We looked previously at how the evidence -- that is, ancient Near Eastern documents which seemingly bring a "high view" of Scripture into question -- has been handled by scholars in the past. Some saw it as a dagger in the heart of evangelical doctrine. Others -- a.k.a Evangelicals -- tried to view most of it as irrelevant.
Now we come to the part we’ve all been anticipating for the past month or so; the part where Dr Peter Enns guides us along a new path for thinking through these issues. Honest Questions has been the title of this series; we now turn to some of Enns’s honest answers.
An important word has cropped up from time to time during our snapshot of Inspiration and Incarnation. That word is not ‘evidence’, but ‘assumptions’. For Enns, the key to grappling with the evidence is to tackle some of the assumptions made on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide.
But before doing that, he makes two assumptions of his own. He assumes that
He assumes the former because Christianity is a(n) historical faith, and so it makes little sense to ignore history when it comes to understanding the faith better. The latter assumption is necessary for the sake of humility; not just Enns’s, but all those who grapple with the nature of Scripture. As Enns wisely observes, “the Spirit leads the church into truth - He does not simply drop us down in the middle of it”.
With those assumptions clarified, we head back to the issue of Genesis’ relation to other ANE (ancient Near Eastern) creation and flood accounts. Is Genesis, like these other documents, to be classified as “myth”? If so, it would seem to drag Scripture down to the level of any other ancient text. Enns questions this assumption, however (see, I told you he'd do that), claiming that the distinction between Genesis as either myth or history is a “modern invention”. He goes on to say (with pin removed from grenade) that
Enns proceeds to ask a simple, honest question (with grenade launched into the air):
Medic! Medic! Assumption down!
(Keep in mind Enns’s generous definition of “myth”: an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories.)
So how are we to account for the similarities between Genesis and ANE myths? Why are they there, and what do they do to our understanding of Scripture as the word of God?
Expect a few more grenades next time as this series draws to a close.
Now we come to the part we’ve all been anticipating for the past month or so; the part where Dr Peter Enns guides us along a new path for thinking through these issues. Honest Questions has been the title of this series; we now turn to some of Enns’s honest answers.
An important word has cropped up from time to time during our snapshot of Inspiration and Incarnation. That word is not ‘evidence’, but ‘assumptions’. For Enns, the key to grappling with the evidence is to tackle some of the assumptions made on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide.
But before doing that, he makes two assumptions of his own. He assumes that
the extrabiblical archaeological and textual evidences should play an important role in our understanding of Scripture.and
All attempts to articulate the nature of Scripture are open to examination, including my own.
He assumes the former because Christianity is a(n) historical faith, and so it makes little sense to ignore history when it comes to understanding the faith better. The latter assumption is necessary for the sake of humility; not just Enns’s, but all those who grapple with the nature of Scripture. As Enns wisely observes, “the Spirit leads the church into truth - He does not simply drop us down in the middle of it”.
With those assumptions clarified, we head back to the issue of Genesis’ relation to other ANE (ancient Near Eastern) creation and flood accounts. Is Genesis, like these other documents, to be classified as “myth”? If so, it would seem to drag Scripture down to the level of any other ancient text. Enns questions this assumption, however (see, I told you he'd do that), claiming that the distinction between Genesis as either myth or history is a “modern invention”. He goes on to say (with pin removed from grenade) that
It presupposes -- without stating explicitly -- that what is historical, in a modern sense of the word, is more real, of more value, more like something God would do, than myth. So, the argument goes, if Genesis is myth, then it is not “of God”. Conversely, if Genesis is history, only then is it something worthy of the name “Bible”.
Enns proceeds to ask a simple, honest question (with grenade launched into the air):
Why is it that God can’t use the category we call “myth” to speak to ancient Israelites?
Medic! Medic! Assumption down!
(Keep in mind Enns’s generous definition of “myth”: an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories.)
So how are we to account for the similarities between Genesis and ANE myths? Why are they there, and what do they do to our understanding of Scripture as the word of God?
Expect a few more grenades next time as this series draws to a close.
No comments:
Post a Comment