tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post4460144922379820060..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Biblical Criticism and Confessionalism - The Round-UpMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-6259531145193766842008-04-07T09:28:00.000-05:002008-04-07T09:28:00.000-05:00Frozen chosen what statement has Peter Enns made t...Frozen chosen what statement has Peter Enns made that makes you say "Dr. Enns assumes that he is the "only" one asking questions about the "human situatedness" of the Scriptures from an incarnational model."?<BR/><BR/>At most one could argue that Peter sees this posture as a minority posture in Evangelical OT studies, but nowhere does he say the he came up with this or that he is the only one doing this.<BR/><BR/>And FYI I think Peter doesn't take an either or position on Enuma Elish he says its an example of the biblical text being part of its cultural setting in its dependency on a mythic worldview and that ultimately "The question that Genesis is prepared to answer is whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship." Peter goes as far as to say, "Some scholars argue, quite persuasively in fact, that the differences between Genesis and Enuma Elish are so great that one cannot speak of any direct relationship. I feel this is essentially correct..."(pg.55, I&I)<BR/><BR/>Frozen Chosen Peter's driving point with Enuma Elish and other ANE creation stories is to help his readers see that myth is not an obstruction to inspiration. <BR/><BR/>I'm a Westminster East student who studied under Enns and graduated with an MDiv in 07. I also did an independent study under him in Pseudepigraphal & Apocryphal literatur. Pete's style of pedagogy is to raise difficult questions and not answer them finally because he desires both his readers and students to wrestle with the nature of scripture for themselves. But this is one instance where I think Pete did tip his hat and say I'm thinking in this trajectory/direction...Tony Stiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470538764456787608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-8198043497940408422008-04-04T10:43:00.000-05:002008-04-04T10:43:00.000-05:00Thank you Dr. Bird for your answers to the questio...Thank you Dr. Bird for your answers to the questions. I thought they were soberly, insightfully, yet honestly written. If I may point you to some parties from the Westminster side of the "Reformed Orthodox" perspective (I am a graduate of Westminster Seminary in California). We were taught a very robust and, I think very orthodox, approach to the use of extra-biblical sources. For example, Dr. Meredith Kline made it required reading to read the ANE creation narratives, including the Enuma Elish, and portions of ANE 2nd and 1st millenium Suzerainty Treaties. We also read the comparative work of K.A. Kitchen on these same matters. It was an eye-opening experience and faith-building and -edifying education as well. We were taught by Dr. Kline to use these extra-biblical sources, with the presuppositions of innerrancy and infallibility. Everyone has these presuppositions, admitted or not, but whatever they are we need to be aware of them. Anyhow, one explanation I found convincing was Dr. Kline's use of common grace as a context for God's redemptive revelation and grace. The ANE treaties was the historical context by which the Lord divinely took up a well-known and utilized form of treaty-making for his redemptive purposes, i.e. the Sinai Covenant. He entered into a covenant relationship in a form and manner that the Hebrews would understand in their historical situation. It's similar to the idea of allowing the providential development of the various Semitic languages and then at a specific time, place, and to a specific people, speak to them in Hebrew, a language of the time, not one that dropped from the sky.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Dr. Kline taught us that there may have been both a shared conceptuality AND a polemic aspect to Gen. 1-3. I don't think it is an either/or proposition. He taught us that there were ANE accounts, told mythologically, that reflected shared traditions of true events, such as creation and the flood. However, the tradition that comes to and through Moses is the divinely inspired tradition set down by him in the Pentateuch, as polemic and narrative history. So, of course, they will share both of those aspects.<BR/><BR/>We, "Reformed Orthodox" of the Old Princeton-Westminster stripe, don't shy away from these questions, we just acknowledge our views of Scripture as we engage in them. Dr. Kline's work in "Treaty of the Great King", along with Kitchen's work have been the model for me in grappling with these issues. Tremper Longman, has a very good article in Dr. Kline's festschrift, "Creator, Redeemer, Consummator", that gives a good summary of Dr. Kline among others, entitled, "Evangelicals and the Comparative Method".<BR/><BR/>PS- Dr. Enns assumes that he is the "only" one asking questions about the "human situatedness" of the Scriptures from an incarnational model. This perspective seems to me, a bit, condescending to those who, like Dr. Kline and his students, actually do real comparative studies and, even, in the case of the Gordon-Conwell OT faculty do archaeological work to better understand the OT human context. Enns seems to think that he is the only one who has seriously grappled with these questions and ignores everyone who asks these questions with their inerrancy intact.James Limhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03394034691302374857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-69713383365768621822008-04-04T06:22:00.000-05:002008-04-04T06:22:00.000-05:00Thanks for the helpful post, Mike. For someone so ...Thanks for the helpful post, Mike. For someone so caught up with the challenges of pastoral ministry I scarcely have time to read the blogs - to my detriment.<BR/><BR/>But re point 2. Have your fellow bloggers read the work of John Currid? I think he is on the ball when he argues that Genesis 1-3 is a polemic against an Egyptian world view rather than against the Enuma Elish (which might be argued is more directly referred to by Isaiah who thundered that there is no god besides YHWH)<BR/><BR/>But the beauty of Genesis 1-3 is that, in the providence of its author, it is a polemic against all world views throughout the centuries.<BR/><BR/>cheers,<BR/>sujomosujomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13074021709379142093noreply@blogger.com