What do you think?
Rate this book
By Peter Enns - Evolution of Adam, The: What The Bible Does And Doesn't Say About Human Origins
Can Christianity and evolution coexist? Traditional Christian teaching presents Jesus as reversing the effects of the Fall of Adam. However, an evolutionary view of beginnings doesn't allow for a historical Adam, making evolution seemingly incompatible with what Genesis and the apostle Paul say about him. For Christians who accept evolution and want to take the Bible seriously, this presents a faith-shaking tension.Peter Enns, an expert in biblical interpretation, offers a way forward by explaining how this tension is caused not by the discoveries of science but by false expectations about the biblical texts. Focusing on key biblical passages in the discussion, Enns demonstrates that the author of Genesis and the apostle Paul wrote to ask and answer ancient questions for ancient people; the fact that they both speak of Adam does not determine whether Christians can accept evolution. This thought-provoking book helps readers reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the widely held evolutionary view of beginnings and will appeal to anyone interested in the Christianity-evolution debate.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2012
163 people are currently reading
3328 people want to read
About the author
Peter Enns
74 books735 followersPeter Enns is Abram S. Clemens Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania. He has taught courses at several other institutions including Harvard University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Enns is a frequent contributor to journals and encyclopedias and is the author of several books, including Inspiration and Incarnation, The Evolution of Adam, and The Bible Tells Me So.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews
January 15, 2012
Peter Enns follows up his fascinating and controversial Inspiration and Incarnation with this equally fascinating and sure to be just as, if not more, controversial work on evolution and the Bible. A lot of good work has been done in recent years addressing how the creation account in Genesis 1 lines up with modern scientific discovery (cf John Walton's brilliant The Lost World of Genesis One). Enns touches on that briefly, but the main focus of this book moves beyond Genesis opening to the story of Adam and Eve. Specifically, Enns seeks to answer the question of whether or not evolution can coexist with the biblical story of human origins.
His main thesis follows along similar lines as the arguments he and others have made for how to interpret Genesis 1 - namely, that when we look at Genesis 1 in its cultural context, rather than performing the poor and biblically disrespectful hermeneutical practice of imposing our own cultural standards on the text, many of the problems resolve. What makes the issue more complex here is Paul's use of Adam in Romans and Corinthians.
Enns' solution for solving that problem is original and quite well stated. While I'll need to give it some additional thought and reflection to decide how much of his thesis I subscribe to, my original inclination is that he's made a fantastic and biblical case for a biblically faithful reading of both Paul and Genesis that is fully compatible with evolution. I especially appreciated his discussion of original sin. He argues that Scripture is concerned with the presence of sin (i.e. the fact that sin and death are universal realities) and not concerned with the origin of sin. Many will no doubt balk at that assertion. Before reading the book I would have been among them, but Enns' argument, while too complex to repeat here, is very formed. I also enjoyed how he brought in aspects of the New Perspective on Paul to argue his point. As a big fan of the New Perspective, I found that line of argument quite compelling.
Enns' critics had a field day with I&I, subjecting it and him to both fair criticism and grossly unfair misrepresentations and character assassinations. I'd expect that the same will take place with this book. Criticism is an important part of biblical scholarship, and while I certainly wouldn't suggest that Enns' should be exempt from that I do hope his critics keep a few things in mind. First, Enns' has a high, conservative and evangelical view of Scripture. He is not twisting the text, but attempting to understand it. Second, Enns' is not seeking to undermine historic orthodoxy. He is seeking a biblical and orthodox understanding of Scripture in light of recent science. Third, Enns' is writing this as a believer within the shared confession of historic Christianity. It's my hope that rather than attacking his character or his faith, his critics will understand the great degree of common ground they share with him and argue from that foundation, rather than accuse him of not sharing it.
The Evolution of Adam continues the recent trend of evangelical scholars seeking to understand biblical origins in light of ancient culture and modern science. How well it holds up to criticism remains to be seen, but I for one applaud the effort. Unlike many fundamentalists and evangelicals, I believe that the way to advance God's Kingdom is not to stick our heads in the ground concerning science, seeking to defend the Bible on points where it needs no defending, but to embrace modern discoveries and seek to better understand the text in light of what it is and isn't attempting to say. Enns' and others like him are attempting to advance that cause. They deserve our thanks, not our unfair criticisms.
His main thesis follows along similar lines as the arguments he and others have made for how to interpret Genesis 1 - namely, that when we look at Genesis 1 in its cultural context, rather than performing the poor and biblically disrespectful hermeneutical practice of imposing our own cultural standards on the text, many of the problems resolve. What makes the issue more complex here is Paul's use of Adam in Romans and Corinthians.
Enns' solution for solving that problem is original and quite well stated. While I'll need to give it some additional thought and reflection to decide how much of his thesis I subscribe to, my original inclination is that he's made a fantastic and biblical case for a biblically faithful reading of both Paul and Genesis that is fully compatible with evolution. I especially appreciated his discussion of original sin. He argues that Scripture is concerned with the presence of sin (i.e. the fact that sin and death are universal realities) and not concerned with the origin of sin. Many will no doubt balk at that assertion. Before reading the book I would have been among them, but Enns' argument, while too complex to repeat here, is very formed. I also enjoyed how he brought in aspects of the New Perspective on Paul to argue his point. As a big fan of the New Perspective, I found that line of argument quite compelling.
Enns' critics had a field day with I&I, subjecting it and him to both fair criticism and grossly unfair misrepresentations and character assassinations. I'd expect that the same will take place with this book. Criticism is an important part of biblical scholarship, and while I certainly wouldn't suggest that Enns' should be exempt from that I do hope his critics keep a few things in mind. First, Enns' has a high, conservative and evangelical view of Scripture. He is not twisting the text, but attempting to understand it. Second, Enns' is not seeking to undermine historic orthodoxy. He is seeking a biblical and orthodox understanding of Scripture in light of recent science. Third, Enns' is writing this as a believer within the shared confession of historic Christianity. It's my hope that rather than attacking his character or his faith, his critics will understand the great degree of common ground they share with him and argue from that foundation, rather than accuse him of not sharing it.
The Evolution of Adam continues the recent trend of evangelical scholars seeking to understand biblical origins in light of ancient culture and modern science. How well it holds up to criticism remains to be seen, but I for one applaud the effort. Unlike many fundamentalists and evangelicals, I believe that the way to advance God's Kingdom is not to stick our heads in the ground concerning science, seeking to defend the Bible on points where it needs no defending, but to embrace modern discoveries and seek to better understand the text in light of what it is and isn't attempting to say. Enns' and others like him are attempting to advance that cause. They deserve our thanks, not our unfair criticisms.
May 17, 2021
Useful book for learning more about the intersection between evolution and the origin stories in Genesis.
May 7, 2012
This was quite atrocious. Essentially it is an "inerrantist" argument for the non-existence of a historical Adam!
The reigning assumption underlying the book is that "evolution is true" and that the descent of humans form lower primates is so certain, that we now need to revise our reading of Genesis 1-11 and Romans 5 to "make room" for this newer understanding. There is a lot one could say about this, but suffice to note that there is the threat of an "infinite regression" here. Why stop at Genesis 11? What if science proves some other "facts" that relates to the rest of the OT? Are we heading for concessions to modern scholarship "hand over fist"?
Anyway, these quotes summarise the main problems with the book, and sadly there is very little in the book to commend it. The problems are systemic.
"The Pentateuch was not authored out of a whole cloth by a second-millennium Moses but is the end product of a complex literary process - written, oral or both - that did not come to a close until the postexilic period." (23)
"Together Genesis 1 and the flood story in chapters 6-9 present not a picture of history but a picture of how Israel sees itself as God's people amid a surrounding world. This point is essentially self-evident and so shapes our expectations of what Genesis is prepared to deliver to those who read it today. These early chapters are the Word of God, but they are not history in the normally accepted sense of the word today. And they are most certainly not science. They speak another language altogether"(50)
[NB. they are not history, they didn't happen, they are myth. But they are revelation on the terms of old Babylonian Myth, that introduces the true God into their story and shows his supremacy - got it?
Why can't it work like this?
1. God sends the flood.
2. Everyone alive is descended from Adam through Noah and therefore is
descended from an eye witness.
3. Therefore, people produce myths that explain how the flood is related to the gods whom they worship.
4. When God enters history to deal with his chosen people, he reveals the truth in parallel to Moses.
5. hence there are creation and flood stories across the world.
Answer: because no one would take you seriously in the academy.]
"While "Adam" is a dominant theological motif in the Old Testament, what is missing from the Old Testament is any indication that Adam's disobedience is the cause of universal sin, death and condemnation, as Paul seems to argue." [ SH - except Gen 3?]
"In making the case, Paul does not begin with Adam and move to Christ. Rather, the reality of the risen Christ drives Paul to mine Scripture for ways of explicating the wholly unexpected in-breaking of the age to come in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God. Adam read as "the first human", supports Paul's argument about the universal plight and remedy of humanity, but it is not a necessary component of that argument. In other words, attributing the cause of universal sin and death to a historical Adam is not necessary for the gospel of Jesus Christ to be the fully historical solution to that problem."(82)
"Paul invests Adam with capital he does not have either in the Genesis story, the Old Testament as a whole, or the interpretation of contemporary Jews. His reading of the Old Testament in general is creative, driven by hermeneutical conventions of the time and - most importantly - by his experience of the risen Christ."(135)
The reigning assumption underlying the book is that "evolution is true" and that the descent of humans form lower primates is so certain, that we now need to revise our reading of Genesis 1-11 and Romans 5 to "make room" for this newer understanding. There is a lot one could say about this, but suffice to note that there is the threat of an "infinite regression" here. Why stop at Genesis 11? What if science proves some other "facts" that relates to the rest of the OT? Are we heading for concessions to modern scholarship "hand over fist"?
Anyway, these quotes summarise the main problems with the book, and sadly there is very little in the book to commend it. The problems are systemic.
"The Pentateuch was not authored out of a whole cloth by a second-millennium Moses but is the end product of a complex literary process - written, oral or both - that did not come to a close until the postexilic period." (23)
"Together Genesis 1 and the flood story in chapters 6-9 present not a picture of history but a picture of how Israel sees itself as God's people amid a surrounding world. This point is essentially self-evident and so shapes our expectations of what Genesis is prepared to deliver to those who read it today. These early chapters are the Word of God, but they are not history in the normally accepted sense of the word today. And they are most certainly not science. They speak another language altogether"(50)
[NB. they are not history, they didn't happen, they are myth. But they are revelation on the terms of old Babylonian Myth, that introduces the true God into their story and shows his supremacy - got it?
Why can't it work like this?
1. God sends the flood.
2. Everyone alive is descended from Adam through Noah and therefore is
descended from an eye witness.
3. Therefore, people produce myths that explain how the flood is related to the gods whom they worship.
4. When God enters history to deal with his chosen people, he reveals the truth in parallel to Moses.
5. hence there are creation and flood stories across the world.
Answer: because no one would take you seriously in the academy.]
"While "Adam" is a dominant theological motif in the Old Testament, what is missing from the Old Testament is any indication that Adam's disobedience is the cause of universal sin, death and condemnation, as Paul seems to argue." [ SH - except Gen 3?]
"In making the case, Paul does not begin with Adam and move to Christ. Rather, the reality of the risen Christ drives Paul to mine Scripture for ways of explicating the wholly unexpected in-breaking of the age to come in the crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God. Adam read as "the first human", supports Paul's argument about the universal plight and remedy of humanity, but it is not a necessary component of that argument. In other words, attributing the cause of universal sin and death to a historical Adam is not necessary for the gospel of Jesus Christ to be the fully historical solution to that problem."(82)
"Paul invests Adam with capital he does not have either in the Genesis story, the Old Testament as a whole, or the interpretation of contemporary Jews. His reading of the Old Testament in general is creative, driven by hermeneutical conventions of the time and - most importantly - by his experience of the risen Christ."(135)
December 4, 2021
Though I'm not qualified judge the validity of all of Peter Enns' arguments, I enjoyed reading this book. Even if it goes deep into theological argumentation, it's still reasonably easy to follow. The theses he proposes at the end of the book make sense after going through it.
April 23, 2013
I found myself torn in reading this book. Like the author, I disagree with the attempts to fit evolutionary science into the Procrustean bed of a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis. And yet it seemed to me that the author felt compelled to fit Adam into the Procrustean bed of evolution.
Along the way, the author argues for a post-exilic setting for the compiling and composing of the Pentateuch as an explanation for the Genesis accounts. Most of all, he argues that Paul's statements about Adam in Romans 5:12-21 reflect Second Temple Judaism cultural assumptions about Adam as the progenitor of all humanity and for Adam's disobedience as the means through which sin and death entered the human race. He then dismisses the historicity of the First Adam while still maintaining the historicity of Jesus death and resurrection (although he admits that other scholars question this).
What was troubling in all this is that the author argues against reading our own assumptions about a doctrine of the inspiration and authority of scripture into the text while being blind to the things that are shaping his own re-reading of that same text. And he fails to address the theological implications of his position. What does the idea of redemption mean if in fact there was no fall but we all just sin? How may one die for all if one did not act for all in sinning? How can the resurrection of one mean new life for all who believe? One may argue that God is able to do this even if Paul was mistaken about the historicity of Adam as our federal head. But what have we given away in terms of the trustworthiness of scripture in the process of these theological moves?
Fundamentally, I think this author makes a similar mistake to that of the fundamentalists. He feels compelled to force some kind of reconciliation of evolution and the biblical account, in this case by sacrificing important elements of the biblical account. I think I would rather live with the tension of leaving these unreconciled and let scientists do good science (and not more than this) and to encourage biblical scholars to carefully study the biblical testimony in it historical-cultural context without forcing a reconciliation or synthesis of the two, which is usually satisfying to neither.
Along the way, the author argues for a post-exilic setting for the compiling and composing of the Pentateuch as an explanation for the Genesis accounts. Most of all, he argues that Paul's statements about Adam in Romans 5:12-21 reflect Second Temple Judaism cultural assumptions about Adam as the progenitor of all humanity and for Adam's disobedience as the means through which sin and death entered the human race. He then dismisses the historicity of the First Adam while still maintaining the historicity of Jesus death and resurrection (although he admits that other scholars question this).
What was troubling in all this is that the author argues against reading our own assumptions about a doctrine of the inspiration and authority of scripture into the text while being blind to the things that are shaping his own re-reading of that same text. And he fails to address the theological implications of his position. What does the idea of redemption mean if in fact there was no fall but we all just sin? How may one die for all if one did not act for all in sinning? How can the resurrection of one mean new life for all who believe? One may argue that God is able to do this even if Paul was mistaken about the historicity of Adam as our federal head. But what have we given away in terms of the trustworthiness of scripture in the process of these theological moves?
Fundamentally, I think this author makes a similar mistake to that of the fundamentalists. He feels compelled to force some kind of reconciliation of evolution and the biblical account, in this case by sacrificing important elements of the biblical account. I think I would rather live with the tension of leaving these unreconciled and let scientists do good science (and not more than this) and to encourage biblical scholars to carefully study the biblical testimony in it historical-cultural context without forcing a reconciliation or synthesis of the two, which is usually satisfying to neither.
September 4, 2019
I highly recommend pretty much everything Dr. Peter Enns has written. His books have been immensely helpful to me over the past several years.
August 4, 2012
Just a couple things to note before you read this (and you should!):
1. Most of the book is about Biblical criticism and interpretation. It doesn't even touch upon evolution and all the other theories of "natural origins". That may feel like "false advertising", but it's fine with me. I'm not a staunch evolutionist...Modern science is proved wrong way to often for me to trust it implicitly.
2. Understand the intended audience. Peter Enns is writing this book to people who are stepping out of an Evangelical Conservative background (I don't want to use the word "fundamentalist" because it's easily misunderstood). For someone like me, who is doing exactly that, this was a great book. For someone who is total liberal Christian whose local church just put on a play involving human genitalia as the main characters...eh, not so much. It may seem like baby-steps into Biblical criticism.
Nevertheless, I really enjoyed it. I thought he was very thoughtful and respectful of differing viewpoints, plus he put things as simply as he could for a casual reader. Go check it out!
1. Most of the book is about Biblical criticism and interpretation. It doesn't even touch upon evolution and all the other theories of "natural origins". That may feel like "false advertising", but it's fine with me. I'm not a staunch evolutionist...Modern science is proved wrong way to often for me to trust it implicitly.
2. Understand the intended audience. Peter Enns is writing this book to people who are stepping out of an Evangelical Conservative background (I don't want to use the word "fundamentalist" because it's easily misunderstood). For someone like me, who is doing exactly that, this was a great book. For someone who is total liberal Christian whose local church just put on a play involving human genitalia as the main characters...eh, not so much. It may seem like baby-steps into Biblical criticism.
Nevertheless, I really enjoyed it. I thought he was very thoughtful and respectful of differing viewpoints, plus he put things as simply as he could for a casual reader. Go check it out!
August 11, 2019
Starts with a bang of brilliance, whimpers out with faith assertions
The first 2/3 of book are loaded with very good insights, well worth buying for that. The remainder fizzles our with oh but zombie resurrection magic is real. Does a good job of analysis Rè Paul’s enculturated views but annoyingly keeps asserting that god magic is real , no “cheap apologetic” ( author’s words ) yet again & again yada yada reanimated corpse is a fact .
On the plus side he admits that it a faith position , yet asserts it as fact. Fails to apply the same level of scrutiny to one thing (and only one thing ) that he does to everything else.
On balance, probably useful for counteracting young earth creationists etc from within their narrow set of science denial nonsense, might help some cling to the leftovers ie all the other god magic isn’t real but Jesus resurrection magic - yeah that’s real ( but only if taken on faith).
5 stars for first part of book, 1 Star for the rest
The first 2/3 of book are loaded with very good insights, well worth buying for that. The remainder fizzles our with oh but zombie resurrection magic is real. Does a good job of analysis Rè Paul’s enculturated views but annoyingly keeps asserting that god magic is real , no “cheap apologetic” ( author’s words ) yet again & again yada yada reanimated corpse is a fact .
On the plus side he admits that it a faith position , yet asserts it as fact. Fails to apply the same level of scrutiny to one thing (and only one thing ) that he does to everything else.
On balance, probably useful for counteracting young earth creationists etc from within their narrow set of science denial nonsense, might help some cling to the leftovers ie all the other god magic isn’t real but Jesus resurrection magic - yeah that’s real ( but only if taken on faith).
5 stars for first part of book, 1 Star for the rest
March 20, 2014
This book is an attempt to reconcile modern scientific and historical research and theory with the biblical narrative account of the Creation itself, and the creation (or not, according to the author) of Adam as an historical figure. The author gives little credibility to the idea of Mosaic authorship or Mosaic origin to the Pentateuch--and cites an over-riding theme of reconstructing the faith of a post-exilic Israel over that of recounting the actual Creation.
The Pauline treatment of Adam is discussed, and it is postulated the Paul wrote of Adam as if historical, but was actually writing of Adam as a type--mainly to explain the need for, and significance of, the life and work of Jesus Christ.
This book served as an interesting, if a bit dry, introduction to the issue of science versus creationism. The author's premise was not wholly compelling to me, as he seems to operate from his own presupposition, that science and theology (as presently understood in evangelicalism) cannot be reconciled, so we must make theology an even "softer" discipline than it currently is, while seeming to unquestioningly accept most/all of what present-day scientific theory tells us. While I appreciate his desire to cite a Christ-centric motive in the writings of Paul--he stretches a bit too far in doing so, IMO. The issue is worthy of more exploration; I just wonder if another text would have proven more compelling to me.
The Pauline treatment of Adam is discussed, and it is postulated the Paul wrote of Adam as if historical, but was actually writing of Adam as a type--mainly to explain the need for, and significance of, the life and work of Jesus Christ.
This book served as an interesting, if a bit dry, introduction to the issue of science versus creationism. The author's premise was not wholly compelling to me, as he seems to operate from his own presupposition, that science and theology (as presently understood in evangelicalism) cannot be reconciled, so we must make theology an even "softer" discipline than it currently is, while seeming to unquestioningly accept most/all of what present-day scientific theory tells us. While I appreciate his desire to cite a Christ-centric motive in the writings of Paul--he stretches a bit too far in doing so, IMO. The issue is worthy of more exploration; I just wonder if another text would have proven more compelling to me.
September 29, 2024
Peter Enns argues that there was no historical Adam and Eve; rather these were ANE myths that were borrowed and repurposed by the post-exilic writers in order to describe the creation of the nation of Israel. He argues, rather unconvincingly, that the writers of the OT and NT, including Paul, did not believe in a historical Adam; and even if they did, they were simply mistaken by virtue of their premodern, unscientific worldview. Evolution, he says, has definitively disproved the possibility of all of humanity coming from one family. So rather than trying to fit Genesis 2-3 into an evolutionary framework, or advocating a creationist position, we need to abandon the historical Adam altogether.
I think that Enn's argument falls short on at least three fronts: (1) his claim that the Genesis account was written and compiled in post-exilic community, and not by Moses in the mid second millennium B.C., (2) that the ANE creation myths that Genesis allegedly borrows from never give an account for material creation, and (3) the assertion that the Biblical account is merely polemical and repurposed ANE creation myth.
The documentary hypothesis (JEDP) for the authorship of the Pentateuch has long been the view held by most modern critical scholars. Many OT scholars have refuted this view, such as T. Desmond Alexander and Gordon Wenham. In Enn's book, Inspiration and Incantation, he mentions how both the decalogue and the book of Deuteronomy are structured after ANE suzerain vassal treaties. Yet he failed to mention how they reflect a certain form of this covenant treaty, resembling Syro-Anatolian treaties of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries B.C., and not of those nearly a millennium later that the post-exilic community would have been familiar with.
Both the ratification of the covenant at Mt. Sinai, and the second giving of the law-covenant to the second generation closely resemble the covenant treaties of the surrounding ANE communities. These contained (1) a preamble, (2) an historical prologue, (3) stipulations, (4) blessings and curses, and (5), covenant continuity (taken from Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 113-130). You can see each of these elements in the giving of the law-covenant in Exodus 20, and, as Kline argues, in the entire structure of the book of Deuteronomy (Ibid., 133):
Preamble: Deut. 1:1-5.
Historical Prologue: Deut. 1:6-4:49.
Stipulations: Deut. 5-26.
Curses and Blessings or Covenant Ratification: Deut. 27-30.
Covenant Continuity: Deut. 31-34.
While there are still similarities between the structures of the treaties of the second and first millennium B.C., Kline says that the “most remarkable difference is that the historical prologue, the distinctive second sections of the second-millennium treaties, is no longer found in the latter text” (Ibid, 151). It is not likely that Israelites in the exile or even post-exilic communities would have been able to reproduce these complex ancient treaties from a millennia before their time. It is therefore far more likely that it was written during the time of the exodus by Moses.
Second, Enn's repeatedly claims that ANE creation myths never deal with an account of material origins. Prescientific people, he says, were not concerned with the origin of the universe; rather they were concerned with the origin of their God and their nation. This is a gross oversimplification of documents like the Enuma Elish or the Atrahasis Epic, and many others. While I agree that these particular creation myths are for the purpose of establishing both the nation and its national deity, it also serves as an account of material origins. More than that, one needs only read the Genesis account to understand that this a clear account of material origins. And, like the other creation stories, also serves to establish both Israel's history.
The primeval history of Genesis 1-11 serves as a prologue to the conferral of God's kingdom on Abraham through covenant, and later Israel. Hence its genealogical structure (Adam through Seth, Seth through Noah, Noah through Shem, Shem through Terah, Terah through Abraham, Abraham through Isaac, and Isaac through Israel). And it also serves to establish Israel's God, YHWH as the one true God, creator of heaven and earth. So, Genesis itself serves as historical prologue to the ratification of the Mosaic covenant at Mt. Sinai, once more reflecting the particular Hittite treaties of the mid-second millennium B.C. But it also gives a clear account for material origins, both visible and invisible (i.e. heavens and earth of Gen. 1:1). These two things need not be mutually exclusive as Enn's claims.
Last, Enn's oversimplifies the similarities between Genesis and the other ANE accounts but does not do a sufficient job showing the differences between them. Creation is not the result of a struggle between the gods but is the result of the one God, and His sovereign power. Man is not created to relieve the gods from their manual labor; rather they are endowed with God's image as his vice-regents, and are given the task of laboring, cultivating God's good world, and ushering it into the eschaton of consummate sabbath rest. There are certainly similarities, but the differences are most striking. For a fuller comparison, see John D. Currid, Against the Gods.
One thing I agree with Enn's about is that the Biblical creation account is not compatible with what many scientist believe concerning human origins. Any attempt, like John Walton's, in his The Lost World of Adam and Eve, to try to merge evolution and the Genesis narrative fall far short. That being said, there are many scientists from prestigious universities that deny the current theory of human origins. Enn's does not seem to acknowledge this fact, because it does not fit the narrative that evolution is a settled matter, and therefore we must rethink the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. We must either affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve, and reject current prevailing models of human origins, or we must deny the Genesis account as myth. The implications of this view for inerrancy are startling, but even more, the implication of this view for the very person and work of Christ are cataclysmic.
If the first man Adam is not the progenitor of all mankind, then he cannot stand as federal head of mankind (Rom. 5:1-11). If he was not in a probationary covenant of works, whereby by perfect and perpetual obedience he would have merited eternal life, the second man, Jesus Christ has not merited eternal life for His people. If death is not the result of the fall, then death is a natural consequence of creation and “very good”, and the last man’s resurrection from the dead is of no avail in rescuing us from the misery of sin and death. If we have not bourn the image of the first man, the man of dust, then we will not bear the image of the last man, the man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47-48). If the historical Adam and Eve are lost, then the very foundation of the gospel itself is lost. We must, therefore, hold fast to the Scriptures plain teaching on the humanity, and not capitulate to the spirit of the age, the spirit of unbelief.
I think that Enn's argument falls short on at least three fronts: (1) his claim that the Genesis account was written and compiled in post-exilic community, and not by Moses in the mid second millennium B.C., (2) that the ANE creation myths that Genesis allegedly borrows from never give an account for material creation, and (3) the assertion that the Biblical account is merely polemical and repurposed ANE creation myth.
The documentary hypothesis (JEDP) for the authorship of the Pentateuch has long been the view held by most modern critical scholars. Many OT scholars have refuted this view, such as T. Desmond Alexander and Gordon Wenham. In Enn's book, Inspiration and Incantation, he mentions how both the decalogue and the book of Deuteronomy are structured after ANE suzerain vassal treaties. Yet he failed to mention how they reflect a certain form of this covenant treaty, resembling Syro-Anatolian treaties of the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries B.C., and not of those nearly a millennium later that the post-exilic community would have been familiar with.
Both the ratification of the covenant at Mt. Sinai, and the second giving of the law-covenant to the second generation closely resemble the covenant treaties of the surrounding ANE communities. These contained (1) a preamble, (2) an historical prologue, (3) stipulations, (4) blessings and curses, and (5), covenant continuity (taken from Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 113-130). You can see each of these elements in the giving of the law-covenant in Exodus 20, and, as Kline argues, in the entire structure of the book of Deuteronomy (Ibid., 133):
Preamble: Deut. 1:1-5.
Historical Prologue: Deut. 1:6-4:49.
Stipulations: Deut. 5-26.
Curses and Blessings or Covenant Ratification: Deut. 27-30.
Covenant Continuity: Deut. 31-34.
While there are still similarities between the structures of the treaties of the second and first millennium B.C., Kline says that the “most remarkable difference is that the historical prologue, the distinctive second sections of the second-millennium treaties, is no longer found in the latter text” (Ibid, 151). It is not likely that Israelites in the exile or even post-exilic communities would have been able to reproduce these complex ancient treaties from a millennia before their time. It is therefore far more likely that it was written during the time of the exodus by Moses.
Second, Enn's repeatedly claims that ANE creation myths never deal with an account of material origins. Prescientific people, he says, were not concerned with the origin of the universe; rather they were concerned with the origin of their God and their nation. This is a gross oversimplification of documents like the Enuma Elish or the Atrahasis Epic, and many others. While I agree that these particular creation myths are for the purpose of establishing both the nation and its national deity, it also serves as an account of material origins. More than that, one needs only read the Genesis account to understand that this a clear account of material origins. And, like the other creation stories, also serves to establish both Israel's history.
The primeval history of Genesis 1-11 serves as a prologue to the conferral of God's kingdom on Abraham through covenant, and later Israel. Hence its genealogical structure (Adam through Seth, Seth through Noah, Noah through Shem, Shem through Terah, Terah through Abraham, Abraham through Isaac, and Isaac through Israel). And it also serves to establish Israel's God, YHWH as the one true God, creator of heaven and earth. So, Genesis itself serves as historical prologue to the ratification of the Mosaic covenant at Mt. Sinai, once more reflecting the particular Hittite treaties of the mid-second millennium B.C. But it also gives a clear account for material origins, both visible and invisible (i.e. heavens and earth of Gen. 1:1). These two things need not be mutually exclusive as Enn's claims.
Last, Enn's oversimplifies the similarities between Genesis and the other ANE accounts but does not do a sufficient job showing the differences between them. Creation is not the result of a struggle between the gods but is the result of the one God, and His sovereign power. Man is not created to relieve the gods from their manual labor; rather they are endowed with God's image as his vice-regents, and are given the task of laboring, cultivating God's good world, and ushering it into the eschaton of consummate sabbath rest. There are certainly similarities, but the differences are most striking. For a fuller comparison, see John D. Currid, Against the Gods.
One thing I agree with Enn's about is that the Biblical creation account is not compatible with what many scientist believe concerning human origins. Any attempt, like John Walton's, in his The Lost World of Adam and Eve, to try to merge evolution and the Genesis narrative fall far short. That being said, there are many scientists from prestigious universities that deny the current theory of human origins. Enn's does not seem to acknowledge this fact, because it does not fit the narrative that evolution is a settled matter, and therefore we must rethink the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. We must either affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve, and reject current prevailing models of human origins, or we must deny the Genesis account as myth. The implications of this view for inerrancy are startling, but even more, the implication of this view for the very person and work of Christ are cataclysmic.
If the first man Adam is not the progenitor of all mankind, then he cannot stand as federal head of mankind (Rom. 5:1-11). If he was not in a probationary covenant of works, whereby by perfect and perpetual obedience he would have merited eternal life, the second man, Jesus Christ has not merited eternal life for His people. If death is not the result of the fall, then death is a natural consequence of creation and “very good”, and the last man’s resurrection from the dead is of no avail in rescuing us from the misery of sin and death. If we have not bourn the image of the first man, the man of dust, then we will not bear the image of the last man, the man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47-48). If the historical Adam and Eve are lost, then the very foundation of the gospel itself is lost. We must, therefore, hold fast to the Scriptures plain teaching on the humanity, and not capitulate to the spirit of the age, the spirit of unbelief.
August 10, 2023
Enns attempts to reconcile an evolutionary view of human origins with the Bible’s depiction of Adam as a real historical figure. The real challenge here deals with Paul’s view of Adam. Enns’ main tactic is to situate Genesis and Paul’s writings in their historical context and discern the authorial intent. Results are mixed.
Pros: I always think it is important to reconsider traditional understandings of texts and their purposes. I share the sense that Genesis was written for a different purpose than what we would call a modern scientific account of origins. I also agree that we have traditionally ignored genre in bible reading, sometimes insisting on literalism as if nonliteral readings are not serious about inspiration. Enns rattles some of these cages.
Cons: Enns’ goal of letting some breathing room into these debates feels like it goes too far. If Genesis is really about Jewish self-identity, does that mean that it is no longer describing historical fact? To what extent does Paul’s view of Adam become problematic? How do we justify a view of inspiration that doesn’t know the difference between a real being and a legend?
Pros: I always think it is important to reconsider traditional understandings of texts and their purposes. I share the sense that Genesis was written for a different purpose than what we would call a modern scientific account of origins. I also agree that we have traditionally ignored genre in bible reading, sometimes insisting on literalism as if nonliteral readings are not serious about inspiration. Enns rattles some of these cages.
Cons: Enns’ goal of letting some breathing room into these debates feels like it goes too far. If Genesis is really about Jewish self-identity, does that mean that it is no longer describing historical fact? To what extent does Paul’s view of Adam become problematic? How do we justify a view of inspiration that doesn’t know the difference between a real being and a legend?
July 15, 2019
While this book doesn't address everything I wanted it to, it's nonetheless a great introduction to some of the issues regarding Christianity, or more specifically the Bible and evolution. It has left me with perhaps more questions than answers, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
December 29, 2021
Heresy. Don’t bother.
August 19, 2022
It’s been ten years since Peter Enns released The Evolution of Adam, a groundbreaking work that explored the possibility that a faithful reading of Scripture could be aligned with evolutionary theory. Now, in a revised edition, Enns offers his work to a new generation, coinciding with a resurgence of focus on the topic. I’ve done a lot of reading on the historical Adam recently (see The Genealogical Adam and Eve by Swamidass or In Quest of the Historical Adam by Craig, among others) and this was the first to be theologically compelling.
Enns writes as an academic. He doesn’t offer final conclusions or definite statements. Instead, he faithfully seeks a way to reconcile our interpretation of Scripture with our interpretation of science—and rethink what we should expect from Scripture. Enns sees four possible options:
1. Accept evolution and reject Christianity.
2. Accept Paul’s view of Adam as binding and reject evolution.
3. Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point within the evolutionary process.
4. Rethink Genesis and Paul.
Enns favors this fourth option, suggesting that we need to reevaluate what we have the right to expect from Genesis and Paul. Part one of the book is a reevaluation of Genesis, its reason for being written, its genre of literature, and so on. This is an important thing to discuss. While fundamentalists might say “When the plain reading of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.” But a plain reading, or a literal reading, is not always the correct reading. It is incorrect to literally interpret something intended as symbolism. Enns makes the case that the Creation narrative, being poetry, should be viewed differently than other genres of literature like history. He spends a fair amount of time diving into other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths and linking them to the Genesis narrative. Enns oversells that point, in my estimation, but his insistence that we interpret Ancient Near Eastern literature in an Ancient Near Eastern context makes a lot of sense and helps readers view the narrative from a non-Western lens.
The second half of the book, discussing the New Testament’s view of Adam (Paul’s in particular) is very enlightening as Enns places Paul in his own context of first century Judaism and how that affects his interpretation of Genesis and informs how he writes about Adam and creation. In particular, The Evolution of Adam focuses on Romans 5 and Paul’s use of Adam as a theological figure. Again, the question that is asked is whether or not Adam is being used symbolically or literally in comparison to Jesus. Enns is able to rather convincingly separate the truthfulness of Paul’s theology (and Christ’s historicity) from the historical Adam or a literal young-earth creationism.
Enns finishes with nine conclusions, summarized here:
1. Literalism isn’t an option. That is, the Bible isn’t always supposed to be interpreted literally and it is wrong to do so when the authors intended a different interpretation.
2. Scientific and biblical models of human origins are incompatible because they have different goals. That is, we must hold the tension between the two and understand that full reconciliation will be impossible.
3. The creation story in Genesis reflects its ANE setting. That is, Scripture should be interpreted contextually.
4. There are two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 2 is the older one and subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile. This assumes a bit too much for my taste, suggesting that Genesis 1 is a post-exilic creation. However, there is no doubt that Genesis 1 and 2 are different retellings of the same event.
5. The story of Adam is about a failure to fear God and attain wise maturity. In particular, Enns compares Adam’s story to the Proverbs, showing how the story of the fall symbolically represents the struggle of all people.
6. God’s solution to sin through Jesus reveals the deep foundational plight of the human condition. This is what leads Paul to compare Jesus to Adam
7. A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks through cultural idiom. In this way Enns is able to uphold a high view of Scripture.
8. The root of the creation/evolution conflict is more based on losing power in the culture wars than any theological or scientific disagreement. This one hits hard.
9. Reconciling evolution and Christianity means developing a synthesis between the two, not adding one to the other.
In conclusion, while I’m not convinced of every point that The Evolution of Adam makes, Peter Enns offers a reasonable way for believers to uphold the integrity of Scripture while also taking modern science into consideration. It’s not a compromise or a concession, it’s a way of considering truth wherever it is found and trying to be as faithful as possible. It’s a challenging, thought-provoking work that suggests that it’s neither Scripture nor science that’s wrong but our perspectives and interpretations.
Enns writes as an academic. He doesn’t offer final conclusions or definite statements. Instead, he faithfully seeks a way to reconcile our interpretation of Scripture with our interpretation of science—and rethink what we should expect from Scripture. Enns sees four possible options:
1. Accept evolution and reject Christianity.
2. Accept Paul’s view of Adam as binding and reject evolution.
3. Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point within the evolutionary process.
4. Rethink Genesis and Paul.
Enns favors this fourth option, suggesting that we need to reevaluate what we have the right to expect from Genesis and Paul. Part one of the book is a reevaluation of Genesis, its reason for being written, its genre of literature, and so on. This is an important thing to discuss. While fundamentalists might say “When the plain reading of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.” But a plain reading, or a literal reading, is not always the correct reading. It is incorrect to literally interpret something intended as symbolism. Enns makes the case that the Creation narrative, being poetry, should be viewed differently than other genres of literature like history. He spends a fair amount of time diving into other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths and linking them to the Genesis narrative. Enns oversells that point, in my estimation, but his insistence that we interpret Ancient Near Eastern literature in an Ancient Near Eastern context makes a lot of sense and helps readers view the narrative from a non-Western lens.
The second half of the book, discussing the New Testament’s view of Adam (Paul’s in particular) is very enlightening as Enns places Paul in his own context of first century Judaism and how that affects his interpretation of Genesis and informs how he writes about Adam and creation. In particular, The Evolution of Adam focuses on Romans 5 and Paul’s use of Adam as a theological figure. Again, the question that is asked is whether or not Adam is being used symbolically or literally in comparison to Jesus. Enns is able to rather convincingly separate the truthfulness of Paul’s theology (and Christ’s historicity) from the historical Adam or a literal young-earth creationism.
Enns finishes with nine conclusions, summarized here:
1. Literalism isn’t an option. That is, the Bible isn’t always supposed to be interpreted literally and it is wrong to do so when the authors intended a different interpretation.
2. Scientific and biblical models of human origins are incompatible because they have different goals. That is, we must hold the tension between the two and understand that full reconciliation will be impossible.
3. The creation story in Genesis reflects its ANE setting. That is, Scripture should be interpreted contextually.
4. There are two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 2 is the older one and subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile. This assumes a bit too much for my taste, suggesting that Genesis 1 is a post-exilic creation. However, there is no doubt that Genesis 1 and 2 are different retellings of the same event.
5. The story of Adam is about a failure to fear God and attain wise maturity. In particular, Enns compares Adam’s story to the Proverbs, showing how the story of the fall symbolically represents the struggle of all people.
6. God’s solution to sin through Jesus reveals the deep foundational plight of the human condition. This is what leads Paul to compare Jesus to Adam
7. A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks through cultural idiom. In this way Enns is able to uphold a high view of Scripture.
8. The root of the creation/evolution conflict is more based on losing power in the culture wars than any theological or scientific disagreement. This one hits hard.
9. Reconciling evolution and Christianity means developing a synthesis between the two, not adding one to the other.
In conclusion, while I’m not convinced of every point that The Evolution of Adam makes, Peter Enns offers a reasonable way for believers to uphold the integrity of Scripture while also taking modern science into consideration. It’s not a compromise or a concession, it’s a way of considering truth wherever it is found and trying to be as faithful as possible. It’s a challenging, thought-provoking work that suggests that it’s neither Scripture nor science that’s wrong but our perspectives and interpretations.
July 18, 2017
*A Word to the Reader:
I think it is only fair to do a book review of his most recent work, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (2012), by rigorously applying Petey’s own methods. In doing so, I hope to bring out the absurdity in what Enns has done. What follows in this post is a book review written with Peter Enns explicit methodology in mind. If you want to know my view on the matter, see the Belgic Confession (Articles 15-16, 23), the Heidelberg Catechism (Q’s 7, 9, 20), and/or the Canons of Dordt (I. Article 1, III/IV. Article 2). Hint: I believe in an historical Adam, just as I believe in an historical Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and most importantly an historical Christ (Contrary to Enns dismissal of the relationship between the two Adams as being an “obstacle” which we should move past –on p. 126, Evolution of Adam).
———-
Since I am an infallible interpreter of any text that I read (naturally, since I am the captain of my fate and master of my soul)–like any good post-modern, I must say that Pete doesn’t really believe all of the things that are written in The Evolution of Adam. I mean, sure he has written all of these things down on bound paper and ink and it has recently been published, but it cannot be that these things are really Pete’s true thoughts.
Let me tell you, by my careful examination of the mind behind the written words of Pete, what Pete really thinks. Pete really believes that he isn’t an historical person. I know, I know, that sounds kind of strange and crazy considering the evidence that we have of a book that was published in 2012 by a scholar named “Peter Enns,” but let me assure you–this is what he really thinks about himself (how I know this, don’t worry–I won’t explain!). I am not going to get into a huge discussion over how I know that Pete thinks he isn’t an historical person, but you should believe what I’m telling you about him. Peter Enns though historical, thinks he isn’t historical. It is commonly believed that Peter Enns was born on January 2, 1961, and even his own mother will tell him that– but I assure you that he disagrees with this fact and will suggest that we need to move past this obstacle which gets in the way of my thesis that Pete thinks Pete is not a real person.
Moving on then, when we take into account the very fact that Peter Enns is a twenty-first century Evangelical scholar, we can only expect for Pete to use such categories known to him at the time he wrote this book. Since he has written this book in 2012, and since he lacks many of the essential categories that make up orthodox belief about Adam’s existence, it is quite apparent that Pete is not familiar with what the church has believed and confessed about Adam and has never read any of these superb documents for himself–Pete is entirely ignorant of what twenty centuries before him have confessed. For aside from the Reformed Confessions (all of which assert an historical Adam), in 529 A.D. the Council of Orange also had much to say about Adam’s real existence. But Pete must not have known any of this, since it is clear that he hasn’t read any of these dusty things–so we shouldn’t fault the man for his own ignorance. We must read Pete in context, and doing so exposes the very fact that Pete is probably very wrong–though he believes firmly that he is certainly right. Let us continue.
Even though there are 148 pages written on the subject that Adam is not an historical person, it is within the realm of possibility that Pete’s unorthodox opinion about Adam does not reveal what Pete might actually have thought about the historicity of Adam. Perhaps he entertained some other notion (such as that of the opinion of the whole Church since the days of Seth all the way through the prophets to the apostolic church, and from the early church to the Reformation, and from the Reformation up until 2012), but chose not to write about it in this book. That is entirely likely. Indeed, since I have entertained this possibility, this is what Pete must have really thought.
I can’t bear to go on reviewing any further, for I am thoroughly saddened by this supposed “scholarship.” If you think I am being unfair in my review, or overly critical, go ahead and read it for yourself. The whole book wreaks of bad methodology and I’m convinced you will recognize it easily. It is just one more book to throw into the ”empty speculations” (1 Tim. 1:4) bin (right on top of Rob Bell’s Love Wins). By God’s grace, may Enns turn away from such foolish and false thinking, and may he turn or return to embrace the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)–which most certainly does confess an Adam that was historical.
I think it is only fair to do a book review of his most recent work, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (2012), by rigorously applying Petey’s own methods. In doing so, I hope to bring out the absurdity in what Enns has done. What follows in this post is a book review written with Peter Enns explicit methodology in mind. If you want to know my view on the matter, see the Belgic Confession (Articles 15-16, 23), the Heidelberg Catechism (Q’s 7, 9, 20), and/or the Canons of Dordt (I. Article 1, III/IV. Article 2). Hint: I believe in an historical Adam, just as I believe in an historical Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and most importantly an historical Christ (Contrary to Enns dismissal of the relationship between the two Adams as being an “obstacle” which we should move past –on p. 126, Evolution of Adam).
———-
Since I am an infallible interpreter of any text that I read (naturally, since I am the captain of my fate and master of my soul)–like any good post-modern, I must say that Pete doesn’t really believe all of the things that are written in The Evolution of Adam. I mean, sure he has written all of these things down on bound paper and ink and it has recently been published, but it cannot be that these things are really Pete’s true thoughts.
Let me tell you, by my careful examination of the mind behind the written words of Pete, what Pete really thinks. Pete really believes that he isn’t an historical person. I know, I know, that sounds kind of strange and crazy considering the evidence that we have of a book that was published in 2012 by a scholar named “Peter Enns,” but let me assure you–this is what he really thinks about himself (how I know this, don’t worry–I won’t explain!). I am not going to get into a huge discussion over how I know that Pete thinks he isn’t an historical person, but you should believe what I’m telling you about him. Peter Enns though historical, thinks he isn’t historical. It is commonly believed that Peter Enns was born on January 2, 1961, and even his own mother will tell him that– but I assure you that he disagrees with this fact and will suggest that we need to move past this obstacle which gets in the way of my thesis that Pete thinks Pete is not a real person.
Moving on then, when we take into account the very fact that Peter Enns is a twenty-first century Evangelical scholar, we can only expect for Pete to use such categories known to him at the time he wrote this book. Since he has written this book in 2012, and since he lacks many of the essential categories that make up orthodox belief about Adam’s existence, it is quite apparent that Pete is not familiar with what the church has believed and confessed about Adam and has never read any of these superb documents for himself–Pete is entirely ignorant of what twenty centuries before him have confessed. For aside from the Reformed Confessions (all of which assert an historical Adam), in 529 A.D. the Council of Orange also had much to say about Adam’s real existence. But Pete must not have known any of this, since it is clear that he hasn’t read any of these dusty things–so we shouldn’t fault the man for his own ignorance. We must read Pete in context, and doing so exposes the very fact that Pete is probably very wrong–though he believes firmly that he is certainly right. Let us continue.
Even though there are 148 pages written on the subject that Adam is not an historical person, it is within the realm of possibility that Pete’s unorthodox opinion about Adam does not reveal what Pete might actually have thought about the historicity of Adam. Perhaps he entertained some other notion (such as that of the opinion of the whole Church since the days of Seth all the way through the prophets to the apostolic church, and from the early church to the Reformation, and from the Reformation up until 2012), but chose not to write about it in this book. That is entirely likely. Indeed, since I have entertained this possibility, this is what Pete must have really thought.
I can’t bear to go on reviewing any further, for I am thoroughly saddened by this supposed “scholarship.” If you think I am being unfair in my review, or overly critical, go ahead and read it for yourself. The whole book wreaks of bad methodology and I’m convinced you will recognize it easily. It is just one more book to throw into the ”empty speculations” (1 Tim. 1:4) bin (right on top of Rob Bell’s Love Wins). By God’s grace, may Enns turn away from such foolish and false thinking, and may he turn or return to embrace the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)–which most certainly does confess an Adam that was historical.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 6, 2013
Peter Enns seeks to evidence that in the Christian tradition, we do not need a historical Adam and Eve, that is, that our theology will not rise or fall on Adam and Eve's existence or lack thereof. Enns first begins by discussing the changes geology and evolution caused in modern thinking about the age and construction of the world. He then goes on to note how biblical scholars began in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to notice that books such as Genesis seemed to be compilations of various sources. Enns then shifts to discuss how early Israel seems to have understood and used Genesis and how Paul used the OT scriptures in general and Adam in specific. Essentially, Enns suggests that while Adam is treated as historical for Paul, more significantly, Adam is a theological example of the plights of humanity, sin and death. Enns does not suggest that we replace theology/Scripture with evolution, but that we must recognise that the two speak different languages and must be synthesised.
While I generally agree with many of Enns conclusions about Genesis and evolution, I have several issues with this book. His almost naive acceptance of modern biblical, historical-critical method of interpretation aside, Enns spends no time one two issues that seem rather important from his conclusions. First, Enns suggests that all we really need to know is that sin and death are problems for humans and we need ask no further. Enns completely ignores the question of evil and his approach would almost suggest that God created humanity as sinful, or that sinfulness naturally arises in humanity, which comes to the same thing. The second issue Enns ignores is how the tradition understood/understands Genesis and Adam and Eve. For that matter, chronologically speaking, Enns ignores what the Gospel writers have to say on the issue. One could perhaps forgive Enns for ignoring the early and medieval theologians as outside his purview since the subtitle says 'What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins'. Although Enns does make fleeting reference to the reformers. However, one cannot forgive Enns for promising in the title to tell us what the Bible does and does not say about this topic and then focus only on the Old Testament Scriptures and Paul. Admittedly, Adam only appears in two other places and seems to have less theological import than in Paul, but to ignore them entirely seems negligible.
In the end, I would recommend this book for those interested in learning more about this topic, but more so would I recommend reading Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea and Peter C. Bouteneff's Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives.
While I generally agree with many of Enns conclusions about Genesis and evolution, I have several issues with this book. His almost naive acceptance of modern biblical, historical-critical method of interpretation aside, Enns spends no time one two issues that seem rather important from his conclusions. First, Enns suggests that all we really need to know is that sin and death are problems for humans and we need ask no further. Enns completely ignores the question of evil and his approach would almost suggest that God created humanity as sinful, or that sinfulness naturally arises in humanity, which comes to the same thing. The second issue Enns ignores is how the tradition understood/understands Genesis and Adam and Eve. For that matter, chronologically speaking, Enns ignores what the Gospel writers have to say on the issue. One could perhaps forgive Enns for ignoring the early and medieval theologians as outside his purview since the subtitle says 'What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins'. Although Enns does make fleeting reference to the reformers. However, one cannot forgive Enns for promising in the title to tell us what the Bible does and does not say about this topic and then focus only on the Old Testament Scriptures and Paul. Admittedly, Adam only appears in two other places and seems to have less theological import than in Paul, but to ignore them entirely seems negligible.
In the end, I would recommend this book for those interested in learning more about this topic, but more so would I recommend reading Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea and Peter C. Bouteneff's Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives.
November 20, 2017
In an interesting fleshing out of his ideas about hermeneutics previously expressed in Inspiration and Incarnation, Pete Enns attempts to interpret the creation story in a way that makes it compatible with belief in evolution. Unfortunately, just as in the earlier book, he falls short of that goal, in my opinion.
Enns makes many good points about how the creation story would have been perceived by ancient Israelites and early Christians. He points out that one would expect their views of cosmology to influence their writings. He then argues that we (like the NT writers and second temple exegetes) can bring our modern knowledge to the task of understanding what is being said.
He speaks persuasively about what the creation mythology of the Pentateuch actually means. He acknowledges the reality of evolution. My discomfort with his approach, though, is a result of his insistence that in spite of the similarities between Biblical myth and ANE myth like the Atrahasis story or Enuma Elish, the Bible is inspired by God. He does not mean this as liberal Christians would, when they see inspiration in many areas of life, including the Bible. Rather, he clearly accepts the idea of special revelation. While that is perhaps a defensible position, he never attempts to defend it.
Nor does he explain how to deal with what I view as the greatest flaw in his hermeneutic - the lack of any sort of objective standard. We come to the Bible with our knowledge of Christ and salvation already intact. We then sort through it to find what fits with our knowledge and view the things that don't as cultural artifacts.
From my perspective, the lack of any objective standard is the death knell of religion. If the Bible cannot be taken literally, then all the interpreter has is his own feelings and experiences to guide him. Thus, one eventually creates a religion and a Jesus that is merely a reflection of oneself. While that is an interesting thing, in that it tells us more about that person's inner self, it does very little in the way of giving signposts for actual morality. If I have to supply my own morality, why even bother with religion in the first place?
I appreciate that Enns is willing to grapple with the questions a conservative view of inspiration ultimately brings to the thinking person. I just think that his answers to those questions are woefully inadequate.
Enns makes many good points about how the creation story would have been perceived by ancient Israelites and early Christians. He points out that one would expect their views of cosmology to influence their writings. He then argues that we (like the NT writers and second temple exegetes) can bring our modern knowledge to the task of understanding what is being said.
He speaks persuasively about what the creation mythology of the Pentateuch actually means. He acknowledges the reality of evolution. My discomfort with his approach, though, is a result of his insistence that in spite of the similarities between Biblical myth and ANE myth like the Atrahasis story or Enuma Elish, the Bible is inspired by God. He does not mean this as liberal Christians would, when they see inspiration in many areas of life, including the Bible. Rather, he clearly accepts the idea of special revelation. While that is perhaps a defensible position, he never attempts to defend it.
Nor does he explain how to deal with what I view as the greatest flaw in his hermeneutic - the lack of any sort of objective standard. We come to the Bible with our knowledge of Christ and salvation already intact. We then sort through it to find what fits with our knowledge and view the things that don't as cultural artifacts.
From my perspective, the lack of any objective standard is the death knell of religion. If the Bible cannot be taken literally, then all the interpreter has is his own feelings and experiences to guide him. Thus, one eventually creates a religion and a Jesus that is merely a reflection of oneself. While that is an interesting thing, in that it tells us more about that person's inner self, it does very little in the way of giving signposts for actual morality. If I have to supply my own morality, why even bother with religion in the first place?
I appreciate that Enns is willing to grapple with the questions a conservative view of inspiration ultimately brings to the thinking person. I just think that his answers to those questions are woefully inadequate.
April 30, 2012
See full review essay at http://www.colossianforum.org/2012/04...
November 12, 2014
The issue of the relationship between science and faith has been an important topic for centuries, if not millennia, if not longer. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that it is as great, if not greater, an issue today than any other time in history. Advances in science and archaeology over the past 125 years have put everyone in a position of having to address this relationship. There are many routes taken in this process.
Some go with a simple dismissal. Science is evil and a lie from the pits of hell. Religion is a crutch for the simple minded and offers nothing to the scientifically literate of the world. Or maybe the dismissal is not as extreme and prejudiced as that, but it still a simple dismissal of the competing claims. This has been the approach for many of us for most of our lives.
I just do not think we have that luxury anymore, especially in regards to the issue of evolution. We are now seeing a virtual universal acceptance of some form of evolutionary theory in our world today. While many or most Evangelicals and virtually all Fundamentalists still reject any type of macro-evolutionary theory, the option to dismiss without engaging is no longer viable. Our world is embracing evolutionary science and we must be willing and able to engage those who do. According to Barna research, one of the reasons many youth leave the church is for its unwillingness to engage scientific issues with any semblance of credibility. Many hold that the church's rejection of evolutionary theory is a misguided elevation of interpretation over revelation, much like the initial rejection of the heliocentric model of the universe presented by Copernicus and argued for by Galileo.
Many books have been written over the past decade about a Christian's response to evolutionary theory. The Creation Institute and the Biologos Foundation have both been instrumental in furthering the discussion, if not at times resorting to caricature and polemics where better means would have been more appropriate and beneficial. Nevertheless, the discussion is occurring and that is a good thing. A good addition to the discussion is Peter Enns' recent book, The Evolution ofAdam.
Enns is explicit with what he is attempting to accomplish in his book. “My aim is to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern. And my purpose here is certainly not to undermine the faith of those who see things differently.” I do hope Enns is genuine with this statement, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Enns' purpose is based on some underlying truths to which he holds. “The truth value of any theological iteration cannot be judged simply by how well it conforms to past views...I take it as axiomatic that a healthy theology is one that shows a willingness—even an expectation—to revisit ways of thinking and changing them when need be.” I would hope that this is something on which we all could agree and support with a hearty “Amen!”
Enns makes some great points throughout this book. His most relevant and important point is looking at how many Christians are simply unwilling to engage a counterview because of fear.
Enns statement about why many Christians are reticent to even explore the idea of evolutionary theory is quite insightful and may have applications beyond simply how we interact with scientific thought.
Enns writes:
The Christian faith is invariably tied to its sacred book, where God speaks. Any challenge to how that book has been understood—and evolution requires some significant adjustment for many—is bound to be threatening and so elicit strong reactions. Saying that the Adam story in Genesis is not a historical account, even though it seems to be understood that way by Paul—no matter how gently one puts it—presents a real threat to some because it is believed to undermine the trustworthiness of the Bible.
The reason why this tension is felt so acutely—particularly among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—is because of the central role that the Bible plays in those traditions. Although they express their commitments differently, both of these groups share a commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all theological matters, which typically (or at least historically) has included a commitment to the accuracy of the Bible. When challenges to the “boundary marker” arise, tensions naturally increase.
The roots of the commitment to the Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist consciousness are varied, but certainly one significant historical factor is the Reformation concept of sola Scriptura: the Bible alone is the church's final authority on all matters pertaining to faith and life.... (sola Scriptura) does not leave much room for reinterpreting the Bible in view of extra biblical information, be it science or Mesopotamian creation texts. These external forces introduce ambiguity into the otherwise clear meaning of the Bible and are seen to relativize its teachings as cultural expressions. Evolution requires Christians to rethink theology, yet some believe accepting this challenge calls into question their core Protestant identity. For some Christians, therefore, evidence from natural science and archaeology, no matter how compelling, is simply inadmissible. Too much is at stake.
That being said, I have some serious concerns this book and with what seems to be guiding its author.. Enns holds some truths to be indisputable and seemingly self-evident, to the point that his premise fails because the foundation he attempts to lay depends on the reader agreeing with his presuppositions about Scripture and history.
The main base for Enns is his undaunted allegiance to Biblical Criticism, specifically the work of Julius Wellhausen.
No Old Testament scholar has had more of a lasting impact on his field than Julius Wellhausen. Not unlike Darwin in his field, Wellhausen synthesized a lot of data and developed a theory that caught on quickly with most specialists at the time yet was also hotly contested by others and even maligned and reviled by some. Like Darwin, Wellhausen's ideas have had to be refined, adjusted, and in some cases abandoned as further discoveries came to light. Today many of the details of Wellhausen's arguments no longer dominate the academic conversation, but two general insights remain as a virtually unquestioned foundation for subsequent work :(1) that parts of the Pentateuch were composed over several centuries, and (2) that the Pentateuch as a whole was not completed until after the Israelites returned from exile.
This leads Enns to some points that are critical to his premise but, as far as I can see, not necessarily true.
*A Post Exilic writing of Genesis,
*Genesis being dependent on ancient near eastern myth,
*Genesis being not historical but rather allegorical,
*Paul as simply an interpreter of a document, not the Holy Spirit inspired recorder of divine revelation so he is subject to error as any other man when interpreting Scripture.
While I struggled to find common ground or a convincing argument in much of Enns work, he hit on some points that I feel are critical to understanding this debate and the need for the conversation.
One point he makes is that the biggest problem for Christians in the situation of human evolution, the historical Adam and the historicity of Genesis 1-3 is Paul. While it would require some rethinking and some interpretation of Scriptures that differs from what is accepted now, one could make a case for evolution without any genuine violation of Scripture if it were not for the writings of Paul and how he deals with Adam.
Christians have a bigger problem than dealing with Genesis if they want to reconcile Christianity and evolution: Paul. Here we come to the heart of the matter, what I believe is the ultimate source of concern for Christians who are seeking a synthesis between the Bible and evolution...The conversation between Christianity and evolution would be far less stressful for some if it were not for the prominent role that Adam plays in two of Paul's letters, specifically in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-58. In these passages, Paul seems to regard Adam as the first human being and the ancestor of everyone who ever lived. This is a particularly vital point in Romans, where where Paul regards Adam's disobedience as the cause of universal sin and death from which humanity is redeemed through the obedience of Christ. Many Christians, however creative they might be willing to be about interpreting Genesis, stop dead in their tracks when they see how Paul handles Adam.
And I cannot stress enough how I appreciate and applaud his desire to interact with the topic of Science and Evolutionary Theory rather than simply dismiss it outright. While it may be true that evolution is a bunch of bunk and that's all there is to it, this argument is not likely to lead many modern, thinking minds into a dialogue with the Christian faith where they can see the goodness and truth of our claim that we serve a crucified and risen King.
Enns summarizes his position in his final chapter called “Adam Today: 9 Theses”. Reading the text with these points in mind will help the reader see where Enns is going and how he gets there.
1. Literalism is not an option.
2. Scientific and biblical models of human origin are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language”. They cannot be reconciled, and there is no “Adam” to be found in an evolutionary scheme.
3. The Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.
4. There are two creation stories in Genesis; the Adam story is probably older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell Israel's story.
5. The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.
6. God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the Biblical idiom available to him.
7. A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.
8. The root of conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identiy and fear of losing what it offers.
9. A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.
While I disagree with much of what Enns wrote, including the conclusions he comes to, I definitely appreciate his viewing this topic as pressing and worthy of a book-length interaction. His admonition to deal with the topic in an authentic manner, whether he does so or not, is applicable to all believers. His reminder that this is a topic that needs to be addressed cannot be stressed highly enough. What is implicit in his text is a challenge to seek truth, no matter where it leads you. If we truly hold to the fact that “all truth is God's truth” then a Christian should never fear where a search for truth will take them.
A grammatical-historical approach has always fed off of our growing knowledge of the biblical world, the results being a clearer understanding of what the text is trying to get across. Placing the Bible in its historical contexts is the principle that lies behind every commentary on our shelves and the notes and maps that make up our study Bibles. The fact that the scientific and archaeological evidence concerning Genesis can be somewhat challenging does not permit us to abandon the principle.
To that I offer a hearty, “Amen!” To the book as a whole, I would suggest reading it with a healthy dose of skepticism and being mindful of the presuppositions with which Enns approaches this topic.
Some go with a simple dismissal. Science is evil and a lie from the pits of hell. Religion is a crutch for the simple minded and offers nothing to the scientifically literate of the world. Or maybe the dismissal is not as extreme and prejudiced as that, but it still a simple dismissal of the competing claims. This has been the approach for many of us for most of our lives.
I just do not think we have that luxury anymore, especially in regards to the issue of evolution. We are now seeing a virtual universal acceptance of some form of evolutionary theory in our world today. While many or most Evangelicals and virtually all Fundamentalists still reject any type of macro-evolutionary theory, the option to dismiss without engaging is no longer viable. Our world is embracing evolutionary science and we must be willing and able to engage those who do. According to Barna research, one of the reasons many youth leave the church is for its unwillingness to engage scientific issues with any semblance of credibility. Many hold that the church's rejection of evolutionary theory is a misguided elevation of interpretation over revelation, much like the initial rejection of the heliocentric model of the universe presented by Copernicus and argued for by Galileo.
Many books have been written over the past decade about a Christian's response to evolutionary theory. The Creation Institute and the Biologos Foundation have both been instrumental in furthering the discussion, if not at times resorting to caricature and polemics where better means would have been more appropriate and beneficial. Nevertheless, the discussion is occurring and that is a good thing. A good addition to the discussion is Peter Enns' recent book, The Evolution ofAdam.
Enns is explicit with what he is attempting to accomplish in his book. “My aim is to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern. And my purpose here is certainly not to undermine the faith of those who see things differently.” I do hope Enns is genuine with this statement, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Enns' purpose is based on some underlying truths to which he holds. “The truth value of any theological iteration cannot be judged simply by how well it conforms to past views...I take it as axiomatic that a healthy theology is one that shows a willingness—even an expectation—to revisit ways of thinking and changing them when need be.” I would hope that this is something on which we all could agree and support with a hearty “Amen!”
Enns makes some great points throughout this book. His most relevant and important point is looking at how many Christians are simply unwilling to engage a counterview because of fear.
Enns statement about why many Christians are reticent to even explore the idea of evolutionary theory is quite insightful and may have applications beyond simply how we interact with scientific thought.
Enns writes:
The Christian faith is invariably tied to its sacred book, where God speaks. Any challenge to how that book has been understood—and evolution requires some significant adjustment for many—is bound to be threatening and so elicit strong reactions. Saying that the Adam story in Genesis is not a historical account, even though it seems to be understood that way by Paul—no matter how gently one puts it—presents a real threat to some because it is believed to undermine the trustworthiness of the Bible.
The reason why this tension is felt so acutely—particularly among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—is because of the central role that the Bible plays in those traditions. Although they express their commitments differently, both of these groups share a commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all theological matters, which typically (or at least historically) has included a commitment to the accuracy of the Bible. When challenges to the “boundary marker” arise, tensions naturally increase.
The roots of the commitment to the Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist consciousness are varied, but certainly one significant historical factor is the Reformation concept of sola Scriptura: the Bible alone is the church's final authority on all matters pertaining to faith and life.... (sola Scriptura) does not leave much room for reinterpreting the Bible in view of extra biblical information, be it science or Mesopotamian creation texts. These external forces introduce ambiguity into the otherwise clear meaning of the Bible and are seen to relativize its teachings as cultural expressions. Evolution requires Christians to rethink theology, yet some believe accepting this challenge calls into question their core Protestant identity. For some Christians, therefore, evidence from natural science and archaeology, no matter how compelling, is simply inadmissible. Too much is at stake.
That being said, I have some serious concerns this book and with what seems to be guiding its author.. Enns holds some truths to be indisputable and seemingly self-evident, to the point that his premise fails because the foundation he attempts to lay depends on the reader agreeing with his presuppositions about Scripture and history.
The main base for Enns is his undaunted allegiance to Biblical Criticism, specifically the work of Julius Wellhausen.
No Old Testament scholar has had more of a lasting impact on his field than Julius Wellhausen. Not unlike Darwin in his field, Wellhausen synthesized a lot of data and developed a theory that caught on quickly with most specialists at the time yet was also hotly contested by others and even maligned and reviled by some. Like Darwin, Wellhausen's ideas have had to be refined, adjusted, and in some cases abandoned as further discoveries came to light. Today many of the details of Wellhausen's arguments no longer dominate the academic conversation, but two general insights remain as a virtually unquestioned foundation for subsequent work :(1) that parts of the Pentateuch were composed over several centuries, and (2) that the Pentateuch as a whole was not completed until after the Israelites returned from exile.
This leads Enns to some points that are critical to his premise but, as far as I can see, not necessarily true.
*A Post Exilic writing of Genesis,
*Genesis being dependent on ancient near eastern myth,
*Genesis being not historical but rather allegorical,
*Paul as simply an interpreter of a document, not the Holy Spirit inspired recorder of divine revelation so he is subject to error as any other man when interpreting Scripture.
While I struggled to find common ground or a convincing argument in much of Enns work, he hit on some points that I feel are critical to understanding this debate and the need for the conversation.
One point he makes is that the biggest problem for Christians in the situation of human evolution, the historical Adam and the historicity of Genesis 1-3 is Paul. While it would require some rethinking and some interpretation of Scriptures that differs from what is accepted now, one could make a case for evolution without any genuine violation of Scripture if it were not for the writings of Paul and how he deals with Adam.
Christians have a bigger problem than dealing with Genesis if they want to reconcile Christianity and evolution: Paul. Here we come to the heart of the matter, what I believe is the ultimate source of concern for Christians who are seeking a synthesis between the Bible and evolution...The conversation between Christianity and evolution would be far less stressful for some if it were not for the prominent role that Adam plays in two of Paul's letters, specifically in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-58. In these passages, Paul seems to regard Adam as the first human being and the ancestor of everyone who ever lived. This is a particularly vital point in Romans, where where Paul regards Adam's disobedience as the cause of universal sin and death from which humanity is redeemed through the obedience of Christ. Many Christians, however creative they might be willing to be about interpreting Genesis, stop dead in their tracks when they see how Paul handles Adam.
And I cannot stress enough how I appreciate and applaud his desire to interact with the topic of Science and Evolutionary Theory rather than simply dismiss it outright. While it may be true that evolution is a bunch of bunk and that's all there is to it, this argument is not likely to lead many modern, thinking minds into a dialogue with the Christian faith where they can see the goodness and truth of our claim that we serve a crucified and risen King.
Enns summarizes his position in his final chapter called “Adam Today: 9 Theses”. Reading the text with these points in mind will help the reader see where Enns is going and how he gets there.
1. Literalism is not an option.
2. Scientific and biblical models of human origin are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language”. They cannot be reconciled, and there is no “Adam” to be found in an evolutionary scheme.
3. The Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.
4. There are two creation stories in Genesis; the Adam story is probably older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell Israel's story.
5. The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.
6. God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the Biblical idiom available to him.
7. A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.
8. The root of conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identiy and fear of losing what it offers.
9. A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.
While I disagree with much of what Enns wrote, including the conclusions he comes to, I definitely appreciate his viewing this topic as pressing and worthy of a book-length interaction. His admonition to deal with the topic in an authentic manner, whether he does so or not, is applicable to all believers. His reminder that this is a topic that needs to be addressed cannot be stressed highly enough. What is implicit in his text is a challenge to seek truth, no matter where it leads you. If we truly hold to the fact that “all truth is God's truth” then a Christian should never fear where a search for truth will take them.
A grammatical-historical approach has always fed off of our growing knowledge of the biblical world, the results being a clearer understanding of what the text is trying to get across. Placing the Bible in its historical contexts is the principle that lies behind every commentary on our shelves and the notes and maps that make up our study Bibles. The fact that the scientific and archaeological evidence concerning Genesis can be somewhat challenging does not permit us to abandon the principle.
To that I offer a hearty, “Amen!” To the book as a whole, I would suggest reading it with a healthy dose of skepticism and being mindful of the presuppositions with which Enns approaches this topic.
April 4, 2023
A mostly disappointing book.
Enns seems more concerned about understanding the creation account as an ancient text over and above it being a text from the Creator himself.
He does helpfully explains the relevant cultural context, which is critical to understanding Genesis. But to Enns, the externals of the text (the cultural context and the science of evolution) determine the meaning of Genesis, rather than the text itself. Yes you need the externals to help you understand the meaning, but the starting point matters and he unhelpfully starts with elevating comparative studies and science over exegesis, theology and coming to the text as the word of God.
“Genesis cries out to be read as something other than a historical description of events.” I’m happy to accept that, but he never walks us through how Genesis cries this out, instead he shows us how other ANE texts cry it out. This is the wrong approach - we need to show how Genesis and the wider Bible directs us to read it this way.
If we allowed this method, we fail to take to heart the biggest message from the Adam and Eve story. We become like Eve when she lets the serpent determine what God must have meant in His word to her. She elevates outside sources determine her interpretation of Gods word, she leans on her own understanding, not the Lords. And we’re at risk of that too.
Paul takes Adam very seriously and Enns’ helpfully shows how the death and resurrection of Jesus had a profound impact on his interpretation of the Adam story. But he calls Paul’s version a ‘creative retelling’ of and ‘fresh take’ on the Adam story. According to Enns, this means we don’t have to take that story as historical. But that leaves me asking, how can this Scripture be true if Paul is twisting the Adam story to fit his theology? It was a weak argument, but especially so for a Christian that holds the Bible as infallible (as we all should).
Overall, Enns fails to help us think deeply about the ancient meaning of the Genesis text whilst simultaneously maintaining a high view of scripture, coming to them as disciples that humbly listen to the word of their Creator.
Enns seems more concerned about understanding the creation account as an ancient text over and above it being a text from the Creator himself.
He does helpfully explains the relevant cultural context, which is critical to understanding Genesis. But to Enns, the externals of the text (the cultural context and the science of evolution) determine the meaning of Genesis, rather than the text itself. Yes you need the externals to help you understand the meaning, but the starting point matters and he unhelpfully starts with elevating comparative studies and science over exegesis, theology and coming to the text as the word of God.
“Genesis cries out to be read as something other than a historical description of events.” I’m happy to accept that, but he never walks us through how Genesis cries this out, instead he shows us how other ANE texts cry it out. This is the wrong approach - we need to show how Genesis and the wider Bible directs us to read it this way.
If we allowed this method, we fail to take to heart the biggest message from the Adam and Eve story. We become like Eve when she lets the serpent determine what God must have meant in His word to her. She elevates outside sources determine her interpretation of Gods word, she leans on her own understanding, not the Lords. And we’re at risk of that too.
Paul takes Adam very seriously and Enns’ helpfully shows how the death and resurrection of Jesus had a profound impact on his interpretation of the Adam story. But he calls Paul’s version a ‘creative retelling’ of and ‘fresh take’ on the Adam story. According to Enns, this means we don’t have to take that story as historical. But that leaves me asking, how can this Scripture be true if Paul is twisting the Adam story to fit his theology? It was a weak argument, but especially so for a Christian that holds the Bible as infallible (as we all should).
Overall, Enns fails to help us think deeply about the ancient meaning of the Genesis text whilst simultaneously maintaining a high view of scripture, coming to them as disciples that humbly listen to the word of their Creator.
March 6, 2023
Makes a strong case that different biblical authors themselves had different, though not contradictory, understandings of Adam and sin of origin (different from original sin). This is true in the Protestant Bible but the case gets stronger if you include the Orthodox or Catholic Bible, which Enns does.
Understanding Adam as humanity as Enns argues Paul did in Romans, and which is after all what the name Adam means, gives us freedom to embrace the findings of evolution even while it leaves the basic gospel message intact - we are all sinners; Jesus, who is a historical figure and whose historicity does not depend on the historicity of Adam, lived, died, and was resurrected to save the world; Jesus is making all things new.
Understanding Adam as humanity as Enns argues Paul did in Romans, and which is after all what the name Adam means, gives us freedom to embrace the findings of evolution even while it leaves the basic gospel message intact - we are all sinners; Jesus, who is a historical figure and whose historicity does not depend on the historicity of Adam, lived, died, and was resurrected to save the world; Jesus is making all things new.
February 22, 2019
A well drafted synopsis of what the Bible does and does not say about Adam and human origins. Peter Enns skillfully crafts arguments on how Christians should be reading the creation story, backed up by legitimate scholarly insight into culture and time. Readers of Enns other works will find the arguments outlined in this book to be familiar and inline with his other books.
October 14, 2023
This is a challenging read that made me think. There is much I don't understand here and some things I don't agree with at this point.
Kristen du Mez says "I don't surround myself with people who think like me but with people who make me think better.". Perhaps Peter Enns book does this for me.
Kristen du Mez says "I don't surround myself with people who think like me but with people who make me think better.". Perhaps Peter Enns book does this for me.
October 29, 2023
Man, this was an awesome book. This book addressed a question I’ve been asking myself for several years now. I have a lot of new historical context and content to think about in my journey of faith in Christ. Thanks!
November 5, 2025
A good treatment of how to read Genesis in its ancient context, which turns out to be a time when people had very different concerns than writing a modern scientific account of human origins.
It loses a bit of momentum toward the end by over-explaining Paul’s use of Adam, but overall it’s a strong and balanced book that shows how science and faith can coexist without conflict.
It loses a bit of momentum toward the end by over-explaining Paul’s use of Adam, but overall it’s a strong and balanced book that shows how science and faith can coexist without conflict.
September 18, 2023
While my rating doesn't reflect my personal view whether I think Enns' arguments correct, I appreciate that he wrote clearly enough for a laywoman like myself to understand them.
February 16, 2017
The debates about creation and evolution have been around forever and do not seem to be slowing down. On one side you have the young-earth creationists who declare that the Bible be taken in its most "literal" form and thus the universe is only about 6,000 years old. Interestingly, no creationists support a flat earth model. Other Christians accept the age of the earth but still reject evolution (old-earth creationists). On the other extreme are voices that declare evolution is true and thus God is non-existent.
In between we find people who try to reconcile the two. Of course, people here get beat-up from both sides. To more conservative Christians, they are sell-outs. To the atheists, they still have their head in the sand. Further, in a world that values extreme positions because that's what gets ratings, views from the middle are marginalized.
Peter Enns is someone in the middle. He accepts the evolutionary origins of the universe and humanity. For that reason right away his book will be rejected by many Christians. But Enns, as a bible scholar, believes the Bible is inspired by God. How can the two be reconciled, especially when it comes to Adam?
Enns is correct in saying that reconciling evolution with Genesis 1 is easy. The bigger challenge comes in reconciling the first couple, Adam and Eve, with evolution.
Enns does this by placing the creation story in its ancient context, comparing it to other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories (Enuma Elish, Atrahasis). Through this he shows that Genesis was not written with scientific questions in mind. Instead, it was written to show that the God of Israel is the one God rather than the gods of the nations. Enns also shows that Adam is a relatively inconsequential character in the Old Testament narrative, never mentioned again other then in the very beginning of 1 Chronicles.
It was especially interesting how Enns argues for Adam as the first Israelite, going into exile the same way Israel did. Along with that, Adam works as a wisdom story, showing how Adam chooses the path of the fool rather than the wise. Finally, nowhere in the Old Testament does anyone say Adam's first sin is the reason why we all sin.
For Christians, this is the crux of the matter. Paul argues that in Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. Here is where the debate ends up, for some Christians would say that without an Adam the whole gospel of Christ goes away. Enns argument is that while Paul saw Adam as a historical person this is not a point we need to agree with him on. Belief about Adam as historical person is akin to Paul's beliefs on other subjects of the time - Paul is a product of his culture. God did not give special knowledge to Paul about biology or physics or the beginnings of humanity.
Does this mean humans are not sinful? Enns argues no. His argument is basically that the truth remains (all humans are sinful) even if the illustration to show this (we all come from Adam) is not tenable. Clearly original guilt is gone, humans are not born guilty, so this does affect theology. But Enns concludes that humans are still born into a sinful world and with a tendency to sin.
The real question is, does Enns succeed? It depends who you ask. If you are a Christian who thinks that if any one verse is not "true" or "literally true" then you're going to reject what Enns says. But if you're someone who is convinced of evolution and trying to figure out how it relates to your faith, you will find what Enns writes to be helpful.
Ultimately, it is a question of what the Bible is. Enns argues that the Bible is a human book inspired by God (much like how Christians believe Jesus is fully God and fully man). As a human book, it is subject to the assumptions of the writers' cultures and times. Again, they weren't doing science. If you see the Bible as nearly dictated by God, then you will not agree with Enns.
In between we find people who try to reconcile the two. Of course, people here get beat-up from both sides. To more conservative Christians, they are sell-outs. To the atheists, they still have their head in the sand. Further, in a world that values extreme positions because that's what gets ratings, views from the middle are marginalized.
Peter Enns is someone in the middle. He accepts the evolutionary origins of the universe and humanity. For that reason right away his book will be rejected by many Christians. But Enns, as a bible scholar, believes the Bible is inspired by God. How can the two be reconciled, especially when it comes to Adam?
Enns is correct in saying that reconciling evolution with Genesis 1 is easy. The bigger challenge comes in reconciling the first couple, Adam and Eve, with evolution.
Enns does this by placing the creation story in its ancient context, comparing it to other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories (Enuma Elish, Atrahasis). Through this he shows that Genesis was not written with scientific questions in mind. Instead, it was written to show that the God of Israel is the one God rather than the gods of the nations. Enns also shows that Adam is a relatively inconsequential character in the Old Testament narrative, never mentioned again other then in the very beginning of 1 Chronicles.
It was especially interesting how Enns argues for Adam as the first Israelite, going into exile the same way Israel did. Along with that, Adam works as a wisdom story, showing how Adam chooses the path of the fool rather than the wise. Finally, nowhere in the Old Testament does anyone say Adam's first sin is the reason why we all sin.
For Christians, this is the crux of the matter. Paul argues that in Adam all die and in Christ all are made alive. Here is where the debate ends up, for some Christians would say that without an Adam the whole gospel of Christ goes away. Enns argument is that while Paul saw Adam as a historical person this is not a point we need to agree with him on. Belief about Adam as historical person is akin to Paul's beliefs on other subjects of the time - Paul is a product of his culture. God did not give special knowledge to Paul about biology or physics or the beginnings of humanity.
Does this mean humans are not sinful? Enns argues no. His argument is basically that the truth remains (all humans are sinful) even if the illustration to show this (we all come from Adam) is not tenable. Clearly original guilt is gone, humans are not born guilty, so this does affect theology. But Enns concludes that humans are still born into a sinful world and with a tendency to sin.
The real question is, does Enns succeed? It depends who you ask. If you are a Christian who thinks that if any one verse is not "true" or "literally true" then you're going to reject what Enns says. But if you're someone who is convinced of evolution and trying to figure out how it relates to your faith, you will find what Enns writes to be helpful.
Ultimately, it is a question of what the Bible is. Enns argues that the Bible is a human book inspired by God (much like how Christians believe Jesus is fully God and fully man). As a human book, it is subject to the assumptions of the writers' cultures and times. Again, they weren't doing science. If you see the Bible as nearly dictated by God, then you will not agree with Enns.
April 7, 2013
Adam is dead....uh...er....can one say that if Adam never existed? That is at the heart of Peter Enns The Evolution of Adam.
Christianity is at a crossroads in the Evolution debate. Enns acknowledges that Evolution is not a new fight, but it has become particularly relevant in the wake of criticisms of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins. In the wake of this, Christians have become more militant in their defense of origins, especially that of Genesis 1. Hence we have groups like Answers in Genesis who populate Homeschooling conferences trying to convince people that dinosaurs and people lived together and Kirk Cameron handing out special copies of the Origin of Species with Christian annotations in them.
Enns calls us to reevaluate our thinking about Adam...in other words our concept of Adam needs to evolve. Part of the problem for the Church has been Paul's theology of Adam and Christ in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Enns organizes his book into two parts: one looking at the material in Genesis and then looking at Paul's writings in the NT.
Anyone familiar with Enns understands that he has particular views on the OT, especially its relationship to the particular culture that it comes from. Genesis 1, Enns argues, has little to do with the scientific questions that we ask of the text, and more to do with the cultural and historic setting it comes from.
Enns evaluates Genesis on the basis of how our current text of the book came to be, its relationship to other cultural texts and its own particular theology. He concludes that Adam in the OT can be seen as prototypical Israel ("God's son") and that one should read the Genesis story through the eyes of wisdom literature.
Taking a similar approach to Paul, Enns demonstrates that while Paul more than likely believed in an historical Adam who was the cause of the problems of sin, that this does NOT require the Christian to follow suit. It has been our preconceptions of how the Bible 'ought to work' that predominates our conversation.
Whether or not you follow or agree with his argumentation, Enns provides evangelical believers an option when it comes to Evolution.
In broader strokes, Enns' work brings into question the relationship of the believer to the Bible and how the Bible should be read. Along with this, the question of Sola Scriptura, inerrancy, and inspiration are brought to the forefront.
Enns' writing is very clear, but the work may not be as accessible as others. He does his best to provide an introduction to the Ancient Near East and the genre of literature, but those without at least a rudimentary background may have some issues with the book.
I expect this book will be controversial and will provoke a great deal of debate in the church.
I recommend this book to Pastors and other Christians who want some guidance on this perennial issue of the relationship between Christianity and Evolution.
Grade: B
Christianity is at a crossroads in the Evolution debate. Enns acknowledges that Evolution is not a new fight, but it has become particularly relevant in the wake of criticisms of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins. In the wake of this, Christians have become more militant in their defense of origins, especially that of Genesis 1. Hence we have groups like Answers in Genesis who populate Homeschooling conferences trying to convince people that dinosaurs and people lived together and Kirk Cameron handing out special copies of the Origin of Species with Christian annotations in them.
Enns calls us to reevaluate our thinking about Adam...in other words our concept of Adam needs to evolve. Part of the problem for the Church has been Paul's theology of Adam and Christ in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Enns organizes his book into two parts: one looking at the material in Genesis and then looking at Paul's writings in the NT.
Anyone familiar with Enns understands that he has particular views on the OT, especially its relationship to the particular culture that it comes from. Genesis 1, Enns argues, has little to do with the scientific questions that we ask of the text, and more to do with the cultural and historic setting it comes from.
Enns evaluates Genesis on the basis of how our current text of the book came to be, its relationship to other cultural texts and its own particular theology. He concludes that Adam in the OT can be seen as prototypical Israel ("God's son") and that one should read the Genesis story through the eyes of wisdom literature.
Taking a similar approach to Paul, Enns demonstrates that while Paul more than likely believed in an historical Adam who was the cause of the problems of sin, that this does NOT require the Christian to follow suit. It has been our preconceptions of how the Bible 'ought to work' that predominates our conversation.
Whether or not you follow or agree with his argumentation, Enns provides evangelical believers an option when it comes to Evolution.
In broader strokes, Enns' work brings into question the relationship of the believer to the Bible and how the Bible should be read. Along with this, the question of Sola Scriptura, inerrancy, and inspiration are brought to the forefront.
Enns' writing is very clear, but the work may not be as accessible as others. He does his best to provide an introduction to the Ancient Near East and the genre of literature, but those without at least a rudimentary background may have some issues with the book.
I expect this book will be controversial and will provoke a great deal of debate in the church.
I recommend this book to Pastors and other Christians who want some guidance on this perennial issue of the relationship between Christianity and Evolution.
Grade: B
November 2, 2012
Dr. Peter Enns's new book is an important contribution to the growing collection of Christian literature on the necessary reconciliation of Scripture and biological evolution (not to be confused with Darwinism). His intention is "to clear away some misunderstandings and suggest different ways of thinking through some perennial problems in order to put interested readers on a constructive path and thus hopefully encourage further substantive discussion." His aim is "to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between a biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern." He addresses the question: "Can evolution and a biblically rooted Christian faith coexist?"
Enns presents four options: (1) Accept evolution and reject Christianity, (2) Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution, (2) Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process, and (4) Rethink Genesis and Paul by reevaluating what we have the right to expect from Genesis and Paul. The book is his case for the fourth option.
The book is divided into two parts. Part One deals with Adam in the Old Testament, primarily Genesis 1-5, and Part Two deals with Adam in the New Testament, specifically Romans 5. In both parts, Enns concentrates on how the readers at that time would have understood the passages in question.
His conclusion in Part One is that "Adam is not a story of the origin of humanity in general but of Israel in particular. When seen from this perspective, efforts to reconcile Adam and evolution become unnecessary--at least from the point of view of Genesis."
His conclusion in Part Two is that "Christians who take Paul's theology with utmost seriousness are not also bound to accept Paul's view of Adam historically."
In the Conclusion of his book, Enns very nicely summarized his approach in nine theses, with some discussion of each thesis. Since the book is written at the "popular" level, Enns does not extensively back up every one of his assertions, but provides numerous endnotes and a bibliography for those who want to dig further.
Peter Enns succeeds admirably in his goal. I highly recommend this book to every Christian who is concerned about the historicity of Adam and how to reconcile Scripture with biological evolution. Even if the reader is not ready to accept a non-historical Adam, there are many things in the book to think about.
Enns presents four options: (1) Accept evolution and reject Christianity, (2) Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution, (2) Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process, and (4) Rethink Genesis and Paul by reevaluating what we have the right to expect from Genesis and Paul. The book is his case for the fourth option.
The book is divided into two parts. Part One deals with Adam in the Old Testament, primarily Genesis 1-5, and Part Two deals with Adam in the New Testament, specifically Romans 5. In both parts, Enns concentrates on how the readers at that time would have understood the passages in question.
His conclusion in Part One is that "Adam is not a story of the origin of humanity in general but of Israel in particular. When seen from this perspective, efforts to reconcile Adam and evolution become unnecessary--at least from the point of view of Genesis."
His conclusion in Part Two is that "Christians who take Paul's theology with utmost seriousness are not also bound to accept Paul's view of Adam historically."
In the Conclusion of his book, Enns very nicely summarized his approach in nine theses, with some discussion of each thesis. Since the book is written at the "popular" level, Enns does not extensively back up every one of his assertions, but provides numerous endnotes and a bibliography for those who want to dig further.
Peter Enns succeeds admirably in his goal. I highly recommend this book to every Christian who is concerned about the historicity of Adam and how to reconcile Scripture with biological evolution. Even if the reader is not ready to accept a non-historical Adam, there are many things in the book to think about.
May 14, 2012
This is an important book, and while I didn't agree with everything, it is interesting.
It's broken up into two major parts: part one is about reading the story of Genesis in it's ancient near eastern (ANE) context, and part two is about reading Paul in his second-temple Judaism context. Overall, the 7th thesis in the conclusion captures the force of these two parts: "A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors - whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment" (loc. 3242). Both parts deeply reflect this thesis, and while I won't discuss the specifics, I think it's enough to say that if Enns is right about the ANE context for origin stories and Paul's use of scripture, then an historical Adam really isn't necessary for the gospel.
The second important thesis - and the one I think that is conceptually the most important - is his 6th thesis (by the way, these theses are argued more fully in the text itself): "God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the biblical idiom available to him" (loc. 3229). This is one of the most important theological assumptions for reading the Bible in general: the entire story is written from the perspective of salvation. In other words, we don't go around and say, 'humanity really messed up, God needed to figure out what to do, so he decided to send a savior.' No, from the beginning - even Exodus - the Bible understands the PROBLEMS in TERMS OF THE SOLUTION. That means the doctrine of original sin was never to explain evil by reference to a scapegoat - Adam, in this case, who messed everything up for us - but rather to explain how it was possible that humans could crucify God. How could humans reject the love of the creator so fully? Original sin.
That's a big difference, and if Enns introduces this concept to more Christians I think it will be worth at least as much as his interesting historical discussions.
It's broken up into two major parts: part one is about reading the story of Genesis in it's ancient near eastern (ANE) context, and part two is about reading Paul in his second-temple Judaism context. Overall, the 7th thesis in the conclusion captures the force of these two parts: "A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors - whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment" (loc. 3242). Both parts deeply reflect this thesis, and while I won't discuss the specifics, I think it's enough to say that if Enns is right about the ANE context for origin stories and Paul's use of scripture, then an historical Adam really isn't necessary for the gospel.
The second important thesis - and the one I think that is conceptually the most important - is his 6th thesis (by the way, these theses are argued more fully in the text itself): "God's solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the biblical idiom available to him" (loc. 3229). This is one of the most important theological assumptions for reading the Bible in general: the entire story is written from the perspective of salvation. In other words, we don't go around and say, 'humanity really messed up, God needed to figure out what to do, so he decided to send a savior.' No, from the beginning - even Exodus - the Bible understands the PROBLEMS in TERMS OF THE SOLUTION. That means the doctrine of original sin was never to explain evil by reference to a scapegoat - Adam, in this case, who messed everything up for us - but rather to explain how it was possible that humans could crucify God. How could humans reject the love of the creator so fully? Original sin.
That's a big difference, and if Enns introduces this concept to more Christians I think it will be worth at least as much as his interesting historical discussions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 172 reviews