"To be or not to be, that is the question" - Shakespeare
I am reading a new book called "four Views on the Historical Adam." What is striking to me is how well defined and nuanced is each of the four contributors in their respective viewpoints. One would think with four views that a reader of the book would identify with at least one of their viewpoints. Ironically, I am not sure any of these viewpoints corresponds to my own understanding on this topic? They are all coversant on Genesis and science whereas my focus has been on Genesis in dealing with its overall message and issues. Three of the four take a historical Adam view whereas one does not.
One wonders if a historical Adam is really necessary in some of these views altogether? Denis Lamoureux takes the no historical Adam approach looking at Genesis through its own faulty pre-scientific worldview and then comparing that to a modern scientific evolutionary approach. Although most Evangelicals would struggle more with Lamoureux's approach, I suspect there is a growing consensus in the western church on whether Adam really existed at all when listening to the newest claims of modern science.
John Walton is an Old Testament Scholar who has written much on Genesis and takes what he calls an "Archetypal" view of the Creation story. Adam and Eve are types and representatives. I remember one type that Peter Enns made in his book is Adam a type of Israel. Enns does not believe in a historical Adam at all whereas Walton does. It's interesting to note that the early church fathers saw Adam as a type of Christ and Christ is the first true human to follow God. I am probably closest to Walton's view and like him, see the underlying Genesis issue not one of biology but one of idolatry. Overall, I think we need an ancient-future approach to biblical studies whereas Walton seems to put all of his eggs in a modern scientific study of the Scriptures.
C. John Collins takes an old earth creation approach as well as Adam and Eve are real persons who fell into sin. Collins seems to be between a rock and a hard place since he takes the evidence for an old earth but not adopting evolution as the model of how it happened. Collins believes that taking an evolutionary approach will especially untie the knot between an actual first sin by the first couple. I simply don't think this is the case at all when people are trying to connect their arguments so closely to science, logic, and deductive reasoning. The early church fathers were much more at ease holding both literal and figurative, historical and symbolic (types) together.
Lastly, William Barrick takes a historical Adam young earth viewpoint. He attempts to posit his view as both a right literal reading of the Bible as well as representative of a "traditional" viewpoint of the church. It seems like Barrick's "traditional" view is not really that old since it really comes to the forefront only in the last century! The problem I have with both Lamoureux and Barrick is how their own kind of science is read into the Genesis story (whether that be a faulty pre-scientific one or a modern young earth view that hardly any reputable scientists accept today).
I find it interesting that two hotbeds of controversy today among Evangelicals is the newest five views of Innerancy (Peter Enns view to me would be a denial of inerrancy rather than some form of it) and the four views of Adam book. If Christians are ever going to start getting past some of the impasse of interpretive pluralism, then one way forward to at least attempt as greater consensus from my perspective would be to do as Jesus said, "bring both treasure old and new" in relation to ancient interpreters of the Christian faith and modern approaches which are legion. If ancient and future can come together, maybe more Christians can learn to appreciate more their rich ancient tradition as well as keeping their other foot in the modern world in which they live in.
