Yesterday I surveyed Peter Enns’ introductory thoughts in The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. Today I will do the same for C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care .
When I introduced Enns’ chapter he began with the premise that the theory of evolution best explains human origins, therefore we ought to reinterpret the story of Adam and Eve. Collins does not deny that this “seems” to be true. He writes,
“Recent advances in biology seem to push us further away from any idea of an original human couple through whom sin and death came into the world. The evolutionary history of mankind shows us that death and struggle have been part of existence on earth from the earliest moments. Most recently, discoveries about features of human DNA seem to require that the human population has always had as least as many as a thousand memebers.” (p. 12).
Yet unlike Enns, Collins isn’t quite as willing to set aside the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve. He opens his book saying,
“Through most of the church’s history Christians, like the Jews from whom they sprang, have believed that the Biblical Adam and Eve were actual persons, from whom all other humans being are descended, and whose disobedience to God brought sin into the human experience.” (p. 11)
That last sentence will play an important part in Collins argument it seems. Thus far I have noted that he does appeal to our human experience on several occasions as a way of pointing us toward the historicity of the Adam-Eve narrative. I will say more about this in future posts.
Collins asks rhetorically, “May we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well, without threat to the faith?” (p. 11) Enns would say, “yes!” Collins writes, “My goal in this study is to show why I believe we should retain a version of the traditional view, in spite of any pressures to abandon it.” (p. 13) Even as many Christians move toward accepting the evolutionary paradigm for human origins Collins reminds his readers, “…that most contemporary Christians around the world still hold to the traditional perspective on Adam and Eve.” (p. 12)
For Collins (1) the theory of evolution should not impact how we understand humans origins and (2) the Bible does not need a radical reinterpretation here. Collins and Enns do agree that the theory of evolution must be addressed and that the Bible retains relevance.
When I examined Enns’ introduction we saw that he was committed to the historical-critical approach followed by theologizing from that hermeneutical paradigm. Collins writes,
“We will look first at the shape of the Biblical story–from creation to fall to redemption and final consumation–and the worldview that rides on that story, and see whether it requires an [Sic] historical Adam and Eve and an [Sic] historical fall. Second, we will examine the main Biblical and Second Temple Jewish texts that deal with the topic, to find out whether they really do support the traditional position. Third, we will consider the Biblical view of human uniqueness and dignity, and relate these to everyday moral and religious experience, asking whether these too are evidence for the traditional position.” (p. 13)
This is a quick departure from Enns. Enns gives each part of Scripture its own unique voice while Collins emphasizes a canonical approach. Enns is willing to rethink how we understand Adam and Eve in light of modern science. Collins says we should stand our ground. Enns will use other works of Jewish literature to show the fluidity of interpretation. Collins will examine the same works to show that the traditional view is accepted by all.
In the next two posts I will (1) continue to let Collins tell us what he thinks is at stake while providing us with his remaining introductory comments and then (2) return to Enns so he can describe how he understands science and Christianity to relate. In the meantime I’d like to hear your thoughts on the different presuppositions of Collins and Enns as well as Collins a posteriori commitment to the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve.
the archives near Emmaus 
Not saying I believe this but what if both are not quite incorrect?
When God made Eve, he did not start from nothing but took her from Adam (rib actually), and though Eve was Taken from Adam, was created in the form of Adam but not exactly in the form of Adam (gender differences).
When Genesis says “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
This description does not preclude the idea that God took something that existed and remade it in His image. What if God took a mindless ape and remade it in His image breathing soul, reason and faith, and everything else that man possesses that ape does not. Thus this model shows that both a ‘first Adam’ existed and evolution played a role.
I offer this suggestion, not because I believe it (I don’t actually), but because rationally it is possible, and intellectual honesty suggests we consider what is possible in wrestling with it.
Oh, and Brian – wow have you been wading through creation elements like a mad-man; what with your epic review of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, and now this ….
Either you have incredible focus or your interest in understanding creation is driving you or (lest I pose a false dichotomy) your timing with genesis questions just happens to be coincidence (or something else).
It sounds like Enns and Collins are trying to bite off more than they can chew. Again, in their capacity as biblical theologians they need to investigate the precise relationship between the historicity of Adam and Eve and the larger theological metanarrative of Scripture, and not simply remark upon their role as characters within that metanarrative nor how later interpreters understood those characters nor the philosophical consequences that the historicity of those characters has for our understanding of human uniqueness and dignity nor even what they think modern science has to say about those characters etc. Of course, all these other rabbit trails may inform their conclusions about how the historicity of Adam and Eve theologically functions but they are dead ends in and of themselves.
Andrew
I am being intentional about tackling this issues now. I’ve wanted to do this for a while, but my last program kept me busy. I am quite sure Enns does not accept the view you proposed in your first comment, but I don’t know about Collins. Enns is a tad clearer with his presuppositions, writings, and trajectory than Collins.
Resident
It is a large and dense subject indeed. What pathway would you advise one take as an alternative to Enns’ and Collins’ directions?
LePort,
The shortcut is to see how the historicity of Adam functions in Rom 5:12-21, that’s the most important passage in this discussion. If you can untie that exegetical gordian knot and all its theological ramifications to your own satisfaction then it’s my experience that everything else you think about this subject will follow as a consequence.
If you conclude that the historicity of Adam isn’t that important to Paul’s theology in Rom 5:12-21 then you’ll naturally conclude that it’s not that important to biblical theology writ large, but if on the other hand you conclude that it is important in that passage then you’ll naturally conclude that it is important to biblical theology writ large as this is an important passage.
residentoftartarus said “If you conclude …”
I think this is sound logic. Personally I don’t think the the historicity of Adam matters at all, either in Genesis or in Romans. The dominant theme in Genesis is man’s relationship to his creators; which works whether or not ‘Adam’ (proper) existed.
The element of [Rom 5:12-21] that cannot (or should not IMHO) be excised is the historicity of the ‘first sin’.
I don’t believe it can be denied that Paul’s argument presupposes a period of man’s innocence and loss of that innocence – whatever that means historically.
Brian, I notice you’re careful not to reveal your cards. Care to say where on the spectrum your belief lies?
Andrew
I tend to find myself leaning toward Enns’ view. My obvious hesitancy has to do with my lack of knowledge in this arena. I want to remain open to either view so I try to remain fair minded about it.
Resident
I agree that Romans 5 (and maybe 1 Corinthians 15) are the most important passages in this discussion. I think Enns and Collins agree, though they are both trying to be thorough in addressing the subject.
Collins position is stated: “Even as many Christians move toward accepting the evolutionary paradigm for human origins Collins reminds his readers, ‘…that most contemporary Christians around the world still hold to the traditional perspective on Adam and Eve.’ ”
This is a classic argumentum ad populum which any student of logic will know is fallacious. Brian notes, “For Collins (1) the theory of evolution should not impact how we understand humans origins.”
I sincerely hope that this overstates Collins’s position, because in effect it seems to avoid what is really the most relevant point in the discussion, to wit, whether or not evolution is true, and by way of disclaimer I will state that I think the evidence of physics, astronomy, geology, biology, genomics and a number of specialized disciplines under and outside those rubrics makes a cumulative case for the scientific truth of evolution that is overwhelmingly convincing for me. It may not be for everyone, but just as we spent our first year of seminary learning theological prolegomena, anyone who wants to examine the evidence for and against biological evolution and genomics should become familiar with scientific terminology and basic familiarity with scientific prolegomena (and necessarily one must include in this stellar evolution, the formation of the solar system, and a host of other scientific disciplines – one cannot read up on biology alone and claim to be conversant with the issues).
Truth is the only issue of relevance.
If evolution is false, then Christians can ignore it. If it is true, Christians must engage and see how this truth can be incorporated into a Christian world view.
What is happening is that some Christians (apparently including Professor Collins) are saying The Bible Has Spoken, therefore evolution (and by extension, all of science) is irrelevant and need not be examined. That is obscurantism which undercuts both a Christian commitment to truth and undermines the credibility of Christian witness by portraying Christians as cultic fanatics, which we are not, or should not be.