advertisement
On TV.com: ANGELINA JOLIE looks stunning as usual
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

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

<< Page 1  Continued from page 17.  Previous | Next

If Enns is going to make this accusation, which represents traditional evangelicalism, is it not incumbent on him, at least, to footnote the representative examples of the "many evangelical scholars" and their works that he has in mind? Without proper documentation, this not only appears misrepresentative but could well give the reader the wrong impression and mislead. In addition to citing such scholars, he needs to explain how they selectively use their evidence and how they do not face up to the evidence that they themselves discover. Without such "fleshing out," Enns's statements become platitudes without any basis for the reader. Furthermore, there have been a number of good OT and ANE evangelical scholars who should not be described in this manner (among others, I think, e.g., of Donald Wiseman, Alan Millard, Kenneth Kitchen, Meredith Kline, Daniel Block, John Walton, Lawson Younger, and Richard Hess). These scholars in one way or another have shown how important ANE parallels are for understanding the OT, as well as how the OT differs from such parallels, and several of these scholars have shown the viability of the historical accounts in Genesis and elsewhere in contrast to the non-historical nature of their mythological correspondences. Many, including non-evangelicals, would acknowledge that these and conservative scholars before them have attempted to relate their faith commitments to "what we have learned about the Bible over the past 150 years," contrary to the claims of Enns (in this regard, cf. Enns's wording on p. 48 in relation to the preceding context; similar to the claim that he makes on p. 171).

advertisement

Likewise, Enns says,

there is a significant strand of contemporary Christian thinking on the Old Testament that feels that these sorts of things [diversity in scripture] just shouldn't happen. And, if they do, they just appear to be a problem. You just need to read a bit more closely or do a little more research, and if you're patient enough, you'll get the right answer eventually. For others, however (including myself), such an approach comes close to intellectual dishonesty. To accept the diversity of the Old Testament is not to "cave in to liberalism," nor is it to seek after novelty. It is, rather, to read the Old Testament quite honestly and seriously [p. 107].

No one should doubt that Enns is "sincere" in attempting to interpret the Bible "honestly," but for him, on the other hand, to imply, as he appears to do, that those who disagree with him (i.e. not a few people but those who are "a significant strand of contemporary Christian thinking") practice "an approach [that] comes close to intellectual dishonesty" is, again, not an expression of the excellent hermeneutical ideals that he elaborates above (e.g. not to "jump to conclusions" about the motives or views of others; p. 172). Why can he not grant that other scholars who differ with him also seek "to read the Old Testament quite honestly and seriously"? The clear implication is that conservative scholars are not "serious" and "honest." And, if he sees such egregiously bad methods practiced and bad motives held by such scholars, he should quote them and point out the evidence for his conclusions. Again, he has painted a wide swath of evangelical scholarship with this reductionistic brush (though I do not doubt that some evangelicals, laypeople, and perhaps a few scholars with whom he has had contact have been guilty of the accusation that he makes).