Earlier this fall, William Lane Craig came out with his book, In Quest for the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, (priced at a very (un)reasonable $38.00!). Although I wanted to read it for purely curiosity’s sake, I didn’t get it for two reasons: (1) Sorry, but $38 for a book? I tend to be cheap, and that was too pricey for me; and (2) Knowing what I know about WLC and about most Evangelicals’ take on the issue of a historical Adam, I could already guess what he was going to say.
But then, beginning in October, the YECist Jason Lisle started writing his own series on the book, and my oh my, did he tear into the book! Well, when I find a YECist criticize a book by a Christian on the issue of Adam, that further piques my interest! As I read Lisle’s posts and how he described WLC’s position, I found myself thinking, “Wait a second, WLC’s take on Genesis 1-11 seems to be pretty good!” I decided to write a few posts on Lisle’s reaction to WLC’s book, but soon grew tired of it—YECist arguments are just the same thing, over and over again. It gets quite redundant and boring. (If you want to read some of the carnage, look here, here, and here). Nevertheless, I finally gave in and found a way to get my hands on WLC’s book (but no, I didn’t shell out $38 for it—again, I’m a cheapskate!).
Now that I’ve read WLC’s book, I feel obligated to write a book analysis of it. I imagine I might do 3, maybe 4, posts on it overall. We’ll see. And no, I won’t be writing any more posts on Lisle’s critique. I may be glutton for punishment sometimes, but even I have my limits.
Let’s Begin with Some Preliminary Observations
The best way to summarize my overall reaction to WLC’s book is by the use of these three pictures. At first, I was pleasantly surprised and rather impressed with WLC’s analysis of the genre of Genesis 1-11. In short, he argues that it is clearly written in the genre of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) myth—that is what I’ve been saying for the past 25 years. And, quite frankly, it was refreshing to see a prominent Evangelical theologian be so straightforward and honest in that analysis. It is a much-needed analysis and acknowledgement of the genre of Genesis 1-11.
But then, despite that, WLC proceeded to argue that, despite the obvious genre of Genesis 1-11 as myth, that it still, nevertheless, was relating actual historical events and people—what WLC calls mytho-history. At that point, I was thinking, “Eh…maybe…but if you’re going to argue that, you’re going to have to do a lot better.”
Well, I don’t think he did a lot better on that point, and that leads to my reaction in the third picture. Without giving a convincing argument that Genesis 1-11, though written in the genre of ANE myth, was still about actual historical people, WLC spends the second half of his book going on a “scientific exploration” for the historical Adam. I’ll get into the details later on, but his ultimate conclusion is that there was a historical Adam and Eve, that they lived about 750,000 years ago, and should be considered to be homo heidelbergensis, from which the later Neanderthals, Denisovans, and homo sapiens (modern humans) came.
Not convincing at all. I found it hyper-speculative, and an ultimately needless to boot. In short, his ultimate conclusion ended up being what I sort of suspected it would be, back when I initially was hesitant to buy the book.
Therefore, if I can throw out an initial overview analysis of the WLC’s book as a whole, I’ll use the analogy of the 1990s-2000s Atlanta Braves. Right out of the gate, they have a dominating regular season—pretty impressive. But then, once they get to the post-season, they choke, and their once-promising season crashes and burns. Sorry, if that walk down memory lane hurts the feelings of any Braves fans, but the truth can be hard sometimes—both in baseball and WLC’s book!
To be clear, though, I do appreciate WLC’s book. Just fifteen years ago, even suggesting that Genesis 1-11 was in the genre of myth (or that Adam and Eve as written in Genesis 2-3) resulted in a number of scholars losing their jobs in some Evangelical institutions. The fact that discussion on both the topic of the creation/evolution debate and the topic of Genesis 1-11 has progressed enough to the point where an Evangelical theologian like WLC could write an entire book asserting that Genesis 1-11 is in the genre of ANE myth and not be tarred and feathered is quite an accomplishment! Nevertheless, as I’ll touch upon in a later post, I think there is still more progress on those topics to go.
Let’s Knock Out the First Two Chapters
In Chapter 1, entitled, What’s at Stake?, WLC introduces us to the general debate regarding Genesis 1-11 and the question of a historical Adam. On one hand, he points out, early Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine interpreted Genesis 1-11 figuratively. On the other hand, there are some who argue that if there was no historical Adam, then that calls into question doctrines like original sin, the atonement, inspiration, and even the incarnation itself. Ultimately, WLC concludes that such a view is simply an overreach. Yes, if there was no historical Adam, then the notion of an original sin isn’t plausible, but that doesn’t negate the reality that everyone is sinful, and therefore does not call into question the doctrine of the atonement. The fundamental Christian belief that Jesus Christ was God-incarnate and that he gave his life to atone for our sins still stands, even without a historical Adam.
In his opening discussion, WLC does briefly mention YECists, after all, they are the ones most likely to make the claim that without a historical Adam that everything in Christianity falls apart. He, though, clearly is not impressed with YECism, and says it can’t be taken seriously, and is “wildly implausible.” Instead of reading Genesis 1-11 the way modern YECists do, WLC rightly says that Genesis 1-11 needs to be read “within the wider context of the literature of the ANE” (22). He is absolutely right. He also correctly notes that once the reader hits Genesis 12-50, that the focus of the narratives sharply narrows to Israel (or more notably, Abraham and his family). Genesis 1-11, though, clearly is different. Therefore, WLC poses a fundamental question: Should the primaeval narratives of Genesis 1-11 be considered to be a compilation of Israelite myths?
Having asked that question, WLC proceeds in Chapter 2 (entitled, The Nature of Myth) to explain precisely what he means by “myth.” In this discussion, WLC takes the time to emphasize that the question is a literary one, one that deals with genre. He also takes the time to emphasize (contrary to the way most people use the terms) that terms like “myths,” “folktales,” and “legends” are not, in fact, the same thing. In terms of genre, they are different genre categories, and one should not conflate them.
As far as myths are concerned, WLC quotes Alan Dundes: “A myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form” (36). He also argues that the form of myth is that of a sacred narrative of origins; the content of myth is information about decisive creative events in the beginning of time, and the function of myth is to provide information of the world, as the basis of which like the creative activities of the gods and models for behavior.
Now, I think that is, generally speaking, a decent explanation of “myth.” Still, as WLC sometimes tends to do, I found his explanation needlessly wandering and a bit meandering (scholars sometimes tend to do that!). When it gets right down to it, I still prefer my own explanation: Ancient myths are basically stories that express a given culture’s beliefs about “the gods,” human beings, and the world itself. Ancient myths are thus not so much historical accounts, as they are worldview declarations in story form. Their purpose is not to tell of history, but to creatively express a culture’s worldview and beliefs.
At the end of this chapter, WLC lists ten things that serve as “family resemblances” among myths. Generally speaking, the variety of ancient myths all tend to share these following characteristics:
1. They are narratives, either oral or written.
2. They are traditional stories hand down throughout generations.
3. They are considered sacred for the society that embraces them.
4. They are “objects of belief” for the members in those societies.
5. They are set in a primaeval age or another realm.
6. They are stories in which deities are important characters.
7. They seek to anchor present realities (world, mankind, cultural practices) in a primordial time.
8. They are associated with rituals.
9. They express the relationship between deities and nature.
10. They exhibit “fantastic elements” and aren’t troubled by “logical contradiction or incoherence.”
With all that said, a quick read of Genesis 1-11 shows that many of these “family resemblances” of myths can easily be seen in Genesis 1-11. For that reason, WLC is going to argue that, when it comes to genre, Genesis 1-11 belongs to the genre of ANE mythology. Granted, there will be quite a few caveats and tweaks to understanding Genesis 1-11 as myth, but in general terms, WLC is correct on this point.
Next time, we’ll delve further into WLC’s argument that Genesis 1-11 is myth. As for his claim that it is mytho-history…well, we’ll tackle that in good time!
Joel gives an excellent definition of Myth!