What do you think?
Rate this book
When Did Eve Sin?: The Fall and Biblical Historiography
Did Eve sin before Adam?
When responding to the serpent's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve says that one "must not touch it" (Gen 3:2-3). In this, Eve appears to embellish upon God's clear command that one must not eat from the tree (Gen 2:17). Did Eve add to God's command, becoming the first legalist? Was this an innocent mistake? Or is the answer altogether different?
Jeffrey J. Niehaus tackles this issue head-on in When Did Eve Sin? Though many commentators believe that Eve altered God's command, there are notable exceptions in the history of interpretation that suggest another answer. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture and analyzing biblical stories where characters retell the facts, Neihaus recognizes a common scriptural pattern that resolves the mystery of Eve's words.
Niehaus examines his view's implications for biblical historiography, what it meant to eat from the tree of life, how a sinless being can fall into sin, and the nature of the mysterious serpent. Everyone engaging with these questions will be deftly guided by Niehaus' thorough study of this thorny issue.
When responding to the serpent's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve says that one "must not touch it" (Gen 3:2-3). In this, Eve appears to embellish upon God's clear command that one must not eat from the tree (Gen 2:17). Did Eve add to God's command, becoming the first legalist? Was this an innocent mistake? Or is the answer altogether different?
Jeffrey J. Niehaus tackles this issue head-on in When Did Eve Sin? Though many commentators believe that Eve altered God's command, there are notable exceptions in the history of interpretation that suggest another answer. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture and analyzing biblical stories where characters retell the facts, Neihaus recognizes a common scriptural pattern that resolves the mystery of Eve's words.
Niehaus examines his view's implications for biblical historiography, what it meant to eat from the tree of life, how a sinless being can fall into sin, and the nature of the mysterious serpent. Everyone engaging with these questions will be deftly guided by Niehaus' thorough study of this thorny issue.
200 pages, Paperback
Published August 5, 2020
4 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 5, 2023
In this book the author describes a structure that appears several times in the biblical narrative:
(a) An omniscient narrator gives a laconic third-person account of some event.
(b) Later a character who was part of that event speaks about it, and the narrator records that speech.
(c) The character's speech brings out additional information supplementing the original narrative.
He considers several examples of this structure:
(1) In Gen 12:13, Abram asks his wife Sarai to say that she is his sister. Then in Gen 20:13, Abraham reveals that this has been his customary practice during their travels.
(2) In Gen 12-22, the calling of Abraham and his response are described. Then in Gen 26:5, God reveals to Isaac the full extent of Abraham's obedience.
(3) In Acts 9, Luke describes Paul's confrontation with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Then in Acts 22 and 26, Paul describes that confrontation, adding a number of details to the original account in Acts 9.
The author proposes that there is a fourth example of this structure in Gen 2-3. In 2:16-17, God instructs Adam that he can eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that eating the fruit of that tree will lead to death. Then in 3:2-3, Eve repeats what God had said, adding the new information that they were not even to touch the fruit of the forbidden tree.
Many commentators over the centuries have assumed that Eve added something which God had not said. The author argues, however, that it is more likely that she is simply providing additional information about what God had said originally. He bases his argument on cases (1)-(3), along with the idea that if Eve did change a command of God, she had already fallen into sin prior to being deceived by the serpent and eating the forbidden fruit. This, however, would contradict 1 Tim 2:14 and Gen 3:13, which indicate that Eve's sin came when she was deceived and ate the fruit.
The book includes some fascinating discussion of biblical historiography and covenants and the reception history of Gen 2-3, 12, 20, 26 and Acts 9,22,26. I think a major lesson is that since biblical narrative is laconic----i.e., concise---and doles out information incrementally, one must be careful about making arguments from silence. For example, one should not assume that God did not forbid touching the forbidden fruit just because Gen 2:16-17 does not mention this detail explicitly. Biblical narratives and speeches are often brief summaries, not exhaustive accounts or transcriptions of recordings.
(a) An omniscient narrator gives a laconic third-person account of some event.
(b) Later a character who was part of that event speaks about it, and the narrator records that speech.
(c) The character's speech brings out additional information supplementing the original narrative.
He considers several examples of this structure:
(1) In Gen 12:13, Abram asks his wife Sarai to say that she is his sister. Then in Gen 20:13, Abraham reveals that this has been his customary practice during their travels.
(2) In Gen 12-22, the calling of Abraham and his response are described. Then in Gen 26:5, God reveals to Isaac the full extent of Abraham's obedience.
(3) In Acts 9, Luke describes Paul's confrontation with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Then in Acts 22 and 26, Paul describes that confrontation, adding a number of details to the original account in Acts 9.
The author proposes that there is a fourth example of this structure in Gen 2-3. In 2:16-17, God instructs Adam that he can eat from every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that eating the fruit of that tree will lead to death. Then in 3:2-3, Eve repeats what God had said, adding the new information that they were not even to touch the fruit of the forbidden tree.
Many commentators over the centuries have assumed that Eve added something which God had not said. The author argues, however, that it is more likely that she is simply providing additional information about what God had said originally. He bases his argument on cases (1)-(3), along with the idea that if Eve did change a command of God, she had already fallen into sin prior to being deceived by the serpent and eating the forbidden fruit. This, however, would contradict 1 Tim 2:14 and Gen 3:13, which indicate that Eve's sin came when she was deceived and ate the fruit.
The book includes some fascinating discussion of biblical historiography and covenants and the reception history of Gen 2-3, 12, 20, 26 and Acts 9,22,26. I think a major lesson is that since biblical narrative is laconic----i.e., concise---and doles out information incrementally, one must be careful about making arguments from silence. For example, one should not assume that God did not forbid touching the forbidden fruit just because Gen 2:16-17 does not mention this detail explicitly. Biblical narratives and speeches are often brief summaries, not exhaustive accounts or transcriptions of recordings.
January 9, 2024
Upon my initial reading of this short but thorough study, I was persuaded of the author's arguments. As he draws attention to certain aspects of the historical narrative of Genesis, he argues for a pattern of "laconic" or concise narration where certain details of dialogue or action might've been initially left out of the account, only to be introduced at a later point, particularly by a character in the story. Thus, in Genesis 3, Eve's reference to God commanding her husband and her not to touch the tree is not a true addition, but rather reveals something that God actually said to Adam, even though the narrator did not report that prohibition in Genesis 2. I had read a similar argument from Elyse Fitzpatrick and Eric Schumacher's book Worthy. Niehaus also highlights a seemingly parallel occurrence in the book of Acts, related to Saul's conversion.
I initially gave the book 5 stars, not only because I was persuaded by the argument, but because the argument seemed coherent and well-reasoned, and I found the book enjoyable to read (especially its conciseness!). However, I have now reduced my rating to 4 stars (something I generally prefer not to do; I tend to rate a book based on its impact on me and my response to it, and then press on). But, in this case, I suppose Proverbs 18:17 is still as wise as it ever was. I stumbled on to G.K. Beale's thorough interaction with Niehaus's book in Union with the Resurrected Christ. Beale identifies several potential holes in Niehaus's argument, primarily arguing that the narrator depicts the woman as handling God's word in a similar way to the serpent. Some of the same changes to God's word that the serpent makes are followed by the woman. Beale thus marshals support for the more traditional understanding, while bolstering his argument that Eve's "fall" was a process that began with her mishandling of God's word and culminated in her eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with her husband. Between Niehaus and Beale, I've been helped to pay closer attention to the details of the text of Genesis 3, and Beale in particular highlights the validity of coming to different interpretations of this passage, and he reasonably questions the appropriateness of the parallels Niehaus suggests from both Genesis and Acts. Beale helpfully draws attention to how Eve's handling of God's word reflects the serpent's handling of God's word, which would be bound up with the kind of deception that flows out into idolatry.
I initially gave the book 5 stars, not only because I was persuaded by the argument, but because the argument seemed coherent and well-reasoned, and I found the book enjoyable to read (especially its conciseness!). However, I have now reduced my rating to 4 stars (something I generally prefer not to do; I tend to rate a book based on its impact on me and my response to it, and then press on). But, in this case, I suppose Proverbs 18:17 is still as wise as it ever was. I stumbled on to G.K. Beale's thorough interaction with Niehaus's book in Union with the Resurrected Christ. Beale identifies several potential holes in Niehaus's argument, primarily arguing that the narrator depicts the woman as handling God's word in a similar way to the serpent. Some of the same changes to God's word that the serpent makes are followed by the woman. Beale thus marshals support for the more traditional understanding, while bolstering his argument that Eve's "fall" was a process that began with her mishandling of God's word and culminated in her eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with her husband. Between Niehaus and Beale, I've been helped to pay closer attention to the details of the text of Genesis 3, and Beale in particular highlights the validity of coming to different interpretations of this passage, and he reasonably questions the appropriateness of the parallels Niehaus suggests from both Genesis and Acts. Beale helpfully draws attention to how Eve's handling of God's word reflects the serpent's handling of God's word, which would be bound up with the kind of deception that flows out into idolatry.
Read
December 7, 2021A short, punchy book, admirable for its focus and clarity
of argument. Niehaus argues for a canonically-
consistent exegetical historiography that challenges the
long and speculative interpretative history that Eve
added to the divine proscription in her response to the
serpent.
of argument. Niehaus argues for a canonically-
consistent exegetical historiography that challenges the
long and speculative interpretative history that Eve
added to the divine proscription in her response to the
serpent.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews