MYTH, HISTORY, AND INSPIRATION: A REVIEW ARTICLE OF INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION BY PETER ENNS
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2006 by Beale, G K
3. Enns's incarnational model in relation to Jesus' incarnation. What is curious in Enns's attempt to argue for an incarnational analogy for the doctrine of Scripture is that he never attempts to define what he means by Christ's incarnation (i.e. the relation of his human to his divine nature) and, especially, what aspect of it he thinks helps to clarify how God accommodates himself by revealing his truth through such things as "myth."18 Some evangelical theologians speculate that while the human Jesus was perfect morally, he was still imperfect in such things as mathematical computation or historical recollection (e.g. some say, could not Jesus have made a "B" on his fifth grade math test? Or could he not have cut a board wrongly from the instructions of his human father?). On analogy with this conception of Jesus' incarnation, Scripture is God's absolutely faithful word about morals and theology (e.g. the way to salvation) but not about minute points of history or scientific facts.
- More Articles of Interest
- RESPONSE TO G. K. BEALE'S REVIEW ARTICLE OF INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION
- THREE MORE BOOKS ON THE BIBLE: A CRITICAL REVIEW*
- EVANGELICAL VIEWS ON ILLUMINATION OF SCRIPTURE AND CRITIQUE
- GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BART: A REVIEW ARTICLE OF MISQUOTING JESUS BY BART...
- Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus
Does Enns hold a view like this? If this is Enns's incarnational model (and we have to make our best speculation, since he does not tell us), then its success depends on, among other things, the problematic presupposition that cognitive information not dealing with issues of morality and salvation (historical facts, scientific facts, etc.) can, indeed, be neatly separated from morality and salvific issues.19 But we cannot elaborate on this particular model of the incarnation in evaluating Enns, since Enns does not reveal what is his view of the incarnation.
But whatever is Enns's precise view of Jesus' incarnation, his very attempt to compare Jesus' incarnation with revelation in God's word may not work as a good analogy. Some evangelical scholars affirm that NT Scripture is the result of the exercise of Christ's prophetic office through prophetic and apostolic writers and that this is the best framework through which to understand the nature of Scripture. An incarnational model may not be the best because, whereas with Christ's incarnation there is one person with two natures, with Scripture there are two persons (God and the human prophet) and one nature (the one scriptural speech act).20 Thus to try to make the analogy may be like comparing apples to oranges. At the very least, the analogy must be carefully qualified, since it cannot "walk on all fours."21 Unfortunately, Enns not only does not qualify his view of the incarnation, but he never tells us what it is.
III. ENNS AND BIBLICAL DIVERSITY
1. The apparent use of the term "diversity" in place of "error." Enns sees that "diversity" is part of the warp and woof of Scripture: "diversity is such a prevalent phenomenon in the Old Testament" (p. 107; similarly, p. 108). His definition of "diversity" is not clear: does it refer to various but complementary viewpoints or to irreconcilable perspectives on a given topic? At the least, it would appear to mean that it is difficult to harmonize what different biblical writers say who speak to the same issue. It would appear that he has turned the Reformers' notion of the perspicuity of Scripture on its head and affirms that there is so much diversity in the OT that our view of inspiration must be reassessed. Furthermore, he says, if we were to use our modern definition of "error," we apparently would judge that there are errors in the Bible. But Enns says that we cannot use modern definitions of "error" to judge biblical literature and that the best term to use is "diversity":