Scan barcode
Reviews
The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns
juliasilge's review against another edition
3.0
In this book, Enns looks at the idea of a historical Adam, i.e., that an actual historical person named Adam was the first human being, and argues that a historical Adam is not necessary for the Christian faith tradition and in fact is not the most fair or sensible reading of Genesis and Paul's writings on Adam. The book has two main sections, the first dealing with Genesis (so much helpful background information that makes Genesis make so much more sense) and the second dealing with Paul's NT writings that mention Adam (a little more challenging for me, as Enns basically argues that Paul believed in a historical Adam like everyone around him and was just wrong, but that doesn't negate the inspiration of Paul's writings). There's nothing in this book to convince the reader that evolution is scientifically sound (Enns is, after all, a Bible scholar, not a scientist) so it is written for an audience that is either already convinced of the evidence that evolution is a thing that actually happened or is convinced enough that the idea of a historical Adam does not feel very tenable anymore. I feel like this was a bit more academic and a bit less readable than [b:Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament|270774|Inspiration and Incarnation Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament|Peter Enns|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1386924524s/270774.jpg|262500], but there was still a lot to learn and process and think about. What I found most compelling is the idea that we need to reevaluate what we have the right to expect from these ancient writings.
ajreader's review against another edition
4.0
I found this book incredibly helpful. Enns breaks down the discussion around Adam/creation/original sin in an academic, but easily understandable way.
gbdill's review against another edition
5.0
Excellent book. Entirely changed the way that I have looked at the origins debate. I have been a lifelong literal creationist for most of my Christian life. But, in recent years I have begun to question this view and look a bit closer at how evolution could in fact be reconciled with the creation story. And, this book has most certainly helped with this journey.
"The Evolution of Adam" is broken up into two major parts with each part broken up into several more detailed subsets: 1) Genesis: An Ancient Story of Israelite Self-definition; 2) Understanding Paul's Adam. It is from these two parts where Enns believes he can establish an understanding about the Genesis story, Adam, and where evolution could fit into the story.
Using textual criticism, Enns makes numerous conclusions based on both biblical and extra-biblical resources. Here are just a few that I have observed: 1) The Genesis account is NOT a book about origins, but a wisdom book about Israel's identity as a chosen people. Never did the Jewish people claim or believe Genesis was about the origins of the world and humanity. 2) Enns also surmises that Genesis was likely written post-exilic by the prophet Ezra at a time when Israel had lost its identity in Babylonian captivity and were seeking a renewed national identity that had been lost. 3) The Genesis creation story closely resembles numerous other creation stories of Israel's neighboring cultures (i.e. Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh). 4) That Adam was a proto-type of Israel (i.e. loved by God, disobeys Gods command, and suffers the consequences, exiled from the garden/Babylon). 5) That Paul's Adam was explained in the context of 1st century Judaism and was using Adam as a mere metaphor and example of spiritual death for both Jews and gentile alike. 6) Adam could have possibly been the first homo-sapien that became aware of his spiritual nature, but hominids could have existed prior to Adam. 7) Nowhere in the Old Testament and Jewish history was Adam known to be the conduit for which sin became an inherited nature passed on to all of mankind.
Where I think this book is lacking is where evolution comes into play. Enns spends most of his time breaking down and dissecting the creation story, but spends very little time building up the evolution process and how it fits in. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the science of evolution at the expense of taking the creation/Adam account literally. There is wiggle room in these two ideologies to allow for both God's divine creation and scientific evolution.
Great book. Must be read with an open mind. If you hold firmly to creationism and believe it to be the ONLY way, then this book is likely not for you. But, if you are open to the possibility that Genesis is not a scientific book about human origins, then you may find this to be quite good. Enns speaks in such a way that this book is not too academic and easy enough for the average layman to understand. it is highly recommended.
"The Evolution of Adam" is broken up into two major parts with each part broken up into several more detailed subsets: 1) Genesis: An Ancient Story of Israelite Self-definition; 2) Understanding Paul's Adam. It is from these two parts where Enns believes he can establish an understanding about the Genesis story, Adam, and where evolution could fit into the story.
Using textual criticism, Enns makes numerous conclusions based on both biblical and extra-biblical resources. Here are just a few that I have observed: 1) The Genesis account is NOT a book about origins, but a wisdom book about Israel's identity as a chosen people. Never did the Jewish people claim or believe Genesis was about the origins of the world and humanity. 2) Enns also surmises that Genesis was likely written post-exilic by the prophet Ezra at a time when Israel had lost its identity in Babylonian captivity and were seeking a renewed national identity that had been lost. 3) The Genesis creation story closely resembles numerous other creation stories of Israel's neighboring cultures (i.e. Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh). 4) That Adam was a proto-type of Israel (i.e. loved by God, disobeys Gods command, and suffers the consequences, exiled from the garden/Babylon). 5) That Paul's Adam was explained in the context of 1st century Judaism and was using Adam as a mere metaphor and example of spiritual death for both Jews and gentile alike. 6) Adam could have possibly been the first homo-sapien that became aware of his spiritual nature, but hominids could have existed prior to Adam. 7) Nowhere in the Old Testament and Jewish history was Adam known to be the conduit for which sin became an inherited nature passed on to all of mankind.
Where I think this book is lacking is where evolution comes into play. Enns spends most of his time breaking down and dissecting the creation story, but spends very little time building up the evolution process and how it fits in. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the science of evolution at the expense of taking the creation/Adam account literally. There is wiggle room in these two ideologies to allow for both God's divine creation and scientific evolution.
Great book. Must be read with an open mind. If you hold firmly to creationism and believe it to be the ONLY way, then this book is likely not for you. But, if you are open to the possibility that Genesis is not a scientific book about human origins, then you may find this to be quite good. Enns speaks in such a way that this book is not too academic and easy enough for the average layman to understand. it is highly recommended.
weswalker423's review against another edition
4.0
Enns articulates some pretty good arguments for his reading of Genesis. However, I feel like a lot of the book is really him raising issues and then saying, "I can't address that here." Obviously, this is a complex discussion and I understand he won't be able to speak to every nuance but it still could've been a bit more in depth. Maybe he could have done this in two seperate books: one where he only addresses the problems presented in the text of Gen. 1-3 and another where he addresses the idea of Adam in the Pauline canon.
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
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.
seantimmons's review against another edition
3.0
A good book on the relationship between evolution, the Bible, and theology. The book is very repetitive, almost to the point of feeling like you're reading the same paragraph just in different pages.