Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care [Paperback]

I wish I could shake C. John Collins's hand. It has been a long time since I last read something as lucid, even-handed, and gracious as his latest book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. Right off the bat, I have to say that the book's simple title betrays it's scholarly depth. Collins's does not pull any punches in carefully examining a variety of facets related to the historicity of Adam and Eve. However, despite the its depth, the simple title correctly portrays the book as accessible and engaging, which is perhaps its greatest strength. Collins does a fine job of distilling difficult concepts into their most basic form, succinctly summarizing complex issues without losing the required nuance. This is a book that every Christian can and should read.

However, for many Christians, discussions related to the origins of man are uncomfortable, to say the least. For some, the near-constant bombardment of "naturalistic" propaganda from the scientific establishment is enough to make them cower in shame, content to hold fast to their "traditional" understanding of human origins while intentionally cultivating a functional ignorance related to modern science's "findings," in fear that such "findings" might prove a death blow to their cherished beliefs (I've been there).

Some Christians lean too far in the other direction, abandoning the biblical text in favor of more recent scientific theories. They view Genesis as an old book full of old myths that do little more than provide us with an interesting (yet unhistorical) back-story to the Jewish people.

Finally, there are some Christians who see modern science as generally in conflict with the biblical witness. They often look at science and boldly declare that it changes nothing about the way they read the Scriptures, because to allow science to induce a revision of our "traditional" interpretations would be tantamount to usurping the authority of Scripture. Additionally, these people generally hold to an extremely literalistic interpretation of the creation account, dismissing literary and historical considerations in favor of a more "plain reading" of the text. Although Collins ultimately agrees with this camp in regard to the historicity of Adam and Eve, he would probably disagree with their basic perspective on the relationship between science and the Bible.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? answers all of these people in the same way: "the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as our first parents who brought sin into human experience is worthy of our confidence and adherence" (133). Now, of course there is a lot that goes into that statement, and when Collins mentions the "traditional understanding" of Adam and Eve, he is speaking about what he calls, "mere-Adam-and-Eve-ism" (see below), not necessarily all that has been associated with the belief in a literal Adam and Eve throughout history. This allows room for a variety of theories about what actually took place and how it happened all those years ago. But, the core point remains nonetheless: Adam and Eve did really exist and it does matter.

Goal

To that end, Collins is unambiguous about his goal in writing the book:

"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." (13)

However, this does not mean that he forces his view down the readers' throat. Rather, Collins has written a carefully structured book, with a very specific focus and outline. He fairly presents many different viewpoints, praising their strengths and criticizing their weaknesses in turn. Collins adds that his goal is, perhaps more foundationally, "to help you think these matters through for yourself," (20). My experience in reading the book proved this to be true. Collins respects his readers and lets his well-reasoned arguments do the persuading, allowing room for disagreement and ambiguity where the "evidence" is less certain.

Scope

Collins limits his discussion to "mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism" (borrowed from C.S. Lewis's "mere Christianity"), thus not significantly dealing with many related issues, such as the age of the earth, the origin of Adam's body, the meaning of the "image of God," the means by which sin affects all people and the exact impact of that sin, etc. Although each of these important topics is commented on from time to time, they do not fall into the primary purview of the book, as Collins does not consider agreement on them "crucial for the traditional view" he advocates (14).

This limited focus is actually quite helpful, in my opinion. It enables the author to remain "on target" in discussing the many intricacies related to the book's main question. Although at times I found myself wanting more in regard to specific issues mentioned only in passing, Collins regularly cites his own work (Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary and Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?) and the work of others, so interested readers know where to look for more information.

Structure

Collins breaks his book up into four main sections:

1. The Shape of the Biblical Story
2. Particular Texts that Speak of Adam and Eve
3. Human Uniqueness and Dignity
4. Can Science Help Us Pinpoint "Adam and Eve"?

In the first section, Collins's frames the discussion of the historicity of Adam and Eve in the overarching storyline of the Bible, demonstrating that there are serious problems when one attempts to remove Scripture's origin story from it's truly foundational place in the biblical narrative. One interesting point (which he devotes an appendix to) that he makes is that Genesis was designed to contradict the prevalent Mesopotamian worldviews of the time, providing an alternative set of values for the people of Israel to adhere to.

The second section deals with the specific biblical texts that refer to Adam and Eve. It is in this section of the book that Collins's abilities as a Hebrew scholar can be clearly perceived. He examines passages from the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and elsewhere in the New Testament, honestly exegeting the text and drawing conclusions about the authors' perspectives on the creation account. Most fascinating was Collins's brief look at extra-biblical second temple Jewish literature, which he argues provides valuable clues regarding how to understand the biblical creation story. It is my opinion that Collins successfully makes his case from the passages he cited.

In his third major section, Collins argues that reflecting on human uniqueness and dignity provides us with important help in understanding Adam and Eve. Specifically, he looks at the image of God in man and universal human experiences (like yearning for justice). This chapter, in my opinion, is his least convincing one. However, I applaud his efforts to consider the whole range of evidence in coming to a conclusion about Adam and Eve.

Finally, Collins looks at some of the scientific evidence, examining and evaluating a number of theories put forth by those who are attempting to do justice to the biblical text. However, Collins is careful to warn his readers of the risk of reckless concordism (trying to make the Bible and science "fit together") that "assumes that the Bible writer's purpose was to describe the same sorts of things as the contemporary scientist does" (107). This dangerous assumption, so often perpetrated by young earth creationists reading with an overly literalistic approach to the text, can have a detrimental impact on interpretive conclusions.

Perspective

One of the things I most appreciated about the book was Collins's measured perspective regarding the the many complex issues related to human origins. Collins does not fall into the "all or none" tendency so often advocated by those who regard the "correct" interpretation of the Genesis creation account as perfectly obvious (whether they are young earth creationists or unbelievers who write off the text as pure fantasy). Rather, Collins demonstrates that there are a range of viable theories about how to best understand what the biblical writer was trying communicate, and how that message can fit with the findings of modern science.

When Collins does lay down boundaries that must not be crossed, he does so humbly and graciously, and only after first meticulously demonstrating (from the biblical text, human experience, and science) why it must be so. The author's careful inquiry and gracious tone provides a model to be emulated. Too often, when emotions escalate (as they often do when discussing this issue), logical and exegetical fallacies begin to rule the day, and thus the biblical text is dishonored, even by those who claim it as their final authority.

Reading the Text "Literally"

More as a matter of personal interest, I was especially impressed with Collins's section on history, myth, and worldview story. He carefully defines what he means by each of these terms, venturing to explain some of the details related to reading the biblical text as a piece of carefully constructed literature. This entails study related to literary devices used in the text, the author's laconic style of writing, linguistic considerations, the author's worldview, and the readers' worldview. All of these factors contribute to a "literal" understanding of what the author wrote. Unfortunately, many people confuse a "literal" understanding with a "concrete" understanding, where all words are taken at face-value and are simply interpreted on a "plain reading," which is often insufficient when dealing with complex pieces of literature (like the book of Genesis).

Conclusion

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? is an insightful book that has the potential to help many lay Christians navigate the often tumultuous waters surrounding discussions about humanity's origins. Although not comprehensive in dealing with all the important issues related to the biblical account, Collins's book is a valuable contribution to the conversation, especially in it's accessible depth and nuanced perspective. As I have already said, I think that all Christians would benefit from a careful reading of this book. At the very least, it will be a helpful tool in fostering productive discussions regarding this divisive issue.

This is a well-written and informative book, although it does not answer the question, which probably won't ever be answered this side of Heaven. Collins basically presents 120 pages of helpful and insightful explanatory material, leading up to nine pages which describe six existent scenarios for preserving the historicity of Adam and Eve, which are:

1. Adam and Eve as fresh, de novo creations, with no animal forebears.
2. Adam and Eve as the first members of the genus Homo, approximately two millions year ago.
3. Adam and Eve as historical individuals--the first human beings--originating by God's miraculous intervention approximately 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.
4. Adam as a specially created Neolithic farmer (c. 10,000 B.C.), the first homo divinus.
5. Adam and Eve as a couple of Neolithic farmers to whom God chose to reveal himself in a special way.
6. An unknown number of creatures that God perfected from the animal form, which became the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself, and which were given a new kind of consciousness which knew God, and subsequently fell.

His discussion includes a critique of Denis Alexander's Models as described in Alexander's book "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" He concludes by stating, "I admit that these scenarios leave us with many uncertainties, but these uncertainties in no way undermine our right to hold fast to the Biblical story line with full confidence. In fact, this holding fast actually helps to think well about the scientific questions."

This book is for the most part an expansion of his article "Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why it Matters," published in the September 2010 issue of the American Scientific Association's journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. It includes three appendices, a bibliography, a general index, and a scripture index. It is a good introduction to the issue of the historicity of Adam.

Since the publications of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species the reliability of the Bible has been under vicious attack namely in the area of origins. Questions began to develop under the assumption that Darwin's theory of evolution was correct. Is there really a God? How can we trust the Bible if it's account of the origin of everything is false? Since we know, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory, everything evolved from nothing and man was not the first thing that evolved, then how can we trust the Bibles account of mankind's origins?

This last question strikes at the heart of C. John Collins new book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The historicity of Adam and Eve as the first humans that God created and thus the first parents of every person who ever lived to date and beyond is the issue Collins addresses.

The fundamental issue Collins seeks to address in this regards is how literal did Moses (and God for that matter) intend for future readers to interpret his words concerning the origin of mankind? As simple as it may seem at first, the use of the word `literal' is often misunderstood. When used in context of interpreting the early chapters of Genesis, it can become down right confusing. Confusing, because with every interpretation one reads of the early chapters of Genesis, you will find that everyone believes their interpretation is the literal one. Everyone believes they interpret it as literally as it was intended to be.

Traditionally, the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 that dominated the church for the first 1800 years was that the words were to be taken at face value. That is, God literally exists, He spoke everything into existence in the period of seven days not years (or millions for that matter), God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from rib of Adam, they were the first people created and are the original parents of everyone who ever lived and will live, Eden was a real garden like the one in your backyard, a talking snake (Satan) tempted Eve into sinning and when Adam ate the real fruit (an apple of course) mankind died spiritually, and as part of the curse God made snakes to craw on the ground. Of course there are more details but you get the idea. Until Darwin came along, this was the traditional, orthodox and conservative view of Genesis 1-3 and origins.

But all that has changed now. Collins, who has a doctorate in Hebrew linguistics, believes the church should still interpret Genesis 1-3 literally (there's that word again) - or at least some form of literal interpretation. Collins writes,

"My goal in this study is to show why we should retain a version of the traditional view.....I intend to argue that the traditional position on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the best job of accounting not only for the Biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings (p. 13)."

You will notice that Collins proposes a `version' of the traditional view but not necessarily the traditional view as I described above. In the spirit of C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity, Collins affectionately names his version "mere historical Adan-and-Eve-ism (p. 13)." Collins believes that the traditional view has been misused causing some to dismiss it out of hand (p. 15). Readers should know that Collins is only addressing the historicity of Adam & Eve in Genesis and nothing else.

So what is Collin's version of the traditional view?

In chapter two, The Shape of the Biblical Story, Collins delves into the discussion of Hebrew literary techniques and how understanding them can help us better interpret Scripture, namely Genesis 1-3. Of particular interest is Collins discussion on what the term `history" means. While at the front the use of the word history seems pretty straight forward. To many history is the accounting of how things happened in the past whether it be a history book giving a detailed account of a battle fought in WWI or a husband telling his wife about his day at work or a weekend long work trip. Both are history because they happened in the past but both may not be told in the same fashion. Collins sees history,

"Less as a literary genre, and more as a way of referring to events. That is, if we say that something is (or is not) historical, we are not so much describing the kind of literature it is, as we are the way it talks about (or does not talk about) real events (p. 35)."

What Collins is trying to point out is that in the telling of history, not everyone is going to tell it the same way. You can be literalistic, metaphorical or both. The issue is determining which of the three methods did the author use and if they used both which parts are literalistic and which are metaphorical. Collins proposes that because the author of Genesis 1-3 could be (and he believes he does) using both literal and metaphorical language that we must extract from it the "historical core (p. 35)." Part of what drives this is how Collins interprets and makes use of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) comparative material. He concludes,

"If, as seems likely to me, the Mesopotamian origin and flood stories provide the context against which Genesis 1-11 are to be set, they also provide us with clues on how to read this kind of literature (p. 35)."

Without going into a long discussion, ANE texts of comparative Biblical accounts are strikingly different than the Biblical accounts though they have similar features. Here is where Collins would say they have a common "historical core." That is, though they have differences, they are still trying to write an historical account of some sort of the same event(s). Collins is not saying that Genesis is not trying to give us an account of origins. However, he is trying to be honest and fair with how the author (Moses) is recording those events and what literary devices he might be using. He wants us to interpret it as literally as it was intended to be.

So if Genesis 1-3 is not to be interpreted literalistically (not taking into account any literary devices when interpreting it) then how do the other authors of Scripture interpret it? When they refer to Adam and Eve and creation how literally do they interpret the recording of these events? In this section of the book I expected to see more continuity from the other authors of Scripture but Collins does not really summarize how the other OT authors viewed Genesis 1-3. On the other hand, he gives much more certainty on how the NT writers thought of Adam and Eve. Essentially, Collins believes the NT writers and Jesus thought of Adam and Even as real historical people who really sinned and whose sin effected the rest of mankind. Of Paul's argument in Romans Collins observes, "The more clearly we perceive Paul's narratival argument of Romans the more we will see the reality of Adam as the ancestor of all people being tied up with his argument (p. 88)."

Though the NT writers and Jesus believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve, Collins dosen't believe they interpreted the recording of their existence in Genesis 1-3 literalistically as some do. For Collins it is enough that they existed as the fountainhead of mankind, really sinned and that their sin had lasting consequences on all of mankind.

As mentioned earlier, since the dawn of Darwin, parts of the church have read Genesis' account of origins differently due to scientific discoveries and claims. Collins addresses this area through the use concordism. Concordism is the attempt to harmonize what the Bible says about origins with the claims of scientific theories (p. 105). Essentially, Collins argues that Genesis is not trying to answer the same kinds of detailed and scientific questions modern man is. Again, Collins presses for an historical core that needs to be held onto.

Since there are many theories (and certainly more to come) concerning the origins of mankind how are we to evaluate them in light of the nonnegotiable's we hold from Scripture when it comes to mankind's origins? Collins suggests four criteria in order to help us stay within the bounds of sound thinking:

1. We should see that the origin of the origin of the human race goes beyond a merely natural process. This follows from how hard is it to get a human being, or, more theologically, hoe distinctive is the image of God.
2. We should see Adam & Eve as the headwaters of the human race.
3. The "fall", in whatever form it took, was both historical (it happened) and moral (it involved disobeying God), and occurred at the beginning of the human race.
4. If someone should decide that there were, in fact, more human beings that just Adam & Eve at the beginning of mankind, then, in order to maintain good sense, he should envisions these humans as a single tribe (p. 121).

To be honest I had a hard time separating Collins views from those of others he discusses and critiques. I had to read and re-read several portions of the book and I am still not totally sure I understand where Collins is exactly on some issues. I think there was too much was covered that was not adequately explained which might be the reason for some of my confusion. Collins did make it clear in the beginning of the book that he would not explain everything and wrote with the assumption of some prior knowledge. As such this book is not the place to start for a beginner. For sure Collins does end by saying, "Adam & Eve at the headwaters of the human family, and their fall, are not only what Jesus believed but also an irremovable part of that whole story (p. 135)."

I would also encourage readers who want to grasp a better idea of what Collins thinks to read his other book Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary.

Overall, Did Adam & Eve Really Exist? is not for the beginner to the origins debate concerning Adam & Eve. There are many good insights Collins has but not as many conclusions as I anticipated. This is a short (almost too short) introduction to the current issues surrounding the historicity of Adam & Eve.