31 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Peter Enns "Upends" Tradition!, January 18, 2012
One cannot but deeply admire what Peter Enns has managed to produce within the span of less than 150 pages - not counting his endnotes. Kudos as well for his penetrating exegetical insights...to say nothing as regards his courage: few conservative evangelicals (and even fewer fundamentalists) will find the title "The Evolution of Adam" something that warms the heart. And yet what Enns has produced here not only is revolutionary (in a very real sense - see below) but may well prove to be one of the more controversial books on the science/theology debate of recent years.
Why so? Primarily because (according to Enns - Part Two of his book) Paul's creative use (in Romans) of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis was primarily for apologetic purposes...a matter that will be discussed in greater detail below. But we begin with Part One.
Essentially Part One (four chapters) represents Enns' understanding of the crucial importance Ancient Near Eastern influences exerted upon the biblical writers - the writer/s of the Genesis creation account in particular. Enns (correctly in my view)hammers this point repeatedly for the reader to consider - i.e., the bible (the whole of it) was not written in a cultural vacuum unsullied by the surrounding culture/s of pagan religious thought, whether ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, or Greco-Roman. Indeed, to do otherwise would have been an impossibility - somewhat like trying to walk along the Tibetan foothills while refusing to breathe its polluted 'pagan' air. None of us ever fully escapes the surrounding influences of culture - and the bible was never intended to do so; rather, God (if one believes in biblical inspiration...as Enns does) works fully within the conceptual categories of culture. Hence, the two creation accounts in Genesis come to us fully embedded with the concepts of Ancient Near Eastern thought patterns. Perhaps the most we can say here is that the Genesis accounts represent (in varying ways) the "demythologizing" of prior Ancient Near Eastern accounts: the God of Israel is not to be identified with any aspect (sun, moon, stars, etc.) of the created order.
So far so good. There's nothing really new here that hasn't been said already by any number of conservative evangelical scholars. Part Two, however, is something entirely different. Here Enns focuses his attention on Paul's creative use of the Old Testament, seeing as how the death and resurrection of Christ has caused Paul to look at the OT writings from a radically different perspective - Romans 5:12-21 in particular.
These verses have a long, long history in the Christian Church as providing the church's understanding of how sin and death entered the world of human existence:
we all "inherited" sin and death in and through the disobedience of Adam back in Eden. Not so...says Enns. And here is where his account veers off in a direction entirely different from traditional orthodox belief - for, according to Enns, Paul gave a particular 'Pauline spin' to these verses that cannot be found either in the OT itself, or in the Second Temple Judaism of which Paul himself was a part. Because the death and resurrection of Christ radically altered Paul's understanding of God's redemptive work in the world he (Paul) "found" in the Adam story an ideal explanation for why it is all Jews and Gentiles alike share in the universal experience of sin and death. Therefore, Adam's disobedience in Eden is NOT the cause of the universal human experience of sin and death (per Enns); rather, the story of Adam's disobedience served Paul's apologetic purposes...quite apart from whatever the story's original intention might have been. The true "origin" of sin and death remains a mystery, for the answer is not to be found (indeed if it can be "found" at all!) in the early Genesis account of Adam and Eve.
And here is where we encounter the book's controversial nature, for Enns' view represents a dramatic departure from the traditional view - a traditional view that has a rich theological heritage that passes directly through the Reformation all the way back to Augustine.
As previously stated, I deeply admire and respect what Enns has done here. For the most part I think he is on the right track. Furthermore, he makes mention of the fact that recent developments in biology have strongly indicated that we cannot possibly trace all modern humans back to an original "Adam and Eve." However, we knew that already...quite apart from modern biology informing us of the fact. Anthropology and paleontology had already amassed considerable evidence that proto-humans and modern humans were spread across the earth long before any conceivable Adam and Eve could have existed. Apparently, however, modern biology speaks with a more powerful voice than anthropology; thus, we are seeing a spate of books recently on the topic of whether or not Adam and Eve were historical - Enns' book being only one of a growing number. (Due to the geneologies in early Genesis we are somewhat limited in "how far back" we can place an Adam and Eve. Placing them 25 to 40 thousand years into the past in order somehow to allow them to be the true ancestors of all modern humans does a grave injustice to the geneologies that plain and simply do not allow for this sort of radical time reversal - a matter that any number of evangelicals, who have done this sort of thing, seem unwilling to appreciate. The early Genesis geneologies, even allowing for some "gaps," serve as a control against such unwarranted time expansion. An Adam and Eve of perhaps 6 to 8 thousand BC appears to be about the limit of what we can reasonably expect). In any case, Enns has raised a thorny and difficult issue in a way previous books on the question have not, and I believe his book will contribute substantially to more open theological discussion (one hopes without heated rancor) on the debate. In the meanwhile, some final thoughts.
Personally, I find it more than a tad curious that David Rohl (a somewhat controversial Egyptologist) has recently authored a book (From Eden to Exile, Greenleaf Press) in which he strongly defends an historical Adam - and yet Rohl acknowledges that he is an atheist. All this is most strange: an evangelical scholar arguing against an historical Adam while an atheistic historian argues for one! ("What fools these mortals be!")
I happen to agree with much of what Enns writes. However, I think Rohl has a point- even though how he fleshes his historical Adam out is somewhat bizarre. For one thing, I'm not entirely comfortable (despite some of Enns' powerful arguments) with a geneology of Jesus in the Gospels that would include "fictious" characters who never even existed. (I might as well inform you that my great, great grandfather was Dr. Jekyll and my great, great, great grandfather was Mr. Hyde). I don't see why getting rid of an historical Adam is at all necessary. Enns himself offers the possibility that OT Israel viewed Adam as their senior partriarch - the man who originally started the "clan." I personally see great possibilities here via leaving Adam within historical existence as Israel's original, grand patriarch.
The origin of sin and death via the Adam and Eve story is another matter entirely. Biology and anthropology together appear to just plain and simply rule it out - and sticking Adam back into the age of the Cro-Magnons and Neaderthals in order to "save" the doctrine is a clear instance of an act of sheer desperation. But I see no reason why we necessarily have to conclude that the "origin" of sin and death (if that's the right word even to use...which I'm not even sure about) can only be regarded as lost in the misty past. I think there is a possible way forward here, and even via an historical Adam, while at the same time embracing what Enns is talking about. I think there may well be a way to retain a personal Adam (perhaps 6 to 8 thousand BC), while also showing how sin and death had their origin in him...but with an entirely different understanding that is informed by Enns' book. Unfortunately, spelling all that out is - like "The Evolution of Adam" - a book unto itself. And Amazon commentary is not the place where one is allowed to "write a book" - quite apart from how lengthy my own commentary here has been.
When Hell Freezes Over: Online with Legion and AbaddonIn the meanwhile...kudos again to Enns for his truly provocative and highly insightful contribution to the cause. His vigorous defense of the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection is profoundly gratifying. Because of his firm stance here no one can accuse him of being unorthodox!
(NOTE: Readers interested in a critical analysis of David Rohl's "From Eden to Exile: the 5000 Year History of the People of the Bible," and why this book is of such strategic importance for Old Testament studies - scholars in particular, can easily access my recent review of this book (titled "David Rohl: A "Maverick" in Search of History") by clicking on "See All My Reviews" directly above, or by going to the book's Amazon website.
From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand-Year History of the People of the Bible Hope you enjoy the read!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Thought Provoking but less than convincing, February 4, 2012
Peter Enns considers his primary audience to be first Christians, and second people who think evolution needs to be taken seriously. Because of that, his aim "is to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between a biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern" (p. x). He briefly sketches his own Christian background before explaining his approach to Scripture (which was outlined more fully in Inspiration and Incarnation):
The most faithful, Christian reading of sacred Scripture is one that recognizes Scripture as a product of the times in which it was written and/or the events took place - not merely so, but unalterably so (p. xi).
In other words, much of what Enns argued in Inspiration and Incarnation, and reiterates briefly here, is a reconsideration of the human-ness of the Bible. In the same way Jesus was both God and man, Scripture is both the Word of God and the words of man. This in short, is the incarnational analogy Enns proposes for reading Scripture. Enns draws this out (in Insp/Incar) by examining:
The ancient Near East cultural context
The theological diversity of the Old Testament
The use of the Old Testament by authors of the New.
In The Evolution of Adam, Enns uses Part One to further apply his understanding of (1) to the question of Adam in Genesis, and then uses Part Two to apply (3) to the question of Adam in Paul's writings.
He first finishes out the introduction with a discussion of the relationship between science/faith and evolution/Christianity. He wisely notes that "if evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word "historical," the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis" (p. xiv). Because of this, any attempt to reconcile Genesis and evolution involve difficulties, but adjustments are necessary. As Enns concludes, "The only question is what sorts of adjustments best account for the data," and then he points out that this is an even more pressing concern when it comes to what Paul says about Adam (p. xv).
There are then four options for moving forward (parentheticals mine):
Accept evolution and reject Christianity (the path of Dawkins/Dennett et al)
Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution (many evangelicals)
Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process (some theistic evolutionists)
Rethink Genesis and Paul (Enns, and he hopes you the reader by the end of the book)
Interestingly, for what follows, I would place myself in the fourth position as well, but I'm doing so independent of scientific concerns. Enns and I both want to rethink Genesis and Paul and make adjustments that best account for the data. But, as I noted yesterday, Enns has already closed off a path that the data can't lead down because of his scientific commitments. Since I lack some of those, I may have a different perspective on how to best account for the data.
On that note...
Chapter 1 surveys the landscape of 19th century thought and the ramifications it had on our understanding of the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular. Three factors rose to prominence in that time period that forever altered the landscape of biblical studies:
Darwinian science
Higher level biblical criticism
Archaeological discoveries related to ancient Near East documents and context
These are fairly uncontroversial, at least in terms of observing they did have quite an impact. Whether or not they should influence how we read Scripture is one question, and exactly how we should let these discoveries influence how we read Scripture is yet another.
Chapter 2 then asks when Genesis was written and seeks to apply insights from 2 of the previous 3 factors into the discussion. Enns presents an account of the Documentary Hypothesis or the JEDP theory regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch (which essentially posits various sources, and late date of non-Mosaic composition). He does a great job explaining it to a lay audience, which is a both a positive and a negative aspect of his book. Positive because many readers who have never heard of it will be able to understand it clearly, but negative because he fails to mention much of the counter-evidence to the theory, nor does he direct the reader to the many sources on the Pentateuch that offer a quite different take on its compositional history (e. g. John Sailhamer's The Meaning of the Pentateuch or C. John Collins Genesis 1-4), showing that a better fit for the available data is that Moses wrote the bulk of the Pentateuch and it was scribally updated in the post-exilic period.
Personally I do not think the Documentary Hypothesis is the best way to account for the available data regarding the composition of the Old Testament. Given that data always under-determines theories, the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) would be hard to ever prove conclusively. I realize this also applies to proving Mosaic authorship, but I just wanted to make clear that both Enns and I are on similar ground and have to present an interpretation that is the best probable explanation of the data. He presents his case though as fact of the matter, when in reality, it is just one way to interpret the available data. Even arguing that it is scholarly consensus (which, depending on your selection of scholars, is generally true) is not evidence in favor of the validity of the interpretation so much as an appeal to authority at best (e.g. most informed intellectuals thinks this is true), or an appeal to emotion at worst (e. g. you're not backwards unintelligent moron are you?)
Chapter 3 surveys the origin stories of Israel's neighbors. While I agree with Enns' conclusion that Genesis 1 has a highly important polemical function (p. 41), I think he has the context wrong for who the polemic is against. Most of his comparative work is between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, the Babylonian origin story. But, for reasons I explain here, the Egyptian creation accounts/origin stories provide a better parallel and more likely polemical sparring partner. Though it wasn't available to Enns at the time of his writing, John Walton's Genesis 1 As Ancient Cosmology provides a much richer survey of the backdrop to Genesis 1.
In the rest of chapter 3, Enns surveys comparative literature regarding the flood story as well as Genesis 2 before ending on a plea to rethink our general approach to Genesis. In some ways, Enns and I are on the same team here, but for different reasons. Enns is convinced that a literal reading will just not do and provides his reasons for that. Interestingly, I would consider myself someone who reads Genesis 1 literally, but as became apparent in the course of reading this book, Enns and I mean different things by the term literal. I think Enns is arguing against a "literalistic" reading, or what we might consider "over-literalizing" Scripture. If that's what he means, then I completely agree, and much of what I've said about Genesis is pushing for people to stop reading it that way as well.
Chapter 4 then finishes out Part One by drawing connections between the Adam story and Israel's story, which I found particularly interesting and helpful. His work on creation and sanctuary is a snapshot of more extensive work in Walton (see above). In spite of our disagreements over the exact context of the writing of the Pentateuch, I think there is much to be gleaned from this section. To some extent, I was already on board with this theological connection, but for different reasons than Enns provides (e. g. I don't see Israel using the connection to shape Genesis, but rather see the causation going the other way).
It is at this point that book is neatly divided, and in Part Two the conversation shifts to how to understand Paul. Much like he was doing with Genesis, Enns wants to set Paul in context. Chapter 5 focuses on exploring Paul's theology, particularly as it pertains to Adam. It is also here that he presents connections between Adam and the wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs. This is another feature of Enns' book that I found both particularly interesting and helpful.
The bulk of chapter 6 then is devoted to sketching out how Paul not only fit into his context, but how that shaped his thinking and interpretive practices. Enns provides a few case studies of how Paul interpreted Old Testament passages (remember (3) above from Insp/Incar?) as a setup for determining how to best understand Paul's use of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. I wouldn't agree with all the details as Enns presents them, but I found this chapter a succinct primer on Second Temple Jewish interpretive approaches, and a good background context for Paul (I could tell from reading we're both fond of N. T. Wright).
All that brings us to chapter 7, which culminates in analyzing Paul's theological understanding of Adam. Here, I think the general mis-step involves his use of the incarnational analogy. If we are to use the criteria of the incarnation to better understand Scripture, then it seems we should be careful we don't use a heretical version of the incarnation in our applications. In this case, Enns seems to almost be applying a Docetic model of the incarnation to his reading of Paul. In Docetism, a heretical understanding of the Incarnation, there is too sharp of a separation between the human and the divine, such that you could observe one acting independent of the other. To me, the way Enns interacts with Paul is almost like this. While I have no doubt Enns' personal Christology is orthodox and his understanding of the incarnational analogy is not necessarily Docetic, I found it hard to avoid the conclusion that when...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
