The end of Enns to the acme of Aquinas
It’s been a while since I offered anything of a round-up, but it’s something I ought, I think, to do more often. It’s surprising how often other people’s round-ups shove something I’d missed under my nose again, and either leave me wondering how I missed it in the first place, or make me add a new blog to my groaning feedreader. Besides, there are a number of conversations going on where I only have a passing comment.
Daniel Kirk first drew attention to the suspension of an OT professor Peter Enns from Westminster Theological Seminary. Jim Getz comments, and Jason von Ehrenkrook calls it militant fundamentalism before updating his title with a question mark. This is all a little arcane to me, but Enns’ big sin seems to have been writing a book on the Old Testament which says we should take account of what sort of writings are contained in Scripture when we formulate a doctrine of it and its inspiration. Those who have ousted him believe we should only take account of sixteenth century confessions, which are a rather better guide to the Bible than its own contents. Yeah, that sounds really clever.
Iyov has a link and a lengthy quotation from Meir Soloveichik on Jacob Neusner’s (Benedict blessed) dialogue with Jesus. It’s well worth reading but does make one very questionable assumption when one is talking about historical reconstruction. Soloveichik says: “When someone asserts divinity, his interlocutor has only two options: Believe, obey, and worship, or back away slowly.” But did the historical Jesus assert such a thing, and what, in any case would it have meant in context? I think the answer is no, and therefore Neusner’s dialogue with Jesus is something rather different from the article’s characterization.
I’ve commented at some length on the Tom Wright / John Piper dispute. (Conclusion with links here.) It’s only fair to note that Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen offers a two part review of Piper’s book, and takes Piper’s side. He makes some rather odd comments on his way to his conclusion, especially regarding “imputation” on which Wright is particularly compelling in my view. Righteousness in a judge is significantly different from innocence in a defendant, and is not a transferable quality. All the more strange then that Patton defends the forensic understanding, when he chooses to interpret the language in a way which simply doesn’t work in a forensic context.
Speaking of Tom Wright, I nominate Loren Rosson for the N.T. Wright “completely obvious” award of the week. He’s been running a poll on the meaning of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26. The respondents were (excluding his casting vote) equally divided. That doesn’t stop Loren stating that “Option (3) has to be correct” and “That’s how the argument of Romans 11 goes, and to me it’s clear.” While I happen to agree with him, patently it isn’t clear among his respondents. How many times does Tom say something is “clear” and “obvious” when the only thing that is clear and obvious is that many people disagree with him?
Tyler Williams has a good post on the odd appearance of Satan (as a proper noun) in English translations of Job, which is seconded by Chris Heard. It’s a fair point, but one that illustrates the problems of translation. The appearance of a heavenly adversary / prosecuting counsel in Job, whose title later becomes a proper noun needs some reference either in footnote or text to Satan if later uses of the word as a name are to be understood, not least in 1 Peter and Revelation. The options seem to be translating it in Job by the rather odd “the Satan” and footnoting it “the accuser”, or else capitalising “The Accuser” in the text and footnoting it “the Satan”. But some reference needs to be made that help readers grasp the sense of an idea in development, not least to stop people reading a full blown Christian mythology of the devil into the story of the serpent and calling it exegesis.
Nijay Gupta blogs the email announcing speakers for the British New Testament Conference for all who don’t get it. I must say I think Dale Martin on ‘Angels, Demons and Paul’ should be a highlight.
Finally, Halden asks the interesting question “Out of all premodern theologians, (lets say up until the 19th century) who would you most want to study” if you could only study one. The comments reveal great diversity, but Ben Myers cheats (I think) by including St Paul. I would go for Aquinas, and if you want to know why, see these really great summaries of his reasons for the crucifixion and the resurrection by (respectively) Brant Pitre and Michael Barber. They illustrate both his complexity and his clarity, characteristics most of the rest of fail to combine well.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
As I posted earlier, the Enns issue is truly a blast to open inquiry and academic freedom in US academia no matter how you conceive it.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I read Enns’s book; and I must say that I was disappointed with it. His work was not particularly original — perhaps the only original aspect of it was that it was (purportedly) addressed to an Evangelical audience. Now, I am not an expert in Evangelical theology, but it seemed to me that it was not written with a clear audience in mind: it does not actually speak in the language of Evangelical Biblical exegesis; neither does it speak in the language of secular Biblical studies.
I do support academic freedom (and feel uncomfortable with the idea of an institution of higher learning that has a theological litmus test) so I am dismayed (but not surprised) by Enns’s dismissal. However, if his work were presented at a secular institution, I do not think it would impress a tenure committee.
I do not know Enns’s whole CV, but based on the articles on his website, it seems to me that Enns is in a difficult position, being neither in the circle of conservative Biblical studies nor meeting the standards of secular studies. I find myself wondering if Westminster may have made the correct decision for the wrong reason.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Doug,
You do not believe the historical Jesus claimed divinity? What do you make of John 10:30 or 8:58?
-JAK
March 29th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Iyov, whoever you are, with all do respect I think you speak without knowledge in this matter. Enns’ earliest work in HSM series and Biblica was solid. There’s every reason to believe he could have been successful at a university had he continued on that path. But he went the div school route and his writing went that direction accordingly. That is, div schools, esp. conservative ones, like to see a different kind of writing than your typical university: practical, church-oriented, theological, etc. The fact that Enns’ book has caused such a controversy proves he touched a nerve among the crowd he was trying to address or at least ended up addressing. So, fictional tenure committees aside, Enns, an untenured prof., stuck his neck out and said what he thought needed to be said come what may. You gotta respect that, even if, like me, you disagree with his ideas.
I don’t think he’s got much to worry about, though. If WTS is stupid enough to let him go, another evangelical seminary will pick him up.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Justin, I think those verses are part of the evangelist’s creative meditation on the significance of Jesus.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“His work was not particularly original”
He didn’t intend for it to be original as the first line of his preface makes clear: “The aim of this book is not novelty but synthesis.”
“Now, I am not an expert in Evangelical theology, but it seemed to me that it was not written with a clear audience in mind”
Enns told those us (I had him for OTI right before the book was published) that the book was intended for college students to introduce them to the issues so they wouldn’t be thrown by them (which is his purpose in lecturing on these issues at Westminster).
“Justin, I think those verses are part of the evangelist’s creative meditation on the significance of Jesus.” How can you be sure? What is your proof? Are you denying that the interaction with the Jews took place? Or just the words that John attributed to Jesus.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Michele, I’m going to respond to that in a separate post.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
[...] want to pull a quick thread out of the comments on yesterday’s round-up. (You can skip below the quotes if you’re in a hurry.) In the course of the post I said: [...]
March 30th, 2008 at 12:49 am
[...] Chaplin offers his opinion of the event in a round-up of his own saying: “Those who have ousted him believe we should [...]
March 30th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
[...] in the blogosphere over the issue of Peter Enns’ suspension (I’m sorry, I ran out of adjectives or other ways to lengthen my already over long [...]