عالم آدم وحواء المفقود: تكوين ٢-٣ والجدل حول أصل الإنسان

The Lost World Series #1

by John H. Walton

"سيصبح هذا الكتاب الفريد الذي يدور حول قراءة الإصحاحين الثاني والثالث من سفر التكوين مفيدًا بشكل كبير جدًا لقراء الكتاب المقدس الذين يرغبون في أن يأخذوا على محمل الجد كلًا من الكتاب المقدس ووجهات النظر العلميّة بشأن أمور مثل أصل الجنس البشري. وبناء على عمل سابق، يقوم والتون برسم طريق مسيحيّ مستقيم العقيدة (أرثوذوكسيّ) عبر أرض تحتوي على بعض التحديات، مدونًا ذلك بأسلوب سهل الفهم ومستخدمًا الأمثلة بشكل عظيم. لن يكتسب القارئ مجرد فهم متعمق للإصحاحات الافتتاحيّة من سفر التكوين، لكن الكتاب أيضًا (وعلى نحو أكثر شمولًا) سوف يساعده أن يفكر جيدًا فيما تعنيه قراءة أيّ نصّ قديم بكفاءة". — إيان بروفان، أستاذ مارشال شيبارد للدراسات الكتابيّة - كلية ريجينت

"يقوم الكاتب في ذلك العمل الرائد بتثبيت آدم وحواء في الموضع الذي ينتميان إليه، وهو العالم النصيّ والثقافيّ الذي للشرق الأدنى القديم. فتقدم رؤية النصّ بعيون تنتمي إلى الشرق الأدنى -بشكل علمى وسهل القراءة- تبصرات مبهرة جديدة في مسألة أصل الجنس البشريّ. كما أنّ الفصل الذي كتبه إن. تي. رايت بشكل جيد هو بمثابة "التتويج النهائي" لهذا العمل. أنا أرشّح هذا الكتاب بشدة لكل مهتم بالكيفية التي يتناول بها الكتاب المقدس ذلك السؤال الأساسي عن فرادة الجنس البشريّ". — دينيس آليكسندر، المدير الفخري لمعهد فاراداي للعلوم والدين، كلية القديس إدموند، كامبريدج، مؤلف كتاب "الخلق أم التطور: هل ينبغي علينا أن نختار بينهما؟"

Genres: Theology, Christian, Religion, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Christianity, History

252 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2010

About the author

John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament; Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context; Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan; The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; and A Survey of the Old Testament.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:

John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.

Reviews

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was both enthusiastic and anxious when I was given this book, because I respect and appreciate John Walton's scholarship and, on the other hand, the historicity of Adam and Eve wasn't a topic that, for theological reasons, I was particularly interested in reconsidering. It's difficult to rethink tenets long accepted in the Christian culture in which I've lived and tenets upon which I have based other conclusions.

However, some of this worry was unfounded, because Walton actually affirms a historical Adam and Eve, while also reconsidering their nature and role.

The gist of Walton's conclusions are as follows: per his previous book about Genesis 1 (see my earlier review), the creation account is about creation of order and functions in the world rather than material origins of the world. Eden is a center of sacred space, where Adam and Eve are established as priests. They are not the first people, but they serve as archetypes for all of humanity--the Genesis 2 narrative of their forming is true of all people, not just the two of them (for example, as Abraham and Job affirm, we are all made of dust). In their unique priestly role in the garden, they are given rules and accountability that the rest of humanity hadn't received and thus serve as representatives of humanity. And so sin truly enters the world via their disobedience.(or, restated, they let disorder into the order of creation)

I'll briefly reiterate part of his argument for why it's appropriate to reconsider whether they were the first humans:
-Theologically it isn't necessary to consider A&E to be the first humans (unless one holds the view that all are born with sin because they were seminally present in Adam, which I believe is a minority view). As representatives of humanity, they can still be the first ones aware of and accountable for sin.
-The Genesis 2 creation narrative of Adam and Eve is archetypal, intended to convey truths about the creation of each person, not just the two of them.
-In Genesis 4, Cain is driven away from his homeland, and presumably from his family, but he is afraid of the people who will find him in his exile. He later founds a city, so there seems to be a significant number of people on the earth at that time.
-If the Genesis account and theological conclusions made in the Bible do not necessitate that A&E are the progenitors of humanity, we're free to consider scientific conclusions on the topic, which do not indicate that all people are descended from a single human couple.

What I appreciated most about this book is Walton's reverence for the text: bringing the best understanding of the texts, culture, and original audience to bear on his propositions on the subject. His concern for the freedom of God and the authority and integrity of Scripture is impressive. I found that looking at Adam and Eve through Walton's insights made them seem much more historical to me, rather than less.

One weakness of the book is Walton's conclusions about the order/disorder/ordering dynamic in the narrative. As most OT scholars would agree, there is no question that bringing order to disorder is a significant theme in the creation account, as it is in all ancient near east creation stories. Walton sees sin as disorder, which is not untrue as an aspect of sin, but it doesn't seem necessary to systematize the order/disorder theme such that disorder is the primary descriptor of sin. Further, in his discussion about the first man (Adam) and the second man (Christ), Walton recounts the effect's of Christ's work as God's plan to get the cosmos back on track toward a state of perfect order. Though the effects of the incarnation aren't contradictory with order, I don't think we actually see this theme in the New Testament and so I don't agree with Walton's implication that disorder and order should be seen as the primary controlling motif of God's plan for the world.N.T Wright, author of one of the 21 chapters in the book, doesn't seem to see it as central either, as he doesn't make use of this theme in his examination of Paul's use of Adam. However, as part of the truth and as one metaphor among others, I agree that it's a helpful set of categories.

The Lost World of Adam and Eve is a very insightful, challenging book which is irenic and doxological in tone. I would recommend it to any Christian reader interested in human origins, hamartiology, and ANE backgrounds. The Answers in Genesis view of creation is driving so many young people away from faith that it has become an issue of pastoral urgency to be open to investigating what comprises the most informed, biblical understanding of cosmic and human origins.

Also, John Walton happened to walk by as I was reading this book (!) (It was at SBL, so this wasn't as unlikely as it would usually be). I told him that I had skipped the first few chapters since they appeared to be summarizing his argument from LWO Genesis One. He said this was legitimate, so feel free to do the same with the author's blessing if you have already read the previous book. I wish I had been further along in the book when I saw him so I could have asked him more about the order/chaos theme.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a lot to chew on in this book. I grew up with the Answers In Genesis crowd, and while they use some bad hermeneutics and get kind of smarmy with opposing points of view, I generally agreed with them. I, at least, subscribe to their hermeneutic of suspicion in regards to the truth claims of ”science.” Walton’s way of looking at Genesis 1-3 requires a paradigm shift for someone like me.

The last thing I want is to be someone who flip-flops their theology or viewpoint with every new book they read, so I am reserving judgment for now. Let me just say that Walton makes some points which open up answers to questions that I’ve had for a very long time. No matter where you come down on this issue, this book calls you to engage the text with fresh eyes… And that’s never a bad thing. Well worth wrestling through.

[Ben De Bono · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Walton's take on Genesis 2-3 is quite intriguing, if not quite up to par with his earlier The Lost World of Genesis One.

Like the previous book, Walton grounds his reading of the text firmly in the tradition of the ancient Near East tradition. He suggests that we read Genesis 2 not as a second creation account but as a sequel to the creation account in Genesis 1 and that it is possible to read Adam and Eve as archetypal humans rather than the first or only humans to exist.

I find a lot to admire in his reading, but there are a few points that reign in my enthusiasm compared to what I felt when I read his earlier book. At risk of coming across sounding more negative on the book than I actually feel, I'll spend most of the rest of this review discussing those

First, the book feels a bit uneven. Where his Genesis 1 book felt like a definitive reading - a hermenutical home run through and through - this book wavers between that and a reading that lacks conviction. When Walton discusses Adam and Eve within the context of ANE literature, Israel's history, or his earlier reading of Genesis 1, he's at the top of his game. When he starts discussing Adam and Eve as archetypes and this reading as one possible way to resolve science and faith, it feels like he lacks conviction in his own interpretation. Thus the book vacillates between the triumph of his previous work and something that feels far more unsure and hesitant.

Second, Walton seems very aware of the criticisms he received from some conservative corners for the first book. At times this is a good thing (extra clarification will hopefully bring in conservative Christians who ought to see an ally in Walton, not an enemy) but at other times it contributes to the lack of conviction. I felt this most strongly anytime the issue of Adam's historicity comes up. Walton repeatedly states that he believes Adam is a historical figure, but he never makes a convincing case why that is. While I believe he's sincere in that belief, his frequent reminders of that fact feel tacked on and come across as efforts to not get blasted by his critics rather than as essential parts of his argument.

This is further exacerbated by his concession that those who reject the historicity of Adam are not necessarily rejecting biblical authority. Again, I don't doubt his sincerity in what he says but it feels like he's playing both sides of the fence.

The ambiguity on this point leaves a lot of questions unanswered: If Adam was a historical figure, what is the relationship of the historical Adam to the Adam of the text given that Genesis 2-3 is clearly not history in any sense recognizable to modern audiences? What theological issues are affected by whether or not we believe in a historical Adam? If Walton believes that this is what the Bible teaches, why does he concede the possibility of accepting the text without belief in a historical Adam?

My biggest issue here, though, is that it obscures the related, but not quite the same, issue of the historicity of Original Sin. My own Catholic tradition teaches very clearly that whatever else we believe about the early parts of Genesis, Original Sin was a historical event. I could be convinced of a reading of Genesis that doesn't view Adam and Eve as historical so long as it still admits the historicity of Original Sin. Walton, unfortunately, is so stuck on the historicity of the biblical characters, that he all but ignores the historicity of the far more important biblical events that take place in the chapters.

Finally, I take issue with how Walton justifies the non-traditional status of his reading. He passes it off by saying something to the effect of "The Reformers overturned tradition too" From a Protestant perspective this is a bad argument since it can be applied to going against any and every Church tradition (i.e. I'm overturning the tradition of belief in God as Trinity, but don't worry, the Reformers overturned tradition too). It ignores the complex relationship between the Reformers and Church tradition. From a Catholic perspective, it's very alienating. While I don't doubt Walton's audience is predominantly Protestant, the issues he's discussing are relevant to all Christians. I read this as a Catholic not because I'm curious about what Protestants are up to, but because I think Walton's take on Genesis is extraordinarily important to Christians of all stripes.


To sum up, I liked the book a lot, even with its shortcomings. It's not the home run The Lost World of Genesis One was, but it's a solid and worthwhile read all the same. 3.5 stars

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I don’t agree with much of Walton’s conclusions—or hermeneutical assumptions—I do appreciate his argumentation, documentation, and overall clarity of message. For those who are interested in reading a novel interpretive approach to Genesis 1-3, one which (1) sees in Genesis 1 no evidence of creatio ex nihilo; (2) reads the creation account as a description of God’s ordering of the material universe not his creation of it; (3) understands Genesis 2 to be sequential to Genesis 1, not an expansion of it (meaning Adam and Eve’s creation is not described in Genesis 1); and (4) one in which Adam and Eve are not the first two humans but just two of many; then this book is a good place to start.

Do pay careful attention to the details of the argumentation. You will discover, far too often, what is prevalent in many books such as this. Evidence will be presented—for example, the meanings of certain Hebrew words, like “dust” or “side” or “serpent”—a description of the varieties of that evidence will be given, then (voila!), the evidence that best supports the argument of the author will be held up as the most reasonable. It’s a form of I’ve-already-decided-what-it-should-mean-ism that bedevils much of biblical, scholarly writing. I have an idea, a thesis, and I’m going to find evidence to prove it.

It’s like finding a criminal guilty then going in search of evidence.

That being said, there is much good here. Much to learn. And much to be appreciated. Simply know what you’re getting into—and the little scholarly sneakiness—that goes along with it.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Building on his earlier The Lost World of Genesis One, Walton contends that Adam and Eve are both archetypes of humanity and also historical figures, though not necessarily our biological progenitors, that their disobedience brought disorder into the sacred space of the creation affecting all people, and that Christ’s work has to do with restoring that order.

Genesis 1-3 are both foundational texts for Christian belief, and heavily contended texts because of the apparent conflict between scientific understandings of origins and the biblical account read “literally.” It has always been my sense that a significant part of the problem is that many of our discussions violate a fundamental principle of good scripture study which is, to the best of our ability, to understand what it would have meant to its original recipients rather than try to relate it with contemporary science, or show that it is a “scientific” account of origins as do those advocating “creation science.” I don’t think Moses, or whoever we believe wrote these texts was thinking at all about the science. I do think these accounts were shaped very much by the ancient Near East context, and the distinctive claims that the God of Israel was making about Himself, his world, and human beings.

In this book, and his earlier The Lost World of Genesis One, John H. Walton, who is an Old Testament scholar, rigorously explores these texts in light of the growing body of material about the ancient Near East, and through careful reading of the texts himself. Usually I would not paste in a “table of contents” to summarize the book, but in this case it is the best way for you to see Walton’s argument, summed up in twenty-one propositions:

Introduction
Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: In the Ancient World and the Old Testament, Creating Focuses on Establishing Order by Assigning Roles and Functions
Proposition 3: Genesis 1 Is an Account of Functional Origins, Not Material Origins
Proposition 4: In Genesis 1 God Orders the Cosmos as Sacred Space
Proposition 5: When God Establishes Functional Order, It Is “Good”
Proposition 6: ’adam Is Used in Genesis 1-5 in a Variety of Ways
Proposition 7: The Second Creation Account (Gen 2:4-24) Can Be Viewed as a Sequel Rather Than as a Recapitulation of Day Six in the First Account (Gen 1:1-2:3)
Proposition 8: “Forming from Dust” and “Building from Rib” Are Archetypal Claims and Not Claims of Material Origins
Proposition 9: Forming of Humans in Ancient Near Eastern Accounts Is Archetypal, So It Would Not Be Unusual for Israelites to Think in Those Terms
Proposition 10: The New Testament Is More Interested in Adam and Eve as Archetypes Than as Biological Progenitors
Proposition 11: Though Some of the Biblical Interest in Adam and Eve Is Archetypal, Yet They Are Real People Who Existed in a Real Past
Proposition 12: Adam Is Assigned as Priest in Sacred Space, with Eve to Help
Proposition 13: The Garden Is an Ancient Near Eastern Motif for Sacred Space, and the Trees Indicate God as the Source of Life and Wisdom
Proposition 14: The Serpent Would Have Been Viewed as a Chaos Creature from the Non-ordered Realm, Promoting Disorder
Proposition 15: Adam and Eve Chose to Make Themselves the Center of Order and Source of Wisdom, Therefore Admitting Disorder into the Cosmos
Proposition 16: We Currently Live in a World with Non-order, Order and Disorder
Proposition 17: All People Are Subject to Sin and Death Because of the Disorder in the World, Not Because of Genetics
Proposition 18: Jesus Is the Keystone of God’s Plan to Resolve Disorder and Perfect Order
Proposition 19: Paul’s Use of Adam Is More Interested in the Effect of Sin on the Cosmos Than in the Effect of Sin on Humanity and Has Nothing to Say About Human Origins
Excursus on Paul’s Use of Adam, by N. T. Wright
Proposition 20: It Is Not Essential That All People Descended from Adam and Eve
Proposition 21: Humans Could Be Viewed as Distinct Creatures and a Special Creation of God Even If There Was Material Continuity
Conclusion and Summary

A few key things to note. One key contention is that Genesis 1 is a functional rather than material account of creation. The focus is on the functions and functionaries of creation rather than their material origins, which is key to Walton’s understanding that the creation, and the garden are an ordered sacred space. Another is that Walton sees Genesis 2 as a sequel–humans have already been created, but God then makes a garden, and two particular humans who are both real figures and serve as archetypes acting on behalf of the human race. This allows Walton to contend for a historical Adam and Eve, without needing to insist that they are the progenitors of all human beings. Their decision to make themselves the center of order and source of wisdom had the opposite effect of bringing disorder into the world, which affects all humanity down to the present. Walton also deals with the important Pauline texts concerning Adam, with the help of N.T. Wright, arguing that the concern is the disordering of the cosmos rather than sin’s effect on humanity.

It is true that Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin entered the world (cosmos), it also speaks of death coming through sin, a clear effect of Adam’s sin not only on the cosmos but on humanity. I wonder here if Walton presses his ideas of order and disorder in the cosmos too far. I also find myself questioning the “functional” versus “material” distinction since both the spaces God makes and the creatures he fills them with are material as well as functional. What this pointed up to me is that while I want to take Walton’s argument as it stands, I also want to go back and take a closer look at the texts.

I do think it is important that those who take the biblical accounts seriously investigate to see whether Walton’s propositions can be sustained. If Walton’s argument stands the test of good exegesis, then he makes a critical contribution in ending the contentious battle between science and scripture over origins. His account does not insist that scripture makes claims about the material origins of the universe, nor does he insist that Adam is the biological progenitor of all human beings. Yet he argues for creation as an ordered sacred space, disordered by the sin of a historical Adam.

A number of the online reviews I found of Walton’s writing seemed more interested in defending a particular view of origins rather than carefully engaging his exegesis. For those interested in such things, this review by Richard Averbeck seemed among the most helpful in confirming Walton’s arguments at some points while raising important questions at others.

What I most appreciate about Walton’s book is the careful effort to look at Genesis as an ancient Near East text, while also taking it seriously as scripture. While mindful of the scientific arguments, his concern is to discern most clearly what scripture does and does not assert. Whether you agree or not with Walton’s argument, I hope it will have the effect it had for me of driving you back to the scriptures themselves “to see if these things are so.”

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first became aware of John Walton my first year in seminary. My Old Testament prof gave a lecture on creation, setting the Genesis 1 account within the context of other Ancient Near East (ANE) literature. The lecture was indebted to Walton and the professor highly recommended Walton's Genesis commentary (in the NIVAC series). When our class break hit, I sprinted the bookstore and bought the commentary before anyone else had a chance. It remains a favorite. I also gobbled up other books from Walton on Ancient Near East cosmology, including The Lost World of Genesis One.

The Lost World of Adam and Eve picks up where that volume left off (the first five chapters are a bit of review). As with his earlier book, the chapters are propositions on how to read Genesis sensitively to its ANE context, so a glance at the table of contents gives a detailed summary of the ground that Walton covers here. Walton focuses especially on Genesis 2-3, but also pays attention to the wider context of Genesis 1-5 (and how the hebrew ‘adam functions and the text). He also shows how his reading of the text functions within the rest of the canon of scripture. N.T. Wright provides a brief excursus in relationship to Proposition 19 ("Paul's Use of Adam Is More Interested in the Effects of Sin on the Cosmos Than in the Effect of Sin on Humanity and Has Nothing to Say About Human Origins").

If you are familiar with Walton's work, you will not be surprised by many of his claims here. Walton's project is to get us to read Genesis without expecting it to answer our modern questions. For example, the question of the material origins of the universe are not of particular interest to the Ancient world. Instead Genesis 1 is about the ordering of the world (i.e. the Spirit hovering over the chaos in Genesis 1:2) rather than creating ex nihilo. The text has more to do with functionality than materiality.

Walton claims that Adam and Eve's story casts them in the role of archetypes and federal representatives instead of untangling the riddle of human origins (see propositions 6, 8. 9). However this is not meant to imply that Adam and Eve were not also real, historical people. Walton eschews the term myth or mythological because the popular use of the term implies this unreality. He prefers the term imagistic (137) and sees the Hebrew writers using the 'shared symbolic vocabulary' and questions that other Ancient Near East people did (139).

In Walton's view, humans were created as male and female with mortal bodies (not ones that became mortal later because of 'the fall'), were provided for by God and given a role of serving in God's sacred space (200).Because 'creation in Genesis' is about bringing order to world, the serpent is a 'chaos creature' who promoted disorder by convincing Adam and Eve to place themselves at the center of the order. Sin and Death now affects all humanity because of disorder in the cosmos. Jesus is God's plan to restore order to the dis-ordered world (Romans 5).

Walton is not a theological liberal (he teaches at Wheaton). He is an evangelical who seeks to read the Bible well. His reading of Genesis is not at enmity with scientific explanations for global and human origins. He reads the text well while trying to unravel the questions and conceptual world of its author and original audience. Where evangelical/secular discussions often devolve into creation versus evolution debates, it is refreshing to have an approach to the text that is more interested in what the Bible communicated to the people it was originally written for. This gives space for some variety within the church on questions of cosmology and removes a potential stumbling block for those who find difficulty reconciling their reading of scripture with science (different sorts of texts, asking different questions).

There are implications in Walton's account which will be challenging to those of us with a traditional theological bent (i.e. Walton provides no grounding for creation ex nihilo in Genesis, pre-fall death in humans and nature, etc). Walton gives a careful, biblically sensitive and ANE aware case for his reading. He rolls out N.T. Wright, the world's foremost Pauline scholar, to prove that his reading makes sense of the New Testament usage of Adam and Eve as well. Still there is a significant challenge here for us to work through if we are to remain biblical rooted.

Regardless of your stance on the mode of creation (which is not the point), this book will challenge you and get you to dig into the text of Genesis. Walton is a good teacher and brings his readers into the realm of Ancient Near Eastern thought. I give this five stars and recommend it for anyone who wants to go back to Genesis.

Notice of material connection: I received this book from IVP in exchange for my honest review.

[Evan Minton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was quite pleased with this work. John Walton's "The Lost World Of Adam and Eve" is the most persuasive Evolutionary Creationist treatment of the topic of Adam and Eve. First of all, Walton takes Adam and Eve to be historical individuals and takes Genesis 2-3 to be referring to real events in time and space, and does so for the reason young earth and old earth creationists do (e.g the genealogies, Paul's teaching in Romans 5). I was quite pleased with this, as too many evolutionary creationists are quick to relegate The Bible's opening chapters to myth or allegory, to label it as just one big parable and that real biblical history begins with Abraham in Genesis 12. Walton does not take this more liberal view of the text. He affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall.

Walton, however, argues that Genesis 2-3 is not concerned with telling us the material origins of Adam and Eve, but about the story of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity and as priests in God's "cosmic temple" to serve in "sacred space". Walton also argues that The Bible as a whole does not require us to view Adam and Eve as THE first man and woman. There is room for seeing them as one couple among others. With regards to Adam's creation, Walton appeals to several references from the Old Testament, Walton shows us that for Genesis 2 to say Adam was "made from dust" is likely not meant to say Adam was literally transformed into a man from a pile of dust, ergo having no parents and not being descended from pre-human hominids. Rather, we are all made of dust. Psalm 103:13-16 says "As a father has compassion for his children, so the Lord has compassion for those who fear him. For he knows how we were made; he remembers that we are dust. As for mortals, their days are like grass; they flourish like a flower of the field; For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more." Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says "The fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again." Abraham and Job also talk about themselves as being made of dust.

Walton's point is that the Genesis text is just saying God created Adam mortal, rather than literally scooping up a handful of dirt and miraculously transforming it into a person. Genesis 2 is presenting Adam as archetypal of all people. All of us are made of dust. All of us are mortal. Of course, it has been traditionally been held by many Christians that humans are created immortal, and ergo Walton's view contradicts The Bible. Doesn't Romans 5 say that death was brought to humanity through Adam's sin? Yes, it does. But this doesn't mean that humans had inherent immortality. Walton points out that God had placed a tree in the garden called The Tree of Life. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out and barred access to it. Genesis 3:22 gives the reason: so that they can't reach out for it, eat of it, and ergo live forever. Walton rightly points out that a Tree of Life is superfluous to creatures who have immortality in and of themselves. Death came to humanity by being barred access to the tree of life, not by having an inherent ontological immortality stripped of them.

Walton also points out that In Genesis 4, Cain is driven away from his homeland, and presumably from his family, but Cain is scared of people who might find him and kill him. Cain is later the founder of a city. To be a "city", there would have to be a large number of people. This seems to imply that other people besides Adam, Eve, and a few of their children were around.

Walton draws his conclusions heavily from the biblical text itself but, like his previous work, he draws from ancient near eastern literature as well, as the cultural context of the text can help shed light on it.

I highly recommend this book to the following groups of people. I recommend this book to those who are interested in studying the creation/evolution debate, and I recommend it to those who are convinced of Darwinian macro evolution but are also convinced that The Bible is God's Word, that proper exegesis leads to a view of Adam and Eve as historical individuals, but are uncertain of how to harmonize these two conclusions. Moreover, I would recommend it to non-Christians who have evolution as a stumbling block preventing them from entering into a relationship with God.

[Paul Bruggink · Rating 5 out of 5]

At a time when most Christian scientists, theologians, and Bible scholars accept an old universe and old earth and a vocal minority (27 to 53 by my count) accept that there never were nor did there need to be a historical Adam and Eve, John H. Walton makes a biblical case for Adam and Eve having been real people in a real past but not necessarily the first humans.

Walton contends that the perceived threat to Christian faith posed by the current consensus about human origins is over blown. He is “particularly interested in determining the extent to which the biblical claims may or may not conflict with the claims made in the current scientific consensus about human origins.” (p. 198)

Rather than dealing with the scientific claims, he explores the actual claims that the Bible makes, focusing on Genesis but including the rest of Scripture. Walton offers biblical support for the possibility that humanity was created en masse in Genesis 1, that the presence of other people is assumed in Genesis 4 and that Genesis 2 does not intend to offer an account of Adam and Eve as having been made through a direct, material act of God distinct from any predecessors.

Regarding Adam and Eve as real people in a real past, Walton raises and answers two questions: (1) Does the Bible claim that Adam was the first human being ever to exist? (2) Does the Bible claim that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve?

Walton suggests that the Bible does not rule out the possibility that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and that not all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. He believes that the New Testament is more interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes than as biological progenitors. His goal is to show that there are non-traditionalist faithful readings of Scripture that are compatible with some of the recent scientific discoveries. He urges his readers to consider the biblical text with fresh eyes.

Walton suggests that the historicity of Adam finds its primary significance in the discussion of the origins of sin rather than in the origins of humanity. But regarding the doctrine of original sin, Walton agrees with Dennis Lamoureux (“Beyond Original Sin: Is a Theological Paradigm Shift Inevitable?”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 67, no. 1 (2015): 35-49) that the time has come for the church to reconsider how original sin is formulated and understood, because the “more we have learned about biology and genetics, the less likely Augustine’s model has become.” (p. 156)

Walton concludes his book with a significant plea for the church to do a better job of presenting a gospel message unencumbered by a young earth creationism that requires jettisoning science that non-Christians find convincing and leaving their brains outside the church door. He proposes that the church stop misrepresenting what the Bible actually says and stop positioning the Bible as being in conflict with science.

I recommend this book for anyone interested in the theological side of the Bible/science, creation/evolution debate, to which John H. Walton has made a significant contribution.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Walton's 'Lost World' books are jumping to the top of my recommended-must-read list. While his take on the first chapter of Genesis (in the "Lost World of Genesis One") blows open the all-too-frequent dichotomy between faith and science, 'Adam and Eve' begins to introduce the basics of healthy systematic theology - how to understand the image-bearing role of humanity, what sin is and what it does in the world, and even Christ's role in history. Walton's interpretations are helpfully grounded in rich knowledge of Semitic languages and ancient, Near-Eastern texts, and all the while he makes it an accessible read. Any thoughtful Christian will walk away from this book with much to think about, and possibly a few paradigms altered. Walton makes it clear that it is possible to hold to orthodox theology and thoughtful respect of the Hebrew scriptures, without outright dismissal of the findings of modern scientific thought. Those of us who are tired of the debates and endless circular arguments should stand and applaud Walton's effort. Highly, highly recommended!!

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Walton argues for historical Adam and Eve, but not necessarily them as the original first humans. He suggests that Genesis 1 teaches a mass creation of humans, of which Adam was representative priest. His federal theology is weakened and the understanding of sin suffers at the hands of this view. A lot of weight is put on ANE literature. Hence his leading theme is that these accounts are designed as “functional“descriptions of the purpose of creation, rather than an explanation of the origins of the physical universe and of humanity.
However, I did benefit from reading a cogent attempt at an alternative view that takes the historicity of the text seriously.

[Eusebiu Florescu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one's an eye opener, but not in the definitive classic way. I am not "feverishly" agreeing with the ideas (though Mr. Walton does a fantastic job), yet I am totally for the movement.

There is a HUGE need for exposure to science within churches, so that christians can be challenged toward intensive biblical study, that takes into account scientific facts.

And I would argue that the Bible is relatively silent on scientific topics. That gives us leisure to interpret the function of the biblical texts in their context, while believing also modern science.

[Jeremy Bouma · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I first starting reading a review copy provided by IVP, I was skeptical. Yet having worked through his full argument, Walton has made a believer out of this conservative evangelical pastor-theologian. Through a series of 21 propositions, he carefully weaves together the strands of the biblical text, cultural context, and theological application of Genesis 2 and 3. His judicious arguments provide a biblically balanced and theologically pregnant book evangelicals across the spectrum can get behind.

Throwing neither the baby nor the bathwater out through his investigation of Genesis 2 and 3, Walton maintains the core convictions of vintage Christianity and human origins, while advancing our understanding forward. Theologically Walton believes his fresh reading affirms: “the authority of Scripture, God’s intimate and active role as Creator regardless of the mechanisms he used or the time he took, that material was ex nihilo, that we all have been created by God, and there was a point in time when sin entered the world, therefore necessitating salvation.” (14)

Walton competently argues from the original Hebrew manuscripts and ancient Near Eastern context that these early chapters describing protohistory are “Imagistic” (his neologism for “historizing myth”) in that they report “real events using imagery as a rhetorical means to capture the full range of truth as it is commonly conveyed in the world in which they lived.” (137)

Contrary to the likes of Peter Enns, he insists Adam and Eve were real people who existed in a real past. Yet their role in the Genesis narrative is archetypal, given the way they are used in the Old Testament, but particularly by Paul. He concludes, “the punctiliar nature of the redemptive act is compared to the punctiliar nature of the fall, which therefore requires a historical even played out by historical people.” (103)

Such a reading allows for the orthodox understand of created order, human nature, and the fall, while also conforming to new insights of modern science—such as the Human Genome Project, which insists humanity couldn’t have been derived from no less than 10,000 or so original human ancestors. So rather than science threatening faith, it comports with the biblical narrative.

Though he does recapitulate some of his material from his first book on the subject, The Lost World of Genesis, such as his Eden-as-temple and humans-as-priests motifs, his insights cast new light on one of the most important discussions in the modern church: the origins of humanity, nature of humanity, and the intersection of faith and science. While at times he seems to give too much deference to the “scientific consensus” and isn’t always clear when or why biblical interpretation should win in the face of such “consensus”, he is careful not to allow the Science Story to overshadow or trump the Scripture Story.

Walton’s stated goal is to “return to the biblical tex to see whether there are options that have been missed or truths that have become submerged under the frozen surface of traditional readings,” of Genesis 2 and 3, while allowing the insights from the ancient world and modern science to inform his return. (14) Rather than undermining traditional theology, he works “from a firm conviction about the authority of Scripture and those traditions that have been built on interpretation of Scripture.” (14)

In the end, his book will surprise and delight, opening the text afresh and anew, giving you new ways to communicate God’s Word to those inside and outside the Church.

I know it did for this theologically traditional evangelical.

[Lulu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read.

[Marc Sims · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is an escape hatch for evolutionary theists.

I read Walton’s “Lost World” of Genesis One and really liked it and thought he provided a mostly responsible interpretation of the creation account as a functional, rather than material, creation, thus concluding that Genesis one does not intend to reveal the exact mechanics of how the world came into creation or telling us how old the earth is.

But in this book Walton tries to do the same with the creation of Adam and Eve (and a GREAT deal more) and does not provide a convincing argument. He relies heavily (and I mean HEAVILY) on comparative ancient sources to try and explain away what looks like the special creation of Adam and Eve as our sole biological progenitors. Walton proposes that in Gen 1:26-28 there is a general creation of humanity, then interprets Gen 2:4ff as a subsequent account of two individuals being chosen for a special task by God (serving in the sacred temple-garden). Those two were to be archetypal heads of the rest of the hominids (and all their descendants). But they failed to obey God and the consequence was them being barred from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality and delivered them from death.

In this book Walton says many things that raise an eyebrow or two. Adam and Eve are not specially created. The language of being formed from dust and rib is just ancient metaphor and symbols. Death, violence, and predation existed prior to the Fall. He affirms a historic Adam, but doesn’t believe it is theologically necessary to, and questions it’s validity continually. And perhaps most surprising of all, denies Augustine’s (and thus the last 1600 years of the Church’s) conception of original sin. This is a staggering and troublesome denial. His exegesis is Romans 5 is strange, to say the least.

There are good things in the book. Like I said, I am inclined to agree with most of his view of Genesis one. I think he is spot on with his understanding of Eden as sacred space, of creation as a temple, and the polemical nature of the Pentateuch where Moses is trying to combat the Egyptian paganism that Israel has been soaked in for 400 years through subverting many pagan creation themes. But Walton makes seriously speculative arguments. Many of his arguments run something like, “If we see this comparison...and then if this is true...and then if maybe this is true...then this.” He rests a great deal of his conclusions on wobbly arguments, and then tries to use them to take on the dominant teaching throughout church history. He further runs into the error of concluding that just because a theological truth is not that main point of a text, it somehow isn’t true. For example, he argues that Paul’s main point in Romans 5 isn’t to argue whether or not Adam is historical, but to argue Adam’s role as a head in comparison with Christ. Yes and amen—but surely, just because that wasn’t Paul’s main point that doesn’t mean it isn’t *a* point. Certainly Paul is assuming that Adam is a real person in history—just like he assumes Christ is a real person in history—otherwise his argument wouldn’t make any sense.

All in all, I’m guessing this book would be helpful if you were staunchly convinced of an evolutionary theory and wanted to try to reconcile it with the Bible. I’m not a disciple of the model, so I wasn’t convinced.

[Neil R. Coulter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m so grateful for John Walton’s clear thinking and compassionate attitude toward issues that have tended in recent years to push people apart unnecessarily. In this follow-up to The Lost World of Genesis 1, Walton reviews some of the main points of that book (that we need to read Genesis in its context as an ancient Near Eastern text), and then continues on to look at what Genesis is saying about Adam and Eve. This is not a point-by-point engagement with scientific or atheist arguments about human origins; it’s a consideration of what the Bible actually says. After working through this series of 21 propositions about Genesis 1–3, Walton concludes that the Bible doesn’t set itself against contemporary understandings of science. It of course contradicts atheist arguments that evolution means there is no need for God, but it doesn’t rule out that evolution was a part of God’s creative process. In fact, as Walton reads the text, the opening of Genesis is not even addressing issues of material origins, but of the ordering of the world and establishing humans as “co-regents” with God in caring for the world.

My review here is a very poor summary of a very excellent book. This is the kind of book that goes much deeper than the unfortunately more typical shallow readings of the Bible—by people of all opinions, whether Christian or atheist. There is so much to investigate, to learn, to understand about the Bible, history, and the world around us. It’s sad that conversations about the Bible are often derailed before they’ve even started, because of misperceptions of what it is we’re discussing. I highly recommend John Walton to anyone who would like to understand what the Bible is really saying.

[Wade Stotts · Rating 1 out of 5]

Walton thinks he lives in world that has always contained immense natural evil, natural disasters, "predation, suffering, and death..." Walton lives in a basically naturalistic world. No magic at all. Yawn.

He begins with the same faulty assumptions behind "The Lost World of Genesis One" and treats the next two chapters of Genesis the same way. I again point people to William Lane Craig's four part critique of the first book. Though I don't agree with WLC on much of anything, he gives Walton's first book the scorching it deserves. Once the assumptions of the first book have been challenged, this one crumbles as well.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defend...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defend...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defend...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defend...

Doug Wilson's treatment of NT Wright's contribution to this book is appropriately titled "And All God's People Said 'Wut?'"

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-...

This book also manages to deny the doctrines of original sin and federal headship. All this in order to make sure that Christian kids who adopt evolution at university won't be embarrassed by the Bible (see the parting call to action on pg 210). I wonder if Walton enjoys his life of bending over backwards, denying essential doctrines so as to not make twenty-year-olds uncomfortable. I don't envy him.

[Joshua Biggs · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really respect the work John Walton has done in recovering the historical context of Genesis and his meticulous exegetical work. I do think, at times, his own genius leads him to dying the death of a thousand qualifications (a ditch I find myself falling into often enough, though without the genius) and he can over complicate some passages in the Bible, particularly New Testament texts regarding Adam. He an academic though, and I guess that’s what academics do lol.

Walton provides many exegetical and historically contextual challenges to the traditional interpretations of Adam and Eve, positing the text does not make scientific claims about the human origins debate. Still, Walton still holds to a read, historical Adam in a real, historical past. All in all, glad I read it, although I found his material in The Lost World of Genesis 1 more compelling than this work.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Want to have ( half baked ) cake and eat it too.

On the positive side, no science denial here. Strangely he tries to hold a literal Adam and eve ... and yet not. There’s some excellent insights into into reading the text as presumably it was meant to be read. Sets up contextual reading nicely. Some fascinating insights into textual criticism and hermeneutics. Some interesting ideas to perhaps accomodate the bible and science. Ultimately fails with a personal clinging to his version of a theism. My gut be useful as an advance over young earth creationist indoctrination and folly. Possibly worth recommending to your creationist friends.

[Sameh Maher · Rating 5 out of 5]

واحد من الكتب القليلة التى تحث على التفكير و البحث بدقة فيما وراء الروايات الكتابية ... فرواية ادم وحواء محورية فى الكثير من الحوارات و العقائد و لكن هل هناك جانب اخر ؟
هل الاختيار بين اسطورية رواية التكوين وبين حرفيتها ؟ ام هناك طريق ثالث اكتر اعتدالا ؟!!
هذا ما يجيب عنه هذا الكتاب
بمجرد ان تبدا فيه ستعلم انك ستحتاج الى قرائته مرات اخرى

[Michael Philliber · Rating 2 out of 5]

The origins of the cosmos, and more particularly, humankind, has been at the forefront of the Evangelical sphere for decades. In the past it was one of the distinguishing marks, out of several, that defined a person or institution as Evangelical in distinction from mainline Christian denominations. But that differentiating feature is being steadily challenged from within the Evangelical ranks. One of those contesting voices is John H. Walton, Ph.D., professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School and former professor of Old Testament at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. He has recently produced a 256 page paperback, “The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate,” that outlines his opposition to the traditional position of human and cosmic beginnings, proposing to build his case from Scripture itself. And to add weight to his proposal he has enlisted the aid of N.T. Wright, the former Bishop of Durham and now research professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St Andrews, who penned a short, thought-provoking excurses for the book.

“The Lost World of Adam and Eve” unfolds through a series of twenty-one constructive proposals, each building on the previous. The author recognizes that some readers may be unfamiliar with his premise, and so in the earlier chapters he walks through material that appears to be in his other compositions to help catch everyone up to speed. Personally, I have only read his contribution in “Four Views on the Historical Adam,” and was grateful we were presented with the “backstory” before he brought us to the main point.

In the earlier propositions in “The Lost World of Adam and Eve,” Walton walks the reader through the initial chapters of Genesis, stressing that Genesis 1 is not about material formation, but about God establishing functional order in a pre-existing cosmos. He likens the scenario to a house being changed into a home, where new owners move in, unpack, arrange and then finally “rest” in their new habitation (46-7). The author rightly shows, to my mind, that days one through six flow toward achieving the aim of the seventh day, “day seven is the climax of this origins account. In fact, it is the purpose of this origins account, and the other six days do not achieve their full meaning without it. Rest is the objective of creation” (46). But this rest has to do, not with relaxing or napping, but with flourishing in God’s refreshing order. The seven day format leans into the theme that God was establishing sacred space where he could place people who would thrive in relationship with himself (48-52); this is the “rest” in view.

“The Lost World of Adam and Eve” moves forward in the remainder of its propositions to address Adam and Eve. The author carries forward his idea of functionality, rather than materiality, as he explains Genesis 2-3. Walton sees the Biblical story employing Adam and Eve as archetypes. He assures the reader several times that he thinks Adam and Eve were real people; nevertheless what unfolds in these two chapters of Genesis is not about what happened to them as individuals. Instead the story is picturing them as representatives of all humankind, and so what happens here “is true of all humans” (62). In Walton’s words, the “core proposal of this book is that the forming accounts of Adam and Eve should be understood archetypally rather than as accounts of how those two individuals were uniquely formed ( . . . )”, and an “archetype embodies all others in the group.” For the author, this works out in very noticeable ways. First, Genesis 1:3-2:3 happened before Genesis 2:4-25. Therefore, Adam and Eve may not have been the first humans, but “could have come after an en masse creation of humanity in Genesis 1 ( . . . ), though Adam and Eve should be considered as having been included in that group” (183). Therefore Adam is “the first significant human and the connection to God because of the very particular role that he had” (188-9). Second, the forming of Adam and Eve are actually about identity rather than material origins. Adam formed “of the dust” has more to do with humankind’s mortality than his making. And Eve formed from Adam’s side is much more about Eve’s ontological relatedness to Adam than how she was constructed. Thirdly, Genesis 2 is describing the function of Adam and Eve in God’s Temple-Garden as priests who, together, are guardians and mediators “with the task of preserving, protecting and expanding the sacred space” 111-2).

The reader is then briefly guided through Genesis 3 to see what actually happened and what did not happen. Based on the “broader cognitive environment” (124) of the story writer, the ancient Israelite perspective which comes from within the ancient Near Eastern outlook, one should see the serpent as neither a malign, malicious or maleficent being. Instead it should be looked upon as a “chaos creature” (133) with “less of a thought-out agenda” (134), a creature more closely associated with “non-order” rather “than disorder” ( . . . ) “simply the disruptive, ad hoc behavior that chaos creatures engage in” (136). This brings Walton to posit that, since people were already “mortal, and pain and suffering were already a part of a not fully ordered cosmos” (144), then Adam’s and Eve’s tragic caving into the serpent’s wit did not initiate “a situation that was not already there; it is that they failed to achieve a solution to that situation that was in their reach. Their choices resulted in their failure to acquire relief on our behalf. Their failure meant that we are doomed to death and a disordered world full of sin” (145). The fall had less to do with paradise lost, as with paradise ungained, for we “did not lose paradise as much as we forfeited sacred space and the relationship it offered, thereby damaging our ability to be in relationship with God and marring his creation with our own underdeveloped ability to bring order” (Ibid.). Walton recognizes that his suggestion upsets loads of apple carts, especially traditional western views of Original Sin; yet he appears to be content with this, and even attempts to pin his view on the 2nd Century Christian pastor and theologian, Irenaeus (156-7).

For a brief moment in “The Lost World of Adam and Eve” there arrives a short excurses by N.T. Wright toward the latter pages of the book. Many of Wright’s themes surface as he seeks to pull in Walton’s thesis. In his masterful style, he gives a great summary of Walton’s postulations, showing how, for him at least, they can work with the Pauline patterns of Adam and the kingdom of God; the parallel vocations of Adam and Israel; and finally, Christology and the project of new creation.

“The Lost World of Adam and Eve” is “focused on what the biblical claims are regarding biological human origins” and concludes that the Scriptures make no such claims (181). Walton strives hard throughout the volume to base his findings on Scripture, many times approaching his subject with an almost fundamentalist rigidity. And he boldly challenges us to “be cautious about reflexively imposing our cultural assumptions on the text” (25); to set aside our own cultural assumptions and to take in the Scripture’s “broader ancient Near Eastern cultural context to determine in which ways the Bible shows a common understanding and to identify ways in which God’s revelation lifted the Israelites out of their familiar ways of thinking with a new vision of reality” (Ibid). Yet he seems to me to be so concerned with present cultural assumptions that he wants to open the door for our accepting evolution (not big “E” evolution, but little “e” – to take a point from Wright’s excurses), or at least being much friendlier to fellow Christians who have come to accept it.

What will become quickly obvious to the more classic Evangelical reader is that there are heavy consequences to his position. For example, to embrace Walton’s position would be to embrace a creation that included evil at its inception – even unrecognized moral evil; thus evil is part of the DNA of the created order and humanity even before Adam’s fall, “anthropological evidence for violence in the earliest populations deemed human would indicate that there was never a time when sinful ( = at least personal evil) behavior was not present ( . . . ) that even though any human population possibly preceding or coexisting with Adam and Eve may well have been engaged in activity that would be considered sin, they were not held accountable for it ( . . . ) the sin of Adam and Eve would be understood as bringing sin to the entire human race by bringing accountability” (154-5). I find it disturbing that Walton’s conclusion is dangerously close to Gnosticism (especially Manicheanism). The list of other casualties to Walton’s theories would include the Biblical paradigm for husband-wife relationships; Original Sin; the lack of human solidarity; eschatology; the image of God; atonement; etc.

In the end, “The Lost World of Adam and Eve” was an intriguing exercise and foray into a world that seems to me to be other-than what the Scriptures posit or what Evangelicals and faithful believers have normally held to. Sometimes I was alarmed, and at other times I was made to pause and think. Walton takes the careful, steady College professor’s approach that makes the material graspable and comprehendible. It would be a good introduction for anyone desiring to see what some voices inside Evangelicalism are saying to challenge and question the standard position on human origins.

Many thanks to IVP Academic for the free copy of the book used for this review.

[Jacob Hudgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walton’s Lost World of Genesis 1 was helpful for gently introducing the idea of functional vs. material accounts or origins. This book builds on it by challenging the traditional linking of Genesis 1 and 2 by interpreting Gen 2 as a retelling of the creation of mankind. What interpretive possibilities are there if Gen 2 is not Gen 1:26 retold?

I appreciate Walton’s openness and care with the topic. He knows he is addressing some deeply-held beliefs by opening the possibility that Adam and Eve were not the first humans. To his credit, he argues that they were real people, not mythological constructs, but insists that their use in the Bible is archetypal. He also attempts (and interestingly enlists NT Wright in the process) to tease out the implications of this for Paul’s use of Adam in the NT.

I am sympathetic to several of the arguments here, but I can’t shake the feeling of chronological snobbery. Walton is transparent that the main reason this reconsideration matters is because of recent discoveries in human genetics that point at common ancestry between humans and animals. This has the feel of rushing to “update” our theology to respond to this, which seems like a lost cause. Also the more items we put under the category of “Things we know that bible authors/Paul didn’t”, the harder it will be to have any respect for the content of the Bible (at least in my judgment). I especially mean that patting Paul on the head and saying “i know you thought Adam was a real person, bless your heart” while taking his theology of sin and death seriously is hard to do.

I also completely agree that the church needs to do a better job of being welcoming to those trained in science and attempting to help bridge some of those gaps rather than putting science and scripture at odds unnecessarily.

[Travious Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended for believers and nonbelievers alike. Both parties utilize the Bible as a weapon for perspective, interpretation, and traditions that can be married and held with integrity. This book analyzes the beginning chapters of Genesis in particular but relies on the Bible in totality to build arguments of specific claims regarding the origin of humanity. It also looks at contemporary ancient Near East literature and beliefs, as it sees Genesis as part of revelation from God, while acknowledging it is a product of the ancient Near East and should not be read as though Western readers in the 21sr century are the primary audience.

Whether Adam and Eve were historical people in an actual place and past pales in comparison to the knowledge and acceptance that faith and science are not enemies, but can coexist and serve to benefit humans individually and collectively.

[Светослав Александров · Rating 4 out of 5]

Не мога да се сетя за друга тема, която толкова силно да разделя християнския свят, колкото темата за сътворението на света и първите хора. Вярно е, че през последните 100-200 години науката буквално разби представите за произхода на човечеството. От една страна всичко започва с Чарлз Дарвин и неговия безспорен принос за развитието на еволюционната теория. Разбира се, това не е попречило на мнозина да я приемат и да си кажат: „Е какво толкова – има ли значение как Бог е направил света, може пък и чрез еволюция да са се появили Адам и Ева“. От друга страна са модерните научни открития – както палеонтологичните находки, така и постиженията на геномиката и популационната генетика. Накратко казано, науката не е успяла да открие, че всички хора произлизат от една-единствена двойка (било то Адам и Ева, било то Ной и жена му). Напротив – всички използвани до този момент научни модели са категорични, че живеещите днес хора не са произлезли от една-единствена двойка, а от популация, чийто минимален размер е бил 10 000 души. Да – вярно е, че науката си сложи с понятията „Y-хромозомен Адам“ и „митохондриална Ева“ – т.е. може да се докаже, че при всички живи хора може да се проследи митохондриалното ДНК до една жена в миналото и при всички мъже може да се проследи Y-хромозомата до един мъж. Но тези факти не доказват наличието на библейски Адам и Ева, а напротив – и Y-хромозомният Адам, и митохондриалната Ева са били част от голяма популация. При това те не са живели по едно и също време.

Няма нужда да казвам, че това е любим аргумент на атеистите. Защото ако сме произлезли от популация, а не от единична двойка, цялото богословие се срутва, нали така? Без Адам и Ева, които да съгрешат, няма как да се обясни богословски разпространението на греха в света. Съответно цялата жертва на Исус Христос като изкупител на греховете се обезсмисля и цялото християнство рухва.

Но дали?

Джон Уолтън е автор на книгата „Изгубеният свят на Адам и Ева“ (издадена през 2015 г. от издателство InterVarsity Press), в която се разглеждат най-наболелите въпроси: съществували ли са наистина Адам и Ева? Може ли да се отхвърли категорично тяхното съществуване? Наистина ли Адам е направен от пръст, а Ева – от ребро? Истинска ли е била змията в градината? Или това е просто глупава история?

Книгата „Изгубеният свят на Адам и Ева“ обаче не е книга за еволюцията. Нито представлява опит да се съчетаят модерната наука и Библията. Джон Уолтън няма никакъв проблем да приеме модерната наука, включително и еволюционната теория и твърденията, че човечеството е възникнало чрез поетапни промени в рамките на популация. Уолтън е професор по Старозаветна литература в колежа Уетън и неговият експертен потенциал е в критиката на Стария Завет.

„Изгубеният свят на Адам и Ева“ е написана на висок, академичен стил. Затова на няколко пъти изпитвах сериозни трудности да я разбирам, особено когато Уолтън прави сравнения между Стария Завет и други писания от Близкия изток – вавилонски, асирийски, шумерски, акадски. Непрекъснато има препратки към „Енума елиш“, към „Гилгамеш“ и сходни митологии. Няма как – това е необходимо зло, за да може да бъде доказана целта на автора.

А целта на Уолтън е да ни покаже, че ако разглеждаме Битие в рамките на културата на древен Израел и културата на древните народи около него, конфликт между съвременната наука и вярата няма.

Прочетете цялото ревю тук:

https://svetlyoalexandrov.wordpress.c...

[Rohan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another audiobook, surprisingly listenable.

I appreciated his look at how the Hebrew in Gen 1-3 is actually used in the rest of the OT, especially "create" being more immaterial that we take it in english.

and creation being a temple, with Adam and eve as priests to bring order.

I also like his evangelical humility in being ok with other responses too.

his view does fix a lot of problems with the creation account too (e.g. why can Cain build a city?) and I love his insistence that nowhere does the bible give new scientific info that the original readers didn't already have.

[Stephen long · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is definitely a book that has rewired my brain and made some many things make sense. I will be logging this book as one of my most impactful theological books I’ve read. Really his book “The Lost World of Genesis 1” go hand in hand so I’d recommend reading them both one after the other.

[Tristan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super helpful and concise. One thing I’ve been really desiring was a resource to help me grow more conversant in the argument against a literalistic reading of Genesis 1-11. This definitely helped in that pursuit. Eager to read more on the subject!

[Patrick McWilliams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even if I’m not necessarily convinced of some of Walton’s personal positions mentioned in the book, he presents thought-provoking material that deserves to be read and considered, even if it inspires stronger arguments against his views. A valuable contribution that will hopefully cause you to consider (or reconsider) what the biblical authors’ “big message” is.

[Zachary Justice · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work is a hermeneutical masterpiece. While many might disagree with some of the theological implications of Walton’s work, one must recognize the care and respect with which Walton treats Scripture. This book tackles the immensely complicated topic of the Historical Adam, trying to place Genesis in its original context. The most common objection to Walton’s arguments follow the lines of “if his argument is true, it undermines traditional/my understanding of theology and/or original sin.” This objection is certainly one that could be raised—questions about Paul/Augustine on sin and death before the Fall definitely arise from Walton’s reading—but such consequences are actually a feature rather than a bug. First of all, Walton is mostly dealing with Genesis in it’s original context—not Paul. Secondly, if a tight contextual exegesis—which Walton certainly presents—of Genesis calls into question our presuppositions about the Fall and original sin, then Walton has done his job. While I am personally mostly, if not entirely, persuaded by Walton’s thesis, one does not have to agree with Walton to learn lessons in epistemic humility and contextual hermeneutics.

In sum, Walton’s arguments are perhaps less convincing than Lost World of Genesis 1, but that is likely due to the more complex nature and theological implications of the question at hand. Furthermore, some theological traditions may disagree with Walton, Christians should be careful of accusing Walton of putting the cart before the horse when that is ironically the reason they do not like the book.

[John Beckett · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, I am not a theologian. I would judge this book to be primarily written for theologians because it uses some terms that are not native to my world - an example of High-context communication from Proposition 1. This is sometimes ameliorated by the glossary in the back of the book.

Apart from the content, the authors phrases, and sub-phrases, sometimes forced me to have to read some sentences multiple times. This may be his style, but I think a little more editing would have been helpful.

In terms of the content, this book was very intriguing. It essentially argues that the text in Genesis 2 -3 does not necessarily preclude current scientific thought about human origins. The conclusion chapter even contains a somewhat impassioned plea to the wider Christian community to dig in and have honest discussions about this material.

My theologian son gave me this book to help me reconcile aspects of my faith with my interest in the natural sciences and I am glad that he did. My one concern about the authors line of reasoning is in terms of the propositions that build upon one another. If A then B, if B then C, if C then D and so on. This line of reasoning hits a snag if a proposition in the middle can be refuted.

If it were not for my problems with some of the style, I would have given this book a four star rating. I will probably read this book again at some point. It would be a good book for a book club that doesn't mind doing some heavy lifting.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

C.S. Lewis famously wrote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

This book is first and foremost about proper Biblical exegesis, that is, the art and practice of properly taking from scripture the things that it affirms, without allowing our preconceptions to be mixed in. As an expert on ancient near-east literature and culture, Walton has the tools to walk the reader, first through the text, and then by comparison to show what was normally understood in cultures similar to the ancient Israelites.

What surprised and pleased me was how his exegesis of the creation and Eden stories illuminated my understanding of what Jesus said and did, and what Paul wrote about in the New Testament.

Because of this book, my eyes are opened to truths and nuances about my everyday living in the Kingdom of Heaven, which I previously had not realized or emphasized.

This book also very methodically, thoroughly, and convincingly makes the case that the Bible makes no claims that necessarily contradict the narrative presented by modern science. It does not do so by tearing down the Biblical text into meaningless tatters, but by showing the positively spiritual nature of the radical truths revealed in God's word.