This is part 2 of our critique of Rachel Held Evans’ book titled Inspired. For Part 1 click here. Lord willing part 2 and 3 of our series will look at chapter 1 of the book which is on “Origin Stories.”
On page 9 Rachel Held Evans stated the following concerning the Bible’s origin story in the book of Genesis:
Origin stories are rarely straightforward history. Over the years, they morph into a colorful amalgam of truth and myth, nostalgia and cautionary tale, the shades of their significance brought out by the particular light of a particular moment.
Contrary to what many of us are told, Israel’s origin stories weren’t designed to answer scientific, twenty-first-century questions about the beginning of the universe or the biological evolution of human beings, but rather were meant to answer then-pressing, ancient questions about the nature of God and God’s relationship to creation. Even the story of Adam and Eve, found in Genesis 2 and 3, is thought by many scholars to be less a story about human origins and more a story about Israel’s origins, a symbolic representation of Israel’s pattern of habitation, disobedience, and exile, set in primeval time.
In her own words Rachel Held Evans sees the Bible’s origin story to be in the same league with other origin stories. And origin stories in her own words “are rarely straightforward history.” As she later explained this means that Genesis 2-3 is “less a story about human origins and more a story about Israel’s origins.” Evans therefore sees Genesis 2-3 as “a symbolic representation of Israel’s pattern.”
There’s so much to say with just these two paragraphs. Here’s my response:
- First off be very careful whenever you see someone say “many scholars believe…” Note Evans said “the story of Adam and Eve, found in Genesis 2 and 3, is thought by many scholars…” She has a end note at the end of that sentence. Unfortunately in her the end note she only cited one scholar. The one scholar she cited is Peter Enns. Enns himself is quite controversial and is far from being representative of many scholars. In part 1 we already noted the serious defect of his methodology. Furthermore in a recent post I also pointed out how he continue his habit of getting the Bible wrong even with straight-forward noncontroversial facts about the Bible. Since Genesis 2-3 is a major point of disagreement for Evans to say “many scholars” hold her view without further documentation for such a controversial and debated view she subscribe to is rather a questionable rhetorical tactic. It is dishonest.
- While I do see Genesis 2-3 has applications and is insightful for our understanding of Israel I disagree with Evans that Genesis 2-3 is “less a story about human origins.” Note by the way she doesn’t prove her claim in the two paragraphs quoted above nor does she provides any argument for her claim in the rest of the chapter. Evans has simply asserted that Genesis 2-3 is “less a story about human origins.” But an assertion is not the same thing as a sound argument for something.
- In the same vein Evans assume and has not demonstrated that Genesis 2-3 as an origin story is “rarely straightforward history.”
- We must be conscious of our methodology. Obviously Evans takes the view that Genesis 2-3 is “less a story about human origins.” My view is the opposite: Genesis 2-3 is MORE about human origins and less about Israel’s origin only. How would we know which view is right?
- If God meant for Genesis 2-3 to be understood symbolically, we should ask the question of how God in the rest of the Bible interpret Genesis 1-2.
- If the rest of the Bible as God’s Word interpret Genesis 2-3 literally such as believing in a literal Adam and Eve, then we ought to see this as how God’interpret Genesis 2-3. That should also be our interpretation of Genesis 2-3 also.
- Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 references Genesis 2-3: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
- Note here that Paul is referencing the fall of man and woman in Genesis 3.
- He understood the order of who fell into the sin the “straightforward” way as Genesis 3 tells us. This interpretation is contrary to Evans seeing origin story as not being straightforward.
- Also Paul’s use of Genesis 2-3 in the context of 1 Timothy 2:13-14 shows that Genesis 2-3 is understood to be more than just about the story of Israel’s origin. Note that Paul was using Genesis 2-3 in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 to apply to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:1) who had a Gentile father but also Genesis 2-3 is applied to the church in Ephesus. Ephesus as a church in Asia Minor would have included Gentiles as the Epistles to Ephesus suggests. It would not make sense to see Genesis 2-3 as “more of an Israel’s origin” story. Rather it makes better sense to see Genesis 2-3 as being about human origin since the truth it contain is relevant for those who were not Israel.
- Remember 1 Timothy is an epistle (letter). This “straight forward” literary form of an “epistle” reveals to us that God’s Word interpret Genesis 2-3 literally.
- Paul’s preaching of the Gospel to Athenian philosophers presupposes Adam as the father of all: “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Again you see Genesis 2-3 is more an origin story of humanity rather than it being more an origin story of only Israel.
- While I don’t think the Bible’s creation story in Genesis 2-3 narrates humanity’s origin with “scientific, twenty-first-century” standard of precision nevertheless that does not mean Genesis 2-3 cannot present a narrative of origin of humanity (and not just Israel) nor does it mean Genesis 2-3 cannot narrate God’s creation in a straight forward and direct manner. She’s making an either-or fallacy here. In fact this won’t be the last time you see her commit this type of logical fallacy.
It seems to me that the first chapter is already off with a bad start. It is disappointing both biblically and logically.
Thanks for this examination of chapter one of Held Evan’s. I know that it’s difficult spiritually to wade deep into attacks on God’s Word.
Indeed; added to the difficulty for me is where I have to read and re-read something to not misrepresent her but also its difficult when something is so off, I have this feeling of “Where do we begin?” which I imagine you probably know that feeling too…
RE: I have this feeling of “Where do we begin?” which I imagine you probably know that feeling too…
Argh! Yup, I know that feeling well.
Thanks for doing this, she makes a living out of mocking and doubting the Word, in my opinion. Have read some excerpts from this book and its no different. People are drawn in though, through carefully woven stories and they don’t even realize what is happening. 😦
Thank you for sharing your insight from your own reading of excerpts of the book. There is a mocking and also condescending tone to the book. I think when she speaks with a condescending mood she’s prone to misrepresent other Christians which is rather disappointing. Lord willing when I do part 3 we will cover one such example in chapter 1. I hope you’ll stick around for the next installment of this series. Again thank you for your input sister.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks Vincent for the reblog; how are you doing?
Yankee Whiskey Bravo and I’m doing well my friend 😁
Whose side are we on.? There are only two.
Amen. She is not on the Lord’s side.
When folks say that The Holy Scriptures are inaccurate and have nothing to do with science, I get very annoyed. Thank you for this, Jim. Speaking of science and The Bible, I did a post way back in 2010 called The First Day . When you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts on it.
I will check it out tonight along with picking up my reading of your comics…I’ll be busy with lunch pastoral visitation and prep for tonight’s Bible study (followed by late dinner with the guys as fellowship). I didn’t know you blogged for that long; when did you first started on WordPress?
According to my archives, that was my first post, October 16, 2010. Been a long time. 🙂
Well done, Jim. I know it’s hard work to review something like this as there’s so much error and assertion to respond to. But you’re exposing her error using exegesis, whereas she claims no one has ever done that.
I missed part one and need to go back and look at it. However, this is what I thought as I read the snippet from Evans. Not having known about Evans or where she was coming from except for what i just read, I can see how someone could get easily drawn in by her mild manners and subtleties.
For instance, she wrote, “Contrary to what many of us are told, Israel’s origin stories weren’t designed to answer scientific, twenty-first-century questions about the beginning of the universe or the biological evolution of human beings, but rather were meant to answer then-pressing, ancient questions about the nature of God and God’s relationship to creation.”
For the most part, she is correct. The history of Israel’s origin, as told in the Bible were not designed to answer scientific, 21st century questions…But notice how she gently slips in the part, “biological evolution of human beings,” in the middle of “questions about the beginning of the universe,” and “God and God’s relationship to creation.She then goes on to tell us, in her equally mild manner, that Adam and Eve was just a story explaining the origin of Israel.
If someone were not careful, they could easily gloss over those seemingly innocent statements and become trapped by ideas that sound biblical but are far from it.
I hope I made sense…
It totally makes sense what you said. Very keen observation I might add. She works with subtleties…and makes a good point in the beginning but then jumps to conclusions that does not follow from it. Its a lesson on discernment. Thanks for your input brother Patrick.
[…] 2.) Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 2: Chapter 1 and Adam being Symbolic of I… […]
Grateful you have taken this on, Pastor Jim.
You’re welcome! Lord willing I continue this series, there’s so much that is wrong I don’t know where to begin sometimes. Pray that I accurately portray her view, refute it logically and biblically and the Lord use these posts to warn and to demolish all stronghold that sets itself up against God’s Word. You have a blessed Lord’s Day Maria!
Pastor Jim, I will pray. Have a blessed Lord’s Day too!
Reblogged this on Pilgrim’s Progress revisited – Christiana on the narrow way and commented:
SLIMJIM continues to analyze Rachel Held Evans’s popular but ungodly book. Thank you, Pastor Jim!
Just got back from Church. Thank you for reblogging this and also I appreciated your prayers! Lord willing part 3 will be rolling out sometime this upcoming week!
YW! It’s important. God bless you, dear busy brother!
[…] 3 of our critique of Rachel Held Evans’ book titled Inspired. For part 1 click here for part 2 click here. In this post we will finish up our look at the rest of chapter 1 of the […]
To be fair on her, her target audience (general population) is dictating the brevity in her arguments. I don’t think she intended to write a robust academic essay, depending it point by point, citing multiple scholars for and against.
Have you ever tried to date when the pentateuch was written or who wrote it? Start throwing in authors intent and one gets quite a lengthy, esoteric discussion-book-tome on minutia almost no one in the real world would be interested in.
Clearly saying, Genesis 2-3 is ‘a story about Israel’s origins, a symbolic representation of Israel’s pattern of habitation, disobedience, and exile, set in primeval time’ speaks into the human authors intent… Oh… Who wrote it? When did they write it? Who did they write it to? What contemporary issues were they trying to address?
Many in scripture say ‘Moses’ wrote Genesis. Did he? Or does this mean a tradition of authors coming under the banner of ‘Moses’ wrote it? Or maybe Moses wrote the fragments which were later redacted by one or more people…
Many in scripture interpret the scripture in ways which could be argued the author never originally intended? Enns is big on this if you listen to him. Interpret 1 Cor 10.4 or Heb 7.15-17 for me please….
Evans is not going into all this because her target audience is at the popular level.
It’s strange how in the beginning and end of your comment you said she’s writing at a popular level and not at an academic level as if my post is faulting her for writing at a popular level. That’s not what I’m doing and clearly that’s a misrepresentation. Just because I’m pointing out the inadequacy of her citation for the source of her claim that “many scholars” (as opposed to “some scholars”) hold a certain view of origin stories that doesn’t necessitate I’m unfairly demanding as you called it “a robust academic essay, depending it point by point, citing multiple scholars for and against.” That would be a strawman fallacy on your part. Yet isn’t ironic and hypocritical that your comment impose that very thing upon me as a blogger when you require of me the dating of the material from Genesis 2-3, asking for the sitz im leben of the Pentateuch, asking me to interpret 1 Corinthians 10:4, Hebrews 7:15-17 in comparison or contrast with Enn’s Christo-telic Incarnational Model?
It’s interesting how in this post I’m dealing with the immediate quotation I offered from Evans and your comment goes tangent to things she didn’t bring up in the chapter nor did I write about in the post (Mosaic authorship, redaction criticism, etc). Your comment reminds me of how some first year seminary students would act, who having a little bit of an academic education suddenly has the strong urge for tangents and red herring fallacies to show how much he knows.
You’ve taken a bit of time writing your series so well done.
“It’s strange how in the beginning and end of your comment you said” “That would be a strawman fallacy on your part.” By way of explanation you faulted her for saying ‘many scholars’ and only citing one to argue that point. For me, this doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t ‘many’ scholars holding to her view – because she only quoted one. If someone looked at Enns more academic work one would find ‘several’ if not ‘many’ scholars. The difference between ‘many’ and ‘some’ seems a bit pedantic to me.
I just gave what I think a valid reason why she only quoted one (writing to the popular level) and not many (which is what an academic essay would do).
“Yet isn’t ironic and hypocritical that your comment impose that very thing upon me as a blogger …”. I didn’t mean to impose that on you, I apologise if you felt that way. What I intended was to get a general acknowledgement that these issues are in play in the background of what she is talking about, but expecting them to play out in a book written at the popular level can be unreasonable.
I would have thought authorship and intent were the part of the underlying rationale for her argument that Gen 2-3 is ‘a story about Israel’s origins, a symbolic representation of Israel’s pattern of habitation, disobedience, and exile, set in primeval time’. I don’t think that makes it tangential?
“Your comment reminds me of how some first year seminary students would act, who having a little bit of an academic education suddenly has the strong urge for tangents and red herring fallacies to show how much he knows” I’m not sure how to respond to this.
1.) “By way of explanation you faulted her for saying ‘many scholars’ and only citing one to argue that point. For me, this doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t ‘many’ scholars holding to her view – because she only quoted one. If someone looked at Enns more academic work one would find ‘several’ if not ‘many’ scholars.”
Response: Let me know the names of those scholars Enns cited then. But then you realize you are missing the whole point of my post if you are going to throw out names right? I’m not saying there are not scholars that exists across a spectrum of perspective; I’m saying its problematic saying “many scholars say…” as rhetoric for her view when her perspective haven’t been established by argumentation (argumentation at a popular level) and her basis for her view is that she’s saying her view is held by many scholars when really scholars don’t agree.
2.) “The difference between ‘many’ and ‘some’ seems a bit pedantic to me.”
Response: If you think the distinction between “many” and “some” is a bit pendantic then I think you miss the force of what’s she’s trying to say in using the word “many” to support her view. She’s invoking a fallacious argumentum ad populum for a view on a subject that we can legitimately say is controversial. Calling her out on this is fair criticism. It is not pedantic to make a distinction between the term “many” and “some;” that’s elementary prerequisite for inductive logical reasoning, whether at a popular level or academic level. Has it occur to you that you are setting the bar too low for Evans if you are willing to go so far to defend her by saying “many” and “some” is pedantic?
3.) “I didn’t mean to impose that on you, I apologise if you felt that way. What I intended was to get a general acknowledgement that these issues are in play in the background of what she is talking about,
Response: Wait but you did impose that standard upon me when your first comment said things like “have YOU ever tried…” So let’s not say “I apologise if you felt that way.” That’s not a genuine apology.
4.) “but expecting them to play out in a book written at the popular level can be unreasonable.”
Those things you brought up certainly would affect one’s view of the topic at hand. I’m not denying that. But your criticism that I unfairly expected her to talk about those things is not true for nowhere did I brought up those things and criticized her for the omission of those things. And just a reminder what those things were you brought up saying I’m supposedly imposing on her to discuss: Mosaic authorship, redaction criticism, dating of the material from Genesis 2-3, the sitz im leben of the Pentateuch, etc.
5.) “I would have thought authorship and intent were the part of the underlying rationale for her argument that Gen 2-3 is ‘a story about Israel’s origins, a symbolic representation of Israel’s pattern of habitation, disobedience, and exile, set in primeval time’. I don’t think that makes it tangential?”
Response: First off did you read the book or at least the first chapter? Secondly (this is the reason why I ask the first question) Evans did not discuss authorship or authorial intent as her rationale. Thirdly if you dispute that she discuss authorship and authorial intent feel free to quote and cite page number where it’s authorship and authorial intent is what led her to her conclusion. Fourthly you are equivocating here concerning what I’m saying when I said you are going tangent. I said in point 4 I affirm that the background elements you brought up are important factors that contribute to the discussion of our understanding (and may I add at times even misunderstanding) of Genesis 2-3. So I’m not saying those things don’t contribute to interpreting Genesis 2-3; instead I’m saying you are committing an unnecessary tangent when these things weren’t discussed by Evans nor brought up in my post since my post is only meant to critique what Evans had to say and that becomes your focus and criticism instead. So for you to bring them up and challenge me to engage with those things and dodge my objection that you are going on a tangent with another tangent implying that somehow I think authorship and authorial intent is irrelevant for understanding Genesis 2-3 is incredible mental gymnastics.
6.) “I’m not sure how to respond to this.”
Response: I think its not unreasonable for me to say that. You threw out a lot of rabbit trails in your comment. Sometimes some (I’m not implying necessarily many) first year seminary students do showboat academic references but misses dealing directly with the immediate subject at hand. I wonder if you sleep on it 24 hours and re-read your own comments if my point doesn’t sound totally as unreasonable as you might think.
Your refutation was good in part 3 but your comments here is straight fire. Any chance you go back to battle rapping?
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
[…] Part 2 click here […]
I genuinely enjoy studying this post responding to Evans. Also good interactions on here and sharp responses Slim. Some of my girlfriends have been into Rachel’s materials but I remain cautious and now I can see further why.
Hello! I love your refutation very much. I appreciated how you unravel the problem with Rachel Held Evans’ theology beyond what sounds good superficially.
Found this over at Monergism. Thanks for this well written refutation (all 9 parts).
I thought this was written well. Thank you for having the courage to write these quality analysis. The tone has been gracious compared to the tone of Evans that is distasteful, vitriolic and mocking.
Evans is so flawed. Product of emotions rather than logic and Scripture.