Conclusions:PQRC 1
- See Structured decision for the format of a "Conclusion".
Reconciliation challenge: a literal single male ancestor, or modern science? (Acts 17:26)
| Reconciliation Challenge PQRC 1 — Acts 17:26 – a single male ancestor? | ||||||||||
| There is a body of scientific evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor. Acts 17:26 includes the statement that God “made from one [man/source/stock(?)], every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth”. Can these be reconciled? | ||||||||||
|
Conclusions generally in favour of successful resolution *
- * "resolution" i.e. finding a "reconciliation," meeting the challenge of reconciling the Bible and modern science -- BP
Personal conclusions of User:Bruce
A statement of the facts
As recorded by Luke in Acts 17, Paul said in his speech to the Areopagus that the "God who made the world and everything in it" "made from one all nations to inhabit the whole earth". A variant text has "of one blood". There is general agreement that this statement refers to a common origin of all humanity, which does not in itself conflict with modern science. Some, however, believe that it necessarily refers to a unique male ancestor called Adam, on account of their understanding of other parts of the Bible. In this case a conflict arises.
The modern scientific understanding is that humans gradually differentiated from other hominids – the precise details having been refined over the last 150 years. This is common knowledge. The factual basis for it is genetic and palaeontological, and widely understood. If we insist that the "one" of Acts 17:26 refers to a sole progenitor Adam to the exclusion of all other ancestors, a conflict arises which can only be resolved by conceding error in the Bible or in scientific thinking, or in both.
Identification of issues involved
The question revolves around the interpretation of a single verse, Acts 17:26. Textual variations, the bilingual setting and the special nature of Luke's text give rise to a variety of interpretations of the verse in context. There is nevertheless no conflict with science that is common to all these interpretations, and thus no necessary conflict with science. Significant conflict does result, however, when Acts is interpreted to conform with other understandings of Scripture and thereby constrained to something that does necessarily conflict with science. In addition to requiring absolute confidence in our reading of the other scripture, this approach involves second-guessing both Paul and Luke, making assumptions about what they may have had in mind, and assumptions about their approach to the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus there is a significant hermeneutic issue.
Summary of solutions offered
One solution offered is that the consensus of the biological sciences can be rejected in its totality on arbitrary or informal philosophical grounds (see Beliefs re the Nature and Role of Science), leaving room to interpret the verse according to a creationist world-view: Paul was teaching the Areopagites that humankind originated from a single ancestor, Adam, as modern creationists understand from Genesis ch. 2, and Luke expected that his reader(s) would know that. With this interpretation, the verse then becomes a proof text against human evolution. No reconciliation of it "with the discoveries of modern science" is required, because these discoveries are rejected.
The other extreme proposes that the Areopagites would not have seen any allusion to the Hebrew scriptures in Paul's "from one" but would have understood it to mean from one stock, confronting the Athenian belief in their own racial superiority, and perhaps alluding to classical concepts. This interpretation conforms to the understanding of Genesis ch. 1 as relating to the creation of humankind to replenish the earth, but does not imply anything that would necessarily conflict with modern science. It allows that Paul may have had the Biblical texts about Adam in mind, with others about adam meaning humankind, but also allows that he may have deliberately alluded to relevant pagan concepts as well. It sees this subtlety as possibly tailored by Luke for his immediate exclusive audience, Theophilus.
Between these extremes lies the simple observation that the verse does not answer the question "from one what?" and certainly does not mention Adam; thus there is no problem to be solved unless we read a particular view of Adam into the text.
Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions.
Philosophical arguments against science in this case are based on the nature of the scientific process. In favour of rejecting modern science in general, the reliability of the fossil record is challenged, the on-going refinement of scientific theory is seen as proof of imperfection, and diversity of scientific views is taken as unreliability. It is assumed, unconvincingly, that a priori decisions to allow science to be overruled by Scripture (in fact, by particular interpretations of Scripture) can be taken as conclusive argument.
The view that Paul must necessarily have been talking about Adam is based on a hermeneutic process of using Genesis to interpret his speech as reported by Luke in Acts 17, reinforced by the observation that Paul wrote about Adam in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
The word "blood" is introduced in some Greek texts and reflected in the King James version, but it is not used in modern scholarly translations. It may be seen as implying descent from an individual, but could equally apply to descent from a race. It is sometimes claimed that the word "blood" is understood in the context; however "one race" would fit the grammatical context as easily as "one blood".
In favour of the view that Paul was not (impertinently) teaching the Areopagites about Adam is firstly the fact that Adam is not mentioned. The passage can be understood without any reference to Adam, and that is how the Areopagites would have understood it if Luke is reporting it verbatim. In addition, from this viewpoint Paul is seen as an educated Hellenistic Jew with an appreciation of the layered meanings of the Hebrew Bible and an awareness of Greek poetry and myth. He may well have thought of Adam's story from Genesis chapters 2 and 3, but in the context of the adam of chapter 1, i.e. mankind who replenished the earth. Moreover he may have understood from Scripture that Adam, and more especially Cain, had contemporaries. The concept of primordial incest is found in apocryphal texts from before Paul's time, but that does not mean he agreed with it. These observations from Scripture indirectly support the scientific consensus regarding human origins.
Reasoning relevant to balancing the arguments and resolving the problem.
Any conflict between modern science and this text has to be read into it. So it is interesting that our discussion has raised the two areas of disagreement that are significant in Bible/Science contention about human origins: how to read the Bible; and the status of scientific knowledge.
Our answers to these are our personal responsibility, but our communal answers should have been worked out carefully and wisely from the time that brethren such as Alan Hayward first warned of the dangers[1] coming from the Adventist propaganda of Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood. Believing as I do that the Bible has been given to us in oral and written human language texts with all the communicative power and all the limitations that that implies, and believing also that we have a moral obligation to consider the works of God's hands and that the practice of science is a blessing, I see no conflict between the two in this verse or any other. That is a personal position, but I believe it shows how to do justice to the task in hand.
A decision or non-decision as appropriate, considering relevance to salvation.
My conclusion is that there is no conflict between this verse and biology, and no need to look for one. Salvation is in the one Creator of heaven and earth about whom Paul was talking.
Recommendations.
The two areas that need consideration are as above: how to read the Bible, and the status of scientific knowledge.
Personal conclusions of User:Paul
I generally concur with this conclusion. The “one blood” or “one (race)” translations are not significantly different. The primary issue is what was in the mind of Paul when he was communicating with the religious philosophers of Athens. Paul, in his wisdom, does not challenge their beliefs in multiple deities but sows interest in an explanation and elaboration about their Unknown God. To apply more to Paul’s words in their Athenian context would damage how realistic Paul’s words sound; even if Paul may have had more in his mind (which Luke has not included in our Scriptures).
Paul says that this Unknown God (our God) makes every nation of humankind from one (source or beginning). Based on the Athenian’s response, Paul’s words did not contravene their religious views. He has in fact woven a beautiful bridging point between their beliefs and the truth of the Scriptures; even quoting their Athenian writers. To inject into Paul's speech that he was specifically talking about Adam is a hermeneutic assumption that does not fit the context and the audience, even though it is an assumption which has meditational merit.
So in relation to this reconciliation challenge based on Acts 17:26, I agree that the Scriptures and science can be harmonised.
Personal conclusions of User:Prue
I agree with this conclusion as is. Interpreting this verse as referring to Adam is reading into the text. This verse should not be used to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that Adam was the sole progenitor of the human race; doing so sets up an unnecessary contradiction with scientific understandings of human origins.
I would like to see further clarification or explanation of the following three phrases:
- "perhaps alluding to classical concepts" - is this referring to some information on the Acts 17.26 page or elsewhere that could be linked to?
- "the consensus of the biological sciences can be rejected in its totality on informal philosophical grounds" - to be fair to the view expressed, I think "informal philosophical grounds" needs further justification.
- "appreciation of the layered meanings of the Hebrew Bible" - I'd like to see a page on this or on Jewish approaches to interpreting scripture, though not necessarily before reaching a conclusion.
- reply from Bruce (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC) on Discussion page
Conclusions generally against successful resolution *
- * "resolution" i.e. finding a "reconciliation," meeting the challenge of reconciling the Bible and modern science -- BP
Personal conclusions of User:Colin
Acts 17/26 shows clearly that all nations of men arose from one source, and it is clear from a careful reading of Genesis 1-3 who that one was – Adam. This has Biblical evidence in support, viz.,
- (“… the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”);
- (“Adam, Sheth, Enosh,… Noah”); and
- (“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam…”). To interpret this verse as referring to other evolved ancestral humans or hominid-derived humans is reading into the text and should not be used to demonstrate that the Bible allows for others than Adam as the sole progenitor of the human race.
Other Scriptures confirm the plain fact that Adam is the first of the human race, for example,
Paul is not capitulating to Greek religious notions of the day nor is he appropriating Greek culture into his arguments. Rather Paul was delivering his speech in answer to the question of v19 - “May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?” They believed he was a herald preaching “strange gods” (v18 - Greek: ‘daimonion’ which here refers to the Greek idea of intermediary gods who were considered by them to be deified humans). In other words, Paul’s speech had to defend the Truth concerning Jesus and the resurrection (v18).
Hence his remarks had to cover who Jesus was (the doctrine of God and His Son) and the purpose of resurrection from the dead. The points he raised, although his audience was unaware of this, were heavily founded on OT language. His remarks recorded in verses 24-31 draw copiously from the Old Testament, not to Greek cultural ideas.[see at Acts 17/26 - Paul's Areopagus message in Athens and its direct Old Testament basis]. His speech introduces the origin of all nations (v24) and with the events of creation in mind, he explains that God ‘made’ the world and .all things therein (v24) and He ‘made’ out of one (blood) all nations. He used the same Greek word for ‘made’ to describe both events. They are references to God’s creative activity. Verse 29 “we (Paul as a Jew and his Gentile audience) are the offspring of God” is also a reference to the creation record where Adam was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1/26). It cannot refer to a secondary race of evolved beings derived from lower life-forms and could not be considered the offspring of God. When we see the parallels between what Paul is saying in Acts 17 and other parts of scripture, especially Genesis, it’s not hard to conclude that he has nothing but scripture in mind. Even his reference to the sentiments of Greek poets is to find agreement with a scriptural principle that we are God’s offspring (‘Our Father which art in heaven’) for we would not exist without Him.
If the omission of the word “blood” is accepted as not in the original Greek text, then we need to establish what “made of one” means. If it means “one race” or “one mankind” then the verse would read “He hath made of one the races of all nations.” But for Paul to say this would involve him making a lie, because it would mean two or more races (Adam’s and the evolving humans) are the foundation of “all nations.” If there were two races of men, Paul would have said “God made of several races all nations.” But he didn’t because his theology is firmly based on the Old Testament where we read of Adam being the only progenitor of mankind.
Science becomes bad science where it contradicts what God, who cannot lie (Titus 1/13), says in His word. Conflict with scientific understandings is not something we should be afraid of. Understandings have come and gone over time, as new replaces old, but the “word of the Lord abides forever” (1 Peter 1:25). Science is not an accurate yardstick by which we are required to reconcile God’s word with it where the particular science is at variance with it.
It does no credit to God’s inspired word in the creation account to misapply the Hebrew word for “man” to mean “humankind” to the exclusion of the one man, Adam. It makes no sense, when the tenor of God’s word demonstrates Adam was the first man of the human race, and that God formed Eve from Adam’s side after there was found no help meet for him among the beasts of the field that the angels brought before him. Jesus accepted the Genesis teaching that God first made Adam and Eve in the beginning, and instituted marriage on the basis of that union (Mark 10/6-9), whereby Eve became the mother of all living (Gen 3/20).
I therefore conclude I cannot accept an EC or kindred interpretation of this verse.
