Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration
Posted by deangonzales on April 11, 2008
Peter Enns and Jeffrey Niehaus share several things in common. Both are Old Testament professors at evangelical theological seminaries. Enns teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA) and Niehaus at Gordon-Conwell Seminary (South Hamilton, MA). Both men also earned their doctorates from Harvard University. Moreover, Enns and Niehaus have each recently published books in which they argue for the importance of integrating recent archaeological data from the ancient Near East (ANE) with one’s interpretation of the Old Testament (OT).
Though broader in its scope, Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2005) contains a lengthy chapter entitled, “The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” One of his aims is to encourage among evangelicals not merely a greater awareness of the interface between OT literature and its ANE counterparts but also deeper reflection upon the doctrinal implications of that interface (p. 13). In fact, he is concerned that the parallels between OT literature and ANE literature (some of which have been known for well over 150 years) “have not been handled well in evangelical theology” (p. 15).
Similarly, Niehaus, in his newly published Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Kregel Academic, 2008), affirms his conviction that “there are true and legitimate ways of assessing [the theological and practical] parallels [between the OT and ANE literature] … and of presenting those parallels in a way that will be clear and helpful to others, particularly to students who are fairly new to the subject.” Indeed, Niehaus is convinced that “there is not only a parallelism between certain themes and practices in the Bible and its world, but there is also a structure of thought that is common to them both and that forms the theological backbone of the Bible” (pp. 9-10). So these two OT scholars unite in their concern not only to demonstrate the connections between OT literature and ANE literature but also to highlight the hermeneutical and theological implications of those connections for our understanding of biblical faith and doctrine.
A careful perusal of these two books also reveals an important area in which these two scholars appear to part ways. As the title of his book suggests, Dr. Enns primarily aims at exploring the ramifications that the literary and thematic parallels have for the doctrine of inspiration. He believes that an honest look at the archaeological data of the ANE presents a problem for the traditional understanding of the Bible’s inspiration. After surveying many of the parallels, Enns raises several questions, like, “Does the Bible, particularly Genesis, report historical fact, or is it just a bunch of stories culled from other ancient cultures?” “What does it mean to for other cultures to have an influence on the Bible that we believe is revealed by God?” “Can we say that the Bible is unique or special?” “Does this mean that the history of the church, which carried on for many centuries before this evidence came to light, was wrong in how it thought about its Bible?” (pp. 38-39). Or course, Enns does not merely raise these questions but attempts to provide some answers. Or does he? It seems to this reader that Enns’ book results in generating more confusion than clarity. On the one hand, he is quick to affirm that “the Bible is ultimately from God and that it is God’s gift to the church” (p. 14). Well, that’s nice to know. But I just finished a dissertation on the Book of Genesis in which I gave God ultimate credit for the project (in the “Acknowledgments”), and I pray that the fruits of my labors might be a blessing to the church. So there’s a sense in which I can say that my dissertation “is ultimately from God”–at least whatever wisdom, truth, or value it may contain. But I would never place my writings (or any other human writings) in a class with God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). I’m certain Enns would not think too highly of my writings either—after all, I didn’t graduate from Harvard. But I am less certain that Dr. Enns shares my high view of Scripture. Take, for example, his view of the Genesis primeval narratives. According to Enns, “The reason the opening chapters of Genesis look so much like the literature of ancient Mesopotamia is that the worldview categories of the ancient Near East were ubiquitous and normative at the time. Of course, different cultures had different myths, but the point is that they all had them.” Implication: Hebrew culture too had its myths. Enns continues,
“The reason the biblical account is different from its ancient Near Eastern counterpart is not that it is history in the modern sense of the word and therefore divorced from any similarity to ancient Near Eastern myth [BTW, this is a fallacy of the excluded middle—what about history in the sense of affirming what really happened in time and space in a way that clears up the distortion of history present in the ANE myths?]. What makes Genesis different from its ancient Near Eastern counterparts is that it begins to make the point to Abraham and his seed that the God they are bound to, the God who called them into existence, is different from the gods around them” (p. 53).
Again, Enns writes,
“Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal. The question that Genesis is prepared to answer is whether Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship” (55).
Enns does not appear to see the problem he has just created. I agree that Genesis does not discuss atoms or the fact that “stars” are in reality other suns or planets or even galaxies far off in a huge universe. Genesis is not written from the vantage point of the modern electron microscope or the Hubble telescope. Nevertheless, if God used language with the intention of conveying or reflecting false information about the natural realm—information which may be empirically verified or rejected—then why should the reader trust God when he conveys information concerning his uniqueness in opposition to the gods of the other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies? To use Enns’ words, why should you and I believe that “Yahweh, the God of Israel, is worthy of worship”? If the Genesis text about Yahweh’s creative work contains mythical elements related to the origin and age and structure of the universe, how do we know it doesn’t contain mythical elements concerning this so-called deity named Yahweh? As I state it in my notes on a course I teach on the doctrine of Scripture,
“Let’s suppose that the Bible is proved to be in error in some of its teachings that can be verified empirically, such as scientific or historical facts. We could no longer believe those doctrines just because the Bible teaches them. And if we can no longer believe those teachings of the Bible that can be “checked out,” how can we affirm those teachings that cannot be “checked out”? In other words, once we reject the inerrancy of the Bible, we may still choose to believe in the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection. But we no longer believe these doctrines because the Bible teaches them. We ultimately believe them because we choose to do so. Our own personal preference, therefore, becomes the ultimate basis for our faith.”
Millard Ericksen expresses this thought in different words:
“Credibility, once compromised, is not easily regained or preserved in other matters…. One can, of course, continue to hold to the theological statements by an ad hoc distinction, maintaining that biblical authority applies only to transcendent or doctrinal truths. In so doing, one will have delivered such propositions from possible refutation. But there will be the suspicion that faith has become nothing more than, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “believing what you know ain’t so.” (CT, 228).
Enough of Enns. Let’s turn to the contrast Jeffrey Niehaus’ approach provides. Niehaus maintains his commitment to the uniqueness and authority of the Scripture as the lens through which the reader should interpret the ANE evidence. Here is a sample of how Niehaus accounts for the parallels:
“First, the Old Testament preserves true and accurate accounts of major events (Creation, the Flood). Extrabiblical sources around the world also preserve the memory of such events in distorted forms.”
“Second, the Old Testament uses literary and legal forms long current in the ancient Near East as vehicles of God’s special revelation. Poetic parallelism and the use of stock word pairs in poetry are examples of the former. Use of the second millennium international treaty form in the Pentateuch, and especially Deuteronomy, and of the ancient Near Eastern covenant lawsuit form in the Prophets are examples of the latter.”
“Third, parallels between the supposed acts of pagan gods and the acts of God appear in the Old Testament and ancient Near East because God allowed concepts that are true of him and his ways to appear in the realm of common grace. The parallel between the temple-pattern revelation to Gudea of Lagash and the similar revelation to Moses, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is an example.” (29).
Earlier in the book Niehaus rejects the critical version of the “comparative approach” (which resembles Enns’ position) writing,
“A use of the comparative method that places the biblical narratives among the mythical or legendary donations of the world is flawed, because it assumes that biblical data are capable of such classification. It ignores (or rejects) the Bible’s claims about its own historicity. Once we accept those claims, however, the same comparative method can be turned around and produce valuable results. We can then understand legends and myths by comparison with what God and people actually did according to the biblical account” (15).
So Niehaus takes the ANE parallels seriously, as Enns’ argues interpreters must do. He does not, however, call for a revision of our doctrine of inspiration–one that would allow that God purposely allowed the Scripture writers to affirm (and expect their readers to affirm) accounts as historical that are in fact non-historical, non-factual myth. So regardless of whether the reader finds convincing all of the thematic links between the OT and ANE literature for which Niehaus argues, he can at least read with the confidence that the author takes seriously the Bible’s own self-attestation.
If you’re looking for a book that might shed some light upon the inspired OT writings, get and read a copy of Jeffrey Niehaus’ new work. If you’re looking for a book that sees the parallels between OT literature and that of the ANE as a serious problem concerning which we may only “converse” and offer, at best, provisional “solutions,” the Peter Enns’ book is for you. But be prepared for cloud and confusion. After reading it myself, I came away seriously doubting whether Enns could join the Psalmist in affirming, “Therefore I esteem right all your precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128, NASB).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
10 Responses to “Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Thanks Bob
April 11th, 2008 at 2:53 am
I just started to read Niehaus’ book. To the extent that I have read it, I agree with your analysis of the two books. Niehaus’ approach makes sense. Niehaus is more in line with the historic approach at WTS which affirms the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, rather than Enns who seems to begin by questioning the doctrine of Scripture. I also read an article by Enns in Calvin Theological Journal in which he interacts with the Old Princeton tradition and tries to link his incarnational view with their views on Scripture.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
[...] response is written by the dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary, Dr. Robert Gonzales Jr. and is posted here. I would like to take issue with Dr. Gonzales’s post, especially this portion which he [...]
June 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Dean Gonzales,
First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I am sure your schedule is busy and thus does not warrant your response, however I am grateful for your interaction.
I am afraid my answer might not satisfy you. As a student of philosophy I would answer that my ‘ultimate criterion for assessing the validity of any truth claims’ is whether or not that truth claim matches reality. As to how I judge this to be an adequate basis for knowledge (my ultimate criterion for my ultimate criterion), I would respond by saying that this is simply the way that human beings go about assessing the truth or falsehood of any proposition. Therefore, I do not have some first premise from which the rest of my philosophy / theology flows except perhaps, to quote Wittgenstein, “the world is everything that is the case.” Aside from semantic arguments, I doubt that this is at all controversial.
If you pardon my boldness, I would love to read your own response to this question.
(This is a response to a comment made on my blog and is posted here for Dean Gonzales’s convenience.)
June 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
[...] I am here responding to Dr. Robert Gonzales Jr., dean of the Reformed Baptist Seminary. Here is a link to his original post, to which I am [...]
July 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
[...] data from the ancient Near East. I assessed Enns overall negatively and Niehaus positively. See Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration. Nathanael Smith, a student of philosophy, posted a negative critique of my assessment on his blog [...]
September 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I will probably comment at a later date when I have read the post fully, but I would simply say that I am lookng forward to Oswalt’s The Bible among Other Myths: Unique revelation or Just ancient Literature? scheduled for 2009.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Richard,
Thanks for alerting me to this upcoming book. I’ve appreciated Oswalt’s commentary on Isaiah. I’ll look forward with anticipating to this volume.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Corinthians 10:11
Paul regularly refers to the Old Testament according to his underlying worldview: “these things happened…they were written…for our admonition…” Their is no ambiguity in the writings of the New Testament concerning the divinely inspired history of the old. If we will ever accurately understand ancient history we must believe in the preeminence of God and His word. This is the starting point for believers no matter what the muddy waters of the archaeological record may tell us. It is appalling that books, like that of Enns, are coming out of “evangelical seminaries” without these foundational and basic biblical presuppositions! Archaeology, while helpful, is an incredibly weak foundation to build our understanding of ancient events and cultures. Even the ancient historical record is consisitently filled with “distorted persectives” which served to boost the ego and power of ruling kings. While the Bible most accurately does explain, for example, why the flood account is found in just about every ancient culture, including the aborigines in Australia! IT HAPPENED! As Noah’s family came off the ark the account was passed from generation to generation. So incredibly cosmic of an event was the flood, that it even survived the serparation of peoples by language and space at Babel (Genesis 11). The divinely inspired account was later given by God and “written down” for us by Moses. How will we ever know the blessed “admonishments” intended in this history if we are caught up in endless debates about the validity of it? Our children are now in a position to teach our seminary professors some of the most basic lessons learned in Genesis… “Who made you? God…”
February 19th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
[...] with 9 comments Site has moved. Click here. [...]