Reviews
The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns
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.
mattpfarr's review against another edition
2.0
DNF
Honestly, I did like some concepts discussed in this book. And it inspired me to really think about my very immature view of the Bible and challenged some of my assumptions. That is good and the reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1. I honestly did want to finish this book but I just couldn't anymore. I can't.
The problem is that Enns makes so many assumptions and just runs with it. I must have got through more than 10 times he made a statement and then said "and obviously this means ____...." when it was not at all obvious or in some cases even probable. And he doesn't provide evidence or explain further. Enns said it is obvious so it must be so. The subjects he was discussing were interesting even if I may not agree with his viewpoint. I would love to have a discussion or read about it more but not if we are going to rely so heavily on assumptions.
Sorry, I value my time to much to finish this. This is only the 3rd book I have DNF'd; I normally like to finish books. I do not recommend.
The best thing I got out of this book is that God is a storyteller at heart. This struck me as I am trying to become one myself (storyteller not god). So that was kind of cool. It is also incredibly obvious if you read that Bible at all so I am surprised I never realized it.
Honestly, I did like some concepts discussed in this book. And it inspired me to really think about my very immature view of the Bible and challenged some of my assumptions. That is good and the reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1. I honestly did want to finish this book but I just couldn't anymore. I can't.
The problem is that Enns makes so many assumptions and just runs with it. I must have got through more than 10 times he made a statement and then said "and obviously this means ____...." when it was not at all obvious or in some cases even probable. And he doesn't provide evidence or explain further. Enns said it is obvious so it must be so. The subjects he was discussing were interesting even if I may not agree with his viewpoint. I would love to have a discussion or read about it more but not if we are going to rely so heavily on assumptions.
Sorry, I value my time to much to finish this. This is only the 3rd book I have DNF'd; I normally like to finish books. I do not recommend.
The best thing I got out of this book is that God is a storyteller at heart. This struck me as I am trying to become one myself (storyteller not god). So that was kind of cool. It is also incredibly obvious if you read that Bible at all so I am surprised I never realized it.
dr4manrx's review against another edition
5.0
I really enjoyed this book, mainly because in my faith walk, I do not see the Bible as an infallible document. Rather, the Bible was written by man and edited by the Church to serve its own purposes, and for those reasons alone, I have a hard time placing my faith on a book.
That being said, I am also a woman of science. I think this book does an excellent job of explaining the history of the Bible, where origin stories come from, and how modern science fits in.
That being said, I am also a woman of science. I think this book does an excellent job of explaining the history of the Bible, where origin stories come from, and how modern science fits in.
mcsnide's review against another edition
3.0
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.
hgoodenn's review against another edition
challenging
informative
4.0
Challenging, but in a good way. I have a lot to think about.
amanda_woodbury's review against another edition
2.0
I like the premise of the book: reading the Bible through the target cultures’ perspective verses the “main character” tendency. Especially within the context of evolution science. However, I struggled following the flow of the writing. It felt disjointed and confusing at times. Perhaps it would be better if I’d read it verses listened to the audio version?