Evangelical tensions over biblical inspiration in the twenty-first century: A case study on the views of Peter Enns and John Frame Doctoral dissertation, Avondale College of Higher Educ
Diversity in the Wisdom Books 74
Following several examples of diversity in the book of Proverbs, 50 Enns notes that the contrasting presentations of certain themes in Proverbs point to the need for discretion in how those themes are handled.
Although he questions correctness and when the statements apply, the idea that the diversity found in Proverbs presents a challenge or difficulty is, however, entirely absent Enns instead identifies the key ideas as complexity, contrast, and difference, rather than a problem of interpretation.
With respect to Ecclesiastes, Enns notes “tensions” that have been recognized
As far back as the early medieval period, tensions are seen to arise on two levels: internal diversity within the book itself and a divergence between the book’s teachings and mainstream Old Testament theology Enns presents only one clear example of internal diversity (Proverbs 7:3/8:15) and identifies two potential tensions with the broader Old Testament canon: Proverbs 2:10 appears to be at odds with Numbers 15:39, while Proverbs 1:18 and 7:16 are suggested as expressing sentiments not typically found in Proverbs.
The one example of tension that Enns identifies within the book of Ecclesiastes is between Eccl 7:3 and 8:15:
Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart (7:3)
50 Enns notes the contrast in proverbs dealing with foolishness (Prov 26:4 and 26:5) and riches or wealth (10:15, 18:11, 10:16, 11:4, 11:28, 11:28 and 19:4)
So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun (8:15)
Notably, Enns offers no exegesis, no contextual framing, and no attempt to pinpoint where the conflict lies; he simply presents the texts and then moves on to the next example, which, unlike the first, is said to illustrate tension between Ecclesiastes and other parts of the Old Testament.
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure (2:10)
Enns claims that “on the surface at least this seems to be quite at odds with Numbers 15:39”:
These tassels are placed to be a continual reminder of all the LORD’s commands, so you remember and live by them By keeping this reminder, you will avoid turning away to follow the lusts of your own heart and eyes, choosing obedience instead.
Again, Enns offers no explanation for either of these texts, instead noting that the apparent need among earlier Jewish and Christian interpreters to address these specific issues highlights the problem.
Enns’s third example is put forward as demonstrating a tension between the view of wisdom portrayed in Ecclesiastes and that found elsewhere in the Wisdom literature, specifically in Proverbs:
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief (1:18)
Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise – why destroy yourself? (7:16)
Enns begins by asserting that “one will not find such sentiments in Proverbs,” by which he seems to imply that Ecclesiastes presents a rather less enthusiastic
Although some readers might expect Proverbs to offer an unqualified endorsement of wisdom, the author immediately cautions that the matter is far more complicated than that Both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes reveal diversity in their presentations of truth and acknowledge the ups and downs of life in a harsh world Is there real tension between them? Perhaps, because Proverbs emphasizes that “wisdom works” in tangible ways, while Ecclesiastes 1:18 and 7:16 present a different perspective In truth, both books recognize that wisdom does not guarantee a favorable outcome, and since the wise and the unwise alike die, there is ultimately no assured gain from being wise.
Enns closes his discussion of Ecclesiastes by arguing against any effort to harmonize its diverse voices and differences He repeatedly emphasizes that "the point here is not to iron them out," underscoring that the strength of the text lies in its variety and unresolved tensions rather than in forced uniformity.
“diversity should not be thought of as a problem to be explained away;” “to respect the diversity of the Old Testament is to respect it the way God has given it to us.” Embracing these ideas means viewing the Old Testament not as a monolithic text to be simplified, but as a collection of diverse voices, genres, and contexts that illuminate faith By honoring this diversity, we affirm the genuine integrity of Scripture, interpreting it with care, reverence, and attention to how God has delivered it to us, which leads to a richer understanding of biblical history, theology, and doctrine.
Significantly, Enns defends this method by appealing to an incarnational analogy: when we apply the incarnation as a lens, the Bible reveals its diversity because the human drama in which God participates is itself diverse.
In Job, Enns finds diversity of another kind It is that, in Job, the relationship between deeds and their consequences is less clear, less certain than elsewhere in the
OT, less clear even than another Wisdom book: Proverbs 58 Nowhere here does Enns suggest a “problem,” however Indeed, he says,
Rather than contradicting Deuteronomy or Proverbs, the Book of Job offers a different perspective Its diversity isn’t about countering Deuteronomy; it adds a real-life dimension to the questions about human activity and its consequences.
Diversity in Chronicles 77
Enns argues that while the biblical wisdom literature reveals thematic contrasts—within a single book and across different books—and diverse applications of wisdom, the diversity found in Chronicles takes a different shape He asserts that what makes Chronicles especially challenging is its presentation of an alternate history of Israel relative to the account in Samuel–Kings, signaling from the outset a distinctive interpretive viewpoint that sets Chronicles apart from the wisdom tradition.
“alternate” 61 conveys quite a different sense to complementary He expands:
Chronicles is written for the postexilic Israelites, a distinct immediate audience that shapes its voice and purpose Consequently, the book offers a reinterpretation of the events leading up to Israel’s exile, reframing them to convey hope and covenantal meaning to those returning to the land.
Scholars argue that the aim of Samuel–Kings, in part, was to interpret the exile for an exilic audience Although the contrast with Chronicles may not be immediately obvious, Enns emphasizes its importance Chronicles, by contrast, presents Israel’s history from the perspective of those who have returned to the land after their release from exile, signaling a shift in historiography and national memory Together, these differences illuminate how post-exilic writers framed memory and identity for their readers.
The choice of the word “interpretation” is significant and appears to be at odds with 2 Peter 1:20, which states that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.” The issue is admittedly debatable and depends, in part, on whether one understands “prophecy” in this text to refer exclusively to the words of the prophets or to the entirety of the Scriptures A consideration of this question connects with other elements of Enns’s schema, for which reason a closer consideration of this issue must be deferred until the discussion offered in Chapter Four, “Comparison and Evaluation.”
Enns identifies four differing emphases in Chronicles: (1) that Chronicles greatly diminishes the sins of David; (2) that Chronicles emphasizes the unity of God’s people; (3) that Chronicles strongly emphasizes the temple and Solomon’s role in building it; and (4) that Chronicles emphasizes a theology of immediate retribution.
Scholars like Enns point to substantial theological diversity between the two accounts of Israel’s history, with the differences arising from the authors’ distinct purposes He suggests that these divergences, while challenging, reveal a deliberate tension built into the biblical narrative Crucially, God himself is pleased to allow this tension to exist, and recognizing this openly should be the proper starting point for any constructive discussion By embracing this diversity and tension, readers are better positioned to engage deeply with the biblical text and set the stage for more nuanced interpretation.
Diversity in the Law 78
Enns suggests that diversity in the law might be surprising, because, to some, such inconsistency could imply that God is inconsistent The Ten Commandments showcase this with two biblical versions, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 The preamble and commandments 1–3 and 6–9 are identical in both, yet there are a few instances of difference in wording elsewhere For Enns, this is noteworthy, and one might wonder why there are any differences between the wordings of the commandments, despite his admission that there are differences.
Footnote 66 reiterates the earlier claim that "the differences in the fifth commandment are certainly inconsequential." Beyond this, the text notes important distinctions in how the commandments are introduced and in the motive for keeping the Sabbath, as indicated in footnote 67.
Rather than treating the Ten Commandments as a static record of ancient Israelite historians, the biblical claim is that God himself reveals his law to his people, a position that raises the question of why this would be a problem if God seems willing to adjust his law over time The surrounding text suggests the law has a situational dimension: different eras produce different purposes Thus, although the law states that the LORD punishes the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5-6; Deuteronomy 5:9-19), the prophet Ezekiel speaks from his own context—where the second commandment was being abused—and relativizes the letter of that commandment Enns argues that the diversity observed here shows the Ten Commandments can be interpreted and applied in diverse ways depending on the situation being addressed.
There follow four further sub-sections in which Enns offers additional examples of diversity in the law: “Slaves”; “Passover”; “Sacrifice”; and “Gentiles”
Enns does not detail every point here, but notes that one example may be “somewhat unsettling,” while another is a “problem;” and the differences among these items reveal a “dynamic quality” or a “tension” within the Old Testament He closes the section on law by reaffirming the earlier claim that “diversity in the Old Testament exists, even on the level of the legal data.”
God and Diversity 80
Contrary to the common view that the Israelite understanding yields a uniform, exclusive deity, Enns contends that the Old Testament offers a more varied portrait of God He argues that Israel’s conviction that Yahweh alone is God must be understood within the polytheistic cultures of the ancient Near East He cites biblical texts describing Yahweh as greater than the gods of the surrounding nations, and he rejects the supposition that such poetic language implies Yahweh is merely one god among many; instead, these passages underscore Yahweh’s supremacy.
“gods” was not to be taken literally Instead, “for the comparison to have any real punch, both entities must be presumed to be real.” Admittedly,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 1 Kings appear to emphasize that other gods do not exist, a claim echoed by certain Psalms; yet this should not cause us to dismiss the witness of those other Psalms as secondary, since the full biblical witness—including both prophetic books and the Psalms—offers a richer understanding of monotheism and divine sovereignty.
Concluding his discussion on diversity in biblical law, Enns acknowledges that, even after examining many laws in detail, we should not become lost in the particulars He urges readers to step back and view the big picture: there is genuine diversity in the Old Testament, extending even to the level of the legal data.
The diversity must be allowed to stand: “we must … be willing to compose as diverse a portrait of God as the biblical data demand.” 77
Several texts are cited to support the author’s argument In his exhortation, Joshua asks Israel to choose whom they will serve—the gods of their forefathers, the gods of the Amorites, or whether to follow his example by serving Yahweh—and he presses them to worship Yahweh alone Joshua’s point is not that other gods do not exist, but that Yahweh alone is worthy of worship The exodus plagues are cited as part of this argument to underscore Yahweh’s unique sovereignty.
The text records declarations of war against Egypt’s power structure, signaling to both Egypt and Israel that Israel’s God is not merely mightier than Pharaoh but greater than the gods worshiped by Pharaoh and his people This articulation underlines the supremacy of Israel’s God over political tyranny and the Egyptian pantheon alike.
Enns makes a similar point with the first of the Ten Commandments, which
Rather than saying 'There are no other gods,' the commandment reads 'You shall have no other gods.' Likewise, the phrasing of the second commandment seems to imply that idols can be real rivals of Yahweh, so much so that he would be jealous if Israel worshiped them Enns’s accommodationist stance is evident in his ensuing comment.
During the Exodus, the Israelites were at the dawn of their national existence, living amid a polytheistic world as they took their first steps toward knowing the God of Israel In this early stage of redemption, the gods of the surrounding nations were still treated as real by those around them, highlighting the challenge Israel faced in distinguishing the true divine from neighboring beliefs.
Enns argues that God’s revelation of himself entails him accommodating himself to his audience, condescending to the conventions and conditions of the people to whom he is revealing himself so that his message can be understood (Ibid., 109).
In the Old Testament, diversity appears not only in how God relates to the nations’ gods but also in how his actions unfold Scholar Ben Enns suggests, in a section titled “Does God Change His Mind?” that God often behaves like a character in the story, sometimes appearing more humanlike than divine For example, when God intervenes to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, he declares, “Now I know that you fear God,” implying divine knowledge comes after the test is passed Similarly, Genesis 6:5–8 presents God reacting to human wickedness In Exodus 32–34, after the golden calf episode, God contemplates wiping out the people and abandoning them, but Moses’ intercession leads to a change of course Enns stresses that, regardless of the ultimate truth about God, the Old Testament portrays a being who can be acted upon, whose actions are, in a meaningful sense, contingent on what people do The overarching point is that the biblical depiction shows God interacting with and being shaped by his people, even if that portrayal challenges theological comfort.
Enns suggests, obliquely, that it is a mistake to attempt to harmonise or theologise the above data For example, “any attempt to force the God of Genesis 6
Trying to mold the Bible to fit a theological preconception or reading other passages to negate this story amounts to reading past it The Bible has authority when we let it speak, not when we suspend what it says about God to pursue speculation about what God is “really” like, perhaps by privileging passages more amenable to our thinking God gave us the Bible so we could read it, not to ferret out behind it some hidden reality Two corollaries follow: first, resisting harmonization preserves the Old Testament’s diversity of revelation—God reveals himself throughout the Old Testament, and no part is “more right” than another; they all get at different aspects of God Second, God’s way of speaking in understandable terms—such as talk of God changing his mind—fits the incarnational analogy, and indeed the whole Bible bears a human dimension.
Having laid out the evidence, Enns closes the chapter with concise summary thoughts under the heading “What Does Diversity Tell Us about Scripture?” He reiterates that some of the foregoing data could be unsettling for some readers; these tensions are not merely apparent problems—their existence is a matter of simple observation—and, in fact, such tensions demonstrate to us how fully the diversity within Scripture challenges straightforward interpretations and invites careful, reflective study.
God participates in history, that he incarnates himself throughout Israel’s history.” The diversity, then, is to be expected 91
Indeed, the incarnational analogy dominates the rest of the chapter, suggesting that what some call the Old Testament’s “messiness” — the tensions inherent in its diversity — actually reveals that God is real and near his people These tensions, rather than undermining the Bible, find their redemption in the incarnational analogy, because just as God, in Christ, enters the messiness of history to save us, he is also present in the messiness of the written word To put it plainly, Enns turns the debate on its head: the diversity of Scripture and the tensions it introduces bear witness to God’s revelation rather than detracting from it.
Summary 84
Throughout the Old Testament, different perspectives on the same topics emerge, and Enns points to such diversity in the wisdom literature, in the differing accounts of Israel’s history in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, in Israel’s legal codes, and in the varied portrayals of God across the canon Enns contends that the impulse to harmonize these divergent voices should not guide interpretation Instead, we should celebrate this diversity as evidence of God’s willingness to fully participate in history, illustrating that God incarnated Himself throughout Israel’s history.
92 Ibid., 110 The phrase “messiness of the Old Testament” is used also on the previous page Note, too,
The Challenge of the Old Testament in the New 85
Second Temple Literature and Hermeneutics 86
Enns’s disagreement with the three evangelical approaches to the issue under consideration in this chapter centers on their failure to engage the New Testament in the hermeneutical world in which the NT writers lived He agrees with modern scholarship, including evangelical scholars, that the grammatical-historical approach to biblical interpretation is useful—the words of the text must be understood in their original grammatical and historical contexts Yet he insists that the scholar must also be aware of the hermeneutical world in which the New Testament writers lived and wrote.
Enns in Inspiration To the question, “Can we do what the apostles did?” Bock answers, “My argument is that we do it even when we claim we do not” (147)
The Second Temple period provides the historical context, and the Jewish writings of that era constitute the hermeneutical framework This ancient interpretive world comprises not only Second Temple literature but also the Old Testament itself, and Enns begins his analysis with the Old Testament.
Briefly noting the Old Testament chronicler's engagement with the books of Samuel and Kings, the article points to Chronicles as a prime example of ancient biblical interpretation Yet the most relevant emphasis for Enns at this point is Daniel's handling of Jeremiah's prophecy about the seventy years of Babylonian captivity Through the illumination granted by the angel Gabriel, Daniel finds understanding.
“the deeper meaning contained in Jeremiah’s words, meaning that Jeremiah himself neither intended nor could be expected on his own to understand.” 103
Enns argues that while Luke 24:44–48 is not itself an example of inner-biblical interpretation, it presents a hermeneutical foundation for how Christians now understand the Old Testament The crucial observation is Christ’s claim that his suffering and resurrection on the third day were written in the Scriptures The pressing question is where exactly in the Old Testament such a prediction appears Some have proposed Hosea 6:2 as a possible instance, but trying to locate such a prediction in a single text borders on oversimplification.
101 Enns refers to this as the “hermeneutical-historical” context, in contrast to the grammatical-historical context See Inspiration, 117; also “Fuller Meaning,” 174
102 Inspiration, 117-18 For further examples, Enns refers the reader to Michael Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985)
Enns’ central claim about Daniel 9 is significant regardless of whether his reading is accepted, because it highlights a persistent gap between the original biblical text’s meaning—especially Jeremiah’s prophecy—and the subsequent commentary that follows This interpretive distance appears in both canonical interpretations and extrabiblical Second Temple literature, showing how later readings can reshape or even obscure the prophet’s intended message Recognizing this gap is crucial for evaluating Daniel 9 within its historical context and for guiding careful exegesis that separates the original prophetic meaning from later interpretive expansions or explanations.
Some scholars argue that the Old Testament is not simply full of detailed prophecies about Christ’s life; rather, Christ is saying that all Scriptures speak of him in the sense that he is the climax of Israel’s story This interpretation frames the biblical narrative as a unified arc whose fulfillment centers on Jesus, presenting him as the culmination and meaning of the whole Israelite story.
Enns’s discussion of biblical interpretation in Second Temple literature is notably lengthy yet deliberately selective, focusing on one example from the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and one from the Dead Sea Scrolls He treats Wisdom of Solomon chapter 10 as particularly significant, where the author, under the label Pseudo-Solomon, recounts the early history of the people of Israel with a strong emphasis on God’s protective care In this section, the text presents a who’s who of major Old Testament figures while offering a series of concise observations about each of them.
Solomon’s commentary, as described by Enns, is linked to figures such as Adam, Cain, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, and Joseph, illuminating how Pseudo-Solomon introduces details not found in the biblical record or that appear to contradict it.
106 Wisdom of Solomon “was written in Greek sometime between the latter part of the first century BC and early part of the first century AD” (Inspiration, 121)
Scholars examine how Pseudo-Solomon frames key biblical figures, including Adam—described as delivered from his transgression (Wis 10:2)—a reading Enns argues does not align with the orthodox doctrine of original sin The narrative also ties the Flood to Cain, suggests Abraham as a contemporary of the Tower of Babel episode, and treats Lot as a righteous man—a claim Enns concedes is biblically justifiable from 2 Pet 2:7 The main point is that Pseudo-Solomon comes down on one side of a contentious interpretive issue where two sides exist Additionally, Jacob is depicted as protected from Esau and his men who lie in wait for him.
Scholars identify a preexisting interpretive tradition found in an earlier Second Temple text, Jubilees (125) Joseph is accused not only by Potiphar’s wife but by others, likely referencing a roughly contemporary Second Temple tradition, Life of Joseph, that "puts into the mouth of Potiphar’s wife the accusation that Joseph not only made advances on her but had a track record of doing the same with her maidens" (126) Additionally, three cases of extra-biblical details added to the Exodus story bear witness to these preexisting interpretive traditions.
Pseudo-Solomon’s retelling of the biblical narrative reveals an interpretive tradition about the story that, by his time, had already become part of the common understanding Enns repeatedly emphasizes this point in the ensuing discussion This observation is crucial to Enns’s central thesis for the chapter: there are similarities between the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament and that of other Second Temple texts, both in the interpretive methods employed and in the interpretive traditions adopted.
Before offering New Testament examples that demonstrate the thesis, Enns provides one more example of Second Temple hermeneutics and a brief summary of the argument up to this point His example is drawn from the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the Qumran pesher on Habakkuk (1QpHab), which demonstrates the application of that hermeneutical approach.
Three meanings exist for a single biblical passage, and none of them aligns with the sense Habakkuk intended Distinct from Pseudo-Solomon’s commentary, the Qumran texts depart from the original meaning due to the community’s eschatological outlook They believed they were the people of the end times, so biblical interpretation was not about uncovering ancient meaning but about using Scripture to validate their present self-understanding From this perspective, Enns is thus able to demonstrate how this interpretive stance shaped readings of the Bible.
112 Ibid., 129 to apply an earlier point (noted above), viz., “it is safe to say that the interpretation of Habakkuk 1:5 in 1QpHab is not an exercise in grammatical-historical exegesis.” 113
Enns summarizes the lessons from Second Temple literature by reaffirming three main points: first, Second Temple biblical interpreters sometimes manipulated the text to suit their purposes, illustrating distinct interpretive methods; second, they wrote within and adopted existing interpretive traditions; and third, they did not aim to reproduce the original author's intended meaning, operating instead under standards that differ markedly from those of modern interpreters.
Second Temple Hermeneutics in the New Testament 90
Although the New Testament does not precisely mirror its predecessors, Enns argues that it is best understood as a Second Temple interpretive text Accordingly, it should be read in a way that would be recognizable to its original contemporaries, rather than expecting it to conform to twenty-first‑century expectations.
Enns discusses a number of examples to illustrate just how the NT writers “behave” in
The term “exegetical techniques” appears on the same page but is effectively subsumed under the broader category “interpretive methods” (see Inspiration, 131) As noted, the ensuing discussion is organized under two, not three, headings: “Apostolic Hermeneutics as a Second Temple Phenomenon: Interpretive Methods” (132–142) and “Apostolic Hermeneutics as a Second Temple Phenomenon: Interpretive Traditions” (142–151).
116 Ibid., 131 In “Fuller Meaning,” Enns enlarges upon this caveat: “This is not to say that their interpretive comments are wholly determined by their Second Temple context It is, however, to acknowledge that how the NT authors approached the task of biblical interpretation (their methods) and how they understood certain OT episodes (their traditions) boldly bear the unmistakable stamp of their historical setting But more important than this bare observation … is the fact that this very process is one that also bears the stamp of God’s imprimatur” (202)
117 Inspiration, 131-32 this respect The examples are offered in two sections that differentiate between interpretive methods and interpretive traditions 118
Enns describes two dimensions of “apostolic hermeneutics”: apostolic interpretive methods and interpretive traditions He contends that these methods do not always conform to the modern grammatical-historical exegesis used in contemporary scholarship He also notes that the existence of interpretive traditions reveals what Paul’s “interpreted Bible” consisted of While most of these traditions are attested in Second Temple literature, it is not always clear whether these references predate the New Testament writings, according to Enns.
Due to space constraints, Enns’s handling of the various texts he cites in support of his argument cannot be fully detailed here; brief notes follow In respect to interpretive methods, Enns outlines the methodological approaches he uses to analyze these texts.
Matthew’s well-known citation of Hosea 11:1 (Matt 2:15) is presented as an example that Enns treated in detail in his earlier work Matthew and Hosea (2001; see n 13, above) Paul’s handling of Isaiah 49:8 (2 Cor 6:2) is described as markedly different from what he calls “modern, scientific exegesis” (Inspiration, 135) Paul’s use of the word
Paul's handling of the word "seed" in Galatians 3:16 and 3:29 shows how he deliberately exploits its grammatical ambiguity within a Second Temple hermeneutic to link Christ with his people and reinterpret Abraham's promise as a blessing rooted in a spiritual seed rather than a literal descendant; similarly, in Romans 11:26–27, Paul engages Isaiah 59:20 but amends the text to fit his interpretive purpose, crafting a reading that supports his argument about Israel's future salvation through faith in Christ.
This note discusses the citation of Psalm 95:9–10 in Hebrews 3:7–11, a connection that Enns previously treated in Creation and Recreation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13 (Westminster Theological Journal 55, no 2, Fall 1993, pp 255–80) In examining the interpretive traditions behind particular New Testament texts, Enns presents seven examples, all of which had already been treated in two prior articles, with the discussion thus far covering the first six examples.
Six topics—“Jannes and Jambres,” “Noah, the Preacher of Righteousness,” “The Dispute over Moses’ Body,” “Jude and 1 Enoch,” “Moses’ Egyptian Education,” and “The Law Was Put into Effect through Angels”—are each briefly discussed in Apostolic Hermeneutics (2003; see n 36, above), with the last of these six receiving a much fuller treatment in the later “Fuller Meaning” (185–197 in Berding and Lunde; see n.).
96, above) The final example–“Paul’s Moveable Well”–was the subject of an entire article, “The
“Moveable Well” (1996; see note 36) provides the anchor for this discussion In Fuller Meaning, Enns selects three examples mentioned in his earlier works—Abraham’s seed, the law put into effect through angels, and Matthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1—and treats them in greater depth than in Inspiration Enns’s analysis of these texts aims to show that, in places, the New Testament writings exhibit similarities with the interpretive practices and traditions of Second Temple literature.
122 Enns cites a total of twelve different extrabiblical sources for these seven traditions They are: (1) for
For Enns, the issue is moot; his remarks on Jude’s citation of Enoch (Jude 14–15) likely reflect his overall approach to the other examples he presents.
Jude did not have a fixed copy of what we now call 1 Enoch in front of him; instead, the Enoch narrative grew from the pre-Christian era into the early medieval period The real issue is not that a canonical author cites a noncanonical text authoritatively, but that the evolving traditions about Enoch—traditions that circulated and to which early interpreters, including Jude, had access—shaped his reading For Noah, the preacher of righteousness, these traditions survive in sources such as Josephus’s Antiquities (1.3.1, §74) and the Sibylline Oracles (1.125-), illustrating how Enochian material circulated through antiquity and influenced both Jewish and early Christian exegesis.
Scholars draw on a range of ancient sources to illuminate Moses, including a fragmentary reference in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 108a; for the dispute over Moses’ body, the Assumption (or Testament) of Moses, attributed to Clement of Alexandria and Origen; for Jude 14–15, the parallel in 1 Enoch 1:9; for Moses’ Egyptian education, Philo’s Life of Moses 1.5, §§21–24 and Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge lines 36–38; and for the law enacted through angels, the Targum.
Scholars trace the Moses’ Egyptian education tradition through various ancient texts, including Targum Onqelos to Numbers 21:16–20 and Jubilees 1:27–29 and 2:1, as well as references to Paul’s moveable well, yet exact dating for many of these sources is difficult, and Enns offers little guidance on how they relate chronologically to the New Testament Only two cases stand out where he clearly dates a source: Philo’s Life of Moses and Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge, which he treats as pre–New Testament witnesses to the tradition of Moses’ Egyptian education There is also Clement and Origen (both from the third century CE) who attribute Jude’s comment to the Assumption of Moses Although Enns does not directly assign a date to this extracanonical work, his remark that Jude’s comment derives from an extracanonical origin “beyond debate” implies a date prior to the New Testament.
Testament As for the two possible sources for Paul’s moveable well, Enns provides no date for the
Enns treats Noah as a preacher of righteousness by listing a few sources and offering only faint dating guidance; he mentions Targum Onqelos and notes that the Tosefta—a pre-Talmudic compilation of rabbinic traditions—is relatively old and therefore closer to the New Testament era than either the Talmud or the Targum When discussing the three sources for Noah in antiquity—the Josephus Antiquities, the Sibylline Oracles, and the Sanhedrin tractate—Enns provides only hints: Antiquities was largely written for Josephus’s Roman audience, while the Sibylline Oracles and Sanhedrin are somewhat later He gives little information about the dating of the remaining four sources, except for the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch Regarding this work, Enns notes its pre-Christian origins but concedes that Jude may not have read it or even known of its existence Consequently, the lay reader of Enns’s book will likely struggle to form a clear picture of how these ancient texts relate chronologically to the New Testament—a shortcoming for which Enns deserves fault.
Summary 98
According to Enns, the New Testament writers often approach the Old Testament in ways that differ from contemporary hermeneutical standards He argues that their method arose within a Second Temple context, which shaped how they interpreted Scripture and meant they did not always read OT texts in the original historical context and intent of the OT authors This milieu also supplied the apostles with established interpretive traditions through which they viewed OT events and personalities, effectively creating what Enns calls an interpreted Bible By applying these Second Temple hermeneutics, the apostles interpreted the Old Testament in light of Christ’s coming, a method Enns calls christotelic hermeneutics.
The Challenge of Biblical History and Historiography 98
Genesis and the ANE Texts 101
Enns begins with the Genesis issue, noting that both conservatives and critical scholars acknowledge a relationship between Akkadian texts and their biblical counterparts But what exactly is the nature of that relationship? If we admit that the Akkadian stories are not historically factual, how can we logically claim that the biblical stories are true when they look so much alike? Put differently, if one set of texts is labeled myth, why not the other?
Conservative Christians tend to resist describing the biblical narratives as myth, arguing that the Genesis accounts must be understood as history to be worthy of the Bible Enns acknowledges that the term myth is not constructive in this debate and should be abandoned because of its long history of shifting meanings, but since scholars have not reached a consensus on a better term, he keeps using it for the purposes of discussion He offers a careful definition: myth is an ancient, premodern label used to interpret the foundational narratives of the Bible.
Enns's presentation is not straightforward but remains coherent as he re-examines three groups of texts around key questions: “Is Genesis myth or history?” “Is revelation unique?” and “Is good historiography objective or biased?” Each discussion is brief (about two pages) and somewhat introductory, and he also introduces two short sections posed as questions—“How have these issues been handled in the past?” and “How can we think differently through these issues?”—which serve as an interlude before the ANE text groups are revisited in greater depth with the aim of answering the three questions Given the back-and-forth structure, a section-by-section summary would be tedious; what matters is grasping the thrust of Enns’s arguments in order to appreciate the conclusions he draws.
151 Inspiration, 49 prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?” 152
Enns emphasizes a prescientific element, drawing a sharp dichotomy between the modern scientific explanations of the universe and ancient prescientific conceptions He ties this distinction to the concept of myth, arguing that Genesis reflects an ancient Near Eastern worldview that is clearly older Regardless of whether Genesis relies on earlier ANE texts, the crucial point is that its context—the ancient Near Eastern, mythic framework in which the Genesis narratives were written—was not a modern scientific one.
Genesis was not intended to answer questions framed by a modern worldview—whether the creation days were literal or figurative, how those days align with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.
152 Ibid., 50 (emphases in original) The same definition appears also on p 40
Enns argues that Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) myths are almost certainly older than the biblical accounts, based on three main points: Israelite culture is much younger than its Near Eastern neighbors; writing was generally restricted to established, settled kingdoms and was not found among wandering peoples like the Israelites; and the Hebrew language in the Old Testament did not exist in the second millennium B.C.E when the surviving Akkadian texts were written He rejects the idea of direct textual borrowing by Genesis from Babylonian stories, proposing instead that the relationship is one of conceptual similarity rather than textual dependence.
In Evolution of Adam, Enns argues that the ancient Near Eastern texts Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis function as genre calibrations for Genesis By placing Genesis alongside these primordial narratives, readers gain a clearer understanding of what Genesis is and what contemporary readers have a right to expect from it Yet Israel’s creation stories do not provide answers to the kinds of questions that drive modern science or historical studies.
Enns acknowledges that this view is not new, yet he stresses that reading Genesis as grounded in ancient myth does not undermine its inspiration Instead, such rootedness in the culture of its time is exactly what enables God to speak to his people God enters our world at a specific time and place—much as in the incarnation of Jesus—and for Enns, incarnation means enculturation.
Laws, Proverbs, and the ANE Texts 103
Enns’s discussion of the second group of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts is less elaborate, but no less crucial to his overarching thesis These texts provide a basic historical backdrop for the biblical accounts of Israel’s early ancestors, particularly in relation to their customs, laws, and proverbs However, they are not without issues, and some examples pose significant challenges.
The striking similarity between Mosaic laws and Solomon’s Proverbs and those of neighboring cultures challenges the assumption that inspired material is uniquely divine Because Sinai laws are described as directly revealed by God and Proverbs as wisdom from God, traditional views of revelation are brought into question As with the earlier texts, the Bible’s message appears enculturated, embedded within a broader cultural milieu This perspective invites an incarnational analogy, suggesting that divine revelation operates through and within cultural contexts.
The similarities between Israel’s conduct and that of the other nations does not make Israel less unique among the nations any more than Jesus’ sharing in the customs and
159 Ibid., 43 practices of first-century Palestine makes him less unique Rather, both Israel’s practices and Christ himself are evidence of ‘God with us.’ 160
Enns adds a final element to the conclusion that echoes the earlier group of texts: Genesis, in both cases, seeks a synthesis If Genesis cannot be expected to answer the questions posed by a modern, scientific worldview, what, then, can it answer? The suggested answer is that Genesis addresses whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship Likewise, the revelation that Israel’s moral precepts, laws, and proverbs are not unique shows Israel’s claim to be connected with the one true God; it is, in effect, a declaration to the nations that this is the law and wisdom of the God who delivered us from Egypt and who created heaven and earth, whom we worship.
Biblical History and the ANE Texts 104
Scholars categorize Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts into three groups: the first casts doubt on the historicity of the early Genesis narratives, the second provides a historical backdrop to biblical events, and the third “lends clear support to the basic historicity” of Israel’s monarchic period While the first two groups raise questions or provide context, the third implies these texts “do not create a problem to be solved,” a claim that is potentially misleading.
Enns repeatedly asserts that the texts pose a problem, but the issue is not generated solely by ancient Near Eastern evidence; rather, it is an internal problem within the Old Testament itself Readers must carefully note the force of the word "create" to grasp why this difficulty arises Understanding Enns’s argument requires appreciating the nuanced analysis he offers about internal OT tensions, rather than attributing the problem solely to external sources.
Enns closes the door to extrapolations from his opening affirmation, noting that, although the texts in this third group support the historicity of Israel’s monarchical period, we cannot infer that Genesis and other early portions are likewise historical The two reasons are: extrabiblical evidence exists for the monarchic era but not for the primeval history (Genesis 1–11) or the Abraham-to-judges period, and the monarchical era differed fundamentally from what preceded it With relative political stability and the institutional framework of a monarchy, Israel developed a more pronounced historical self-consciousness, which in such a period would be expected to produce history writing that more closely resembles modern standards: a more contemporary, eyewitness-style account.
The contemporary ANE texts bear witness, then, to the essential historicity of this period in Israel But at least one of them does more than that The Mesha
Inscription is a “sustained literary product” that is, moreover, a “seriously biased
Beyond the quotation that appears later in the main text, it should be noted that the central issue is the historicity of those Old Testament narratives that seem to recount real events In other words, the problem is to determine whether these narratives genuinely reflect historical occurrences or if their apparent historicity is shaped by later theological aims.
Scholars contend that the Mesha Inscription is biased in favor of King Mesha of Moab, shaping a narrative that serves a political purpose rather than presenting objective history Moreover, several elements within the inscription suggest it is not a neutral historical record This observation invites a broader question: do Israel’s historical writings exhibit similar biases?
Biblical authors, unlike the Mesha Inscription, are willing to criticize their kings, a stance that may signal objectivity and potentially greater historical accuracy Yet the fact that only one southern king is praised in Samuel-Kings suggests the writer had an axe to grind From this, Enns shifts the discussion from historicity to historiography, asking what the ancient conventions for writing history were, what it meant to record history, and by the standards in place when the Bible was written, what counts as good or accurate history writing These questions illuminate how ancient authors shaped political narratives and historical memory.
Enns highlights how this text differs from the Tel Dan and Siloam Tunnel inscriptions: the latter merely document historical events and briefly reference figures like David’s descendants or Hezekiah’s tunnel, but they do not constitute historiography In contrast, the Mesha Inscription, while it also attests to a real fact—the existence of Israel’s King Omri—serves primarily as propaganda, presenting a biased account of Mesha’s reign and thus functioning as historiography in intent.
170 Inspiration, 60 “Historiography refers either to the study of the methodology and development of
Historiography can refer to the discipline of history itself or to the body of historical writing produced on a specialized topic Wikipedia’s Historiography entry explains that historiography studies how historians construct narratives and assess methods in historical writing Enns’s application of the term to the Mesha Inscription may, with some latitude, be accepted as consistent with the latter part of the foregoing definition This perspective is particularly relevant to the Ancient Near East (ANE), where historiographical analysis of inscriptions shapes our understanding of early history.
Much of Enns’s discussion of this third group of texts centers on the claim that no historiography is free from interpretation, asserting that what is true of historiography in general also applies to biblical historiography—that it is not objective Enns does not target the early Genesis narratives (which he has already labeled myth); instead, he argues that it is the so-called historical books of the Bible that reveal the essentially subjective, interpretive nature of biblical historiography.
Thus the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings (Samuel-Kings) are, like all historical writings, literary products grounded in real events that are shaped to fit the purpose the historian intends to convey.
Enns does not explicitly state that the Creation and Flood stories are myth in Inspiration or Evolution of Adam, but he clearly intends to imply it In Inspiration, after defining myth as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories …,” Enns draws the reader toward the idea that Israel’s creation stories are myth, but stops short of stating so directly: “If the ancient Near Eastern stories are myth (defined in this way as prescientific stories of origins), and since the biblical stories are similar enough to these stories to invite comparison, does this indicate that myth is the proper category for understanding Genesis? Before the discovery of the Akkadian stories, one could quite safely steer clear of such a question, but this is no longer the case” (41) No further suggestion of myth is added From Evolution of Adam one may note the following: “This vital piece of Old Testament theology [that Yahweh alone among ‘the crowd of less worthy gods’ is worthy of worship] will be missed if we obscure the mythic context of Israel’s stories of origins…”
Adam, 65) The meaning of Enns’s statement is not completely transparent What does he mean by
“Mythic context” should be understood as the environment in which Israel’s theologians wrote, not merely as Babylonian mythology shaping their thought; treating the Old Testament’s entire thought as simply mythic would be too broad, and it’s unlikely that Enns intended the concept to be confined to Israel’s origin stories The crucial issue is whether “context” means “content,” because true theology must be drawn from Scripture’s own words rather than from an external backdrop Enns’s claim, echoed in his full statement, is that obscuring the mythic context of Israel’s origins or failing to recognize how their creation theology is embedded in national life would neglect a vital piece of Old Testament theology Consequently, for Enns, Israel’s creation myths are themselves mythic, and the Old Testament presents two parallel accounts of the early monarchy through to exile: Samuel–Kings and 1–2 Chronicles, with Chronicles functioning as an independent historiography that diverges from Samuel–Kings in perspective and purpose The Chronicler’s aim is to interpret present circumstances by using Israel’s past, especially for readers who had returned from Babylon, thereby offering an alternate history shaped by exile and restoration.
Inevitably, differences between the two biblical histories appear in the recorded details; Enns offers a clear example from the prophet Nathan’s promise that David’s descendants would sit on Jerusalem’s throne forever, as noted in 2 Samuel 7:16 and 1 Chronicles 17:14, and he points out that the early account renders Nathan’s words in the second person.
At this stage in the discussion, Enns equates “written accounts of history” with historiography He emphasizes that all written histories are literary products grounded in historical events and shaped to advance the historian’s purpose; this does not render them untrue simply because they are not objective The central truth is that historiography reflects an interplay of event, presentation, and purpose The distinction between written histories and other historical witnesses—such as the Tel Dan and Siloam Tunnel inscriptions—exists but may feel somewhat forced or lacking nuance in serious discussions of historiography Nonetheless, Enns’ point stands: any presentation of historical events will be selective and interpretive.
As Enns argues (ibid., 64), Israel’s second version of its history stems from a desire to retell the story from a distinct perspective for a particular generation.
Summary 111
Contemporary biblical and archaeological scholarship reveals that the Old Testament contains substantial material that mirrors other ancient Near Eastern texts—ranging from creation and the flood to laws, customs, proverbs, and narratives about Israel and its kings As scholar Enns argues, the early chapters of Genesis function less as modern history and more as myth—defined here as an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing ultimate questions of origins and meaning through story Even the more historical books of the Bible present history through a particular interpretive lens, not as objective historiography by contemporary standards The widespread similarities between biblical and ANE texts raise important questions about the Bible’s essential nature: Is it unique? Is it still the word of God? The fact that laws revealed at Sinai resemble legal forms found in neighboring nations further complicates the issue of revelation Yet Enns resists harmonizing apologetics; instead, he argues that Scripture should be read as a document in which God incarnates himself, entering human history and meeting his people within their existing modes of thought and culture.