Some of history’s most iconic stories, those that have pervaded and impacted culture, come from the Christian Bible. And perhaps no other characters, apart from Christ Himself, have left such a broad and lasting legacy on so many institutions of human culture than those of Adam and Eve. The first humans encountered during many a New-Year’s-Resolution read-through from the beginning of Genesis on, the account of Adam’s special creation, along with that of Eve, and their subsequent fall from grace communicates multiple levels of truth about what it means to be human.
But from such beginnings, Christians and non-believers alike often ask themselves the same fundamental question: were Adam and Eve real people? Does the book of Genesis and its creation account of humanity represent a straight-forward, often characterized as “literal”, story of events that actually occurred the way they are described? Or is it something else? An allegory, a symbolic summary of otherwise equivalent history that was never meant to be understood as true? Or, for that matter, is any of the Genesis creation account true at all and would it even matter if it was?
The answer one gives to this question is often very telling about the way in which one answers many other questions of Biblical interpretation. Ultimately, to answer the question of whether Adam and Eve could and/or should be understood as being historical first humans, we have to tackle two distinct sub-questions. One, does scripture give us any clues as to whether its authors or subjects understood Adam and Eve to be real? And two, does science, or the “Book of Nature” testify to their plausibility or probability. For those who have not studied the question in depth, the answers to both questions are sure to be quite insightful and surprising.
Does Scripture Consider Adam and Eve to Be Real?
For many Christians, their understanding of Genesis and its six days of creation have always been an account of actual physical and human history. And regardless of how one views the specifics of what sort of time horizon those days might represent, the matter of human creation during day six is a constant. That is not to say that alternative views have not ever been entertained within Christendom. Views such as the framework view or those that view Genesis 1 and 2 as being two separate accounts of human origins have enjoyed varied levels of acceptance, especially in recent decades as scientific inquiry has increased around biology and Origin of Life research.
But ultimately, any theological view apart from that of an outright denial of Genesis’ historicity will concern itself with a proper understanding of whether and how those who authored scripture and those whom scripture speaks of understood the intention of Genesis 1 and 2.
Evidence From Genealogies
One indication as to whether Biblical authors considered Adam to be an actual person of history is his myriad mention in a number of Biblical genealogies. Genesis 5, the earliest genealogy found in scripture, begins its lineage firmly restating the basics of the human creation account with Adam as its patriarch. This genealogy naturally leads to others later in the Old Testament which touch on other figures that are, even to skeptical scholars, widely accepted as real, historical figures, such as Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Unless there were plausible reasons to understand some genealogies, or even some segments of genealogies, as being more historical than others, it would seem that Adam is treated no differently than any other Biblical patriarch.
Another notable genealogy that mentions Adam specifically is contained in Luke’s gospel, toward the end of chapter 3. This genealogy attempts to list a succession of Biblical figures from Jesus Christ, who is certainly not, by any reasonable standard, a reference to a mythical or allegorical figure, to Adam himself. Again, to deny the intent of the genealogy in this way would be to call into question larger hermeneutical principles than the issue of creation.
Evidence from the Gospels and Paul’s Letters
Another indication from scripture as to how Biblical authors understood the figure of Adam is found within their speech and letters. For instance, Jesus, in Matthew 19:4, in talking to the Pharisees regarding divorce, makes reference to scripture when he responds, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” On its own, this may be a rather common sense statement, and it is surely at least that. But this actually seems to be a direct reference to Genesis 5:2 which implies that Jesus indeed considers this genealogy to be relevant and applicable.
Yet another instance in this category would be Romans 5. In his letter to the Romans, Paul makes numerous references to Adam in explaining how death and distance from God came through the transgressions of one man. This obviously echoes the story contained in Genesis 2-4 regarding the progression of Adam and Eve’s original sin and banishment from Eden. Paul’s use of this story, and indeed its fundamental necessity in explaining the origin and nature of sin and fallen humanity throughout the Bible and human history, further testifies to the way in which scripture relies on a very real interpretation of Adam and Eve’s historicity.
Does Science Testify to Adam and Eve Being Real?
Whether some may attempt to avoid a literal Adam and Eve within the realm of what is required via scripture internally, the question remains regarding what the realm of science and anthropologic history has to say regarding the plausibility of a real Adam and Eve existing in past time and space.
Real Places and Real Time
The first consideration is to recognize that scripture and its recording of history, whether ancient or first century, is firmly rooted in real geography and real time. All New Testament and many Old Testament figures and places can be established and readily verified through purely traditional means using archeology and historical records. This actually opens the whole of the Bible to increased skeptical inquiry, making it much more falsifiable and testable than other religions and their creation myths.
In Adam and Eve’s case, this is no different. The Bible is actually rather straightforward in rooting Eden as a real place. Genesis 2 makes reference to the layout and location of Eden, as the convergence of four rivers; the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. There is some deliberation on where the Pishon and Gihon may have been situated, whether they are now dry riverbeds or are perhaps tributaries of the Nile. But K. A. Kitchen firmly roots the garden’s location in Mesopotamia, near the northern end of the Persian Gulf, which would have been a subset of the whole Eden area. It also mentions the land of Cush, which refers to modern day Ethiopia and possibly Mesopotamia as well.
Regardless of any slight variations in location or extent that may be allowed by the text, the greater point remains: the author of Genesis makes no qualms about rooting Eden, and by extension creation proper and the subsequent birthplace of mankind, firmly within real geography, in a real time and place. And as such, this then allows us to extend further into inquiring whether this data actually meshes with other scientific data that we have access to today.
Biblical Creation Models
Scientific theories and the scientific process itself greatly values the use of what are called “models”. A scientific model is basically a series of testable hypotheses that are derived from the implications of a given theory. For instance, an evolutionary model for human origins may make certain testable assumptions that would be expected to be true upon further testing were the underlying theory true. An example might be the expectation of a slow, gradual transition between early hominid species and modern human species, or a similar gradual transition in tool use and cultural practices.
The Bible, taken in its entirety, also provides us with many data points with which to establish a similar model. For instance, when the Hebrew text of Genesis speaks to the creation of Adam, we see some similarities with earlier creation activity and some distinct differences. To begin with, the Hebrew text uses the term “asa”. “Asa” in Hebrew connotes the creation of something from pre-existing material. This seems to be consistent with the language used in Genesis 2 that speaks of man being formed from the dust of the earth. But the text also uses the term “bara” which connotes the creation of something altogether new. If in fact man was the product of purely natural phenomena within the realm of matter that already existed, there would be no sense in which his creation was a novelty.
Was Humanity A Special Creation?
From these deductions, we can then test whether, indeed, we see evidence of mankind as a special creation. Not surprisingly to Christians, we do. Though evidence of tool use dates back potentially millions of years in the archeological record, trappings of modern, advanced human culture appear very suddenly somewhere around 70,000 years ago. These dates have changed over the latest decade or two and, as is always the case, scientists are often divided in terms of how to interpret dates and the significance of artifact findings. But what has not changed is the convergence of multiple signs of symbolic and cultural behavior within this relatively recent timeframe.
Also testable is the specificity of Adam and Eve as the first humans. If Adam and Eve were, in fact, the original genetic precursors to modern humans then we should expect to see those modern lineages tracing back to an original pair, relatively recently, and, as mentioned before, originating somewhere in or near Mesopotamia.
Once again, the Biblical model shines through. Geneticists have run many dating studies based on genetic mutation rates in order to attempt to determine the age and origin of modern humans. They do this using mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA. These segments are particularly useful because they are far less likely to recombine with other DNA during reproduction. And, quite conveniently, mtDNA is most often passed exclusively through the maternal line with Y-chromosomal DNA being passed through the Y chromosome, found only in males. This actually allows two separate dates to be calculated and allows for useful comparison and contrast.
Again, as dating methods have been calibrated over the years, the date estimates have changed. But here again we see a convergence that is not altogether unexpected given a Biblical model of human origins. Like the archaeological dates, the genetic dates have been pushed back in recent years. They also show a degree of variance between studies due to the great variability of the assumed mutation rates which greatly affect the resulting origin date. But latest estimates do show both the Y-chromosomal dates and mtDNA dates converging at somewhere between 100,000-150,000 years ago, albeit with high error margins that could shift dates quite a bit. Ironically, within the genetic community the male and female models have long been referred to as “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam.”
Out of Africa or Out of Luck?
There is also linguistic evidence that can shed light on the plausibility of the Biblical model. There is a common phenomenon in linguistics in which smaller populations breaking away from original populations exhibit fewer “phonemes”, or building blocks of languages. Phoneme analysis has shown that African populations exhibit languages with a greater number of phonemes than other, younger populations. There also exists a gradual decrease in phonemes based on the distance and migration history from that original African population. This analysis provides good evidence that the Biblical history of human migration, that from Mesopotamia/Africa out to the greater ends of the Earth, is consistent with what we see in language development.
The Bottom Line
There have been many views both within and without the church regarding the nature of the Adam and Eve narrative. But while more recent or more fringe views have value to add to the full breadth of what Genesis has to tell us about ourselves, both scripture and science vindicate a more literal or traditional view of Adam and Eve as real, historical individuals. And while Christians may disagree on some particulars, there are many areas of agreement that we can confidently embrace as we share with believers and non-believers alike.