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

34 E.g. see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 3-144, and Beale, "Questions of Authorial Intent, Epistemology, and Presuppositions and Their Bearing on the Study of the Old Testament in the New: a Rejoinder to Steve Moyise," IBS 21 (1999) 1-26.

35 The bracketed wording in this quotation is my insertion. See Enns, "The 'Movable Well' in 1 Cor 10:4: and Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text," for his use of "legend" in connection to 1 Cor 10:4, upon which I comment in my forthcoming review article in Themelios noted above.

36 E.g. see E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (1957; repr. ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 66-70. See also the forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation on 1 Cor 10:4 by my research student Peter Spychalla.

37 Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 166-68, where also references to Plummer, Westcott, Tasker, and Gruenler may be conveniently found.

38 Carson, Matthew (EBC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 441.

39 Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004) 111.

40 Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001) 87-91. See also R. A. Whitacre, John (IVPNTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999) 82, who views both options as equally possible, and H. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 115, who is ambiguous about his view on the issue.

41 Enns makes the same kind of statement when he says, "for any interpreter, modern or ancient, to appeal to Deuteronomy 33:2-4 to support a notion of angels mediating the law is an indication of what they wish to find there, not what is there" (p. 149, my italics).

42 In this respect, see my forthcoming earlier-cited article in Themelios on Enns's view of the use of the OT in the NT in relation to Judaism.

43 Enns does cite bibliography for "further reading" at the end of most of the chapters (with very brief abstracts), but he does not engage them evaluatively in the body of his chapters. This often leaves uninformed readers with the impression that Enns's perspective and evidence for his arguments is the primary or only viable perspective or evidence. The only way they would learn otherwise is by doing some research and reading in secondary literature.

44 Note where Enns indicates his purpose in addressing a more popular audience (e.g. pp. 13, 15, 168), though these statements do not exclude a scholarly audience.

45 E.g. the publishers distributed complimentary copies to biblical scholars at the recent November, 2005 Institute for Biblical Research meeting.

46 Indeed, I have already read reviews that differ in their evaluation of the book: e.g. see the reviews of M. Eschlebach in JETS 48 (2005) 811-12, T. Longman, "Divine and Human Qualities of the Old Testament," Modern Reformation 14 (2005) 33-34, M. Daniel Carroll R. (Rodas), Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies 8 (2005), and B. C. Ferry in New Horizons (October 2005) 23-24.