1. Thomas H. McCall, “Science, Theology, & Charitable Discussion: A Symposium Recap,” July 17, 2017, http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/07/science-theology-charitable-discussion-a-symposium-recap/.
2. Clinton Ohlers, as quoted in S. Joshua Swamidass, “Three Stories on Adam,” Peaceful Science, August 5, 2018, http://peacefulscience.org/three-stories-on-adam/.
3. Davis A. Young, “The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View of Creation,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 40 (1988): 42-45
4. Lausanne Covenant, “2. The Authority and Power of the Bible,” www.lausanne.org/content/covenant/lausanne-covenant#cov. The references to “many-colored wisdom” is a literal translation of Ephesians 3:10.
5. Article 11, Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, https://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/. Also, “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Lausanne Covenant.
6. Young, “Contemporary Relevance of Augustine’s View.”
7. See online appendixes 3 and 4.
8. Denis O. Lamoureux, “Beyond Original Sin: Is a Theological Paradigm Shift Inevitable?,” PSCF 67, no. 1 (2015).
9. Scot McKnight and Dennis R. Venema, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2017).
10. S. Joshua Swamidass, ‘The BioLogos Statement on Adam and Eve’, Peaceful Science, April 24, 2019, https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/_/5847.
11. The Baptist theologian Ken Keathley repeatedly makes this point in private conversation.
12. J. P. Moreland and others, eds., Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
13. Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Monarch, 2014).
14. For example, scholars from BioLogos and Reasons to Believe commonly linked the definition of “human” to Homo sapiens. McKnight and Venema, Adam and the Genome; Fazale Rana and Hugh N. Ross, Who Was Adam? (Covina, CA: RTP Press, 2015); Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017).
1. “The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.” The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 12, https://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/.
2. “WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.” The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article 12.
3. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
4. “The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference.” The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article 12. Gregory K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009).
5. “Likewise, the use of the term ‘creation’ was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.” The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article 12. If we dispense with the term evolution and just mean “common descent with the great apes” and a “large population of ancestors,” the narrative will not be in conflict with the Statements, even though the authors of the statement meant to exclude evolution as they understood it at the time.
6. In Gen 1, Elohim calls, “Let there be,” and the “land” and “sea” (subject) bring forth (verb) plants and animals (object) of “many kinds.” The land and sea create under God’s providential governance, just as is affirmed in many Christian understandings of evolution. “According to their kinds” is best understood as “many kinds,” with the original language in mind, and does not teach fixity of “kinds.” Rahel A. Davidson Schafer, “The ‘Kinds’ of Genesis 1: What Is the Meaning of Min?,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14 (2003): 86-100.
7. Fazale Rana and Hugh N. Ross, Who Was Adam? (Covina, CA: RTP Press, 2015).
8. “I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a ‘Song’ about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened including Genesis 1.” Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). Wayne Grudem, “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland and others (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 785-837. There is, nonetheless, a case that literalism does not require de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Andrew Ter Ern Loke, “Reconciling Evolution and Biblical Literalism: A Proposed Research Program,” Theology and Science 14 (2016): 160-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1156328.
9. See online appendix 5. The exchange encouraged here is distinct from the eisegesis of concordism.
10. “Within the category of young-earth creationists are two subsets: (1) chronogenealogical young-earth creationists who believe that the Bible does not allow for genealogical gaps in Genesis 5 and 11, thus establishing Adam’s creation around 4000 BC and (2) non-chronogenealogical young-earth creationists who believe that the Bible allows for the possibility of genealogical gaps in Genesis 5 and 11 that would not violate hermeneutical rules, thus allowing for a creation date of Adam up to 10,000 BC.” David Mcgee, “Creation Date of Adam from the Perspective of Young-Earth Creationism,” Answers Research Journal 5 (2012): 217-30.
11. See, for example, Jacques Ellul’s work. “In the Meaning of the City he presents what he finds in the Bible—a sophisticated, coherent theology of the city fully applicable to today’s urbanized society. Ellul believes that the city symbolizes the supreme work of man—and, as such, represents man’s ultimate rejection of God. Therefore it is the city, where lies man’s rebellious heart, that must be reformed. The author stresses the fact that the Bible does not find man’s fulfillment in a return to an idyllic Eden, but points rather to a life of communion with the Savior in the city transfigured.” Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011, first published 1951).
12. “What are the limits of such ancient memories? For what length of time can knowledge be transferred within oral societies before its essence becomes irretrievably lost? Under optimal conditions, as suggested by science-determined ages for events recalled in ancient stories, orally shared knowledge can demonstrably endure more than 7,000 years, quite possibly 10,000, but probably not much longer. Humanity has direct memories of events that occurred 10 millennia ago. . . . Now many of us are forced to look at ancient stories as potentially more meaningful.” Patrick D. Nunn, “Ancient Stories Could Be More Fact than Fiction,” Discover, 2018, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/10/23/ancient-stories-more-fact-than-fiction/.
13. “In his paper, Rose points to the late Pleistocene epoch (150,000 to 12,000 years ago) reduced sea levels periodically exposed the ‘Gulf Oasis.’ The Persian Gulf receded to such a degree as to bring above the surface a landmass as large as, or larger than, Great Britain. Rose explains that this landmass was well watered by four large rivers flowing at the time: the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Batin. Additionally, the region was watered by fresh water springs supplied by subterranean aquifers flowing beneath the Arabian subcontinent. Such an abundant and well-distributed supply of fresh water combined with the region’s warm weather would have supported a lush agricultural enterprise.” Hugh Ross, “Lost Civilization Beneath the Persian Gulf Confirms Genesis History of Humanity,” Reasons to Believe, February 28, 2011, https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/lost-civilization-beneath-the-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-of-humanity/.
14. Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (2010): 849-83, https://doi.org/10.1086/657397.
15. Monika Karmin and others, “A Recent Bottleneck of Y Chromosome Diversity Coincides with a Global Change in Culture,” Genome Research 25 (2015): 459-66, https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186684.114; Tian Chen Zeng, Alan J. Aw, and Marcus W. Feldman, “Cultural Hitchhiking and Competition Between Patrilineal Kin Groups Explain the Post-Neolithic Y-Chromosome Bottleneck,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 2077, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04375-6; Alan Dickin, “The Table of Nations and the Spread of Human Civilization: New Genetic Evidence,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 71 (2019).
16. Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Monarch, 2014); John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015); Walton does not specify precisely when Adam and Eve live in history. He does, however, argue that they are a single couple within a larger population of humans. He also writes that scenarios with Adam as our genetic universal ancestor in the distant past “look nothing like the traditional biblical interpretation” (185). There are several additional people who have taken the position of a recent Adam and Eve. See, for example, Richard H. Popkin, Isaac La Peyrère (1596–1676): His Life, Work, and Influence (Leiden: Brill, 1987); Mark M. Moore, Early Genesis: The Revealed Cosmology, 4th ed. (n.p.: Ridge Enterprise Group, 2017).
17. See online appendix 3. “Many of us consider that Genesis 2 has historical referentiality, and the science is relevant only to the extent that it addresses historical questions. This is identical to methodological use of archaeology in Old Testament interpretation.”
18. Adam and Eve must be at the “headwaters” of humankind, situated in history such that they are connected to all of us. See online appendix 3. C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011).
19. See n15 above.
20. I highly recommend Carol Hill and others, eds., The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2016). See also S. Joshua Swamidass, “Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll,” Peaceful Science, June, 2018, https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lake-varves-volcanic-ash-and-the-great-isaiah-scroll/554.
21. Noah’s three sons would have shuffled versions of Noah and his wife’s genome, so they do not increase the amount of genetic information carried on the ark.
22. There are many books that explain the nature of the people outside the Garden. Ajit Varki and Danny Brower, Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2013); Agustín Fuentes, The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional (New York: Penguin, 2017).
23. Grudem, “Theistic Evolution.”
24. Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Ligon Duncan, “Keller, Moore, and Duncan on the Non-Negotiable Beliefs About Creation,” The Gospel Coalition, August 29, 2017, www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/keller-moore-duncan-non-negotiable-beliefs-about-creation/.
25. S. Joshua Swamidass, “Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique,” Themelios 43 (2018).
26. Swamidass, “Theistic Evolution.”
1. C. S. Lewis, “Religion and Rocketry,” in The World’s Last Night (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011 [1960]).
2. C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?,” in The Weight of Glory (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1980 [1949]).
3. Kimberly Flint-Hamilton, “Gregory of Nyssa and the Culture of Oppression,” Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University, 2010, www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/110976.pdf.
4. This follows Gregory of Nyssa’s reading of Gen 1:26-28. Flint-Hamilton, “Gregory of Nyssa.”
5. There are many things to explore here further. Agustín Fuentes, The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional (New York: Penguin, 2017).
6. Adam and Eve, in this account, are placed after civilization begins to rise. There is no reason, for example, to think they build the first cities.
7. Some scholars, such as C. John Collins, reject Genesis 1 and 2 as sequential accounts (see online appendix 3). The sequential reading is not necessary; see chapter 11, “Humans of the Text.”
8. This method of influencing redemptive history is very closely analogized to Jesus and the Virgin Birth. This method also parallels the story of Enkidu, who is specially created to guide the harsh king Gilgamesh and thereby redirect the moral course of civilization.
9. Some might prefer to understand Adam as being chosen by God from a larger population, without including de novo creation.
10. Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (2010): 849-83, https://doi.org/10.1086/657397; Hugh Ross, “Lost Civilization Beneath the Persian Gulf Confirms Genesis History of Humanity,” Reasons to Believe, February 28, 2011, https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/lost-civilization-beneath-the-persian-gulf-confirms-genesis-history-of-humanity/.
11. Though not necessary from a scientific point of view, this is might provide basis for inferring God’s intervention to ensure the spread of Adam and Eve’s lineage across the whole earth.
12. This sign comes with public evidence that persists till this day (appendix 1).
13. Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).
14. Jon Garvey, God’s Good Earth (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2019).
15. This is a classically Lutheran way of explaining our situation. I thank Charles P. Arand, a Lutheran theologian, for many conversations over the last several years discussing theology. I also thank him for his generous feedback, from which I borrowed in writing this section.
1. Brett Lunn offers an excellent summary: “Is Evolution Compatible with Original Sin? (A Thorough Analysis),” Capturing Christianity, December 12, 2018, http://capturingchristianity.com/?p=4125.
2. This section answers Andrew Torrance’s questions about why genealogical descent might be valuable to theology. I agree with him that affirming a specific understanding of the Fall is not a matter of orthodoxy. See online appendix 2.
3. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008); John R. W. Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995); Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma, Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011).
4. Biological similarity between Adam and us is not enough of a justification either. We do not hold one twin responsible for the other’s actions; projecting this logic on God seems incorrect.
5. In order to extend grace, we can posit supernatural action, even arbitrariness, that need not follow any pattern other than the nature of God. It does not seem consistent with God’s nature, however, to posit divine action in universalizing the tragic disaster of the Fall.
6. Members of the Church are in relationship with Jesus; we can articulate who Jesus is and our relationship to him. In contrast, we all fall under Adam’s headship even if we do not know who he is, even if we never choose to enter into a relationship with him, even if we decide to renounce his actions. We are somehow subject to Adam’s sin without even knowing that he exists or what he did. In the case of Jesus, we can posit the miraculous work of God to extend grace to all people. In the case of Adam, we do not have the same explanations available.
7. See online appendix 3.
8. Jon Garvey, “Irenaeus (and Others) on Original Sin,” The Hump of the Camel (blog), May 17, 2012, http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/05/17/irenaeus-and-others-on-original-sin/.
1. This question is asked my many, including Andrew Torrance (see online appendix 2).
2. Kendall, The Kinship of Men an Argument from Pedigrees; or, Genealogy Viewed as a Science (Boston: Cupples and Hurd, 1888); Kendall, “Natural Heirship: Or, All the World Akin,” Popular Science Monthly, January 1886.
3. If this proves to be unhelpful, the concept of existence might be replaceable with other sorts of inheritance, such as citizenship or that of our place outside the Garden.
4. Perhaps we would not exist at all, or not in the nature and context in which we find ourselves.
5. “This very day” could just be an idiom, not meant to be taken literally. Perhaps death is spiritual death, not physical death. John Walton argues that, on “this very day,” they were condemned to die, not actually die that day. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015).
6. C. John Collins, see online appendix 3.
7. Some argue that he was guided by a mistranslation of Romans and an incorrect understanding of biology. C. John Collins disputes this characterization, suggesting instead that this is not how modern readers understand Rom 5:12-14, though it might well be a valid reason (see online appendix 3).
8. Our existence is also dependent on the precise timing of when conception occurs, due to randomness (from a human perspective) in gamete selection. The precise interpretation of this may depend on our conception of divine providence.
9. William Lane Craig, The Atonement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018); James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
1. Fazale Rana and Hugh N. Ross, Who Was Adam? (Covina, CA: RTP Press, 2015).
2. Dennis Bonnette, “The Scientific Possibility of Adam and Eve,” Strange Notions, https://strangenotions.com/the-scientific-possibility-of-adam-and-eve/.
3. C. S. Lewis, “Religion and Rocketry,” in The World’s Last Night (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011 [1960]).
4. This appears to be a dominant view among Old Testament scholars. An article by Greg Beale is an excellent primer. Gregory K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 5-31.
5. For example, contemplating the Fall alongside civilization, there might be an interesting exchange with work by Jacques Ellul and Daniel Quinn. Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011, first published 1951); Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (New York: Vintage, 1954); Daniel Quinn, My Ishmael (New York: Bantam Books, 1997).
6. Kimberly Flint-Hamilton, “Gregory of Nyssa and the Culture of Oppression,” Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University, 2010, www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/110976.pdf.
7. Nyssa as quoted by Flint-Hamilton, “Gregory of Nyssa.”
8. Gregory of Nyssa, “Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes,” in Homilies on Ecclesiastes: An English Version with Supporting Studies, ed. Stuart George Hall (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 74.
9. John Hilber, concerning the response at the Dabar Conference (see online appendix 5).
10. Andrew Ter Ern Loke, “Reconciling Evolution and Biblical Literalism: A Proposed Research Program,” Theology and Science 14 (2016): 160-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1156328.
11. Tentative title: The Generations of Heaven and Earth. This book expands on blog posts Jon Garvey has written over several years. See the “Genealogical Adam” category archive, The Hump of the Camel (blog), http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/category/genealogical-adam/.
12. Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Monarch, 2014).
1. This quote comes from John Inazu, my colleague at Washington University in St. Louis, founder of the Carver Project. See John Inazu, “John Inazu: Why I’m Still Confident About ‘Confident Pluralism,’” Christianity Today, August 13, 2018.
2. “Tolerance acknowledges that people should generally be free to pursue their own beliefs and practices. This is not the same as approval; it is much closer to endurance. We can usually respect people even if we don’t respect their ideas. Humility recognizes that we will sometimes be unable to prove to others why we believe we are right and they are wrong. Patience asks us to listen, understand, and empathize with those who see the world differently.” Inazu, “Why I’m Still Confident.”
3. Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Penguin, 2009).
4. See comments in the thread for our full exchange. Jerry A. Coyne, “AAAS Continues Its Incursion into Accommodationism and Theology,” Why Evolution Is True (blog), https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/10/08/aaas-continues-its-incursion-into-accommodationism-and-theology/.
5. Around this time, Peaceful Science hosted Randal Rauser in an online forum about his book. Randal Rauser, Is the Atheist My Neighbor? Rethinking Christian Attitudes Toward Atheism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015).
6. “Scientists cannot take the trust of their audience for granted.” The American Association for the Advancement of science recently published a booklet articulating best practices in engaging the public: Matthew Nisbet, Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2018, www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/content_files/Scientists%2520in%2520Civic%2520Life_FINAL%2520INTERACTIVE%2520082718.pdf.
7. To his credit, Coyne playfully proposes a contest to solve the Adam and Eve problem, coming up with an entertaining answer. Jerry A. Coyne, “Adam and Eve: The Ultimate Standoff Between Science and Faith (and a Contest!),” Why Evolution Is True (blog), June 2, 2011, https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/.
8. Nathan H. Lents, S. Joshua Swamidass, and Richard E. Lenski, “The End of Evolution?,” Science 363 (2019): 590, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw4056.
9. Benoit De Maillet, Telliamed, Or, Discourses Between an Indian Philosopher and a French Missionary, on the Diminution of the Sea, the Formation of the Earth, the Origin of Men and Animals, and Other Curious Subjects, Relating to Natural History and Philosophy (London: 1750) [Reprinted in 1968 by University of Illinois Press], as quoted by Richard Lenski, “Some Thoughts and Readings on the History and Philosophy of Science,” http://myxo.css.msu.edu/History.html.
10. Scot McKnight and Dennis R. Venema, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2017).
11. S. Joshua Swamidass, “The BioLogos Statement on Adam and Eve,” Peaceful Science, April 24, 2019 https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/_/5847. BioLogos has, since then, already made more than one revision to their position. Perhaps changes will continue.
12. He includes four more points, but these are not related to Adam and Eve, and even most of his coauthors would dispute them. These extra four points, nonetheless, are easily reconciled by keeping the contextual bounds of Scripture in mind.
13. Wayne Grudem, “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland and others (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 785-837.
14. S. Joshua Swamidass, “Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique,” Themelios 43 (2018); Andrew Ter Ern Loke, “Reconciling Evolution and Biblical Literalism: A Proposed Research Program,” Theology and Science 14 (2016): 160-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1156328.
15. Daniel Quinn, My Ishmael (New York: Bantam Books, 1997).
16. This paraphrases Ajit Varki. I am not sure if all scientists would agree, but I think he is right. S. Joshua Swamidass, “More than Just Apes,” Peaceful Science, May 23, 2016, http://peacefulscience.org/more-than-apes.
1. I recommend my personal entry point to this conversation: Josh McDowell, More than a Carpenter, rev. ed. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2009). Other accounts may be more helpful to others. For example, N. T. Wright’s more recent explanations of the Resurrection (“Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” NTWright Page, http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/), which he expands into the book The Resurrection of the Son of God, were compelling to the philosopher Antony Flew before he died, even though he does not appear to have trusted Jesus in the end. Likewise, C. S. Lewis’s argument for the Resurrection in Mere Christianity convinced Francis Collins and, more privately, other scientists have responded similarly to C. S. Lewis’s thoughts. I also thank Sean McDowell for his helpful comments on this list.
2. “The Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus” by Wright in 1998 is an excellent exposition of this idea. The disciples themselves predicted this world-transformative impact of the gospel too (Acts 5:38-39).
3. Bonani and others, “Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls’ Radiocarbon 34 (1992): 843-49.
4. A good study on this is The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition by Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). A related work is Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman (New York: HarperOne, 2013). The latter is by an atheist author and does not argue that Jesus is divine. I still include it here to demonstrate that the evidence is so strong that Jesus existed that we do not need to start with Christian commitments to see this truth.
5. The report of his death explains “blood and water” poured from his side when he was wounded (Jn 19:34). This is an unusual detail that is atypical of death by any means, including crucifixion. The “water” can be understood with modern medicine as the result of necessarily fatal wound that released clear fluid that had abnormally collected around his lungs or heart (William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA 255 [1986]: 1455, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1986.03370110077025). Other than to accurately report what had been seen at his death, there is no reason to include this difficult-to-explain detail about his death that we only now can understand.
6. The actual history of the Bible is more interesting than the fiction. Sometimes it is messier than we imagine, but a God who raises Jesus from the dead can certainly preserve his message to us in history. Unlike fictional accounts of the Bible’s history (e.g., Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code), Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006) covers the historicity of Jesus. “The Bibliographic Test” by Joshua McDowell and Clay Jones, August 13, 2014 (www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Bibliographical-Test-Update-08.13.14.pdf) gives a good overview the manuscripts in question, including recent new discoveries. For an updated manuscript count, see Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 52.
7. The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus by Sean McDowell (London: Routledge, 2015) is most complete historic account of their confidence. Apparently, not all died for their faith, but it appears all were willing to die.
8. For those curious about science, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003) explains Christian belief among early scientists and its foundational role in science. Even the “father” of modern science, Francis Bacon, was a Christian and explained in Novum Organum from Christian theology that science is an effort to take down intellectual “idols.”
9. This rule of avoiding appeals to God’s action in science is often referred to as “methodological naturalism,” but this is a misnomer. This rule that has been firmly established in modern science for hundreds of years, and was originally placed in science by Christians like Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, and Boyle for theological reasons. Their conception of science was not rooted in naturalism, but in their faith as Christians, so referring to this rule as methodological naturalism, as if it was a product of naturalism (and atheism), is not correct.
10. To be sure, Christians can correctly attempt dispassionate study in their academic work; see, for example, Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010).