Conservative evangelicals (especially in the Reformed tradition) are worried about many things in Biblical studies these days: The New Perspective on Paul, discussions of the Canon of Scripture that "diminish the divine and augment the human element", the "supplanting" of the "central and paradigmatic" doctrine of justification with the Pauline doctrine of participation in (or union with) Christ, and other controversial matters. Now one of their own, a Westminster Theological Seminary professor, has written a book that actually attempts to deal honestly with the implications of contemporary scholarship on the evangelical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. This is long overdue simply because the standard procedure for dealing with discrepancies between contemporary scholarship and cherished dogma has been to attempt a harmonization by a strictly grammatical-historical approach that often works only if one completely jettisons the socio-historical setting in which the Bible was written. One thinks of Harold Lindsell's "Battle for the Bible" in which he posited six denials from Peter's lips in order to harmonize the conflicting synoptic accounts.
But all of this is to place Enns' book in a rather negative light, as if he were writing it to provoke a fight. Actually, Enns' book is a refreshingly honest and sincere attempt to work through the tough issues in taking contemporary scholarship seriously while at the same time maintaining a high view of Scripture. I think Enns has accomplished his task with this well-written and timely work.
After a brief explanation for the purpose of the book, Enns launches into a comparison of the Biblical text of the Old Testament with literature of the Ancient Near East. For those who are unfamiliar with ANE literature this comparison will come as quite a surprise. Since Israel was a relative newcomer on the scene of the ancient Near East, it is certainly appropriate to examine possible parallels between Israelite literature and that of the surrounding nations.
Enns looks at the numerous discoveries of the last 150 years which reveal creation and flood stories in ANE literature that predate the Biblical accounts. The similarities are striking. Other interesting parallels include ancient law codes (again, predating the Biblical accounts), that are amazingly similar to the law codes in the book of Exodus. The structure of the book of Deuteronomy seems to reflect the structure of Hittite treaties. Portions of the Proverbs are similar to a body of Egyptian wisdom literature known as the Instruction of Amenemope. There are a number of other examples of this kind. Now the question: So what? Well, this is where many conservative evangelicals will attempt either to explain away the evidence, or deny it altogether and hide behind a pre-critical, pre-suppositional mind set. However, Enns himself could be labeled a conservative evangelical and yet he deals with the problem honestly and helpfully by looking at surrounding cultural influences in the ancient Near East, the use and methodology of ancient historiography (to name just a couple of factors), and by offering what he refers to as an "incarnational analogy" in which "Christ's incarnation is analogous to Scripture's incarnation." Enns takes as a starting point that "as Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible." I do not have the time or space here to unpack this, but Enns' analogy is profound.
The next difficulty with which Enns deals is the "problem of theological diversity in the Old Testament." He provides numerous examples from the wisdom literature (eg, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job), the Chronicles, Law (eg, Exodus, the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy), slavery, the practice of Passover and sacrifice, and more. I have always been at a loss to explain the diversity between the books of Kings and Chronicles for example. The typical explaining away of differences and tensions have never been of help to me. Understanding the Biblical writers in their historical setting is a better way of getting at the reason for such diversity. However, the diversity we find in the Old Testament cannot be finally and fully explained.
The final difficulty with which Enns deals is the New Testament writers use of the Old Testament. The honest person must admit that there are numerous examples of the writers of the New Testament quoting the Old Testament out of context for their own purposes. The explanations in "Bible Difficulties" books are nothing more than illusions that misunderstand what the New Testament writer is attempting to get across. "Innerbiblical" interpretation cannot be understood apart from the historical setting in which the New Testament authors wrote, and an understanding of Biblical interpretation in Second-Temple literature is the key to help us understand it. Enns provides examples from Second-Temple literature and the New Testament writers.
A handy Glossary ensures that we understand the terms and concepts and be able to keep in step with each section of the book. This is a fantastic piece of work by Peter Enns. It is well-written, carefully argued, and in the most irenic spirit that I have seen from a writer in his tradition. Check out his excellent commentary on Exodus in the NIV Application series (the best in the series, imho).
