Yesterday I summarized C. John Collins’ introductory presuppositions in his book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care (See Pt. 3). Today I want to outline what is at stake according to Collins. It boils down to worldview.
Collins says that there are four ways to interpret the human creation narratives of the Book of Genesis:
“(1) The author intended to relay “straight” history, with a minimum of figurative language.
“(2) The author was talking about what he thought were actual events, using rhetorical and literary techniques to shape the readers’ attitudes toward those events.
“(3) The author intended to recount an imaginary history, using recognizable literary conventions to convey “timeless truths” about God and man.
“(4) The author told a story without even caring whether the events were real or imagined; his main goal was to convey various theological and moral truths.” (p. 16)
Collins takes some time to explain why he rejects #1, #3, and #4. He finds #1 to be shared by Fundamentalist and critical scholars alike. Many confessional-critical scholars affirm #4. Only #1 and #2 allow for someone to affirm a historical Adam.
How does Collins comes to accept #2? He asks himself three questions (p. 19):
“(1) How does the person or event impact the basic story line?
“(2) How have other writers, especially Biblical ones, taken this person or event?
“(3) How does this person or event relate to ordinary human experience?”
For Collins the canonical narrative doesn’t make sense without Adam and Eve. It is apparent that other biblical authors affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve. And Collins thinks Adam and Eve make the most sense out of our day-to-day existence. He writes,
“An important argument for any position is how well it actually explains ordinary human experience. This means that I will make our experience part of my discussion.”
And
“There is so much sadness in the world, and most of us feel that such sadness comes from things being wrong. I have found that a sound perspective on Adam and Eve helps us to come to grips with this wrongness, and to give full vent to our grief, in full faith toward God”. (pp. 20-21)
What I appreciate about both Collins and Enns is their relative straightforwardness when it comes to presuppositions.
I will resume this discussion next week returning to Enns’ understanding of the relationship between Christianity and science. Today I’d like to hear your thoughts on (1) the possible interpretations Collins offers and (2) his use of experience as part of his overall argument.
the archives near Emmaus 
I read Collins book and tend to agree with him – meanwhile Enns book “The Evolution of Adam” is currently sitting in my ibooks waiting to be read, my views may change. Even if we accept the full theistic-evolutionary scheme, I still think the narrative makes the most sense if “something like an original first couple did exist”.
Derek
Did you begin Collins book holding a position similar to his or did he persuade you to change?
Yes. But while that fact could lead to the conclusion, “of course I agree with him, he buttresses my view”, in this case that’s not true. On the subject of Genesis 1-11 and of Adam and Eve I am very open as my views have already changed substantially. Here’s how I began my review of Collins book:
“I learned from Henri Blocher’s book In The Beginning to read the opening chapters of Genesis in a literary, rather than a literal, way. I learned from John Walton’s book The Lost World of Genesis One that those same chapters have nothing to say about how God created the universe, how old the universe is or how science fits in. In short, the bible does not address the age of the earth nor does it tell us how God created it. (Read how I came to this conclusion.)
You would think then that the next logical step for me to take is the rejection of the actual historical existence of Adam and Eve. While open to that possibility, that has been a step I’ve not been able to take when the rest of the scriptures are invited to chime in on the subject.” Here.
What concerns me about Enns is he needs Paul to be wrong theologically, not on cosmology or history, theology.
As for me, I don’t accept that as a valid thought.
In Genesis, there are other people beyond Adam & Eve right there in the early text, I think they should be explored. They were numerous enough Cain was afraid of them and he went to “the land of Nod” to get married.
It’s unreasonable, IMO, to ignore these people and instead decide one of the most imminent theologians of Christian history was “just wrong” about Adam.
John Walton has already shown how the text of Genesis 1&2 may be interpreted as creation being made functional which lends itself to evolution, these “other people of Genesis” could easily explain the results of the genome project. I’d check there or check the validity of the science of the genome before claiming I knew more than Paul about theology.
Derek
I didn’t mean to imply that you read the book to buttress your view. I want to get a feel for the persuasiveness of these books–whether they exist or not. In other words, I wonder to myself if people read Collins or Enns and make radical shifts. I find myself living with some cognitive disconnect–I understand Adam to be important to the biblical narrative and I understand Adam to be problematic to the current model of evolutionary human origins. I don’t know if there is a bridge or not. My guess is that I will enter my reading of these two books and leave the same way, i.e. still living with the tension.
Patrick
I agree that we should take the tradition of the church seriously along with the insights of some of her greatest theologians. I imagine Enns might respond that he doesn’t seek to disrespect or disregard Paul, Athanasius, Calvin or any of the others we admire, but that it is the simple reality that they had a view of the cosmos and origins that was pre-scientific, so we are people of this age must ask what is means to read these people from our “horizon” (as Gadamer might say).
Brian,
I still think the “other people” of Genesis 3 deserve serious consideration. There they are and the best historical explanation is “they are all Adam’s kids”. That’s seems like nonsense to me.
IF Dr. Walton is accurate and I feel he is, these other folks could easily have been “made functional” right along near Adam in timeframe.
We don’t need them to be Adam’s children if Dr Michael Heiser has properly understood Paul’s writing on Adam and transmission of sin:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/romans-512/
It’s more likely we’ve misunderstood Paul than he misunderstood the intent of God for him to relate to the church, IMO.
Thanks for the clarification Brian. To be honest, I doubt anyone who holds to a contrary view would be persuaded by Collins arguments. They provided a line of reasoning I already shared, though hadn’t fully articulated. Enns book, from what I hear, is rather creative and will probably stretch me some.
I’m not really sure how we can talk about the ‘historicity’ of Adam and Eve here. This is really a question of science, anthropology, and biblical interpretation; because we simply do not have the written primary sources necessary to determine Adam and Eve’s historicity. Even if we were to accept the most ‘conservative’ positions (that Moses was given this information by God): a) how does that work in some sort of historically meaningful way? It becomes a matter of believing in faith that God did this—and thus back to does the Bible really mean it like this?, and b) Moses is, still, at best is a secondary source, thousands of years removed from Adam and Eve.
between
That gets at the heart of why I say “historicity” in quotations: I’m unsure myself!
Pt. 5 is up: http://nearemmaus.com/2012/06/04/collins-and-enns-on-the-historicity-of-adam-pt-5/
Brian:
Then I propose we ought to drop ‘historicity’ as a meaningful theological category here.Unless we are prepared to change the historical methodology—Which would of course lead to an inconsistent way of doing history, with unforeseen consequences, that may lend credence to say,…Islamic arguments against the death and resurrection of Christ. —Of course I don’t mean for your blogging purposes here, as this is a good question to ask :).
I think Enns might agree that we should stop speaking of the historicity of Adam (though we must address the question before deciding we can go no further in our investigation).
I whole heartily agree with you here, that we need to address this question!