The topic of original sin in the garden of Eden is a perennial issue for biblical studies. Recent years have seen a growing interest in this topic: for example, see Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013); Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in the Second Temple Literature (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); Igal German, The Fall Reconsidered: A Literary Synthesis of the Primeval Sin Narratives against the Backdrop of the History of Exegesis (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016); and Stephen Greenblatt, The Rise and Fall of Adam and Eve (New York: Norton, 2017). Mark S. Smith, a renowned scholar in the field of ancient Israelite religion, has now added his own voice to the discussion of original sin in Genesis.The current volume is a relatively short book, 156 pages, including the main text and the endnotes. It consists of four major sections: an introduction, parts 1 (chs. 1–3) and 2 (chs. 4–7), and a short epilogue. In the introductory section, Smith offers an overview of several religious traditions (Western Christian, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and Islamic traditions) about Gen 3. Western churches have interpreted the narratives of Gen 3 as the account of original sin that resulted from Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit, but Eastern Orthodoxy has considered it “ancestral sin,” or the physical and moral consequences of Adam and Eve’s act for humanity that are not transmitted to humanity (p. 4). Jewish traditions focus more on “the evil inclination” of humanity mentioned in Gen 6:5 than the fall in Gen 3.The first part (chs. 1–3) provides an important historical survey of both traditional readings and modern interpretations of Gen 3. In ch. 1, Smith deals with how often the discussions of the fall appear in the Scriptures and intertestamental literature. After a careful examination of several passages, Smith contends that there is rarely explicit evidence to support original sin in Gen 3. Regarding Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15, Smith argues that these passages do not indicate what caused the fall, nor do they interpret Gen 3 itself, because the Apostle Paul reads Gen 3 retrospectively from an Adam/Christ typological perspective. In ch. 2, Smith deals with the nature of sin in intertestamental literature, the NT, and two theologians to advocate for original sin: Augustine and Calvin. However, his discussion in this chapter adds little to what he said in the previous chapter. Smith suggests that “the evil will,” referred to in Augustine’s City of God, is never mentioned in Gen 3 and that Augustine, like Paul, understands the sin of humanity caused by Adam in Gen 3 retrospectively from the perspective of Christ’s salvific work. Chapter 3 introduces two modern scholarly discussions for and against the fall in Gen 3. Next, Smith provides several environmental-mythic connections between the story of Gen 2–3 and the ancient Near East. For example, Adam is a figure like Adapa or Enkidu in the story of Gilgamesh; Eve’s name has a connection with a snake, an emblem animal of the goddess Asherah; and the garden of Eden is described like the Jerusalem temple-palace complex. Based on these connections, and considering that he thinks Gen 2–3 tells the story of the Judeans in exile and evokes the landscape of their lost Jerusalem, Smith proposes that the date and setting of Gen 2–3 might be the second half of the sixth century BCE.The second part (chs. 4–7) presents Smith’s exegetical and literary analyses of Gen 3, 4, and 6. In ch. 4, Smith attempts to answer to the question whether Gen 3 is really about sin, suggesting that Eve’s desire is not condemned in the passage; rather, it functions as a way for Adam and Eve to gain access the source for knowing good and evil. Further, given that the verb “to expel” (*grsh) expresses a fallout in interpersonal relationships, Smith affirms that Gen 3 is not the story of original sin or the fall, but instead a fallout, or a new fraught situation Adam and Eve would face in their future. Chapter 5 shows the literary relationship between Gen 3 and 4 in terms of three literary connections: (1) the shared vocabulary “to rule” (*mshl) and “desire” (teshuqah) in God’s speech to Eve in 3:16 and to Cain in 4:6–7, 2) the cursing of the ground in 3:17 and of Cain in 4:10-12, and 3) usage of the verb “to expel” (*grsh) in 3:24 and 4:14. Through these literary connections, Smith claims: “It is only at this point that sin explicitly enters the picture” and “the fallout in Genesis 4 develops out of the human capacities for good and evil reflected in the human choice made in Genesis 3” (p. 72). In ch. 6, Smith similarly presents several literary connections between Gen 2–3 and 6: (1) similar expressions using the verbs “saw” (*r’h) and “took” (*lqkh) in 3:6 and 6:2, (2) use of the same root *ytsr in both 2:7 and 6:5 (“The Lord God ‘formed’ [*ytsr] man” in 2:7 versus “that every ‘intent’ [yetser] of the thoughts of his heart was only evil” in 6:5), and (3) usage of the word for “grieve” (*ʿtsb) for both the woman’s pain in childbearing in 3:6 and the man’s labor in 3:17 and also for God’s grief in 6:6. Through these connections, Smith asserts that the free choice made by the desire of Adam and Eve results in humanity’s evil condition. In ch. 7, following the Jewish tradition that sees Gen 6 as evidence of humanity’s evil inclination, Smith contends that there is also a good inclination in humanity. Therefore, he suggests that devotion to God may be part of the natural human impulse and that Gen 2–3, 4, and 6 present both human goodness and evilness.Last, in the book’s epilogue Smith asks two open-ended questions: (1) do Christians need the devil? And (2) is free will an adequate explanation for human disobedience? Then, he concludes this book with praise of theological mystery and human curiosity.Smith’s book is thought-provoking and often convincing, especially with respect to his masterful examination of the literary relationship between the opening chapters of Genesis. Several critical comments are in order, though. First of all, Smith’s understanding of how total depravity relates to original sin seems problematic. He claims: “Augustine’s explanations for the three good figures (Abel, Enoch, and Noah) are inconsistent with his strong view of the fall (how were such good figures possible after the Fall?)” (p. 32). Here, Smith seems to confuse total depravity with utter depravity, the notion that fallen humans are always as sinful as they could be in whatever they do.Second, Smith mentions “retrospective reading” in various places of this book (see, especially, pp. 12–14). Retrospective reading refers to the interpretation of OT passages in light of NT theology or the revelation of Christ. Smith is right to criticize Christians for their tendency to read OT texts through the lens of their own religious traditions instead of reading them by themselves first. However, Smith oversteps and runs the risk of diminishing Paul’s writings in the NT, as well as Augustine’s and Calvin’s discussions of original sin, by characterizing them as retrospective readers. On this point, I wonder why Smith provides historical surveys of views on original sin instead of examining the Genesis texts only. In some sense, all interpretive traditions—not just Western Christianity, but also other traditions, such as Eastern Orthodoxy and Judaism—have been formed by their own historical retrospective readings.Despite several significant weaknesses, the current volume provides several erudite and insightful discussions of the issues related to original sin and the fall in the book of Genesis. Those who are seriously interested in what happened in the garden of Eden will appreciate Smith’s work.