I agree Matthew. I’ll be honest it is my natural inclination to believe the historicity of stories in the Bible (especially the Exodus) but if some how I came to believe a particular story was not true then I would still try to understand what truth that story is telling and I don’t think my faith would collapse or need to be abandoned (save for a few important stories).

Bryan

I think Flannery O’Connor’s writings might be an example. What she wrote about was “real” in the sense that she wrote stories meant to reflect the real life around her. Yet they weren’t “real” in the sense you could dig up newspaper clips and find witnesses to the events actually occuring. If the NT authors simply intended to refer to such a known story then their usage would make no comment to said story’s historicity.

However, I think the point made in 1 Cor 10:11 is relevant(“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us…”). The conversation quickly gets very complex. Still, it is my opinion that some biblical events and stories lose their bite if they were not historical – the ultimate case being the resurrection.

Bryan

I do not think that the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament stories necessarily means that they are confirming their historicity. Someone said this on another post, but it is possible that the NT writers were appealing to stories common to a large group of people in order to make a point relevant and salient (all the things a story/illustration/example is intended to do).

However, I will say that I know many people who reject the “liberalism” of modern science out of fear. Enns is attacking intellectuals – and your familiarity with that crowd outstrips mine, Dr. Burk – but, in my experience, it is wildly true of many average Christians.

I hope that evangelicals don’t overreact and label the whole incarnational concept of Scripture anathema. I first read the idea some years back and found the basic concept intriguing and helpful. As with any tool, sommeone might use it in an unacceptable way but that doesn’t mean the idea itself is without merit.

Thanks for reading the book and giving an informed analysis. I too read the book last week and find your review very fair to Enns and the contents in his book. I would disagree with some of your conclusions in regards to Enns’ views, but I think you were very fair in acknowledging the many strengths as well as the perceived weaknesses.

One thing I want to mention that I feel you left out though is more of his discussion on theological diversity. Enns says that we (21st century Christians) should not impose our modern standards on the text. In other words, we should not expect the biblical text to look the way we want it to. Apparent contradictions to us would not have been so in the slightest to readers of the canonical books. They can read the Samuel account where the author states that God caused David to take a census, then they can read the Chronicles account where the author states that Satan caused David to take a census of his army, and have no problem at all. I’ve also spoken with a professor about this and he said the only students he finds that have problems with this are western Christians. He said he has had students from Korea, Japan, China, and India, and it causes them no concern whatsoever nor do they really care about it.

Basically, we expect the Bible to be some magical book that fell out of the sky and every nuances of theological thought is the same from book to book because systematic theology has taught us to think this way and those are our modern standards on the text. Therefore, when we come across an apparent contradiction, we either abandon the faith and say it’s full of errors, or we explain them away trying to create some type of harmony or synthesis. I believe Enns would say both sides have it wrong in this regard, and we must take account the context of the book as well as the context in history (his discussion of history vs. historigraphy would have been helpful). The Bible is inspired, yes, but it is also very human. Why you ask? Because it simply behaves that way. Just look at the astonishing differences between Samuel/Kings and the Chronicles, or even amongst the Gospels. Therefore, we should not impose our modern standards on the text and expect it to behave how we want it to.

The Bible does contradict itself in some places by our standards, but to the original audience this would hardly have been the case. I personally find this view quite refreshing b/c he doesn’t shy away from the problems we have and objections we often hear where we’re unable to give an educated and informed response. I found his thoughts on God changing his mind quite refreshing, simply b/c I have read many reformed scholars views in regards to this and they all miserably fail to go where the evidence leads them and against the obvious meaning of the text in my opinion. Enns doesn’t shy away from this, but instead embraces the diversity in this regard…even though his answer doesn’t satisfy our western American mindsets.

One NT scholar at my school complained about the book b/c he said it raised more questions than it answered. This is a pretty modern way to look at it, but that is actually what I liked about Enns’ approach. He gave me many things to wrestle with and a good hermeneutical grid to achieve those answers without shying away from problems and issues we have as westerners. I found his style very irenic and thought-provoking, and I am very grateful for that and look at it as a tremendous strength in the book instead of a weakness. Very rarely do I read a conservative scholar whom I agree with and learn from so much. One more point, I had never heard of his “christotelic” terminology, and found it very enlightening. It provided a good grid for me to view the NT use of the OT through, especially his discussions on 2nd temple interpretation.

Again, thanks for this Denny. You have dealt with this very candidly and I respect your review. I’m looking forward to what you have to say tomorrow about the debate and other thoughts on the book.