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

In this connection, Enns says that modern preconceptions can distort the Bible (see also pp. 14-15), since the ancient biblical culture had different preconceptions about the reality of the world. There has, however, also been scholarly discussion about how different presuppositional paradigms share some commensurable features, otherwise "members of one paradigm could never understand the culture of individuals living in another."33 Thus, there is some kind of bridge between worldview perspectives, whether between that of ancient cultures and that of modern or between different perspectives of modern people themselves who disagree.

Enns needed to reflect awareness of this discussion, even if he evaluates it negatively. Of course, Enns himself also has his own preconceptions (which he surely would admit), and these are preconceptions formulated by his own socially constructed reasoning abilities. Why could not his preconceptions be the ones that are distorting Scripture? How do we test the validity of preconceptions or presuppositions? The best way is by means of what some call a "critical realism."34 That is, as we just noted, people holding different paradigms of interpretation can still communicate with one another and understand and evaluate each other's paradigms. That presuppositional lens which makes the most sense of the most data is the more probable lens. Of course, neither Enns nor I have the space to submit our lenses to the test of "critical realism." All we can do is to say that our lens is an approach that has made the most sense of the biblical data at which we have looked, and then we can footnote our published works and let others peruse those works and see how well our lenses work.

2. Enns and the ethics of hermeneutics. Lastly, Enns understands that the proposals of his book will arouse disagreement, and he pleads for a hermeneutic of humility, love, and patience. He wants to be heard out before readers react negatively. He says,

It has been my experience that sometimes our first impulse is to react to new ideas and vilify the person holding them, not considering that person's Christian character. We jump to conclusions and assume the worst rather than hearing-really hearing-each other out. What would be a breath of fresh air, not to mention a testimony to those around us, is to see an atmosphere, a culture, among conservative, traditional, orthodox Christians that models basic principles of the gospel:

Humility on the part of scholars to be sensitive to how others will hear them and on the part of those whose preconceptions are being challenged.

Love that assumes the best of brothers and sisters in Christ, not that looks for any difference of opinion as an excuse to go on the attack.

Patience to know that no person or tradition is beyond correction, and therefore no one should jump to conclusions about another's motives.

How we carry on this very important conversation is a direct result of why. Ultimately, it is not about us, but about God. [p. 172].