In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration

by William Lane Craig

Was Adam a real historical person? And if so, who was he and when did he live?   William Lane Craig sets out to answer these questions through a biblical and scientific investigation. He begins with an inquiry into the genre of Genesis 1–11, determining that it can most plausibly be classified as mytho-history—a narrative with both literary and historical value. He then moves into the New Testament, where he examines references to Adam in the words of Jesus and the writings of Paul, ultimately concluding that the entire Bible considers Adam the historical progenitor of the human race—a position that must therefore be accepted as a premise for Christians who take seriously the inspired truth of Scripture.  Working from that foundation of biblical truth, Craig embarks upon an interdisciplinary survey of scientific evidence to determine where Adam could be most plausibly located in the evolutionary history of humankind, ultimately determining that Adam lived between 750,000 and 1,000,000 years ago as a member of the archaic human species  Homo heidelbergensis . He concludes by reflecting theologically on his findings and asking what all this might mean for us as human beings created in the image of God, literally descended from a common ancestor—albeit one who lived in the remote past.

Genres: Theology, Science, Christian, History, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction

439 pages, Hardcover

Published September 28, 2021

About the author

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.

At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Reviews

[Josh Olds · Rating 2 out of 5]

In Quest of the Historical Adam is the result of over half a decade of work by theologian and philosopher William Lane Craig to explore the question of human origins and reconcile Scripture with modern science. This is a unique project for Craig, known primarily for his Christian apologetic works and defense of the historicity of the Resurrection. Craig is also a fairly conservative evangelical, meaning that his conclusion that Genesis 1-11 is not literal history but evolution is stands at odds with many in his theological tradition. Further, Craig is a theologian (D.Theol. University of Munich) and philosopher (Ph.D. University of Birmingham), not an expert in Ancient Near Eastern Literature or evolutionary biology and anthropology, so his perspective is not necessarily as an expert in the field but as one well equipped to research these fields and write about them through the lens of his areas of expertise.

Craig’s writing is both exhaustive and exhausting. It would be correct to say that I learned a lot reading this book, but I’m also not sure how much of its content was directly necessary for the quest to discover a historical Adam. Craig shares every scrap of information he comes across, speaking about it with the assumption that you know as much about it already as he does, and only occasionally tying it back into the book’s central theme. In short, In Quest of the Historical Adam is full of information and analysis, but lacks a cohesive narrative. Craig focuses on too many individual trees in his attempt to describe the forest, never really pulling all of his information together in any compelling or satisfactory way.

An Overview of the Book

But before too much analysis, let’s have a brief overview of the book. In Quest of the Historical Adam is divided into four parts. An opening chapter lays the foundation by discussing what’s at stake in the conversation. A closing chapter reflects theologically and summarizes the conclusions Craig makes along the way. The meat of the book are the two middle sections, one which focuses on biblical data concerning the historical Adam and one which focuses on scientific data. In the former, Craig draws extensively from ANE literature to compare with Genesis 1-11 to make the case that this portion of Genesis can be interpreted as mytho-history. As such, his “biblical” argument actually spends most of its time outside of Scripture. In the latter, Craig assumes theistic evolution de facto—a mistake, I believe, given his likely audience—and tries to ascertain at what point in evolution “humanness” developed.

The thing that In Quest of the Historical Adam does the best is make it clear that one can believe that the creation narratives are literary/symbological/mythological and still be committed to a literal interpretation of Scripture. If the literary genre of a text is myth/poetry, then a literal interpretation is to see it as such. It is also clear that New Testament references to the creation narrative do not automatically indicate that narrative was historical. For example, if I reference a television show to make a theological point in a sermon, it is understood that I am using a fiction to serve as illustration. As the NT authors reference other mythical or pseudepigraphal figures, Craig is right to caution that NT citations should not be used as easy proofs of OT historicity.

Some Flaws in the Argument

Beyond this, however, Craig is less compelling. He spends a chapter defining “myth,” parsing the difference between myth, legend, and folklore, only to then say it doesn’t really matter anyway “so that it is probably impossible and unprofitable to lay down necessary and sufficient conditions for each of these narrative types.” So why then devote the majority of the chapter to it?

The end of his first chapter answering the question “Are the primaeval narrative of Genesis 1-11 myth?” ends with “The history of Genesis 1-11 is thus set in a primaeval time, a characteristic of myths, especially myths of origination.” Notice what this does. The chapter title assumes the narrative is “primaeval,” then asserts that the quality of being primaeval is a characteristic of myth. In the question, Craig has assumed his answer! It’s also a bit redundant to say that “myths of origination” are set in a “primaeval time” as primaeval literally means “of the earliest time in history” (literally primus aevum, “first age”). Craig may very well be correct that Genesis 1-11 is myth, but this particular argument is circular, hidden only through a flourish of many words.

Craig also discounts much of the historicity of Genesis 1-11 on the basis of alleged fantastical elements—from a talking snake to a worldwide flood, and so on. While Craig may be correct, he does not offer a robust enough apologetic against those who do see Genesis 1-11 (or 3-11) as literal history. Simply put, the way in which Craig makes his assertions are going to remain unconvincing to those who do not see Genesis 1-11 as myth.

Moving into the section on science, In Quest of the Historical Adam gives an exhaustive overview of human evolution. I think it’s a mistake for Craig to assume theistic evolution—again, even if true, it stands counter to the beliefs of many with his evangelical faith tradition. To assume this stance rather than defend it theologically or scientifically leaves Craig with what will be to many an unconvincing argument because there is immediate and irreconcilable disagreement on fundamental assumptions.

“Humanness” = Cognition

The most troubling aspect of In Quest of the Historical Adam is its effort to pinpoint an exact point on the evolutionary timeline that proto-humans became simply human. What is it to be human? Rather than approach this question theologically—A human is a being made a “living soul” by the breath of God—Craig chooses to approach the question anthropologically, specifically through brain size. He writes “Despite being classified as Homo, so-called Homo habilis was, as mentioned, almost certainly not human, given its brain size of 550-687cm.” He portrays humanness as beings capable of abstract thought; deep planning; capable of behavioral, economic, and technical innovations; and capable of symbolic behavior. This is problematic, because what does that say of the humanness of neurodivergent individuals for whom abstract thinking and symbolism is difficult? What does it say of the humanness of individuals with severe mental disabilities? The natural conclusion, under this model, is that these individuals are not human. Craig protests this briefly, but makes no case for why it shouldn’t follow. In my opinion, it is incredibly dangerous to locate the imago Dei, as Craig does, in “the properties of personhood that are manifested by the cognitive behaviors” (p. 370) and assume that an organism must have a certain “neurologic structure to support a rational soul” (p. 377).

Conservative Biases

Probably the most interesting part of In Quest of the Historical Adam is Craig’s insistence in a literal Adam and Eve while rejecting Genesis 1-11 as literal history. This is based on 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and Romans 5:12-21, which Craig interprets as clear assertions of a historical Adam. But it’s not altogether clear why this would need to be the case. Craig has to bend over backwards to keep some elements of his conservative theology even having become convinced of a more progressive model.

You also see Craig’s commitment to his conservative theological biases when he writes that even though the creation account isn’t literal, two important lessons from it are that marriage is between only a man and a woman and that women are to be the “helper” of men. (With no discussion of how “helper”—ezer in Hebrew—carries no connotation of subordination, as it most commonly refers to Yahweh himself in Scripture.)

Conclusion

As such, Craig’s final conclusion is that the historical Adam and Eve were a single pair of Homo heidelbergensis around one million to seven hundred fifty thousand years ago. They were imbued by God with a rational soul and became the progenitors of Neanderthals, Denisovans, other archaic humans, and, finally, Homo sapiens. While I think there is a case to be made for theistic evolution, I don’t think that In Quest of the Historical Adam is particularly compelling, either in its narrative structure or in many of its arguments. The book lacks personality in its writing as Craig comes off sounds aloof with a sense of intellectual superiority. (Ironic, considering that the majority of the book’s content lies outside his academic expertise.) I suppose one can hold up this book as an example of how evangelicalism and evolution can live in harmony, but it’s obvious that its quite tense and occasionally discordant.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have been a fan of William Lane Craig for about ten years, since I first learned about him on Youtube. I considered him a great teacher and apologist. This last book of his has left me with a little lower opinion. Here are his main points.

1. Genesis 1-11 is mytho-history. Mytho-history is history presented in a mythical way. You have to figure out which part is myth and which part is history. Genealogies show a historical interest. (Tim 1:4, Titus 3:9?) For a thorough study of OT genealogies see God of the Gaps: Gaps in Biblical Genealogies Make it Impossible to Calculate the Date of Creation
2. Parts in the New Testament show that Adam is a historical person.
3.If the previous two ideas are not confusing enough, Dr. Craig then mixes in a good amount of evolutionary science.

So what conclusion does he derive from this strange concoction? Adam lived between 750,000 and 1,000,000 years ago and was a member of the archaic human species Homo heidelbergensis. Apparently Jesus also died for Neanderthals.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intriguing book with indepth information to pique the interest of the philosophical and scientific mind. I'm not an expert on the quest for the historical Adam, but it seems to me that Dr. Craig has crafted a position that can lay within orthodoxy, albeit unneatly - by accepting an historical Adam whilst rejecting a simple reading of Genesis. His embrace of mytho-history will frustrate both convervatives and liberals.
5-stars because it is a well thought out piece worthy of consideration.
Admittedly, if one is not convinced of Dr. Craig's view, one would think he is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. It is indubitoubly a synthesis between the modern understanding of evolution and taking the genesis account seriously.

One piece of information lacking in the book (at least on my somewhat quick run through) is on Dr. Craig's personal march towards this position, and his current relationship with Intelligent Design. Does he defend ID view today, or has he more or less abandoned it? It seems to me that Dr. Craig has walked more comfortably into the theistic evolution camp, but I would appreciate a fuller view of ID at this point in his life.

***

10/07/22 Update - Dr. Craig in his podcast release 10/07/22 stated firmly that he is not a theistic evolutionist but remains agnostic on the issue seeing that theistic evolution is not incompatible with the Bible, but neither does it teach it. Therefore, it remains a scientific issue, one in which he is not convinced definitively.

[Simeon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dit boek gaat over de ‘zoektocht’ naar Adam, en bestaat uit twee delen. In het eerste deel onderzoekt William Lane Craig (WLC), de auteur, of Genesis 1-11 wel letterlijk geïnterpreteerd moet worden, met implicaties voor de oudheid van de aarde en het bestaan van evolutie, of dat het genre van de eerste hoofdstukken er juist op wijst dat het niet zo bedoeld was. In het tweede deel gaat hij in op wetenschappelijke aanwijzingen over Adam.

Ik las het boek voornamelijk omdat ik erg benieuwd was naar het eerste deel. Het stelde niet teleur. WLC quoteert veel geleerden, en heeft een heel duidelijke manier van argumenteren. Je leert heel veel over de omringende culturen van Israel, waar de auteur inzoomt op de scheppingsverhalen die daar te ronde gingen, en hoe de originele hoorders ermee zouden zijn omgegaan.

Het is echter geen boek dat je even tussendoor leest, mede omdat het zo ‘scholarly’ geschreven is. Je wilt er dus wel echt voor zitten.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

William Lane Craig (b. 1949) is Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University, and a visiting scholar at Talbot School of Theology. He is also a prominent philosophical apologist (see his debates with atheists, such as [[ASIN:0195166000 God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist]] and [[ASIN:0754631907 Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate]]).

By dealing frankly and realistically with both the biblical and scientific evidence, Craig may well ‘turn away’ some Young-Earth proponents (not that he had a lot of support from them anyway), and his anthropological suggestions may repel some conservative theologians. But one cannot fault him for honestly tackling the ‘hard questions’ in depth and detail. Anyway, on to the book itself…

He wrote in the Preface of this 2021 book, “People on both the left and the right can be expected to be upset with this book and… its author. All I can do is plead that they give an honest and open-minded reading of the case I make for my conclusions… I have tried to avoid labels like ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive,’ and ‘conservative’ because these politically charged terms are prejudicial… I have adopted the labels ‘traditional’ and ‘revisionist’ as the least problematic. There is, after all, a traditional view of Adam and Eve that has dominated church history, and there are various revisionist views… that modify the traditional view to different degrees.” (Pg. xi-xii)

In the first chapter, he notes, “Many traditional theologians would think the historicity of Adam crucial for… the doctrine of sin. For if Adam was not a historical person, clearly there was no historical fall into sin in the traditional sense… [and] the doctrine of original sin must go by the board … The attempt to make the doctrine of original sin a necessary condition of the doctrine of the atonement is, however, an overreach. Nowhere in the New Testament (NT) is Christ said to have died for original sin… Interpreting Adam as a purely symbolic figure… that expresses the universality of human sin and fallenness would not undercut the gospel of salvation through Christ’s atoning death. Therefore, denial of the doctrine original sin does not undermine the doctrine of the atonement. We may nonetheless agree that the historicity of Adam is entailed by and therefore a necessary condition of the doctrine of original sin.” (Pg. 4-5)

He continues, “Thus, while the doctrine of original sin depends crucially on the fact of a historical Adam, Christianity need not embrace the traditional doctrine of original sin but may content itself with affirming the universal wrongdoing of human beings and their inability to save themselves… however, we must consider whether other considerations might not justify its importance to Christian faith… if, as seems plausible, Jesus himself believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve… then even if Jesus were not guilty of teaching doctrinal error, he still would have held false beliefs… which is incompatible with his omniscience. Notice that the concern here is quite different from Jesus’s having limited knowledge. Traditional Christology recognizes that Christ had a human mind … that developed throughout his lifetime.” (Pg. 6-7)

He states, “the primaeval history of Gen 1-11 is compatible with the concept of time that finds expression in myth… The history of Gen 1-11 is thus set in primaeval time, a characteristic of myths, especially myths of origination.” (Pg. 64) He asks, “do the primaeval narratives exhibit ‘fantastic elements’ and do they remain untroubled by logical contradiction or incoherence?... Consider, first, apparent inconsistencies… God is portrayed … in Gen 2 as a humanoid deity worthy of polytheistic myths, as he forms man from the dirt and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils… in Gen 3… God strolls in the cool of the day and searches for the man and woman hiding among the trees… in Gen 6-9 … [God] is pleased with the smell of Noah’s burnt offering… Such anthropomorphic descriptions of God, if interpreted literally, are incompatible with the transcendent God described at the beginning of creation… the pentateuchal author… doubtless assumed that his readers would have understood such anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be just part of the storyteller’s art, not serious theology.” (Pg. 102)

He continues, “the author seems untroubled by the apparent inconsistencies that occur in his narratives. It would have been easy for him to bring the account … in Gen 2 into accord with Gen 1, rather than leave the apparent inconsistencies concerning the order of creation of man, the vegetation, and the animals… Scholars would have dearly liked the author to clarify what he meant in saying, ‘At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD (Gen 4:26), despite his later affirmation that the name ‘Yahweh’ had not been previously revealed (Ex 6:3)... God’s instructions to Noah first to take aboard the ark two animals of every kind and then to bring aboard seven pairs of all clean animals (Gen 6:19, 7:3)… The point is not whether these apparent inconsistencies are somehow resolvable but that the author is just untroubled by them.” (Pg. 104)

He states, “What is fantastic and therefore mythological in Gen 1 is the creation of the world over six consecutive days. The pattern of evening and morning shows that ordinary solar days, not long ages, are intended… It may be that even the author himself found creation over six literal days fantastic, for he recounts as accomplished in one day events that he well knew could not have naturally have happened in twenty-four hours… such as the draining of the primordial ocean into seas on day 2… or the earth’s bringing forth seed-bearing vegetation and fruit-bearing trees on day 3. If so, he may have taken the creation account as mythological, which would also explain his insouciance about the existence of day and night prior to the ostensible creation of the sun on day 4.” (Pg. 109-110)

He goes on, “Another fantastic element of the primaeval narratives is primordial vegetarianism for man and beast alike… The removal of this restriction [in Gen 9:3] for humans implies that a similar restriction was in place for the animals… [The Pentateuchal author] gives no indication that animal predation is the result of man’s fall, and it would be anachronistic to ascribe to him the view that lions and other carnivores… evolved from animals that were herbivores… What makes the primaeval age different is … that it was ‘long, long ago’---that is to say, mythological in character.” (Pg. 111)

He continues, “In the story of the Garden of Eden we have multiple fantastic elements… First and foremost… is the snake, who not only talks but is a conniving and malevolent agent. Although a literal interpretation of this figure might be purchased by taking the snake to be an incarnation of Satan… such an interpretation not only reads such a personage into this passage but… seems implausible in light of the author’s characterization of the snake as ‘more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made’ (Gen 3:1)… ancient Israelites doubtless knew that snakes do not talk and so would… have found such a description fantastic and therefore understood it nonliterally and perhaps symbolically.” (Pg. 111-113)

He acknowledges that the flood story is ‘one of the most fantastic episodes in the primaeval narratives… Young earth creationists [assert that] … the ark would have had ample room to include members of every identified genus of terrestrial animals. But as Hugh Ross rejoins, ‘… Animals as advanced as horses and felines, simply … cannot, by any observed or postulated mechanism---evolve or diversify at such a rapid rate’ so as to produce the earth’s current 5.8 million land animal species after the flood… Modern geology and anthropology have rendered such a catastrophe all but impossible. Geologically we have evidence of vast but nonetheless local catastrophic floods… no such evidence exists for a worldwide deluge.” (Pg. 120-121) Later, he adds, “The question is, what lies at the root of such figurative descriptions? Is it that the ancients were simply prone to hyperbole? Or is it, more plausibly, that we are dealing here with the language of myth?... This classification better explains the description of a worldwide flood than mere hyperbole.” (Pg. 127-128)

He states, “we should be remiss if we did not mention the most fantastic element of the entire primaeval history---namely, the ostensible claim that the entire world was less than two thousand years old at the time of Abraham’s birth… this puts a literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 into massive conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics. In order to explain how we can even see the stars, some of which are billions of light-years away, creation scientists have been led to radically reinterpret modern cosmology… Since Noah disembarked only 292 years prior to Abraham, the entire history of dinosaur evolution and extinction must be compressed into the space of less than three hundred years (unless, that is, dinosaurs were still about at the time of Abraham). In order to explain how most of the marsupials… crawled all the way from modern-day Turkey to Australia, plate tectonics is held to have not yet separated the primordial supercontinent into the world’s continents; this tectonic activity is said… to have also taken place within about three hundred years following the end of the flood, while at the same time mountain-building crustal movements were forming the Himalayas and Mount Everest, with remains of marine life of the flood on its heights… Truly, young earth creationists are living in a different universe than the rest of us.” (Pg. 130-131)

He notes, “We find several examples of the illustrative use of extrabiblical literary traditions in the books of Jude and 2 Peter… ‘First Enoch’ [is]… quoted explicitly by Jude… [Of 2 Pet 2:10-11] No such story is to be found in the OT Scriptures…. the story is to be found in the apocryphal book ‘The Assumption of Moses’… The conclusion to be drawn … is not that the expansions of the canonical text are historical … but rather that we are not committed to their historicity simply in virtue of an NT author’s relating them.” (Pg. 210-215) He continues, “references by NT authors to mythological or pseudepigraphical figures caution us to avoid overly easy proofs of OT historicity on the basis of NT citations. Such figures may be merely literary and illustratively employed. Similarly, some NT references to Adam and other figures and events of the primaeval history may describe merely the story-world of Genesis… But in 1 Cor 15:21-22 and… Rom 5:12-21 we do have clear assertions of the historicity of Adam. What is asserted … in these key passages does not, however, really go beyond what we have already affirmed… namely, that there was a progenitor of the entire human race through whose disobedience moral evil entered the world…. Adam is regarded by Paul as a historical person whose actions affected the course of history… Adam’s sin is… the fount of … spiritual death that beset our world, which suffices for the affirmation of a historical Adam.” (Pg. 241-242)

Turning to ancestral humans, he asserts, “the beautiful cave art … at Lascaux … in France was undoubtedly created by human beings… Viewing these paintings, we sense ourselves standing in the presence of a ‘thou,’ someone who is one of us.” (Pg. 262-263) Later, he states, “The paleontological evidence … are thus consistent with pushing the boundary for the origin of humanity back before the origin of Homo sapiens so as to include Neanderthals and Denisovans as members of the human family.” (Pg. 279) He adds, Given that the use of imagery and representation in art is a signature of modern human behavior among Homo sapiens, it would be prejudicial to deny the humanity of the Neanderthal artists.” (Pg. 304) He continues, “one of the singly necessary… conditions for human speech is already present… in Neanderthals.” (Pg. 323)

He suggests, “the existence of a historical Adam and Eve need not imply their sole genetic progenitorship… once Adam and Eve’s descendants replaced Homo heidelbergensis, we know that there was interbreeding among the extended human family, but we can only conjecture as to what happened in the interim.” (Pg. 355) He continues, “At some time and place in the gray mists of antiquity, we hypothesize an original human pair uniquely endowed with cognitive capacities that would come to be associated with Homo heidelbergensis. Exactly when and where the hypothetical founding couple lived cannot as yet be determined… The uneven paleoanthropological record of human cognitive achievement … plausibly indicates that changing environmental conditions serve to call forth behaviors latent in human cognitive capacity… Adam and Eve may therefore be plausibly identified as members of Homo heidelbergensis and as the founding pair at the root of all human species.” (Pg. 357-359) He also clarifies, “Homo heidelbergensis was not some hybrid ape-man but was recognizably human… [This] brings the startling realization that, as members of the human family, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and others were, like us, people whom God loves and for whom Christ died… We may see some of them, therefore, in the eschaton, and I think we shall be delighted to do so.” (Pg. 364-365)

He concludes, “God’s creation of Adam and Eve plausibly required [God]… to furnish them with rational souls different from any sort … that nonhuman animals might be thought to possess. Thus, Adam and Ever were something radically new… We might think it unfair of God not to extend to Adam and Eve’s contemporaries the same opportunity of a relationship with God… [unless] we recognize a biological difference between Adam and his progenitors… for there is nothing unjust about treating animals as animals.” (Pg. 378-380)

This book will be “must reading” for anyone (including skeptics and atheists, as well as Young-Earth creationists) seriously studying these issues.

[Brother Brandon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dr. Craig argues that Genesis 1-11 is mytho-historical; that Adam is historical (and was believed to be historical by Paul); that science, paleoneruology, genetics and archaeology show that Homo heidelbergensis is a common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neaderthals and, sharing essential human features (e.g. cognitive capacity) should be considered humans; and, that Adam and Eve are Homo heidelbergensis and the "founding pair" of humanity.

Personally, I lost the ability to understand the science contained in this book. Since I am not trained in this area, I cannot dispute the things that Craig raises. My interest lay in the theological and philosophical work he does in chapter 7 ("Adam in the New Testament"), where I think he successfully defends the historical Adam on the basis of Scripture. I also cared about the theological implications of this whole project which he details in the concluding chapter 13. I might suggest starting with chapter 13 when reading this book and then going to the appropriate preceding chapters that defend his premises if you're interested.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again Craig has composed a helpful book for Christians that contend against arguments brought about by the atheist community. In this work he defends the position that Adam (and Eve) were real people and are described accurately as the parents of those made in the image of God. Craig ends with this conclusion after working through theological, philosophical, archaeological, and scientific data that contends for Adam to have been a real man that bore God’s image. The humility of Craig is seen throughout this work as he seeks to be faithful to Scripture and the known world as best that he can. I am unsure of certain aspects of his conclusions, as they do seem to argue to an extent of theistic evolution (if this is the case, then this major point I disagree with him on), but I do know this is a masterpiece and a great work for the Christianity and apologetics as a whole as it unravels the mystery of who Adam and Eve were and what we can know about them from the book of Genesis (and other scriptural teachings), archeology, and science.

[Taylor Simpson · Rating 4 out of 5]

People on both the left and right can be expected to be upset with this book and, unfortunately, its author. All I can do is plead that they give an honest and open-minded reading of the case I make for my conclusions.

William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam (IQHA) has been highly anticipated as well as very controversial, and I think both of these are justified!

This book is the culmination of Craig’s most recent research into…well, the historical Adam, as one might guess, and, as the subtitle suggests, approaches the subject very thoroughly through the two approaches of biblical theology and modern science. These two approaches comprise the middle two sections which make up the bulk of the book.

In examining the biblical evidence, Craig dips (and more than dips) into the subjects of genre/literary analysis and Ancient Near Eastern culture and traditions, on top of a hermeneutical investigation of the biblical text itself.

The scientific evidence involves a wide variety of fields–a lot of ‘-logies’--most which deal with ancient humanity, and others relate to studies in genetics and populations.

Although written with the informed layman in mind, IQHA reveals its author’s proclivity for both thoroughness and depth. These two primary sections ramp up pretty quickly to levels of involvement for the reader that’s not meant for the casual answer-seeker–Craig doesn’t just give you his conclusions for cheap or offer pat responses. Every paragraph is filled with well-researched and heavily-footnoted information from some of the top scholars of all the fields referenced. There is no filler in IQHA. This is typical for Craig’s work which makes his material seem dry to some, but undeniably of great quality to all, whether you agree with his conclusions or not.

It’s very easy for the lay reader (like myself) who doesn’t spend almost any free time wading through research on the Ancient Near East or modern developments in population genetics to get bogged down and glaze-eyed as they work through the book. Since Craig leaves very few relevant stones unturned, it’s also easy to get lost at times when there is a point being made about an objection to a response to an argument from one author being modified by another scholar. I think that’s just the nature of this kind of work and so this book can’t really be faulted for that kind of stuff, but still: IQHA is not exactly a book one just skims through or reads lightly. Every sentence and paragraph is selected and placed purposefully, and an entire section can hinge on a single ‘However,’. Craig suggests in the preface IQHA isn’t a scholarly treatise, but he could’ve fooled me, to be honest.

I don’t think I’m very qualified to give a critical review of the actual content of IQHA, and I honestly am not entirely sure where I fall on this subject. I’ll need to reflect on and review my underlinings and the primary arguments a while longer before I’m ready to start committing one way or another.

Regardless, IQHA is clearly a book that needs to be reckoned with for those who consider themselves to be involved in the questions about human origins and how the Bible does or does not relate to that. It will reward the patient and enduring reader that isn’t afraid of a few footnotes, to say the least.

[Will S · Rating 3 out of 5]

What’s strangely fascinating is Craig’s heroic determination to hang onto the idea that Adam and Eve were a pair of real people who actually lived on this planet, and from whom we’re all descended. To achieve this, he’s willing to jettison much of Genesis: the universal Flood and the Tower of Babel never happened. He’s also willing to extend the time scale by a factor of over 100: rather than living about 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve lived about 750,000 years ago, and didn’t even belong to the same species as ourselves!

Doesn’t the fact that Craig is forced to adopt such desperate expedients tell us something important about his mind set, and also about how the scientific world view has driven the Christian world view into a corner? His whole (entirely unevidenced!) thesis looks like a desperate rearguard action.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The quest for the historical Adam, in this case, is quite winding. The disciplines covered are so varied and the technical information so detailed, as a layman on most of these topics I often found myself lost and wishing for more context. There is likely more information in this book than there should have been. Nevertheless, I found certain details, especially related to archaeology, fascinating. This is the first book I have read of its kind, where the evangelical author accepts the prevailing scientific view of human origins yet maintains the necessity of the existence of Adam and Eve. I’m not sure that I’m totally convinced of all that Dr. Craig concludes, but his efforts are a worthwhile contribution to Christian literature on this topic.

[Luke Batty · Rating 3 out of 5]

The wooden biblical analysis in a modernist frame and the reductionist assessment of scientific data make this book a long conversation with an obtuse partner.

[Frank Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

I greatly respect the author and have enjoyed listening to him as well as reading his books. This book unfortunately was a let-down. After reading the majority of the book, I felt like he had not yet started to get to the main point in the book. This was incorrect, of course. Rather Craig had exhaustively investigated the philosophical, background for the discussion. I found the book interesting but tiring. It was interesting but not convincing. What he did manage to show was how difficult it is to take a literal view of Genesis 1-11 as make this fit with what modern science currently teaches about the evolution of man. It was therefore a good demonstration of why there is such a gap between Christians who take early Genesis as mythical while holding to theistic evolution, and those who doubt the evolutionary narrative while holding to a literal Genesis. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that this book will be helpful in that discussion.

[Texas Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

An insightful and thoughtful contribution to the subject, Craig is surprisingly gentle when dealing with the young earth creationists who have embraced an ahistorical literalist reading of Genesis 1-11 (c.f. Augustine’s confessions, Philo, etc). But he is also firm in his rebuke of their rejection of the evidence just as Augustine was 1600 years ago.

Craig offers a welcome rejection of the doctrine of original sin and embraces a doctrine more consistent with the traditional and current Orthodox Church. Original sin as a doctrine was invented by Augustine and IMO has never had a strong Biblical foundation. It fit well into the Calvinist and Lutheran worldview and became a central pillar of the faith amongst the reformers.

His survey of Ancient Near East traditions is readable, thorough, and a valuable contribution to a non specialists’ understanding of Genesis 1-11. In typical fashion, he skewers some of his academic colleagues who push their claims far beyond the evidence (people in Mesopotamia thought… ).

The dissection of New Testament references to Adam is a must-read for anyone whose commitment to the historical Adam is based on references by Paul or other NT writers. The comparison to Jannes and Jambres are especially interesting.

The sections tracing a plausible last common ancestor to Heidelberg man is interesting but in my view not the most important contribution of the book. Overall an excellent read.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

How does this sit with you?

I'll give you a shortcut. Craig concludes that Adam was homo heidelbergensis. Think of a Neanderthal, then understand that heidelbergensis is earlier than that. In other words, Adam may have looked like the guy on the front cover of this book. What a thought!

In one sense I'm overwhelmed. This was a dense book, even as Craig labored to make it accessible. At a point I quit taking notes. There was simply too much data. Nor could I gainsay the evidence presented. I don’t have the expertise. But isn’t it something that the scientific consensus has brought us here? Craig as much as anyone is the champion of Christianity. It means something that he is advancing this view.

In another way I'm not overwhelmed. I'm a Southern Baptist. I've had the conversation with the young earth creationists. I still know people who believe the world is 6000 years old, and they'll die on that hill. That is not the route I took. I've been at peace with old-earth creationism for the last couple decades. And yet I've watched as Christianity has increasingly come to terms with science. For me it has been a slow boil, but I expect Craig's book will be a challenge for many. What do you think?

How does this sit with you?

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

WLC’s work on the historical Adam was extremely interesting. Scientific data has presented evidence for pre-human hominids that present human-like behavior. How do these things fit within the framework of the story of Genesis? Many people decry the attempt to merge the facts of science with theology because of the damage it often does to the theological systems it handles, however they rarely offer an alternative view that seriously considers the scientific findings - they simply say the science is flawed. What I like about WLC’s book is that he is making a strong attempt to look at the science seriously and to create a system that incorporates both the science and Scripture.

The strength of Craig’s book was his concept of Mytho-History and the evidence presented from ancient cultures for it. His concept is that ancient creation myths were never believed to be literalistic word for word accounts by ancient peoples. Rather, they were taken to be truthful, but heavily symbolic renderings of actual events. So, for example, a monster or beast (seen so often in ancient creation stories) may symbolize another rival nation or a tyrant king. As for me, I think WLC has proven very well that ancient cultures did see their creation stories as Mytho-Historic.
If we are able to glean the concept of Mytho-History from other ancient cultures and apply it to the book of Genesis, it may mean, (WLC argues) that the serpent (for example) was not actually a literal snake who could speak, but was instead a very snake-like character. Or it may mean that the garden was not a literal garden, but a great city that is idealized by the metaphor of a garden. He argues from this that instead of one man and one woman, there could have been a community of first peoples that the Genesis story represents with the original single couple.
So far on this note, I think Craig argues his case very well.

The science section in the book is also very interesting. He notes the basic scientific consensus in several fields regarding ancient hominid remains and how the different hominid fossils relate to modern humans. He uses various scientific (not Christian) sources to point out that all our ancestors in the fossil evidence had cognitive functions similar to, or the same as modern humans. Therefore Craig argues that Denisovans, Neanderthals and other ancient hominids were created in the image of God and were ancestors of the original people group that Adam and Eve in the story of Genesis represent.
Craig’s position in the end, is that the original Genesis story of Adam and Eve must refer to an ancient ancestor of the human race that science has not yet uncovered - the hominid ancestor that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and others came from (somewhere between 750,000 - 1,000,000 years ago).

One area I wanted to learn more about was the area of dna evidence for human evolution from primates. I was hoping Craig would give some information on how dna evidence for animal to human evolution works and whether something like if common dna may simply stem from a common creator rather than be direct evolutionary evidence for animal to human evolution. Craig seems to be fine with theistic evolution of humanity toward the end of the book, but all in all doesn’t discuss it much.
Another area I was dissatisfied with was Craig’s theological discussion. There are many theological issues tied up with the historical Adam and I don’t think Craig did any of them much justice apart from the Imago Dei. He more or less dismisses inherited sin as a doctrine and does so far too easily for someone serious about theology to assent with him. He also, toward the end of the book, disregards the doctrine of limited atonement entirely, as just strange and therefore adheres to a universalist doctrine up till the coming of Christ. For an apologist Craig is not very knowledgeable of theology, and it shows in this book. Having said this, he did spend a lot of time on the Imago Dei and his concept of it was very well thought out and articulated.

My take on the book is that his discussion of Mytho-History is helpful in seeing that some things in the Genesis primeval history may very well be symbols - much like the last book in the Bible. As an old earth creationist, I thought his discussion of a pre homo-sapien Adam was also helpful in letting science and the book of Genesis further line up. However his theological ponderings on these things had me surprised at him and also frustrated at many points. I also would have liked more discussion on his position of primate to human evolution and how the dna evidence (and theological evidence) line up with it (or not).
All in all this was a worthwhile read if you are interested in the primeval history of humanity, but it also has many points that I found strange theologically.

[Zach Brandt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros:
- Craig is always crystal clear. His arguments are explicitly stated and his definitions clarified and repeated.
- Super interesting theory
- Craig seems to know as much as anyone about these subjects, despite the fact they aren’t his fields.

Cons:
- Doesn’t deal with all the biblical data I’d like him to.
- Way too many details about peripheral things for a reader like me.
- Lobs grenades at theological positions in a few weird places.
- I’m not sure I totally buy his definition of ‘fantastical,’ even though my disposition probably leads me to agree with him on what would qualify as fantastical.

In all, Craig’s greatest strength for me is his clarity. He gives me categories to process the arguments.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important book that makes an argument for an historical Adam that is consistent with contemporary scientific evidence. Among the most thoughtful and persuasive efforts I've seen to reconcile biblical and scientific accounts.

[Jacob Akens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Craig offers a very-thorough, well rounded pursuit of the historical Adam.

I greatly appreciated the beginning of the book that highlighted what was at stake as we seek a literal historical Adam and the significance of him being a literal person instead of just a symbol, etc.

In the first part of the book, Dr. Craig made a rather convincing case that Genesis Ch. 1-11 can or should be read within the genre of mytho-history. Branching off of this conclusion, he leads us down an incredibly academic adventure across multiple fields of science to his final conclusion that Adam and Eve were likely members of homo heidelbergensis who likely lived roughly 750,000-1,000,000 years ago.

To clarify, I recently finished reading a book by an author who asserts that the Earth is no more than roughly 6,000 years old, and that author believes that the days of creation were literal 24-hour days. All in all, it was fun to see how similarly Dr. Craig reads Genesis Ch. 1-11 when compared with that other author and also which parts they disagree on.

I must confess that there were several times in this book that I had to go back and reread a section to fully comprehend what was being presented, and the content is quite scholarly, but I am glad that I read this book and now have a broader understanding of the various interpretations of the Biblical Creation Story.

Page 8 - “Kenotic theologians notwithstanding, it is plausible to think that omniscience is an essential attribute of God, entailed by his being the greatest conceivable being.
Therefore, Jesus must have been and is omniscient. It does no good to say that a typical human consciousness is error-prone and therefore Jesus could have held false beliefs according to his human nature during his so-called state of humiliation (his state from conception through his burial). For beliefs are held by a person, not by a nature, and the only person in Christ is a divine person, who therefore could not hold false beliefs, period. The person Christ is is divine and therefore is omniscient and therefore believes every truth and no falsehoods. Thus, as crazy as it sounds, denial of the historical Adam threatens to undo the deity of Christ and thus to destroy orthodox Christian faith.”

Page 21 - “In attempting to determine the "theme" of the Pentateuch, Clines is asking for the rationale of the content, structure, and development of the work. He thinks that there can be little doubt that the impetus for the movement in the Pentateuch is God's threefold promise to the patriarchs, especially Abraham, of a posterity, of a relationship with God, and of land. The promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3 comprises all three elements: "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." The theme of the Pentateuch, then, is the partial fulfillment of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs. The posterity element is dominant in Gen 12-50, the relationship element in Exodus and Leviticus, and the land element in Numbers and Deuteronomy.
This statement of theme for the Pentateuch obviously leaves Gen 1-11 out of account. Clines thinks that this section demands a separate treatment of its theme.”

Pages 96-97 - “If we take the Table of Nations not to be displaced chronologically, then the author knows that there are already different language groups and peoples. He is aware, moreover, of the migration of peoples. The people in Shinar were one such, all speaking the same language. After having confused their language, God scattered them abroad among the other nations. Most commentators, however, take the Table of Nations to be chronologically displaced, in order that the primaeval history might end with the Tower of Babel story." Tellingly, the Table of Nations includes the notice that the name of one of She's descendants was Peleg (division), "for in his days the earth was divided" (Gen 10:25), an apparent reference to the confusion of languages and scattering of the people related in the tower story. So if we understand the groups listed in the Table of Nations to result from the confusion of tongues in Babel, then we do have an etiology for the phenomenon of mankind's natural languages.”

Page 120 - “The long lives ascribed to the patriarchs cause remarkable synchronisms and duplications. Adam lived to see the birth of Lamech, the ninth member of the genealogy; Seth lived to see the translation of Enoch and died shortly before the birth of Noah. Lamech was the first to see a dead man--Adam; Noah outlived Abraham's grandfather, Nahor, and died in Abraham's sixtieth year. Shem, Noah's son, even outlived Abraham. He was still alive when Esau and Jacob were born!"

Pages 120-121 - “Gunkel complained that "there are too many species of animals for all to have been assembled in any ark, around 5.8 million terrestrial animal species alone. Young earth creationists have responded that the assumption that Noah boarded members of every identified species is gratuitous; the ark would have had ample room to include members of every identified genus of terrestrial animals. But as Hugh Ross rejoins, that answer seems "to trade one implausible hypothesis for another. Animals, especially those as advanced as horses and felines, simply do not-and cannot, by any observed or postulated mechanism-evolve or diversify at such a rapid rate" so as to produce the earth's current 5.8 million land animal species after the flood.”

Pages 128-129 - “Indeed, the Table of Nations of Gen 10 is fantastic. Although the table presents the various persons and nations as descended from Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen 10:1), the peoples listed are not necessarily connected by blood but represent eclectic groupings based on geographical, linguistic, racial, and cultural similarities.
For example, some of the peoples that modern linguists and anthropologists would classify as Semitic--that is, as sons of Shem -are listed in the table as sons of Ham instead. Because the descendants of Ham are under God's curse (Gen 9:24-25), Israel's greatest enemies are listed as Ham's descendants. "Their classification as Hamites indicates that the table of nations is not really so uncommitted as it may first appear." Moreover, this feature of the table is not a modern discovery; the ancient compiler would himself have been aware of how eclectic his groupings were. For example, he collects Mesopotamian, Ethiopian, and Arabian ethnicities together under Cush. He could not have failed to notice that Sheba and Havilah are listed as descendants of both Ham and Shem (Gen 10:7, 28-29). All this suggests that he did not understand the genealogy to be a straightforward historical account.”

Pages 130-131 - “Finally, we should be remiss if we did not mention the most fantastic element of the entire primaeval history - namely, the ostensible claim that the entire world was less than two thousand years old at the time of Abraham's birth.
Only 1,656 years elapsed from the time of Adam's creation until the food, and another 292 years separate the flood from Abraham's birth. The genealogy of Shem in Gen 11:10-26 is so tightly constructed by means of the ages at which fathers bore sons that generational gaps are difficult to interpolate. Noah would thus have been a contemporary of Abraham, and Shem would have even outlived Abraham by thirty-five years, an embarrassment that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both try to avoid by revising the patriarchs' ages.
Even if we allow for gaps in the genealogies of Gen 1-11, at most a few thousand years can be reasonably interpolated. As creation scientists themselves recognize, this puts a literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 into massive conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics. In order to explain how we can even see the stars, some of which are billions of light-years away, creation scientists have been led to radically reinterpret modern cosmology. Since Noah was contemporaneous with the age of the dinosaurs, he is said to have taken dinosaurs aboard the ark, two of every one of the five hundred genera. Upon disembarking, he released these dinosaurs into the world, where they spread throughout the earth and evolved into all the known species of dinosaur. Since Noah disembarked only 292 years prior to the birth of Abraham, the entire history of dinosaur evolution and extinction must be compressed into the space of less than three hundred years (unless, that is, dinosaurs were still about at the time of Abraham). In order to explain how most all the marsupials, like koala bears and platypuses, crawled all the way from modern-day Turkey to Australia, plate tectonics is held to have not yet separated the primordial supercontinent into the world's continents; this tectonic activity is said to have also taken place within about three hundred years following the end of the flood, while at the same time mountain-building crustal movements were forming the Himalayas and Mount Everest, with remains of the marine life of the flood on its heights.
On and on the revisionism must go. Truly, young earth creationists are living in a different universe than the rest of us.”

Page 157 - “In sum, the many striking family resemblances between Gen 1-11 and ANE myths lead one to think of the primaeval history as comprising Hebrew myths. Their primary purpose is to ground realities present to the penta-teuchal author and important for Israelite society in the primordial past. At the same time, the interstitching of the primaeval narratives with genealogies terminating in real people evinces a historical interest on the author's part in persons who once lived and wrought. Even these genealogies, however, are carefully constructed so as to share in the character of the myths they order, contributing to the overall etiological purpose of the primeval history.”

Pages 200-201 - “Moreover, we have seen that many features of these stories are fantastic-that is to say, palpably false if taken literally. Previously, we used this fact as an earmark to identify narratives as myths. But now we limit our consideration to features of the narrative that the author himself would have plausibly thought fantastic. In light of chapter 1’s affirmation that God had separated the waters above from the waters below, it is hard to believe that the author thought that there was ever a time when the earth was devoid of rain. Just as the waters below took the form of seas and rivers and springs, so the waters above took the form of rain. So an earth replete with seas and rivers and springs, but without rain, seems fantastic, even for an ancient Israelite, given his knowledge of the water cycle. In addition, the idea of an arboretum containing trees bearing fruit that, if eaten, would confer immortality or yield sudden knowledge of good and evil must have seemed fantastic to the pentateuchal author. Recall that we are not dealing here with miraculous fruit, as if God would, on the occasion of eating, supernaturally impose on the eater immortality or knowledge of good and evil against God's will. The Garden of Eden may have been described as existing in a real geographical location, the Persian Gulf Oasis, but, like Mount Olympus, that site may have been employed to tell a mythological story concerning what happened at that site. Then there is the notorious snake in the garden. He makes for a great character in the story, conniving, sinister, opposed to God, perhaps a symbol of evil, but not plausibly a literal reptile such as one might encounter in one's own garden, for the pentateuchal author knew that snakes neither talk nor are intelligent agents. Again, the snake's personality and speech cannot be attributed to the miraculous activity of God, lest God become the author of the fall. When God drives Adam and Eve from the garden and posts cherubim and a flashing sword at its entrance to block their reentry, this is doubtless not intended to be literal, since cherubim were regarded as creatures of fantasy and symbol. It is not as though the author thought-what realism requires - that the cherubim remained at the entrance of the garden for years on end until it was either overgrown with weeds or swept away by the flood.
Then there are the aforementioned inconsistencies in the narratives, which were apparently of no concern to the author, such as the order of the creation of plants, animals, and man, and the curiosity that is Cain's wife.
Why was the author so insouciant about these difficulties? Plausibly because he did not intend his stories to be read literalistically. Together all these features of the narratives of Adam and Eve make it plausible that they are not to be taken literally. The author has given us a story of mankind's origin and rebellion against God that embodies important truths expressed in highly figurative language.”

Page 204 - “Remarkably, for all his importance in Christian theology, Adam is scarcely mentioned in the remainder of the OT outside the primaeval history of Gen 1-11. His name appears again only in 1 Chron 1:1-24 at the head of a genealogy of Abraham that the chronicler constructed via scissors and paste from the genealogies of Gen 4 and 11.”

Page 212 - “Intriguingly, the word in 2 Pet 2:4 for "cast into hell' is tartarod, referring to Tartarus, the realm in Greek mythology lower than even Hades.”

Page 218 - “Another fascinating example comes from 2 Tim 3:8. Warning against religious hypocrites, the author (Paul?) says, "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith." These personages do not appear in the OT but are widely known in Jewish folklore as the unnamed magicians in Pharaoh's court who opposed Moses (Exod 7:11, 22).”

Page 286 - “The manufacture and use of even the most primitive stone tools might appear at first blush to indicate considerable cognitive capacity. But in fact the manufacture and use of Oldowan stone tools has been taught to chimpanzees in captivity. While chimpanzees in the wild have mastered the technique of cracking nuts with rocks, certain chimps in captivity have, after much training, learned the skill of knapping- that is, striking rocks together at an oblique angle so as to produce flakes that can be used as crude cutting tools.
Significantly, young chimpanzees, observing the knapping activities of their elders, have learned through imitation the art of knapping. Whether one infers from such activity that chimpanzees do have considerable cognitive capacity after all or that Oldowan tool manufacture and use does not after all require great cognitive capacity, the result is the same: because nonhuman primates can master the manufacture and use of Oldowan tools, such artifacts are not evidence of modern human behavior.”

Page 308 - “The nineteenth-century philologist Max Müller declared, "The one great barrier between the brute and man is Language. Man speaks, and no brute has ever uttered a word. Language is the Rubicon, and no brute will dare to cross it.”

Page 314 - “The descent of the larynx in adult humans enlarges the space above the larynx, so that sounds emitted from the larynx can be modified to a greater degree than is possible for any other mammal. Movements of the tongue in the right-angle space defined by the mouth and pharynx are able to produce the changes necessary for utterance of the so-called quantal vowels (phonetically discrete vowels) [i], [u] and [a] (fig. 11.3). By contrast, the tongues of
apes, like the tongues of human newborns, are located almost entirely within their mouths, making the production of these vowel sounds impossible.
Fossil remains at Skhul and Qafzeh revealed a fully human SVT in archaic humans 100 kya. Philip Lieberman points out that the biological disadvantages of the human SVT (such as choking on food, impacted molars, reduced chewing efficiency) would reduce fitness unless it was being used to enhance the intelligibility of speech communication. The presence of "such an odd, seemingly maladaptive configuration" is thus indicative of articulate speech.”

Page 359 - “Adam and Eve may therefore be plausibly identified as members of Homo heidelbergensis and as the founding pair at the root of all human species.
Challenges to this hypothesis from population genetics fail principally because we cannot rule out on the basis of the genetic divergence exhibited by contemporary humans that our most recent common ancestors, situated more than 500 kya, are the sole genetic progenitors of the entire human race, whether past or present. The challenge of the wide geographic distribution of humanity is similarly met by situating Adam and Eve far in the past, prior to the divergence of Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and other species, and allowing multispecies cultural evolution to proceed thereafter in response to environmental changes to produce modern human behaviors wherever their descendants are to be found.”

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd like to give this book 2.5 stars. Dr. Craig's clarity of communication is wonderful, and his scholarly credentials and helpful work in other areas throws into stark relief such a low rating and mostly indicates this reader's remaining unconvinced of his arguments in support of his thesis.

Nevertheless, beyond my own personal interpretive differences, particularly with regard to his handling of Scripture and his engagement with theology, I must point out a few overarching weaknesses that, in my opinion, dramatically weaken the contribution this book makes to the "quest" Dr. Craig is pursuing. First, overall, Dr. Craig's lack of serious engagement with young earth creationist (YEC) scholars reflects a dismissive attitude that seems to reflect a general disrespect toward those with whom he disagrees. He repeatedly makes generalizations, if he even refers to creationists' position on a particular matter.

Secondly, there are repeated rhetorical statements that seek to color YEC as though it were dangerous. For example, on pg. 14, after dismissing YEC scientific pursuits as "wildly implausible," he adds, "Thus, Bible-believing Christians had better hope that the young earth creationist's hermeneutical claim is also false, lest we be thrown back onto the worst-case scenarios." And on page 16, he writes, "For it is difficult to face with open eyes the terrifying possibility that the young earth creationist hermeneutical claim may in fact be right." These assertions he does not justify, but the rhetoric pushes the reader toward skepticism of YEC. The YEC "hermeneutical claim" is merely that Genesis 1-3 should be read as straightforward historical narrative, so that the text does indeed communicate something about how God created the world. Yes, this implies that what Dr. Craig refers to as "mainstream science" does not fit. Why is that such a terrifying prospect? He never says. And all of this after he says, on page 13, "Although young earth creationism is widely despised, its hermeneutical claim is eminently plausible and deserves to be taken seriously by the biblical scholar." This seems to be disingenuous.

Third, Dr. Craig's ten features of myths do not all seem to be distinctive features of a particular genre of literature. Many other genres of ancient literature contain most of the ten features he lists, so I'm not sure how using these criteria helps us determine whether or not Genesis 1-11 fits as an example. However, it seems like Dr. Craig puts most of his weight on the tenth criteria, what he calls "fantastic and inconsistent elements." He spends an inordinate amount of space identifying aspects of the content of Genesis 1-11 that he finds "fantastic" or "incoherent." One can't help wondering if he has a mental criteria for what qualifies as "fantastic," or if this criteria is completely subjective. He doesn't engage with any students of Scripture who find none of the specific examples of so-called "inconsistencies" as being truly inconsistent, leading the reader to believe that there may not be any way to resolve these inconsistencies satisfactorily.

His explanation of what he means by "fantastic" is found on pages 104-105: "I take it that fantastic elements are those which, if taken literally, are so extraordinary as to be palpably false." He sets his own perspective against those who deny the possibility of miracles--he affirms the reality of miracles--but then he proceeds to identify elements of the narrative of Genesis that many students of Scripture would reasonably view as miraculous or supernatural. It's hard not to think that Dr. Craig equates "fantastic" with anything that hasn't been accounted for in mainstream science. If so, Dr. Craig is arguing in an ugly circle.

Ultimately, his outline of fantastic elements is intended to demonstrate that Genesis 1-11 must not be straightforward historical narrative. He wishes to classify it as a kind of "mytho-history," so that we readers need not take it "literally." He nowhere, as far as I can see, establishes how or why the genre of Genesis shifts to straightforward historical narrative in chapter 12. In this regard, his handling of Genesis 2-3 at various points lacks an appreciation of the literary detail of the text. Dr. Craig doesn't seem to recognize subtlety and doesn't engage the spectrum of approaches to, for example, the two "special" trees in the garden or the serpent. He doesn't engage with the larger biblical commentary on the serpent's connection with the supernatural person called Satan.

I did appreciate many of Dr. Craig's assessments of various approaches to Genesis that focus on comparisons between it and other ancient Near Eastern creation (and flood) accounts. Focusing on scholars such as Dr. John Walton and Dr. Tremper Longman, III, he shows how, ironically, their approach to Genesis becomes quite literalistic, even as the comparative approach tends to oppose traditional approaches to Genesis (especially those that draw YEC conclusions). I also appreciated chapter 7, focused on the New Testament's treatment of Adam. He was appropriately nuanced, recognizing the plausibility of more traditional understandings. And, of course, his final recognition that the New Testament does indeed insist that Christians must believe in a true original pair for humanity is laudable (though, in my opinion, he spoils that with his scientific investigation in the final section of the book). I am going to have to continue wrestling with his discussion of the difference between "assertorical" and illustrative uses of literary and historical figures. He raises some good questions in this area, particularly with regard to 2 Peter and Jude.

Finally, Dr. Craig's dismissal of the doctrine of original sin is problematic. In line with this, his discussion of the nature of death, especially as laid out in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15, doesn't fit well with the details of the text. The natural mortality of Adam needs to be held properly in tension with Paul's clear assertions that Adam's rebellion against God introduces death into, at least, human experience, and Paul's identifying death as an "enemy" suggests much more than death being a natural part of creation, and Dr. Craig glosses over some aspects of the text in these passages.

I am little qualified to assess his discussion of science. However, the lack of any engagement with YEC scientists I believe to be a major flaw of Dr. Craig's approach. Particularly, since he's arguing for a historical Adam (and Eve) and he's seeking to identify when this historical Adam lived, no discussion justifying dating methodologies seems to be a huge omission. While I was appropriately challenged by reading this book, and so much of Dr. Craig's work has been helpful to me personally and to the church more broadly, I can't recommend this book or encourage others to read it, as it doesn't actually do justice to a spectrum of positions that ought to be considered. While I continue refining my own YEC convictions, submitting them to questioning and evaluation in my own teaching and preaching and reading widely from those who approach Scripture, theology, and the Christian life from different angles than I do, I do not see this book as an example of good engagement on the critical issues. I am aware that Dr. Craig has contributed to a "Perspectives" book that will be published next year, and I look forward to reading that work, as he'll be forced to engage with a YEC scholar, as well as directly with others who have a different approach to the "quest" for the historical Adam.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Craig finds himself in no man's land with his new book "In Quest of the Historical Adam." Literalists and young-earth folks will be appalled at his willingness to engage and even incorporate modern scholarship from paleontology to paleonuerology. Moreover, they will not appreciate how an old evolved Earth, where modern humans share a common ancestry, is part and parcel of the multiple disciplines taken seriously here. Those outside the Christian world will wonder why anyone would expend effort to harmonize science with what they see as obvious mythology. It will be the honest thinking Christian between the extremes who appreciate Craig's work here.

Craig engages with many fields required to tackle this problem at a scholarly level. How he does this time and again in his writing is beyond me. His methodology and reasoning are impeccable. I would have given the book five stars, but even the 380 pages with copious citations left the reader with a good deal of uncertainty. This uncertainty is not because Craig didn't deliver on his promise. On the contrary, he admits to a high opacity level early on. But the bottom line is we were all hoping for more. Trying to integrate science and Genesis is so problematic, others like Joel Edmund Anderson reject the entire enterprise seeing Genesis 1-11 as ancient near-east mythology and science as science. Harmonizations merely detract from the theological value of Genesis. I don't particularly agree with this, but I get his point, especially when there is so much ambiguity.

Craig concludes that the proper way to interpret Genesis 1-11 is by seeing it as mytho-historical. Adam and Eve were homo heidelbergensis progenitors of the human race from around 500 and 750 kya. They were not necessarily created de novo but rather transformed, by divine act perhaps, from within an earlier hominid population. Adam and Eve were the first hominids in God's image - human. Neanderthals and Denisovans were also human. All other contemporary hominids leading up to homo heidelbergensis were nonhuman. Eve's offspring didn't interbreed with the nonhuman population. This is equivalent to bestiality to Craig. Of course, such a view is hardly satisfying if we are only left with incest to explain Cain's wife. All in all, Craig's theory is not too unlike Swamidass, so there appears to be some synergy of thought on the topic today. Definitely worth the read if you are interested in this subject.

[Zachary Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Concatenation” is the word that comes to mind to describe this book. The two halves seem to be more stapled together than integrated. That said, the genre analysis in the first half is quite good, by which I mean it is a fairly clear summary of standard ANE literature studies. If you’ve read Walton, Heiser, Mark S. Smith, etc you won’t find anything surprising here. There are a few points I need to revisit because since WLC is an outsider to this field, he feels more at liberty to press against the consensus, at least terminológically if not substantively. The core of his argument is “find the first human and you’ve found the biblical Adam”. While this seems fine and permitted by the flexibility of the Genesis narratives, I wish the epistemological question would be better addressed. Are we really to believe that the story of Adam & Eve was preserved for nearly 1 million years before being crystallized in the Genesis text ca. 600 BCE? Or was this a serial retelling of an ancient story that plastically changed into a story about farmers? That’s the kind of question that keeps me from signing on to this hypothesis. As a way of maintaining theological consistency, it’s quite good and the thesis is thought provoking if not fully persuasive. Highly recommend.

[Chad Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t believe I made it through this.

[Kevin Gunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book and helps clarify where I think I stand when it comes to interpreting Genesis.

I see the following as issues with young earth approach to Genesis:
* Star light
* Dinosaurs and humans

When it comes to star light, for example, take the Andromeda Galaxy. This galaxy can be seen with the naked eye. It is the closest spiral galaxy to our own and is 2.5 million light years away. If the earth is only 6000 years old, then we could not possibly see this galaxy for another 2.49 million years (give or take).

Craig touches this in his book:

As creation scientists themselves recognize, this puts a literal interpretation of Gen 1–11 into massive conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics. In order to explain how we can even see the stars, some of which are billions of light-years away, creation scientists have been led to radically reinterpret modern cosmology (ch 4, 131).

This is one of the issues I find with Answers in Genesis and Institute of Creation Research. They try to reinterpret and challenge established scientific theories to mend to their interpretation of Genesis, when in fact, it may be their interpretation of Genesis that may be incorrect.

As for the dinosaurs, they would have to co-exist in a YEC approach, which the fossil record doesn't seem to support, and again Craig touches on this:

Since Noah was contemporaneous with the age of the dinosaurs, he is said to have taken dinosaurs aboard the ark, two of every one of the five hundred genera. Upon disembarking, he released these dinosaurs into the world, where they spread throughout the earth and evolved into all the known species of dinosaur. Since Noah disembarked only 292 years prior to the birth of Abraham, the entire history of dinosaur evolution and extinction must be compressed into the space of less than three hundred years (unless, that is, dinosaurs were still about at the time of Abraham). (ch 4, 131)

Throughout the book, Craig lays the framework to support his position that Genesis should be read as mytho-history. It is historical in the sense that it could have involved actual people given the genealogies provided in Genesis, but myth in the sense that it speaks of creation as other ancient near eastern texts speak of it (albeit with a major difference: Genesis is supporting a monotheistic creation rather than polytheism).

Craig then moves to prove how there could've been a real Adam and Eve as the first parents of creation and provides textual references to support this theory. For Craig, he suggests that Adam and Eve could've evolved from homo sapiens and Neanderthals, though it's without a doubt that there is something unique about humans today (given we have a soul and not just a mind and body).

As human beings, Neanderthals and other archaic humans are in God’s image and therefore have intrinsic moral value and share in man’s vocation. But what of Adam and Eve’s contemporaries that were not their descendants? On an evolutionary scenario, Adam and Eve emerged from a wider population of hominins. Since Adam and Eve are the fount of all humanity, it follows necessarily that Adam and Eve’s contemporaries were not human and therefore not in the image of God, since to be human is to be in God’s image. No other earthly creature than man, according to the account in Gen 1, has been created in God’s image and likeness. (ch 13)

As human beings, Neanderthals and other archaic humans are in God’s image and therefore have intrinsic moral value and share in man’s vocation. But what of Adam and Eve’s contemporaries that were not their descendants? On an evolutionary scenario, Adam and Eve emerged from a wider population of hominins. Since Adam and Eve are the fount of all humanity, it follows necessarily that Adam and Eve’s contemporaries were not human and therefore not in the image of God, since to be human is to be in God’s image. No other earthly creature than man, according to the account in Gen 1, has been created in God’s image and likeness. (ch 13)

Overall a good book and recommended for those who are wrestling with how to reconcile Genesis (and the understanding that Scripture is God's word, true and without error) and modern science as we understand it.

[Tim Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Lane Craig’s The Quest for the Historical Adam tackles one of the most significant questions in Christian theology: was Adam a historical figure or a symbolic character? In this comprehensive work, Craig explores Adam’s role in the biblical narrative, focusing on key theological themes like personhood, imputation of sin, and the historical nature of Genesis 1-11. Craig also discusses the compatibility of Adam’s story with modern scientific understandings of human origins, presenting his views within the context of myth-history and the classification of homo species like Homo sapiens and Homo erectus.

Main Argument and Theological Framework

At the heart of the book, Craig argues that Adam could have been a real historical figure, but that does not necessarily require reading the Genesis account in a literalistic manner. Instead, he proposes that the early chapters of Genesis should be understood as myth-history: a hybrid genre that combines theological truths with elements of myth. This allows for a reinterpretation of Adam's role in salvation history, maintaining doctrinal essentials like original sin and imputation of sin, without insisting on a rigid, literalistic reading of the Genesis text.

Craig’s views attempt to harmonize the scientific understanding of human evolution with traditional Christian doctrine. He suggests that God could have used an evolutionary process to create humans, yet at a certain point, selected two hominids (Adam and Eve) from a larger population, imbuing them with rational souls and making them the spiritual progenitors of humanity. These early humans, spiritually distinct, became the first individuals capable of sinning and transmitting sin to their descendants.

Personhood and Imputation of Sin

A significant portion of the book is dedicated to the concept of personhood and how it relates to Adam's role in the biblical story. Craig critiques the work of anthropologists Sally McBearty and Alison Brooks, who outline four characteristics required for personhood: self-awareness, awareness of others, capacity for future planning, and language (pp. 258-259). Craig finds this definition inadequate, especially since it excludes individuals with cognitive impairments or developmental disabilities from being classified as persons.

In contrast, Craig argues that personhood in a biblical context is rooted in being created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). Thus, even people with cognitive disabilities are fully persons, reflecting the image of God regardless of their mental capacities. This distinction allows Craig to maintain that Adam and Eve, though they may not have been the first Homo sapiens biologically, were spiritually distinct as human beings made in God’s image (p. 259).

For Craig, the imputation of sin is central to Christian doctrine, but he maintains that this concept does not require a literal Adam. Even if Adam and Eve were not historical figures, their theological role as the first moral agents still holds. Their fall represents the point at which sin entered the world, affecting all of humanity, even if Adam and Eve were part of an evolving human species (pp. 211-217). Thus, while Adam may not have been the first human biologically, he was the first human spiritually and morally accountable to God.

The Classification of Adam and Eve: Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens?

Craig follows the views of scholars like Tremper Longman, who suggest that Adam and Eve were not the first humans biologically but were rather selected by God from a larger pool of hominids (such as Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis) at a specific moment in history. These early humans would have been biologically similar to other hominids, but God endowed them with rational souls, setting them apart morally and spiritually (pp. 174-178).

Craig acknowledges that evolutionary science suggests that humanity evolved over time, with Homo sapiens emerging as a distinct species around 200,000 years ago. However, he proposes that Adam and Eve's appearance in this evolutionary process could have occurred much later—perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, in a specific moment when God gave them a rational soul. This moment marks the point at which they became spiritually distinct and capable of moral accountability (p. 174).

Craig’s view is that Adam and Eve were the spiritual progenitors of all humanity, even though they may not have been the first humans biologically. All humans descend from them spiritually because of the imputation of sin through Adam and Eve’s fall. In this way, Craig reconciles the scientific evidence of human evolution with the biblical doctrine of original sin.

Implications of Craig’s View on Adam’s Historical Nature

One of the most intriguing aspects of Craig’s argument is his reinterpretation of Genesis 1-11 as myth-history—a genre that blends mythological elements with theological truths. According to Craig, Genesis should not be read as a strictly literal historical account but as a theological narrative that conveys foundational truths about creation, sin, and salvation (pp. 90-102, 174-178). In this light, Adam’s historicity becomes secondary to the theological purpose of the narrative.

Craig’s approach allows for the theological truth of Adam’s role in the Fall to remain intact even if the story is not strictly historical. He emphasizes that the doctrinal truths about human nature, sin, and the need for redemption are preserved regardless of the genre of the Genesis account. This provides a way to harmonize Christian theology with the scientific view of human origins without undermining the spiritual message of the Bible (pp. 174-178).

Literary and Allegorical Use of Biblical Characters

Craig’s appeal to a literary or allegorical interpretation of Genesis is one of the more controversial aspects of his work. He suggests that the early chapters of Genesis are not meant to be read as modern historical narrative but as symbolic accounts that communicate deep theological truths. This does not diminish the moral and theological significance of Genesis but rather reframes it in a way that is consistent with modern scientific findings.

While this approach is appealing to many who want to reconcile faith with science, it could be problematic for those who hold to a literalist or inerrantist view of the Bible. Critics of Craig’s myth-history interpretation argue that it risks undermining the historical authority of the Bible and reducing its theological significance to mere symbolism. John Walton, for example, has critiqued views like Craig’s, suggesting that myth-history does not fully preserve the integrity of the historical Adam and the essential truths of the Genesis narrative.

Pros of the Book:

Balanced Approach: Craig offers a thoughtful way to reconcile the scientific understanding of human origins with Christian theology, avoiding the extremes of either creationism or scientific naturalism.

Theological Depth: The book explores important theological themes such as personhood, sin, and the role of Adam in salvation history.

Philosophical Engagement: Craig engages with philosophical questions regarding personhood and imputation of sin, offering a clear biblical understanding of these concepts.
Cons of the Book:

Complexity: The book’s philosophical and theological discussions may be difficult for readers without a background in these areas.

Literalist Pushback: Craig’s approach may alienate those who insist on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis and may be seen as diminishing the historical authority of Scripture.

Limited Engagement with Opposing Views: While Craig engages with some criticisms, he does not always fully address opposing scholarly perspectives, such as those of John Walton or Denis Alexander, who question the myth-history genre.
Conclusion:

In The Quest for the Historical Adam, William Lane Craig provides a comprehensive and nuanced framework for understanding the biblical Adam in light of modern scientific knowledge. His myth-history approach to Genesis 1-11 allows for the theological truths of the Fall and original sin to remain intact, even if Adam and Eve were not strictly historical figures. Craig’s exploration of personhood and the imputation of sin offers a solid theological foundation for understanding humanity’s moral and spiritual state. While his views may be controversial and alienating to some, particularly those committed to a literal reading of Genesis, Craig offers a compelling synthesis of science and theology that remains faithful to core Christian doctrines.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first book that I have read by W. L. Craig, and I am very impressed. Craig is a lot smarter than I will ever be. That, of course, does not make him immune to saying stupid things, but he says very few stupid things in this book.

The meat of this book is contained in two main sections: 1. examining the biblical data concerning Adam and 2. examining the scientific data concerning a first human couple and the possibility that one exists. The biblical data are in turn divided into data from the Old and New Testaments. These two main sections are framed by an introductory section stating the problem and a final section with concluding thoughts.

Of these sections the one dealing with the O.T. data was the most extensive, and was the one I found most helpful. It deals largely with the question of whether Genesis 1-11 should be considered myth or not. I was very glad that this icon of modern Christian apologetics concludes that Genesis 1-11 is definitely myth. That makes me feel that there is yet hope for the evangelical community.

I was not very excited to learn early on that I would be reading about the scientific data filtered through the mind of an evangelical apologist, but it was actually very interesting. But his conclusion that Adam was a Homo heidelbergensis was very strange. He speculates that one particular Homo heidelbergensis became Adam via a mutation, possibly divinely prearranged, which greatly enhanced cognitive ability and thus differentiated the first human from his non-human parents. God may have arranged for Adam's mate to have the same mutation. Now, it seems to me that rather than having the unlikely coincidence of having two Homos heidelbergensis having the same beneficial mutation, a more likely scenario is that a father could pass on the same mutation to a son and to a daughter. These two individuals could then breed and produce human offspring carrying the same beneficial mutation.

Craig speculates that these newly formed humans with increased cognitive abilities may tend to form an isolated population, tending to breed with each other and not with their non-human fellow Homos heidelbergensis who lack this mutation. But surely such a population would not be totally isolated. Nonetheless, Craig's hypothesis is much superior to the idea that one day God took a handful of dirt, fashioned it into a man, and breathed life into it.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, William Lane Craig applies his thinking to the identification of the historical Adam. Craig's inquiries focus on two mainnareas: the first 11 chapters of Genesis and the scientific evidence regarding early humans.

Craig's analysis of Genesis leads him to conclude that chapters 1-11 are in a genre he calls mytho-history. This is a genre which relays historical events through the genre of myth. So, while all details might not be 100% literal (just like poetry and wisdom literature), the stories present truly historical events. Craig then further analyzes New Testament writings regarding Adam and affirms what virtually all Christians have believed: that there truly was a historical Adam whose actions had real consequences for all humans.

Craig's treatment of the scientific data takes us through much of early human development, including neurology, archeology, and linguistics. Craig shows that those properties that make us uniquely human are to be found in Neanderthals, Denisovans, and their common ancestor H. Heidelbergensis, and thus places the likely time frame of Adam's life within the era of H. Heidelbergensis, roughly 750K years ago.

Obviously, with so much data to analyze over so many fields, there could be much more said about any or all of these subject areas. Even so, Craig seems to engage fairly with a wide range of experts in all fields of consideration. The one area that gets short shrift is the area that is likely of greatest interest to many Christian readers: that of creation vs evolution. Craig assumes evolutionary descent throughout his work, and only mentions the possibility of de novo creation of Adam and Eve in a short footnote in the last chapter. This is probably the biggest drawback to the book; it assumes that some flavor of divinely guided evolution is the most plausible explanation, whereas that topic is still widely debated amongst the church.

4.5 stars and a must read for anyone interested in Genesis as literature, the origin of mankind, or the creation/evolution debate.

[Russell Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will not please all readers and in fact, Dr. Craig warns that the text will upset everyone in some way. Personally, the book was a challenge to wrap my head around at times and this is far from my first exposure to studies of the Bible’s first 11 chapters. Definitely not for a beginner. A dive into the study of human origins is what I was looking to read. Craig does give a fairly well-formed theory on how science and theology could align on the topic of Adam as a historical figure. I’m honestly not sure if I agree with the end conclusion but this is a difficult and controversial subject. I appreciate the thorough survey of various fields and the presentation of a clear theory of human origin which should be weighed against any other popular theories. I saw a couple of dismissive reviews and comments but I sensed the criticisms were coming from a pre-determined disagreement with Craig’s final conclusion. You may disagree that Neanderthals are under the human umbrella or that modern humans share a common ancestor but given the evidence presented, it is a worthy discussion topic and shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly.

Some additional observations of the book. I was surprised at how much time is spent setting up the genre of Genesis. The focus on Adam starts fairly deep in. I get it in the end, but not what I expected starting out. I would describe the book as a study of Genesis 1-11 with a special emphasis on human origin. There aren’t always long discussions of alternate Christian viewpoints although there are some noted examples. In a few places Craig relies heavily on 1 or 2 sources but there may not be a huge range of existing sources for a few very niche subjects. Many passages could be adjusted to help non-scholars comprehend but Craig definitely prefers using precise, scholarly language, narrowing the intended audience.

[Stinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was both a challenging and enlightening read. Craig has advanced degrees in philosophy and theology by which he is better equipped to discuss the first half of his book on the nature of the literature of Genesis chapters 1-11. The second half focuses on the scientific fields having to do with human origins. Still, even without a science degree in the relevant fields, Craig employs his philosophical prowess in a manner that is thorough and logical in treatment of the subject.

This was the perfect book for me, an evangelical brought up to believe in young earth creationism but now accepting of modern science. It's not, nor does Craig claim it to be, anything other than a laymen's quest of the historical Adam. Primary sources of research in the topics addressed would prove more reliable but costly with regards to doing the research oneself. Craig has done this for the reader who wants the question of the historical Adam addressed but doesn't necessarily wish to devote years to learn the answer. And to be clear, the answer is tentative, even though Craig does provide one.

I recommend this book especially to others like me who enjoy scholarly reads and are conservative Christians that nevertheless regard modern science as generally trustworthy. It follows that this book will have a small audience. However, I get the sense that it was not written to sell as much to help Craig work out his own tortured questions about how to believe modern science and the existence of a literal Adam and Eve at the same time. It's an issue that's bothered me as well, and, in addressing that serious question, I have Craig to thank.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredible depth and scope of scholarship but the conclusions are hard to swallow. From reading Genesis and Paul's letters, Craig binds himself to a literal first pair of humans, which is not at all necessary. Genesis is so obviously written in the style of myth (talking serpent, 'Tree of Life', God walking in the garden, etc. etc.) that it immediately rules out a literal historical event, no matter how Paul wants to wrestle with its theology. From the conclusion of a historical event comes later trouble - especially that God now has to intervene miraculously to produce the necessary cognitive leap in two individuals, rather than cumulative mutations among a group, or a defining change in one ancestor.

Better is to jettison the human illusion of the arrow-of-time and propose that the sins of all Mankind (past, present, and future) become the burden of original sin, just as redemption occurs through the full sphere of spacetime. We necessarily evolved as selfish beings and when use choose not to transcend that nature, or worse, use our free will to make things worse, that is the sin that permeates and reinforces the selfishness of our inherited nature. Put simply, Original Sin is evolved selfishness, and sin is hurting others by freely choosing to follow it.

Ultimately it's a matter of faith and Craig could be right, but Christianity certainly doesn't rely on that being the case.

[Brandon Sickling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very disappointing. From the first few pages it seems Craig is desperate to entertain and even go so far as embrace every liberal, secular, and naturalistic presupposition possible. While I can agree with some of his conclusions regarding the genre of Gen. 1-11, he seems to take it to an extreme and speak two contradictory ways: calling it true, but in a much more real sense false, as he seeks to demonstrate in part two. While he presents fascinating data including ancient tools, cave paintings, etc, he fails to provide an adequate defense of the dating methods utilized and seems to rely heavily on them, despite their naturalistic presuppositions. He wholeheartedly embraces an evolutionary model for Adam and Eve without batting an eye; denying their special creation from the dust. He grounds his definition of humanity in intellectual, social, and physical characteristics rather than in the Biblical grounding of the Image of God. His short discussion of the Imago Dei in the last chapter acts as an afterthought, after the “real” scientific work is done. He places Adam between 750,000 and 1 million years ago, which I just find preposterous. I’m just very disappointed here. If this is the best that the Old Earth position has to offer, I think it might be time for me to reexamine the Young Earth Position.