William Lane Craig…and Homo heidelbergensis Adam? (Part 4: The Thrilling Conclusion to my Book Analysis of “In Quest for the Historical Adam”)

We now come to Part 4 of my book analysis series on William Lane Craig’s book, In Quest for the Historical Adam. We will finish off 2021 by looking at the second half of Craig’s book (chapters 8-13), in which he attempts to give a scientific answer to the question of the historical Adam.

William Lane Craig’s Ultimate Conclusion
Let’s start off my analysis of these chapters by beginning with the ultimate conclusion WLC states at the end of his book. Here it is: WLC argues that the historical Adam (and Eve) lived about 750,000 years ago, and (by modern scientific categories regarding past hominid species) they would have been members of Homo heidelbergensis—a large-brained human species that was ancestral to Homo sapiens and our various sister species of the human family. Basically, that means various later hominin groups (like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo sapiens) descended from the Homo heidelbergensis group.

Now, what this means is, according to WLC, is that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other species that descended from Homo heidelbergensis Adam and Eve were, in fact humans made in God’s image, just like Homo sapiens. But, Adam and Eve’s contemporaries—the other Homo heidelbergensis hominins from which Adam and Eve emerged—were not, in fact human. They were animals, and therefore not made in God’s image. Therefore, what WLC speculates is that God took Adam and Eve from that wider population of Homo heidelbergensis hominins and did some biological and spiritual renovations on them: “biological to equip their brains with the capacity to serve as the instruments of rational thought and spiritual to furnish them with rational souls different from any sort of soul that nonhuman animals might be thought to possess. Thus, Adam and Eve were something radically new” (378).

After God did that, WLC speculates, Adam and Eve, with their growing human consciousness and linguistic capacity, “would increasingly feel themselves at a distance from their nonhuman contemporaries and, as their descendants multiplied, their tribe would be naturally inclined to increasingly self-isolate. If there were sexual encounters with nonhuman hominins, these would be cases of bestiality, contrary to God’s will for humanity, though not entirely surprising for a fallen race” (378).

So, there you have it. WLC argues that, despite the fact that Genesis 1-11 is clearly in the genre of ANE myth, it is actually mytho-history and Adam and Eve were originally animal hominids that God took from a wider population of about 5,000 Homo heidelbergensis hominids and biologically and spiritually refurbished them, thus, not really “creating” them in His image, but more like “refurbishing” them in His image. At that point, they become moral agents and eventually sin, as recorded in Genesis 3.

I’m not going to lie, although I’ll be nice. Simply put, that argument is not convincing…at all. But before I elaborate on that, let’s do a quick flyover of chapters 8-12, where WLC builds his case for the ultimate conclusion he articulates in chapter 13.

Chapters 8-12: Flyover Country
If you were interested in learning about the various hominid species that came before modern Homo sapiens, WLC provides quite a lot of information in chapters 8-12 in regard to paleontology and archaeology.

In Chapter 8, “Scientific and Philosophical Preliminaries,” WLC contemplates the philosophical question, “What does it mean to be ‘human’?” He basically concludes it includes things like abstract thinking, planning depth, behavioral, economic, technological innovativeness, and symbolic behavior. All of these things, he suggests probably originated between the Lower and Middle Paleolithic period, about 300,000 years ago.

In Chapter 9, “The Evidence of Paleontology,” WLC discusses how the study of ancient crania pushes the concept of “human” back to before Homo sapiens, thus including Neanderthals and Denisovans as members of the human family.

In Chapter 10, “The Evidence of Archaeology: Part 1,” WLC discusses archaeological findings including things like ancient tools, hunting methods, grindstones, and domestic spaces, and says that these things can go back to Homo heidelbergensis. Therefore, they too can be considered as being members of the human family.

In Chapter 11, “The Evidence of Archaeology: Part 2,” WLC discusses ancient paintings, pigment, burial sites, as well as the anatomical features for speech and language. He also suggests that because there was inbreeding between Neanderthals and Denisovans, they must have been able to communicate, and probably had the ability of speech.

With all that, in Chapter 12, “Locating the Historical Adam,” this is where WLC first suggests that Adam might have originally been a Homo heidelbergensis, “a truly cosmopolitan hominid species, which may lie at the origin of the European and African lineages that led to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens (331). It is also in this chapter where WLC discusses the work of both Dennis Venema and S. Joshua Swamidass.

To the point, WLC criticizes Venema’s work and clearly favors the work of Swamidass. At the risk of oversimplification, Venema has argued in his book Adam and the Genome (co-authored by Scott McKnight) that it is human beings simply could not have descended from a single historical couple—genetically-speaking, it is just impossible. WLC accuses Venema of “a crucial equivocation between ‘ancestors’ and ‘humans’” (348). He further criticizes Venema of being “oddly fixated on sole genetic progenitorship rather than genealogical ancestry” (355).

Enter the work of Swamidass, of which WLC clearly favors. As I covered in my two posts on Swamidass’ book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, this argument says that Genesis 2-3 isn’t about a historical couple that was the “sole genetic progenitoriship” of humanity, but rather a historical couple from whom (according to Swamidass in his book) all human beings had genealogical roots the birth of Christ. The key difference between Swamidass’ argument and WLC’s argument here is that Swamidass argues that the historical couple of Adam and Eve could have been as recent at 6,000-12,000 years ago, whereas WLC argues that the historical couple of Adam and Eve were “refurbished” hominins taken from a wider population of Homo heidelbergensis about 750,000 years ago.

Back to WLC’s Conclusion in Chapter 13
As WLC heads into wrapping up his argument for the historical Homo heidelbergensis Adam in chapter 13, he, once again, summarizes his argument up to this point: (A) Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history, and (B) The genealogies in Genesis 1-11, along with the teaching of Paul in the NT, “oblige the biblically faithful Christian to affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve” (363). I don’t want to point out that WLC said that if you don’t believe Adam and Eve were an actual historical couple then you evidently aren’t a “biblically faithful Christian,” …but I will.

WLC then goes into a brief 4-5-page discussion regarding just what “image of God” means, and he brings in the work of Richard Middleton, specifically his book, The Liberating Image, to do it. He notes that Middleton distinguishes between a substantial, a relational, and a functional interpretation of the image of God. Basically, does “image of God” mean that human beings share some sort of ontological similarity with God (substantial)? Or does it mean they have a special function, and are thus to act as God’s representatives (functional)? Or does it mean that human beings have special relationship with God other animals don’t share (relational)?

Specifically, WLC takes issue with a number of Middleton’s points. WLC thinks Middleton’s conclusion about how “image of God” designates a royal office, and that therefore human beings are to act as God’s representative, is “overdrawn.” WLC also takes issue with Middleton’s noting that in the ancient world, kings would often place their “image” in the form of monuments and statues throughout their kingdom to essentially serve as representations of them throughout their kingdoms. WLC says, “But humans are living images of God. They are not images of God in the ANE sense of a statue” (367). Finally, WLC says that Middleton “convincingly shows” that when “image of God” is used in ANE texts in regard to an idol or the pharaoh, that they are implying that the god actually embodies (or incarnates) that idol or that pharaoh. But, claims WLC, “An anti-iconic religion like Judaism would have recoiled at the idea that human beings are embodiments of God” (369).

WLC then says something I find odd. He says that Middleton admits that a functional interpretation does not preclude, and even presupposes, a substantial interpretation—in other words, in order for “image of God” to serve a functional interpretation, it pretty much assumes that there is something ontologically and substantially different about human beings. Great, but then WLC claims that Middleton’s statement there somehow “undermines Middleton’s case for a purely functional interpretation, for he recognizes that humanity’s function is rooted in ontology” (368-69). My question is simple: If Middleton admits that “image of God” assumes there is something substantially unique about human beings in order for them to serve a certain function as God’s representatives, then how can WLC claim that Middleton is arguing for a “purely functional interpretation”? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make sense to me.

In any case, WLC then argues that a substantialist interpretation of “image of God” is unavoidable. Why does he go to so much trouble to (in my opinion) play rather fast and loose (and sloppy) with Middleton’s work? My only guess is that so he can argue that a substantialist interpretation of “image of God” can be connected to…what? Cranial size, language ability, and moral sense?  And that, in turn, justifies his look at paleontology and archaeology to “find” a historical Adam and Eve.

Elaboration on My Reaction
All of this leads me to my admittedly simple reaction: HUH??? I don’t want to be too harsh because, as I’ve said before, WLC deserves applause for daring to openly and honestly talk about literary genre, the proper genre recognition of Genesis 1-11, and for daring to use that word “myth” in relation to Genesis 1-11. Given my personal experience over the past 20 years or so, that fact alone is huge! That is a big step forward in the Evangelical world, to have a popular, well-known apologist and theologian admit this.

That being said, I’m sorry, but the term “mytho-history” makes about as much sense as the Flintstones being a “modern, stone age family.” As WLC clearly shows and admits, when it comes to literary genre, Genesis 1-11 is ANE myth. But what WLC simply has not convincingly proven is that Adam and Eve were a real, historical couple. Yes, he has given a brief overview of some of the findings in paleontology and archaeology in regard to early hominid species, but make no mistake, he does not offer one bit of actual historical evidence that the Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 came from a population of Homo heidelbergensis.

Believe me, if someone was able to provide actual evidence of a historical Adam and Eve, I’d immediately applaud. But let’s get real—we have literary evidence of the genre of Genesis 1-11, but we do not have any historical evidence to suggest there was a historical Adam and Eve—we just don’t. And, quite frankly, the extent to which WLC engages in speculation regarding a “refurbished Homo heidelbergensis couple” suddenly not feeling a special kinship to their fellow Homo heidelbergensis neighbors, to the point where they are saying, “Hey Cain, hey Abel, hey Seth, don’t go have sex with that female Homo heidelbergensis hominid—that’s having sex with animals. Your mother and I did before we were refurbished, but we were animals then, but now we’re humans!” –I’m sorry, but not only is that just silly (almost as much as the YECist claim that Adam and Eve had pet dinosaurs), but it is completely needless to even speculate about. Why? Because none of that is in the actual Bible. Genesis 2-3 doesn’t say any of that.

At some point, I hope more and more people stop having this bizarre mentality that says, “I have to make Genesis 1-11 sound ‘scientific’ in order to give it credibility. I have to make a historical argument (no matter how convoluted it may be), or else the Bible isn’t true.” I’m sorry, I think Genesis 1-11 the way it is, in what it actually says, and in the genre in which God inspired it, is just fine, thank you very much.

So, like I said, I don’t want to be too harsh. A round of applause for the first half of WLC’s book—it’s a big step forward for the Evangelical world. But I was still rolling my eyes throughout the second half.