The Tension of Mytho-History: A Review of William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam

In his ambitious work, In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig attempts to bridge the gap between evolutionary science and biblical hermeneutics. His central thesis relies on classifying the first eleven chapters of Genesis as mytho-history a term borrowed from Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen. This classification serves as a middle ground, allowing Craig to treat the narrative as having a historical core while maintaining that the literary "clothing" of the stories is metaphorical or symbolic.

The Cake and the Eating: Defining Mytho-History

You’ve hit on the central critique of Craig’s approach: the idea of "having your cake and eating it too." By labeling Genesis 1-11 as mytho-history, Craig argues that the biblical authors were not providing a literal, journalistic account of origins. Instead, they used the common "myth" genre of the Ancient Near East to communicate profound theological truths about a real, historical past.

For Craig, this allows him to bypass the scientific difficulties of a literal six-day creation or a young earth. He views the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the long lifespans of the patriarchs, and the talking serpent as "fantastic elements" typical of myth. However, by retaining the "history" suffix, he insists that these myths are anchored to a real couple (Adam and Eve) who lived roughly 750,000 years ago as members of the species Homo heidelbergensis. Critics often find this a difficult tightrope to walk; if the details are "fantastic," how does one objectively decide which parts constitute the historical "core"?

The Flood: Local Event vs. Fantastical Narrative

Craig’s treatment of Noah’s Flood follows this same logic. He categorizes the Flood account as fantastical in its scope—at least as described in the literal text (covering the high mountains, involving all land animals). He argues that while there may have been a catastrophic local flood in the Mesopotamian region that served as the historical basis for the story, the Genesis account has been "mythologized" to represent a global judgment. To Craig, the internal inconsistencies and the sheer scale of the biblical description suggest it was never intended to be read as a literal universal deluge.

The New Testament Witness: Noah and Adam Beyond Genesis

The primary challenge to Craig’s "mytho-history" framework is how the rest of the Bible, specifically the New Testament treats these figures. While Craig suggests the Genesis authors were using a literary genre that didn't require literalism, Jesus and the Apostles often refer to Noah, Adam, and the Flood as straightforward historical benchmarks.

Here are the primary verses outside of Genesis that mention Noah or the Flood, often framing them as historical reality:

• 1 Chronicles 1:4: Mentioned in the formal genealogies of Israel.

• Isaiah 54:9: God compares His covenant with Israel to "the waters of Noah," treating the promise as a historical precedent.

• Ezekiel 14:14, 20: Noah is listed alongside Daniel and Job as a real, righteous man.

• Matthew 24:37-39: Jesus says, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man," linking the historical reality of the Flood to His future physical return.

• Luke 3:36: Noah is included in the physical genealogy of Jesus.

• Luke 17:26-27: Jesus again uses the Flood as a historical warning for future judgment.

• Hebrews 11:7: Noah is praised in the "Hall of Faith" for building a physical ark to save his family.

• 1 Peter 3:20: Peter refers to the "days of Noah" and the "eight persons" saved through water.

• 2 Peter 2:5: God is described as "not sparing the ancient world" but protecting Noah, a "herald of righteousness."

• 2 Peter 3:5-6: Peter uses the Deluge as a physical, world-altering event to counter the claims of "scoffers."

The Conflict of Interpretation

The friction between Craig’s view and a traditional reading lies in the intentionality of these New Testament references. Craig argues that Jesus and the Apostles were merely "referring" to the stories as they knew them using "literary allusions" rather than making scientific or historical assertions.

However, for many readers, when Jesus compares the physical reality of His Second Coming to the "days of Noah," He is putting both events on the same plane of historical certainty. If the Flood is a "fantastical mytho-history," some worry the same could be argued for the future judgment Jesus describes. Craig’s quest is a sophisticated attempt to save the historical Adam from the pressures of modern science, but it leaves many wondering if the "history" part of his "mytho-history" is robust enough to support the weight of the New Testament's testimony.