A literal A&E as the “first breeding couple” and origin of H. sapiens is ruled out by population genetics and fossil evidence. That towel was correctly thrown in about 2010, except by YEC. GAE doesn’t negate those facts. If Paul believed in a literal Adam & Eve, he believed that they were the origin not just of sin, but the biological progenitors of all humans on Earth. Ancient science.
The “fallback” position for other evangelicals and some Catholics was that God selected (or “elected”) a representative couple, gave them the gift of a soul (plus some other stuff), and placed them in the Garden for the purpose of his test.
Loren Haarsma wrote a book outlining evangelicals’ four main options (also fit for Catholics) that I reviewed for Christianity Today in 2022. Here’s the BL discussion of it:
It’s wildly different in that humanity arose as a population, as do all species, and it logically follows that we fell as a population, if one wants to take the Fall seriously. Such a scenario not only agrees with science, it makes more sense out of ha’adam and ha’issah in the context of Genesis 2-3. Why didn’t the author simply name them Adam and Eve, rather than giving them titles? (Not to mention the symbolism of the names themselves.)
Back to GAE. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall your Thomistic position that original sin is a corruption of human nature; we inherit a nature that “lacks” original righteousness and the other gifts given to A&E. Right?
The only benefit of the GAE scenario is that it’s faster than “natural” generation at passing along the corruption of original sin. But unless you’re YEC, to whom it was specifically designed to appeal, that’s not really necessary.
A more ancient literal Adam & Eve chosen from among an African population doesn’t require genealogy for them to pass their flawed nature to everyone else. Suppose God chose two individuals from East Africa about 100,000 years ago. Admixture among ancient African populations was common and frequent. By the time of the Out of Africa event 30,000 years later, all of humanity in Africa is related by blood, not just genealogy, and the H. sapiens who depart Africa across the globe are likewise lacking “original righteousness” because they didn’t inherit it from their parents.
On the other hand, no one yet has explained how original sin is passed down by lines drawn on a family tree
It’s not odd at all. The ancient world had no concept of deep time or evolution. They interpreted according to the evidence at hand. The discovery of fossils and, later, evolutionary science simply showed the flaws in prior exegesis, as the discovery of heliocentrism overturned earlier exegesis that insisted on geocentrism. Time marches on.
Hubris, my friend. As I said earlier, I’m drawing quite extensively from Richard Middleton, who holds to a canonical exposition of scripture.
That’s fine, but I never said the latter. You’re projecting. I can point to a lot of overlap between my views and science/history/archaeology/philosophy. I’ve put them in writing.
GAE makes a mess of the data. You’re talking to the original critic of the idea, which is why George Brooks is so opposed to me here. But, honestly, it’s like revisiting a five-year-old discussion that’s not so interesting anymore. The idea is dead; the book didn’t even merit a second printing, which I predicted.