Theodicy and the Historical Adam: Questioning a Central Assumption Motivating Historicist Readings

Abstract

In this article, I aim to show, first, that theodicy tends to be a major motivating factor grounding biblical-theological arguments in favor of historicity; and second, that a historical Adam/Fall fails to address adequately the questions theodicy raises. I do not argue here for or against the historicity of Adam; nor do I seek to offer a new theodicy. My intended contribution is more modest: to critique the strong impact that theodicy has on the question of the historicity of Adam/the Fall and to open space for nonhistorical interpretations. I conclude by commending Dietrich Bonhoeffer's exposition of Genesis 1–3 as theologically fruitful.