Abstract
Perhaps William Lang Craig is so well known that his substantial list of publications need not be mentioned here. One of his most popular books, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008), has gone through three editions and focuses on defending the core tenets of the Christian faith. In his introduction to Reasonable Faith, Craig’s primary concern is answering the question, “What rational warrant can be given for the Christian faith?” This question also appears to have been in Craig’s mind as he crafted the content of In Quest of the Historical Adam into its four respective parts.
For Craig, the orthodox Christian has at least four options for dealing with the historical Adam (p. 9), and he briefly deals with each of these options in his introduction (part one). These options are split evenly into two broader categories: views that see the biblical teachings about reality as compatible with modern scientific evidence and those that do not (i.e., revisionists). The two options that affirm an incompatibility between science and biblical teachings represent what Craig calls the “worst-case scenarios” (p. 12). Craig argues that a Church that adopts either of these two views would still be orthodox but would be required to “overhaul” the doctrines of “inspiration and the incarnation” (p. 10). While not making this connection explicitly, Craig implies that these options are too similar to concordism at its worst.
Alternatively, Craig seeks to employ a proper form of concordism, defined as an “attempt to integrate the independently discovered findings of contemporary science and biblical theology into a synoptic worldview” (p. 16). Because Craig finds the scientific claims of “young earth creationism” to be “wildly implausible” (p. 13), he spends the rest of his introduction laying the foundation for an alternative understanding of Genesis 1–11. This option affirms two main ideas: (1) modern scientific evidence for human origins is accurate and (2) therefore, Genesis 1–11 ought not to be taken literally.
The rest of the book provides a rational warrant for how the Christian faith can thrive and interact with these two premises. Scholars who affirm that Genesis 1–11 ought not be taken literally will find the content of part two (chapters 2–7) relatively familiar. After surveying the work of various studies on ancient myths, Craig identifies 10 characteristics, or “family resemblances,” of myths (pp. 43–46). Each characteristic is given a general survey throughout Chapters 3 and 4, but “etiology” and “fantastic and inconsistent elements” are given much more space than the others: 36 and 31 pages, respectively. Then, in chapter 5, Craig highlights how the mythical elements of Genesis 1–11 are combined with historical elements, leading him to label this section of Genesis as mytho-historical in alignment with the work of Gordon Wenham. According to Craig, these narratives can still communicate truth even if they are not to be taken literally. Near the end of chapter 6, he lists ten fundamental truths of Genesis 1–11.
These truths are essential to Craig’s engagement with the references to Adam in the New Testament (chapter 7). Not until this chapter does Craig definitely argue for a historical Adam, one based on Paul’s assertion that Adam’s sin had “real-world causal effects” (p. 241). This chapter reads as if Craig would have found the stories of Adam to be ahistorical—or something similar—if not for the various assertoric references to these stories in Paul’s writings (see pp. 223–241). While this approach helps to establish a rational warrant for why the Christian faith must affirm Adam’s historicity, it excludes an engagement with various Old Testament passages that support this view as well (e.g., Gen 5:1–4; 1 Chr 1:1; Ps 82:7). Where Craig does engage with some of these passages, it is only to highlight ways in which they are nonliteral attempts at history. Within part two, Craig minimally engages with scholars who use these passages as arguments for Adam’s historicity (i.e., Seth Postell, Norman L. Geisler, etc.).
Part three (chapters 8–12) focuses on locating the historical Adam within modern scientific research. Craig lays out some basic terminology for dealing with the evidence (chapter 8), then surveys the fields of paleoneurology (chapter 9), archeology related to human behavior (chapter 10), and archeology related to symbolic thinking (chapter 11). He then finally locates the historical Adam as a member of the Homo heidelbergensis that existed roughly 750,000 years ago (chapter 12). Part four (chapter 13) provides a short conclusion with some implications related to Craig’s findings.
Reading part three as a nonscientist leaves one with the impression that Craig has done an excellent job fixing Adam in the correct historical era, given an evolutionary framework. Once again, this argument gives the reader a rational warrant for believing in a historical Adam if evolution is true. Still, this section of the book left me wanting more, especially given Craig’s various statements elsewhere suggesting that young earth creationists “are living in a different universe than the rest of us” (p. 131). Craig argues that the views of young earth creationists are “widely despised” but that these views should still be “taken seriously” (p. 13). However much Craig does this in the book’s first two sections, any serious engagement with young earth creationists’ theories ends there. The book’s second half reads like an apologetic for the evolutionary creation model without considering any dissenting views. For example, the field of statistical baraminology developed by Frank Lewis Marsh and adopted by certain young earth creationists (such as Todd Charles Wood and Joseph W. Francis) is not even considered as an alternative to the evolutionary model. While I would not expect Craig to be aware of every scientific theory proposed for dealing with the relationships between the various hominin fossils, I expected a more balanced approach entering the book’s second half. Overall, this book will function well as a companion volume for a course on the Historical Adam, but I would supplement Craig’s work with something slightly more balanced.