The Evolution of Adam, What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins

I hold this book as one of the most interesting and thought provoking 168 pages I have ever read. If you are not much for reading long reviews then let me get my point across in this first paragraph: regardless of where you line yourself with Peter's beliefs you will enjoy this book thoroughly. This is not necessarily because I agree with everything Peter says (I actually have severe disagreements with him), but rather that he also presents his views in ways that are graceful and sensitive to the discomfort of many readers who will pick up a copy of this book. As I said before, this is one of the most rewarding 168 pages I have ever read.In the introduction, Peter says that "the title of the book, The Evolution of Adam, reflects my contention that our thinking about Adam must change - or perhaps better, continue to change." Here he lays out the four possible views on human origins (from a Christian perspective):1 - Accept evolution and reject Christianity2 - Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution3 - Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process.4 - Rethink Genesis and PaulAfter reading this book I would have to side with Peter when he says that rethinking Paul and Genesis is the best way to approach this problem. However, recently I read a book by C.J. Collins called " Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? " which temporarily convinced me of a historical Adam and Eve (option 3). I still hold to 3 after reading this book, but for a moment Peter caused me to seriously contemplate the possibilities of 4.Peter argues for rethinking Genesis and Paul by splitting the book into two parts:In the first part of the book, he argues that Genesis is an ancient story of Israel's self-definitionIn the second part of the book, he argues for a new understanding of Paul's AdamSo to deal with the chapters in order:The first part of the book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter overviews the challenges to the Christian way of thinking that started in the nineteenth century. He mentions the origin stories of the Mesopotamian and Semitic cultures and asks the question, "If these chapters [Gen. 1-11] look so much like Mesopotamian myth, how can they still be God's revealed Word?" He acknowledges that pre-nineteenth century challenges to the traditional views of Genesis exist, but none of them took a great foothold until the scholarship of the nineteenth century. He does not see this as a regretful time as most do. Rather, he wants to show how the discoveries of the nineteenth century helped us to have a greater understanding of the context and purpose of the Adam story. "A proper understanding of the Adam story is directly affected by how we understand Israel's primordial stories as a whole in light of nineteenth century development in biblical scholarship."First of all, I do not think that there was ever any challenge to Christian thinking in the nineteenth century. When Peter asks his question about God's Word ("If these chapters [Gen. 1-11] look so much like Mesopotamian myth, how can they still be God's revealed Word?"), he falsely assumes that Genesis 1-11 looks anything like the Mesopotamian and Semitic myths. In " Inspiration and Incarnation ," Peter gives his description of a myth: "[A myth] is an ancient, pre-modern, pre-scientific, way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories." However, this is a very inaccurate description of what a myth is. John Oswalt puts it much better: "[A] myth is the reflection of a certain way of thinking about the world. To be sure, because of the way in which it thinks, the fantastic is often found in myth. But it is not the presence of the fantastic that makes a piece of literature myth; rather, it is the presence of the mythic worldview." Oswalt concludes that what makes a myth is if the story at hand has a worldview based off of continuity (a view of the world that is focused on "now" and is based on panentheism). In his book, " The Bible among the Myths ," he clearly shows that the Bible is not to be compared with other stories of origin on this account. The Bible does not presuppose continuity and therefore is only like other myths in outward appearance. So I already have major beef with Peter and we haven't even left chapter one yet.His next chapter is titled "When was Genesis written?" This chapter not only delves into the depths of the heavy topic of the authorship of Genesis, but rather it also tries to show the point and the purpose of most of the post-exilic books of the Bible. "This chapter intentionally takes a step back from the evolution discussion to sketch a bigger picture of what the Old Testament is and what we have the right to expect from it. Adjusting our expectations about the Old Testament and Genesis is perhaps the first and most important step to take when discussing the relationship between evolution and Christianity." He brings up some problems with the stores of origin in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:25. This is to show how the straight forward reading of these stories are not helpful for synchronizing problems but rather create many more problems. He then shows how the Pentateuch cannot be authored by Moses (using examples from Deuteronomy) and shows how the stories of Israel's origins were not composed till at least the days of David and Solomon. He then presents the JEDP theory of authorship by showing its origins and development, and talks about the post-exilic attitudes of the Israelites (how they set up their self identity). He also shows that (quoting Bruggemann) "the Old Testament in its final form is a product of and response to the Babylonian exile." He mentions the different attitudes towards Israelite history from during the exile (Samuel-Kings) and after the Exile (Chronicles), and argues that the Chronicler "changed the wording of this older text to communicate the theological convictions of his post-exilic community (using 2 Sam.7:16 and 1 Chr. 17:14)." He concludes, "The Old Testament is not a treatise on Israel's history for the sake of history, but a document of self-definition and spiritual encouragement." The funny part about this chapter is that it is completely unnecessary. You don't have to accept Peter's liberal views on Old Testament authorship to agree with him on whether or not Adam and Eve existed, so I really have to scratch my head and ask what the point of including this chapter was.The third chapter is titled "Stories of Origin from Israel's Neighbors." This chapter is not meant to show how Genesis supposedly "borrowed" material from other origin stories, but rather to put Genesis side by side with the primordial tales of other ancient cultures in order to help us gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis which shows us what we have the right to expect from Genesis. Peter puts Genesis 1 up against other stories such as Enimu Elish and the Flood against Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. He then delves into the second creation story and its similarities to Atrahasis. This was a great chapter, but I must admit to feeling a little uncomfortable with his view of Israel's monolatrian actions at certain points in history. For example, he uses Psalm 86:8 as proof that Israel believed in more than one God but only worshiped one God ("There is no one like you among the gods, O Lord"). However, if you go down two verses to 86:10, you see that actually verse 8 is not referring to a belief in multiple gods ("You alone are God"), but rather it is merely an allusion to the things that Paul says by nature are no gods (1 Cor. 10:20). I had to raise an eyebrow at that one. He concludes this chapter by saying that "any real progress in the evolution-Christianity discussion will have to begin with a reorientation of expectations about the type of literature Genesis is and what we therefore can expect to glean from it." Even though I still agree with lots of comments on what to expect from Genesis, I now find it slightly irritating that he takes such face-value look at Enimu Elish, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh, in order to judge what to expect from the Bible. The Bible does not give the same outlook on life as Peter says it does, so how then can Peter accurately judge what to expect from it?The fourth chapter (final chapter in section one) is called "Israel and Primordial Time." In this chapter he talks about how "all ancient Near Eastern religions that we know of believed that these formative primordial divine actions did not just stay in the past but also somehow intersected with the events of history and everyday life." I agree with Peter when he says this. However, as I have said before, to apply this to the Israelites is to misunderstand how they viewed their story of origins. Regardless of how accurate Genesis 1-4 is on the origin of the Hebrews, it is still ridiculous to view it in the same way as the Semitic myths. He goes on to show how Israel's story of the exodus, the giving of the commandments, the entering of the land of Canaan, and the disobedience that leads to exile all mirror the Adam story. He also brings up other parallels (Genesis 1 and the Tabernacle, for example).The second section is about understanding Paul's Adam. This doesn't just mean his use of Adam in 1 Cor. 15:20-68 and Rom. 5:12-21. This means laying a backdrop for Paul's Adam so that we can understand his interpretations of Adam from his former Jewish convictions to his newer Christian ones.The fifth chapter is called "Paul's Adam and the Old Testament." This chapter describes Adam as the world around Paul saw him. Adam was not always the man who caused original sin, but rather he served a different role up until Paul. Peter shows how absent from the Old Testament Adam really was and describes the setting of the Adam story in its pre-Pauline context. "Paul's view of the depth of universal, inescapable human alienation from God is completely true, but it is also beyond what is articulated in the Old Testament in general or Genesis specifically. To admit as much is not to cast aspersions on Scripture. Rather, allowing Paul's distinctive voice to surface will help us come to terms with the impact that Christ's death and resurrection has on how Israel's theology is to be understood in fresh ways." He then shows how similar to wisdom literature the Adam story really is, and how reading the garden story side by side with Proverbs will help us see the wisdom dimension of the story. The point of this chapter was to show that Paul's understanding of Adam was not the understanding of Adam in his day, and he does a stellar job of proving this.The sixth chapter is called "Paul as an Ancient Interpreter of the Old Testament." This chapter is about Paul's interpretive environment and how Paul and others around him saw their sacred texts. Here he describes the Second Temple Period and shows several ways that Adam was interpreted in his interpretive culture. He makes it very clear that "Paul does not feel bound by the original meaning of the Old Testament passage he is citing, especially as he seeks to make a vital theological point about the gospel...the gospel is also the lens through which Israel's story is now to be read in a fresh way." If you have read " Inspiration and Incarnation " then you will understand where he is going here. He cites most of the same example as in that book to unpack Paul's hermeneutics (such as 2 Cor. 6:2/Isa. 49:8 and Abraham's "seed" in Galatians 3). He then goes into the "interpreted Bible" phenomenon ("What earnest Bible readers think the Bible says is sometimes a merging of what is there in black and white and how one's faith tradition has come to understand it") and how Paul was not exempt from this even in his day and age. This is a very important point in his argument, and I think that once again he nails it right on the head. With all this in mind, Peter Enns turns to the point and purpose of the entire book. Paul's use of Adam in the New Testament.The seventh and final chapter of this book is hands down the only chapter that I would say has any major source of conflict in it, even though I personally disagree with a lot of what was said in part 1. However, even if you agree with everything else that Peter has said throughout the entire book, this chapter could cause you to raise an eyebrow and walk away unsatisfied. This chapter is called "Paul's Adam." In this chapter he expresses how if Paul had stuck to Genesis 2-5, then evolution and Christianity would have no problem synchronizing. This is where he comes in, to show us not only how Paul's hermeneutics in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-68 are not a threat to this synchronization, but how they can no longer be understood in their traditional context in light of the "evidence" before us today. This is where Peter leaves what is the "orthodox" camp and argues for a completely new approach to Scripture.He states that "the reason behind Paul's distinct portrayal of Adam reflects his Christ-centered handling of the Old Testament in general...Paul's understanding of Adam is shaped by Jesus, not the other way around." He then states that if we leave behind a historical Adam we are not removing a great deal from Paul's theology, rather we are only removing his understanding of what was the original cause of sin and death. Without Adam in Romans 5, Paul's argument supposedly still works perfectly. It is worth quoting his comments in full:"Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul's Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul's theology are three core elements of the gospel:1: The universal and self-evident problem of death2: The universal and self-evident problem of sin3: The historical event of the death and resurrection of ChristThese three remain; what is lost is Paul's culturally assumed explanation for what a primodial man had to do with causing the reign of death and sin in the world. Paul's understanding of Adam as the cause reflects his time and place."He then continues to show how even using Adam in Romans 5 is beside the point of Romans 1-5, which is to show how gentiles and Jews are now the same because of Christ. There is no distinction. In other words, Peter is arguing that Paul is only using Adam for apologetic purposes. After six chapters of foundational work towards this end, I must say that I am uncomfortable with his conclusion. After chapter seven, Peter sums up the book with his nine thesis. This was a good way to end the book and I'll just leave them in the book for now, since I have already covered most of them in this review.In the end I have to disagree with Peter. After the first time I read the book I came away unsure of what to think. The second time, however, I came to completely reject his views. His views are based off of a very mechanical and secular view of Scripture. This means that this book promotes that if a point is not a major point in the New Testament, but rather is a side point (Adam in Romans 5), we can reinterpret it because we are more intelligent than ancient man (regardless of how ridiculous that viewpoint is, in his other book Peter makes it clear that he holds it). We can basically interpret any side points as exactly that and give them no mind in the modern day. Peter makes a point in the book to point out that he is not a materialist, so I think to just randomly label titles such as "secularist" and "materialist" to him is unfair. Peter does view Scripture as something that can be re-interpreted to meet our modern day needs, and to be honest, to say that we should just re-interpret Scripture because it doesn't meet our expectations is wrong. His comments on Ps. 86:8 and monolatry and the way he almost overemphasizes the human nature of Scripture is very uncomfortable in some places, and I agree with Vern Poythress when he says that this can be very dangerous.Regardless of how thought provoking this book was, I do not recommend it unless you have previously read into the topic.

One cannot but deeply admire what Peter Enns has managed to produce within the span of less than 150 pages - not counting his endnotes. Kudos as well for his penetrating exegetical insights...to say nothing as regards his courage: few conservative evangelicals (and even fewer fundamentalists) will find the title "The Evolution of Adam" something that warms the heart. And yet what Enns has produced here not only is revolutionary (in a very real sense - see below) but may well prove to be one of the more controversial books on the science/theology debate of recent years.Why so? Primarily because (according to Enns - Part Two of his book) Paul's creative use (in Romans) of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis was primarily for apologetic purposes...a matter that will be discussed in greater detail below. But we begin with Part One.Essentially Part One (four chapters) represents Enns' understanding of the crucial importance Ancient Near Eastern influences exerted upon the biblical writers - the writer/s of the Genesis creation account in particular. Enns (correctly in my view)hammers this point repeatedly for the reader to consider - i.e., the bible (the whole of it) was not written in a cultural vacuum unsullied by the surrounding culture/s of pagan religious thought, whether ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, or Greco-Roman. Indeed, to do otherwise would have been an impossibility - somewhat like trying to walk along the Tibetan foothills while refusing to breathe its polluted 'pagan' air. None of us ever fully escapes the surrounding influences of culture - and the bible was never intended to do so; rather, God (if one believes in biblical inspiration...as Enns does) works fully within the conceptual categories of culture. Hence, the two creation accounts in Genesis come to us fully embedded with the concepts of Ancient Near Eastern thought patterns. Perhaps the most we can say here is that the Genesis accounts represent (in varying ways) the "demythologizing" of prior Ancient Near Eastern accounts: the God of Israel is not to be identified with any aspect (sun, moon, stars, etc.) of the created order.So far so good. There's nothing really new here that hasn't been said already by any number of conservative evangelical scholars. Part Two, however, is something entirely different. Here Enns focuses his attention on Paul's creative use of the Old Testament, seeing as how the death and resurrection of Christ has caused Paul to look at the OT writings from a radically different perspective - Romans 5:12-21 in particular.These verses have a long, long history in the Christian Church as providing the church's understanding of how sin and death entered the world of human existence:we all "inherited" sin and death in and through the disobedience of Adam back in Eden. Not so...says Enns. And here is where his account veers off in a direction entirely different from traditional orthodox belief - for, according to Enns, Paul gave a particular 'Pauline spin' to these verses that cannot be found either in the OT itself, or in the Second Temple Judaism of which Paul himself was a part. Because the death and resurrection of Christ radically altered Paul's understanding of God's redemptive work in the world he (Paul) "found" in the Adam story an ideal explanation for why it is all Jews and Gentiles alike share in the universal experience of sin and death. Therefore, Adam's disobedience in Eden is NOT the cause of the universal human experience of sin and death (per Enns); rather, the story of Adam's disobedience served Paul's apologetic purposes...quite apart from whatever the story's original intention might have been. The true "origin" of sin and death remains a mystery, for the answer is not to be found (indeed if it can be "found" at all!) in the early Genesis account of Adam and Eve.And here is where we encounter the book's controversial nature, for Enns' view represents a dramatic departure from the traditional view - a traditional view that has a rich theological heritage that passes directly through the Reformation all the way back to Augustine.As previously stated, I deeply admire and respect what Enns has done here. For the most part I think he is on the right track. Furthermore, he makes mention of the fact that recent developments in biology have strongly indicated that we cannot possibly trace all modern humans back to an original "Adam and Eve." However, we knew that already...quite apart from modern biology informing us of the fact. Anthropology and paleontology had already amassed considerable evidence that proto-humans and modern humans were spread across the earth long before any conceivable Adam and Eve could have existed. Apparently, however, modern biology speaks with a more powerful voice than anthropology; thus, we are seeing a spate of books recently on the topic of whether or not Adam and Eve were historical - Enns' book being only one of a growing number. (Due to the geneologies in early Genesis we are somewhat limited in "how far back" we can place an Adam and Eve. Placing them 25 to 40 thousand years into the past in order somehow to allow them to be the true ancestors of all modern humans does a grave injustice to the geneologies that plain and simply do not allow for this sort of radical time reversal - a matter that any number of evangelicals, who have done this sort of thing, seem unwilling to appreciate. The early Genesis geneologies, even allowing for some "gaps," serve as a control against such unwarranted time expansion. An Adam and Eve of perhaps 6 to 8 thousand BC appears to be about the limit of what we can reasonably expect). In any case, Enns has raised a thorny and difficult issue in a way previous books on the question have not, and I believe his book will contribute substantially to more open theological discussion (one hopes without heated rancor) on the debate. In the meanwhile, some final thoughts.Personally, I find it more than a tad curious that David Rohl (a somewhat controversial Egyptologist) has recently authored a book (From Eden to Exile, Greenleaf Press) in which he strongly defends an historical Adam - and yet Rohl acknowledges that he is an atheist. All this is most strange: an evangelical scholar arguing against an historical Adam while an atheistic historian argues for one! ("What fools these mortals be!")I happen to agree with much of what Enns writes. However, I think Rohl has a point- even though how he fleshes his historical Adam out is somewhat bizarre. For one thing, I'm not entirely comfortable (despite some of Enns' powerful arguments) with a geneology of Jesus in the Gospels that would include "fictious" characters who never even existed. (I might as well inform you that my great, great grandfather was Dr. Jekyll and my great, great, great grandfather was Mr. Hyde). I don't see why getting rid of an historical Adam is at all necessary. Enns himself offers the possibility that OT Israel viewed Adam as their senior partriarch - the man who originally started the "clan." I personally see great possibilities here via leaving Adam within historical existence as Israel's original, grand patriarch.The origin of sin and death via the Adam and Eve story is another matter entirely. Biology and anthropology together appear to just plain and simply rule it out - and sticking Adam back into the age of the Cro-Magnons and Neaderthals in order to "save" the doctrine is a clear instance of an act of sheer desperation. But I see no reason why we necessarily have to conclude that the "origin" of sin and death (if that's the right word even to use...which I'm not even sure about) can only be regarded as lost in the misty past. I think there is a possible way forward here, and even via an historical Adam, while at the same time embracing what Enns is talking about. I think there may well be a way to retain a personal Adam (perhaps 6 to 8 thousand BC), while also showing how sin and death had their origin in him...but with an entirely different understanding that is informed by Enns' book. Unfortunately, spelling all that out is - like "The Evolution of Adam" - a book unto itself. And Amazon commentary is not the place where one is allowed to "write a book" - quite apart from how lengthy my own commentary here has been.  When Hell Freezes Over: Online with Legion and Abaddon In the meanwhile...kudos again to Enns for his truly provocative and highly insightful contribution to the cause. His vigorous defense of the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection is profoundly gratifying. Because of his firm stance here no one can accuse him of being unorthodox!(NOTE: Readers interested in a critical analysis of David Rohl's "From Eden to Exile: the 5000 Year History of the People of the Bible," and why this book is of such strategic importance for Old Testament studies - scholars in particular, can easily access my recent review of this book (titled "David Rohl: A "Maverick" in Search of History") by clicking on "See All My Reviews" directly above, or by going to the book's Amazon website.  From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand-Year History of the People of the Bible  Hope you enjoy the read!

This writer is out to convince an audience which he is fully aware may not be entirely sympathetic to what he has to say; especially an American one. And indeed, sometimes he will labour a rather obvious point unnecessarily to this end. A reasonable case can in fact be be made for a more sensitive conservative interpretation of 'first things' (see for example, Derek Kidner's 'Genesis' IVP), but Mr Enns nevertheless offers a refreshingly common sense approach throughout. Paul of course, a product of his own era, in creating his own theological architecture of salvation viz 'old & new Adams', also equally serves to keep any 'historical' debate alive in the minds of many who might otherwise have marginalised it. This author knows what he's up against and has chosen his corner to fight. I did enjoy reading it.

First, I don't give five stars to anything which is less than exceptional, so this is a very good rating.The book is very readable and well presented, introduces a variety of methods of interpretation, taking the view (which I agree) that a search for one layer of meaning only is a mistake. In the process, some ideas which were novel to me occur, and I like books which get me thinking in a new direction.As a definitively liberal Christian, I did not find that Dr. Enns evangelical background was at all obtrusive, though more space was given to justifying the interpretational methods used than I needed.

This is a terrific and valuable contribution to the Christianity-Evolution discussion. Great food for thought for every faithful Christian to consider from a highly qualified and respected voice

A very thoughtful book and one that I found very helpful.

Interesting book as alternative research.