And here is the final installment. It is a two parter.
And from McKnight:
I almost agree with McKnight that…
Before I move on I raise an alarm: no one in the reviews seems to care about historical context, either the Ancient Near East or the Jewish world that was contemporary to the apostle Paul.
However I did agree with him. Excluding me from this would have been nice.
Underscoring this point, there were many versions of Adam in Paul’s time. In full view of these many Adams, the early Church did not insert one into the historical creeds. We do well, then, to remember that the traditional marker of orthodoxy is the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection, not Adam, and a confession that He rose from the dead (Rom. 10:9).
These points aside, I agree with McKnight’s main thesis. Fear not an ambiguous Adam; find confidence in the lucid clarity of Jesus.
I would also add that I agree with McKnight’s assessment of Paul’s views of Adam, that Paul things that Adam was genealogical. And that Adam is not necessary to understand Jesus.
Also, it seems that he thinks that I am arguing against Venema’s science (unless he just skipped over me again).
Regarding @DennisVenema thanks for your thoughts. I would just caution that there are several ways to resolve your discomfort with non-Adamic beings, and point you to CS Lewis’s work on this. Also, I am not advocating for this specific model, per se, but pointing out that it is a formal possibility. Maybe Adam and Eve were later, maybe they didn’t exist. Who knows. You certainly cannot tell from science that Paul was wrong in his understanding of Adam.
There is really nothing different about this model and those that @LorenHaarsma, Francis Collins, Denis Alexander have proposed, except that I’ve highlighted that this is compatible with a genealogical Adam. It is not as far an outlier as you might think.