I here summarise, without comment or critique, the following article:

Harlow, Daniel C.  ‘After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science’.  Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 62, Number 3, September 2010.

If we accept the modern scientific consensus on the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) and of the earth (4-5 billion years), and of the existence of a multitude of species prior to the appearance of homo sapiens, then a literal, factual reading of Genesis 1-3 becomes problematic.

Whereas Genesis portrays the first human couple as suddenly appearing on the scene a few thousand years ago, the fossil record indicates that human beings evolved gradually over a period of several million years.

The genetic diversity of the present human population suggests that our ancestors were a population of about 10,000 interbreeding individuals living in Africa about  150,000 years ago.

Behaviours that we regard as ‘sinful’ – including including deception, bullying, theft, rape, murder, infanticide, and warfare – are part of the natural repertoire of animals, especially primates.  This provides further evidence of a common genetic heritage of all creatures.

It becomes difficult to suppose that human beings first appeared in a condition of physical and moral perfection.  Rather, they would have had to struggle with adversity of various kinds, and to engage in behaviours that are common to all animals.  Awareness that some of these behaviours were contrary to God’s will would have gradually developed over a long period of time.

What, then, are we to make of the biblical Adam and Eve?  What, in particular becomes of the doctrines of the Fall, original sin and redemption?

Three responses are possible:

1. dispute the science
2. refine one’s interpretation of the Bible to fit with the science
3. ‘assign the Bible and science to two separate spheres of authoritative discourse’

Most Christians accept strategies 2 or 3 to the extent that they now accept a heliocentric solar system and and old earth.  But many are still suspicious about evolution, especially evolution of hominids.

Over against Christian interpretations which see Adam and Eve as ancient or modern ancestors or representatives, is the view which sees them as strictly literary figures – characters in a story which teaches theological, not historical, truth.

The literary genre of Genesis 1-11

The literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is story, not history.  Characters and events have a symbolic meaning, and are to a large extent aetiological,

‘designed to explain the origins or cause of aspects of human life in the world—marriage, sexual desire, and patriarchy; toil in agricultural labor; pain in childbirth; the beginnings of material culture and civilization; diversity in language; and so forth.’

There are similarities, but also significant differences, between these chapters and the myths of the ancient Near East.

Since there are few clues in the rest of the OT, we must take our lead from the text of Genesis 1-11 itself, in comparison with related texts from the ANE.  When we do so, we find that Gen 1-11 is both paradigmatic and protohistorial, consisting of

‘imaginative portrayals of an actual epoch in a never-to-be-repeated past that also bears archetypal significance for the ongoing human situation.’

These chapters, then, contain no history as we would understand it:

‘The author is too distant from the events for the narrative to be historical; the characters have symbolic names and act like stock figures; the episodes look prototypical; the events bear no relation to specific times or datable occurrences; and many details cannot be reconciled with findings in several branches of modern science.’

Relationship with Mesopotamian myths

The early chapters of Genesis offer an inspired retelling of ancient myths in a way that both adapts and critiques them.

In contrast to those myths, Genesis teaches

• the sovereignty of the one trust God, in contrast to the capricious multiple deities of other religions;
• the goodness and finiteness of creation, in contrast to viewing the sun, moon and stars as divine;
• the dignity of humanity as central to God’s plan for creation, in contrast to the understanding humankind as an afterthought, made to relieve the gods of work.

Additionally, Gen 3-11 tells, not an optimistic tale of human progress, but rather a spiritual and moral decline that is due, not to the whim of the gods, but to humanity’s disobedience to the divine will.

In Gen 2-3 we see many points where the writer(s) has borrowed and adapted from Mesopotamian stories:

• a garden paradise of god(s) in the East (e.g., Enki and Ninhursag; Gilgamesh Epic)
• humans created out of clay to cultivate the land (e.g., Enki and Ninmah; Atrahasis Epic; Gilgamesh)
• creation through a process of trial and error (Gen. 2:18–22; Atrahasis)
• a “lady of life” or “lady of the rib” (the goddess Ninti in Enki and Ninhursag)
• acquiring wisdom as becoming like god(s) (Gilgamesh)
• an immortality-conferring plant and a serpent (Gilgamesh; Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld)
• gods keeping immortality from humans (Adapa; Atrahasis; Gilgamesh)
• nakedness as a symbol of primitive life, clothing of civilized life (Gilgamesh)

With the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2), almost all the details of Gen 2-8 derive from Mesopotamian mythology, but transformed in order to teach a very different theology.

Could it be that the parallels imply a cross-cultural memory of actual events?  More likely that people in different cultures have dealt with different challenges (such as the toil of manual labour) and devastating events (such as floods) in similar ways.

Conclusion:

‘No one today takes Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, or Adapa as historical writings; therefore, since early Genesis shares the same literary genre as these older works—and even borrows details from them—it should not be taken as historical either.’

It follows, then, that these chapters do not manifest historical or propositional inspired truth, but rather theological truth, similar to that found in the parables of Jesus.

Two creation accounts

The two creation accounts (Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4a-2:25) are complementary, the one focusing on cosmogony and the other on anthropogony.  But there are contrasts, too, in their portraits of ‘the duration of creation; the precreation scenario; the sequence, contents, and method of the Creator’s work; and the portrait of God and humanity’.

Genesis 1 portrays God as creating an indefinite number of human beings at the same time.  Genesis 2, however, depicts the creation of one man, then animals, and then one woman – all on the one day of creation that it envisions.

The traditional approach is to understand Genesis 2 as backtracking and giving more detail on Day 6 of creation.  But, in order to convey this interpretation the NIV has to render the past tense in Gen 2:8, 19, (‘God created’) as a perfect tense (‘God had created’).  But according to Gen 2:5 no vegetation existed before the creation of the man, and according to Gen 2:19 the Lord God formed (not ‘had formed’) a partner for the man.

In fact, there are so many differences between the two accounts that neither of them can be taken as factual history.

But,

‘If we recognize that the early chapters of Genesis are not historical in our modern sense of the term, then we need not prefer one over the other, or concoct strained translations and harmonizations of them, but may appreciate the distinctive theological message of each.’

Narrative indicators in Genesis 2-3

Many details within the text of Gen 2-3 suggest a symbolic rather than an historical reading:

• ‘The presence of trees, rivers, gold, jewels, cherubim, and other accoutrements links the Garden of Eden with the desert tabernacle and later Israelite sanctuaries, including the Jerusalem temple. Together they evoke the presence and life-giving power of God in a way that makes the garden God’s temple.’  (This point, obviously, relies on a relatively late date for the composition of the text).
• The very names ‘Adam’ (‘human being’) and ‘Eve (‘living one’) are symbolic titles, suggesting a representative role for the couple.  In the text,

‘the word ’adam does not start being used as a proper name until the genealogical note in 5:1–5, after which Adam is never mentioned again.’

• The talking snake is a trickster figure of the sort commonly found in both ancient and modern folklore.  Only in later Jewish and Christian teaching does it become identified with Satan.
• The portrait of God walking and talking in the garden is clearly anthropomorphic.

The story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4 creates problems for the literalist.  Who were the other men who Cain perceived to be a threat to his life, and whom did he marry?

‘“Literal” interpretations of this story fail to take it literally enough; they regard these details as gaps that must be filled. But filling the gaps can be done only by reading into the narrative—not out of it— additional sons and daughters of Adam and Eve born before Cain and Abel. Such desperate attempts to salvage the historicity of the story go against the plain sense of the text, whose details strongly hint that it is not reporting historical events but picturing
paradigmatic ones.’

What about the genealogy?

What are we to make of the genealogy, which stretches from Adam to Noah, in Gen 5?

Such protohistorical genealogies were common enough in the ANE, and served the purpose of asserting a people’s cultural importance, or a dynasty’s legitimacy.  The imagining of lengthy lifespans was also not unusual.  The ages given in Gen 5 are neither arbitrary not realistic, but accord to a particular numbering scheme of Babylonian origin.

The genealogies in Gen 5 and 10 each list ten generations (from Adam to Noah and Noah to Abram respectively).  This observation further strengthens the impression of a schematic (rather than a factual) arrangement.

We can regard the genealogy of Gen 5, then, as a ‘competitive genealogy’, claiming an ancient pedigree for the Hebrew people over against pretensions of Mesopotamian culture.

The branched genealogy of Gen 10 (the ‘Table of Nations’) contains multiple anachronisms.  Many of its 70 national or ethnic entities do not fit the primeval epoch, but belong rather to the first millenium BC.

Genesis reflects the ancient assumption that the origins of cities, nations and peoples could be traced to named individuals.

None of the above reflects adversely on the biblical text.  It simply suggests that we moderns have misread it (not that the ancient authors miswrote it).

Taking Genesis 2-3 on its own terms

Though the doctrines of the Fall and of original sin can be demonstrated from Scripture, they find slight specific support from these chapters.

Genesis does not teach that man was created immortal but became mortal as a result of transgression.  Rather, Gen 3:23f implies that man was mortal from the beginning.

The death of Gen 2:17

‘is not physical death but a kind of living death—an estrangement from God, the garden, and each other that brings with it the painful consciousness of their own mortality and its eventual outcome.’

In Gen 3:17-19, death is not listed as part of God’s punishment.  The punishment is in the form of toilsome labour.

‘According to Genesis, then, human death was a natural part of God’s created world, not part of the fallout of a fall.’

Gen 1:30 suggest primeval vegetarianism, whereas after the flood judgement God allows meat-eating for humans.  This suggests ‘an idealizing extrapolation of how things must have been in the beginning.’  Other Scriptures (e.g. Psa 104:21) mention animal predation as unobjectionable, without any hint that this is linked to any fall from a deathless beginning.

Genesis does not picture the first humans as originally being in a state of spiritual and moral perfection.  This theme is prominent in the teaching of the Latin church fathers and the Reformers, but not in the Orthodox tradition.  Some of the early Greek fathers viewed the story of Adam and Eve as a ‘coming of age’; a movement, not from perfection but from immaturity; ‘a “falling up” that was also a falling out with and falling away from God’.   In this view:

‘The first couple’s humanity was not given to them complete but was a work in progress. God created them neither mortal nor immortal, neither good nor bad (morally speaking), but neutral and free.’

Genesis does not teach that the sin of Adam and Eve infected all subsequent humanity:

‘The narrative does not envision either a fall or original sin as traditionally conceived, but as only the first instance of the common human tendency toward self-assertion, present from the very beginning. There is no indication in the
biblical text that the first couple passed on to their descendants either their guilt or a newly acquired inclination to sin. In Genesis, Adam and Eve’s sin is neither the greatest sin nor the cause of all future humanity’s sins but only the first in a series of sins.’

In Gen 4-11, there is a series of stories that illustrate the truth of Gen 8:21 – ‘the inclination of the human heart
is evil from youth’.  These illustrations include Cain’s murder of Abel, Lamech’s blood lust, the wickedness of the flood generation, the hubris of the Babel builders.

The main themes of the Adam and Eve story are not sin and death but knowledge and immortality.  To possess the ‘knowledge of good evil’ is to arbitrate between right and wrong without reference to the divine will.  It brings with it ‘ shameful selfawareness, the burden of adult responsibility, and a world of pain they had not anticipated.’

The tree of life is yet more enigmatic, prompting questions such as:

‘Why did the LORD God not forbid eating from this tree? Did the man and woman eat of it before their expulsion from the garden? If not, why? And why only after they have eaten of the other tree is God alarmed at the prospect of their eating from this one and becoming immortal? What, indeed, is the relation of the two trees?’

Whatever the Adam and Eve story tell us about sin, it does not tell us that sin is unavoidable.  As the Lord says to Cain: ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it’

Paul’s Adam-Christ Typology

Luke has bare mention of Adam in a genealogy which appears to have a somewhat symbolic and schematic arrangement.  He also records Paul as saying that ‘From one man (henos) [God] made every nation of humanity to dwell upon the entire face of the earth’ (Acts 17:26).

Apart from this, Paul is the only NT writer to mention the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent.

Rom 5:12 – ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all because all sinned.’

1 Cor 5:21f – ‘For since death (came) through a human being, so also resurrection of the dead (has come) through a human being; for just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’

Conservative expositors insist that because Christ was an historical figure, so also Adam must be.

But this is contested.  Dunn, for example, says that the comparison can be meaningful even if one side is mythical history and the other living history.

To be sure, Paul would have regarded Adam as an historical figure, but his argument does not stand or fall on that assumption.

In Rom 5:12, Paul says that sin entered the world ‘through’ (not ‘because of’) one man, and that death spread to all ‘because’ all sinned.

Paul does not teach that human nature underwent a fundamental change because of Adan’s sin.  Adam stands at the head of the human race not in a causal role, but rather a representative role.

Justin Martyr wrote that human beings, ‘having become like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves … and shall be judged and convicted as were Adam and Eve.’

It was not Paul, but Jerome, who initiated the doctrine of original sin.  For it was Jerome who translated Rom 5:12 as saying that Adam was the one ‘in whom’ (in quo) the entire human race sinned.  This was taken up by Augustine.

The death which entered the world through Adam, according to Paul, is not cessation of physical life, but spiritual death – estrangement from God.

Paul appears to reason from solution to plight – from Christ’s saving work to humanity’s need for redemption.  Thus,

‘Rather than Adam being a model or image for humanity or even the first real human being, it is Christ who is both. Christ is the first true human being, and Christ is the image of God and the ‘model’ for Adam.’ (Quoting Bouteneff)

Rethinking the Fall and Original Sin

The story of Adam and Eve can scarecely be central to the Bible’s teaching on sin and salvation.  If it were, we would expect it to be referred to elsewhere in the OT, in the teaching of Jesus, and in the apostolic message as recorded in Acts.

Nevertheless, Augustinian notions of the Fall and original sin should be retained, but not with modification.

Evolutionary biology confirms the Pauline and Augustinian instincts about the universality of human sin and the inability of humans to overcome their inherited tendency to sin.  Conversely, the absolute necessity of divine grace to forgive and transform is also confirmed.

On the other hand, evolutionary biology explains that we are united in sin, not because of some primeval couple who fell from a state of original righteousness, but because we share a biological and cultural predisposition to sin.

At the heart of a evolutionary explanation of original sin is the idea that we have developed an overriding inclination for self-preservation at the expense of others.  Such behaviour becomes culpable when we have developed the insight that comes from self-awareness (and God-awareness).

Original sin, then, is not due some single primeval event (the Fall), but rather the repeated falls committed by moral agents.  And

‘Humanity’s constant falling away is not a descent from some primordial state of integrity but a failure to live up to a divinely posed ideal. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).’

This is not to accuse God of being responsible for our tendency to sin, but rather to realise that he has endowed the natural order with a freedom that results in self-oriented (and therefore sinful) behaviour.

We understand redemption to tell of

‘a new humanity inaugurated in Jesus Christ, whom God sent into the world in suffering solidarity with a groaning creation—to be the vanguard of a new creation full of new creatures destined to be transformed and drawn up into the life and fellowship of the triune God (e.g., Rom. 8:18–32; 1 Cor. 15:28; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17; Eph. 1:10; 2:15; Col. 1:20).’