“Worthless Christ” is a huge overstatement, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. But I don’t find Bock’s discussion of McKnight satisfying, even though I tend to agree that it matters that Paul saw Adam as historical in some sense. Exactly what part of McKnight’s construct of “historical” was Bock rejecting as unnecessary? What does Bock think “historical” does mean? In light of the science that says Adam and Eve are not literally the first and sole parents of every human being, how do we understand a “historical Adam,” if it really is so important?
I didn’t get the sense that McKnight was arguing that “literary Adam” necessarily implied “ahistorical Adam” just that historicity in the sense he defined, the construct that has been imposed on “historical Adam” in our modern discussions, was not the focus in Paul’s. He even conceded that “genealogical Adam” was part of Paul’s concept. It didn’t seem like Bock addressed that contention at all. In fact, I didn’t really understand what Bock was claiming, other than McKnight’s assessment of literary Adam was not theologically satisfying. Fine, but where’s the better offer?