Popular level look at how we understand scripture

The main point of the book is that the modern understanding of Scripture as rule book or guide-book or science book actually changes scripture to something that is different from what early Christians understood and how the writers seem to have intended.

After a few years of reading about Hermeneutics (theory of how we interpret) and being frustrated by Enns and Christian Smith and others, I have come to an equilibrium on the matter. But these ideas are often disconcerting to those that are coming to them for the first time. Most Christians know that the bible was written by humans. Some believe that it was directly (word for word) inspired by God. Others believe that the biblical authors were inspired by God, but God gave them freedom to do the writing on their own. (And some don’t believe that the bible was inspired at all.)

Enns’ main metaphor in Inspiration and Incarnation was that we should think of scripture like we think of Jesus’ incarnation. Jesus is fully human and fully God. Similarly scripture is from God but still human written.

When we think of scripture as primarily from God and not written by humans with a particular point then it is easy to have our faith shaken by any threat to scripture. This is why creation is so important for many. Many believe (and I have frequently been told) that if a 7 day literal creation did not occur or the entire world was not covered by water in Noah’s flood, or Jonah was not literally swallowed by a fish then we can’t trust scripture and we can’t trust God.

But John Walton has (to me at least) successfully demonstrated that the original author and readers were not talking about the physical creation in Genesis 1 and 2 but the functional creation. The original readers were more interested in why than how. And Walton says they would have all understood Genesis 1 as a temple dedication ceremony where God was creating the earth as a temple for himself so that we as humans could act as his priests and worship him.

Enns builds on this type of idea and suggests that Genesis and many other parts of the bible that we usually read as history had other intentions. Not because the biblical authors were attempting to trick us as readers, but because they were writing in a different time and culture with different literary conventions that allowed for the molding of a story in ways that were not primarily focused on the history but on the narrative being told.

So much of the Old Testament was probably compiled during either David/Solomon’s time or during the Babylonian exile. Genesis and Exodus, Judges, etc. were about creating a national identity (or reminding the people of their identity) more than being a modern conception of history.

One point that Enns did not pick up here that I think is important, is that this line of thought is not primarily about minimizing the supernatural as some critics contend. Walton, and I think also Enns, are not against God working supernaturally in the type of ways that are being show in scripture. Instead they think the miracles are about showing God’s power over other deities or the ability to care for Israel more than about the ability to be supernatural.

The real strength of the book is Enns’ literary biblical insights. We modern Christians are so used to thinking of scripture as a string of historical narrative that we forget that there are literary allusions throughout scripture. So Matthew has a ton of literary allusions comparing Jesus to Moses (only greater). And there are a number of other subtle allusions to Noah and Creation or the Exodus scattered throughout scripture. These types of insights can only come from biblical scholars that have enough time to study and are a significant reason why we as Christians need to read the bible, but also read about the bible.

There are a couple other points that will be controversial to some. First, the New Testament authors use the Old Testament in ways that would have surprised the original authors (and readers) of the OT. Quotes are taken out of context and sometimes altered to support a point. No modern pastor would be allowed to do Biblical interpretation like some of the authors of the NT do and be credible. But Enns suggests (and others scholars agree) that this was a common method in the 1st Century Jewish culture.

A second controversial point is that Enns thinks that we should stop trying to harmonize scripture and allow the cacophony of voices to carry through. Not only the different stories of the Gospels or the alternate history of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Chronicle or the alternate creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 but also the different tones and approaches to God. The pessimistic philosophy of Ecclesiastes does not really mesh well with much of the adoration of Psalms for instance.

A third controversial point is Enns’ handling of the genocide of Canaanites. This is over simplifying, but essentially Enns does not believe that the Israelites were told by God to kill everyone. Israel of the time was a tribal community with insiders and outsiders and outsiders were dangerous and to be avoided. So whether the genocide of Canaanites happened or not, Enns is pretty sure that they were not told by God to kill everyone. He is more comfortable with the concept of the taking of the land being Nationalistic myth and not having happened (or not completely in the way described) than a God that calls for genocide.

For Enns scripture is not about finding a rule of faith or a model to live by, but designed to give us insight into God, which leads us to a relationship with Jesus.

My main complaint is that I wish Enns had specifically spent time on building a case for the role of the Holy Spirit in both the writing of scripture and the interpretation of scripture. That is understood in the background, but not explicit enough.

I do not really think that The Bible Tells Me So is for everyone. If you are comfortable with your understanding of scripture, maybe you should skip this. Not because Enns is wrong, but because there is no reason to seek out a crisis of faith. (I am reading a good biography of Jonathan Swift that makes this point, sometimes we don’t need to push ourselves beyond where we are right now.) But if you have been frustrated by either scripture or Christianity as a whole, I think this is a good book that can help you re-imaging what faith can be like and give you a new view of the wonder of scripture. Christianity as a whole and the bible in particular are much bigger and messier than what many modern Christians seem to want to make them.

63 people found this helpful

Spot On

With apologies to all, permit me to share my own background, for it significantly affects my thoughts on this work. I am ( practicing) catholic; I have a degree in religious studies ( the academic study of Scripture, as opposed to theology, the study of God); and I am a big fan of NT Wright. For all these reasons, I think Mr Enns has this study of the Bible bang on - that the Bible did not just fall out of the sky and must be unquestionably followed, but is, rather, a library of works composed over thousands of years, and must be read and understood in that light. What I particularly enjoyed was Mr Enns' sense of humor; clear writing; and common sense approach to what - to some - is a threatening topic. Because I have read NT Wright extensively, nothing in "The Bible Tells me So" was new, but it was nevertheless engaging. If you have never approached the study of the Bible before, well, this is an excellent way to start. I found Mr Barrett, narrator, to be a bit "old sounding", but passable - he did not interfere with my enjoyment of the book. Recommended

22 people found this helpful

An Agnostics perspective

What did you love best about The Bible Tells Me So?

I loved the fact that a Christian took seriously the faults of the Bible and didn't try to sugar-coat the truly awful parts.

What was one of the most memorable moments of The Bible Tells Me So?

Peter Enns has a great sense of humour and his discussion of the book of Proverbs and his story of how some Christians take the Bible waaay too literally, was great!

Have you listened to any of Joe Barrett’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

No, or can't recall. He did an excellent job as narrator. At first I thought it was the voice of the author, he was so convincing.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

No, over a few days.

Any additional comments?

The book left me with some big unanswered questions which I don't think he really addressed, like: "why should I be a Christian and accept the Bible, with all of its flaws as God's truth? Is there a real hell? Are there interpretations that are so wrong that you could be rejected by God?" This book kind of stated, (paraphrased) "The Bible has problems, but maybe that's how God wanted it to be and we have to stop expecting it to a perfect book. Humans wrote it and they didn't get everything right. Get over it."
I personally think, if the Bible isn't from God, why trust it at all? That makes other sacred scriptures equally valid in my opinion. So as an agnostic, I don't see this book as a reason to re-embrace Christianity. I'm currently reading Marcus Borg to see how that fares. I'm not giving up, and I appreciate Peter Enns' perspective.

9 people found this helpful

Pretty on the outside, empty on the inside

Would you try another book from Peter Enns and/or Joe Barrett?

I think the author is misguided in general - but particularly when it comes to the gospels. Oral tradition of the time would not allow for sheer conjecture or exaggeration - particularly in Luke's writings, which seem to have many historical cues by which we can test for veracity. The authors notions are not in keeping with the research of Sir William Ramsey ("St Paul The Traveller And Roman Citizen"), W. F. Albright ("The Archeology of Palestine and The Bible"), A.N. Sherman-White ("Roman Society and Roman Law In The New Testament"), and many, many, others.

Would you ever listen to anything by Peter Enns again?

It depends on whether he changes his views.

What about Joe Barrett’s performance did you like?

GREAT narrator!

7 people found this helpful

He stops short on Biblical study and jumps ahead to cultural explanations

He used so many examples and case studies that I have heard explained more thoroughly than he bothers. You can tell listening that he had an agenda and was determined to get there (similar to what he accuses the Biblical writers of doing). I had to stop reading in chapter 3 when he failed to understand the literary style of Genesis writing that Gen. 2 is an expanded version of the same story being told of man being created in chapter 1. He took it at face value without bothering to seek a harmonizing solution.
He was so quick to abandon inspiration that I knew if I continued to listen I would just be frustrated. I hope my review is not dismissed as one from a closed-minded Sunday School student. I came into this with an open mind but when I’m constantly giving my own better explanations than the author’s agenda-driven points, I can only take so much before I need to move on to something more edifying. God bless this man and his students to a greater understanding of the Holy Spirit’s power working through the Word of God.

6 people found this helpful

Very interesting

Most of the ideas were ideas that I had already arrived at, but the evidence the research and the context that this book provides were amazing!!

6 people found this helpful

SAD SAD SAD

After getting several chapters into this book I started doubting Gods Word. This book almost convinced me that God did not inspire the Bible and that its just a story of God legends as man sees God.

Get enough of that junk in your head and all that Gods Word says about his love for us and our purpose in life becomes so archaic guys wishful thinking. I couldn't even finish the book.

I knew better than to continue reading and allowing such undermining junk to cloud my faith. This book IS NOT what the Bible says.

I pray it never gets read by another person ever again. Sorry. It might as well have been written by Richard Dawkins.

5 people found this helpful

Must Read!

If you have, do, or ever plan to read the Bible, you owe it to yourself to read this book.

5 people found this helpful

Only two things missing...

Only two things could have made this better. First, if Pete Enns had narrated this himself, the story would have had his own nuances in it. The narrator was good but Pete's subtlety is missing. Second, when he talks about the end of the exile by Jesus, he doesn't elaborate on it to explain that Jesus is ending the exile from the garden, bringing God's kingdom back to the earth, ending the split after the disobedience of the first people there. This is certainly my interpretation of the purpose of Jesus' life, and one that others also believe. But overall it was a great book and one that I enjoyed learning from. Thanks, Pete.

4 people found this helpful

A helpful alternative

Most anyone would agree that Peter Enns has an incredible depth of knowledge when it comes to his Bible facts. This books takes you into a place where uncertainty about discrepancies of the Bible is "ok." Wrestling with the uncertainties of scriptural facts allows more room for faith than for a dogmatic response to the scriptures. I would call the book a helpful alternative to the lens in which we view the Old Testament though I still find a struggle in that it gives some answers with a certainty that may never truly be as concrete as we'd like. Whether he is wrong or right about how history happened, that's "ok," I can applaud his incredible depth and insight which has allowed me to shift in some of my personal perspectives.

2 people found this helpful