A Surrejoinder to Peter Enns’s Response to G. K. Beale’s JETS Review Article of His Book, Inspiration and Incarnation G. K. Beale

G. K. Beale is Kenneth T. Wessner I thank Peter Enns for responding to my book. He says that, as a result, though I Chair of Biblical Studies and Professor review article1 of his book, Inspiration and cite his statements “at length,” “citations, of New Testament at Wheaton College Incarnation.2 It has been the policy of the no matter how lengthy, will not contribute Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society to bringing clarity to an author’s inten- Prior to this he served as Professor (JETS) not to allow surrejoinders, so I was tion” and might cause “obscurity” of it, of New Testament at Gordon Conwell not able to write one in that journal. I am if such citations are “founded on a faulty Theological Seminary. He has written thankful to the editor of SBJT for accept- reading strategy.”5 He says I reviewed the numerous books and articles and is ing this surrejoinder to be published.3 book as if it were “an academic treatise” or the author of The Book of Revelation in SBJT readers ideally should consult my “a systematic theology” or “an introduc- the New International Greek Testament original review of Enns’s book in JETS and tion to Scripture,” whereas “its [real] aim Commentary Series (Eerdmans, 1999) Enns’s response to me there. But, for those is to reach a lay evangelical audience for and The Temple and the Church’s Mis- unable to consult JETS, the substance of which the human element of Scripture . sion: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling my original review and of Enns’s response . . presents an obstacle to confessing that Place of God (InterVarsity, 2004). will be summarized in this review. the Bible is God’s word.”6 He says that For those readers who go back and his “primary audience” is “evangelical read my review and Enns’s reply to my and non-academic” and that the “book’s review, I think most will see that he purpose is specifi cally apologetic” in that has not advanced the argument much it is “intended to help the faithful deal beyond what I said in my review nor has with threats to their faith.”7 This “aim” he responded to some of the specifi c evi- is not only “announced explicitly, but its dence that I adduced. I have in mind, for popular focus is implied throughout the example, the evidence that he holds vari- book, as indicated by the absence of foot- ous signifi cant narratives in Genesis to be notes, annotated bibliographies at the end “myth” according to its classic defi nition, of each chapter, and a glossary of terms at and that he acknowledges that the biblical the end.”8 He continues by saying that, writers mistakenly thought such “myths” the fact that my aim is evangeli- corresponded to real past reality. cal, non-academic, and apologetic I will respond to what I consider to accounts for the rhetorical strategy be some of Enns’s major critiques of my I adopt throughout the book, which is to lay out a few examples of review of his book.4 things that are universally accepted (1) Enns contends that I misread the as demonstrations of the human situatedness of Scripture—the genre of his book and that I reviewed it very thing that is causing readers as a scholarly book instead of a popular problems—and to present these 16 examples unapologetically, in as Christian scholars should communicate stark and uncompromising a man- important and very debated interpretative ner as that of hostile commentators, be it in a book, on cable TV, or in a and theological issues to a more popular classroom. As part of this apologetic, readership, especially in the church. I it is crucial that the non-scholarly am also going to elaborate, since Enns is reader understand that nothing in principle has been withheld; no attempting to use this objection to defl ect data has been covered over as too quickly my criticisms of his book. First, damaging or problematic for con- sideration; no special pleading has I clearly noted in my review article the been employed against the data exact dual purpose of the book that Enns themselves, because these data have has laid out, and which he acknowledges positive value in helping us under- stand how Scripture—by God’s (above) that I perceived correctly: I say design—bears perfect witness to the wisdom and glory of God. Indeed, why write a lengthy review To present the matter this way is article of a book that is designed to attempt to pull the rug out from primarily to address a more popu- lar audience and only secondarily a under the perceived strength of the 12 opposing argument, that for the scholarly readership? The reason is Bible to be God’s word it cannot pos- that the issues are so important for sibly look the way it does.9 Christian faith, and popular readers may not have the requisite tools and background to evaluate the thorny Enns asserts that not to review the book issues that Enns’s book discusses. according to its popular aims is to criticize But I have also written this review him for not writing a book that he never for a scholarly evangelical audi- ence, since the book appears to be intended to write, an error he feels that I secondarily intended for them,13 committed in reviewing the book: “Beale and, I suspect, there will be different evaluations of Enns’s book by such seems to read the book alternatively as 14 an audience. a failed academic treatise, an ambigu- ous systematic theology, or a dangerous In point of fact, I reviewed the book introduction to Scripture. None of these with these primary and secondary audi- descriptions are valid, but they form ences in mind: at the beginning of my Beale’s starting point, which leads him to review article, I said, “the book is designed draw unwarranted conclusions.”10 Yet he more for the lay person than the scholar acknowledges that I “fl ag various topics but is apparently written with the latter for high-level discussion,” and in doing secondarily in mind.” And, how could so I have “correctly discerned . . . that in citing quotations from Enns at length in addition to the primary purpose, there is order to understand what he says in con- a secondary purpose [of the book] as well: text be a misreading of the popular genre, to foster further theological discussion as he contends? Are popular readers to among evangelical scholars regarding be kept from the contextual meaning the implications of the human element of his statements? This critique by Enns of Scripture for how we think about our would seem to be an attempt to say that Bibles, and for how we are equipping our no one should give serious scrutiny to the students to do the same.”11 cogency and validity of his arguments. So A number of responses to Enns’s reply I am mystifi ed by his response here. need to be made here. I am going to So, why does Enns think that I mis- elaborate a bit on this issue, since we are judged the popular genre of his book? dealing with the important subject of how 17 Enns thinks that his book is at such a primary evidence supporting each side, popular level that he need not discuss and then to argue for the view the author alternative views of major explosive prefers? But, by his own admission, Enns issues that he addresses in the book nor has not even done this: his popular “rhe- should such issues be footnoted, even in torical strategy adopted throughout the a brief representative manner. But one book . . . is to lay out a few examples of must ask whether or not it is appropriate things that are universally accepted as to address such important interpretative demonstrations of the human situated- and theological issues and give only one ness of Scripture” and “present these side. To give alternative viewpoints does examples unapologetically, in as stark not necessitate heavy footnoting but only and uncompromising a manner as that of a brief representation of sources support- hostile commentators.”16 Any reading of ing various sides, and these could be put Enns’s book will reveal that a number of in the form of end notes at the end of the issues that he discusses are of crucial chapters or at the end of the book, which theological signifi cance and vigorously one typically fi nds in more serious popular debated by scholars of varying theo- kinds of books (here, for example, I think logical perspectives—indeed, to say the of John Piper’s and J. I. Packer’s books, as least, these are matters about which there well as those by Don Carson). Moreover, is no “universally accepted” position, Enns should have done this because he especially if one is comparing traditional considers part of his popular audience to non-evangelical, neo-evangelical, and be “graduate students” and “college stu- traditional evangelical positions (though, dents” (though he states this negatively: if one has in view that the only viable the popular audience “is not restricted positions to survey are non-evangelical to” such students15). But, since Enns positions, then one might be able to say acknowledges that the book’s primary there is “universal acceptance” within readership, a popular audience, includes this restricted community on such issues). undergraduate and graduate students, But he has chosen to present only one side and its formally intended secondary on these issues, and, strikingly, it is the readership is scholars, does this not make side that has been traditionally held by entirely appropriate, even necessary, that non-evangelical scholars. Specifi cally, let the best of representative positions be us review what are some of these major presented and lightly footnoted? I have issues. I summarized the major points of taught both on the undergraduate and my critique in the following eight-fold graduate level, and when I order text- manner, the fi rst four of which elaborate books that address major interpretative on specifi c interpretative and theological and theological issues, I consider it normal issues of great import:17 for such books to have brief though rep- • He affi rms that some of the nar- resentative footnoting of alternate sides ratives in Genesis (e.g., of creation of debated topics. and the fl ood) are shot through with But, even if footnotes were judged not myth, much of which the biblical narrator did not know lacked cor- to be appropriate, is it not incumbent in respondence to actual past reality. such crucial discussions, at least, to lay • Enns appears to assume that since biblical writers, especially, out the main sides of the debate and the for example, the Genesis narrator, 18 were not objective in narrating he does start by giving four basic view- history, then their presuppositions points taken on the subject, but when distorted significantly the events that they reported. He appears too he addresses specifi c passages, he treats often to assume that the socially their interpretation as if his view were constructed realities of these ancient the only reasonable or probable one (but biblical writers (e.g., their mythical mindsets) prevented them from I will not comment further on this, since being able to describe past events I have done so elsewhere18). Furthermore, in a way that had signifi cant cor- respondence with how a person in note that only one of my eight above the modern world would observe points concerns Enns’s complaint about and report events. “footnoting,” and actually this point only • Enns never spells out in any detail the model of Jesus’ incarnation with demands that Enns presents the various which he is drawing analogies for major competing views on these debated his view of scripture. issues, even if footnotes are excluded. • Enns affirms that one cannot use modern defi nitions of “truth” Now, he does present only in passing and and “error” in order to perceive very briefl y typically another viewpoint, whether or not scripture contains but it is usually a “fundamentalist” view, “truth” or “error.” First, this is non- falsifiable, since Enns never says which does not represent the mainline what would count as an “error” evangelical position on the matters that according to ancient standards. Second, this is reductionistic, since he addresses. I do not see how the other there were some rational and even seven above points are inconsistent with scientifi c categories at the disposal a popular book, which includes serious of ancient peoples for evaluating the observable world that are in some laypeople, undergraduate students, and important ways commensurable to graduate students. The fi rst four points our own. involve substantive issues that need • Enns does not follow at signifi cant points his own excellent proposal well-balanced discussion. Instead, Enns of guidelines for evaluating the appears to have approached his discus- views of others with whom one sion rhetorically like a preacher who disagrees. • Enns’s book is marked by ambi- wants to persuade a congregation by guities at important junctures of his presenting only one side of a biblical or discussion. • Enns does not attempt to present theological issue. to and discuss for the reader other There is, however, one area in which signifi cant alternative viewpoints Enns affi rms that he has been as thorough other than his own, which is needed in a book dealing with such crucial as he could be within the parameters of issues. the aims of his book. Note again that he • Enns appears to caricature the says, views of past evangelical scholar- ship by not distinguishing the views As part of this apologetic [in the of so-called fundamentalists from book], it is crucial that the non- that of good conservative scholarly scholarly reader understand that work. nothing in principle has been with- held; no data has been covered over It is astounding to me that Enns would as too damaging or problematic say that there “are universally accepted” for consideration; no special plead- ing has been employed against the positions on these issues. This is just as data themselves, because these data true of Enns’s last chapter on the use of have positive value in helping us the Old Testament in the New, though understand how Scripture . . . bears perfect witness to the wisdom and 19 glory of God.19 about whether or not he should have engaged with the best of representative Should not Enns have been just as care- positions on various signifi cant interpre- ful in presenting the best of traditional tative and theological matters. I believe he evangelical positions on the controverted made an infelicitous choice in adopting issues as he has been in laying out the the rhetorical strategy that he did, since it non-evangelical critical viewpoint? He can and likely will mislead the typical lay likely would respond by saying that the reader, despite the fact that he repeatedly diffi culties he adduces should be recog- says that he wants to help lay readers bet- nized by all evangelical scholars. And, ter understand how ancient Near Eastern this is the very nub of the problem: many, (ANE) parallels relate to the Bible. In par- if not most, evangelical scholars, I dare ticular, recall that he says that the purpose say, do not consider the diffi culties as of his book “is specifi cally apologetic, that problematic as does Enns (though he will is, intended to help the faithful deal with sometimes say that not to recognize the threats to their faith.”20 But the reality is problems the way he does is to be guilty of that only a very small percentage of lay- “special pleading” and refusing to recog- people have the kinds of problems with nize the reality of the biblical data.). the Bible that Enns sets forth. Ironically, Let me repeat from my review article the likelihood is that most of what Enns that the reason that alternative views discusses lay readers will confront for the should be carefully explained in such a fi rst time (I do fi nd that graduate students popular book “is that the issues are so sometimes have these problems and ques- important for Christian faith, and popular tions). Furthermore, most of the problems readers may not have the requisite tools that he poses are not that hard to solve, and background to evaluate the thorny though he gives the impression that they issues that Enns’s book discusses.” As are diffi cult to square with a traditional scholars, I believe that we should be as view of inerrancy. Indeed, this is partly careful when writing for non-scholars as why I felt a burden to write the review for scholars and distill diffi cult scholarly that I did. Instead of helping people in issues and debates in a way understand- the church gain confi dence in their Bibles, able to laypeople, which includes, of Enns’s book will likely shake that confi - course, the level of communication not dence—I think unnecessarily so. employing scholarly jargon or Greek or (2) Enns says that I call into question Hebrew or other technical language. But (by insinuation) his “basic conviction” the concepts should be there for them, that “the Bible is from God—that every including concepts representing the best bit of it, no matter how challenging or of both sides of an argument. Accordingly, troublesome, is precisely what God the vast majority of my review article, as wanted us to have and perfectly formed can be seen from my above eight-point to do what God has designed it to do.”21 summary critique, dealt with substantive Enns has misread me, so I will repeat issues that Enns was discussing and was precisely what I said about Enns’s view not primarily a critique of the fact that he of inspiration: did not include footnotes. Therefore, the most probable assess- Consequently, Enns and I disagree ment of his view so far is that concep- 20 tually, at the least, he affi rms that the and mistakenly thought that they cor- biblical writers imbibed myths at sig- responded to past historical reality. I do nifi cant points, recorded them and, though they were not essentially not think I have misunderstood him on historical, they naively affirmed this matter. He holds to a fully inspired such myths as reliable descriptions scripture, though this inspired scripture of the real world because they were part of their socially constructed contains “myths” (unbeknownst to the reality. Furthermore, divine inspi- biblical writers themselves) at various sig- ration did not restrain such social- cultural osmosis.22 nifi cant points in describing redemptive- historical events. Consequently, I believe And in the very beginning of my that Enns holds to a fully inspired Bible, article, I say this about Enns’s discussion but I do not think his view of the nature of “myth” and history in scripture: of inspiration is persuasive. Thus, according to Enns, biblical writers he says that the Old Testament contains what he defi nes as “myth” were consciously intending to be under- (on which see his defi nition later stood as writing a historical genre, but, below), but, he affi rms, this should in fact, we now know such events are myth. not have a negative bearing on the Old Testament’s divine inspira- Enns says that, though such accounts do tion. God accommodates himself not convey historical truth they still have to communicate his truth through important theological truth to tell us: that such mythological biblical accounts. Chapter 3 discusses what Enns we are to worship the God of the Bible calls “diversity” in the Old Testa- and not pagan gods. Enns even differs ment. He believes that the kinds of here from Robert Gundry, who contended diversity that he attempts to analyze have posed problems in the past that some narratives by gospel writers, for the doctrine of “inerrancy.” He which traditionally had been taken to be asserts that this “diversity” must be acknowledged, even though it history, in fact are not, since they were poses tensions with the inspiration intentionally and consciously employing of scripture. This diversity is part of a midrashic method that added signifi cant God’s inspired word.23 non-historical but interpretative features. And, again, I say, that, But Enns is saying much more than this: the biblical writers thought they were indeed, Enns wants to “emphasize” recording history but they were wrong, that “such a firm grounding [of Genesis] in ancient myth does not since we now know they were unaware make Genesis less inspired” (pp. 56)! that they were recording myth. This is a Thus, uncritical and unconscious conclusion that does not appear to pay due absorption of myth by a biblical author does not make his writing hermeneutical respect to the conscious less inspired than other parts of historical genre signals by biblical writers, scripture.24 however interpretative they may be. Thus, it is clear that I do not call into Thus, one problem with his view of question Enns’s own conviction that inspiration is that he ends up with a all of “the Bible is from God,” but I do completely inspired Bible in which the question the viability of his attempt to biblical authors narrate what they thought hold to plenary inspiration while at the was history, but now we know they were same time affi rming that biblical writers wrong. This is tantamount to saying that unconsciously imbibed mythical stories the biblical writers made mistakes, but 21 these mistakes were divinely inspired. quotation focuses on this very point (this His affi rmation of inspiration, thus, dies focus is observed by noting that my fi rst the death of a thousand qualifi cations. sentence is contextually explained by the (3) Enns has several responses to my following two sentences). But Enns also discussion of his section on “myth and believes specifi cally that evangelicals have history.” First, he affi rms that a “poten- not suffi ciently recognized the ANE parallels tially misleading impression” could because of their commitments to a tradi- result from my “claim that his concern is tional view of scriptural inspiration (and that ‘conservatives have not suffi ciently this is part of what I have in mind in the recognized ANE parallels with the Bible,’ fi rst sentence of my above quotation): in when in fact the entire chapter is based his book he says, “it is also ill advised to on the opposite assumption that these make such a sharp distinction between things have been duly recognized by them [ANE and OT parallels] that the evangelicals”;25 rather, Enns says that his clear similarities are brushed aside concern is “to bring to the forefront the [which, from the context of this chapter, implications of these parallels for how he thinks conservatives have too often evangelicals can think of Genesis as his- done].”28 Again he says, “the conserva- torical, authoritative, and inspired.”26 tive reaction . . . tends to minimize the But Enns does not present the full ancient Near Eastern setting of the Old picture of what he has said and of what I Testament, at least where that setting have said. Here is what I say: poses challenges to traditional belief,”29 and again, “conservative Christian schol- In particular, he [Enns] is concerned that conservatives have not suf- ars, particularly early on, have tended to fi ciently recognized ANE parallels employ a strategy of selective engagement with the Bible, particularly the of the evidence: highlighting extrabiblical parallels with the Babylonian myth of creation and the Sumerian myth evidence that conforms to or supports of the cataclysmic flood (pp. 26- traditional views of the Bible, while 27). Enns says that “the doctrinal either ignoring, downplaying, or argu- implications of these discoveries have not yet been fully worked out ing against evidence to the contrary.”30 in evangelical theology” (p. 25). For Thus, my statement that Enns believes example, he says that if the Old Tes- tament has so much in common with “that conservatives have not suffi ciently the ancient world and its customs recognized ANE parallels with the Bible” and practices, “in what sense can we is part of what Enns is saying; I was not speak of it as revelation?” (p. 31). But, as he acknowledges, these discov- saying that Enns believes that evangelical eries were made in the nineteenth scholars have been ignorant about the century, and evangelical scholars existence of these parallels but that they have been refl ecting on their doctri- nal implications ever since the early have not “suffi ciently recognized” their 27 nineteen hundreds. bearing on scriptural inspiration. Indeed, I explicitly note at the end of my above It is true that Enns is most concerned quotation that Enns acknowledges that with the implications of ANE parallels “these [ANE] discoveries were made in for the doctrine of scripture (Genesis in the nineteenth century, and evangelical this case) as inspired and historical, and scholars have been reflecting on their he does not feel that evangelicals have doctrinal implications ever since the early refl ected on this suffi ciently. My above 22 nineteen hundreds.” history,” otherwise his statement about Second, he says in his book that there monarchic and pre-monarchic history are biblical texts that presuppose the real would not make good sense; and I take existence of other gods, arguing that God the same, fairly normal defi nition of the led Israel slowly but surely from partial phrase: that writers record events that cor- knowledge (i.e., from revealing to them respond with real past events (of course, that other real gods in addition to himself as I said in my review article, though did actually exist) to fuller monotheistic historians certainly interpret history, such knowledge of himself.31 I refer to this as interpretations do not necessarily distort a developmental view and say that “some the historical actions and events being would call it ‘evolutionary.’” Enns consid- recorded, as I would hold in the case of ers my use of “evolutionary” as a pejora- biblical writers). tively “visceral” expression of his view, It bears repeating from my review arti- but it is unclear why he says this.32 cle that Enns does not include “essential Third, Enns is concerned about my use historicity” in his defi nition of “myth,”37 of the phrase “essential historicity” in my which he sees present in Genesis, and discussion of his analysis of the “myth- that he does not see the pre-monarchic history issue” in Genesis, for which he biblical accounts to contain “essential says I have “lack of appreciation” of the historicity.”38 complexities of this topic.33 He notes that a Enns asserts in his “Response” that he phrase that I use to “capture this problem “would have liked to have been clearer” is ‘essential historicity.’” Enns says that I about his “affi rmation of the basic his- “err in thinking that such an affi rmation is torical referential nature of the opening crucial to addressing the very diffi cult but chapters of Genesis.”39 But he really says real myth-history problem in Genesis,” no more to clarify this very brief state- and that “the phrase amounts to little ment, which is also ambiguous. First, what more than a slogan that obscures the issue does he mean by “the opening chapters when further explanation is not given of Genesis” (Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 1-9), to how, in what way, and to what extent and, second, his very use of “referential” Genesis is essentially historical.”34 is open to interpretation: e.g., the Encarta But I have chosen to use this phrase World English Dictionary gives two defi - to summarize the problem because it nitions: (1) “relating to references or in the is the phrase that Enns himself used to form of reference;” (2) “used to describe contrast the problem of the records of “the a work of art that imitates other works or previous periods of Israel’s history,” from contains oblique references or homages the historical record of the “monarchic to them, often at the expense of original period, when it began to develop a more content or style.” Does Enns affi rm here ‘historical consciousness;’”35 similarly, he that there is a correspondence between says that “it is precisely the evidence miss- the Genesis 1 narrative, for example, and ing from the previous periods of Israel’s actual events that happened or is he using history [e.g., the Pentateuch] that raises “referential” with the second meaning the problem of the essential historicity of in mind, especially the comparison of that period” (italics mine).36 Enns appears Genesis 1 to ANE mythical works? Is to assume a typical defi nition of “essential this merely a tantalizingly coincidental 23 ambiguity? of the problem for him is that “Genesis One reason that one might not think shares the cosmology of its ancient ana- it is an accidental ambiguity is that Enns logs, even while it contests their theol- has used the analogy of an artist painting ogy,” and this “cannot help but affect how a portrait or a mere painting to describe we think about the ‘essential historical’ how the event of the Exodus might be nature of Genesis.”43 He sees the polemical understood. After acknowledging that contrast between the pertinent Genesis some have compared the Exodus to a narratives and their ANE analogues to be portrait, he qualifi es the comparison by only in the area of “theology,” i.e., the God saying, “in Exodus the whole question is, of Genesis is the only God that deserves ‘are we dealing with a life-like portrait worship (Enns would not say at this point such as that of Norman Rockwell or are that the polemic is that the God of Genesis we closer to the impressionism of a Monet is the only real God, since, as we have or even the abstract art of a Picasso or seen, he affi rms that God’s revelation at Jackson Pollock?’”40 (the reader should go this point did not deny the existence of on-line and look at some of the abstract other real gods). But why does the polemic art of Picasso and, especially, Pollock to not also involve a contrast with history, in visualize the kind of comparison that the sense that the God of the patriarchs Enns appears implicitly to be posing as really does work in history as opposed to a possibility for understanding the event the unreal ANE gods? I would say that of the Exodus). Accordingly, Exodus the biblical account gives the record that appears to be a work of literary art that in corresponds with what God actually did signifi cant ways indirectly imitates other in space-time history in contrast to the ANE mythical works to depict something ANE accounts of false gods who really that is historical, but it may be diffi cult to did not act in history. discern how much of the actual historical Thus, though Enns claims to hold to kernal of the event is present in the narra- some kind of “general affirmation” of tive “painting.” According to one of Enns’s the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the way he above analogies (abstract art), the event of specifi cally fl eshes this out is quite differ- the Exodus may be hardly discernible at ent than other evangelical Old Testament all. At best, this may merely be another of scholars. He gives so many qualifi cations the several ambiguities that I discussed in that it is unclear what he really affi rms. In my JETS review article. my review article I went to great lengths Though Enns contends that he is to cite Enns’s very words (indeed para- among those “evangelicals [who] would graphs) to show that he “affi rms that the generally affi rm” that “Genesis ‘appears to Pentateuch positively adopts mythical be a historical genre’ and therefore is ‘true notions in the essentially normal sense history’ and records ‘real’ events of the of the word (i.e., non-historical and past,’”41 he immediately back-tracks and fi ctitious narrative).”44 Of course, Enns asks “what type of historical genre does must see some actual history in Genesis Genesis appear to be, and how does the (perhaps the core of the patriarchal nar- ANE evidence affect how we formulate ratives), though he never spells out for such a defi nition? What constitutes ‘true’ the reader what narratives he sees to be history or ‘real’ events?”42 The sharp edge narratives corresponding to actual past 24 events and to what degree he sees them Long says, especially with respect to ANE as “historical.” In fact, the problem for mythological parallels, that “the tempta- him is signifi cant, since he says that all tion must be avoided either to insist that pre-monarchic historical narratives face only those biblical genres are possible that the problem of “essential historicity” in fi nd analogies outside the Bible . . . or to contrast to monarchic history writing.45 assume that whatever genres are attested In this respect, recall that he says that outside the Bible may without qualifi ca- “it is questionable logic to reason back- tion fi nd a place in the Bible.”52 And once ward from the historical character of the more, “the Ancient Near East, then, offers monarchic account, for which there is some little that can compare to the larger dis- evidence, to the primeval and ancestral sto- course units of the Old Testament, or of ries, for which such evidence is lacking.”46 the Old Testament.”53 At points in the same Enns’s fairly clear answer to his ques- chapter, Long says that smaller discourse tion regarding the genre of Genesis is units in the Bible also contain unique that it is a “mythic” genre, explaining genres that have no parallel in the ancient “myth” to be “an ancient, premodern, literary world54 or they contain mixed or pre-scientifi c way of addressing questions blended genres,55 and extrabiblical genre of ultimate origins and meaning in the categores are merely “descriptive” and form of stories: Who are we? Where do must never become “prescriptive” for we come from?”47 Note, again, that Enns’s the Bible,56 and some “might be deemed defi nition does not include a reference to unacceptable.”57 In contrast, even in his recording history that corresponds to an response, Enns remains unnuanced in actual past state of affairs. I labored to his understanding of how ANE mythic show in the review article that Enns’s defi - genre relates to Genesis. Part of the upshot nition of “myth” is normal in that it refers of Long’s chapter is about how diffi cult it for him to “stories [that] were made up” is to defi ne genre both theoretically and especially about “origins.”48 Thus, he says specifi cally. that “myth is the proper [genre] category It is striking that Enns affi rms that “the for understanding Genesis.”49 biblical account, along with its ancient Enns says that V. P. Long’s discussion in Near Eastern counterparts, assumes the his Art of Biblical History gives an excellent factual nature of what it reports. They did beginning point about genre consider- not think, ‘We know this is all “myth” but ations and especially to our concern about it will have to do until science is invented “what role ANE literature should play in to give us better answers.’”58 Thus, the ‘calibrating’ our genre discussions” about biblical writers absorbed mythical world- Genesis.50 But Long is much more cau- views unconsciously, reproduced them tious than Enns; one of his main points is in their writings, and believed them to that while genre categories derived from be reliable descriptions of the real world study of ancient extra-biblical and cultural and events occurring in the past real world contexts can be helpful, “it is important to (creation account, Flood narrative, etc.) bear in mind that genre categories that because they were part of their socially have been developed through study of lit- constructed mythical reality.59 eratures outside the Bible may not be fully Enns presents the problem of Genesis applicable to the biblical texts.”51 Again, 1 as a classic case of the problem about 25 which he is concerned: narrative (as well as the fl ood narrative) do not necessitate a different view of the What, for example, is “essentially historical” about Genesis 1? Is it narrative’s “essential historicity.” A view the bare affi rmation that God did that would not be consistent with “essen- “something” in space/time history? tial historicity” is one that holds to the Or, at the other end of the spectrum, is it the affirmation that Genesis depiction of God’s creative activity to be 1 describes creation in literalistic merely a refl ection of other ANE mythi- terms (literal 24-hour days, canopy of water, etc.)? If the former, are the cal creation narratives, and that the only specifi c form and content of Genesis point being made by the Genesis writer is 1 just decorative fl ourishes (which that the God of Genesis is the God to be leaves one wondering why God put them there in the fi rst place)? If the worshipped instead of the various other latter, are we to say that Genesis 1 can ANE gods who purportedly participated be safely understood at arm’s length in the creation of the cosmos. from the ancient world in which the texts were intended—by God—to The following quotations (that I repeat speak? What precisely about Genesis from my review article63) are virtually 1 needs to be affi rmed as “accurate, explicit statements by Enns that these true, real” (to use Beale’s terms), and how does one even begin to make biblical accounts are not essentially his- these judgments, given the antiquity tory but myth. and foreignness of Genesis vis-a-vis modern historical standards? These We might think that such a scenario are the kind of things that can and [that which Enns has presented] is 60 do trouble lay readers. unsatisfying because it gives too much ground to pagan myths . . . (p. 53; my In reply, there are several possible well- italics). . . . God adopted Abraham as the fore- known interpretations of Genesis 1 that father of a new people, and in doing so can be quite consistent with a notion of he also adopted the mythic categories “essential historicity”: (1) a literal creation within which Abraham—and everyone else—thought. But God did not simply by God during a literal six days (com- leave Abraham in his mythic world. posed of 24-hours for each day); (2) a literal Rather; [sic] God transformed the creation of God over a long period of time ancient myths so that Israel’s story would come to focus on its God, the (understanding the “days” to be ultimately real one (pp. 53-54; my italics). fi gurative for a long period); (3) a creation . . . The biblical account, along with that is to be seen as a literal description of its ancient Near East counterparts, assumes the factual nature of what it a chaotic, non-functional cosmos followed reports. They did not think, “We know by a description of God “setting up the this is all ‘myth’ but it will have to do until science is invented to give us better functions that will establish an ordered, answers” (p. 55, my italics). operational cosmos,”61 which is conceived . . . The point I would like to emphasize, of as a temple for himself and his people in however, is that such a fi rm grounding 62 in ancient myth does not make Genesis which to dwell. There are, of course, sub- less inspired . . . (p. 56, my italics). categories of these basic views, some of which hold to theistic evolution and some Signifi cantly, the third above citation of which do not. Thus, both of the above asserts that biblical writers “assumed the views that Enns cites, and the third also factual nature” of their “reports,” even cited above, would be within the range of though they were really not factual but correspondence to “essential historicity.” “myth.” And, remember that Enns affi rms Varying interpretations of the creation that God’s revelation in early Israelite 26 history did not deny the true existence tion which the writer received, thought of other gods, which Israel later came to they were passing on accounts that corre- understand were mythical. sponded with true past historical events. I must stop here and refer readers back For myself, I am unconvinced by Enns’s to my JETS review article. Enns has not challenge. addressed the specific evidence that I (4) Enns is also troubled by my discus- lay out there that he, indeed, affi rms that sion of inerrancy as it is related to his view signifi cant narratives in the Pentateuch of “myth” and “theological diversity.” are shot through with “myth,” which I First, in responding to Enns’s dichotomy in concluded that he understands “in the his book between the pre-scientifi c world essentially normal sense, that is stories and the scientifi c world, I pointed out in without an ‘essential historical’ founda- my review that there are signifi cant over- tion.”64 Since he has not distanced himself laps between modern mathematics and from the evidence that I laid out for his astronomy. Enns responds by saying that view in this respect or disagreed with my he fails to see how such overlaps help with conclusions about his view, then I must understanding “the relationship between assume that he holds what I concluded Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, or any other about the mythical nature of accounts ANE analog.”67 But the very reason that I in Genesis. And, as I pointed out in the made the point is that Enns repeatedly in review article, he holds the same thing his book made the unqualifi ed distinction about references in the New Testament between the purported pre-scientifi c and to Jewish traditions that are mythical scientifi c ages: e.g., “ancient peoples were (e.g., Paul’s reference to the “rock that fol- not concerned to describe the universe in lowed” in 1 Cor 10:4 he calls a “legend,” scientifi c terms . . . scientifi c investigation though, according to Enns, Paul believed was not at the disposal of ancient Near the tradition corresponded with real past Eastern peoples;”68 “Are the early stories events in Israel’s history, when in fact they in the Old Testament to be judged on the did not).65 basis of standards of modern historical How is Enns’s view different from inquiry and scientifi c precision, things that of Gerhard Von Rad’s perspective that ancient peoples were not at all aware that Old Testament writers wrote what of?;” 69 the historical context of Genesis appeared to be historical accounts, which “was not a modern scientifi c one but an were theologically true on a “salvation- ancient mythic one.”70 historical” plane, but which possessed My point about the existence of ancient no essential connection with true, past mathematics and astronomy that overlaps historical reality?66 I mentioned this in my with modern notions of these areas is rel- initial review, but Enns never addresses it evant, at least, because it qualifi es Enns’s in his response. sweeping generalizations and reduction- Consequently, when Enns challenges isms about an absolute gap between the me and others about our simplistic view two worlds. Furthermore, these overlaps of “essential history,” what he wants us to are specifi cally signifi cant for the present agree with is that Genesis is shot through discussion, since Enns himself relates with a mythic genre, though the writer, “modern historical inquiry and scientifi c and those who passed on the early tradi- precision.”71 He immediately elaborates 27 on “modern historical inquiry and scien- actually believed that the cosmos was tifi c precision” by referring to “modern literally structured like a giant temple standards of truth and error.” Without merely on a bigger scale than Israel’s any further qualifi cation, I assume that he earthly temple, though there is not space includes scientifi c precision in describing to elaborate on how this so.76 There is the cosmos and such things as scientifi c even a notion in Egypt and Israel that the precision in measurements, calculations, little sanctuaries pointed symbolically to etc., which may sometimes form part of God’s creation at the end of time as a huge historical narrative reports. Indeed, that dwelling place of God.77 I also do not have he does have in mind descriptions of room within the constraints of this article the cosmos is apparent from his above to explain possible relationships between reference to ancients not “describing the ANE and Israelite temples, but suffi ce it universe” in scientifi c terms and from to say that it is unlikely that Israel merely the context, where he includes reference unconsciously modeled their temple on to ancient perceptions of how the sun the temples of the foreign false, mythi- and the moon travel72 and the ancient cal gods around them.78 The reason for view of the cosmos.73 Certainly, to some the cosmic symbolism of Israel’s temple signifi cant degree the overlap that I men- in the divine design is that it would be tion between astronomy is relevant here. a unique redemptive-historical pointer Furthermore, what is also relevant is that to the consummated new heavens and ancient and modern peoples also share earth as God’s temple and eternal dwell- strikingly similar phenomenological ing place. Thus, Israel’s temple was meant portrayals of the cosmos (e.g., see Don to be a non-repeatable pointer to a greater Carson’s experience with his father about divine reality in the latter days. One must referring to the newspaper’s offi cial notice be cautious in setting up other symbolic about the sunrise).74 cosmic perspectives purportedly shared Lastly, while it is true that there are by the ANE and Israel and calling them unusual portrayals of the cosmos in the “pre-modern.”79 In the case of Israel, what ANE and Old Testament, according to some may call pre-modern or pre-scien- modern standards, which some might be tifi c is a specifi c symbolic entity pointing tempted to call pre-modern, the reason to some greater reality in the new age to is likely theological. For example, it is come. clear in the ANE and Old Testament that In connection again to inerrancy, Enns temples were designed to be symbolic is uncomfortable with my effort to show representations of the cosmos. Why? that there are certain universal categories There is evidence in both the ANE and of rational thought by which truth is dis- in the OT that the cosmos was conceived cerned. He is responding, for example, to of as a huge temple. The earthly temples my following assertion in my JETS review were little models of God’s entire creation article: as a macrocosmic temple in which he was These issues that Enns discusses present in a much grander way than in the touch on epistemology. I cannot small architectural sanctuaries.75 Since the enter into a full-orbed view of epis- temology to which I ascribe and temples were symbolic of God’s heavenly how this relates to logic and the dwelling, it is unlikely that the Israelites modernist-post-modernist debates. 28 Suffi ce it say the following. The laws categories of thought that I offer above of contradiction (or non-contradic- are not applicable, then how can we make tion) and identity would seem to be part of the faculties of all human any sense of scripture? It would merely beings, as a result of their creation become so much gibberish. by God in his image. Without these Despite the fact that Enns says that abilities humans would not be able to communicate with one another this is an outside criterion by which I or perceive correctly (not exhaus- am defi ning the nature of scripture, it is tively but definitely in part) the quite evident that scripture refl ects and created world. Enns seems to have confused the use of reason, which is presupposes this notion, since scripture an aspect of general revelation, with itself often uses the word “true/truth” certain kinds of purported modern history writing and precise kinds to affi rm that ancient people could make of modern scientific knowledge. descriptive statements that corresponded, But these most basic laws of logical not exhaustively but truly to actual reality; thought are quite operable for both modern and pre-modern people. likewise scripture uses words like “know” Indeed, people could not communi- to indicate that the ancients could know cate without assuming the truth of things suffi ciently that corresponded to these foundational notions of logic (if I say something is red, it means the reality around them.83 that it is red and not green; or if I In fact, to turn the tables on Enns, it say the Chicago White Sox won the world series last year, I mean they appears to be Enns who is allowing extra- won it and not the New York Yan- biblical sources to defi ne the nature of kees [here I would add that when scriptural inspiration, since he affi rms Exodus says that God defeated the Egyptians that the text means he that the genre of Genesis is best defi ned defeated the Egyptians and not the as “myth.” And why does he defi ne the Babylonians]). When people do not genre of Genesis in this way? Because presuppose these most basic laws of thinking, then they have diffi culty there is such a close conceptual similarity communicating and living in the between the opening chapters of Genesis world. The same is true with ancient and Mesopotamian myth.84 So do we let communication.80 the mythical genre of the ANE stories Enns responds to this by saying that, determine the genre of Genesis or do we “even though there are certainly catego- let Genesis itself determine its own genre ries of thought that are universally and and then go outside to the ANE environ- timelessly part of the human condition, ment to see how it is related to it and vice the Bible, precisely because it is a product versa.85 In the initial part of my review of God’s self-revelation in history, has, by article, I contended that on its own, Gen- God’s design, a local, timely dimension to esis portrays itself as a historical genre (of it.”81 But Enns never tells us what human course with interpretation interspersed, categories of thought are universally and as is true with any ancient or modern timelessly applicable, so that the conces- history writing). Then as one attempts to sion is a platitude without content. Essen- see the relationship between this genre tially, I am merely saying that ancient in Genesis and other ANE writings, there peoples had categories of thought “at their are at least fi ve ways that one can perceive disposal for assessing” the observable of such a relationship,86 the last of which, world “that are in some regards commen- unconsciously imbibed myth, favored by surable to our own.”82 Furthermore, if the Enns, is the least probable. Among the 29 most viable suggestions are that Genesis Reformed theologians as John Calvin, alludes to ANE religious myth in order Abraham Kuyper, and Cornelius Van to conduct polemic against it or it refl ects, Til, and the biblical-theological approach along with the ANE myths, general of Geehardus Vos, perspectives which I revelatory truth or a common ancient still hold.90 tradition, both of which are only rightly In relation also to the issue of inerrancy, interpreted by the divine scripture. Any Enns says I affirm that recognition of of these perspectives could be applicable diversity in scripture is close to denial of to understanding the example of cosmic inerrancy.91 He says that I “seem to sug- temple symbolism discussed above. This gest that the choice is between ‘comple- is not forced harmonization nor special mentary viewpoints’ and ‘irreconcilable pleading but a reasonable evaluation of perspectives,’” though he says it is “more the evidence. complex” than this.92 Actually what I say Interestingly, Enns makes the same is that “his defi nition of ‘diversity’” in the mistake in starting points in his chapter book “is not clear: does it refer to various on the use of the Old Testament in the but complementary viewpoints or to irrec- New, where he affi rms that one fi rst must oncilable perspectives on a given topic?” understand second temple Jewish herme- His answer: it is a “more complex matter neutics and then one can only understand than this.” In reality, much of what Enns New Testament hermeneutics through discusses is not diffi cult to relate or “har- the lens of early Judaism. As I argue else- monize” (if I may use such a worn word), where, Enns’s approach must be turned which Don Carson has well discussed on its head or radically altered: start in his review of Enns.93 After reading fi rst with examining the interpretative Carson and Enns again, I think readers approach of Jesus and the apostles, and will discern a penchant in Enns to make then study Judaism to see the relationship “diverse molehills” into “irreconcilable between the two or, at least, study the var- hermeneutical mountains.” Like Carson, ious sectors of Judaism and the NT, and I just do not see the problem in a number then compare and contrast them.87 Enns’s of “diverse” examples that Enns gives. typical approach appears to be to interpret Part of Enns’s concern is excellent: let us special revelation by general revelation not jump immediately to trying to “har- (e.g., extra-biblical tradition) rather than monize” before we have fully explored vice-versa. In other words, with regard on the exegetical level each particular to OT issues, he wants to “calibrate our text of concern, seeing its role within its genre discussions” by letting the ANE own literary and historical context. He literature play a more dominant role than is afraid that people with “inerrancy on the biblical literature.88 their brain” will too quickly start trying to Enns says that “some of our differences “harmonize.” His caution in this respect can be attributed to my [Enns] Reformed, is outstanding. specifi cally presuppositional, theological On the other hand, he does not appear and epistemological starting point.”89 I to see a role for rigorous analysis of how doubt that this is helpful, since I cut my the two “diverse” texts may relate (I have teeth early in my graduate studies on the same commendation yet criticism of the presuppositional viewpoints of such Enns with respect to the Old Testament 30 in the New, which I have commented we do not foist some precarious harmoni- on elsewhere94). This is really part of the zation onto the text. What we philosophi- work of biblical theology, not merely a cally label such “irresolvable diversity” knee-jerk reaction by those preoccupied will differ with the presuppositions of to solve scriptural problems. Enns himself the individual interpreter: some will call says that a biblical-theological approach it “error,” some “diffi culty,” and some, should be used in the face of the diversity, like Enns, just “diversity,” since “error” not so much to solve it but to recognize for him is an anachronistic modern word that such diversity (for example, in the that is inapplicable to ancient thought. case of the Law) “is not ultimate, but are My fi nal assessment of Enns’s view of steps along the way leading up to Christ “diversity” in my review article has not . . . helping us to see that the Law is not changed, despite his further response: meant to be an ultimate unchanging state- Thus, Enns insists on the term ment of God’s will but penultimate, await- “diversity,” since he opposes judg- ing the coming of Christ who . . . fulfi lls ing ancient writers by the modern the law.”95 This particular example with standards of truth and error. Does Enns imbibe too much post-mod- respect to the Law I fi nd very interesting, ern relativity about truth or has he though Enns would have to fl esh it out been “chastened” properly, so that he has been affected by some of the more for it to be persuasive. Nevertheless, strengths of post-modernism? Read- he has offered here an ultimate redemp- ers will make different judgments tive-historical rationale that actually about this. For myself, I think he has been too infl uenced by some does have great potential to resolve the of the extremes of post-modern problem of diversity, which Enns most thought.96 of the time denies can be done. Indeed, I think it would be diffi cult to use this Enns does not like my application of particular christocentric (or christotelic, “postmodern” to his view, since he thinks 97 as Enns prefers) rationale to understand it is “a loaded, emotive” term. I do not other kinds of diversity that Enns sees mean it in any emotive sense, only in the throughout the Bible, since it is very sense that modern standards of ratio- vague how such diversity (e.g., diversity nal thought are inapplicable to judging in historical parallel accounts, apparent ancient expressions of thinking, a typical mistakes in numbers, place names, etc.) trait of even those who would refer to relates to Christ’s eschatological coming, themselves as evangelical postmodernists 98 a critique also offered in Don Carson’s and do not see it as a negative term. review. (5) Enns’s last major concern is with my But it is clear that Enns does see that, at evaluation of his incarnational analogy. In least, some of what he discusses involves my review I questioned the validity of the such radical diversity that it cannot be way Enns uses this analogy with respect resolved according to “modern standards to understanding scripture as both a of rationality,” and we must leave such divine and a human word, since he was diversity to stand as it is. Now, in part, ambiguous about what parts of the anal- I agree that when “diversity” appears ogy apply and which do not. He admits irresolvable on the literary or biblical- that, if he were writing the book again, theological level, then we let it stand, and he would be clearer about how the incar- national analogy applies to scripture: he 31 says he would elaborate on how just “as Jesus have made a “B” on his fi fth there is no sin in the God-man Jesus, so grade math test? Or could he not have cut a board wrongly from the too there is no error in Scripture. The instructions of his human father?). human situatedness and diverse nature of On analogy with this conception of Jesus’ incarnation, scripture is God’s Scripture, then, are not to be understood absolutely faithful word about mor- as errors corresponding to some puta- als and theology (e.g., the way to sal- tive sin on Christ’s part, but rather as the vation) but not about minute points of history or scientifi c facts.102 condescension of God corresponding to Christ’s humanity.”99 So, to get more at the heart of the issue Enns admits that the analogy is large for Enns’s proposals, it would seem that enough to drive a hermeneutical truck his above question should have been through it, since he can see how some reformulated as follows: “does Genesis 1, would use it to disallow “myth” in bearing strong similarities to ANE myth, scripture, yet he believes that he can correspond to Jesus unconsciously in his use it to see “that such culturally laden human nature accommodating himself to expressions” of myth “are what one the mythical or non-historical traditions would expect.”100 Enns appeals to some of Jewish culture,103 which would not be wonderful quotations by Bavinck, Green, moral sin, or does the Genesis 1 - ANE Warfi eld, and Gaffi n on the incarnational relationship correspond more to the fact analogy with scripture (with which I that Jesus had olive skin, wore leather agree), but the question remains how to sandals, and spoke Aramaic?”104 fl esh out further what they say. It is in Now, I wonder, which option Enns the attempt to fl esh out that the disagree- would choose with this new alternative. ments arise. He tries to give concrete fi ll- I posed the same question in my review ing out of the details of his view: “‘does article, but Enns has chosen not to address Genesis 1, bearing strong similarities to it, even though it is the most pertinent ANE myth, correspond to Jesus ‘sinning’ aspect of the incarnational paradigm that or to the fact that he had olive skin, wore would seem to have most relevance for leather sandals, and spoke Aramaic?’ I supporting his argument about myth. Of 101 am of the latter opinion.” But, this kind course, it would mean holding to a lower of alternative incarnational example does Christology than the church has domi- not get to the heart of the matter of Enns’s nantly held to throughout her existence. proposals. Enns wants to see that “myth” In my review article, I gave my critique of can be naturally though unconsciously this kind of incarnational understanding. woven into God’s revelation in its human If Enns holds to an unconscious accom- situatedness. So the better incarnational modation to myth by Old Testament question should be formulated in this writers and by Paul (e.g., recall his view manner, which I commented on in the of 1 Cor 10:4), then it would appear that review article: he likely holds the same view about Jesus. Some evangelical theologians spec- This is pointed to further by recollecting ulate that while the human Jesus that Enns explicitly affi rms that Jesus’ was perfect morally, he was still use of the OT in the NT was a complete imperfect in such things as math- ematical computation or historical accommodation to Judaism’s uncontrolled recollection (e.g., some say, could not and non-contextual use of the OT. Thus, 32 Jesus was not concerned with the original is virtually a truism. Speaking for myself, meaning of OT authors, and he read in part of the fuel that fi red my motivation meanings that had nothing to do with to write the review was to give lay people such original meaning.105 Recall also that and students another perspective on the Enns later includes in “Second Temple issues that Enns addresses, especially techniques” that Jesus purportedly uses since I believe there are people who will an interpretative method that involves the be disturbed and have their faith unnec- unconscious absorption of myth, though essarily unsettled by a writer who comes he discusses this aspect of Jewish exegesis from what has been a very traditionally only in relation to Paul (as in the case, e.g., orthodox theological seminary, as West- of 1 Cor 10:4). Thus, my objection is not minster Theological Seminary has been. that the incarnational analogy cannot be Contrary to Enns’s view, I have written validly used but that, if it is used, it must partly because I do not want lay people be carefully defi ned, which Enns still does to have the impression that Enns has laid not do in his response. out all the relevant evidence on both sides Enns concludes his response on this of the debate and then to think that Enns’s topic by saying that “the precise nature conclusions, based on such selective evi- of this analogy . . . cannot and need not dence, are viable for evangelical faith. be worked out with the kind of preci- The last sentences of Enns’s response sion he [Beale] seems to demand before are a plea not to perpetuate a “climate the analogy can be used to benefi t lay of fear, suspicion and posturing” that readers who confess by faith the mystery produces “a climate [that] does not honor of the incarnation . . . .”106 But this is an Christ” (326). I completely agree, as long as insuffi cient response, since the way he this does not mean that vigorous critique has defi ned the incarnational analogy is of one another’s views is disallowed. very general and, by his own admission, is susceptible of widely varying applica- ENDNOTES tions, so that, as it stands, it is not a very 1G. K. Beale, “Myth, History, and Inspira- helpful model for trying to resolve the tion: a Review Article of Inspiration and kinds of problems that Enns has set up Incarnation by Peter Enns” Journal of the throughout his book. To appeal to “the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): mystery of the incarnation” at this point 287-312. would appear to be special pleading. 2Peter Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Review Article of Inspiration and Incar- Conclusion nation, Journal of the Evangelical Theologi- Enns concludes his response by refl ect- cal Society 49 (2006): 313-26. ing upon why there is so much controversy 3I am also grateful to the editors of the over his “little book, written in a popular “reformation21” online magazine for style for a popular audience.” His answer: accepting this surrejoinder for publica- the controversy tells as much about “the tion. reviewers themselves” and “the current 4I have also reviewed the fourth chapter state of evangelical thinking as it does of Enns’s book, which concerns the use the book itself.”107 While this is an obvi- of the OT in the NT (see G. K. Beale, “Did ously very generally correct statement, it Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right 33 Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? fi rst two reviews are negative and are two dominant “evolutionary” Revisiting the Debate Seventeen the latter positive, though the lat- models: an atheistic one and a Years Later in the Light of Peter ter is not written by a practicing theistic one, the latter in which Enns’s Book, Inspiration and Incarna- exegete or theologian. God is involved and directing the tion,” Themelios 32 (2006): 18-43; see 15Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s evolutionary process? There are also Enns’s response to that review Review,” 314. signifi cant Christian scholars (some in the following issue of Themelios 16Ibid. of whom even hold to inerrancy) and my surrejoinder to that in the 17Beale, “Review Article,” 311. who hold to the latter view. In fact, same following Themelios issue. 18See Beale, “Revisiting the Debate it is well-known among church 5Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Seventeen Years Later,” 18-43. historians that the great Princeton Review,” 313. 19Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s New Testament exegete, theologian, 6Ibid., 313-14. Review,” 314. and scholar still greatly revered by 7Ibid., 314. 20Ibid. both Westminster seminaries, B. B. 8Ibid. 21Ibid., 317. Warfield, accommodated some 9Ibid. 22Beale, “Review Article,” 297. qualifi ed aspects of theistic evolu- 10Ibid., 315. 23Ibid., 287. tion within his Calvinistic approach 11Ibid. 24Ibid., 293. to scripture. For example, see B. B. 12Note where Enns indicates his pur- 25Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Warfield’s articles on “Creation, pose in addressing a more popular Review,” 318. Evolution, and Mediate Creation,” audience in Inspiration and Incarna- 26Ibid. and “The Manner and Time of tion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 27Beale, “Review Article,” 289. Man’s Origin,” in B. B. Warfi eld, Evo- e.g., 13, 15, 168, though these state- 28Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, lution, Science, and Scripture: Selected ments do not exclude a scholarly 27. Writings (ed. M. A. Noll and D. N. audience. 29Ibid., 32. Livingston; Grand Rapids: Baker, 13E.g., the publishers distributed com- 30Ibid., 39. 2000), a collection of writings by plimentary copies to biblical schol- 31For my full discussion of this, see Warfi eld that Enns even cites in his ars at the November 2005 Institute Beale, “Review Article,” 293-95. “Response” (313-314, n. 3; 318, n. 9). for Biblical Research meeting. 32Enns chaffs at my labeling of his In this light, how in the world could 14Beale, “Review Article,” 312. In position as “evolutionary,” and Enns think that I meant the natural- addition to the reviews noted in says I should have been “more istic, atheistic model of evolution, my review article now see D. A. circumspect than to use such a since he clearly espouses belief in Carson, “Three More Books on visceral term,” since evolutionary God? I do not think that I needed the Bible: A Critical Review,” Trin- models are naturalistic and exclude to qualify the word, since Enns ity Journal 27 NS (2006): 1-62; Paul divine “direction and involvement” expresses such belief in God, and, Helm, review of Peter Enns, Inspira- (Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s thus, I do not think that reference tion and Incarnation, reformation21. Review,” 318). He says he is “work- to theistic evolution is “visceral” Online: http://www.reformation21. ing from a progressive-revelational (especially since I do not refer to it org/Life/Shelf_Life/Shelf_Life/ model.” Perhaps, he thinks the as my own opinion but that others 181?vobId=2938&pm=434; and word is visceral, since it may evoke “would call it ‘evolutionary’”). Susan Wise Bauer, “Messy Rev- associations with the notion of, 33Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s elation,” Books and Culture (May/ for example, biological evolution Review,” 318. June 2006), 8-9 (Available Online: and its applications to the history 34Ibid., 319. http://www.christianitytoday. of intellectual and social thought. 35Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, com/bc/2006/003/3.8.html). The But is it not well-known that there 44. 34 36Ibid. 59See Walton, “Ancient Near Eastern 71Note his above quotation from 37See Beale, “Review Article,” 290, Background Studies,” in Diction- ibid., 41. 296 ary for Theoligical Interpretation of 72Ibid., 40. 38Ibid., 293. the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; 73Ibid., 54. 39Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 43, 74D. A. Carson, “A Critical Review,” Review,” 317. who repudiates such unconscious 34-35. 40Peter Enns, “Exodus and the Prob- absorption and use of myth in the 75On which see G. K. Beale, The Temple lem of Historiography” (paper pre- Old Testament, while still affi rming and the Church’s Mission (Leicester: sented at the annual meeting of the that “God’s communication used IVP, 2004), 29-80. Evangelical Theological Society, San the established literary genres of the 76On which see ibid. 29-80. Antonio, Texas, November 2004). ancient world and often conformed 77On which see ibid., 81-167. 41Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s to the rules that existed within 78For my explanation of the relation- Review,” 319. those genres” (41). ship, see ibid., 29-167. 42Ibid. 60Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s 79As, e.g., that depicted in A. P. 43Ibid. Review,” 319-320. Dickin’s chart in Enns, Inspiration 44E.g., see Beale, “Review Article,” 61J. H. Walton, Genesis (NIV Applica- and Incarnation, 54. 293; for the full evidence, see 289- tion Commentary; Grand Rapids: 80Beale, “Review Article,” 301. 297 to which the reader should Zondervan, 2001), 84, though see 81Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s refer. the entire section of pp. 65-159. Review,” 321. 45Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 62Ibid., 147-152; though, while this is 82Quoting in part J. D. Woodbridge, 43-44. a literal depiction, the time scope Biblical Authority: A Critique of the 46Ibid., 43. may be diffi cult to pin down. Also, Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rap- 47Ibid., 50. the cosmos is defi ned as the literal ids: Zondervan, 1982), 163. 48Ibid., 41. macrocosmic temple, of which small 83See D. A. Carson, Becoming Conver- 49Ibid, though the wording is part of ANE and Israel’s architectural tem- sant with the Emerging Church (Grand a question in his book (“does this ples were microcosmic models. Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 188-200; [Genesis’s similarity to ANE myth] 63Beale, “Review Article,” 296. see also A. C. Thiselton, The Two indicate that myth is the proper cat- 64See ibid., 297. Horizons: New Testament Herme- egory for understanding Genesis?), 65For elaboration of this, see my neutics and Philosophical Description in context, he answers the question “Revisiting the Debate Seventeen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), positively. Years Later” and my “Surrejoinder 411: “In Greek literature and in the 50Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s to Peter Enns” in a subsequent issue Old and New Testaments there are Review,” 320. of Themelios. abundant examples of uses of the 51V. P. Long , The Art of Biblical His- 66For a convenient summary of this word ‘truth’ in which the point at tory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, aspect and problem of Von Rad’s issue is correspondence with the 1994), 40. theology, see W. Eichrodt, Theology facts of the matter.” 52Ibid., 45-46. of the Old Testament 1 (Philadelphia: 84Enns, Inspiraton and Incarnation, 55; 53Ibid., 48. Westminster Press, 1961), 512-20. so also p. 41: “the biblical stories 54Ibid., 44-45. 67Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s are similar enough to invite com- 55Ibid., 57. Review,” 320. parison” with the category of ANE 56Ibid., 43. 68Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation,” myth. 57Ibid., 46. 40. 85Interestingly, in contrast to Enns’s 58Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, 69Ibid., 41. approach, C. Van Til’s presupposi- 55. 70Ibid., 55. tionalist perspective, the most well- 35 known apologist of the Westminster Review,” 317. Seminary tradition, of which Enns 98Enns says that I employ “at times identifi es himself, starts fi rst with heavy rhetoric” (ibid., 317), but I Scripture and judges all things by would like to see more examples Scripture. of what he considers such “heavy 86On which see Beale, “Review rhetoric.” Article,” 289-90. 99Ibid., 323. 87For my fuller argument in this 100Ibid. respect, see my “Revisiting the 101Ibid. Debate Seventeen Years Later;” and 102Beale, “Review Article,” 299. my “Surrejoinder to Peter Enns” in a 103Which some moderate evangelicals forthcoming issue of Themelios. would say, e.g., was that Adam was 88Note Enns, “Response to G. K. a real fi gure in history or that there Beale’s Review,” 320, n. 14, where really was a fl ood in Noah’s day or he uses this language to pose the that the prophet Isaiah wrote the question of how to determine genre, entire book of Isaiah or that Moses a question that he answers in his was the author of the Pentateuch, book and in his “Response” that I etc. lay out above. 104Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s 89Ibid., 315, n. 6. Review,” 324. 90It may be true that our differ- 105Enns, Inspiraton and Incarnation, ences are due to presuppositional 114-115, 132. perspectives, but, if so, it may be 106Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s because Enns and I interpret the Review,” 324. presuppositional approaches of old 107Ibid., 326. Princeton and old Westminster dif- ferently. I am sure, however, that we could not get to the bottom of this particular disagreement without some in-depth face-to-face discus- sion and debate. 91Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Review,” 323. 92Ibid., 322. 93Carson, “A Critical Review,” 37-40. 94See my above cited Themelios article, “Revisiting the Debate Seventeen Years Later,” and, in a forthcoming issue of the same journal, Enns’s response, and my surrejoinder. 95Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s Review,” 322. 96Beale, “Review Article,” 303. 97Enns, “Response to G. K. Beale’s 36