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

It is at this point that brief reference needs to be made to his chapter on the use of the OT in the NT (chapter 4) in order to provide another example that Enns believes that the Bible records myths that are "essentially unhistorical." In that chapter, he recommends for further reading an article that he wrote on 1 Cor 10:4.15 There he repeatedly labels as "legend" Paul's reference to the purported Jewish tradition about "the rock that followed" Israel in the wilderness. I have included my analysis of his discussion elsewhere. le It is an interesting question to ask why in his book Enns never calls the reference in 1 Cor 10:4 a "legend" but he does so explicitly and repeatedly in his article. It is apparently not because he has changed his mind, since he recommends without qualification his article at the end of chapter 4. Or, indeed, has he changed his mind since writing the article? Thus, Enns presents us with another ambiguity, this time between his book and his recommended article.

So, at the end of the day, one has to read Enns very closely over a number of pages to exegete precisely what he means by "myth." I have adduced some extended quotations, and when we let "Enns interpret Enns" from one part of the book to another, letting his clearer statements interpret the unclear, the likely conclusion is that he uses "myth" still in the essentially normal sense, that is, stories without an "essential historical" foundation (trying here to use his very language).

2. The question of recording "objective" history in relation to the incarnational model. In connection to the preceding section, Enns also says that "one must question the entire assumption that good history writing, whether modern or ancient, is concerned to transmit only bare facts of history. Is there really any such thing as a completely objective and unbiased recording of history, modern or premodern?" (p. 45). There may be some scholars, both evangelical and non-evangelical, who hold the assumption that Enns is arguing against, but the majority of conservative OT and NT scholars who publish in their fields today would not hold such an assumption. This does not mean, on the other hand, that evangelical scholars who agree with Enns's general premise-that all history is not completely objective-agree with his own deduction of what this premise means for the reliability of historical events recorded in the Bible. Enns thinks this assumption entails the following:

If the Bible does not tell us what actually happened, how can we trust it about anything? Simply put, the problem before us is the historical character of precisely those Old Testament narratives that seem to report historical events [p. 45].

Though there is a rhetorical tone in the first question of this quotation, the words are Enns's own, and they appear to express his skeptical view of the reliability of events reported in purported historical narratives, as the second sentence further suggests. It is apparent that Enns's overall point in this quotation, understood within the context of his discussion here, is to affirm that "interpreted history" means significant varying degrees of distortion of the record of that history for the purpose of making a theological point. Accordingly, one's trust in such biblical narratives is to be in the theological point being made and not in the actual factuality of the events recorded in these narratives. But cannot historical writers interpret events without distorting the description of how those events occurred? Leading conservative OT scholars answer in the affirmative, but Enns does not make the reader aware of these views.17 For example, I know of a Jewish scholar who is convinced that the NT account about Jesus' resurrection is historically reliable but he disagrees with the NT's interpretation of the resurrection, that is, that the resurrection indicates that Jesus is the Messiah for Gentiles and Jews (this Jewish scholar believes Jesus was the Messiah only for Gentiles).