The Genealogical Adam and Eve
Page 14
Our ancestors interbred pervasively in the past and were not in long-term isolated populations. Almost everywhere we look, we find evidence of interbreeding.19 We are tightly connected into the same family.20
Only Homo sapiens continued past about forty thousand years ago. There were different types of humans in the past, such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus.21 None of these varieties of humans, however, survived till today.
Most of the differences linked to genetics are skin deep, affecting things like skin color and hair color. In contrast, most of the differences we see in intelligence, for example, are determined by environment, culture, choices, and upbringing.
Humans across the globe, from all “races,” have the same innate intellectual potential. Children from every geographical and ethnic category, if given every advantage in their upbringing, can learn mathematics, music, art, writing, physics, and any human language to which they are exposed. The capacity for all these things exists in remote and isolated hunter-gatherers too; in fact, we all were hunter-gatherers not long ago.
The gap in abilities between humans and animals is very wide. Apes cannot learn complex language, nor can they enter civilization. The most complex sentence signed by Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee raised among humans, was sixteen words: “Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.” His signs lack the grammatical structure of human speech.22 He was not able to build compound nouns like bath-room or shoe-box.23 A human toddler is far more linguistically astute.
The differences between different humans can be important, but we all remain members of a single biological type. The gap between humans and other animals just accentuates this fact. I like how the evolutionary biologist Ajit Varki puts it: “Humans are . . . unusual in our [cognitive] abilities and these abilities were already present 70,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa. That means that all the mental abilities to do calculus, astrophysics, symphonic music, and philosophy, and theology, and Veritas Forums was already there.”24 It is true we are also continuous with other creatures. Animals are more like us than we often appreciate.25 At the same time, humans are very unusual. The gap between us and other animals is clear, which makes it easy to determine who is and is not human in the present day.
It is significant that scientists were open to polygenesis for so long, but evidence led us to reject it. Evidence overturned polygenesis. Monophylogeny affirms that we are all, from a scientific point of view, equally and entirely human. For this reason, it might better safeguard against racism than monogenesis.
THE HISTORICAL AND LITERAL MEANINGS
The historical meanings of these key terms are important to make sense of both science and theology. Polygenesis was rejected in both theology and science, but for different reasons. Scientists rejected polygenesis as the evidence for monophylogeny became clear. Theologians, however, rejected polygenesis because it denied universal descent from Adam and Eve, which was argued to be essential to the doctrine of original sin. This history explains several puzzles. This explains why, for example, some paradoxically claim that the doctrine of original sin is a hedge against racism. It explains also why scientists reject polygenesis, even though we continue to teach we arise from a large population of ancestors, not a single couple.
Confusing the historical and literal definition of polygenesis leads to unfortunate statements by many people, including advocates of evolutionary science. For example, Denis Lamoureux confesses,
I accept polygenism (Greek polus means ‘many’; genesis, ‘origin’). Humans descended from a small population of pre-human creatures, and not from just one person. The variability in our genes rules out monogenism (monos, ‘single’) and indicates that this group was about 10,000 individuals.26
This quotation misrepresents both the theological definition of monogenesis and the findings of modern evolutionary science. Lamoureux reduces polygenesis and monogenesis to their literal meaning, stripped of historical context in both science and theology. Along with evolutionary science, this reduction becomes a central and required plank in his argument against the doctrine of original sin. The literal meanings obfuscate the historical meanings. Lamoureux’s literalist reduction misrepresents science, which rejects polygenesis, and it mispresents historical theology, which does not deny people outside the Garden.
When the historical and literal meanings of polygenesis are confused, confusion propagates about the status of monophylogeny in science and theology. Racist views of origins tell a common story in the present, polyphylogeny, even though they are wildly varied in the distant past. They all identify biologically distinct types of humans that persist to the current day, and then assign different rights, roles, and dignity to these different types. There was racism among the creationists and the evolutionists, among the theologians and the scientists. Both anti-evolutionists and evolutionists collaborated together toward racists ends. It is not some debatable detail about our distant past that accidentally or subconsciously pushes us down a slippery slope to racism. The common story of polyphylogeny in the present, however, is both false and often used to justify racism. Rather than finding new ways to affirm polygenesis, it seems wisest to emphasize that both science and theology definitively rejected polygenesis, even if they did so for different reasons.
We inherit a legacy of racism in origins. There are other words that must be handled with care or avoided altogether. In addition to polygenesis, pre-Adamites, non-Adamites, and Adamites are tightly associated with racist versions of polygenesis. The Church rightly rejects the racism that is often associated with these terms. For this reason, these terms create immense confusion and inhibit real dialogue, especially because the genealogical hypothesis affirms the unity of mankind by descent from Adam and Eve. Throughout this book, I use the phrase “people outside the Garden” and emphasize that they are a long-extinct category of people, who are no longer with us. This is also why I oppose rehabilitating “polygenesis” as a literal term, and why I reject “Pre-Adamism,” even as I suggest there were people on earth before Adam and Eve. Scientists reject polygenesis as it is currently defined. Recovering polygenesis would require redefining it in science and theology, moving to the literal meanings, ignoring the historical definitions. Redefining these terms would create an immense amount of confusion, and I oppose such a revision. Words come with an inheritance of meaning. In this case, better thought arises as we shed the old terms adopting neutral replacements instead, such as “people outside the Garden.”
RECKONING WITH OUR HISTORY
This history is a powerful lens through which to understand the relevant theology and science, but this history is also messy. It is complex and potent. It needs to be reckoned with care, courage, and understanding. If racism is sin, it seems that every camp has a history of sin with which to reckon. Introspection into our own sins might bring greater clarity than polemics against our neighbor. What lessons might we draw?
Every camp in the origins debate includes both villains and heroes. Both biblical literalists and evolutionary scientists are implicated and vindicated, depending on how one wants to tell the story. Anti-evolutionists often blame Darwin for the racism of polygenesis, even though he argued against it. Anti-evolutionists often tie polygenesis to evolutionary science, even though it arose in theology first. Secularists often blame Christians for sustaining segregationist theology, in the name of defending biblical literalism. It is common to confront opponents with their history of racism, rather than reckon with our own history. The reality, however, is that all camps included villains that justified racism with either evolution, Scripture, or a combination of the two. All camps include heroes that fought for universal human dignity, worth, and freedom. All camps have a villainous past to reckon, and a heroic legacy to celebrate. Introspection will bring greater clarity than polemics (Mt 7:3-5). We need courageous leaders who will reckon with the racist history of their own camps first.
There are deeper lessons in this history. R
acists seek to justify themselves by twisting anything and everything to this end. This includes stories of Cain’s mark,27 the different sons of Noah,28 evolutionary science,29 Paul’s declaration of the gospel in Acts 17:26,30 and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.31 It is an absurd response to this history to implicate these things themselves. Almost anything can be used to justify racism. Avoiding what “could” be turned to racism is not a coherent guide. Such a caution applies against everything. It is worth noting that even polygenesis is not necessarily racist, because the scientific theory itself does not imply a value judgment about rights, roles, and dignity. Differences of any kind can be used as justification for racism. By keying into differences, no matter how subtle or irrelevant, the racist impulse will twist almost anything toward racism.
In contrast with polygenesis, flowing from the theological tradition of monogenesis, the genealogical Adam and Eve affirms that all humankind is united by genealogical descent from Adam and Eve. La Peyrère was inspired to propose polygenesis when he visited Greenland, presuming the people there could not possibly have descended from Adam and Eve. We know now that he was wrong. Had he known he was wrong, polygenesis might never have been proposed in the first place. Against La Peyrère’s intuitions, if Adam and Eve existed, we are all connected to them by genealogical descent.
Objections to polygenesis, therefore, do not apply to the proposal I am making here.32 The genealogical hypothesis is distinct, and aligned with a theology of monogenesis (fig. 10.3). In fact, it rearticulates the very doctrine of monogenesis that stood against polygenesis for centuries, this time also affirming monophylogeny: all humans are the same biological type. Rejecting the claims of both racist theology and racist science, we affirm that everyone “to the end of the earth” is equally human, with the same worth and dignity.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
HUMANS OF THE TEXT
WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY. Adam and Eve could have lived as recently as six thousand years ago, and they might still be ancestors of everyone across the globe by AD 1. Depending on how we define human, they might be the first on the globe, and all humans might be their genealogical descendants. They would also be genetic ghosts, who leave us no identifiable DNA. They could even have been created by a direct act of God. The genetic evidence does not tell us one way or another if they were real or not. The only way science presses on our understanding of Adam and Eve is by suggesting that there were people outside the Garden.
Depending on how we define human, all of us might arise by monogenesis from Adam and Eve. They could be our progenitors. The definition in science is unsettled and imprecise, and theologians have autonomy to define human as they please. By some definitions, the human in theology arises by monogenesis from Adam. If Adam and Eve were real, we are all unified by our descent from them.
I want to open the field of inquiry even wider. I want to create as much space for theology as possible. I will do this by taking a cue from Scripture. Genesis seems to allow for those “outside the Garden,” but Paul seems to see Adam as a universal ancestor. There is debate about these points, and they seem contradictory. This tension, however, finds resolution if Adam and Eve are initially in a larger population and then become universal genealogical ancestors.
With this in mind, I will improve on Kemp’s multivalent definition of human, by making a textual distinction. Recall, he used three definitions of human in parallel with one another: biological, philosophical, and theological. In the present day, these three definitions are coextensive, each referring to exactly the same group of people. In the distant past, however, the divergence between these definitions creates new classes. For example, confined to the distant past, there are people who are biological humans that are not theological humans. This is all consistent with the doctrine of monogenesis. All humans arise by genealogical descent from a single first couple whose offspring interbreeds with others. There may be a better way to make these distinctions, which creates more flexibility for theologians. Kemp, for example, embeds in his definition the claims that the people outside the Garden do not have an eternal destiny. This might be true, or not. A better approach would make this distinction with less embedded claims.
I invoke three definitions for human, to be held in tension with one another:
■ Biological humans are defined taxonomically, from a biological and scientific point of view. From at least AD 1 onward, they are coextensive with textual humans.
■ Textual humans are the group of people to whom Scripture refers. I argue that this group is defined by Scripture to be Adam, Eve, and their genealogical descendants, including everyone alive across the globe by, at latest, AD 1. They are a chronological subset of biological humans, meaning that some biological humans in the past are not textual humans, but all textual humans are biological humans.
■ The people outside the Garden1 are the biological humans in the past who are not textual humans. This group of people are our ancestors but are no longer found among us. The people outside the Garden are not textual humans because historical theology and Scripture itself has been largely silent about them.
In the present day, textual and biological humans are coextensive; both expressions refer to the same group of people. By definition, therefore, this distinction affirms the doctrine of monogenesis and rejects polygenesis. In the distant past, however, textual humans are only a subset of biological humans. Textual humans arose by genealogical descent from a single couple, Adam and Eve. Are the people outside the Garden human too? It depends on which of these definitions we use. There are biological humans outside the Garden. There are not, however, humans of the text outside Adam and Eve’s lineage.
The distinction I am making is silent about any structural differences between Adam and Eve’s lineage and others. Instead, this is a relational distinction concerning who is and is not among the people referred to by Scripture. Textual humans are defined, thusly, by their relationship to Scripture. This distinction need not correspond to a theological distinction, though it might. It need not correspond to a distinction in God’s relationship to these people (Scripture is not God), though it could. In this way, the textual definition of human is theologically open-ended, neutral in most ways. As a special case, we can fill in theological details from Kemp’s specific model. Textual humans, for Kemp, are coextensive with those with the image of God, original sin, and an eternal destiny. Andrew Loke and Gregg Davidson are accommodated if we fill in these details in different ways.2 This textual definition also accommodates theological models that do not otherwise make use of genealogical descent; John Walton, for example, can fill his theological details essentially unchanged, with the image of God outside the Garden, but also affirm monogenesis with the textual definition of human.3 The distinction between textual and biological humans does not privilege one theological model over another, but opens up a broader range of views, all of which would affirm monogenesis.
In this chapter, I make a case for this textual definition of human. This definition will not concord with biological definitions. I will, instead, focus on defining to whom it is that Scripture refers, without considering the findings of science. Knowing to whom Scripture refers, in turn, defines the extent of this relational definition of human, the humans of the text. The hermeneutic approach I will use is consistent with the Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics and the Lausanne Covenant. My central thesis is that the periscope of Scripture concerns
A. the lineage of Adam and Eve, with mystery outside the Garden, but
B. this lineage becomes all of humankind to the “ends of the earth.”
With others in the peripheral vision, the text defines humans as Adam, Eve, and their descendants, binding itself to their story.
1. The use of adam in Hebrew, along with Adam and anthrōpos in Greek, hints that Adam and Eve become the ancestors of all humankind by, at latest, the time Paul writes Romans (A, B).
2. The description of the geographic extent of Adam and Ev
e’s lineage changes throughout Scripture. The phrase “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) suggests Adam and Eve have become ancestors of all humankind by, at latest, the ascension of Jesus, while allowing for people outside the Garden in the past (A, B).
3. Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of creation, and the details of these accounts hint, or even teach, that there are people outside the Garden (A). Some readings suggest that they are also in the image of God.
4. Hints in Genesis 4 about Cain suggest there were people outside the Garden who did not descend from Adam and Eve (A). These people also seem to have a sense of right and wrong.
5. The mystery of Nephilim in Genesis 6 suggests there were people outside the Garden who did not descend from Adam and Eve (A).
6. There are several textual objections to people outside the Garden, but none of these objections are definitive (A).
7. The authors may have intended Genesis 1–11 to universalize the narrative of Scripture. Even with people outside the Garden, the narrative is still universalized in several ways (A, B).
Several lines of reasoning bring us to the same conclusion. The periscope of Scripture is concerned with and bound to Adam, Eve, and their descendants. They, now by definition, are the humans of the text, whether or not the people outside the Garden are in the image of God. In the distant past, other people mysteriously appear in the peripheral vision of this periscope, but Adam and Eve’s lineage is not found across the earth. Eventually, however, Adam and Eve’s lineage becomes all of us to the “ends of the earth.”