Journal: Pneumatikos
Volume: PNEUMATIKOS 16:1 (Spring 2025)
Article: Reviews
Author: Anonymous

Pneumatikos 16:1 (Spring 2025) p. 121

Reviews

Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views. Edited by Kenneth D. Keathley. Contributions by Kenton L. Sparks, William Lane Craig, Andrew Loke, and Marcus R. Ross. Afterword by S. Joshua Swamidass. Brentwood, TN: B. & H. Academic, 2024. Paperback. 240 pp. $24.99. ISBN: 978–1–087764–90–0.

Reviewed by:
Hannah Klein

Missouri Association for Creation
St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Introduction

This new book concerning origins, creation, and the Bible delineates the proceedings of a 2022 colloquium at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC) concerning the historical Adam and Eve. Four Christian scholars presented their views to an audience of theologians, scientists, philosophers, and other scholars. The book is composed mainly of the four papers presented. The overall tone is one shaped by a genuine effort toward Christian charity and understanding; even though the four participants do vehemently disagree, the presentation and responses are done in a spirit of mutual respect and condsideration. This steers the discussion from unhelpful rhetoric and allows for a clearer presentation of the various approaches themselves.

The Nonhistorical Adam And Eve View: Affirming The Authority Of God

Kenton L. Sparks believes that Genesis portrays Adam as a historical character but does not affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. This is because of textual reasons (outside of Genesis 1–11) which he argues demonstrate that Scripture contains errors as well as morally objectionable laws (pp. 23–24). Sparks holds that “the Bible’s authority is derivative

Pneumatikos 16:1 (Spring 2025) p. 122

rather than final,” by which he means “the Bible is not the ultimate source of theology but rather one of several penultimate sources that depend on God as the ultimate source of authority and insight” (p. 45). With this approach, Sparks maintains that we are not required to accept Scriptural evidence of the historicity of Adam; we should, instead, “believe whatever it is that God has allowed us to understand through our careful reading of Scripture and our careful study of God’s world” (p. 42).

To be clear, Sparks holds that the scientific data is more objective than biblical data, and, therefore, should hold precedence as we consider the Adam question: “Though interpretation is involved in our assessments of both biblical and scientific evidence, the scientific evidence tends to force everyone towards the same kinds of answers, whereas the biblical evidence does not” (p. 26).

While acknowl...