Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Alexander, Denis Yes, but “I am happy to use it (Model C) as a working model” (p. 243). Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution with a Molecular not the “According to model C, God in his grace chose a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Evolution: Do We Have to historical Adam Biologist first Near East, or maybe a community of farmers, to whom he chose to reveal himself in a Choose (Oxford & Grand Born 1945 human special way, calling them into fellowship with himself—so that they might know him Rapids: Monarch Books, as a personal God” (pp. 236). 2008) Allison, Gregg Yes This vision of the origin and development of species in general, and human beings in Gregg Allison, “Can Literal or literary Theologian particular, conflicts with the biblical account, even when infused with an appeal to Christians Believe in Genesis Born c. 1948 divine direction and purpose. Evolutionary creationists deny the Genesis 1 account of Evolution?” God’s specific and immediate (not mediated by natural processes) creation of fish, https://www.desiringgod.org/a birds, land animals, and finally human beings, choosing instead to say that God created rticles/can-christians-believe- each of these living beings through natural mechanisms over long periods of time. in-evolution, Implicit in their position is also a denial of the biblical account of the fall, since such February 9, 2019 an evolutionary process has no room for a historical Adam and Eve. Anderson, James Yes “Taken together, these twelve points add up to a strong prima facie case for the “Was Adam a Real NT references N. traditional Christian view that Adam was a real historical individual. Any scholar who Historical Individual?” Theologian & holds to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but denies this point, surely has a lot Analogical Thoughts blog Philosopher of explaining to do. If all we had to deal with were the first few chapters of Genesis, http://www.proginosko.com/2 Born c. 1970 appeals to genre and other literary considerations might provide sufficient wiggle 009/09/was-adam-a-real- room. But the twelve observations above indicate that the historicity of Adam is a historical-individual/, 21 thread woven all the way through the Bible’s history, theology, and ethics. Pull out September 2009 that thread and sooner or later the whole garment will unravel.” Anderson, Joel No “My view is simply that Genesis 3 isn’t about two literal people in history. It is a Joel Edmund Anderson, The Evolution without Edmund mythological story that explains the nature of human beings. In a sense, we are Adam Heresy of Ham: What Every historical Adam OT Scholar and Eve, God created us, we sin, and we suffer consequences. Now to be clear, I’m not Evangelical Needs to Know Born c. 1970 saying that there couldn’t have been a historical Adam and Eve, or Cain and Abel, or About the Creation-Evolution Noah. I just don’t believe the purpose of those stories was to convey straightforward Controversy (Birmingham- history. . . . Therefore, we must remember that the truth that is being conveyed in Hoover, Alabama: Genesis 1-11 is not dependent on whether or not the stories refer to historical events. Archdeacon Books, 2016), pp. We have no way of knowing if they do. That is why I see arguing over whether or not 111-112 there was a historical Adam and Eve is ultimately pointless” Andrews, Edgar Yes “Taken together, these considerations mean that it is perfectly rational and Edgar Andrews, What is Man? Literal or literary Materials Scientist scientifically justified to believe that all humanity did indeed stem from one original Adam, Alien or Ape? Genesis Born 1932 created pair, as the Bible asserts (Nashville: Elm Hill, 2018) p. 232

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 1 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Applegate, Yes, but “In the fullness of time, God called two people, Adam and Eve, into a special Kathryn Applegate, “Why I Evolution with a Kathryn not the covenantal relationship with himself, and into a one-flesh unity with each other. They Think Adam was a Real historical Adam Biologist first were chosen for a purpose: to begin a family that would include others who were Person in History,” Born c. 1982 human specially chosen—among them Abraham, Moses, David, and many other men and https://biologos.org/blogs/kath women whose deeds are recorded in Scripture. Ultimately this family, which became ryn-applegate-endless-forms- the Israelite people, would give rise to Jesus Christ, the ultimate source of blessing to most-beautiful/why-i-think- all the nations.” adam-was-a-real-person-in- history, June 11, 2018 Archer, Gleason Yes, but “No decisive objections, however, have ever been raised against the historicity of Gleason Archer, A Survey of NT References OT Scholar not the Adam and Eve either on historical, scientific, or philosophical grounds. The protest has Old Testament: Introduction 1916-2004 first been based essentially upon subjective concepts of improbability. From the standpoint (Chicago: Moody Press, human of logic, it is virtually impossible to accept the authority of Romans 5 (“By one man 1964), 200-201. sin entered into the world….By one man’s offense death reigned by one…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”) without inferring that the entire human race has descended from a single father.” Arnold, Thomas Yes “The creation narrative is an eyewitness account by the Spirit given directly by God to Thomas Patrick Arnold, Two Literal or literary Patrick Adam. The narrative was recorded in permanent tablet form, which was highly valued Stage Biblical Creation: Genesis Pastor and passed down to Moses. Finally, Moses transcribed the narrative into the book of Uniting Biblical Insights Born 1946 Genesis precisely as originally written.” Uncoveed by Ten Notable Creation Theories (Thomas Arnold Publishing, 2008), p. 405 Averbeck, Richard Yes “Yes, there was an original Adam and Eve, who were the progenitors of the human Richard E. Averbeck, ‘A Literal or literary E. race. I am not sure what else is true about who Adam and Eve were, but at least we Literary, Inter-Textual, and Genesis OT Scholar should maintain this belief that they were real historical individuals. There is good Contextual Reading of Born c. 1955 reason for this belief in the natural reading of the text.” Genesis 1-2’ in J. Daryl Charles (Ed.), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation (Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), p. 30 Ayala, Francisco No The doctrine of Adam and Eve, I think, in terms of what we know nowadays, cannot PBS Roundtable: Science and Evolution without Evolutionary be taken literally in the sense of implying two particular human individuals from Faith, historical Adam Biologist and which we are all descended. We know that our ancestors were never at any time just http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evol Philosopher two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions ution/religion/faith/discuss_03 Born 1934 of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several .html., No Date thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair.

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 2 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Barrick, William Yes “The biblical account represents Adam as a single individual rather than an archetype William D. Barrick, “A Doctrinal necessity D. or the product of biological evolution, and a number of New Testament texts rely on Historical Adam: Young-Earth OT Scholar Adam’s historicity. More importantly, without a historical first Adam there is no need Creation View,” in Four Born c. 1945 for Jesus, the second Adam, to undo the first Adam’s sin and its results.” Views on Historical Adam (Zondervan, 2013), p. 197 Barth, Karl No “Karl Barth, the father of Neo-orthodoxy, taught that what we have in Gen. 3 is not Robert B. Strimple, “Was Genesis not literal Theologian history but saga, a term he preferred to the term "myth" because he felt that "myth" Adam Historical?,” history 1886 - 1968 still suggested, perhaps, some connection with history, nebulous though it might be; http://wscal.edu/resource- and he wanted to emphasize that Adam is not at all to be thought of as an historical center/resource/was-adam- person but rather as a symbol which stands for every person who has ever lived. "We historical are all Adam," Barth said, which simply means that we are all sinners. In fact, there was never a time when man was not a sinner and therefore guiltless before God.” Bavinck, Herman Yes “Corresponding to Hodge’s natural headship position, Bavinck affirmed the realist Gregg R. Allison, Historical Doctrinal necessity Theologian view that ‘all of us were germinally present in Adam’s loins, and all proceeded from Theology: An Introduction to 1854-1921 that source. . . . The choice he made and the action he undertook were those of all his Christian Doctrine descendants. Certainly this physical oneness of the whole of humanity in Adam as (Zondervan, 2011), p. 360. such is of great importance for the explanation of original sin.’” [Herman Bavinick, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 102] Beall, Todd S. Yes “The evidence throughout the Scripture is that Adam and Eve are historical persons Todd S. Beall, “Adam and Eve Literal or literary OT Scholar created uniquely by God as the universal ancestors of mankind.” (First-Couple View),” in Paul Genesis Born 1952 Copan et al, General Editors, Dictionary of Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2017), p. 22 Beidler, Mike No “So where do I stand today on Adam? Given the scientific evidence, I no longer Mike Beidler, “Is There Evolution without Foreign affairs believe that Adam and Eve as described in Genesis 2-3 actually existed. Just as I don’t Anything Historical About historical Adam specialist believe certain elements of “biblical” cosmology actually exist (e.g., the firmament of Adam and Eve?,” Born c. 1970 Gen 1:6-8), I believe a well-reasoned case can be made using both science and biblical http://godandnature.asa3.org/e hermeneutics that “biblical” anthropology is also inaccurate from a modern, scientific ssay-is-there-anything- perspective.” historical-about-adam-and- eve-by-mike-beidler.html, 2014 Belcher, Richard Yes “If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for Richard Belcher, “The Doctrinal necessity OT Scholar them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has Historical Adam: Why it Born 1965 (??) assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. Really Matters, If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any http://michaeljkruger.com/the- meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the gospel.” historical-adam-why-it-really- matters/?replytocom=1387#re spondAugust 28, 2013

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 3 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Berry, R. J. Yes “A number of conservative scholars, while not taking the narrative of Genesis 2-3 John J. Bimson, “Doctrines of NT references Professor of literally, find grounds in the New Testament for defending the historicity of Adam and the Fall and Sin After Genetics (Retired) Eve. Berry, for example, writes: ‘Paul’s carefully constructed analogy between Adam Darwin,” in Michael S. Born 1934 and Christ depends on the equal historicity of both (Romans 5:12-19; see also 1 Northcott and R. J. Berry Corinthians 15:21, 45) (R. J. Berry, ‘This Cursed Earth: Is “the Fall” Credible?’ (Eds.), Theology after Darwin Science and Christian Belief, 11:1, 29-49) (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), p. 114 Bertolet, Tim Yes “Adam is not a symbol or a myth. He was not one who was chosen out of a mass of Tim Bertolet, “The Historical NT references Pastor already existing humans nor was he the first at the apex of an evolutionary process. Adam and Jesus' Born c. 1980 Rather God, through a special act of creation, fashioned him. How do we know? We Resurrection,” Place for Truth, bear his image. All human beings descend from him and are products of the dust. Paul http://www.placefortruth.org/p affirms a real Adam: a “man of dust.” There was a historical event where Adam lacefortruth/column/theology- became a living being.” on-the-go/the-historical-adam- and-jesus-resurrection, July 22, 2015 Bimson, John J. No “Looking at ways in which such an account of humanity might be integrated with an John J. Bimson, “Doctrines of Evolution without OT Scholar evolutionary understanding of human origins, we found the model developed by the Fall and Sin After historical Adam Born c. 1950 Raymund Schwager more attractive than the ‘Neolithic Adam’ model. Not only is Darwin,” in Michael S. Schwager’s view more sensitive to the nature of the Genesis narrative (understood as a Northcott and R. J. Berry symbolic story or extended metaphor rich in mythological motifs), it also points to (Eds.), Theology after Darwin ways in which the nature of sin and its spread may be understood psychologically and (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, anthropologically.” 2009), p. 122 Bird, Michael F. Yes “Because I am convinced by cosmology and geology that the earth is old and find Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Literal or literary Theologian and nothing in Scripture to contradict that. I lean toward progressive creationism as the Theology: A Biblical and Genesis NT Scholar most biblically and scientifically satisfying option. Even so, I maintain belief in a Systematic Introduction Born 1974 literal Adam and Eve for several reasons:” [genetics, genre, Paul in NT] (Zondervan, 2013), p. 654 Blocher, Henri Yes “Though we feel uncomfortable with all the uncertainties when we try to correlate Henri Blocher, Original Sin Literal or literary Theologian scientific data and the results of a sensible interpretation of Genesis 1.4, we may (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Genesis Born 1937 maintain as plausible the hypothesis that the biblical Adam and Eve were the first 1997), p. 42. parents of our race, some 40,000 years ago.” Blomberg, Craig Yes, but “I would support an old-earth creationism and opt for a combination of progressive Craig L. Blomberg, Can We Evolution with a L. not the creation and literary-framework approach to Genesis 1. I lean in the direction of Still Believe the Bible: An historical Adam NT Scholar first [Derek] Kidner’s approach to Genesis 2-3 but am open to other proposals.” Evangelical Engagement with Born 1955 human Contemporary Questions (BrazosPress, 2014), p. 177

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 4 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Bonnette, Dennis Yes “The Genesis account of Original Sin by an individual Adam is borne witness through Dennis Bonnette, “The Literal or literary Philosopher two thousand years of Christian miracles, singularly instanced in the resurrection of Rational Credibility of a Genesis Born c. 1944’ Jesus Christ, the Redeemer promised by God after the Fall. This is the foundation for Literal Adam and Eve,” Roman Catholic belief by Christians that two literal first parents, Adam and Eve, actually existed at the Espíritu, LXIV (2015), 303- beginning of human history. Regardless of how literally or figuratively one may read 320 (318) Genesis itself, thus is established the rational credibility of a literal Adam and Eve — a credibility which comports perfectly with what philosophy demonstrates about the need for a first true human being, and what theology teaches about the first true humans being the biblical Adam and Eve, from whom all true human beings are biologically descended.” Bouteneff, Peter No “That being the case, those of us who seek fidelity to the fathers should likewise Peter C. Bouteneff, Evolution without C. refrain from overly conflating Scripture with science, in order to bring realistic Beginnings: Ancient Christian historical Adam Theologian expectations to each. This means that we would have no reason to manipulate or Readings of the Biblical Born c. 1961 ignore scientific findings that do not appear to accord with the Genesis accounts, since Creation Narratives Orthodox they operate on a different register. This separation is important for us because, unlike (BakerAcademic, 2008), p. the fathers, we do have data that would make a sheerly scientific and historical 183 interpretation of Genesis 1-3 well nigh impossible, despite some modern authors’ best efforts.” Boyd, Greg Maybe “I am currently inclined to the view that Adam was, in fact, a historical figure.. At the Gregory A. Boyd, “Whether Not required Theologian and same time, the fact that I say I am “inclined” toward this view indicates that I do not or Not There was a Historical doctrinally Pastor see this belief as central to the orthodox Christian faith.” Adam, Our Faith Is Secure,” Born 1957 in Four Views on Historical Adam (Zondervan, 2013), p. 255 Brunner, Emil No “It has been popular among many 20th century theologians, particularly those usually Robert B. Strimple, “Was Genesis not literal Theologian labeled "Neo-orthodox," to deny the historicity of Adam. Emil Brunner spoke of Adam Adam Historical?,” history 1889 - 1966 as mythical, not historical. What Genesis 3 gives us, Brunner said, is story but not http://wscal.edu/resource- history.” center/resource/was-adam- historical Buchanan, Scott No “We have shown that the uproar over the loss of a specially-created Adam and Eve has Scott Buchanan, “Adam, the Not required Chemical no basis. The vaunted covenantal headship of Adam is not taught in the Bible at all, Fall, and Evolution: doctrinally Engineer and the two big Pauline references to the Fall (I Cor 15 and Romans 5) are incidental Christianity Today and Born c. 1950 add-ons to Paul’s main discussions, not stand-alone teachings. Adam’s sin is barely WORLD Push the Panic mentioned anywhere else in the entire Bible, except of course in Genesis 3. The whole Button,” rest of the New Testament, including Jesus’ teachings, develops the universal http://letterstocreationists.wor sinfulness of mankind quite apart from Adam.” dpress.com/2011/08/21/adam- the-fall-and-evolution- christianity-today-and-world- get-it-wrong/

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 5 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Burge, Ted No “Apart from some general considerations, such as the implication that sin angers God Ted Burge, Science & the Genesis not literal Physicist and and leads to punishment, sometimes tempered with mercy, there is not much evidence Bible: Evidence-Based history Theologian in these [Genesis] stories concerning what Christians should believe today. Some are Christian Belief (Philadelphia: c. 1925 - 2010 most unlikely to be based on historical events. . . These stories depend on the deep- Templeton Foundation Press, seated beliefs of the writers and give evidence of how much more developed is the 2005) New Testament understanding of God” (p. 98). Byl, John Yes “. The Bible clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans, from whom all John Byl, “Combining Adam Literal or literary Astronomer other humans descend. Consider, for example, "Then the Lord God said, it is not good and Evolution,” Genesis Born c. 1947 for man to be alone, I will make a helper fit for him" (Gen.2:18); "The man called http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2 wife's name Eve, for she was the mother of all living" (Gen.3:20). After the Flood, it 013/10/combining-adam-and- was of Adam's offspring, Noah's sons, that it is stated, "from these the people of the evolution.html, whole earth dispersed" (Gen.9:19). Moreover, Paul states, "he made from one man October 31, 2013 every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26).” Caneday, A. B. Yes “If Adam was not the first human and progenitor of all humanity, as Genesis and the A. B. Caneday, “The Doctrinal necessity NT Scholar apostle Paul affirm, then the gospel of Jesus Christ inescapably fall suspect—because Language of God and Adam’s Born c. 1965 the Gospel of Luke unambiguously traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ back through Genesis & Historicity in Joseph, who was thought to be his father, all the way back through Enos, to Seth, then Paul’s Gospel,” Southern to Adam, and finally to God (Luke 3:18).” Baptist Journal of Theology, 15.1 (2011), p. 27 Clouser, Roy Yes, but “I definitely take Adam and Eve to be real people, namely, the first to be offered a Roy Clouser, comment in Not required Philosopher not the covenant by God. But not only does Genesis not say they were the first humans or that American Scientific doctrinally Born 1937 first all humans descended from them, but in Rom. 5 Paul refers to the fact that before Affiliation Open Forum topic human Adam "sin was already in the world" but God didn't hold it against them because “Historical Adam: Yes or No,” where He has given no law (covenant) He does not hold people responsible for http://network.asa3.org/forums worshipping false gods. Augustine has not served us well join these points, and the /Posts.aspx?topic=1140247&p result has been a lot of needless agonizing by Xns who take science seriously but also age=1#post_1172608, Nov. 9, want to be faithful to God's Word.” 2015 Cole-Turner, Ron No “Concerning the idea of an historical Adam and Eve, our claim is simply that Christian Ron Cole-Turner, The End of Evolution without Theologian theology has nothing to fear from their disappearance. The end of Adam and Eve as Adam and Eve: Theology and historical Adam Born 1948 historical figures is a gift to Christianity. They have never been the main point of the Science of Human Origins Christian theology, and for theology to cling to them today is itself a dead end.” (Pittsburgh: Theology Plus Publishing, 2016), p. 174 Colling, Richard No “Strict literal interpretations of Biblical accounts that proclaim the creation of the first Richard G. Colling, Random Genesis not literal G. man to be from the actual physical dust of the earth are equally dubious. Such literal Designer: Created from Chaos history Biologist thinking is perhaps technically and scientifically accurate, since we are all creatures of to Connect with the Creator Born c. 1954 carbon. However, when it is combined with the section describing the creation of the (Bourbonnais, IL: 2004), p. first woman from a rib of a man, these stories raise serious and understandable 113 questions in the minds of many as to their real purpose.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 6 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Collins, C. John Yes, but “Adam and Eve are at the headwaters of the human race. This follows from the unified C. John Collins, “A Historical Doctrinal necessity OT Scholar not the experience of humankind. . . . If someone should become convinced that that there Adam: Old-Earth Creation Born 1954 first were, if fact, more human beings than just Adam and Eve at the beginning of View,” in Matthew Barrett & human humankind, then in order to maintain good sense, he or she should envision these Ardel B. Caneday, Four Views humans as a single tribe of closely related members.” on the Historical Adam (Zondervan, 2013), p. 172. Collins, Francis S. No (?) “Many sacred texts do indeed carry the clear marks of eyewitness history, and as Francis S. Collins, The Genesis not literal Physician- believers we must hold fast to these truths. Others, such as the stories of Job and Language of God: A Scientist history Geneticist Jonah, and of Adam and Eve, frankly do not carry the same historical ring” (p. 209). Presents Evidence for Belief Born 1950 (New York: Free Press, 2006) Collins, Robin Yes “I would suggest that ‘Adam’ should also be understood as having a historical Robin Collins, “Evolution and Evolution with a Philosopher reference, as also representing what could be called the ‘stem-father’ of the human Original Sin,” in Perspectives historical Adam Born c. 1962 race. In evolutionary terms, such a ‘stem-father’ would be the first group of evolving on an Evolving Creation, hominids who gained moral and spiritual awareness. ” (p. 486) Keith Miller, Editor (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsmans, 2003) Conway Morris, No (?) “In his [Simon Conway Morris’s] understanding of evolution, God’s creation is Tim Stafford, The Adam Genesis not literal Simon incredibly rich and fertile, producing not just life but human life. He doesn’t claim any Quest: Eleven Scientists who history Paleontologist proof of the existence of God, but he does think belief in God is congruent with what Held on to a Strong Faith Born 1951 evolution reveals.” while Wrestling with the Mystery of Human Origins (Thomas Nelson, 2013), p. 180 Cootsona, Greg No “In fact, the doctrine of creation makes two primary affirmations: we are created in Greg Cootsona, “Darwin, Evolution without Former Pastor, God’s image, and the world is not fully consistent with God’s intentions. We can also Adam, and the Fall: My historical Adam Lecturer in be open to reading the Bible and seeing Adam as a type and representative for all Contribution to the Historical Religious Studies humanity. Put simply, Christians believe God created us and our world. We can Adam Debate,” and Humanities remain open as to how this was accomplished it and avoid dictating the best way for http://cootsona.blogspot.com/2 Born c. 1962 God to create. Instead we are to look concretely and openly at the evidence as to how 014/07/darwin-adam-and-fall- God has created (in this case, largely through the evolutionary processes). And we my-contribution-to.html, confess as Christians that, like Adam, we are created good, but we have chosen to be July 08, 2014 separated from God, and therefore we have responded to redemption in Jesus Christ.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 7 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Craig, William Yes “The really hard part for that, though, is that Jesus and Paul seemed to take it literally. William Lane Craig, “The NT references Lane They seem to think that there really was such a person as Adam in which case you’d Historical Adam and Eve,” Philosopher have to either say that they were wrong (which raises all kinds of problems) or you http://www.reasonablefaith.or Born 1949 could say that this was just a part of their incidental beliefs but not part of what they g/the-historical-adam-and-eve, actually taught. For example, Paul may well have believed that the Earth was flat for 02-01-2015 all we know. . . . It is a really difficult problem as to how you are going to sort this out. For that reason, I am inclined to stick with the literal Adam and Eve until absolutely forced by the evidence to abandon that view. I think we are far from that point.” Crisp, Oliver No “Traditionally, Christians have thought that our first parents sinned, and we Oliver Crisp, “Original Sin Evolution without Theologian inherited the consequences of their transgression in original sin. That picture and Human Origins,” historical Adam Born 1972 seems rather more difficult to square with current scientific views about human http://biologos.org/blogs/jim- origins and the size of breeding populations of humans (which are much larger stump-faith-and-science- than one pair at any one time). But suppose humans developed from other seeking- understanding/original-sin- hominids. At some time in their development the members of this early human and-human-origins, community come to know God (perhaps it is a moment in time, perhaps it February 23, 2016 happens over the course of some time). However, through some primeval act or acts of dereliction these early humans come to be estranged from God, a moral condition that is passed on to succeeding generations of humanity.” Cunningham, No “We understand Adam only in virtue of the one true Adam, or, to put it more strongly, Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s Not required Conor the only Adam. Thus all such talk of whether Adam was historically real or not (which Pious Idea: Why the Ultra- doctrinally Theologian & atheists such as Dawkins deny and creationists affirm) rests on atheistic presumptions. Darwinists and Creationists Philosopher These presuppositions, it happens, are also profoundly fundamentalist (an antidote to Both Get It Wrong (Grand Born 1972 this might be to force both ultra-Darwinists and creationists to read the Song of Songs Rapids: Eerdsmans, 2010) literally). Adam, the idea of a Fall, and so on can be revealed only in Christ—if we are to remain faithful to the Church Fathers. It is folly to interpret the Fall or the existence of Adam in either positivistic terms or strictly historical terms, in the sense that there is no Fall before Christ.” (p. 378) Davidson, Gregg Yes, but “The existence of a genuine first human couple and a first act of disobedience against Gregg Davidson, “Genetics, Evolution with a Geologist not the God have been challenged. In defense of both population genetics and a historical the Nephilim, and the historical Adam Born 1963 first Adam and Eve, the described model illustrates how both the biblical and genetic Historicity of Adam,” human records can be accounted for by interbreeding between hominids and the offspring of a Perspectives on Science and genuine first human couple. The model preserves and understanding of a first sin Christian Faith, Vol. 67, No. 1 (whether original or ancestral) as described both in Genesis and in the writings of Paul, (March 2015, 24-34) and also potentially resolves the biblical conundrums of who Cain was afraid of in Genesis 3 [sic], and the enigmatic identity of the “Sons of God” and the Nephilim in Genesis 6.

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 8 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Day, Allan J. No “It is therefore possible to envisage two ‘Biblical Adams’, the first a generic Adam, Allan J. Day, “Adam, Genesis not literal Physiologist humanity, in Gen. 1-3, with a more definitive historic individual Adam taking shape in Anthropology and the Genesis history Born 1927 Gen. 4 and beyond. The generations of historical (Neolithic) Adam link him forward to Record—Taking Genesis the subsequent patriarchs, to Noah and to Abraham and on to David and to Christ in Seriously in Light of the enfolding story of the Old Testament and the New. They are then expressed in Contemporary Science,” terms of the toledoth formula and the Lucan genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:23-38). Science & Christian Belief There is also a backwards link to humanity created in the image of God and sinful, in (1998), 10, 115-143 need of redemption by the second Adam. This is expressed in the story of the toledoth of the heavens and earth in Gen. 2-4 and its prologue, the Genesis 1 creation account. Gen. 2-3 then become the story, the saga of generic Adam, of humanity, bringing out the way he (and we) are. It is our story too, for we are all ‘in Adam’ and have need to be ‘in Christ’.” (p. 141) Deane- No “My own view is that the significance of Genesis is “historical,” but without implying Celia Deane-Drummond, “In Genesis not literal Drummond, Celia literal figures of Adam and Eve or a literal paradisiacal state before the Fall. Rather, Adam All Die?,” in Evolution history Theologian Adam, as from the Earth, and Eve, the source of life, stand for the community and the Fall, William T. Born 1956 beginnings of the human race and what it might have become, while taking Cavanaugh & James K.A. “immortality” as it existed in the Eden account as figurative.” (p. 36) Smith, Eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2017) 23-47 Dembski, William Yes “Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well Josh Rosenau, Thoughts from Literal or literary Mathematician, as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I Kansas blog, January 8, 2010, Genesis Philosopher and subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/20 Theologian Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially 10/01/bill_dembski_creationis Born 1960 created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist.” t.php DeYoung, Kevin Yes “8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people Kevin DeYoung, “10 Reasons Doctrinal necessity Theologian & regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the to Believe in a Historical Pastor same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all Adam,” Born 1977 part of the same family coming from the same parents. http://thegospelcoalition.org/bl 9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold ogs/kevindeyoung/2012/02/07 together. /reasons-to-believe-in-a- 10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold historical- together.” adam/?comments#comments Domning, Daryl No “Advances in molecular genetics, however, have now made possible a much stronger Daryl P.Domning, Original Evolution without P. statement than these. It turns out that, while a hypothetical human population of the Selfishness: Original Sin and historical Adam Paleontologist, present size might have descended from a single pair, the particular human population Evil in the Light of Evolution Anatomist, and that now exists could not have. Our present population includes far more genetic (Ashgate, 2006), p. 71. Evolutionary variety of a very ancient sort than could possibly have been transmitted to us by way Biologist of a single human couple.” Born 1947

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 9 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Dunn, James No “Dunn discusses and rejects the possibility that Adam can be regarded as merely a R. J. Berry, “Did Darwin Not required NT Scholar representative man: ‘Paul does not use anthrōpos here to characterize humankind as a Dethrone Humankind?,” in R. doctrinally Born 1939 whole; the concept of corporate responsibility is more of a hindrance than a help’; he J. Berry and T. A. Noble cites H. W. Robinson and F. F. Bruce in support. [James Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Word (Eds.), Darwin, Creation and Biblical Commentary 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988, p. 272.] However, contra John Stott, the Fall: Theological he argues that ‘Paul’s theological point [in Rom. 5] does not depend on Adam being a Challenges, (Nottingham: “historical” individual or on his disobedience being an historical event as such. Such Apollos, 2009), pp. 63-65]. an implication does not necessarily follow from the fact that a parallel is drawn from Christ’s single act: an act in mythic history can be paralleled to an act in living history without the point of the comparison being lost. [Ibid., p. 289]” Edgar, William Yes “For those who accept the Bible as the very Word of God, the exegetical basis for the William Edgar, “Adam, Literal or literary Theologian historicity of Adam is sufficient to establish the view that our first parents were created History, and Theodicy,” in Genesis Born c. 1944 specially and that they and their progeny share the image of God, even as they now Hans Madueme and Michael share the sin of Adam. Without such a conviction it is difficult to see how God would Reeves (Eds.), Adam, the Fall, not be liable for the introduction of evil into the world.” and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), p. 320 Edwards, Denis No “With regard to the order of events, it is essential to recognize that these stories [the Denis Edwards, The God of Genesis not literal Theologian & two Genesis accounts] are not an alternative to a contemporary scientific account. The Evolution: A Trinitarian history Priest biblical narratives are not authoritative in the area of the history of the early universe Theology (Paulist Press, Born 1943 or the history of life on Earth. It is perfectly clear that the literary form of the first 1999), p. 10 creation story is an artificial and pedagogical construct, aimed at teaching theological truth.” Enns, Peter No “There are two ways of looking at this parallel. You could say that the Adam story Peter Enns, “Adam is Israel,” Genesis not literal Biblical Scholar & came first and then the Israelites just followed that pattern. But there is another way. Science & the Sacred, March history Theologian Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that 2, 2010, Born 1961 history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval http://biologos.org/blog/adam- time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.” is-israel/ “Having said all this let me take a step or two back. I am not saying that this is ALL there is to the Adam story. There are all sorts of angles one can take to get at that extremely rich and deep piece of theology. But the “Adam is Israel” angle is at the very least a very good one—and in my opinion a much better angle than seeing Adam as the first human and all humans are descended from him. Genesis does not support that reading.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 10 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Falk, Darrel Yes, but “There is nothing in science which would say that God could not have begun his Darrel Falk, “On Living in the Evolution with a Biologist not the interaction with humankind by entering into a relationship with a particular couple. Middle,” Science & the historical Adam Born 1946 first After all, Christians believe that God interacted with a whole nation of people a while Sacred, human later, and then after that with all humankind through the coming of Christ. Science, I http://biologos.org/blog/on- think we all know, is silent on these issues. Option #2 is a place where many living-in-the-middle/, June 24, Christians can rest comfortably, both theologically and scientifically. . . Option #2 is 2010 still a possibility for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve.” Fergusson, David No “First, the evidence of modern science is pretty overwhelming in terms of the age of David Fergusson, Creation Not required Theologian the universe and our descent from hominid species. The biblical story must now be (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, doctrinally Born 1956 viewed as neither ancient history nor natural science, even if this was unclear at earlier Guides to Theology, 2014), p. periods. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, it seems unwise and 11 unnecessary to contest this. In any case, the presence of suffering and evil in the cosmos cannot readily be explained by a historical fall. . . . Finally, it can be plausibly argued that the historical Jesus does not require a historical Adam. The Christ-Adam parallel is illustrative of the universality of the work of Christ for Jews and Gentiles. Paul may have believed in a historical Adam, but this is not a necessary precondition for his account of the work of Christ. We can have redemption in Christ without a fall in the historical Adam—the other New Testament writers seem to have little difficulty in attesting Christ as Savior without reference to the fall story. It is sufficient that we are all sinners as illustrated in the Genesis 3 story, and that the scope of Christ’s work is universal. A historical account of the fall is not required to provide a mechanism by which the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit are effective.” Fischer, Dick Yes “Archaeologists place the beginnings of modern man at 10,000 years ago with the Dick Fischer, The Origins Evolution with a Lay Bible Scholar advent of farming techniques. Adam’s placement at roughly 7,000 years ago from the Solution: An Answer in the historical Adam Born c. 1939 Genesis genealogies, coupled with the mention of farming in the Genesis text, makes Creation-Evolution Debate this a compatible time frame. This puts Adam in relatively recent history not ancient (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, history” (p. 189). 1996) “While not the first human, Adam was the first in God’s covenant line leading to Dick Fischer, “Historical Christ, and began the era of individual accountability.” Adam?,” Letters, PSCF, Vol. 62, No. 4, December 2010, pp. 304-305. Frame, John M. Yes “Scripture, in a number of ways, affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve, beyond John M. Frame, Systematic Literal or literary Philosopher and asserting their existence in Genesis 1-5. Later references to them in Scripture always Theology: An Introduction to Genesis Theologian presuppose that they are historical figures. . . . In any case, it does not seem to me that Christian Belief (P&R Born 1939 the hypothesis under consideration [genetic evidence of a larger initial population] Publishing, 2013), pp. 803- calls into question the special creation of Adam and Eve in God’s image, their 806. distinctive lordship over creation, or the historicity of the fall.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 11 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Fugle, Gary N. Yes, but “One option, which I embrace, is that Adam was singly taken aside by God from Gary N. Fugle, Laying Down Evolution with a Biologist not the physically evolved humans and the image of God was divinely imparted to him. Adam Arms to Heal the Creation- historical Adam Born c. 1950 first immediately entered into a relationship with God. In other words, Christian believers Evolution Divide (Eugene, human may accept that the origin of the first image-bearing human was an extraordinary event Oregon:Wipf & Stock, 2015), in which God choose the evolved physical form of Adam and breathed a unique spirit p. 252 into him. A key distinction in this view is that God specially bestowed this image onto Adam and it has been passed in to offspring: it was not something that simply evolved along with human physical features. This approach harmonizes the biblical account of Adam and evidence for the evolutionary development of humans.” Garvey, Jon Yes, but The problems largely disappear (apart from explaining the patriarchal ages, as above) Jon Garvey, “Humanity Evolution with a Medical Doctor not the if one is not seeking to explain the whole population of the world, but only the beyond Adam’s line in historical Adam Born c. 1942 first genealogical history of the offspring of the one man who came into covenant Genesis,” human relationship with the true God, Yahweh, and whose broken relationship brought sin http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk and death to him, and to the offspring who would otherwise have been God’s people /2017/08/18/humanity- under God’s eternal blessing. beyond-adams-line-in-genesis/ Giberson, Karl No “Clearly, the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to Karl W. Giberson, Saving Evolution without Physicist reconcile with natural history. The geological and fossil records make this case Darwin: How to Be a historical Adam Born 1957 compelling. Nevertheless, scholars have proposed many convoluted and implausible Christian and Believe in ways to resolve these tensions in the past couple centuries” (p. 11) Evolution (New York: HarperOne, 2008) Goldingay, John No “I am told there are readers of Genesis who argue like this. If evolution is true, there John Goldingay, Genesis for Not required OT Scholar was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall. If there was Everyone: Part 1 doctrinally Born 1942 no fall, we didn’t need Jesus to save us. But this argument is back to front. In reality, (Westminster John Knox we know we needed Jesus to save us. We recognize the way Genesis describes our Press, 2010), 62-63. predicament as human beings. We know we have not realized our vocation to take the world to its destiny and serve the earth… We know there is something wrong with our relationship with God. We know we die… The question Genesis handles is, was all that a series of problems built into humanity when it came into existence? And its answer is that this is not so… There was a point when humanity had to choose whether it wanted to go God’s way, and it chose not to. The Adam and Eve story gives us a parabolic account of that… God brought the first human beings into existence with their vocation and they turned away from it.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 12 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Gordon, Bruce L. Yes, but “The key question, therefore, is whether Scripture requires the uniqueness of Adam Bruce L. Gordon, “Scandal of Evolution with a Philosopher not the and Eve. It does not. It is entirely consistent with the biblical account of human origins the Evangelical Mind: A historical Adam Born 1963 first that, just as God created a multiplicity of creatures of various kinds in Genesis 1, so, Biblical and Scientific human when he created Adam and Eve as the first and representative (i.e., exemplary) divine Critique of Young-Earth image bearers, he also created a variety of other human beings. When Adam and Eve Creationism,” Science, Re- fell into sin, this disobedience and its consequences spread through the entirety of ligion and Culture, Vol. 1, No. aboriginal humanity, so that, as the Apostle Paul put it, “death spread to all men 3 (2014) 144-173. because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12), even as this same verse affirms that Adam and Eve were the first to fall and that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” Integral to this understanding is recognition that the spiritual death that spread throughout aboriginal humanity was the causal result of individual sins, not the result of Adam functioning in the representative capacity of federal headship.” (p. 152) Graham, Billy Maybe “I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I David Frost & Fred Bauer, Genesis not literal Evangelist think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make Billy Graham: Personal history Born 1918 the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a Thoughts of a Public Man Baptist mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. (Chariot Victor: 1997) p. 72- The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe 74 that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God.” Gray, Terry M. Yes, but “Reconciling evolutionary theory with the specifics of the Genesis 2 account of the Terry M. Gray, “Can a Evolution with a Chemist not the creation of Adam and Eve is much more difficult. The text of Genesis 2:7 does not Christian Be an Evolutionist?” historical Adam Born c. 1958 first appear to allow for the view that the body of Adam derived from animal ancestors. http://grayt2.wordpress.com/2 human How this squares away with evidence from the created world suggesting others is still 012/06/03/can-a-christian-be- an unanswered question in my mind. Clearly, the creation of Adam as a whole human an-evolutionist/ being, body and soul, in the image of God, was the result of a special miraculous act. Also, the creation of Eve as derivative from Adam was the result of a special miraculous act. This conclusion about the origin of man derives primarily from the text itself. If the text were silent on this matter, I would have no problems with a Divinely guided evolutionary origin of the first human beings.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 13 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Gromacki, Gary Yes “Adam was not a myth but a real man who was created directly by God from the dust Gary Gromacki, “Adam: Man Doctrinal necessity Bible Scholar of the ground (Gen 2:7). . . . The historicity of Adam and the Fall of man is essential or Myth?”, The Journal of Born c. 1958 to the historicity of the gospel. If Adam was a myth, then Jesus (the last Adam) was a Ministry and Theology, Vol. myth as well. If Adam never sinned why would Jesus need to die on a cross to pay the 15, No. 1 (Spring 2011), 24- penalty for the sins of man? Paul wrote, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to 67. Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come…Therefore as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:14-19). Guyton, Morgan No “In any case, I think it is high time we abandoned the claim that God blames us for the Morgan Guyton, ” Man, Not required Pastor mistake of an ancient figure who only exists and has a name because of mistranslation. Woman, and Original Sin: A doctrinally Born c. 1977 Original sin is such a more compelling doctrine once the stumbling block of historicity Response to Al Mohler,” Methodist is kicked out of the way. We should instead understand “the man” and “the woman” to http://www.patheos.com/blogs be allegorical figures representing how our species has collectively produced a /mercynotsacrifice/2011/08/26 reservoir of original sin that corrupts every single one of us even if we cannot assign /man-woman-and-original-sin- its culpability with any clarity.” a-response-to-al-mohler/, August 26, 2011 Ham, Ken Yes “So, what are the implications of denying a historical Adam? The Apostle Paul Ken Ham, Six Days: The Age Doctrinal necessity Apologist explains that it was “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and of the Earth and the Decline of Born 1951 thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). That one man was the Church (Master Books, Adam, whose act of rebellion against God—eating from the tree of the knowledge of 2013), p. 162 good and evil—led to the Fall of all mankind. But if there was no literal Adam, then we have to ask the question: where did death and sin come from?” Hamilton, Adam No “It is interesting that the elements of the story [Genesis 1-3] clearly point in the Adam Hamilton, Making Genesis not literal Pastor direction of an archetypal understanding of the story. The names Adam and Eve, not Sense of the Bible: history Born 1964 mentioned in the Creation story in Genesis 1, are representational. In Hebrew, Adam Rediscovering the Power of simply means “man” or “human” (though it appears to have originated from a word Scripture Today (HarperOne, meaning “of the ground,” thus pointing to God creating Adam from the dust of the 2014), p. 192) earth). Eve means “life” or “bearer of life.” Both names are symbolic. . . . “

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 14 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Hannegraaff, Yes “Genesis 3 unmistakably asserts that death overcame man when he transgressed God’s Hank Hannegraaff, “Theistic Doctrinal necessity Hank command. Death, according to Scripture, had no hold on man until some later period Evolution Incompatible with following his creation. This flies directly in the face of theistic evolution theory. . . . the Bible and Christian Theistic evolutionists can allegorize Genesis as much as they want, but to do so, they Theology,” have to contend against Scripture itself. Paul, in such passages as Romans 5 and 1 https://www.orthodoxytoda Corinthians 15, clearly treats the Genesis account in historical terms and he speaks of y.org/blog/2017/09/theistic- human death as God’s judgment on sin. It was for this very reason—to answer for evolution-incompatible- God’s punishment for our sin—that Christ died. This is the very heart of the Gospel. with-the-bible-and- Quite frankly, Theistic Evolution, in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms, somewhat christian-theology/, like talking about burning snowflakes.” September 5, 2017

Harlow, Daniel C. No “Recent research in molecular biology, primatology, sociobiology, and phylogenitics Daniel C. Harlow, “After Genesis not literal Biblical Scholar indicates that the species Homo sapiens cannot be traced back to a single pair of Adam: Reading Genesis in an history Born c. 1962 individuals . . . . It is therefore difficult to read Genesis 1-3 as a factual account of Age of Evolutionary Science,” human origins. In current Christian thinking about Adam and Eve, several scenarios in Perspectives on Science and are on offer. The most compelling one regards Adam and Eve as strictly literary Christian Faith, Vol. 62, No. 3 figures—characters in a divinely inspired story about the imagined past that intends to (Sept. 2010), p. 179 teach theological, not historical, truths about God, creation, and humanity.” Harrell, Daniel M. Yes, but “Because the Genesis 2 account of humanity’s appearance is called an account (2:4), it Daniel M. Harrell, Nature’s Evolution with a Pastor not the perhaps should be read as more report than poetry; literal rather than literary. Jesus, Witness: How Evolution Can historical Adam Born 1961 first Paul, and others throughout Scripture all treat Adam and Eve as historical figures. As Inspire Faith (Nashville: human historical figures, there are basically two options for their existence within the Abingdon Press, 2008) evolutionary rubric. The first is that God created them supernaturally, midstream in evolution’s flow. . . Another option might be to have Adam and Eve exist as first among Homo sapiens, specially chosen by God as representatives for a relationship with him” (pp. 86-87). Harris, Mark No “However, while it seems likely that modern humans are descended ultimately from Mark Harris, The Nature of Evolution without Physicist and African humans who then dispersed around the globe, and that there have been quite Creation: Examining the Bible historical Adam Lecturer in drastic fluctuations in population numbers at times, genetic studies suggest that we are and Science (Durham: Science & probably talking of an early human population that was never smaller than tens of Acuman, 2013), pp. 134-135 Religion thousands, which makes it unlikely that a historical Adam and Eve can be sought Born c. 1965 among early humans.” (Ayala, 2009: 94).

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 15 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Hartley, John Yes “Paul ascribes a real transgression to one real man just as he ascribes a real act of John Hartley, “Belief in a Doctrinal necessity Pastor righteousness to one real Savior, Jesus (Rom 5:18). Adam is no a mytho-poetic literary Historical Adam: A Call to Born c. 1967 construct. If he is then his trespass was not that of a real man and our need for the real Courage,” obedience of the one man, Jesus, is really unnecessary. Even more, Christ’s http://www.placefortruth.org/p resurrection would need no basis in historic fact. A real victory is not needed for an lacefortruth/column/theology- unreal fall. Our theological beliefs are grounded in historical events. If those events on-the-go/belief-in-a- did not happen, our faith is false.” historical-adam-a-call-to- courage, July24, 2015 Haught, John F. No “Obviously an evolutionary understanding of life cannot be reconciled in a literal John F. Haught, God After Evolution without Theologian sense with the story of a primordial couple, Adam and Eve, rebelling against God in Darwin: A Theology of historical Adam Born 1942 the Garden of Eden and passing down the consequences of their disobedience through Evolution (Westview Press, our genetic history. The science of evolution cannot and should not be made to 2000), p. 137 conform literally to the mythic biblical accounts, and vice versa.” Hays, Christopher No To summarize, one can elaborate a compelling account of concupiscence (and thus the Christopher M. Hays, “A Not required M. universality of sin) without appealing to an Adamic fall. Evolutionary biology, Nonhistorical Approach: The doctrinally NT Scholar sociocultural dynamics, spiritual privation, and supernatural antagonism all combine to Universality of Sin without the Born c. 1980 create a situation of profound temptation. As a result of these dynamics, humans are so Originating Sin,” in Stanley P. strongly enticed toward sin that, even though we can in any given moment choose not Rosenberg (Gen. Ed.), Finding to sin, we remain, in the long haul, certain to sin. The Christian doctrine of sin does not Ourselves After Darwin: fall without Adam. (p. 202) Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2018) Hill, Carol A. Yes, but “We will now examine the ‘dual nature’ of the Genesis text regarding Adam and Eve Carol A. Hill, “The Evolution with a Geologist not the and the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden is considered to have been a historical Worldview Approach to historical Adam Born 1940 first place, the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10-14) pinpointing its location at the head of the Biblical Interpretation,” human Persian Gulf in today’s Iraq.14 Adam and Eve and their patriarchal descendants are (unpublished paper). also considered to have been historical people, as documented by the genealogies of the Bible. They are not considered to be allegorical or fictional persons, as is the common belief today, even among many Christians. However, Adam and Eve were not the first people to exist on planet earth – they were merely the first in the line leading to Christ, which was the only line that the biblical authors were concerned about” (pp. 10-11).

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 16 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Hoffmeier, James Yes “I have argued that the three episodes considered here, like the entirety of the book of James K. Hoffmeier, “Genesis Literal or literary K. Genesis, fit into a literary genre based on the heading to the eleven sections of the boo, 1-11 as History and Genesis OT Scholar “this is/there are the histories of X,” the tôlĕdôt formula. Within these units, different Theology,” in Charles Halton Born 1951 literary genres might be used. Regardless of what these might be, the general tenor of (Gen. Ed.), Genesis: History, the book, and Gen 1-11 in particular, is intended to be thought of as describing real events.” (p. 58) Ficton, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Zondervan, 2015) Horton, Michael Yes “Whatever one’s conclusions concerning the process of human origins, Christian Michael Horton, The Doctrinal necessity Theologian theology stands or falls with a historical Adam and an historical fall. On this point, Christian Faith: A Systematic Born 1964 Roman Catholic and Reformation theologies are at one. . . . However, if one does not Theology for Pilgrims On the take Adam (i.e., the human as human) seriously, two serious problems ensue: first, sin Way (Zondervan, 2011), pp. must be attributed to creation itself (and therefore ultimately to the Creator); second, there is no longer any historical basis for Christ’s work as the Last Adam, undoing the 424-425 curse and fulfilling the terms of the covenant of creation.” Humphreys, Colin No “[T]he Adam and Eve creation story is not referred to at all in the Old Testament after Colin J. Humphreys, “From Genesis not literal J. the first few chapters of Genesis. Moses and the exodus from Egypt are referred to Belief in Creationism to history Materials Scientist many times, as is Abraham. In contrast, Adam and Eve are never mentioned. . . . I then Belief in Evolution,” in R. J. Born 1941 realized that Jesus only referred to Adam and Eve in passing, as defining marriage, Berry (Ed.), Christians and although he talked about Moses and about Abraham. I also learnt that first-century AD Jews such as the historian Josephus appeared to believe that the early chapters of Evolution: Christian Scholars Genesis are allegorical, and the third-century Christian scholar, Origen, explicitly Change Their Mind (Monarch stated that events in the early chapters of Genesis were not meant to be taken literally.” Books, 2014), 64-76, p. 75 Irons, Charles Lee Yes “I am not yet prepared to move from my old earth creationist position in order to adopt Charles Lee Irons, “Adam Doctrinal necessity Medical Research any version of evolutionary creationism. However, should any of my old earth and Evolution,” Administrator creationist friends feel the need to do so, I would encourage them to stay on the right http://www.upper- Born c. 1970 side of the sea wall of a historical Adam and a historical Fall by adopting either EC-1 register.com/papers/adam- Presbyterian or EC-2, or if necessary EC-3. I am at this point in tentative agreement with Jack Collins that at least EC-1 and EC-2, and possibly EC-3, are within the bounds of and-evolution.pdf, 4/24/15. orthodoxy.” Janssen, Luke J. No “Comparisons of that mitochondrial DNA, as well as parallel comparisons made with Luke J. Janssen, Standing on Evolution without Professor of chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA, tell us that humans and Neanderthals both emerged, the Shoulders of Giants: historical Adam Medicine in two separate migratory waves that came out of Africa, from relatively small Genesis and Human Origins populations of a few tens of thousands of individuals.” (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2016), p. 146 Jeremiah, David Yes Adam was created with apparent age. http://www.davidjeremiah. Literal or literary Pastor org/site/radio_player.aspx?i Genesis Born 1941 d=1409, BROADCAST DATE:

7/2/2014 March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 17 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Johnson, Luke No (?) Q: Re your metaphorical approach, how do we all trace our genealogy back to Adam? Central PA Forum for Not required Timothy A (Luke Timothy Johnson): I don’t see how it matters or how it can be done. Religion & Science: doctrinally NT Scholar Conference on “Creation, Born 1943 Resurrection and Eschatology,” Messiah College, Grantham, PA, October 27-28, 2006 Joseph, William No “Is it reasonable, probable, likely that after 3.5 billion years of evolution, during which William G. Joseph, In Search Evolution without G. death is the ultimate fate of all living organisms and a part of the mechanism of of Adam and Eve: A Case for historical Adam Scientist and evolution, suddenly there evolved a creature which was immune to disease, fatal a Theology of Evolution Priest accident, pain and death? In spite of the fact that it eats food and thus would (CreateSpace Publishing, Born c. 1940 experience hunger, it appeared as an adult in a garden and was destined to reproduce 2011), p. 206 and multiply, it had no appetite or instinct it could not completely control and found itself in perfect harmony with the only other member of its species, Eve. How reasonable or probable is that? Most scientists are happy to grant that humanity displays a difference of kind from the rest of the animal kingdom, the ability to feel shame for example. But this account of human origin violates every fundamental characteristic of how nature works. It does not seem reasonable that nature would function normally for 3.5 billion years and suddenly everything changes, but only temporarily and for only one species.” (p. 206) Kaiser, Walter C., Yes “To argue, however, that Adam and Eve were merely symbols, or mythic Walter C. Kaiser, “The NT references Jr. representations, of the whole human race (or even merely a description of the Creation and Historicity of OT Scholar functions of creation), rather than a record of the divine introduction of a set of Adam and Eve,” JISCA Born 1933 historic individuals, would put us at odds with Jesus who in Mark 10:6 Volume 7, No. 1 (2014), 5-32. declared: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’… and the two will become one flesh.” That is a serious consideration for a believer in Christ. It involved a theology of the unity of the race, as well as a theology of marriage and a theology of creation.” Keathley, Kenneth Yes “For most Southern Baptists, including me, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a litmus Kenneth Keathley, “Southern NT references Theologian test. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals why we believe this way. The New Baptist Voices: Expressing Born c. 1955 Testament authors treat Adam as a historical figure, and they interconnect the mission Our Concerns, Part 2,” and work of Jesus with the first man. Paul repeatedly presents Christ as the last http://biologos.org/blog/southe Adam—succeeding where the first Adam failed and redeeming fallen humanity in the rn-baptist-voices-expressing- process.” our-concerns-part-2, February 29, 2012

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 18 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Keller, Timothy Yes, but “And it leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of Tim Keller, Surprised by Evolution with a Pastor not the humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is Scripture: Engaging historical Adam Born 1950 first telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, Contemporary Issues human strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to (HarperOne, 2014), pp. 37-38. be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purpose to make the whole world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation, was to be taken forward. God the creator put into their hands the fragile of being his image bearers. If they fail, they will bring the whole purpose for a wider creation, including all the nonchosen hominids, down with them. They are supposed to be the life bringers, and if they fail in their task the death that is already endemic in the world as it is will engulf them as well.” Kemp, Kenneth Yes, but “There is an alternative use of Alexander’s distinction which does the work of Kenneth W. Kemp, “Science, Evolution with a W. not the reconciliation without entailing the problems that his view faces. That account can Theology, and Monogenesis,” historical Adam Philosopher first begin with a population of about 5,000 hominids, beings which are in many respects American Catholic Born c. 1951 human like human beings, but which lack the capacity for intellectual thought. Out of this Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. population, God selects two and endows them with intellects by creating for them 85, No. 2 (2011), 217-236. rational souls, giving them at the same time those preternatural gifts the possession of which constitutes original justice. Only beings with rational souls (with or without the preternatural gifts) are truly human. The first two theologically human beings misuse their free will, however, by choosing to commit a (the original) sin, thereby losing the preternatural gifts, though not the offer of divine friendship by virtue of which they remain theologically (not just philosophically) distinct from their merely biologically human ancestors and cousins. These first true human beings also have descendants, which continue, to some extent, to interbreed with the non-intellectual hominids among whom they live. If God endows each individual that has even a single human ancestor with an intellect of its own, a reasonable rate of reproductive success and a reasonable selective advantage would easily replace a non-intellectual hominid population of 5,000 individuals with a philosophically (and, if the two concepts are extensionally equivalent, theologically) human population within three centuries. Throughout this process, all theologically human beings would be descended from a single original human couple (in the sense of having that human couple among their ancestors) without there ever having been a population bottleneck in the human species.” (pp. 231-232)

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 19 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Kidner, Derek Yes, but “On this view [Adam and Eve set in a context similar to the Neolithic or first Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Evolution with a OT Scholar not the metalworking cultures of about 8,000-10,000 years ago], Adam, the first true man, will Introduction and Commentary, historical Adam 1913 - 2008 first have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely Tyndale Old Testament human distributed over the world. . . . what is quite clear . . . is . . . that mankind is a unity, Commentaries (InterVarsity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by the one act of disobedience; and these 1967), p. 29, as quoted in things are as strongly asserted on this understanding of God’s word as on any other.” Craig L. Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible (BrazosPress, 2014), p. 153 Kirk, J. R. Daniel No “The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with J. R. Daniel Kirk, “Does Not required NT Scholar Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s Paul’s Christ Require a doctrinally Born c. 1972 fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.” Historical Adam,” Fuller Theology, News & Notes, http://cms.fuller.edu/TNN/Issu es/Spring_2013/Does_Paul_s_ Christ_Require_a_Historical_ Adam/ Kurka, Robert C. No (?) “The “Adam Quest” actually provides the twenty-first century church an opportune Robert C. Kurka, “If Adam be Evolution without Theologian moment to “do things right” in the often awkward faith-science dance. Rather than Razed is our Faith in Vain?”, historical Adam Born c. 1953 repeat twentieth-century Fundamentalism’s anti-intellectual response to Darwinian Criswell Theological Journal, evolution, evangelicals can seize the present moment to accurately inform God’s Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring 2013), people about the science (genomics). The core doctrines of the Christian Faith, the 111 story of the Bible and its diverse literary forms . . . Congregants can be made aware that scholars who have high views of Scripture contend both for an historical Adam and also against him—without forfeiting a strong belief in original sin [and/or] the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection. One can be an evolutionist without being a naturalist; in fact many Christian thinkers have been and currently are.” Lamoureux, Denis No “Adam never actually existed” (p. 319). Denis O. Lamoureux, Genesis not literal O. “Evolutionary creation embraces gradual polygenism. This approach asserts that the Evolutionary Creation: A history Science & Image of God and human sinfulness were gradually and mysteriously manifested Christian Approach to Religion Scholar through many generations of evolving ancestors. (pp. 290-291) Evolution (Eugene, Oregon: Born 1954 Many features in Genesis 1-11 also point away from the historicity of Adam. These Wipf & Stock, 2008) include: literary genre, ancient science, contradictory order of creation events, tribal formation, ancient genealogies, traditional literal interpretation, geology, anthropology, archaeology & history” (pp. 274-276). Laughery, No “The ancient Near Eastern setting encourages the view that Adam and Eve be Gregory J. Laughery & Genesis not literal Gregory J. understood in archetypal terms. See Walton Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 208-209.” George R. Diepstra, From history Theologian Evolution to Eden: Making Born c. 1952 Sense of Early Genesis (Destinée, 2015), p. 43, FN 21

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 20 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Lennox, John C. Yes “Furthermore, in one of the curious ironies of evolutionary theory, [Denis] Alexander John C. Lennox, Seven Days Evolution with a Mathematician argues that human evolution has stopped. Might not the true situation be that it never That Divide the World: The historical Adam Born 1943 got started in the first place—that human beings were a direct creation of God?” Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Zondervan, 2011), p. 73 Lewis, C. S. Maybe “For long centuries, God perfected the animal from which was to become the vehicle C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Genesis not literal Apologist of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be Pain (San Francisco: history 1898 - 1963 applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby 72-76. Quoted in Francis S. rational thought is incarnated [. . .] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to Collins, Language of God descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of (New York, NY: Free Press, consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an 2006), 208-209 object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past [. . .] We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. .. . But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.”

Longman, Maybe “My understanding of Gen 1-2 as high style literary prose narrative leads me to Tremper Longman III, “What Genesis not literal Tremper, III conclude that it is not necessary that Adam be a historical individual for this text to be Genesis 1-2 teaches (and history OT Scholar without error in what it intends to teach. This statement should not be construed to What It Doesn’t)” in J. Daryl Born 1952 mean that I have come to a settled conclusion that Adam is not a historical individual, Charles (Ed.), Reading Genesis only that it is not necessary that he is historical in order for the text to be true in terms 1-2: An Evangelical of what it intends to teach.” Conversation (Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), p. 122] Lucas, Ernest Maybe “Uncertainty about the relationship between Homo sapiens and Homo divinus leaves Jonathan Langley interviewing Genesis not literal Biochemist and open a number of possible ways of relating the story in Genesis 2 and 3 to the process Ernest Lucas, “Christians and history Biblical Scholar of evolution. My own speculation is that first self-consciousness, and then God- Evolution: five questions Born c. 1947 consciousness, appeared as what some scientists call ‘emergent properties’ as the answered,” Mission Catalyst, central nervous system became increasingly complex. Once God-consciousness was Issue 3, 2012, possible, God took the initiative to establish a relationship with humans, and humans http://www.bmsworldmission. were faced with the choice of how they were going to live in relationship with their org/node/3146 creator. This may have involved an initial pair of humans. Calvin’s concept of Adam and Eve as ‘federal heads’ of the human race may be helpful. Just as our solidarity in Christ, our new ‘federal head’, and his salvation is something spiritual imparted by God, so human solidarity in Adam and his sin might be something spiritual imparted by God after Adam and Eve’s disobedience.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 21 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View MacArthur, John Yes “Adam, as we see from the text [Genesis 1:26-31], was specially and personally John MacArthur, The Battle Literal or literary Pastor created by God. There is no way to do justice to the text and maintain the notion that for the Beginning: Creation, Genesis Born 1939 Adam evolved from some already-existing form of animal life” (p. 158) Evolution and the Bible (W Publishing Group, 2001) Madueme, Hans Yes “We're told that we can't affirm a historical Adam because it's scientifically Hans Madueme, Literal or literary Theologian unbelievable, but why trust Paul on the resurrection when that, too, is scientifically “Demythologizing Adam: Genesis Born 1975 unbelievable? Or, to flip the script, if we believe the resurrection, then a historical Case Unproven,” July 2015, Adam is no biggie.” http://www.booksandculture.c om/articles/webexclusives/201 5/july/demythologizing-adam- case- unproven.html?paging=off Mahoney, Jack No “A second purpose of the incarnation from an evolutionary point of view . . . is to Jack Mahoney, Christianity in Evolution without Theologian understand the death of Jesus as saving humanity, not from the original sin of Adam Evolution: An Exploration historical Adam Born 1931 and the consequent fallen state of nature, as in the traditional belief, but from mortality (Washington, D.C.: and death, a normal feature of all evolutionary life.” Georgetown University Press, 2011), p. x Mahony, John W. Yes “After a thorough study of the doctrine of sin as well as the interpretive options for John W. Mahony, “Why an Doctrinal necessity Theologian Genesis 3, I am more convinced now that a literal-historical approach to the text is Historical Adam Matters for a Born c. 1950 essential. The term “literal” is used to describe historical literality, not scientific Biblical Doctrine of Sin,” precision. The reason for historical literality is specificity, which is demanded by the SBJT 15.1 (2011): 60-78. theological affirmations about human sin. The story of the fall told by Moses perfectly supports all later revelations about sin. There are a number of specific features of the story that support this conclusion:” McClure, Yes “What about human beings? The biblical text is clear that humanity originated from Matthew R. McClure, Literal or literary Matthew R. one couple, Adam and Eve, and the scriptures are too specific about the historicity of Creation and the Origin of Genesis Biologist their existence to warrant alternative explanations (Genesis 3:20, 4:1, 5:3, 1 Chronicles Species: The Biblical Born c.1966 1:1, and many others). Because of the biblical position of the historicity of Adam and Perspective on Evolution, Eve, it would be very difficult to make a biblical case for human origins based on 2012, p. 59 evolution alone. Populations are units of evolution, yet the role of the individual is simply to survive and reproduce. In evolutionary theory, individuals do not evolve, and Adam and Eve were individuals.” McGrath, Alister No “There are those who would say that Adam and Eve designate specific historical BioLogos Editorial Team, Genesis not literal Molecular figures. That makes some sense, acknowledges McGrath, but it makes even more sense “What Are We to Make of history Biophysicist and to say that Adam and Eve are stereotypical figures—represent human potential as Adam and Eve?”, Theologian created by God but also with the capacity to go wrong.” http://biologos.org/blog/what- Born 1953 are-we-to-make-of-adam-and- eve/, March 31, 2010

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 22 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View McGrath, James No “I think that it makes the most sense to view Adam as what the word means, since it James F. McGrath, Comment Genesis not literal F. isn't a name. The story of Adam is a story about what human beings are like, projected in James F. McGrath, “Ten history NT Scholar back onto primordial time. I view the story as an analysis of the human condition, Really Bad Reasons to Believe Born c. 1971 rather than historical reporting.” in a Historical Adam,” http://www.patheos.com/blogs /exploringourmatrix/2012/02/t en-really-bad-reasons-to- believe-in-a-historical- adam.html, Feb. 7, 2012 McIntyre, John A. Yes “Adam’s place in history at 4000 BC has been securely established. The scientific John A. McIntyre, “The Literal or literary Physicist discrepancy with this Genesis date, resulting from the discovery of prehistoric humans, Historical Adam,” Genesis Born 1920 has been removed by recognizing that Augustine, not Scripture, asserts that Adam is Perspectives on Science and the ancestor of all humankind. The Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, has been located in Christian Faith, Vol. 54 No. 3, Gen. 2:4 with Adam’s creation in 4000 BC appearing in Gen. 2:7. Biblical history September 2002, 150-157. extends seamlessly from Abraham in 2000BC, back through Adam in 4000 BC and finally, to the creation in 15 billion BC” (p. 152). McKnight, Scot No “If we are to read the Bible in context, to let the Bible be prima scriptura, and to do so Dennis R. Venema and Scot Genesis not literal NT Scholar with our eyes on students of science, we will need to give far more attention than we McKnight, Adam and the history Born 1953 have in the past to the various sorts of Adams and Eves the Jewish world knew. One Genome: Reading Scripture sort that Paul didn’t know because it had not yet been created was what is known after Genetic Science (Grand today as the historical Adam and Eve. Literary Adam and Eve, he knew; genealogical Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Adam and Eve, he knew; moral, exemplary, archetypal Adam and Eve, he knew. But Press, 2017), p. 191. the historical Adam and Eve came into the world well after Paul himself had gone to his eternal reward, where he would have come to know them as they really are.” Middleton, J. No ”The first is that while we often think of the first human pair in Genesis 2 as “Adam By J. Richard Middleton, Genesis not literal Richard and Eve,” the text originally designates them as “the human” (ha’adam) and “the “Humans as Imago Dei and history Biblical Scholar woman” (ha’iššâ). “Adam” becomes a proper name only in Genesis 5:1 and “Eve” is the Evolution of Homo the name given to the woman in 3:20. What are we to make of the fact that the name of Sapiens,” the first man is “Human” (’adam) and the name of the first woman is “Life” (havvâ)? http://biologos.org/blogs/jim- And who would name their son Abel (hebel = vapor/futility, the same word that recurs stump-faith-and-science- as a theme in Ecclesiastes)? These names are clearly a function of the story (Abel’s life seeking- is soon snuffed out). Given the symbolic meaning of the names “Adam” and “Eve,” understanding/humans-as- we may understand the first couple in Genesis 2 as archetypal or representative of all imago-dei-and-the-evolution- humanity.” of-homo-sapiens/, January 04, 2017

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 23 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Migliore, Daniel No (?) “The stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are not scientific descriptions competing with modern Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Genesis not literal L. cosmological theories but rather poetic, doxological declarations of faith in God, who Seeking Understanding: An history Theologian has created and reconciled the world and each one of us.” (p. 113) Introduction to Christian Born 1936 “However extensively we may have to revise our previous assumptions about the time Theology, Second Edition span, stages, and processes of God’s creative activity, this does not substantively affect (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, the central claim of faith in God the creator.” (p. 116) 2004) Mohler, Albert Yes “The universe looks old because the Creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Albert Mohler, “Why Does the Literal or literary Theologian Adam was not a fetus but a man. By our understanding this would have required time. Universe Look So Old?”, Genesis Born 1959 But for God it did not. He put Adam in the garden, which was not merely seeds, but a Ligonier Ministries 2010 fertile, mature garden.” National Conference Moreland, J.P. Yes If I am right about the broader issues, then the rejection of an historical Adam J.P. Moreland, “Keeping Doctrinal necessity Philosopher and Eve has far more troubling implications than those that surface in trying to Vineyard Distinctives in the Born reinterpret certain biblical texts. The very status of biblical, theological and Plausibility Structure,” ethical teachings as knowledge is at stake in the current cultural milieu as is http://www.jpmoreland.com/w the church’s cognitive marginalization to a place outside the culture’s p- content/uploads/2013/05/More plausibility structure. Those who reject an historical Adam and Eve, land-2013-SVS.pdf inadvertently, harm the church. Morris, Henry M. Yes “If there were any remaining question as to whether the Bible teaches that man is Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Literal or literary Civil Engineer simply an animal, related by common ancestry and evolutionary continuity to all the Record: A Scientific and Genesis 1918-2006 other animals, the rest of this second chapter of Genesis will lay such an idea to rest. Devotional Commentary on Baptist The first man and woman were unique and special creations of God, not to be the Book of Beginnings (Baker compared with animals at all but rather to be contrasted with them.” Book House: 1976), p. 94 Morton, Glenn Yes “What we have seen is that a historical interpretation of the Scripture does not require Glenn R. Morton, “Who Was Literal or literary Geophysicist a recent Adam. Adam can be old if the marks of Adam are. The five marks of Adam, Adam? Part 2 (Spring, TX: Genesis Born c. 1950 language, religion, pain in childbirth, sweat of the brow, and clothing are found DMD Publishing Co., 2006) hundreds of thousands of years ago. The same is said about the items invented by Adam’s immediate descendants” (p. 82). Murphy, George No “I agree that Genesis 2-3 should not be read as history. Adam and Eve are theological George L. Murphy, “Roads to Genesis not literal Theologian, Pastor representations of all humans, and I will not try to locate the first parents of the human Paradise and Perdition: Christ, history and Physicist race in the paleontological record.”(p. 111) Evolution, and Original Sin,” Born 1942 “It is not clear that the writer of Genesis 2-3 thought of ‘the man’ and ‘the woman’ as Perspectives on Science and Lutheran historical persons. The point in Genesis at which ‘adham becomes a proper name, Christian Faith, Vol. 58, No. ‘Adam,’ is debated. Adam as the first man is listed in the genealogies (Gen. 5:1-5 and 2, June 2006, 109-118. 1 Chron. 1:1) and may be referred to in Hos. 6:7. But the fact that Adam is never mentioned in the Old Testament’s recitation of God’s acts in history suggests that Israel in that period did not see him as a historical figure.” (p. 112)

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 24 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Oord, Thomas Jay No (?) Scripture and Christian tradition still provide valuable insights into our condition. But Thomas Jay Oord, “Must Not required Theologian we should not worry that a growing number of Christians no longer affirm a historical Adam Be a Historical doctrinally Born 1965 Adam and Eve. Christian theology can still make sense — as it has for generations of Person?,” Christians — without our knowing if Adam was an actual person. I predict that http://thomasjayoord.com/inde contemporary theologians will need to continue to synthesize ancient Christian x.php/blog/archives/must- wisdom with the best of contemporary science. adam-be-an-actual-historical- person, June 22, 2015 Opderbeck, David Yes “It seems to me potentially very significant for our conversation about Adam that David Opderbeck, “A Genesis is a literary Law Professor people who were not physically descended from Abraham were included in the ‘Historical’ Adam?”, Science portrayal of actual Born c. 1966 Biblical genealogy of redemption that derives from “one man,” Abraham. They were & the Sacred, events grafted into the Abrahamic line by marriage. Is it likewise possible that the universal http://biologos.org/blog/a- genealogical line of “Adam” could include the in-grafting of physical lines of descent historical-adam/, April 15, outside of Adam’s direct line, with “Adam” still remaining the progenitor with 2010 representative responsibility for the resulting mass of humanity?” “Like many evangelical Christians, my theological presuppositions compel me to look for some “literalism” about the “fall” in the sense of it being a real ontological “event” in space and time. And I don’t see any reason not to say that Gen. 2-4 is at least a highly stylized literary portrayal of “real” events.” Ortlund, Gavin Yes, but “ I nevertheless find it helpful to simply recognize that its possible (with some Gavin Ortlund, “Thoughts on Evolution with a Research Fellow not the scenarios perhaps working much better than others) to believe in a historical Adam and Adam and Eve,” historical Adam Born c. 1984 first Eve, and simultaneously believe in some kind of human continuity with primates.” https://gavinortlund.com/2011/ human 08/25/thoughts-on-adam-and- eve/

Peacocke, Arthur No “Such an interpretation did not take account of the mythical character of the biblical A. R. Peacocke, Creation and Genesis not literal Biochemist and literature (‘Adam’, of course, means simply ‘man’, individually and collectively) and the World of Science”: The history Theologian appeared to be based on the doubtful proposition that all mankind has originated from Bampton Lectures 1978 1924-2006 one pair of individuals” (p. 190) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) Phillips, Richard Yes “Some will respond that the Bible does not make scientific claims and therefore we Rick Phillips, “Theistic Literal or literary Pastor should not be biblically dogmatic when it comes to this topic. But what about history? Evolution: A Hermeneutical Genesis Born 1960 Isn't the creation account a record of history? Is the question of the historicity of Trojan Horse,” Adam and Eve a matter of science, but not of history? Further, is it not true that http://www.reformation21.org/ evolution makes not merely scientific but also historical demands? And can the blog/2010/04/theistic- Bible's theology be true if the historical events on which the theology is based are evolution-a-hermeneutical- false? “ trojan-horse.php, April, 2010

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 25 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Piper, John Yes “I don't believe in evolution as the way that Adam came to be a human. I think God John Piper, “Do you accept Doctrinal necessity Pastor created Adam from the dust of the ground. I think he was unique and that he is the ‘old earth’ and evolution?” Born 1946 father of all humanity—Adam and Eve—and that he is not the product of a long Desiring God blog, February evolutionary process. I can't make that jive with the way the text reads. And I think 23, 2010, that it's very important that Adam be a historical figure, because that's the way he is http://www.desiringgod.org/R treated by the other biblical writers. The heart passage in Romans 5 collapses, and the esourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn whole nature of God's making with Adam a covenant and then him failing and then /ByTopic/99/4534_Do_you_a Christ being a second Adam comes to naught, if he's not a historical person” ccept_old_earth_and_evolutio n/, accessed July 2, 2010 Plantinga, Alvin Yes, but “Finally, it certainly seems that there is no conflict between current science and a Alvin Plantinga, “Historical Evolution with a Philosopher not the literal Adam and Eve who fell into sin. Some scientists speak of a bottleneck (perhaps Adam: One possible historical Adam Born 1932 first 160,000 to 200,000 years ago) in the line leading to current humans, when the relevant scenario,” human population dwindled to 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. Here’s a possible scenario. At http://thinkchristian.reframem that time God selected a pair of these individuals, bestowing on them a property in edia.com/historical-adam-one- virtue of which they are rightly said to be made in the image of God. This pair was possible-scenario, 02/14/13 wholly innocent, with properly directed affections. Nevertheless, they fell into sin, which in some way altered their natures (original sin). Furthermore, both the image of God and original sin were heritable, and also dominant in the sense that if either parent has either of these properties, their offspring will also have those properties. In this way both properties spread through the whole population, so that at present all human beings are descendants of this original pair, and all human being possess both the image of God and original sin.” Poe, Harry Lee Yes, but “If anything, these studies provide background to such problems as who the children Harry Lee Poe, “THE Evolution with a Theologian not the of Adam and Eve might have married, and what was going on East of Eden. In HISTORICAL ADAM, historical Adam Born 1950 first suggesting that humans arose in a population group, the studies still do not in any way ROUND 2: HARRY "HAL" human challenge the idea that humans came from a common couple and that humans survived LEE POE,” while their hominid cousins did not. What the studies do reveal is the extent to which http://www.booksandculture.c humans enjoy speculating to fill in the gaps of both theology and science.” om/articles/webexclusives/201 5/july/musings-on-our- speculations.html?paging=off Polkinghorne, Yes, but “Adam is the first true man, not biologically (the Bible clearly implies there were John Polkinghorne and Genesis not literal John not the others of the same species) but spiritually—that is, capable of being in communion Nicholas Beale, Questions of history Physicist and first with God and rejecting his commands. As for the idea that the first spiritually aware Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Theologian human human beings were also the first to disobey God’s commands, this is sadly all too Questions about God, Science, Born 1930 probable” (Nicholas Beale, pp. 67, 71-72). and Belief (Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, 2009)

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 26 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Postiff, Matthew Yes “What is the importance of a single, real Adam? Briefly stated, it is a gospel issue. Matthew A. Postiff, “Essential Doctrinal necessity A. What I mean is that there is a connection from every human back to Adam, a Elements of Young Earth Pastor connection through which each human receives the imputation of Adam’s sin and the Creationism and their inheritance of the sin nature. Without these truths, there is no need for the gospel. Importance to Christian Also, without the single, literal pair Adam and Eve, other parts of the Scripture central Theology,” Detroit Baptist to the gospel are falsified, most especially Romans 5:12–21.” (p. 48) Seminary Journal 21 (2016), 31-58 Poythress, Vern Yes “By contrast, his original creation of Adam and Eve was unique. He did not merely Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Literal or literary Theologian and bring into existence one man and one woman but also the human race. He laid once Science: A God-Centered Genesis NT Scholar and for all a foundation for the subsequent developments in the human race” (p. 132). Approach (Wheaton: Born 1946 “Some theistic evolutionists would allow that God’s creation of Adam and Eve may Crossway Books, 2006) have been exceptional. This allowance for exceptions seems to me wise, not only because of the particularities that the Bible gives in describing the creation of Eve, but also because the transcendence of God implies that he has the power to act exceptionally, and we as creatures do not know beforehand exactly when he may do so” (p. 253) Rana, Fazale Yes “The RTB [Reasons to Believe] human origins creation model treats Adam and Eve as Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Genesis not literal Biochemist the first human beings in history. A careful reading of Genesis 2, 3, and 4 supports the Who Was Adam: A Creation history Born 1963 couple’s historical existence. So does the inclusion of Adam in the Genesis 5 Model Approach to the Origin genealogy and in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus.” of Man (NavPress, 2005), p. 44 Reeves, Michael Yes “The historical reality of Adam is an essential means of preserving a Christian account Michael Reeves, “Adam and Doctrinal necessity Theologian of sin and evil, a Christian under-standing of God, and the rationale for the incarnation, Eve,” Reformation 21 blog Born c. 1970 (??) cross and resurrection. His physical fatherhood of all humankind preserves God's article, May 2010, justice in condemning us in Adam (and, by inference, God's justice in redeeming us in http://www.reformation21.org/ Christ) as well as safeguarding the logic of the incarnation. Neither belief can be articles/adam-and-eve.php reinterpreted without the most severe consequences.” Roberts, Michael No “I simply do not accept their view that humans were given a soul some 10,000 years Michael Roberts, “Can we, as Evolution without Anglican Vicar & ago. To put it flippantly, they are evolutionist until 10,000 years ago and then they evolved apes have a soul?” historical Adam Geologist become Creationist at the last minute. Exactly when an earlier ape evolved into an ape https://michaelroberts4004.wo we would define as homo sapiens I do not know. It goes without saying I do not accept rdpress.com/2016/10/28/can- a historical Adam.” we-as-evolved-apes-have-a- soul/ Ross, Hugh Yes “God created the first humans (Adam and Eve) both physically and spiritually through Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Literal or literary Astrophysicist direct intervention. All humanity came from Adam and Eve” (p. 44) Who Was Adam: A Creation Genesis Born 1945 “The RTB human origins model treats Adam and Eve as the first human beings in Model Approach to the Origin history. A careful reading of Genesis 2, 3, and 4 supports the couple’s historical of Man (ColoradoSprings: existence. So does the inclusion of Adam in the Genesis 5 genealogy and in Luke’s NavPress, 2005) genealogy of Jesus” (p. 44).

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 27 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Rüst, Peter Yes, but “Humans are three-dimensional, body-soul-spirit beings. As to their bodies and souls Peter Rüst, “Early Humans, Evolution with a Biochemist not the (in the sense of sentiency), the first humans arose by ‘natural’ evolution from ancestral Adam, and Inspiration,” historical Adam Born c. 1940 (??) first primate forms. Then, at a specific point in time, God created them in his image, as far Perspectives on Science and human as the (human) spirit is concerned. Much later, one of them, Adam, was chosen by God Christian Faith, Vol. 59, No. and given the challenge of proclaiming the kingdom too come, just as Abraham was 3, September 2007, 182-193. chosen later. Adam failed, and God changed his covenant with him, in accordance with his eternal preknowledge and predetermined redemptive plan of incarnation and cross” (p. 189) Ryken, Philip G. Yes “Adam’s story explains so many things because it is much more than an illustration of Philip G. Ryken, “We Cannot Literal or literary Theologian the human condition, such as one might find in the tales of ancient mythology. Adam Understand the World or Our Genesis Born 1966 is a real person of history, and therefore the events of his life are causes that produce Faith Without a Real, genuine effects in the world. His story explains what happens because it tells us what Historical Adam,” in Four happened.” (p. 268) Views on Historical Adam (Zondervan, 2013) Sailhamer, John Yes “As I see it, the author of Genesis and the Pentateuch sees God’s work during that John H. Sailhamer, Genesis Genesis not literal H. week focused primarily on the ‘promised land.’ He wants his readers to see that the Unbound: A Provocative New history OT Scholar same land God later promised to Abraham (Genesis 15) and then gave to Israel Look at the Creation Account 1946-2017 (Exodus 19) had already been prepared for Adam and Eve at the beginning of recorded (Sisters, Orgeon: Multnomah history” (p. 224). Books, 1996) Samples, Kenneth Yes “First, God directly and immediately created Adam as a fully functional being from [Kenneth Samples in Old Literal or literary Philosopher & the dust of the ground without recourse to a long evolutionary process from other Earth or Evolutionary Genesis Theologian animals (Gen 2:7). Creation? Discussing Origins Born 1958 with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017), 55] Schaeffer, Francis Yes “Jesus’ treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 also brings to the fore the issue of the historicity Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis NT references Theologian & of Adam and Eve. It is difficult to get away from the fact that Jesus was treating Adam in Space and Time (Downers Pastor and Eve as truly the first human pair in space and time. If we have any questions Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1912 - 1984 concerning this, surely they are resolved as we consider other New Testament 1972) passages” [Romans 5:12-15; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Luke 3:38; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 John 3:12; and Hebrews 11] (pp. 41-43) Schloss, Jeffrey Yes, but “Some of the very studies that point to a common origin for humanity also affirm that Michael Murray and Jeffrey Evolution with a Biologist not the the current human population is descended from a large group of individuals in the Schloss, “Evolution” in historical Adam Born ? first ancestral population and not a unique pair. Nevertheless, to say that humanity did not Routledge Companion to human arise from a single pair is not the same thing as saying we do not all share an ancestor Theism, ed. Charles Taliaferro in our genealogies. That is, we can (and demonstrably do) all share one or more et al. (London: Routledge, individuals in ancestry even though we are not descended from an initial human pair. . 2012), 224-40 . . Given this, at least some interpretations of a historical Adam as a common ancestor but not single progenitor are reconcilable with contemporary evolutionary data.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 28 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Schneider, John R. No “The bottom line is that if the first human beings evolved genetically this way, then it John R. Schneider, “Recent Evolution without Theologian is very hard to see how they could have originated in conditions of original Genetic Science and Christian historical Adam Born c. 1955 righteousness, as required by Augustinian theology, for they would have inherited Theology on Human Origins: powerful natural dispositions toward selfish actions.” An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism” in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Sept. 2010), p. 196 Schwager, No “Through this connection between law and brain growth the long history of Raymund Schwager, SJ, Evolution without Raymund humanity’s evolution to its present form bears a theological meaning. According to Banished from Eden: Original historical Adam Theologian Paul the law had the task of training the people Israel and serving as their custodian Sin and Evolutionary theory in 1935 - 2004 until the coming of Christ (Galatians 3:23-25). If we utilize Paul’s pattern of thought, the Drama of Salvation then we could say mankind was prepared for the new truth of the revelation by the (Leominster: Gracewing, growth of the brain and the development of a differentiated capacity for knowledge. A 2006), p. 57 more complex capacity for knowledge was needed in order for humans to become able to receive a word consciously and reflectively as the word of God.” Seely, Paul No “The perspectives of 20th century anthropology are incompatible with the acceptance Paul H. Seely, “Adam and Evolution without OT Scholar (?) of the literal historicity of Genesis 2 and 3. Anthropology’s first man must be dated Anthropology: A Proposed historical Adam Born c. 1938 before Neolithic times: the literal man of Genesis 2 and 3 must be dated in Neolithic Solution.” Journal of the times. The legitimate use of anthropology resolves the conflict by leading to the American Scientific Affiliation, recognition that Adam is a figurative person, who harmonizes with both anthropology Vol. 22, No. 3 (September and biblical theology” (abstract, p. 88). 1970): 88-90. Smith, James K. Yes “If God uses evolutionary processes to create the world and sin is inherent in those James K. A. Smith, “Whose Doctrinal necessity A. processes, then creation is synonymous with fall and God is made the author of sin— Bible? Which Adam?”, The Philosopher which compromises the very goodness of God. And if the goodness of God isn’t Colossian Forum, Born 1970 central to the Gospel, I don’t know what is.” http://www.colossianforum.or g/2012/04/24/book-review- the-evolution-of-adam-what- the-bible-does-and-doesnt- say-about-human-origins/ Snoke, David Yes “Adam was one, real, historical man. The parallel of Adam and Jesus in Romans 5 David Snoke, A Biblical Case NT references Physicist does not allow an interpretation of Adam as merely symbolic. . . There is no reason to for an Old Earth (Grand Born 1961 doubt the miraculous nature of the creation of Adam and Eve.” Rapids: BakerBooks, 2006), p. 192. Southgate, No “And just as the Fall account in Genesis reflects a general condition rather than a Christopher Southgate, The Genesis not literal Christopher historical chronology, so the status of believers as being ‘in Christ’ is a general Groaning of Creation: God, history Theologian condition that reverses our fallenness, and makes possible the self-transcending life . . Evolution, and the Problem of Born 1953 .” (p. 102) Evil (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008)

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 29 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Sparks, Kenton L. No “Time has only widened the breach between science and Genesis. From where we Kenton L. Sparks, “Genesis 1- Genesis not literal Born 1963 stand now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in a time when we’ve sequenced the 11 as Ancient history Biblical Scholar Neanderthal genome and traced out in the DNA our shared genetic heritage with Historiography,” in Charles primates and other mammals, it is no longer possible for informed readers to interpret Halton (Gen. Ed.), Genesis: the book of Genesis as straightforward history. There was no Edenic garden, nor trees History, Ficton, or Neither?: of life and knowledge, nor a serpent that spoke, nor a worldwide flood in which all Three Views on the Bible’s living things, save those on a giant boat, were killed by God. Whatever the first Earliest Chapters (Zondervan, chapters of Genesis offer, there is one thing that they certainly do not offer, namely, a 2015) literal account of events that actually happened prior to and during the early history of humanity. If Genesis is the word of God, as I and other Christians believe, then we must try to understand how God speaks through a narrative that is no longer the literal history that our Christian forefathers often assumed it to be.” (p. 111) Spencer, Michael Yes Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Yes, though I think the story we have in http://www.internetmonk.com/ Genesis not literal Biblical Scholar & Genesis 1-3 is not primarily historical, but theological and is not there to be articles/C/creation.html, FAQ history Pastor scientifically descriptive. But it is clear that the Bible's story of our salvation begins #4, posted March 1, 2006, 1956-2010 with our first parents. accessed June 28, 2010. R. C. Sproul Yes “For the most part, the federal view of the Fall has been the most popular among R. C. Sproul, “Adam’s Fall Literal or literary Theologian & advocates of the Reformed view of predestination. This view teaches that Adam acted and Mine,” http://www.the- Genesis Pastor as a representative of the entire human race. With the test that God set before Adam highway.com/fall_Sproul.html Born 1939 and Eve, he was testing the whole of mankind. Adam’s name means “man” or “mankind.” Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendants. Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal head of mankind.” Stott, John Yes, but “Scripture clearly intends us to accept their [Adam and Eve’s] historicity as the R. J. Berry, “Did Darwin Doctrinal necessity Theologian & not the original human pair: the biblical genealogies trace the human race back to Adam, Jesus Dethrone Humankind?,” in R. Priest first himself taught that ‘at the beginning the Creator made them male and female’ and then J. Berry and T. A. Noble 1921-2011 human instituted marriage, Paul told the Anthenian philosophers that God had made every (Eds.), Darwin, Creation and nation from ‘one man’, and in particular, Paul’s carefully constructed analogy between the Fall: Theological Adam and Christ depends for its validity on the equal historicity of both. [J. R. W. Challenges, (Nottingham: Stott, The Message of Romans (BST; Leicester: IVP, 1994), p. 163.]” Apollos, 2009), pp. 63-65. Strimple, Robert Yes “Our understanding of the reality of Adam affects our understanding of sin, of Robert B. Strimple, “Was Doctrinal necessity B. redemption, and of the Redeemer. The one who rejects the Biblical teaching regarding Adam Historical?,” Theologian the historical Adam and the historical Fall will find no firm basis for accepting the http://wscal.edu/resource- Born c. 1935 Biblical teaching regarding the historical, Incarnate Redeemer.” center/resource/was-adam- historical

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 30 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Suarez, Antoine Yes, but “Anthropologically it is fitting to assume that God created the first human persons by Antoine Suarez, Doctrinal necessity Quantum not the replacing the animal souls of adult Homo sapiens individuals through human spiritual “Transmission at generation”: Physicist & first souls. This creation could have happened at the time when Homo sapiens already had a Could original sin have Philosopher human large population size, and involved basically two steps: First God created a couple or a happened at the time when little community of persons, who at some moment did transgress a primeval divine Homo sapiens already had a commandment. Then God transformed into persons all the existing human animals.” large population size?,” (p. 289) Scientia et Fides, (2016) 4(1), 253-294 Swamidass, S. Yes, but Instead, consistent with the genetic evidence (see Figure), it is possible Adam was S. Joshua Swamidass, “The Evolution with a Joshua not the created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, about 6,000 years ago in a divinely created Overlooked Science of historical Adam Computer science first garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings capable of a relationship Genealogical Ancestry,” & genomic human with Him. Perhaps their fall brought accountability for sin to all their descendants. http://peacefulscience.org/gen medicine Leaving the Garden, their offspring blended with their neighbors in the surrounding ealogical-science/ Born c. 1978 towns. In this way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors of all mankind. Toews, John E. No “We close with Paul, one of the earliest theologians of the Jesus movement: “all John E. Toews, The Story of Not required NT Scholar people . . . are under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9), and “all people have sinned and Original Sin (Eugene, doctrinally Born 1937 fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). The language is volitional and political, Oregon:Pickwick not ontological.” (p. 108) Publications, 2013) Trasancos, Stacy Yes “Meanwhile, reason does not compel us to claim that Adam and Eve were figurative. I Stacy A. Trasancos, “How Do Doctrinal necessity Chemistry accept, and teach my children, that Adam and Eve really lived, and I teach them about Adam and Eve Fit With Born c. 1969 the fall from grace and original sin. As I hope I have sufficiently explained in this Evolution?”, National Catholic essay, if Adam and Eve began to live—literally—as a grown man and woman through Register blog, March 27, 2017 a miraculous act of God, science can only shrug and keep on digging. Evolutionary biology has no say here. Do not mistake this for a God of the Gaps argument, but rather take it as honesty that our knowledge has limits. If we cannot rule them out, then we should not. Treleaven, Carl Yes, but Adam and Eve might have been similar to Moses—one Jew out of many thousands of Carl W. Treleaven, The Doctrinal necessity W. not the Jews enslaved by the Egyptians—in that he had been selected by God for a purpose. Unexpected Perspective: The Businessman first Just as God tested Moses, so the thinking goes, Adam and Eve were tested in the Implications of Darwin and Born 1953 human garden of Eden. Adam and Eve possessed free will, so they didn’t have to give in to the Big Bang for Christians . . the Devil’s blandishments, but they did. Adam and Eve’s failure of the test was . and Everyone Else representative of the entire human population. If God had chosen another male and (Bloomington, Indiana: female who were contemporaries of Adam and Eve, the result would likely have been WestBow Press, 2016), p. 158 the same.” Trueman, Carl Yes “In short, consistent affirmation of evolution ultimately requires denial of the Carl Trueman, “Adam and Doctrinal necessity Theologian gospel.” Eve and Pinch Me,” Born 1967 http://www.reformation21.org/ blog/2013/01/adam-and- evolution-less-import.php,

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 31 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Van den Brink, Yes, but “Meanwhile, as we said, Adam and Eve cannot have been the sole humans around at Gijsbert van den Brink, Evolution with a Gijsbert not the that time. Why then are they so important? It is precisely here that Reformed theology Reformed Theology & historical Adam Theologian first comes to our aid. Taking their cue from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Reformed Evolutionary Theory (Grand Born 1963 human theologians in particular in particular considered Adam and Eve to be the federal heads Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 178 of humankind—that is, of all those to whom human personhood could be ascribed. As such, they acted as representatives of their group or groups, being addressed by God as stand-ins for all the others. Reformed theology has seen that the relevant relationship here is of a covenantal rather than a biological nature: Adam and Eve were offered the terms of a covenant, with both duties and prerogatives (Gen. 2:16-17), to which all those represented by them should live up. They acted as our “heads,” as Christ acted as our federal head in the covenant of grace. VanDoodewaard, Yes The exegetically, hermeneutically, and theologically compelling position is that God William VanDoodewaard, Literal or literary William created Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman, without progenitors, disorder, “No Adam, No Original Sin, Genesis Church Historian or sin. It was this Adam and Eve, the only existing humans, who fell into sin in the No Christ,” July 2015, Born c. 1980 (??) Garden, bringing the curse on themselves and all creation. http://www.booksandculture.c om/articles/webexclusives/201 5/july/no-adam-no-original- sin-no-christ.html?paging=off Venema, Denis No “Studies on human genetic diversity in the present day show us that we are too Dennis Venema, “Historical Evolution without Biologist genetically diverse to descend from only two individuals at any time in our Adam: Wearing the genes,” historical Adam Born c. 1975 evolutionary history. Studies have used many different measures of our diversity with http://thinkchristian.reframem different assumptions, yet have nonetheless agreed that the lineage leading to our edia.com/historical-adam- species has never numbered below about 10,000 individuals. (And no, “Mitochondrial wearing-the-genes, 02/08/13 Eve” is no help here, despite widespread confusion about her among Christians.)” Walhout, Edwin No “Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam Edwin Walhout, “Tomorrow’s Evolution without Pastor made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is Theology,” Banner, May 3, historical Adam Born c. 1926 extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing 2013, ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of http://www.thebanner.org/feat homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have ures/2013/05/tomorrow-s- to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one theology that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.” Waltke, Bruce K Yes “We should assume Adam and Eve to be historical, since the narrator makes no Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Literal or literary OT Scholar distinction between the narratives of Adam and Eve and the patriarchs. Adam is Fredricks, Genesis: A Genesis; Born 1930 connected to Abraham by a royal genealogy that extends to David in the book of Ruth Commentary (Grand Rapids: NT References and to Jesus in the New Testament. The Chronicler (1 Chron. 1) and the NT (Matt. Zondervan, 2001) 19:4-5; Luke 3:23-38; Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) assume the historicity of Adam and Eve.” (p. 80, fn 2)

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 32 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Walton, John H. Yes, but “My view is that Adam and Eve were real people in a real past; they were individual John H. Walton, “A Historical Literal or literary OT Scholar not the persons who existed in history. The basis for this conclusion comes from the fact that Adam: Archetypal Creation Genesis Born 1952 first in the Old Testament Adam becomes part of a genealogy, and in the New Testament a View,” in Four Views on the human real event featuring real people is the clearest reading to explain the entrance of sin and Historical Adam (Zondervan, death. Nevertheless, I also believe that the biblical text is most interested in Adam and 2013), pp. 89-118) Eve as archetypes—those who represent humanity. In particular, I believe that the “making” accounts in Genesis 2 reflect their roles as archetypes and therefore give us no scientific information about human origins. (p. 89-90) Ward, Keith No (?) “Original sin, from an evolutionary point of view, consists in a natural inclination Keith Ward, The Big Evolution without Philosopher, toward self-centered and destructive behavior, rooted in the genetic code of humans, Questions in Science and historical Adam Theologian & switched on by repeated inculturation.” Religion (Templeton Priest “By now we should expect that Adam is not the name of a historical individual who Foundation Press, 2008), p. Born 1938 lived a number of years ago. The Hebrew word Adam can mean “man” or “person,” 81; and can be read in the same sense as “human being.” This reading makes the phrase, Keith Ward, What the Bible “In Adam all die” much more comprehensible. It means: insofar as creatures are Really Teaches: About human beings, and share in human nature, they are cut off from the life of God.” Crucifixion, Resurrection, Salvation, the Second Coming, and Eternal Life (New York: Crossroad, 2005), pp. 98-99 Waters, Guy Yes “[T]he Bible requires us to believe that Adam was an historical person. Some of the Guy Prentiss Waters, “The NT references Prentiss clearest testimony about Adam comes from the New Testament. When explaining Historical Reality of Adam,” NT Scholar Genesis 2, Jesus clearly speaks of the first man and the first woman in historical terms, Tabletalk, January 2014, p. 74. Born c. 1973 and the institution of marriage in historical terms (Mat. 19:4-6). The Apostle Paul, in referring to Genesis 2, speaks of Adam and Eve in terns equally historical (1 Tim. 2:12-14). In 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, Paul places Adam and Jesus in parallel relationship. Paul calls Jesus the “Second Adam”-there is none between Adam and Jesus (1 Cor. 15:47). He also calls Jesus the “Last Adam”-there is none after Jesus (v. 45).” Webb, Stephen H. Yes “Eden was a real place . . .” (p. 140); “Evil was already present in the world, in the Stephen H. Webb, The Dome Literal or literary Theologian guise of a serpent, when Adam and Eve were created, but evil had to cross into Eden in of Eden: A New Solution to the Genesis Born 1961 order to ruin God’s plan” (p. 141) Problem of Creation and Evolution (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010) Wedgeworth, Yes “If Adam was not a historical individual, and if instead the Genesis account is a sort of Steven Wedgeworth, “WHAT Doctrinal necessity Steven mythical story which was employed in order to make a uniquely religious point, then DEPENDS UPON AN Pastor Christianity is necessarily rendered merely metaphorical, expressing truths of the HISTORICAL ADAM?, Born c. 1983 human condition through symbols. The Bible in this case is no longer an authoritative https://calvinistinternational.co account of human origins, history, and final destiny. It no longer addresses all men in m/2013/05/10/what-depends- all places and times, but rather expresses one faith-narrative that seeks to convey a upon-an-historical-ada meaningful but wholly internal truth.”

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 33 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Wellum, Stephen Yes “The fact of human sin and death is grounded in a real, historical Adam who was Stephen J. Wellum, “Editorial: Literal or literary J. created upright and morally good, but in history revolted against God and by that Debating the Historicity of Genesis Theologian action took down the entire human race with him. If this is denied, the basis for the Adam: Does it Matter?” The Born c. 1964 gospel is undercut, and the entire Christian position is destroyed.” Southern Babtist Journal of Baptist Theology, 15.1 (Spring 2011): 2-3 Wenham, Gordon Yes “This is a sensitive analysis of the nature of both texts [Eridu Genesis and Genesis 1- Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis Literal or literary J. 11] , but as argued earlier “myth” is a loaded tern, which, when applied to Scripture, 1-11 as Protohistory,” in Genesis OT Scholar leads to misunderstanding. A term is require that does not suggest to many readers that Charles Halton (Gen. Ed.), Born 1943 the account is make-believe, but one that affirms its truth and validity. This is why I Genesis: History, Ficton, or prefer to describe Gen 1-11 as protohistory. It is proto in that it describes origins, what Neither?: Three Views on the happened first. It is also proto in that it is setting out models of God and his dealings Bible’s Earliest Chapters with the human race. It is historical in that it is describing past realities and the lessons (Zondervan, 2015) that should be drawn from them.” (p. 87) Whorton, Mark S. Yes “Two common misconceptions, however, lead to difficulty. First, it is often assumed Mark S. Whorton, Perils in Literal or literary Aerospace that the characteristics of Eden were true of the entire earth. Second, many understand Paradise: Theology, Science, Genesis Engineer all types of animals were in the garden with Adam and Eve. Recognizing that neither and the Age of the Earth Born 1968 of these assumptions were the case for Eden helps dispel the incorrect presumptions of (Waynesboro, GA: Authentic the Perfect Paradise Paradigm.” Media, 2005), pp. 83-96. Wilcox, David L. Maybe “What then should we think of Adam and Eve, the serpent and the garden, the fall and David L. Wilcox, God and Genesis not literal Biologist the curse? These are theological issues. There are many different interpretations of the Evolution: A Faith-Based history Born c. 1943 stories in these passages of Scripture. Some clearly would be very difficult to correlate Understanding (Valley Forge: with the aforementioned ‘scientific’ data, while some would fit comfortably with it. Judson Press, 2004). The scientific data may suggest that theologians need to rethink their models of what the Scriptures are saying, but it does not tell them what the correct models should be” (p. 136). Williams, Patricia No “Science has demolished them [the literal and liberal interpretations of the narrative of Patricia A. Williams, Doing Evolution without A. Adam and Eve] by showing that Adam and Eve are not historical figures. Their without Adam and Eve: historical Adam Philosopher historicity conflicts with well-established scientific theories, the same theories that Socioobiology and Original Born c. 1960 (?) have created the technological revolution we confront each day . . . “ Sin (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 199 Willems, Kurt No I personally am agnostic at most about a real human named Adam and mostly Kurt Willems, The Science of Genesis not literal Pastor convinced that he serves a narrative purpose in Genesis (among other things we looked Scripture: Why Evolution isn’t history Born c. 1977 (??) at in the previous chapter). From my view, he and Eve are likely not historical figures at Odds with Biblical as we think of history. They tell the story of Israel as the literary and thus, genealogical Christianity | An Introduction, figures that Genesis portrays them as.” (eBook, 2017), p. 55

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 34 Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, No A Survey of Views Writer View Discussion Reference Reason for View Wise, Kurt J. Yes “Since God created humans so they could glorify God at the moment of their creation, Kurt J. Wise, Faith, Form, and Literal or literary Geologist man was created in mature form with intelligence, language capacity, and language Time: What the Bible Teaches Genesis Born 1959 itself. God spoke to Adam on the day man was created (Gen. 1:28-29; 2:16-17). On the and Science Confirms about Baptist same day Adam named the animals, the birds, and the woman created from him (Gen. Creation and the Age of the 2:20, 23).” Earth (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), p. 145 Wood, Todd C. Yes “In the meantime, here's what I think in a nutshell: God created Adam and Eve, and Todd C. Wood, “The origin of Literal or literary Biochemist their descendants split into biologically distinguishable populations that (if they had us,” Genesis Born c. 1972 survived) would be called different species. These other human species descended http://toddcwood.blogspot.co from Adam and Eve include minimally Neandertals, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo m/2015/05/the-origin-of- ergaster/erectus, and Homo floresiensis. I would also include Homo habilis, Homo us.html, rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba, but those are more uncertain. These other Tuesday, May 5, 2015 species did not survive because they were absorbed by populations of Homo sapiens as they spread out over the globe after the tower of Babel.” Wright, N. T. Yes, but “And it leads me to my proposal: that just as God chose Israel from the rest of N. T. Wright, “Excursus on Genesis not literal NT Scholar not the humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is Paul’s Use of Adam,” in John history Born 1948 first telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of the early hominids for a special, H. Walton, The Lost World of human strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purposes to and the Human Origins make the whole world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the Debate (IVP Academic, whole creation, were to be taken forward.” 2015), pp. 177-8. Zimmerman, Yes, but “We may speculate that our Adam and Eve ancestors were born into an existing Anthony Zimmerman, Doctrinal necessity Anthony not the population, but broke away from them and launched our race in isolation from the Evolution and the Sin in Eden: Theologian first parent group. It is not at all inconceivable that a single pair of humans, or a small A New Christian Synthesis human population, can become isolated from the rest of humanity in a hunter-gatherer kind of (University Press of America, social situation.” 1998), Reproduced at Lifeissues.net, Chapter 4

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 35 SCORES:

View:

Yes - 72

Yes, but not the first humans - 31

Maybe - 6

No - 59

Total - 168

My interpretation of their primary reason:

Evolution without historical Adam 23

Evolution with historical Adam 25

New Testament references 10

Literal or literary Genesis 37

Genesis not literal history 34

Doctrinal Necessity 26

Not required doctrinally 13

Total 168

March 23, 2020 Paul Bruggink Rev. 1.5 36