Pete Enns and my faith

[DBASRA99 (Darrell Anderson)]

I have been struggling with faith for several years and I have listened to countless apologists. Many were helpful but I still had deeper questions that no one seemed to deal with. It seemed that most were just trying to prove the reliability of the Bible.

Somehow I ran onto Dr Pete Enns who may or may not still be part of Biologos. He seemed to understand all my questions. I credit him with saving my faith.

I just wondered if others have had a similar experience.

Thanks.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I think Pete used to have an official role in Biologos, and is still a friend of the organization and the people here. I personally found his approach to scripture enlightening and thought provoking. I probably track a bit more on the conservative side than he, but recommend his books and blog on a frequent basis.

[Laura]

He has definitely given a voice to some of my own concerns. Even if I don’t come to the same conclusions as him, I appreciate him providing an alternative to the AIG ideology of “throwing out the entire Bible” if you don’t interpret it in one particular way. I’m also impressed by how he intertwines his professional knowledge with his own personal experiences.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Having read a couple of Enns’ books (“The Bible Tells Me So” … and also “The Sin of Certainty”), I’ll give a yet more full-throated endorsement of his approach. It isn’t that I wouldn’t find things here or there I might approach differently than him - but just more that I appreciate where he’s coming from, and think there is spiritual integrity there and his voice is needed in times like this. Of course as I get older, I find myself being more callous about all the label lobbing and hunkering down. People like Enns may have their own favorite political silos they call home, but they poke their heads up and out into clearer airs to take stock of their surroundings and manages, then, to not take himself quite so seriously.

It’s good to hear that people have found him useful to hold on to their faith at a time when evangelical culture bombards all of us with understandable reasons to follow it to the exit doors and leave the faith pretty much entirely - or in every way except the name, anyway.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I also really enjoy Pete Enns. Several of his books can be found as audiobooks and ebooks on Hoopla Digital for free. His podcast “The Bible for Normal People” is one of my favorite theology ones. Podcasts like his, and Luke Janssen’s “ recovering evangelicalism “ helped me be more open about my beliefs. A member who seems to not be here anymore, Klax, also helped my faith significantly but not so much by saving it as much as just pointing out the shortcomings in using biblical language to discuss things like “creator”. Helped me stop feeling like I needed a safe place for God to reside within my understanding of the natural world.

[Vinnie]

I like Enns. He has been helpful. I’ve probably read four or five of his books and listened to quite a few episodes of his provocatively titled podcast (Bible for normal people). God’s Word in Human Words by Ken Sparks is also great if you like Enns.

A big take away from Spark’s book is how confusing biblical genres leads to us needing to put out fires of our own making.

Vinnie

[Randy]

I agree–Enns is very honest. I appreciate that.
Thanks.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I ordered both books from the library.

The second was really popular, so I am 12th in line waiting for the book.

…though I very much doubt I will have a similar experience. I am not struggling with my faith because none of mine was accepting things people told me. I was not raised in any religion. So why look at these books of Pete Enns? Well the titles of the books sounded good. The sin of certainty sounds rather similar to something I have said before… that certainty is a delusion. I have no need to believe that my way of thinking is the only way. Imposing our own order on the world is part of the essence of life itself. So I simply make my choices of what I think is worth believing in and see no need to make any apology for them. I will explain my reasons, but have little expectation that other will make the same choices. Though I certainly will not give in to the insistence of others that I must agree with their way of thinking. And to be frank, atheism looks exceedingly preferable to me than what most of them insist must be accepted as fact. I am only a theist because I see no reason to accept their claims as true.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@DBASRA99

I have been struggling with faith for several years and I have listened to countless apologists. Many were helpful but I still had deeper questions that no one seemed to deal with. It seemed that most were just trying to prove the reliability of the Bible.

Somehow I ran onto Dr Pete Enns who may or may not still be part of Biologos. He seemed to understand all my questions. I credit him with saving my faith.

I just wondered if others have had a similar experience.

Thanks.

Can i start out by saying…

i will study into Dr Enns writings, i am interested in what he has to say. However, i am deeply worried when i go to his website and find the following spread across the home page…

If his is the only God-Ordained website on the internet, then we are all in deep deep trouble spiritually as we have been lead astray by countless other seemingly God ordained websites…especially those that exist soley for the purposes of publishing online Bibles (such as biblehub).

ok. enough criticism about my first impressions…ill do some reading.

Thanks for the heads-up on this scholar, i do really appreciate your post.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I guess you can’t tell tongue-in-cheek facetiousness when it smacks you in the face. But now that I think about it, it sounds like something you might say seriously.

[Randy]

@adamjedgar

If his is the only God-Ordained website on the internet, then we are all in deep deep trouble spiritually as we have been lead astray by countless other seemingly God ordained websites…especially those that exist soley for the purposes of publishing online Bibles (such as biblehub).

ok. enough criticism about my first impressions…ill do some reading.

Thanks for the heads-up on this scholar, i do really appreciate your post.

Oh, he’s totally tongue in cheek. He’s being silly, and making fun of himself. He’s recognizing that he’s not the end all, be all (thank goodness). . He really does have some good discussion, but I would not dive into “The Bible Tells Me So” right away. I think that the book that has a broad appeal, accepted by many conservatives, is “Inspiration and Incarnation.” I think it was well done. I would love to hear what you think, Adam.
Blessings–have a good night.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

ok so i went through the website wondering where i should start reading…and hit upon the following article Briefly, 3 Edgy Things About How the Old Testament Works - The Bible For Normal People

Please accept that my critique of individuals who do not align with my own beliefs is going to be to focus on highlighting the negatives…and i hope that you guys can recognise that is our nature…we are looking for the error in other peoples views.

Dr enns makes the following claims…

1. The Old Testament contains diverse theologies and perspectives that reflect the personalities, purposes, and changing times of the biblical writers. Without accepting that, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Jonah and Nahum, and the contradictory law codes of the Pentateuch will forever be a problem.

My response to this is that according to my own denominations understanding, there are no contradictory law codes of the Pentateuch! If Dr ennes seems to think so, then i would immediately question his religious denomination and especially what day of the week he worships on. Believe it or not, one of the biggest stumbling blocks the law has on Christians is those who worship on Sunday…and i belive that is because they have attempted to reconcile Sunday worship by claiming the Mosaic law is old and outdated and Christ brought in a new one (the new convenant).

The flaw in the old vs new covenant theology and sunday worship is this…the bible tells us clearly that even Abraham was saved by faith (not by the sacrifices of sheeps and goats). The new covenant is very clearly no different to the old one. It is simply a more concise definition…a catalogue of the 10 commandments ie first few commandments are about loving God and the latter, about loving your neighbour…they are joined by our creators ministry and keeping the Sabbath.

2. The Old Testament as a collection of books took shape in response to the crisis of the Babylonian exile 586-539 BCE .

hmm i take issue with this…jewish history dates back long before the Babylonian empire. Are we honestly going to make the claim that all of those writings were so accurately compiled across vast distances in the region without a written record? Sorry but that is a difficult claim for the modern scientific approach to make.

Oh and there is also this… Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered.

3. The writings of the Old Testament are more windows onto the times in which they were written than they are historical accounts of the events they describe.

I do not think this even needs a proper response…it is clearly obvious given the dates, times, places, and witnesses to the writings of the Old Testament that Dr Ennes claim here is absolutely false. If he wishes to turn the old testament into fairytales…

it becomes nothing more than writings that at best are comparible to Socratean morality lessons. As such, I wold have to immediately challenge any Christian with the following dilemma:

if biblical writings are simply philosophical morality lessons, who needs Christ and who needs salvation? According to Socrates, we can simply fix it all ourselves!

4. Dr Ennes finalises the above article with the statement willingness to accept how Scripture comes to us is a mark of faith and trust in God, not an act of disloyalty to God.

see i have a big problem with such a claim…even Dr Ennes should know that the prophet Samuel (a real man of God he knew king david personally and not just a mythical character), said to king Saul “to obey is better than to sacrifice”. God is not interested in our version of morality, our version of explaining our lack of obedience, our lack of belief…God has simply told us to obey! The bible is quite specific about its history…these are not allegorical stories from which to draw Socratean morality arguments.

Sorry guys, despite the academic achievements of Dr Ennes, even a lowly Bachelor degree holder such as myself is easily finding serious biblical challenges to the fundamental claims in this article…and i have done this all off the top of my head without even researching! (ok so i did google “oldest Jewish writings” and posted the top rank response i got in google, however i knew that his 6th century claim wasnt accurate)

So first article i have read…is a huge fail. And since this is the foundation from which i imagine he intends to read into biblical writings such that he can force harmony with whatever his actual world view is…its not a good start. I hope he isnt ID or YEC…if he is, im shooting myself in the foot because i cannot agree with his statements above.

[Randy]

@adamjedgar

My response to this is that according to my own denominations understanding, there are no contradictory law codes of the Pentateuch!

Adam, thank you for reading! I think that the area where Enns resonates with me, and many of us, is that he not only wrestles with apparent problems of faith, but keeps on loving God as Lord and Savior.

I am concerned that main points here seem, if I understand the rebuttals, a contradiction rather than addressing the concerns.

If you get a chance to read his discussion, it may help. Can you read the points where he observes discrepancies in the code? If you go to “The Bible Tells Me So,” or others, these are well known ones to scholars, though not to me initially. It is worth researching why there are differences. You can read some rebuttals to these concerns in Geislers “When Critics Ask,” or I think also in Josh McDowell. They boil down to some differences in how the law applied. He does not say that God contradicted Himself, but that they were in different times. He asks why, and puts the explanation in context. He’s not really talking about the general covenant, per se.

Regarding the second point, he is referring to how the large part of history prior to the captivity was oral, as I recall. He’s not saying it’s made up. All he is saying is that, as with the Gospels, which differ in the ways in which they were written to explain portions better for their hearers, those who were in captivity needed to hear different portions more emphatically. It’s not a claim that the Bible is not true. That’s the same for the third portion.

He’s writing for context. As my pastor says, there are 3 rules for reading the Bible–“context, context, and context.”

Don’t misunderstand me–he really struggles with parts of the Bible (as do I), and you would not agree with him there. But, I think that the points above don’t have to do so much with inspiration as with interpretation. If you read his explanation, it helps. He really is brilliant, and his training came in large part from Jewish scholars who helped with the original intent of the OT to understand it better.

Thanks. Have a good Sunday; prayers for your family’s health.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I feel that the source hypothesis does a good job at showing how different texts were seamed together, even within the same book. For example how did David first meet Saul? Is it the story in 1 Samuel 16 or the story in 17? They can’t both be true though.

[Vinnie]

I actually agree with all four of Enn’s points. It’s hard to discuss them all at once. But at the end of the day the OT consists of multiple sources put together. I can list many dozens of examples and have done so here but here are a few:

The Story of Joseph Betrays the Hand of Different Authors

Joel Baden writes of the well-known story of Joseph that closes Genesis: "There are some aspects of this text that appear strange–repetitions, awkward transitions, apparent gaps–but these could plausibly be attributed to authorial style. The brothers seem to decide to kill Joseph twice, once described in narrative (“they conspired to kill him,” v. 18) and once in dialogue (“let us kill him,” v. 20). Reuben’s plan to save Joseph (“cast him into that pit,” v. 22–that is, instead of killing him with our hands) is identical to the brothers’ original plan to kill him (“let us throw him into one of the pits,” v. 20–that is, to dispose of his body after we have killed him). Judah’s argument for not killing Joseph (“let us not do away with him ourselves,” literally, “let our hands not be against him,” v. 27) is almost a duplication of Reuben’s (“do not touch him yourselves,” literally, “do not stretch a hand against him,” v. 22)–and when Judah proposes his plan, the brothers had already accepted, and even carried out, that of Reuben. These issues can perhaps be interpreted away on a case-by-case basis, but taken together they present a challenge to any reader.

There are, however, problems in the text that cannot be easily resolved, problems that preclude any straightforward reading of the plot. These derive from the narrative presence and action of both Ishmaelites and Midianites in the sale of Joseph. When we read the text as it stands, according to its plain meaning, these two foreign groups are the source of great confusion. The Ishmaelite traders arrive on the scene first (v. 25), leading Judah to persuade his brothers that rather than kill Joseph, they ought to sell him; they will be just as effectively rid of him, and even profit in the process (vv. 26-27). Before the transaction can take place, however, the Midianite traders pass by, and though it was the brothers who had planned to sell Joseph to the caravan of Ishmaelites, it is the Midianites, according to the plain reading of the text, who pull Joseph from the pit, and it is the Midianites who sell him to the Ishmaelites. The Midianites, therefore, appear to frustrate Judah’s plans, as it is they who reap the benefits of selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites. If the brothers are present for this, they are strikingly silent.

Far more difficult is the notice at the end of v. 28 that the Ishmaelites, upon purchasing Joseph, brought him to Egypt. This is expected in light of what preceded in v. 25, where the Ishmaelites are said to be heading toward Egypt. But it is expressly contradicted by what follows at the end of the chapter in v. 36: "The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar."5 If this were not problem enough, Genesis 39:1 states that Potiphar bought Joseph “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.” [The Composition of the Pentateuch p 3-4]

How about the Flood Narrative?

Ken Sparks (ibid) writes, “Do the parallel sources continue into the flood story? At first glance, the flood story itself impresses us as a single, coherent story. Nevertheless, a close inspection reveals that it too was based on two older sources that have been combined into one. Each of these stories has a distinctive beginning, chronology, and ending. In the first of these stories (the Yahweh version), Noah brought seven pairs of each clean animal onto the ark. He and the animals entered the ark seven days before the flood began because Yahweh commanded them to do so: “Go into the ark. . . . Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth. . . . And Noah did all that the Lord commanded. . . . And after seven days the floodwaters came on the earth” (see 7:1-5, 10 NIV). After a flood of forty days and forty nights, Noah exited the ark and offered sacrifices to Yahweh. Yahweh then responded with a promise: “Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done” (8:21 NIV). Yahweh also removed the curse that he had placed on the ground after Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 (cf. 3:17; 8:21). Notice that this curse motif thematically connects the Yahwistic flood story with the Yahwistic creation-fall story in Genesis 2-3. Hence we seem to have a coherent Yahwistic story that includes three parts: creation (chaps. 2-3), genealogy (chap. 4), and flood (chaps. 6-9).”

We see that the flood account, even with its marvelous chiastic structure, is two accounts in one. Joseph Blekinsopp observes: "The arguments which have led scholars to postulate a combination of sources are fairly straightforward and have never been refuted. There are inconsistencies with respect to what was brought into the ark, the chronology, and perhaps the manner in which the deluge was brought about. We hear of one pair, male and female, of each species (6:19-20; 7:14-16), but also of seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean animals (7:2-3, 8-9). We are told that the flood lasted 40 days (7:4, 12, 17; 8:6), or sixty-one, counting every day until the ground dried out (8:6-12), but we also hear of a duration of one hundred and fifty days (7:24; 8:3), a figure compatible with the five months from the beginning to the grounding of the ark on Ararat (8:4). While the description of the disaster as a downpour of rain (7:4, 12; 8:2) is not necessarily incompatible with the more mythological language of the bursting forth of the fountains of the great deep (7:11; 8:2) it is more natural to think of the latter as providing a quite distinctive perspective, especially if read in the larger context of Genesis 1-11.

We have often been reminded that repetition is not in itself an indication of the composite nature of a narrative . . . and with this we may readily agree. But the situation is rather different when we encounter parallel versions of episodes in which the parallels consistently exhibit distinctive characteristics. So, for example, Noah is told to board the ark with family members and specifically designated livestock. He does so, and then the command is repeated with the same people and differently designated livestock, and he does so again (6:18b-21, 22; 7:1-5). In such cases it is unreasonable to exclude editorial activity carried out according to canons somewhat different from those we would follow today." [The Pentateuch, pp 77-78]

Some form of the documentary hypothesis is most certainly correct. These quotes are form a larger work on how Christians misunderstand the Pentateuch. It also has a section on the Law Codes.

Sparks writes, "First, the laws in the Pentateuch are not collected into a single code but are instead nested in several separate collections, namely, the Book of the Covenant (BC, in Exod. 20:22-23:33), the Deuteronomic Code (DC, in Deut. 12-26), the Holiness Code (HC, in Lev. 17-26), and the Priestly Code (P, primarily in Exod. 25-31, 32-40; Lev. 1-16; Numbers). This evidence suggests that we have not one but several codes stemming from different contexts and authors, an impression that is reinforced by other evidence. Second, not only do we have several blocks of law, but these blocks of law repeat the same materials. For instance, one finds repetitions of the festival laws, [Exod. 23:14-19; 34:18-26; Lev. 23:1-44; Num. 28-29; Deut. 16:1-17.] of Sabbath rules, [Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17; 35:1-3; Lev. 23:3; Deut. 5:12-15.] and of that enigmatic command, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” [Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21.]

Repetitions like this would be unnecessary in a single code, but they make good sense if we imagine that the Pentateuch contains several law codes that originated in different situations. The third feature that suggests various authors have written the Hebrew laws is the presence of significant differences among the law collections. For example, the prescriptions for the altar of burnt offering differ significantly from text to text (Exod. 20:24-26 [altar of earth]; 27:1-2 [altar of wood overlaid with gold]), as do the Passover regulations given in Deuteronomy 16:7 (“boil the meat”) and Exodus 12:8- 9 (“roast the meat, do not boil it”). The repetitions, tensions, and differences within the laws of the Pentateuch imply that they are not the work of a single author but are instead a product of several different authors and redactors who lived in quite different situations. Consequently, biblical scholars deduce that the Pentateuchal laws were traditionally “Mosaic,” but certainly not literally so."

And of course here is Enn’s on how law codes differ on the issue of slavery

"It is clear from the book of Exodus that slaves were treated as property, not as full humans. The famous eye for eye, tooth for tooth law (Exod. 21:23-25) guarantees that justice will be fair in the event of physical injury, but not for slaves. If a slaveowner knocks out a slave’s eye, he needs only to let the slave go, not lose an eye himself–the repercussions are merely economic.

A male Hebrew slave, however, has the option of going free after six years of service (along with his family, as long as he came in with one). No such choice is given to a female slave. Freedom can only be granted if she displeases her master (an ambiguous and unregulated idea) or if she is not properly provided for by her master, in which case she’d have to be bought back by her father. You can read all about this in Exodus 21:1-11.

The book of Deuteronomy, however, has a different take. Now both male and female Hebrew slaves may choose freedom after six years of service. Further, they are not to leave empty-handed. The slaveholder is instructed: Provide liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the LORD your God has blessed you (15:14).

This law is much nicer–let’s call it more humane–and the motivation given for such treatment is Israel’s own experience of being mistreated as slaves in Egypt (15:15). Sure, six years is still a long time, but that might have been the only way for some to get out of debt and survive. It’s not a perfect system, and I’m happy to say that human civilization has come a long way. My point here, however, is that these two slave laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy don’t match up, even though they are both said to come from the same divine source: God revealing his will to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Let that sink in.

Sorry for the lengthy post but Enn’s four points are essentially correct. Literalists and inerrancy advocates completely misread the text. This is all basic Biblical criticism 101 (outside of insulated conservative seminaries where things like the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy guide everything).

Vinnie

[DBASRA99 (Darrell Anderson)]

@adamjedgar

So first article i have read…is a huge fail. And since this is the foundation from which i imagine he intends to read into biblical writings such that he can force harmony with whatever his actual world view is…its not a good start. I hope he isnt ID or YEC…if he is, im shooting myself in the foot because i cannot agree with his statements above.

Hello Adam

Can you elaborate on your comments about ID or YEC?

Thanks.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@adamjedgar is pretty much the definition of YECism, taking Genesis 1 “literally”, a 6 x 24 hour creation week is the “plain reading” and the way it happened, the existence of physical light precedes the sun and stars in the creation order and nothing is figurative and the universe is ca. 6-10ka old. ID is pretty much included in the same YEC basket, so he doesn’t want to be too critical of Enns in case Enns is YEC/ID. (He doesn’t need to worry.)

[Terry_Sampson]

• In the interest of efficiency, one could save time and effort and just go straight to Answers in Genesis:.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

What a thought.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@adamjedgar

Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing.

That’s true, and the inscription is proto-Hebrew, not classical Hebrew. You need to seriously consider the implications of this for your view of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. If Hebrew writing didn’t appear until the monarchy, was the earlier history of Israel passed down orally for 1000 years (going back just to Abraham) before being written down? If “Moses” was the author of the first books of the Hebrew Bible, was he writing it in Egyptian cuneiform, since Hebrew wasn’t a written language for at least another 500 years?