Craig’s Quest for the Historical Adam

A Response from John Oswalt

Introduction

The well respected philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig just released his anticipated book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Given Craig’s reputation, his book will undoubtably have an immediate influence on how some Christian read the Bible and interpret the creation account. To better understand Craig’s argument, I’ve asked the acclaimed scholar and theologian John Oswalt to weigh in.

Dr. Oswalt is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary. His official bio reads as follows:

Dr. John Oswalt returned to the Asbury Theological Seminary faculty in 2009 as visiting distinguished professor of Old Testament. This is his third term on Asbury Seminary’s faculty, having first served from 1970 to 1982 as professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages, and again from 1989 to 1999 as Professor of Old Testament.

He has also served as research professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, Miss., from 1999 to 2009, was president of Asbury College from 1983 to 1986 and a member of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill., from 1986 to 1989.

He is the author of 11 books, most notable of which is the two-volume commentary on the book of Isaiah in the New International Commentary of the Old Testament. His most recent book is The Holy One of Israel: Studies in the Book of Isaiah, released in 2014. He has also written numerous articles that have appeared in Bible encyclopedias, scholarly journals and popular religious periodicals. Dr. Oswalt is an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, with membership in the Kentucky Annual Conference. He has served as a part-time pastor in congregations in New England and Kentucky, and is a frequent speaker in conferences, camps and local churches.

Oswalt received a B.A. from Taylor University; a B.D. and Th.M. from Asbury Seminary; and a M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University.

On a personal note, Dr. Oswalt was a reader for my masters thesis on Hebrew Cosmology. Over the years I have come to respect the quality of his scholarship and appreciate his insight on this book. But before we get into the interview itself, I thought it would be useful to offer this brief summary of Craig’s book for those who have yet to read it.

Summary of Craig’s Thesis

Craig’s book, is an “attempt to integrate the independently discovered findings of contemporary science and biblical theology into a synoptic worldview (16).” In other words, Craig hopes his theory will reconcile the traditional Christian belief in Adam and Eve as historical people with the consensus science of animal to human evolution.

Craig’s Scientific Argument

Regarding the science, Craig’s book advances the claim that despite the incompleteness and provisional nature of the scientific data, it is possible that Adam and Eve lived 750,000 to 1,000,000 years ago.

Given the incompleteness of the data and the provisionality of science, the quest of the historical Adam will doubtless never be concluded in our lifetime—or in anyone’s lifetime, for that matter. Fortunately, because of the relatively low theoretical level of the science of archaeology, our tentative conclusions are not highly susceptible to sweeping changes (380).

Building on currently accepted models of population genetics used by scientists like Joshua Swamidass, Craig speculate that Adam and Eve may be associated with the species Homo heidelbergensis. By some unknown spiritual and/or biological renovation, God supernaturally intervened in the process of natural selection to elevate two hominids to the level of human. This first couple, Adam and Eve, were chosen by God to be the fountainhead of all humans. Craig concludes, “Adam and Eve are asserted to be the fount of all humanity, the genealogical ancestors of every human being who has ever lived on the face of this planet (363).” To be clear, Craig himself does not commit to this theory as true or even probable but simply one of many possible explanations which will no doubt evolve as the science evolves.

Craig’s Theological Argument

With respect to his theological argument, Craig does believe in a historical Adam and Eve. He asserts, “as crazy as it sounds, denial of the historical Adam threatens to undo the deity of Christ and thus to destroy orthodox Christian faith (8).” At the same time, Craig rejects the literalistic, and what he considers the unscientific, hermeneutic used by young earth creationists. To reconcile what some would see as a conflict, Craig argues there is a clear difference between the historical Adam and the textual Adam. That is, what we read about Adam in the bible is a specially crafted mythology used to convey theological truth, but not necessarily a true reflection of what happened in history.

Given the mythical nature of Genesis, Craig writes, “we can see how naive it is to argue that because some NT author refers to a literary figure, whether found in the OT or outside it, therefore that figure is asserted to be a historical person, much less is a historical person (221).” To bolster his case, Craig notes that several NT authors cite mythical peoples to make theological points. Given this use of fiction to shape theology, Craig says it is believable that Paul’s references to Adam in no way commit him to truth statements about the historical Adam, but only truths about a literary Adam. Craig writes in #749 NT Authors’ Attitude toward the Primaeval History, “This distinction between the authors’ beliefs and their teachings is perfectly plausible and is commonly accepted.” Consequently, even if the writers of the bible believed in a literal understanding of creation based on the text, this does not mean their beliefs accurately reflected the historical truth about Adam. Craig writes, “Alternatively, we might maintain that while the authors of Scripture may well have believed in a six-day creation, a historical Adam, a worldwide flood, and so on, they did not teach such facts. Since inspiration’s guarantee of truthfulness attaches only to what the Scriptures teach, we are not committed to the truthfulness of the authors’ personal beliefs (10).” Craig believes this distinction between what Moses, Paul and Jesus beloved regarding the Adam mythology does not commit them to a particular truth claim about history. This distinction, he says, leaves room for the modern scholar to reinterpret Genesis and reconcile the traditional Christian belief in an historical Adam and Eve with animal to human evolution.

Craig’s Hermeneutic for Genesis 1–11

Craigs hermeneutical argument relies on several assertions.

First, Craig believes that Genesis 1–11 cannot be understood outside the cultural context of Ancient Near East (22) and the mythology of the ancient gods such as the Mesopotamian and Egyptian deities (31).

Second, Craig embraces an unspecified formulation of Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis which he claims all Old Testament scholars use to some degree or another (49).

Third, Craig believes that the modern discipline of genre analysis offers scholars the necessary interpretive tools to interpret Genesis which Christians did not know about for the first few thousands of years of church history (18).

It is this third element of genre analysis that I’ll address in this interview with Dr. Oswalt.

Craig’s Mytho-History

Chapter 5 of Craig’s book (131–157) makes the argument that to properly understand Genesis 1–11 readers must understand the genre of mytho-history. What Craig describes as the fantastical events of talking animals and magic trees make these chapters beyond any literal reading. Craig writes, “I take it that fantastic elements are those which, if taken literally, are so extraordinary as to be palpably false (105).” Consequently, even if the ancient Hebrew reader did value the theological truth of Genesis, they in no way understood these stories as historical facts. Everything, writes Craig, from Gen 1 “in the beginning” to Gen 11 which includes the Genealogy of Abraham through his father Terah is mythos-history written by the Jews “as a universal foundational charter for the election and identity of Israel over against its neighbors (363).”

So what then is mytho-history? Craig argues that it is a fools-errand to offer a concise definition. Instead, he relies on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein to offer 10 literary elements which he says are common to all mythologies (45–46).

1. Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.

2. Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.

3. Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.

4. Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.

5. Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.

6. Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.

7. Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.

8. Myths are associated with rituals.

9. Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.

10. Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.

A Response from John Oswalt

With this background in mind, here are some useful insights form my interview with Dr. John Oswalt, I believe every reader of Craig’s book will benefit from his take on mytho-history as a hermeneutical device for Genesis 1–11. As a reminder, Dr. Oswalt is the Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of the book, The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? shares his response to my questions about Craig’s mytho-history. After careful consideration of the arguments presented in Craig’s book and reviewing his interview with Sean McDowell. Here is what Oswalt had to say;

Q1: Craig does not give a concise definition of myth, but instead he offers 10 criteria for how we can discern ancient myth from ancient history. Do you agree with Craig that attempts to define myth are misguided? If not, how would you define myth?

“Myth” has come to be a term that in the words of a Lewis Carroll figure “means whatever I want it to mean.” In its original life as a Greek word it had a very clear meaning: “a false tale of the gods.” And for the person on the street that is still its meaning. If I say the resurrection is a myth, that person understands me to say that Jesus did not rise from the dead and those who said he did were all liars. For Craig to use that term claiming that “folk-lorists” don’t mean that is disingenuous. The person on the street is no folk-lorist, In my book, I examine those pieces of literature that have been called myths and I have identified several characteristics, all of which are contrary to the Bible. I will examine those in response to a later question. For now, here is what I would call a functional definition: A myth is an oral or written narrative that functions to make actions of the gods, presumed to be constantly occurring in the invisible realm, effective in the world of time and space.

In short “mytho-history” is an oxymoron. Myths are a-historical by nature.

Q2: Craig argues that, “On the basis of comparative studies of Sumerian literature, the eminent Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen proposed that we recognize a unique genre of literature that he dubbed “mytho-history (152).” In your view, should readers be concerned with Craig’s use of Jacobsen to ground his own definition of mytho-history?

I think Craig wants to say that Genesis 1-11 is history with myth-like characteristics. That was not at all Jacobsen’s interest. He believed that Genesis was a “false tale of the gods” just like the Sumerian writings are. But Genesis displays some odd (very odd, I might say) characteristics. There is only one God; he does not bring the world into existence through sexual behavior; he is not a natural force with a human-like persona; his realm of action is not in the constantly recurring invisible realm but in identifiable, non-repetitive events in time and space. Hmm! What shall we call that kind of myth (having pre-judged that since it is about a god it must be a myth)? Well, let’s call it “mytho-history” by which Jacobsen meant “a false tale of the gods with history-like characteristics.” Again, I say “mytho-history” is an oxymoron.

Q3: Craig claims that, “Evangelical laymen would probably be surprised at how widely accepted Jacobsen’s classification of Gen 1–11 as mytho-history is among evangelical scholars (154).” Craig bolsters this claim through appeals to Gordon Wenham and Bill Arnold. In the footnote on page 154, Craig writes,“Bill Arnold uses the term protohistory to designate, not the primaeval history, but the ancestral history commencing with Abraham (Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 2).”

Based on this quote, Craig concludes that “Jacobsen’s nomenclature should be adopted.” Interestingly enough, Craig never cites your work Dr. Oswalt, but the quote he used from Arnold does cite your work. Therefore, I think your insight on this question is particularly relevant. How do you assess Craig’s claim here that evangelicals like you and Arnold essentially utilize the genre of mytho-history to interpret Genesis 1–11 but are just to afraid to admit it?

I hope it is clear that although Dr. Arnold is a valued colleague of mine, I do not at all endorse this view. Nor do I know many evangelical Old Testament scholars who would. In Sean McDowell’s interview with Craig he spoke dismissively of scholars like John Collins who uses the somewhat awkward “imagistic-history. ” But such a view is not to be dismissed and to take such a position is not to concur with Arnold and Craig. It is to agree that the historical data in Genesis 1-11 is presented through the use of literary (poetic) images and devices. In my judgement, most evangelical scholars would agree with that statement. There would be disagreement as to how precise we can be about the history there reported, but that the material is historical and not mythical would be widely accepted by evangelicals. I think Craig has tried to co-opt this large group to his view by suggesting that “myth” is merely a synonym for poetic imagery. It is not.

Q4: A key element of Cragi’s mytho-history is the distinction between literary events and historical events. The people of the text, says Craig, are not necessarily the people of history. What do you make of Craig’s distinction between the literary Adam and the historical Adam (207)? Is this a useful distinction? Does this distinction necessitate the reinterpretation of Adam and Genesis 1–11?

I do agree that it is possible to distinguish between a literary figure and a historical figure, and I appreciate what I understand him to say that what Paul is dealing with is an actual historical Adam whose actions had real significance for his descendants.

Q5: So let’s focus in on Craig’s 10 criteria for mytho-history. There is no way we can analyze every claim regarding these 10 literary elements in our interview, so let me ask in broad terms, do you think Craig’s framing provides a useful hermeneutic or is it too subjective to be of practical use?

I think Craig has fastened on some of the literary characteristics of myths while ignoring the more significant functional characteristics of myth. Many of the literary characteristics that he ascribes to myths also apply to “legends,” to “tales,” and to “sagas” all of which have quite different functions from myths. For several years I have had students in one of my courses read the origin myths (not creation myths – there aren’t any of those) of the peoples surrounding Israel. They are always impressed, as I intend them to be, of the general similarities that exist among all of them and the startling differences from the Bible. These differences are not only in content but also in tone.

Q6: Craig argues that given his 10 criteria of mytho-history, there is a clear and unequivocal break between the protohistory of Genesis 1–11 and the history of Genesis 12 and following. Yet in chapter 12 and beyond we read a wild story about a talking donkey, a fantastical story of God appearing in a pillar of smoke and fire, multiple claims of divine appearances in human form, a story of a woman turned to a pillar of salt, plagues, and cities destroyed by “magic” fire from heaven. Given Craig’s criteria for “mytho-history” do you think his genre analysis holds up?

In short, his genre analysis does not hold up. In the interview with McDowell, Craig spoke amusedly of the anthropomorphic God walking in the Garden and talking to Adam and Eve and saying that marks the material as mythic (because it is false?). But he insists that after Genesis 12 we have no more of this kind of mythic material. In Genesis 18 the Bible says very explicitly that Yahweh visited Abraham in human form and talked with him. Myth? The other examples you cite are equally well-taken.

If Craig had defined myth according to its essential characteristics and not its superficial ones, this confusion would not exist.

Q7: Regarding Craig’s 10th literary element, Craig concludes that content of Genesis 1–11 contains a sufficient number of logical contradiction and incoherencies and, therefore, it must be classified as mytho-history. Do you think this claim properly reflects the Hebrew worldview?

As I mentioned above, what distinguishes the Biblical world-view from the mythic one is absolutely critical. What we might see as inconsistencies or incoherencies are not the issue.What is at issue is the fact that myths see the gods as part of the cosmos, while the Bible insists (just as much in Gen 1-11 as elsewhere) that God is not part of the cosmos. Myths insist that the divine is to be known in the great recurrences of nature; the Bible insists that since God is not part of the psycho-socio-physical cosmos; you cannot finally know him through the great recurrences. But above all, we can know God through the many non-repeatable interactions with unique non-repeatable human persons in unique times and spaces. Every bit as much as this characterizes Genesis 12 onward, it characterizes Genesis 1-11. What is going on with 7 24-hour days, and with certain identifiable rivers? These are literary devices used to show that the origins of this cosmos are not part of the constantly recurring, invisible never-never land of primordial (non-historic!) reality, but part of this world—our world—of time and space.

By adopting the term “mytho-history” Craig has “given away the store.”

Q8: Craig uses the term etiology to describe the character of mytho-history. He writes:

“Genesis 1–11 shares with myths in general and the ANE myths in particular the grand etiological themes of the origins of the world, of mankind, of certain natural phenomena, of cultural practices, and of the prevailing cult. Of these, Samuel Noah Kramer has observed that “the most significant myths of a given culture are usually the cosmogonic, or creation myths *87).”

How do you understand etiology and what part does it play in your own understanding of Genesis 1–11?

“Etiology” is another word like “myth.” It is very serviceable; in that you can use it to say whatever you like. It means to use one term to explain something else. For example, why do we call these people of the Ancient Near East “Israel”? Well—oh yes, because they once had an ancestor named Israel. Or did they? “Of course not,” says the mythicist, “the name Israel is just really an etiological explanation.”

What is at stake, then in all of this is the historic reliability of the Biblical text. I said above Craig has “given away the store.” Let me expand on that a bit. Evangelicals have long agreed that Biblical theological claims have validity because they are based on historical experience. The ultimate example of this argument is the resurrection. Those who have faith in Christ, we believe, will in some future time rise from the dead. Why do we believe such a startling claim about the future? Because Jesus, our savior, rose from the dead in the past. But that argument is not a “sport”—a “one-off” claim of the New Testament—the argument goes all the way back to Abraham. But does the ground for our belief go beyond Abraham? Yes. Everywhere else in the Bible we know that real historical experience yields valid theology. Is Genesis 1-11 any different? Are these chapters merely giving us theology dressed up in history-like language? Or are these chapters doing the same thing as the rest of the Bible, that is, deriving theological truth from what God did and said in real time and real space? Craig says no and yes. No, because some parts that story are too fantastical and must be myth. Yes, not because of the revelatory principle at stake, but only because Paul forces Craig to accept Adam as historical.

Now let me say, it is not easy to determine how God did what he did, or when he did it. We have got to be careful, precisely because of the kind of language used, not to absolutize our conclusions, as too many of us have done. But, Genesis 1-11 is not a vast fictional tale created to explain certain theological values. By taking such a view of Genesis 1-11, Craig is encouraging those who say that the rest of the Bible is similarly etiological.

Q9: In your book, The Bible among the Myths, you consider the following questions, “This issue of differences and similarities will provide the focal point around which this book will revolve. Is the religion of the Old Testament essentially similar to, or essentially different from, the religions of its neighbors? That discussion will be further focused in two areas: myth and history. Is the Old Testament more like the myths found in its neighboring cultures, or it is something else? (14)” In light of your own research, how persuasive is Crag’s argument that Genesis 1–11 is mytho-history?

What I say in my book is this: “Whatever the Bible is, it is not myth. It may be the rankest fiction, but it is not myth.” Myth is religious literature derived by assuming that the invisible (the real) world is just like the visible one. Thus there must be many gods; these gods are personified psycho-socio-physical forces, with human-like characteristics—better than us and at the same time worse than us. Matter is the basis of existence. Chaos is always threatening and must be defeated. There is no progress, only change; time is cyclical, going nowhere. Existence has no purpose. Sexuality is the key to identity; it is the life force to be manipulated in any way possible; the gods function sexually and are continually bringing the cosmos into existence through sexual means. Because the realms of deity, nature, and humanity are all-interpenetrating, the means of gaining power (which is the summum bonum) is through sympathetic magic. Individuals are of no significance; the significance of an item is in its conformity to the norm. l could go on at some length. But the point is: the Bible, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 21, consistently and continually denies every one of these, and more that could be listed.

Whatever the Bible is, even if its theology is dead wrong, it must not be included in the classification “myth.”

Q10: One thing that troubles me about Craig’s book is that it divorces the average reader (and even the Christians from the past two millennia) from properly knowing the meaning of the text. It seems like Craig’s argument is that without scholars who are experts in Ancient Near East culture, Higher Criticism, and mytho-history, the average Christian has no authoritative way to access the true meaning of the text. Is this a fair concern?

Your concern is entirely fair. The suggestion that only PhD’s in ancient Near Eastern studies can really understand the Bible, when for 2,000 years it has led people to a fruitful knowledge of God is ludicrous. Has it often been misread? Of course! Does a knowledge of the historical setting and the literary structure of a passage add immeasurably to the richness of what is said? Certainly! But is the Bible really saying something quite different from what it appears to be saying? Is the true meaning something that only this first generations of readers could grasp? Never.

Q11: One final question Dr. Oswalt. Why should our pastors, educators, and everyday Christians pay attention to this discussion about Genesis 1–11?

Here is my bottom line on Genesis 1-11. The theologies of Creation and the Human Condition that emerge from these chapters are derived from actual happenings in time and space. At the same time, the purpose of the chapters is not so much to tell us how God did these things but to tell us the purpose for why he did them. That means two things: 1) Because of the vast time span being covered and the figurative language being used, any attempt to reconstruct what God did, and when, and how, will fail; 2) This indeterminacy must not lead us to say that the content is mythical or that it does not matter if what is said, when properly understood, conforms to the facts of divine and human behavior. It does matter, if I may say it, it matters to all eternity.

Thank you Dr. Oswalt for taking the time to weigh in on the topic of Craig’s mytho-history.

I would encourage everyone interested in this topic to pick up Dr. Oswalt’s book, The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?