I have been an evolutionary theist for about 3 years now. I am the only one in my family who believes this way, and one of the biggest objections they raise is about genealogies in Genesis and Matthew. What purpose do these genealogies serve now that we know Adam and Eve were likely not historical characters?
4 Likes
Hi, Caleb! - good to hear from you! If you’ve been hanging around these parts long, maybe you’ve already been keeping up with prior forum discussion about this, or even Biologos articles like this one (several parts) written by Rich Middleton. It’s been enough time since I last read it that I can’t discuss it in detail any more. To summarize one approach as best I can (which I think Middleton discusses) is the nature and significance of symbolism to ancient scribes of the ANE. Once we break free of our own modernist demand that literalistic journalism be the only allowed (or at least primary) focus of all such recountings, it’s then easier to recognize (or at least allow) these texts to speak on their own terms and to communicate to us what were the concerns of the ancient audiences which rarely match our own. That opens up new worlds of scriptural exploration to us that generally remain unacknowledged and unexplored otherwise. John Walton has articles on this site too which help explore the old testament world generally.
You’re in a good place to discuss these things and learn about more resources!
-Merv
In the Lost World, John Walton actually accepts a historical Adam and Eve, just not as the first genetic humans.
Walton: In conclusion, then, both a textual element (genealogies) and a theo- logical element (sin and redemption) argue strongly for a historical Adam and Eve. At the same time, it must be observed that for them to play these historical roles does not necessarily require them to be the first human beings, the only human beings or the universal ancestors of all human beings (biologically/genetically). In other words, the question of the historical Adam has more to do with sin’s origins than with material human origins. These have not often been separated in the past, perhaps because there has been no impetus to do so. In light of the developments that have come about, particularly with regard to the human genome (see chaps. 17 and 20), it has become more im- portant to ask whether questions of historical Adam on the one hand and material human origins on the other always track together. I have suggested that one can accept the historical Adam without thereby making a decision about material human origins. This has the ad- vantage of separating scientific elements (material human origins) from exegetical/theological elements, with the result that conflict be- tween the claims of science and the claims of Scripture is minimized without compromise.
This is John Walton’s take on Genealogies.
Genealogies. The genre of genealogy can function differently in dif- ferent cultures.7 We cannot assume therefore that any genealogy we encounter in another culture’s literature is governed by the rules that govern ours or that the genealogy will function in the same way and serve the same purpose.8 So the question that we must ask is whether there is evidence that lists of ancestors in Israel or in the ancient world could contain characters that do not represent actual individuals who lived in the past. This is important because Adam is included in an- cestor lists in Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3.9
As we explore the genealogies from the ancient world, we are inter- ested in whether they include in their list any who are not human in- dividuals. Deviations might be that they would include gods,10 leg- endary characters11 or toponyms.12 Studies in the ancient world have concluded that genealogies typically are more interested in political unity than in lineage ties, but as such their objectives would not be achieved if imaginary or legendary characters were used. Future dis- coveries may yet provide an example that could lead to a different con- clusion, but based on the information currently available, genealogies from the ancient world contain the names of real people who inhabited a real past.13 Consequently there would be no precedent for thinking of the biblical genealogies differently. By putting Adam in ancestor lists, the authors of Scripture are treating him as a historical person.
If we don’t think scripture is accurate on this point we may have to simply say it’s wrong.
Personally, I think a genealogical Adam is the best compromise that is consistent with both the scientific and Biblical data we Christians have. That discussion is going on in another thread right now though.
Genealogies are certainty not as boring as they might first appear to us moderns. They use real people but are certainly theological in their construction (Matthew’s 3 sets of 14 totaling 42 generations comes to mind). A lot has also been said --for better or worse–about the 4 women mentioned along with Mary:
Ehrman (just because I’m too lazy to look them up) : But Matthew not only ends his genealogy by mentioning Mary, Jesus’ mother, but he also includes reference to four other women: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and the “wife of Uriah” that is, Bathsheba (v. 6). Stories about all four of these women are found in the Jewish Scriptures (Tamar: Genesis 38; Rahab: Joshua 2, 6; Ruth; Ruth 1-4; and Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11-12).
Scandalous thoughts sometimes abound.
Vinnie
1 Like
Perhaps these women are only in Scripture for that precise reason.
Richard
As long as someone doesn’t sully the blessed and grace filled Holy mother of God, I won’t poke them with my pitchfork.
Vinnie
No logical possibility that maybe you’re just wrong about it, eh? Let me know when you’re able to cross that threshold.
Wrong about what? Biblical genealogies having fake people in them? Of course Walton and I could be wrong. Wrong about thinking that overall, the various Biblical authors commenting after the Garden story takes both Adam and Noah as actual people? I could be wrong but I am not sure what you are disputing or why. We don’t have to agree with the Biblical authors on this, but to claim they do not believe something because we can’t accept it, despite all the charges I see calling YECs liars and frauds here, would be quite ironic. Same game, different players. If the Biblical authors falsely think Adam was a real human and pivot arguments based on the misconception, we should be able to honestly call it what it is. Do you disagree?
And to be honest, from my perspective, your mind is closed on this issue. I am in transition from a mythical Adam to a historical Adam. My beliefs change based on evidence and further research.
Vinnie
1 Like
Good question. Numbers had significance in ANE literature and Hebrew poetry. We might have to resign ourselves to the fact that some of the meaning of the Genesis geneologies are lost to us today. They most likely were not recording literal ages. Jim wrote a good article once. Check out the Carol Hill ASA paper cited in the footnotes for more details.
https://biologos.org/articles/long-life-spans-in-genesis-literal-or-symbolic
4 Likes
You’re probably right about that … but in the same way that my mind is closed about faked moon landings or vaccines causing autisms. There are some scientific realities that just don’t yield to ideology - and all humans not descending from one genetically recent first couple is one of those. So you may be right that maybe we just need to declare the Bible wrong … IF there was only one way the text was to be understood and we modern westerners are the only final arbiters of what that one understanding is permitted to be. It just sounds a bit arrogant to me to think that’s the only response, and I hold open the possibility (probability even) that maybe we westerners could be wrong about a thing or two about where the Spirit could or is leading us with regard to ancient sacred writ and that wherever that leading may be, it can’t be in a direction that would have us “lying for Jesus” - but instead in ways where we’re still attentive to well-evidenced truth. Can I get any credit for being open-minded about that?
2 Likes
I see a lot of rhetoric here and not that much substance. “Westerners”…“final arbiters”…“arrogant” “faked moon landings”… “vaccines autism.”. I am honestly very confused by how the conversation has gone. For clarification, and I’ll give you all the credit in the world for being open minded, …are you responding to any specific view in here or just critiquing fundamentalist beliefs in general that no one in this topic is actually talking about or defending? Your two replies seem plainly directed at me and my views since they were replies to direct quotes. So I certainly took it that way.
There is a bit of irony here as you critique the idea of a singular (western) interpretation of the garden story (which no one has claimed) but also are only leveling a critique at singular interpretation, namely, a genetic Adam and Eve which no one has argued for or defended ITT. I specifically said Walton accepts Adam and Eve as real people just not the genetic first couple. Not being the key word there. I also stated specifically that “I think a genealogical Adam is the best compromise that is consistent with both the scientific and Biblical data we Christians have.” Nowhere did anyone advocate for recent common genetic ancestors of all humans. Yet you start talking about moon landings and vaccines.
No one here is pretending to be a final arbiter on scripture. I am just pointing out my interpretation that various Biblical authors take Adam and Noah to be real people. I quoted John Walton. Do you think he is a lunatic, conspiracy theorist? A vaccine denier who thinks the earth is flat and the moon landings were staged? A significant portion of my post was a short copy/pasta of the very author you had just referenced positively.
Do you really think we have to dump Adam and Eve if we don’t take the primeval history as being historical in toto? Or could these myths be used to teach us something deeper about God and the first humans couple as Paul clearly thinks? I am certainly not the one fixated on a singular understanding of Adam and Eve. You seem to have accepted the all or nothing view of Adam and Eve thrown down by very conservative interpreters. In my universe there are shades of grey. Genesis 1-11 can be a mythological narrative and Adam and Eve can be real humans. 1) Actual humans can be described in terms of a myth. 2) I simply believe Paul and numerous other Biblical authors --including genealogies, take Adam as a real human. Given scripture is inspired by God, I certainly need to give Paul’s view serious consideration and not immediately dismiss it without trying to see if there is a plausible way to reconcile it with science. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile scripture and science on some issue, I am going to favor taking that route. Especially when Peter and Paul, two people hand chosen by Jesus teach what they teach and out Adam and Noah.
You say this:
No logical possibility that maybe you’re just wrong about it, eh? Let me know when you’re able to cross that threshold.
And when I suggest your mind is closed on the issue you confirm it:
You’re probably right about that …
Maybe we can cross the threshold together.
You seem to know the answer going in. Adam and Even can’t possibly be real and people who think so are on par with flat earthers. That is not how quality research is done in my mind.
Vinnie
2 Likes
You seem to be giving me way too much credit here - thinking that I’m trying to spar with you or advance some specific theory of my own regarding Adam and Eve. And my mention of moon landings or autism was only a passing commentary about what closed-mindedness can look like in some of its necessary forms. Those had nothing to do with anything else in this discussion.
I’m only suggesting that while I may not know what all the “solution” entails, I’m just expressing the conviction of what it won’t include: lying for Jesus. If that’s too dogmatic, I’ll just have to live with the charge.
You seem to be much more invested in defending certain solutions or proponents of some solutions than I am. Just treat me as a passenger along for the ride here - and if you do cross any thresholds, I’ll attend with interest.
2 Likes
I have been an evolutionary theist for 40 years, and never saw any reason to think Adam and Eve were “likely not historical characters.” Is the story mythological? Yes. But mythologies are typically about people who were quite real. George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Santa Clause or St. Nicholas. And many more.
So Adam and Eve? Do I believe the human race started with magically created golems of dust and bone in a garden with magical fruit and talking animals? No. But just because I don’t take this story completely literally doesn’t mean Adam and Eve were not real people. Science says nothing about the existence of two people 6-12 thousand years ago who had an experience with God. It is one thing to take science seriously enough to correct our understanding of what the Bible is communicating, and it is quite another thing to simply replace the Bible with the scientific narrative.
6 Likes
I certainly agree with you on most of what you have written here, but also agree with Merv. You are actually not that far apart. As to this statement, I would take exception, as I have come to accept that it is not necessary to reconcile scripture with science, as they are not talking about the same things. It is sort of like asking a child if they would rather walk to school or take their lunch. While you can strain to make that a logical question, it is really addressing two different things.
I like Walton a lot, and while I may disagree with him on some points, he has taught me to recognize the culture and context of the biblical writers and the importance of that when trying to understand their message. If we fail to understand that, we risk just making stuff up to suit our narrative.
Blessings in this Christmas season to you and yours,
Phil
6 Likes
I think you are taking exception to a position I did not really advance though. Let me clarify as I think you are approaching from a different angle. It’s not about trying to make scripture into a science text book for me. If we really want to get to the nitty gritty this isn’t just about science. The Bible is not:
- a science textbook
- a history textbook
- a systematic theology
- a philosophy textbook
Just as the Bible can have a pre-scientific and mistaken ancient cosmology, the same logic can be used to suggest it can contain errors in regards to history, systematic theology (e.g. is it univocal) and philosophy and so on. 100% the Bible uses mistaken ancient cosmology and its authors are not concerned with modern science. But we need to not overstep the bounds of what that last statement means and I think that is where we disagree.
I disagree on the notion that they are not talking about there same thing. Certainly ancient authors did not have modern science on their minds but the idea that there is no overlap between science and scripture is an opinion that not everyone shares. When you say “It is sort of like asking a child if they would rather walk to school or take their lunch.” that is not the case for groups that accept various formulations of original sin. Their interpretation of what they think scripture intends to teach can certainly be at odds with what science reveals about the world. The interpretation and doctrine of many groups of Christians requires an actual Adam and Eve.
To use another example, if Christians believe the Bible teaches an exodus and the archeological evidence shows this is not true, there is absolutely a conflict between the two. Claiming that they talk about different things does not resolve this. Claiming the Bible is not an archaeology manual would be a risible defense.
You may interpret Genesis as saying nothing about human origins and reject original sin. That is perfectly fine. That is your interpretation. Walton leans this way in the Lost World at least as far as A&E and material human origins. However, if you were the Catholic Church, the largest Christian organization int he world, you absolutely would want to reconcile your interpretation of Adam and Eve with science. Plus, even as Walton notes, our interpretation of Adam and Eve is much more complicated because of what we find in the New Testament. Christian doctrine on A&E has to include what the entire canon says.
I am not an inerrancy advocate. But if Paul teaches us something about about sin and death in the world and if numerous places in the Bible all assume something is true or use it to make arguments and theological points, I am going to approach scripture with a hermeneutic of trust until I have a reason not to. So for this reason I will attempt to reconcile what I think scripture intends to teach and know with what I know about the external world from various disciplines. Not because I have to, but because as a Christian who subscribes to inspiration, I probably should. Jesus specially appointed both Peter and Paul. I think we all take scripture very seriously and what they say about Adam and Noah deserves careful consideration.
Merry Christmas to you and your family as well. For unto us a Son is born!
Vinnie
3 Likes
3 posts were split to a new topic: Richard’s hangups about science
I share your initiative to reconcile the worldviews of biblical texts and the implications of science. They both speak about the same world, so there must be overlap. As you stated, biblical texts use Adam & Eve to justify foundational theological tenets. That means we have to reconcile this conflict in a way that both honors science and scripture.
I am intrigued by the position that accepts evolutionary origins and a historical Adam and Eve. So you interpret Adam’s lineage as the author truly believing this was the family tree. How do re reconcile the mythological elements like the talking serpent, the Garden of Eden, Noah’s flood, or the Tower of Babel?
1 Like
I would simply try to understand what they might have meant to an ancient near-eastern audiences. I think Walton has some good works on this subject. I think Genesis 1-11 is largely a mythical text.
Which author? Biblical genealogies use real people as far as I can see. Adam would be an exception if we thought he was not historical.
I tend to approach A&E from the perspective of the New Testament and Church teaching.
A Jew hearing this story 3,000 years ago didn’t have Romans 5. As Christians I do believe that we need to see what all of scripture says about a subject before pronouncing judgment on it from a single part. I also put more weight than some others here on continuity with Church tradition. Today it seems every Christian with a Bible and an internet connection seems to have their own version of everything. I am a little wary of such practices.
Vinnie
1 Like
I beg to differ with Walton: including legendary characters in genealogies meant for political unity purposes makes perfect sense; lineages showing descent from deities was fairly common for kings and even priests. OTOH, there were transition points where the lineage came to historical figures or even derived from historical figures.
Define “accurate” and “wrong”.
1 Like
The “talking serpent” is practically named in the text as “adversary” i.e. Satan, who is also described in the book of Revelation as “ancient serpent” originally an angel who is thrown down from heaven.
“The Garden of Eden” is frankly how many places on earth can be described – a place where food is abundantly and easily available (when the population is small). In this case, the location is well described geographically. But conditions can change and life become more difficult requiring more work to survive. However, the real change was a broken relationship with God where He saw His easy presence in lives of people doing more harm than good – transformed from teacher and parent to a convenient person to blame when things went wrong and became difficult.
The problem of “Noah’s flood” is not a lack of evidence but rather too much evidence because catastrophic floods in human history are rather frequent. The word “earth” used in that text should not be confused with the use of Earth in modern times referring to a globe or planet because that is not how the word is used in this text. So this was simply a flood wiping out an early human civilization descended from Adam and Eve.
The “tower of Babel” was an attempt to unite humanity in a power structure or civilization, but which God saw as a threat of repeating the same conditions God had destroyed with the flood. So God acted to prevent this by causing the descendants of Noah to scatter over the earth spreading the ideas of human civilization to people all over the world. In this way competition between nations would limit depravity which would make them less able to compete effectively.
1 Like
True and true. And in ancient myth, a king could stand in for a whole people, and what affected the king affected the people. Indeed when royalty was also priesthood, a royal couple could also stand for the entire people yet more; to the ancient mind they could be the entire people, so that if the king’s * queen’s as royal priests status fell so did that of the whole people.
It could easily be argued that Adam and Eve were real even though there were many thousands of other (Genesis 1) humans about, but that God made this pair as a royal-priestly couple, placing them over all other humans as a perfect couple, with the intent that they would mature in the Garden and then go forth to spread right relations with God, so when they fell all fell.
Most of the opening of Genesis qualifies as mythologized history; this would fit.
2 Likes