Tremper Longman Responds to Justin Taylor on the Historicity of Adam

Todayrsquos guest post is from Tremper Longman III who is the Robert H Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College Dr Longman recently filmed some courses for Logos Mobile Ed and we had a chance to chat with him about the historicity of Adam

In 2009 Justin Taylor on The Gospel Coalition mused ldquoI wonder how Longman would address the commonsensical point made by N T Wrightrdquo in which Wright suggests that Paul clearly believed in an historical Adam and Eve but viewed it in light of the ldquomythical or metaphorical dimensions to the storyrdquo We asked Dr Longman to respond to this question See Taylorrsquos original post ldquoTremper Longman on the Historicity of Adamrdquo

In the first place I know that Adam is referred to in important places such asRomans 512 but the first thing I think we need to realize is that Genesis 1and 2 are not

interested in telling us how God created creation Itrsquos rather telling us that he did it as well as a lot about who he is and our relationship with him Irsquom not saying itrsquos not

historicalmdashit is I consider this theological history But the difference between Genesis 1ndash11 and Genesis 12ff is that the history as itrsquos recounted in Genesis 1ndash11 isnrsquot

intended to be read strictly literally and precisely We see that by all the use of figurative language the lack of sequence-concord between creation accounts and the

interaction with ancient Near Eastern textsmdashnot that theyrsquore borrowing it but they are interacting with it and actually polemicizing against it

If thatrsquos the case then itrsquos okay to look to science in order to see what theyrsquore saying about it Irsquom not saying that we have to accept science that science is always right that

it stays static or anything like that But it seems to me that there is a good case especially based on the genetic evidence that God used evolution So I find myself

affirming an evolutionary creationist perspective

This raises a question about the historical Adam In my conversations with biologistsmdash

and Irsquom talking about Christian biologists such as Dennis Venema Francis Collins and Jeff Schloss at Westmontmdashand in my reading the evidence suggests that evolution

doesnrsquot work by starting with a single pair but instead goes back to an original ldquobreeding populationrdquo of between 5000 and 10000 people That raises a question

about possible conflict between science and the Bible And donrsquot get me wrongmdashif the Bible says one thing and science says another Irsquom going with the Bible But on the

other hand I think that we should first ask ldquoAre we understanding the Bible correctly by insisting on thisrdquo Itrsquos often pointed out that this is the fundamental error that happened

in the time of Galileo Sometimes science can refine our understanding of the biblical text

To me itrsquos a question of whether I turn to my Christian biologist friends and say ldquoYoursquore in error because yoursquore teaching thisrdquo or if I as a biblical scholar let them as

biblical scholars have the latitude of teaching it But it does raise the question of how wersquore to understand Adam and Eve

There are basically four positions on this The first one is Young Earth Creationism Adam and Eve were the first pair And then therersquos the Old Earth Creationist point of

view as well Adam and Eve were the first pair but they were created a number of years earlier Somebody like Tom Wright argues based mainly on Paulrsquos use

of Romans 512ff that Paul regarded Adam and Eve as a historical couple Now Wrightrsquos view as I understand it from conversations with him is that hersquos not adopting

a similar position to the first two I just described but rather that Adam and Eve are kind of a representative couple within that breeding population Theyrsquore not alone And

actually that helps explain certain features of Genesis 1ndash11 like who Cain married who Cain was afraid of and those kind of things So thatrsquos his view they were an

actual representative couple like the queen and the king Or we could conceive of them as the priest and the priestess since Genesis 1 and 2 also talk about the cosmos

using a kind of temple language

And that might be the right solution But I would also allow for the possibility that Adam

and Eve are representative of that original couple What I would insist onmdashremember I think this is history in the sense of talking about things that actually happenedmdashI would

insist that at some point in the evolutionary process wersquore now talking about a time when human beings have become conscious and capable of moral choices We would

describe them as innocent until they sinned And I would also insist because I think this is in keeping with the genre of Genesis 3 that there was a historical fall I think

those are important teachings of Genesis 1ndash3

Now in terms of Romans 512 and following I do think that it is possiblemdashand I would

suggest likelymdashthat as Tom admitted in his quote there are figurative elements and that Paul would have recognized the figurative elements in the depiction of Adam I

would also point to another prominent New Testament scholar James Dunn who says that itrsquos patronizing to think that Paul had to think that Adam and Eve were an historical

couple There are other first century examples of this using characters in a kind of archetypal way

My good friend John Walton will say this about Adam that Adam was an archetypal figure And his next statement is that archetypes can be historical like Melchizedek in

the book of Hebrews I agree that Adam is an archetypal figure but my next statement is that Adam doesnrsquot have to be historical Irsquom not insisting that Adamrsquos not historical

Irsquom just saying that if it turns out that hersquos not then itrsquos not going to undermine the truth of Genesis or Romans 512 and following

Disclaimer Logos Bible Software provides resources for everyone who studies the Bible Guest posts reflect the views of their authors You can read more about our publishing philosophy

httpacademiclogoscom20140325tremper-longman-responds-to-justin-taylor-on-the-historicity-of-adamfb_action_ids=10200577827448741ampfb_action_types=oglikes