions? That’s pretty far from the actual definition of atheist. Nor do I think it’s useful to assume that atheism is passed down from parents to children as a dogma—that’s the case some of the time, surely, but many, many people reach it as a conclusion after struggling with questions quite a bit.

I guess I’m bemused to be accused of being unquestioning: probably a lifetime first. But it’s occurred to me I could have found less unfortunately-connotated word to use than ‘excavated’ in the first place, so sorry if that tripped any hackles!

In the recently remade series, Cosmos (originally produced by Carl Sagan)…there was a transition of utmost subtlety - - where the narrative went from the burning of Bruno (Catholic insanity) to Young Earth Creationism (Evangelical)…

Not enough credit was awarded to the modern Catholic Church for embracing evolutionary science.

  • for the position that no finding in science can or will contradict the word of God!

My hackles are much too easily tripped – so please accept my apologies in turn for accusatory-sounding language. You are correct that the simple society-accepted definition of atheist is probably best stuck with.

That’s another statement (indeed – understatement!) that I definitely sign on with, especially given that what qualifies as “information media” for most these days are venues like facebook.

1 Like

I’m glad we have come to a place of agreement!

Oh please, we don’t need to get started on Facebook “media!” :laughing:

1 Like

I apologize for being late to the party, but it took me a minute to get around to reading the article. First, thanks @Sy_Garte , for bringing it to our attention and generously emailing copies to us. Second, I’ll be scattershooting a bit to reply to various comments, so forgive me if it’s hard to follow.

Joshua 24:2-3 pretty much kills the idea of an unbroken line of tradition from Adam (or Noah or anyone else in Gen. 1-11) to Moses. “Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.” Thus, Abram and his ancestors did not worship or know God. To my mind, the call of Abraham is the beginning of what we might call “literal” history, an idea reinforced by the fact that writing itself was invented in Mesopotamia not long before Abraham was thought to have lived. (I’ll return to this thought later.)

Genesis is unique in that regard. (Not in taking the wind out of your sails, but the other thing.) The creation stories are connected to the flow of history through the repeated “toledot” (“generations” in KJV) formula, found first in Gen. 2:4, the “toledot” of the heavens and the earth. In Gen. 5:1 and elsewhere (6:9, 10:1, 11:10, etc), it introduces the next section of the story, telling us what has “come from” the thing before. As the French theologian Dubarle put it: “Among the other peoples of the ancient world, myths did not undergo a similar treatment.” The intended effect is to create continuity between the creation accounts and the human history that follows.

Genesis 1 is related to Genesis 2 in the following way, according to Henri Blocher: “There is not one table of origins, but two. The first (Gen. 1:1-2:3) is on the origin of being, the second (Gen. 2:4-3:24) on the origin of evil.” Umberto Cassuto observed that the lesson the Torah wishes to teach “flows from the continuity of the two sections.” All the ills that plague human existence – shame, strife, pain, toil, death – stem from human disobedience. In the absolute beginning, it was not so; it was “superlatively good.”

You are right that the Eden story does not relate Adam & Eve’s creation to the image of God. I don’t think you can say, though, on the basis of Gen. 3:22, that knowledge (specifically the knowledge of good and evil) made Adam the image of God. He was already created in God’s image before he acquired such knowledge.

The image of God is primarily dynamic and relational, not static and functional. At humanity’s creation in Gen. 1:26-27, three things are immediately in play: Man’s relation to God, man’s relation to “his own kind,” and man’s relation to the rest of creation. In short, man was created to love God, to love others as himself, and to “rule” the Earth as God’s representative. Genesis 2-3 tells us of “The Fall” (sin/disobedience), which warped and twisted all of our proper relationships – to God, to others, and to nature.

As I have said previously, the only reason to hold onto a literal, historical Adam is because Paul and other NT writers seem to treat him as such. This is where I think Clouser is strongest, arguing that Paul did not think Adam was the first biological human being. On the other hand, Clouser follows many Reformed theologians in seeing a covenant with Adam, whereas this surely isn’t the case. In all other covenants in Scripture, the purpose is redemptive, and there is a “covenant ceremony” to formalize the relationship. These are either missing or inappropriate for the creation accounts. Clouser terms it a “probation,” but I’m not sure that resolves the difficulty.

The problem, it seems to me, is that Clouser still wants to retain a literal, historical “first couple,” just as he wants to explain the flood in terms that preserve it as a literal event in space-time history. This doesn’t make sense to me, nor does it do justice to the text. Gen. 1-3, while not, strictly speaking, Semitic poetry, is definitely written in strophes, which we should not ignore and thus treat the text as straightforward “historical narrative.” At the same time, the description of the Garden, the two trees, the talking snake, the name “Adam,” etc., all make clear that we are dealing with symbolic depictions. Why, in that case, insist on a literal first couple? Many Christians seem to want to hold onto a historical man named Adam while allowing the other elements of the story to be symbolic. This is entirely inconsistent.

Another problem with holding onto a historical Adam is this: What to do with the rest of Gen. 1-11? Is the Tower of Babel a historically accurate account of the spread of language? Is Noah’s flood a historical event? Why try to hold onto a historical Adam if we are willing to let go of the historicity of those stories?

Coming back to my earlier mention of Josh. 24:2-3. Since Abram could not trace an unbroken line of even oral tradition back to Adam, where did Moses (not getting into the authorship question) get his info? It wasn’t written down, since writing hadn’t been invented. It wasn’t passed down to Abram, since God called him out of paganism. Thus, it must have been by direct revelation. Was it a vision? Was it dictated to him word-for-word by God? We don’t know. I do think an analogy is helpful, however. Consider the later prophets’ predictions of far-future events. These are couched in highly symbolic language and imagery. I see no reason why God’s revelation of the far-distant past should not share the same symbolic character, and I see no reason why we should limit that just to Gen. 1-3, rather than 1-11. The true “history” of the Bible begins with Abraham, the “father of faith” and patriarch of Israel.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

2 Likes

I think I agree with most of what you’re saying (and thanks for bringing the bit about Joshua to my attention).

I have a hard time following this, though:

Are you arguing against the idea of Adam being a historical person at all, or just against him being the first biological human? I’m fine with Adam as a much later human being (i.e., not an early hominid) and the story being high symbolized and filtered through a theological lens (to the extent that we can’t really deduce what actually happened in a rigid historical sense), and I don’t think you can get around the idea that Paul held to some kind of historical Adam, whether or not he thought he was the first biological human. Again, to your reference to Joshua, I’m fine with abandoning the ‘tradition’ side of it (and I’m again thankful for you humbling me in that respect–I should be more familiar with the OT before I start speculating), and retaining some kind of direct revelation. Whether or not Moses can be considered the author I think is a pointless question. There was no such thing as IP in ancient Mesopotamia.

But after reading this part, I think we’re basically saying the same thing, now that I’ve been corrected on the idea of it being a tradition. What we get in Genesis 1-11 is nowhere close to being rigidly historical, and that’s not the point. And I do agree that the other stories in Genesis 1-11 make it challenging to hold to a historical Adam, though not impossible if you take them for what they’re worth. Thanks for the challenging dialogue, Jay. Always a pleasure discussing these things with you.

I am an old Earth creationist who affirms aspects of evolution that are irrefutable such as mutation and adaptation.

Molecular genetics points to an African point of origin of humans.

1 Like

words take definition from the people who use them." Christiani follows the recommendations of Jesus, i think. Churches . . . are a little loose with their doctrine, mixing tribal custom with divine . Muslims get a lot of that, flak for tribal customs that are not in their book. Christian churches sometimes get fixated on less crucial issues. Pantheist, i think, means an imminent, impersonal god. as opposed to a personal transcendent god. More of an eastern approach. Maybe it means God visits all church, but doesn’t feel bound to any one?
But the issue with Genesis is that Christians believe the bible is Historical, factual, that Jesus was not a made up story. So if Adam and Eve was a made up story does that threaten the whole Bible? There was another problem not long ago with the earth rotating around the sun. it is contradicted by Joshua who had the sun stop so he could complete the battle in one day. That was the problem with Galileo. It challenges a reported fact. So if there is a perceived threat, circle the wagons, prepare to defend. I would rather try to talk thru it, make sense.
I don’t want to waste energy on small battles that need not be fought. it detracts from the real battle with evil.
More specifically, the timeline, the means and methods of creation are for scientific speculation. Alternatively, a moral matter, is the treatment of aliens in our midst, a repeated topic in the bible is not a technnical problem with identifying them or their economic impact, it is how God intends them to be treated. oops, not an evolution topic. sorry, it is sunday.

how do i PM you to get a copy of the paper?

Click on Sy’s “S” avatar anywhere on this thread. A blue “message” button should appear.

I don’t think that Adam was a historical person. It seems to me that science, specifically genetics, has ruled out the possibility of a historical Adam. This is a fairly recent development, so very few Evangelical commentators have truly wrestled with its implications. For example, Anthony Hoekema (a great theologian!) admits in his 1986 book Created in God’s Image that everything about Gen. 1-3 favors a symbolic reading, but he still maintains and defends Adam’s historicity on the basis of Paul. I haven’t read every possible scenario that retains a historical Adam & Eve, but I have read many of them, and they all strike me as hopeful, but unprovable, speculation. Like Calvin, I prefer not to go beyond what is written.

Clouser has taken a good stab at trying to preserve a historical Adam. I think he is right in his canonical view of Scripture, and of understanding the OT in the light of NT revelation. Seeing a “covenant of works” in Eden is common among Reformed theologians, but Berkouwer, John Murray, and Hoekema (all also of the Reformed persuasion) argue convincingly that it is not appropriate. I think they are correct. Clouser properly sees one aspect of the Image of God, which deserves to be quoted:

The definition of “human” is central to all discussions
of human origins since no discussion of the topic can
avoid some idea as to what counts as a human. Is a
human a featherless biped? A two-legged creature
that walks upright and uses tools? A rational ani-
mal? An animal that makes tools? That cooks food?
That uses language? Makes art? That has a sense of
humor? That has a sense of right and wrong? All of
these definitions (and more) have been defended in
the past, and are inadequate compared with the defi -
nition we can frame on the basis of Genesis’s view
of humans. For although Genesis never offers a for-
mal definition of “human” as such, it clearly depicts
humans as having been created for a relation of love
(hesed) and communion with God—in other words, it
treats humans as essentially religious beings. …
In the light of this view of human nature, we may
conclude that the origin of humans on Earth is iden-
tical with the appearance of mortal beings who are
in the image of God and who have an innate capac-
ity for religious belief. In Genesis’s view, there are
no human beings until the appearance of beings with
the capacity for religious belief.

I think that Clouser is right in this thought, although he improperly limits the Imago Dei to the relationship to God, whereas in Scripture it also applies to our relationship to others and to creation itself. (See my previous post.)

He is certainly correct in understanding Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 not as competing accounts of the creation of man, but one thing that he misses in regard to the story of Adam is the contrast that Gen. 2-3 make with the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, where man is made of clay and the blood of the fallen and reprobate god, Kingu. Thus, in the Babylonian myth, man is corrupt from the start, stemming from a polluted source. Contrast this with Genesis, where sin and evil are not the result of God’s design, but of man’s choice to disobey. With this background (as well as the science), it is not hard to understand the story of Adam & Eve as non-literal. The only problem then is: Can Paul be interpreted in this light? I like Clouser’s treatment of Rom. 5. It has a lot to recommend it. Frankly, I am still pondering this issue.

On the other hand, Clouser’s handling of Noah’s flood is pretty weak. Noah was just saving his farm animals? Really? Has Clouser seen the size of Ham’s replica ark? Haha. This is an example of bending over backwards, exegetically speaking, to preserve a historical reading.

1 Like

I think I’m tracking with you now, though I don’t think science/genetics has anything to say with the idea of a late ‘Adam’ who isn’t the biological progenitor of the human race (John Walton’s take, as I see it). I’m more or less uncommitted to a historical Adam, but I do want to do Scripture justice so I’m entertaining different ideas right now (one of which is yours here!).

Bearing in mind I don’t hold to this per se, this is the best way I see a historical Adam playing out, if he existed at all:

At some point in (more recent) history, God revealed himself to a man and his wife (fulfilling your quoted definition of man as a religious being–one which I agree with wholeheartedly no matter what), and they were to be the ones to ‘expand the garden’ which I can take as a symbol for expanding the temple (given the latent temple imagery in Genesis 1-3) or spreading the revelation of God. They, of course, fell and the rest is history (pun intended). Basically, for it to work, we would have to see the Genesis account so absolutely steeped in symbolism that the ‘history’ (if it exists) behind it is impossible to truly know. Which of course means that it’s probably pointless to try and determine if Adam was historical.

Paul is really the only issue in my mind here (N.T. Wright’s chapter in Walton’s book points out what I gather Clouser argues in his paper–I’m emailing Sy right after I finish this to get the PDF so I can see it for myself).

Noah is a difficult one for me, perhaps more so than Adam and Eve, and it’s not simply because he’s my namesake! It seems the story of Noah (and Jonah, which we talked about over at The Hump) so deeply mirrors Christ’s that part of me feels like we’re losing something if they didn’t happen. It’s a very troubling issue to me sometimes–what are your thoughts?

I concur that the idea of a historical Adam is hopeful, unprovable speculation, and Calvin’s warning is one I think I ought to heed better. I’m just wanting to weigh the issue and see which view is the most faithful one, and I think you are too, which is why I find conversations like this so refreshing and encouraging, so thanks.

4 Likes

@NoahWhite

I’ve read some pretty “unique” and “special” interpretations here on BioLogos… where people really do believe in some quirky or idiosyncratic interpretations.

So I have no beef with the idea that someone wants to make Adam into someone REAL.

As I have posted several times before… no matter how you slice the emergence of Morality in the human community … somebody has to be the First !!!

And that first person, with moral agency and responsibility, first encounters moral issues as he proceeds from child to young adult. It is unavoidable. It is inevitable. And it is worth symbolically representing this emergence in a story we read in Genesis.

George

2 Likes

Hi Noah,

I cannot claim expertise from decades of study in ancient Hebrew or ancient Near Eastern culture. However, I have given some thought to the questions you ask, so I will take the liberty of sharing my perspective in the hope that you might find it at least a little useful.

The contention that Jonah is a satire is not based on incredulity about God’s ability to work a miracle. Rather it emerges from the literary form of the Spirit-inspired book. Take, for example, the fact that Nineveh repented so earnestly that even the animals repented. Yes, the repentance of Nineveh was so great that even the lowliest livestock donned sackcloth! This is akin to the delightful scene in Disney’s Zootopia where the heros frantically seek help from the department of motor vehicles, only to discover that the entire staff consists of sloths! Using the behavior of animals to depict the character of a city is cheeky and pointed, but it does not suggest that the account is supposed to be understood as historical.

Likewise, the details of the Noah account (the literal windows of heaven opening; massive rains and massively gushing fountains all across the earth, continuously and ubiquitously, for almost 6 weeks; a ginormous boat that would require a massive, coordinated building effort by hundreds if not thousands of laborers…) are so spectacular that they lend credence to the notion that its literary form was never intended to be historical.

The gospels, on the other hand, largely adopt the form of historical narrative, with just a few readily identifiable exceptions (such as the cycles of 14 generations in Matthew’s genealogy).

What do you think?

Warm Advent wishes,

Chris Falter

2 Likes

Hi Noah/Jay et al.

Sy sent me a copy of the paper, so I’ll wade in. I find it develops very much the same view of Genesis (and Romans 5) that I’ve been thinking through for the last 6 years or so. May I just say that in my view, Paul’s argument does depend on an historical Adam, but Clouser’s case for his not being the first human being, and therefore, as you say, of no relevance whatsoever to origins science (and to be so even for Paul) is in my view strong.

But let me add something from another angle, based on several years consideration here and on The Hump . One of Clouser’s important claims is that the biblical concept of “human” is a religious and covenantal, not a biological one - though at this late stage of human history, the two are co-terminous, and the gospel is for all. He suggests, as Merv has described, that Adam is the first human being who enters a “covenant” (or more accurately, “probationary”) relationship with God on behalf of mankind, with the potential gift of eternal life and, sadly, the potential to blow it and so to kick-start the salvation history that is the Bible’s overarching theme.

Within the framework of human evolution, I suggest that such an historical figure (or conceivably a group - but why depart from the text on this unnecessarily?) is a necessity. One has to conceive of human biology as a gradually emergent product of evolution, however that is understood, which might include all kinds of “abilities” such as reason, speech and even a religious instinct.

But a covenant relationship with the true God cannot be gradually emergent, and neither can eternal life - and certainly not through biological processes. As Gregory used to have as his mantra here a few years ago. “Some things do not evolve”: and the self-revelation of God to individuals and peoples is one of them.

Throughout the Bible, God relates to individuals by self-revelation, and they then come together as God’s community: relationship with God is a choice entered on freely (on both sides), and is either present or absent.

So, whether one regards only H sapiens as biologically human, or draws that arbitrary line at some point in the hominin continuum, there is really no good grounds for setting a point at which true spirituality is a product of biology. Indeed, it even seems absurd to suggest that a relationship with Deity can form by natural selection. And in any case, wherever one sets such a line one has said nothing about the point in history where Yahweh, the living God, says to someone, “You will be my people, and I will be your God.”

Genesis 2-3 gives us an account which, whilst predating the invention of history as a genre, gives us a geo-historical setting that is specific, that cross-connects with the literary traditions of the place and time described, and which also corresponds to the beginnings of what we know as religion today. In other words, if Yahweh did not begin to reveal himself to a man called Adam at that time and place, he would almost certainly have done so to someone else not far away in the same general time-frame.

5 Likes

A scenario like that is probably the least troubling to reason, if one feels compelled to retain a historical Adam. I don’t feel compelled anymore, and I will explain why in a moment.

First, though, I wanted to riff on your “expand the garden” note. G.K. Beale, in The Temple and the Church’s Mission, convincingly shows that Eden was the archetypal temple, and Adam’s role “to cultivate and keep it” is described in the same Hebrew words as the priestly work in the tabernacle, i.e. to serve God and to guard the temple from any unclean thing entering. Adam was the archetypal priest, in other words, but he failed in his duty by allowing the snake to enter the garden and subsequently sinning against God, so his role as priestly guardian was forfeited to the cherubim. Recall that in Israel’s temple and tabernacle, cherubim guarded the ark of the covenant inside the holy of holies, and outside of it stood the lampstand modeled after a flowering tree, certainly representing the tree of life. It is no accident that the holy city of John’s Revelation is described as a cube, like the holy of holies, and the symbols of Eden reappear. The end of the story is that we, “as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” A fascinating book. Highly recommended.

The key Scripture that deals with the creation of mankind is Gen. 1:26-27. Gen. 2-3 serves a different purpose. It explains our alienation from God, and it does so in archetypal terms. Even the name “Adam” functions more as a title, “The Man,” than a person’s name in the passage. (Not until 4:25 does it truly serve as a name.) All of the elements of the story, from the garden to the river to the trees to the snake to etc., serve a symbolic purpose. Thus, the story can be taken as a description of mankind’s passage from a state of moral innocence, like the animals, to a state of moral responsibility. This is what I think of as the “corporate” aspect of the story. But, Gen 2-3 also functions as the story of each of us, as individuals. As Kant famously said, “By a different name, about you the tale is told.” This understanding of sin as both corporate (societal, if you will) and individual fits well with Isaiah’s plaintive cry upon his vision of the Lord, ““Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips!” We are all guilty and justly expelled from the garden of God, alienated from his presence and deprived of communion with the giver of life, the Spirit.

Back to my earlier comments about why I don’t feel compelled to retain Adam (or Noah or Jonah or Job) as historical. In simplest terms, I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God, and I base this belief on the fulfillment of Scripture in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. Is Genesis inspired? Yes. Look at the myriad ways that it predicts and foreshadows, often through typology, the redemption accomplished in Christ. The same goes for Noah and Job and Jonah. All of them teach important lessons about God and ourselves. For me, they are just as much authoritative and inspired as any other book of the Bible, regardless of genre.

1 Like

Hi, Jon. Missed your post whilst composing mine. A good thing? Haha

I am going to backtrack just a bit on my earlier comments about Clouser’s paper. In particular, this:

By contrast, God’s put-
ting his own Spirit into Adam is what enabled him
to be bound to God in a relation that made possible
an escape from death and thus to be a “living soul”
in the fullest sense.

I was thinking about it today and ran across something from OT scholar Bruce Waltke. He pointed out that the result of the union of the clay and the breath of life in Gen. 2:7 was that man became a nephesh hayya, or “living soul.” Unfortunately, in Gen. 1:24, when the earth brings forth “living creatures,” the Hebrew is the same, nephesh hayya, as that translated “living soul” in 2:7. There are many other texts (Gen. 6:17, 7:15, Ezek. 1:12, Isa. 31:3, etc.) that indicate that animals also owe their life to the “spirit” or “wind” of God. I don’t think that the phrase can bear the weight that Clouser gives it. In Waltke’s judgment (and I agree), Gen. 2:7 does not give us the key idea that distinguishes man from the animals; to find that, we must turn to Gen. 1:26-27 and the Imago Dei. Much more to say about that, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. (You’re on the edge of your seats, I know. haha)

Edit – And I didn’t even address Paul!

1 Like

I am. Don’t leave us hanging.

1 Like

@Jay313

I wonder how important that particular part of the paper really is. I’ve always thought the idea that Adam was somehow immune from death, at the moment of his creation, was a non-starter.

From the very point of creation, Adam was an animal… not anything like an angelic presence. As flesh, he was not intended to bear the burden of divinity. Perhaps this is why God provided Adam with the Tree of Life. . . as a mitigation to his (Adam’s) flawed nature.

Then Adam discovers Good and Evil. Now . . . if he eats of the Tree of Life, he will become as a God? Even though he sinned? Wow… doesn’t look like the Big Sin has precluded Adam from too much, right?

The only reason Adam is Expelled is to make sure that even in his flawed existence (which was flawed from the beginning) that Adam is not able to make things even worse, by gaining the one aspect of godhood that all cultures and peoples attribute to a god: immortality.

The one thing a plain reading of Genesis tells us is that Augustine was “reaching” with his idea that Adam’s nature was free of death until his sin. Adam’s nature was always at odds with Death - - with the Tree of Life being the only hope of his having immortality as a gift from God.

1 Like

Jay

Your thoughts on nephesh were mine when I read the paper, but then I noticed that he wasn’t treating the “living soul” side of the equation, but the “breath of life”, the word breath being neshamah or nishma, with only a dozen uses in the OT, none of which relate to animals, and many of which seem to bear that sense of “spiritual” life.

“Breath of life” in relation to animals always, I believe, uses ruach.

Now, of course it’s true that Adam becomes a living nephesh or “soul” by that endowment - but then Closer’s whole point is that truly human life is spiritual, not merely biological. That would be in accord with traditional doctrine such as that of Aquinas, for whom “soul” implies the “formal cause” that gives matter its particular character - or less scholastically and quasi-scientifically, the in_form_ation that makes a human a human rather than (say) a particular hominin.

So I think Clouser is still on his feet! And as George rightly says, that detail is not crucial to the issue of communion/death/sin: it could be argued that the very presence of God in Adam’s life in the sacred space of the garden inured him to death - how can one not be vibrantly alive in close relationship to the author of life?

1 Like