Tremper Longman Responds to Justin Taylor

on the Historicity of Adam

Todays guest post is from Tremper Longman III, who is the Robert H. Gundry
Professor of Biblial !tudies at "estmont #ollege. $r. Longman reently filmed some
ourses for Logos %obile &d, and we had a hane to hat with him about the
historiity of 'dam.
In ())*, +ustin Taylor on The Gospel #oalition mused, ,I wonder how Longman would
address the ommonsensial point made by -. T. "right,. in whih "right suggests
that Paul learly belie/ed in an historial 'dam and &/e, but /iewed it in light of the
,mythial or metaphorial dimensions to the story.. "e as0ed $r. Longman to respond
to this 1uestion. !ee Taylors original post, ,Tremper Longman on the Historiity of
'dam..
In the first place, I know that Adam is referred to in important places such asRomans
5:12 , but the first thing I think we need to realize is that Genesis 1and 2 are not
interested in telling us how God created creation It!s rather telling us that he did it, as
well as a lot about who he is and our relationship with him I!m not sa"ing it!s not
historical#it is I consider this theological histor" $ut the difference between Genesis
1%11 and Genesis 12ff is that the histor" as it!s recounted in Genesis 1%11 isn!t
intended to be read strictl" literall" and precisel" &e see that b" all the use of
figurati'e language, the lack of se(uence)concord between creation accounts, and the
interaction with ancient *ear +astern te,ts#not that the"!re borrowing it, but the" are
interacting with it and actuall" polemicizing against it
If that!s the case, then it!s oka" to look to science in order to see what the"!re sa"ing
about it I!m not sa"ing that we ha'e to accept science, that science is alwa"s right, that
it sta"s static, or an"thing like that $ut it seems to me that there is a good case,
especiall" based on the genetic e'idence, that God used e'olution -o I find m"self
affirming an e'olutionar" creationist perspecti'e
.his raises a (uestion about the historical Adam In m" con'ersations with biologists#
and I!m talking about /hristian biologists, such as 0ennis 1enema, 2rancis /ollins, and
3eff -chloss at &estmont#and in m" reading, the e'idence suggests that e'olution
doesn!t work b" starting with a single pair, but instead goes back to an original
4breeding population5 of between 5,666 and 16,666 people .hat raises a (uestion
about possible conflict between science and the $ible And don!t get me wrong#if the
$ible sa"s one thing and science sa"s another, I!m going with the $ible7 $ut on the
other hand, I think that we should first ask, 4Are we understanding the $ible correctl" b"
insisting on this85 It!s often pointed out that this is the fundamental error that happened
in the time of Galileo -ometimes science can refine our understanding of the biblical
te,t
.o me, it!s a (uestion of whether I turn to m" /hristian biologist friends and sa",
49ou!re in error because "ou!re teaching this,5 or if I, as a biblical scholar, let them, as
biblical scholars, ha'e the latitude of teaching it $ut it does raise the (uestion of how
we!re to understand Adam and +'e
.here are basicall" four positions on this .he first one is 9oung +arth /reationism:
Adam and +'e were the first pair And then there!s the :ld +arth /reationist point of
'iew as well: Adam and +'e were the first pair, but the" were created a number of
"ears earlier -omebod" like .om &right argues, based mainl" on ;aul!s use
of Romans 5:12ff , that ;aul regarded Adam and +'e as a historical couple *ow
&right!s 'iew, as I understand it from con'ersations with him, is that he!s not adopting
a similar position to the first two I <ust described, but rather that Adam and +'e are kind
of a representati'e couple within that breeding population .he"!re not alone And
actuall", that helps e,plain certain features of Genesis 1%11, like who /ain married,
who /ain was afraid of, and those kind of things -o that!s his 'iew: the" were an
actual representati'e couple, like the (ueen and the king :r we could concei'e of
them as the priest and the priestess, since Genesis 1 and 2 also talk about the cosmos
using a kind of temple language
And that might be the right solution $ut I would also allow for the possibilit" that Adam
and +'e are representati/e of that original couple &hat I would insist on#remember, I
think this is histor", in the sense of talking about things that actuall" happened#I would
insist that at some point in the e'olutionar" process, we!re now talking about a time
when human beings ha'e become conscious and capable of moral choices &e would
describe them as innocent until the" sinned And I would also insist, because I think
this is in keeping with the genre of Genesis =, that there was a historical fall I think
those are important teachings of Genesis 1%=
*ow in terms of Romans 5:12 and following, I do think that it is possible#and I would
suggest likel"#that as .om admitted in his (uote, there are figurati'e elements, and
that ;aul would ha'e recognized the figurati'e elements in the depiction of Adam I
would also point to another prominent *ew .estament scholar, 3ames 0unn, who sa"s
that it!s patronizing to think that ;aul had to think that Adam and +'e were an historical
couple .here are other first centur" e,amples of this, using characters in a kind of
archet"pal wa"
>" good friend 3ohn &alton will sa" this about Adam, that Adam was an archet"pal
figure And his ne,t statement is that archet"pes can be historical, like >elchizedek in
the book of ?ebrews I agree that Adam is an archet"pal figure, but m" ne,t statement
is that Adam doesn!t ha/e to be historical I!m not insisting that Adam!s not historical,
I!m <ust sa"ing that if it turns out that he!s not, then it!s not going to undermine the truth
of Genesis or Romans 5:12 and following
@ @ @
$islaimer2 Logos Bible !oftware pro/ides resoures for e/eryone who studies the
Bible. Guest posts reflet the /iews of their authors. 3ou an read more about
our publishing philosophy.
http://academic.logos.com/2014/03/25/tremper-longman-responds-to-justin-taylor-on-
the-historicity-of-adam/?fbactionids!102005""#2"44#"41$fbactiontypes!og.li%es