MYTH, HISTORY, AND INSPIRATION: A REVIEW ARTICLE OF INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION BY PETER ENNS

IV. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF ENNS'S BOOK FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES

The intent here is to summarize some of the major themes running throughout the book, upon which we have only earlier briefly touched, as well as to look at some of the practical ramifications of Enns's book that he himself discusses.

1. The issue of socially constructed cultures, presuppositions, and biblical interpretation. Running throughout Enns's book is the following presupposition: "there is no absolute point of reference to which we have access that will allow us to interpret the Bible stripped of our own cultural context" (p. 169; cf. p. 161). One paragraph later, he says that "our theologies are necessarily limited and provisional" (p. 169). I cannot respond at all fully to this. Nevertheless, while it is true that postmodernism (and earlier, the Dutch Reformed tradition!) rightly has taught us that all things are seen through interpretative lenses, so that no human viewpoint is objective, on the other hand, "soft postmodernists" acknowledge that interpreters can understand some things definitely and sufficiently but not exhaustively. Any other epistemological approach takes the insights of postmodernism to a skeptical extreme.26 Enns is not clear here, since, in apparent contrast with his preceding statements, he also proposes several interpretations of biblical passages where it is clear that he would say that he understands them sufficiently and definitely but not exhaustively. Thus, he operates at numerous points on the assumption that we do have an "absolute point of reference to which we have access that will allow us to interpret the Bible," despite the fact that we are influenced by our own cultural context.

His discussion on page 169 thus lacks clarity, and, therefore, gives the impression that to understand any particular part of the Bible definitely is impossible, and that when we think we have grasped part of biblical revelation in some definite way, we have imposed our own cultural presuppositional lenses onto the biblical data. In the context of his book, however, I take it that what Enns really means here (on p. 169) is that the main presuppositional lenses that evangelicals have imposed onto Scripture are standards of modern reason (definitions of truth and error with respect to history and science), especially as this relates to the definition of "myth."

Enns states that "the problems many of us feel regarding the Bible may have less to do with the Bible itself and more to do with our own preconceptions" (p. 15). As we have seen, for him both so-called liberals and evangelicals have the same preconceived notion for determining truth and error, though they have disagreed about whether or not there is error in the Bible; both have formulated a definition of truth and error on the basis of modern science and modern conceptions of history. Enns says that we must go beyond this impasse, and he portrays himself as one of the contemporary "evangelicals" able to formulate the new synthesis that deals much better with these long-disputed issues. But, as we have seen elsewhere, Enns sets up two polar opposites and does not allow for middle ground concerning possibilities of some significant overlap (not equation) between ancient and modern notions of science and historiography.