It's not as bad as all that. I eagerly awaited the publication of his book and was a little bit disappointed - nothing really new.
Peter Enns generally writes for a post-graduate evangelical audience. In this book he dumbs down his presentation, which in my opinion, makes his arguments much more abrasive. IMO, the review was a reaction to this abrasive presentation.
Peter Enns presents many arguments that are debated in one sense or another among anyone who study the bible in detail. Dr. Enns takes a view which is objectionable to a general
'go-to-church-on-Sunday' population but that is of concern to many who wrestle with the text on a daily basis.
When one studies for teaching the bible on a regular schedule, they can't help but confront these difficulties. And for some people, it even becomes a stumbling block – a faith issue.
I follow his thoughts but I'm a wimp when I teach. I don't usually deal with text-critical apologetic issues in class. When we studied Genesis' opening chapters, I presented a simple
'formed and filled' structure that was accepted well, without controversy. Then I devoted a just a single class to the various opposing viewpoints – and some in the class erupted. I learned not to directly confront these issues. Some people just aren't ready for them—some never will be.
Instead I spend time every other class or so instructing them in modern interpretive methods, introducing a historical-grammatical hermeneutic method. For those that listen and apply it, they will become a better student of the bible in their own studies. And eventually be prepared to tackle these issues on their own.
Here is a small portion of Peter Enns book:
Chapter 3 - God Likes Stories (pp. 75-77)
…storytellers "shape" the past. They decide what to include, what order to put things in, how to compress or combine scenes to save time and get the money shot, and so on. They also invent dialogue and scenes to knit the narrative together. They have to, since much of the past in inaccessible to storytellers—they themselves weren’t there to see and hear what happened.
- - - Snip - - -
The biblical storytellers recall the past, often the very distant past, not "objectively" but purposefully. They had skin in the game. These were
their stories. They wove
narratives of thepast to give meaning to their present—to persuade, motivate, and inspire.
To make that happen, like all storytellers, biblical storytellers invented and augmented dialogue, characters, and scenes to turn past moments into a flowing story—not because the were lazy or sneaky, but because that's what storytellers need to do to create a narrative. They shifted and arranged the past, or wove together discrete moments, all for the purpose of telling
their story for
their audience.
The Bible itself gives 100 present proof that the biblical writers were doing just that: they present the same past events from different perspectives. And by different, I mean
very different—big scenes, important details, and dialogue differ among writers.
- - - Snip - - -
When we allow the Bible to set its own agenda, to show us what we have the right to expect—trusting God enough to let the Bible be what it is—we open ourselves to God's Word with its challenges and possibilities without a lurking fear of what we might find and going into shock when we find it. … [end quote]
Rob