Was There A Historical Adam?

I’ve been fascinated by the early Genesis accounts and OT archaeology since my HS days (but unfortunately didn’t/don’t have a knack for ancient languages!). It’s maybe most amazing how much can actually be found out and speculated about.

For a couple of related short & (I think) very interesting articles see www.historicalgenesis.com. The second asks if the OT Joseph was also the famous Egyptian Vizier Imhotep, written by an author named Ed Vasicek! ;-). http://www.highlandpc.com/studies/dezdisp/joevizier.php

For a good response to Longman’s position, read James Anderson’s “Was Adam a Real Historical Individual” at http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-i…

Next, some will be asking if there was an historical Jesus. If the first Adam wasn’t real, then the second Adam might not be real. This is a dangerous and heretical path.

If Adam was not historical, were Cain, Abel and Seth historical? When you read the genealogies that begin with Adam and come down to Noah (Gen. 5) or that go from Adam to Christ (Mt., Lk.) when do you shift from myth to history?

This is very disappointing. I have started enjoying some of Longman’s work, but this will cast a shadow of doubt upon his presuppositions in handling the OT text. Of course, every work of man should be approached with a measured skepticism (I think), but this will bring up some specific questions.

I like what one commenter said. To paraphrase: “Yep, I got my sin nature from a metaphor.”

If the “Genesis again” of Matt. 19:28 is a return to pre-Adamic evolutionism, we do not have much to look forward to.

With all due respect to Dr. Longman and his academic credentials and authorial prestige, this is a good representation of what is wrong with so much of evangelicalism. May God spare us.

It is so sad and shocking to see such rank heresy from such an otherwise trustworthy source. I do not use those words lightly. I have had great respect Dr. Longman until now. No matter how faithful the source seems, we must run from such an obvious deviation from historic Christianity. As Pastor Harding said, first it’s doubting the historicity of Adam, then we will be doubting the very incarnation of our Lord. May God keep us all faithful.

Just this summer I read a book by a former Westminister prof. “Inspiration and Incarnation” by Peter Enns. He was let go by Westminster for the content of that book. One of the things he said about Genesis is that the first 3 chapters of Genesis are God telling the story of creation and the fall in pre-scientific language so that the original readers of Genesis could understand. If I remember the gist of the book it is that incarnation always involves God condescending to human weakness. The fallout of the book was that churches that support Westminster were in an uproar and that Enns book conflicted with the Westminster Confession.

Does Longman’s comments conflict with the Westminster Confession? And if so, will there be a similar fallout?

@ Jonathan: “Does Longman’s comments conflict with the Westminster Confession? And if so, will there be a similar fallout? “

That’s kinda a good question. Longman was at Westminster and still has an ok relationship with the school. Answer to your first question
1) It’s a bit fuzzy if Longman is even outside of the confession. - Enns alleged non-confessionalism was based more on the “need” for 2nd Temple Sources to interpret scripture, not on the historical nature of Adam.

2) Fall out for Longman would be minimal. He left a WTS a long time ago for a more mainstream evangelical track - Westmont isn’t anywhere close to being confessional.

I didn’t relaize Longman was no longer at Westminster.