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

by C. John Collins

Overview

"We need a real Adam and Eve if we are to make sense of the Bible and of life," argues C. John Collins. Examining the biblical storyline as the worldview story of the people of God, Collins shows how that story presupposes a real Adam and Eve and how the modern experience of life points to the same conclusion.  

 Applying well-informed critical thinking to common theological and scientific questions, Collins asserts the importance of a real man at the beginning in God's plan for creation, a plan that includes "redemption" for all people since sin entered the world.    

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? addresses both biblical and Jewish texts and contains extensive appendices to examine how the material in Genesis relates to similar material from Mesopotamian myths. Collins's detailed analysis of the relevant texts will instill confidence in readers that the traditional Christian story equips them better than any alternatives to engage the life that they actually encounter in the modern world. 

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781433524288
Publisher:	Crossway
Publication date:	05/04/2011
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	192
File size:	512 KB

About the Author

C. John Collins (PhD, University of Liverpool) is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He has been a research engineer, church-planter, and teacher. He was the Old Testament Chairman for the English Standard Version Bible and is author of The God of Miracles, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, and Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. He and his wife have two grown children.

C. John Collins (PhD, University of Liverpool) is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He has been a research engineer, church-planter, and teacher. He was the Old Testament Chairman for the English Standard Version Bible and is author of The God of Miracles, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, and Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. He and his wife have two grown children.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

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 human beings are descended, and whose disobedience to God brought sin into human experience. Educated Western Christians today probably do not grant much weight to this historical consensus: after all, they may reason, for much of the church's history most Christians thought that creation took place in the recent past over the course of six calendar days, and even that the earth was the physical center of the universe. I agree with those who argue that we do not change the basic content of Christianity if we revise these views, even when the revisions are drastic. As I see it, effective revisions are the ones that result from a closer reading of the Bible itself — that is, when after further review (as the football referees say) many scholars no longer think that the Bible "teaches" such things. Well, then: May we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well, without threat to the faith?

What reasons might lead someone to abandon belief in a real Adam and Eve? Of course, different people will be moved by different factors. For example, some theologians and philosophers think it is impossible that you and I could be affected at our deepest level by anything done long ago. Or, there is the fact that the themes in Genesis parallel themes that we find in stories from other ancient Near Eastern cultures; this leads some theologians to conclude that Genesis is just as "mythical" in its intentions and meanings as these other stories are. 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 the features of human DNA seem to require that the human population has always had at least as many as a thousand members.

One factor that allows these appeals to the biological sciences to get serious attention from traditionally minded theologians is the work of Francis Collins, the Christian biologist who led the Human Genome Project to a successful conclusion. Collins has written about how his faith relates to his scientific discipline, advocating a kind of theistic evolution that he calls the "Biologos" perspective. Collins agrees with those biologists who contend that traditional beliefs about Adam and Eve are no longer viable.

A colleague of mine, a specialist in studying world mission, assures me that most contemporary Christians around the world still hold to the traditional perspective on Adam and Eve. They have this perspective in common, for all their disagreements on such questions as how long ago the first couple lived, or on how their sin and guilt are transmitted to us their children. Again, educated Westerners might not find this "consensus" particularly compelling; but the fact that there is a worldwide church, as I shall argue, should help to make the traditional position appealing to us.

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. 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 — an experience that includes sin as something that must be forgiven (by God and our fellow human beings) and that must be struggled against as defiling and disrupting a good human life.

We will look first at the shape of the Biblical story — from creation to fall to redemption and final consummation — and the worldview that rides on that story, and see whether it requires an historical Adam and Eve and an 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.

Back in 1941, during the dark early days of the Second World War, C. S. Lewis began a series of broadcast talks aimed at defending Christian faith. He determined as much as possible to stay within the bounds of "mere Christianity" — a term he attributed to the great English Puritan pastor Richard Baxter (1615–1691). His goal was to focus on the core of Christianity that was common to all traditional Christian denominations. In my admiration for Lewis's model, I both will make "mere Christianity" my stance throughout this book and will christen the position I am arguing for here "mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism" — a much less elegant title than Lewis's, with no distinguished Englishman as its coiner. That is, I am not entering here into distinctions between various Christian positions on such topics as: the origin of the material for Adam's body, or how long ago he lived; the meaning of "the image of God"; how the sin of Adam and Eve comes to affect us; the process by which Genesis 1–2 came to be part of the same book. In fact, even though I will give some critical examination to some of the specific views that Francis Collins presents, I am not at this point offering a critique of the Biologos perspective as a whole. Although all of these topics are indeed important matters, worthy of deep discussion, I do not consider agreement on them to be crucial for the traditional view I am advocating here. Keeping to this plan, I will finish my argument with a description of some sample scenarios for a scientific understanding of human origins; I will evaluate these scenarios for how true or untrue they are to "mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism": I am not endorsing any one scenario, but seeking to explore how the traditional position might relate to questions of paleoanthropology.

I recognize that for some, simply establishing that Bible writers thought a certain way is enough to persuade them; that is how Biblical authority functions for them. However, I do not assume that approach here: some may agree that a Bible writer "thought" a certain way, but disagree that the writer's way of thinking is crucial to the Bible's argument — in which case we need not follow that way of thinking. Others might even agree with me about the Bible writer's thoughts, and the place of those thoughts in the argument, but suggest that the writer speaks as a child of his time. Therefore I need to examine the arguments of the Biblical writers, and to see whether their arguments do the best job of explaining the world we all encounter.

Obviously I am writing this book as a Christian: why else would I put any stress on what Biblical writers thought and how the Biblical story flows? If you are not a Christian believer, or if you have serious doubts about whether the Christian faith really holds any water, you might think that this approach is futile, or circular, or — even worse — boring. But think of the deepest intuitions you have about your own existence: that your life is real and meaningful, that you want others to treat you right, that there is something wrong at the heart of things, that there is still real beauty in the world, that sometimes people do really admirable things, and sometimes really abominable things (often enough it's the same people!), and that you hope there is some explanation for life's complexities. I am persuaded that the Christian faith, and especially the Biblical tale of Adam and Eve, actually helps us to make sense of these intuitions, by affirming them and by providing a big story that they fit into. I have a lot of respect for the work of science, and I hope you do too. At the same time, I will insist that for a scientific understanding to be good, it must account for the whole range of evidence, including these intuitions we share.

You will notice that I have said "a version of" and "some variation of" the traditional ideas. One of my themes throughout will be the importance of good critical thinking, and one of the basic principles of that thinking is expressed in Latin as abusus usum non tollit, "Abuse does not take away proper use." It is entirely possible that some killjoy has used a traditional view of the first sin of Adam and Eve to make all of life dour and mournful, to quell all delight in pleasure and beauty. But that would be a misuse, and the possibility of misuse is therefore not a logically valid argument against the traditional view. And supposing that we do find some difficulties: that may mean that we should try making some adjustments to the traditional view, but it does not of itself mean that we ought to junk the traditional view altogether.

Good critical thinking also requires us to be careful in how we approach some of the terms traditionally used, such as "the fall" and "original sin." When people deny historical Adam and Eve for theological and philosophical reasons, they are commonly objecting to these ideas. I cannot always tell, however, whether the objection is to some version of these ideas, or to every one of them. As I have just observed, though, even if we are right in rejecting one version, that does not mean we are right in rejecting all versions. Further, it simply will not do to argue that since the Bible does not use these terms, therefore they are "un-Biblical": most people have been well aware of the philological fact that these terms are absent from the Biblical text, and have used the terms as a theological shorthand. To the extent that I use the terms myself, I employ them as a shorthand as well: I am implying, not simply that humans are "sinful" (which is something we all can see), but that the sinfulness was not part of our original makeup; it derives from some primal rebellion on the part of our first ancestors. I am therefore not developing a "doctrine" of original sin, since I am not trying to explain how that primal rebellion comes to affect all of us.

Whenever we read something, we ought to pay attention to what kind of literature it is. Certainly the book of Genesis includes Adam and Eve in its story, using a narrative, which is "history-like" in its form. But just identifying that form does not of itself settle anything; there are at least four possible ways of taking the material in 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.

I am going to argue that option (2) best captures what we find in Genesis, and best explains how the Bible and human experience relate to Adam and Eve. There is an irony about option (1): it is held both by many traditional Christians, especially those who are called "young earth creationists," and by many Biblical scholars who endorse what is called "historical criticism" (an approach toward studying the Bible books oriented toward discerning how they came to be composed, which often assumes that the traditional view is oversimplified). The difference is that the young earth creationists think that Genesis was telling the truth, and the critical scholars think that Genesis is largely incorrect in its history. Mind you, this does not mean that critical scholars find no value in Genesis; they will commonly resort to something like option (4).

The critical Biblical scholars will often (though not always) deny that Adam and Eve were real people, though they agree that the author of Genesis intended to write of real people. Those who follow option (3) say that the author never intended for us to think of Adam and Eve as real, while those who follow option (4) say that it simply does not matter. When a particular scholar denies that Adam and Eve were historical, I cannot always tell which interpretive option he or she has followed; sometimes I wonder if the scholar himself knows! Of course, all of us, traditional and otherwise, run the danger of starting with the affirmation or denial of a real Adam and Eve, and then looking for a way of reading the Bible to support our starting point.

I have said that I will argue for option (2), which leads us to discuss whether rhetorical and literary techniques are even proper for the kind of narratives we find in the Bible. It is pretty plain that, overall, the Biblical writers, including the narrators, have used a great deal of pictorial and symbolic language, and that might strike us as a shortcoming on their part. How are we supposed to connect that kind of writing with history in the real world? We face the same kind of difficulty when we read Biblical descriptions of the future: they are heavily symbolic, and it is easy for us to conclude that they therefore have no connection to any experience that real people will ever have. As usual, C. S. Lewis has some helpful advice here:

There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of "Heaven" ridiculous by saying they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it. People who take the symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.

Well, I certainly want to be the kind of reader that Lewis would count as a "grown-up," which means that I will try to take the imagery for what it is — a tool that helps me to picture something — without doubting that the images are about something real. But of course this challenges us to ask what the imagery is actually about; how do we keep from making the mistake of concluding that the presence of symbolism means the story is merely symbolic?

All of us make judgments like this; they are part of being functional in a culture. After all, you probably do not run outside to catch yourself a new pet when it is "raining cats and dogs." And if your best friend tells you that "the whole world" knows about your bad temper, you probably should not spend any time discussing whether there are exceptions. Most of us have some rule-of-thumb criteria that we use for making these judgments; possibly if we put those criteria into words they would not stand up to cross-examination. That is fine for everyday communication, but if we want to say what makes a better or worse interpretation of a sacred text whose author is long dead, it is worth our while to see if we can explain what we are doing when we make sound judgments, making every effort to be true to what we know is good human behavior.

Working on this project has given me the chance to try to make formal some of my own rule-of-thumb criteria that I have learned to use for making this kind of judgment when I read the Bible. Three questions turn out to be helpful in this study (there might be others to add for some other study), and you will see how I apply them throughout my argument.

(1) How does the person or event impact the basic story line? My study of the Bible has convinced me that the authors were self-consciously interpreting their world in terms of an over-arching worldview story. Does making the persons or events "merely symbolic" distort the shape of the story?

(2) How have other writers, especially Biblical ones, taken this person or event? Any notion of Biblical authority requires me to respect what Biblical writers see; common sense requires me to check what I see against what others see, especially those who are closer to the original time and culture than I am. This is one reason I will not confine my conversation partners to people who already agree with me!

(3) How does this person or event relate to ordinary human experience? The Biblical writers, like the other authors from the ancient world that I will consider, were trying to enable their audience to live in the world as they found it. There are many intuitions we all share, such as our craving for God, our need for forgiveness, our yearning for human community governed by love and justice. Most cultures tell stories to give an historical reason for these needs, and some explanation for how they can be met, mollified, explained away, or denied. The Biblical approach to these rings true.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?"
by .
Copyright © 2011 C. John Collins.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 9

1 Introduction 11

2 The Shape of the Biblical Story 23

2.a Story and Worldview 23

2.b History, Myth, and Worldview Story 28

2.c Features of the Biblical Story 41

3 Particular Texts That Speak of Adam and Eve 51

3.a Genesis 1-5 52

3.b Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Fall in the Rest of the Old Testament 66

3.c Second Temple Jewish Literature 72

3.d The Gospels 76

3.e The Pauline Writings 78

3.f Elsewhere in the New Testament 90

4 Human Uniqueness and Dignity 93

4.a The Image of God 93

4.b Universal Human Experiences: Yearning for Justice, Need for God 100

5 Can Science Help Us Pinpoint "Adam And Eve"? 105

5.a Does the Bible Connect to History and Science? The Problem of "Concordism" 106

5.b Making Sure We Read the Bible Well 111

5.c Criteria for Good Scenarios 116

5.d A Sampling of Scenarios Examined 121

6 Conclusions 133

6.a What I Think I Have Shown 133

6.b Why I Think It Matters 133

6.c A Concluding (and Unacademic) Anecdote: How to Grieve 135

Appendices

1 Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Genesis I-II 137

2 Review of James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality 161

3 The Date of Genesis 167

Bibliography 171

General Index 183

Scripture and Apocrypha Index 189

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher

“Dr. Collins has presented a careful defense of the existence of the historical Adam and Eve. This methodologically rigorous study reflects a critical awareness of contemporary discussions on both biblical and extra-biblical literature and further contributes to the wider discussion on science and religion. Perhaps more importantly, he has successfully demonstrated the theological significance of this traditional reading, all the while using language that an informed layperson can digest and engage. This work deserves to be widely circulated.”
—David W. Pao, Chair of the New Testament Department, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Working through questions of myth and history, Bible and science, harmonization and complementarity, Collins brings fresh arguments to stimulate wide-ranging thought and improved appreciation of the way the first chapters of the Bible affect the whole.”
—Alan Millard, Emeritus Rankin Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages, The University of Liverpool

“I could hardly imagine a more honest book on this controversial topic. Its openness (in a user-friendly format) is no naivety—it is combined with undeniable competence on the ancient Near East, recent literature, and methodological discussions. Standing firm on vital issues, accepting diversity on others, the reader meets in C. John Collins a sensitive and godly guide.”
—Henri A. Blocher, former Gunther Knoedler Professor of Systematic Theology, Wheaton College Graduate School

“Few scholars are better equipped than Professor C. John Collins to provide a well-informed, up-to-date assessment of what may and may not be known about Adam and Eve. With clarity, Collins offers a balanced discussion of the relationship between Genesis 2–3 and current theories on the origins of the human race. Recognizing the limitations of human knowledge, he highlights the vital contribution made by the Genesis account for understanding the human predicament. Marked by both erudition and sanity, here is a book worth reading.”
—T. Desmond Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Union Theological College

“In a sense, the way one reads the first few chapters of Genesis will determine his or her way of reading the whole Bible. Dr. Collins has expounded in a lucid manner how the original narrator intended this vital part of the Bible to be read. Cogency combines with erudition to make this book worthy of appreciation by those who do not espouse his general stance, as well as by readers who may be unaware of their own premises.”
—Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Professor of Old Testament, Tokyo Christian University

“This book will boost your confidence in the Bible, especially in its capacity to address a common experience of all peoples. By treating the Bible as Scripture, Collins has modeled for us how Christians should approach the faith-science questions. The Bible has answers to the human predicaments and needs. Only if what it says is true can we truly make sense and move forward in this sinful world. The real payoff of this book goes beyond the unequivocal biblical witness of Adam and Eve’s historical existence. For it is the human dignity based on our common ancestry and a shared perception of sensing the abnormality of this world that open a way for the redemption and restoration of all peoples through the real life and works of the second Adam.”
—Natee Tanchanpongs, Academic Dean, Bangkok Bible Seminary

“I commend this book merely for the courage of taking the adventure in addressing this debated issue biblically and scientifically. Even if the reader does not fully agree with Collins’s conclusions he/she is compelled to listen carefully to his arguments.”
—Riad A. Kassis, Regional Director, Overseas Council for Middle East, North Africa, and Central Europe; Adjunct Professor of Old Testament, Arab Baptist Theological Seminary, Lebanon

“It is not often that a book in this controversial field of human origins takes seriously both the Bible (in terms of textual exegesis, literary form, and theological coherence) and science (in terms of its findings and its theoretical possibilities). Jack Collins does both with graciously applied scholarship, conviction, and humility, making very clear where biblical faithfulness requires us to be uncompromisingly affirmative, and where there is room for varying opinion over possible scenarios that could be consistent with such biblical conviction.”
—Christopher J. H. Wright, International Ministries Director, Langham Partnership