I was recently sent a pile of books to review for the 2022 Christianity Today book awards, including William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam. I’ve seen the controversy bubbling up around Craig’s book in recent days, especially in relation to his category of “mytho-history” and what it means for our interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis.
As someone who teaches texts at university for a living and have done a lot of thinking about literary genre, this is a debate I feel passionately about. So I have decided to publish some thoughts here about Craig’s book. The short version is this: “Myth” in the context of textual analysis does not mean “false”; broadly speaking it means “meaning-giving”, “archetypal” or “paradigm-setting”. See Mary Midgley’s The Myths we Live By. Also, thinking carefully about genre is not being unfaithful. Thinking carefully about genre is respecting the text.
One of the greatest compliments I can give this book is to say that it is surprising. In the opening pages Craig quotes Richard Averbeck’s caution that “No matter what you say (or write) about the early chapters of Genesis, you are in a lot of trouble with a lot of people”, and when I began reading In Quest of the Historical Adam I fully expected to be one of those people. How wrong I was.
What is so impressive about the route Craig navigates through this theological and cultural minefield – and it is also one of the defining characteristics of all his writing – is that it is so very measured and reasonable. The first part of the book surveys recent scholarship on the genre of ancient myth, asking whether the opening chapters of Genesis are intended to be read literalistically. The nuance and scholarship Craig brings to these chapters is impressive, drawing on the best of both Christian and non-Christian thought. While never letting go of a firm commitment to the truth of the Scriptures he brings to bear on his subject an impressive range of evidence, concluding that Genesis 1-3 are “mytho-history” and that the biblical genealogies mandate a historical Adam. The discussion of myth is worth the price of the book alone.
The focus then turns to archaeology and paleoneurology as Craig brings recent scientific research into conversation with the biblical text. For what it’s worth, he concludes that Adam and Eve were likely Homo heidelbergensis, but in this reader’s eyes at least the great value of the book is less in its conclusion than its method. First, it works hard to take multiple disciplines seriously, giving weight both to the study of early myths and the study of early human remains. Perhaps there are moments when Craig stumbles – I am no palaeontologist and cannot judge – but what shines forth from this book is the determination to break out of disciplinary siloes and break away from the culture of fragmentation that blight modern scholarship both within and outside the church. For this, Craig is to be commended. Secondly, he is a patient and generous listener, letting each position have its say, in its own words, before drawing his own nuanced conclusions.
Don’t come to this book expecting a quick answer to the question of the historical Adam, or a cheat sheet of arguments to defend your view. Craig is not in the business of giving his reader a fish; he wants to help her learn how to fish for herself. This is not a short book, but its careful and even-handed approach would be compromised in a slimmer volume. Readers willing to persevere through its 380 pages will not be disappointed.
