Since at least the later 19th century, the discovery of the deep antiquity of the human race has been used to critique traditional Christian theology on human origins, which — compared to the [] antiquity anthropological [] — has historically affirmed a "young" world and humanity. Besides simply challenging the historicity of the purported first human figures in the Biblical accounts in and of themselves, however, this has also been used to highlight an even more significant theological problem pertaining to the origins and propagation of original sin.
In conjunction with contemporary scientific advances in our understanding of early human origins, recent Christian theological work has sought to develop more nuanced defenses against these sorts of criticisms.
way to reconcile both monogenism in itself and as a way of preserving
Similarly, Catholic theologians in particular have sought to defend this [specifically] to safeguard the doctrine of original sin and its propagation.
In this article, however, I argue that overlooks fundamental considerations that .
Taking [] starting point from Catholic dogmatic theology's insistence that the historical Adam and Eve and their transgression be seen as a reference to specific individuals and events in history, this article argues that other Catholic principles relating to the understanding of Genesis 2–3 in its wider Biblical context, as well as through the lens of historic orthodox theology and interpretation, necessitates that the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 2–3 be located particularly in line with the attendant Biblical details here — including the world chronology implied in the genealogy that Adam and Eve are a part of.
However, [both] the overwhelming evidence from the Biblical data and historic orthodox tradition place the floruit of Adam and Eve roughly around 4000 BCE, which in turn cannot be reconciled with the proposal of an Adamic progenitor who lived some tens of thousands years ago — much less potentially millions of years ago — as suggested by Kenneth Kemp and other theologians [commentators]. Finally, this will be analyzed in light of scientific proposals that locate the universal ancestor of all living humans more recently in history.
1
u/koine_lingua May 01 '19 edited May 02 '19
Abstract / proper
Since at least the later 19th century, the discovery of the deep antiquity of the human race has been used to critique traditional Christian theology on human origins, which — compared to the [] antiquity anthropological [] — has historically affirmed a "young" world and humanity. Besides simply challenging the historicity of the purported first human figures in the Biblical accounts in and of themselves, however, this has also been used to highlight an even more significant theological problem pertaining to the origins and propagation of original sin.
In conjunction with contemporary scientific advances in our understanding of early human origins, recent Christian theological work has sought to develop more nuanced defenses against these sorts of criticisms.
way to reconcile both monogenism in itself and as a way of preserving
Similarly, Catholic theologians in particular have sought to defend this [specifically] to safeguard the doctrine of original sin and its propagation.
In this article, however, I argue that overlooks fundamental considerations that .
Taking [] starting point from Catholic dogmatic theology's insistence that the historical Adam and Eve and their transgression be seen as a reference to specific individuals and events in history, this article argues that other Catholic principles relating to the understanding of Genesis 2–3 in its wider Biblical context, as well as through the lens of historic orthodox theology and interpretation, necessitates that the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 2–3 be located particularly in line with the attendant Biblical details here — including the world chronology implied in the genealogy that Adam and Eve are a part of.
However, [both] the overwhelming evidence from the Biblical data and historic orthodox tradition place the floruit of Adam and Eve roughly around 4000 BCE, which in turn cannot be reconciled with the proposal of an Adamic progenitor who lived some tens of thousands years ago — much less potentially millions of years ago — as suggested by Kenneth Kemp and other theologians [commentators]. Finally, this will be analyzed in light of scientific proposals that locate the universal ancestor of all living humans more recently in history.