In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real?

Question

In Genesis there is the genealogy of Adam to Noah, then the account of the flood. After that is the genealogy of Noah to Abraham. The accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons then follow. After that is an unspecific number of persons to Moses.

Theistic Evolution, I would think, must reject the creation account as literal, therefore, the created Adam was not a real person. I would also think that Theistic Evolutionists reject the Flood as factual, at least in its scope being global, but the point is that I would bet there are many who say that Noah was not a real person, either. After that I have not heard much discussion from Theistic Evolutionists.

So, moving down the genealogy in Genesis, when is there majority consensus among Theistic Evolutionists that the persons become real and are no longer figurative? Seeing as how the Theistic Evolution movement is not really unified perhaps this question is too broad, but Catholicism has a stance that is very close to it so I would accept answers from that perspective, if there are any.

Answer 1

Traditionally, many liberal theologians (e.g. Walter Bruggeman) have separated Genesis into two parts - Genesis 1 - 11 and Genesis 12 - 50. The dividing point begins with Abraham, and the tone of Genesis does change significantly at that point.

In the first 11 chapters, Adam through Noah and Babel represent nearly 2000 years of human history. A broad sweep of characters, tied by chronology of "kings" that closely corresponds with Sumerian and Babylonian myth, places Genesis in a worldwide perspective. Beginning with Abraham, however, the narrative slows down dramatically and focuses on just one guy - Abraham, and three generations of his descendants.

It is thus, for this reason that liberal scholars, having divided the book in two, tend to mythologize the first - the table of nations included - but lend more credence to the geneologies beginning with Abraham. ^{The link summarizes Unger's conclusion that Abraham fits well with what we "know" of the Middle Bronze Age}

Interestingly, Matthew's genealogy of Jesus also begins not with Adam, but with Abraham. While Matthew may have simply been trying to show Jesus' Jewish identity, it is also possible that he believed Abraham was simply far enough.

Due to the widespread popularity of Abraham (Muslims, Christians, and Jews all claim lineage), most scholars do not doubt that there was "an Abraham," although there is nothing extra-biblical to pinpoint him to a specific date.

Moses, likewise, is such a revered figure that very few scholars doubt there was "a Moses" but again, pinning him down to an exact date is still an inexact science. Primarily scholars tend to settle on one of two dates - either 1440BC (more closely matching the traditional genealogy) or 1290BC, which tends to be preferred by secular historians. Between Moses and the Kingdom of Israel, however, genealogies would still be expected to be more problematic, as there was no one 'leading authority' at the time. (In any event, neither Aaron nor Moses was in Jesus' line, so for Christians, the point would be a little bit moot.)

The earliest recorded person attested to by name in extra-bibilical authority, however, is David - roughly 1000BC. Beginning with the Tel Dan Stele, mentioning his name, theistic evolutionists become sufficiently convinced to pronounce dates with something approaching "certainty" - although even David's historicity was questioned until the end of the 20th Century.

Answer 2

Even if Theistic Evolution does require rejection of the creation account as literal, this does not require either that the Flood be fictional (many ancient civilizations record a great flood event), nor that Adam be fictitious.

Whether one is a literal-creationist or a Theistic Evolutionist, there must be a legitimate First Man in the genealogy. If legitimate does not mean "literally the first human ever", then it can certainly mean "the first ancestor of record" or perhaps even "God's first person of interest".

Semantics aside, neither geological nor other scientific or historical evidence are sufficient to discredit Adam's status as a literal Ancestor in the Genesis genealogy.