Peter Enns and Westminster Theological Seminary have posted a joint statement in which they announce that mutual terms have been reached and, as of 01 August 2008, Pete will “discontinue his service to Westminster Theological Seminary after 14 years.”
While his service at WTS, as in being on faculty, will be over, I know that his service to the church is not over. While it goes without saying that I am extremely disappointed, I look forward to reading everything that Pete is sure to produce in the future.
You can read the official joint statement at Pete’s site or WTS’s site.
23 July 2008 at 10.21 am
[...] Enns to Leave Westminster Not that I think anyone will be surprised by this, but Art Boulet is linking to a joint statement from Peter Enns and Westminster [...]
23 July 2008 at 1.05 pm
A sad day for Biblical Studies at WTS, truly the end of an era.
23 July 2008 at 1.10 pm
Well, we all knew it was coming but it kinda stings to see it in writing like that
Nick
23 July 2008 at 1.39 pm
[...] July 23, 2008 CT on EFCA’s Statement of Faith Posted by donaldkim under Church Christianity Today covers a lot of grounds with this one, making comments along the way about the Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Peter Enns with Westminister (by the way, they officially parted ways today, possibly making an end of an era). [...]
23 July 2008 at 2.13 pm
I wonder where he’ll end up next. I’ve heard a few rumors from those up in Philly.
23 July 2008 at 2.16 pm
I’m not sure, at this point, where he’ll end up. I wouldn’t give too much credence to any rumors at this point. I know that he’s been writing quite a bit for a commentary on Ecclesiastes in the New Horizons Commentary series. I can’t wait to get my hands on that commentary.
Time will, of course, tell where he ends up. Wherever it is, they will be blessed.
23 July 2008 at 2.22 pm
“End of an era”? What kind of ‘era’ was that?
23 July 2008 at 2.27 pm
A very fine one.
23 July 2008 at 2.42 pm
Detail? Don’t you mean a ‘bad’ one.
23 July 2008 at 2.48 pm
I forgot to include, for all those who seem to delight in continuing in their incomprehension of the English language, a definition of “fine” for all those who may need it:
fine 1 |fīn|
adjective
1 of high quality : this was a fine piece of filmmaking | fine wines.
• (of a person) worthy of or eliciting admiration : what a fine human being he is.
• good; satisfactory : relations in the group were fine.
• used to express one’s agreement with or acquiescence to something : anything you want is fine by me, Linda | he said such a solution would be fine.
• in good health and feeling well : “I’m fine, just fine. And you?”
• (of the weather) bright and clear : it was another fine winter day.
• of imposing and dignified appearance or size : a very fine Elizabethan mansion.
• (of speech or writing) sounding impressive and grand but ultimately insincere : fine words seemed to produce few practical benefits.
• denoting or displaying a state of good, though not excellent, preservation in stamps, books, coins, etc.
• (of gold or silver) containing a specified high proportion of pure metal : the coin is struck in .986 fine gold.
23 July 2008 at 3.08 pm
Yes, and I was saying you were mistaken. Give more detail as to what you mean when you say a ‘fine era’. This denotes some kind of historical importance. Where in this particular case it seems just to be one of the seminary doing what it is supposed to do: Guard students from error.
23 July 2008 at 3.15 pm
This is a free country. And you are free to be incorrect.
I have little time or patience to explain myself to someone who already seems to have his or her mind made up concerning the situation…especially when they come across as both arrogant and rude and, even more so, when they do not respond to emails.
23 July 2008 at 3.21 pm
Arrogant and rude?
Yes, I see that in you: “I forgot to include, for all those who seem to delight in continuing in their incomprehension of the English language, a definition of “fine” for all those who may need it:”
What emails do you speak of?
23 July 2008 at 3.24 pm
Yet again, you are free to be incorrect.
I sent two emails to the email address you entered when commenting (tchulapcaATgmailDOTcom).
23 July 2008 at 3.26 pm
i didnt receive them.
23 July 2008 at 3.35 pm
i hope it’s a bit of an overstatement….. I think Pete obviously does not completely define the past 30 year era of Biblical Studies… but he might symbolize it… and perhaps only time will tell what exactly was rejected.
23 July 2008 at 4.01 pm
I don’t think he defines it, but I think that his removal does signify the end of the trajectory that has long been in motion at WTS that included Dillard, Longman, Waltke, Old Gaffin, McCartney, Enns, Kelly, Green, Taylor, etc.
WTS has the right to restrict their Biblical Studies faculty to what they believe qualifies as the version of the Reformed Tradition they are seeking to uphold. It will be interesting to see what Biblical Studies looks like within that version of the Reformed Tradition in years to come.
23 July 2008 at 4.02 pm
Andrew Barnes: Check your spam folder. If they are not there, email me (you can do that by clicking the mail logo on the right side of the screen) and I’ll resend what I sent you.
23 July 2008 at 4.36 pm
It is not necessary for Pete to define the era of the last 30 years for his “mutually agreed upon” departure to mark the end of that era. Clearly, WTS has rejected not just Pete, but the trajectory of Biblical Studies/Biblical Counseling and the interplay between the two by disregarding the vote of all 12 faculty representing those two departments. A sad day for WTS and indeed the beginning of the end of a FINE era.
23 July 2008 at 4.55 pm
Andrew, Spoken like a true TR, the seminary has clearly guarded student from perceived danger to the left now isn’t it time to wake up and look right!
Rejoicing in others grief—I think that was left out of my Bible as one of the sought after attributes of the Christian life. And such a fine display of arrogance! (And “yes, I see that in you” is the virtual equivalent of ” I know you are but what am I?” even a six year old can do better!) Do you really not see just a little arrogance in you- a theological nobody, deciding the era was ‘bad’? Isn’t that a call for future historians to make?
23 July 2008 at 4.55 pm
Art,
There are probably mean individuals who want to throw Enns in front of the bus on his way out of Glenside. Shame on them! And it’s tempting to want to turn around and throw *them* under the bus in the process. It’s ok to answer the fool (Prov. 26:5), but not if you become like him (Prov. 26:4).
I have my disagreements with Pete on some of these issues, but at the same time I haven’t always agreed with the way he’s been treated along the way. But I’ve seen first hand before that theological controversy often brings out the *worst* in fellow Christians….as even has been the case in some intra-WTS matters of previous decades! People say things in haste and anger, only to receive replies in haste and anger from the other side. At some point, you have to say enough is enough.
These issues have been ’stewing’ beneath the surface for some time, long before I&I ever took center-stage. And so when I first heard that the faculty was split on one side and the board on the other side, I knew there was going to be a lot of ‘dust kicking’….and that eventually Pete would be better off moving on.
I’m just glad that it happened sooner rather than later….for everyone’s sakes. It doesn’t do Westminster or Pete any good if the matter gets tabled for a few months, only to be revisited again next Spring. [From where I'm sitting, I don't exactly see anyone likely to change their minds on either the state of Pete Enns OR the state of WTS!] Being that I’ve known individuals involved in being outed from a school, believe me when I say that you don’t another 9 months of being asked, “What are you going to do?” Now at least you have *some* degree of closure, and you can get on with things elsewhere.
23 July 2008 at 5.08 pm
I’m glad for Pete because he can move on to better things. I’m sorry for WTS because they’re losing a great scholar and Christian gentleman.
I must say that at the end of all of this, I feel like my relationship to the seminary will never quite be the same (though I will keep an open heart and mind). I know, I know, I’m just one measly alumnus. Yet I can’t help but think that many others feel the same way. Sad.
23 July 2008 at 5.14 pm
Andrew Barnes: My apologies for my rudeness. It is far easier to lash out in the heat of the moment and hit “Submit Comment” than it is to think things through before commenting. It was wrong of me to be so harsh. For that, I ask forgiveness.
Matt: Thank you for your comment. Great advice and insight.
Manlius: I, also, feel the same.
23 July 2008 at 6.46 pm
Art,
I say the same things to you. I apologize as well. You already have my forgiveness.
So can someone explain to me what this Ancient Near East stuff is?
23 July 2008 at 8.05 pm
A Barnes
Im not sure if this is my place, or precisely where you are as to what you do and do not know, but Ill give you an example.
1 Enoch 1:9 – And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Jude 1:14-15 – Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Is Jude quoting a text which is not part of the biblical canon?
Did Enoch really prophecy this? If so, there is no record of it in the OT, nor any record until the late 2nd temple period, so how do we understand what Jude is doing here?
Pax Christi…Nick
23 July 2008 at 9.52 pm
1) Just because someone is quoted in Scripture does not necessarily make everything or anything of what is quoted Scripture. (i.e. if 1 Enoch is quoted that doesn’t make 1 Enoch Scripture).
2) ‘Secular’ sources or common knowledge to the people hearing can be spoken of or quoted in Scripture to make a point.
3) It is seems from research, and this is speculating which is what everyone does on this subject because there is no formal proof, that many Jews during the 1st Century had an oral knowledge and “quoted” (based on oral tradition) 1 Enoch.
4) It was thought in that day and believed by many that Enoch (7th from Adam) was the author of 1 Enoch. Does this make it true? No. Not necessarily. It is more probable that this was written after the Pentateuch, more probably after the OT Canon.
5) Jude 14 quotes Deuteronomy 33:2, isn’t it more probable that this 1 Enoch also quotes Deuteronomy 33:2?
6) Jude (as an apostle and brother of Jesus) can quote whomever he pleases to make a point and help his argument. Why because what he writes is being spoken by God as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit.
What is the point of this question?
23 July 2008 at 10.02 pm
Andrew: Nick was bringing out the importance of understand background material like ancient Near Eastern literature.
As to your responses:
1) I don’t think Nick would argue that all of 1 Enoch is Scripture.
2) True. But what does that say about Scripture? That is more of the question. In other words, if Scripture is revelation from God, what does it mean to say that it quotes “secular” sources?
3) True.
4) It was also believed that the world was flat and that there was a solid dome over the earth. The point is not whether or not it is true, but the mere fact that Jude quoted it. What does that say about Jude’s epistemology, beliefs, and, perhaps most important, about the nature of the Scripture that he wrote?
5) Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1.9, not Deuteronomy 33.2. While it is true to say that 1 Enoch alludes to Deuteronomy 33.2 and even quotes some of it, it is disingenuous to say that Jude quoted Deuteronomy and not 1 Enoch.
6) True. But, again, what does this say about the nature of Scripture as a phenomenon.
The point was, again, to point out the importance of these issues and how they impact our theologizing about other things, such as the nature of our doctrine of Scripture.
24 July 2008 at 12.00 am
Thanks art…
Andrew – the interesting thing if you sound so much like enns. Did jude really believe that enoch made the prophecy he quotes? If so was he “wrong” and what does this mean for how we understand the doctrine of inerrancy?
It seems to me that there are three things going on here andrew, which I will affirm.
One; Jude quotes 1 enoch as if it were true -jude believes that enoch actually said this.
Two; Enoch never really said this, it was part of second temple literature – midrash
Three; This has nothing to do with the reliability of the scriptures; because the scriptures do not operate with a coorespondance theory of truth. Thats an invention of the modern world.
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 1.55 am
Jude quoted secular sources is quite similar to Paul in Acts 17 referring to the “Unknown god”. He uses what is around him to make a point. It means nothing really except he uses what people know (i.e. like an illustration in sermon) to help his readers understand.
Because Jude says that Enoch said such and such can mean two things, which cannot be figured out by any of us: 1) that he really did believe that Enoch (7th from Adam) wrote what he was quoting; or 2) he really did believe that the writing accredited to Enoch (7th from Adam) by the Jews of that day was what he was quoting.
Thus, you can’t necessarily prove that Jude believed the author to actually be Enoch (7th from Adam). Scripture is not clear of that.
This really doesn’t matter. What matters is Jude’s argument of coming judgment. If Scripture isn’t clear than men shouldn’t attempt to make it clear.
24 July 2008 at 5.59 am
FWIW, the Enoch passage is probably not the best example, though interesting and relevant to be sure. Barnes is right that one cannot actually know what exactly Jude thought about his use of that line–or, for that matter, whether he was textually dependent or whether he new this tradition which may have been, as far as he’s concerned, not “written.” There are a dozen options, none of which can be conclusively excluded. The 2T interpretive traditions are more illustrative (or the Sargon myth, ancient slavery and debt laws, etc. etc.). From my perspective as an ancient historian, what’s sad is that Greek and Roman contexts haven’t really entered the arena and has been sidelined by the Jewish context (they’re both equally relevant). But that’s an issue for another day.
Barnes, you might just have a look at the articles Pete posted on his website. They’re better than any of us could do on blog comments. http://peterennsonline.com/articles-and-essays/.
24 July 2008 at 7.27 am
Something significantly different is going on in Jude than what Paul is doing in Acts 17. When Paul refers to the unknown god and then quotes pagan poetry in the same sermon, he is not appealing to them as sources of inspired revelation. He cites them as a starting point, and then completely undermines the worldview of the poets he cites. Jude on the other hand considers Enoch to be prophesying, and his appeal to Enoch is not one that seeks ultimately to undermine Enoch, but rather one that appeals to Enoch as a source of divine inspiration. Thus, the problem with Jude is not comparable to Paul’s use of pagan sources.
24 July 2008 at 8.56 am
I think Nathan illustrates well the crux of the issue without going into a lot of detail. Allow me to reiterate and go a bit deeper.
Contextually, Jude seems to believe that this is genuinely a prophecy of Enoch. He doesnt begin “Some of your own poets have said…” Enoch prophecied. He writes the text in such a way that he seems to believe what he has written. I must disagree that it is unclear; although I am willing to listen to why you think that.
It seems to me that if we read the text plainly, Jude is quoting a non canonical source as if it is true history; (and possibly as if it was true scripture, which is another story) – I would like to see what contextual or linguistic clues you see in Jude which lead you to think he might be quoting this verse as a hypothetical or exemplar text. I don’t find any. One might expect, for instance, that if he is giving a hypothetical he might introduce a subjunctive or some modifiers like “your own prophets have said,” but he doesnt. Furthermore in verse 16, he exapnds his quote by addings in a discription of these men whome Enoch “prophecied about.” He is connecting this text from 1 Enoch to a real world event. It is also interesting that he quotes another non canonical book a few lines back in Verse 9. This seems to support an idea that Jude assumed a collection of books where canonically part of the OT. This is not horribly odd; considering that the LXX which the vast majority of Jews (including paul) seem to have used contained non canonical books.
Assuming I am right and this verse points us to the conclusion that Jude avows a statement (s) as true which are not “true” by a modern standard of historiography; what does this mean for how we should understand divine inspiration and infallibility? Conversely, and more to the point, what does it mean for how we should understand modern notions of historiography?
By the way there are better examples of this ANE stuff then this one, its just a very accessable example. I would also point to 1 Corinthians 10:4, Acts 7:53 & Galatians 3:19, Matthew 2:15, Jude 1:9, and many many others. After awhile, coming up with logical harminizations for all these numerous examples begins to feel disingenuous to me. It begins to feel as if I am insisting that it is only sprinkling outside, while I stand in a monsoon getting soaked. This is where Dr. Enn’s work is so valuable because it doesnt question the Bible, thats what someone like Ehrman does. Rather it questions our assumptions about what the Bible ought to be doing and submits even our deep seated philosophical beliefs beneath the movement of scripture.
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 8.58 am
Pardon my errors, I will try to proofread next time before I hit submit.
I was, in my defense, in a hurry.
Nick
24 July 2008 at 10.37 am
Nathan,
It nowhere says that the prophesy is divine. You cannot assume such things just as JD pointed out. Think of all the dispensationalists who ‘prophesied’ that the rapture would happen in 1980something (i.e. pat buchannan (however you spell it) or jack van impe). They prophesied, but 1) that doesn’t make it divine; 2) it doesn’t necessarily make it true.
If Jude is writing his book, and knows a popular writing which says the same thing he wants to say, then he can use it (even if it is taking 1 Enoch out of context).
Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture does not error, Scripture cannot error, Scripture is made up of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. That is the Standard, the foundation, and we work from there and there is nothing that can change that.
24 July 2008 at 10.42 am
Again,
Jude quoting 1 Enoch shows that what Jude quotes is believed to be true. That does not mean that the whole of the work of 1 Enoch is believed by Jude to be true. Nor does it mean that 1 Enoch is Scripture (Divine revelation). None of this can be proven.
24 July 2008 at 10.50 am
A Barnes
I think you may be missing the point, the question is not if 1 Enoch is “actually” a divine book and should be added to the canon.
The question is, did Jude “consider” Enoch to be a divine book and if so, what does this do to our notions of inerrancy? In other words; did Jude mistake this as divine writing?
He doesn’t quote it on the level of a popular writing. He quotes it as if it is an authoritative prophecy; so far as I can tell. Since I want to allow scripture to interpret itself; I have to take him seriously, not explain away what he does because it embarrasses me.
Its fine to repeat that mantra, of scripture interpreting scripture and of the foundation of the canon. But now that you have that in place you should honestly ask; what is scripture actually doing? You might find that as scripture interprets scripture, it behaves rather oddly. You may come to discover that all along you had allowed, to some degree, philosophy to interpret what scripture may and may not do. The problem, as you well know, is that vain philosophy is subservient to the divine word.
You should ask yourself – “what is Jude actually doing?” not “how can I understand this text to avoid its implications!”
I think the answer might surprise you.
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 10.52 am
While I was posting, you replied quickly..
You said “Jude quoting 1 Enoch shows that what Jude quotes is believed to be true”
Did jude believe it? If so, is this an error in the text? If not, what does that do to our notions of inerrancy?
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 10.53 am
Andrew: Ok. Let’s let Scripture interpret Scripture.
So, we come upon Jude 14 and we see this introductory formula: “It was about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying…”
We’ve seen that introductory formula before in the mouth of Christ (Matt 15.7; they both use the aorist active indicative 3s of propheteuw and the present active participle masculine singular nominative of legw with the name of the prophet in between).
When we read Matthew recording Christ’s prophetic formula, we would conclude that Isaiah is Scripture and that it is prophecy.
If we are going to truly interpret Scripture by Scripture, wouldn’t we then conclude that 1 Enoch is Scripture and is prophecy?
You might reply that Scripture is 66 books and 1 Enoch is not one of them. Case closed.
I would reply that nowhere in Scripture does it say that there are 66 books (in fact, we know that there was more Scripture that we do not have, otherwise we would have 3 letters to Corinth).
So, the minute you use the canon to back your argument is the minute you stop using Scripture and start using something outside of Scripture (i.e. the early church’s formulation of the canon…and if you don’t accept the apocryphal books, then the Reformation’s formulation of the canon).
In other words, no one, not even yourself, truly only interprets Scripture by Scripture.
24 July 2008 at 11.02 am
[...] much to handle but I know some of you might enjoy commenting (and can probably do better than me): end of an era finitum non capax infiniti __________________ Andrew Husband to Dena Candidate of the MVP in the PCA MDiv graduate from [...]
24 July 2008 at 11.03 am
Eh,
Let me think more about how to respond because we are talking past each other.
24 July 2008 at 11.11 am
What are the implications if we take 1 Enoch as the Divine Word of God?
24 July 2008 at 11.12 am
No one is saying that 1 Enoch is Scripture.
24 July 2008 at 11.16 am
So you are saying if we had a 3rd Letter to Corinth presented, would you want it added to the canon?
24 July 2008 at 11.20 am
If it was written by the apostle Paul under the inspiration of God then I don’t think we would really have a choice.
24 July 2008 at 11.21 am
But you don’t think that because the Church has been without it for 2000 years and that really you couldn’t prove that it was written by Paul, etc. wouldn’t be a factor against having it be canon.
24 July 2008 at 11.24 am
It would be a factor.
That’s why I said: “IF it was written by the apostle Paul under the inspiration of God…”
24 July 2008 at 12.40 pm
Art,
You give the impression that “inspired by God” is synonymous with “in the canon.” That a writing can be designated as pertaining to one category doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it should also be designated as belonging to the other. For my part anyway, “in the canon” means “edifying for the church,” that scripture happens to be “inspired” should not be construed as being such a peculiar feature as evangelicalism has made it out to be.
24 July 2008 at 12.44 pm
Carlos: I agree that the two should not be equated. They were not equated in the early church. Allert includes a very helpful appendix to his book A High View of Scripture? in which he documents the use of the term “inspired” by the early church fathers to refer to non-canonical documents.
24 July 2008 at 1.06 pm
Yes, other scriptures, other inspired works, but not in the canon. There has to be some distinctions made. Now some evangelicals have problems that our scripture refers to another piece of scripture, under the false impression (at least in my view) that our current canon is the only one there ever was.
24 July 2008 at 1.10 pm
by “the canon” I mean “the Protestant canon”
24 July 2008 at 2.08 pm
Aboulet, your last comment seemed to imply that something inspired could have somehow not made it into the canon. That would entail a fairly low view of God’s providence, wouldn’t it?
In any event, Jude using Enoch is not troubling to inspiration or inerrancy in the slightest. He is simply using a portion of a well known extra-canonical book to illustrate a point he is making. Preachers do something like this every time they use an illustration in a sermon (though, I admit the analogy isn’t perfect. Nevertheless, Jude is clearly sermonic.)
In short, the Spirit inspired him to use a non-canonical source, canonically. I don’t see what the problem is. The issue is not was Enoch inspired, but was Jude. The former was not, the latter was.
As far as the statement that “Enoch prophesied,” he is mere referring to the book, much in the same way we would say, “Paul says…”
As far as the Enns thing is concerned, if the faculty is satisfied that his views on inspiration are not consistent with Reformed views in general and WTS’ views in particular, I am too. Theological innovation in our time is rarely good or helpful (think Pinnock, Wilkins, Dunn, et al).
24 July 2008 at 2.09 pm
By the way, Nathan M, Balaam is called a prophet in the OT, yet I don’t think anyone of us would want to argue that he was inspired in anything other than his pronouncements on Israel. FWIW.
24 July 2008 at 1.27 pm
In the above comments, two options are given for the interpretation of “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men.” One option is to see this as formulaic language in which “prophesied” does not denote inspired revelation or at least cannot be assumed to denote divine revelation. The other option is to see this verse as introducing a quotation that Jude assumes derives from the historical Enoch and that constitutes divine revelation. The question is which of these two models is more persuasive (here I tip my hat to Professor Enns from whom I picked up the habit of talking about interpretations and interpretative methods in terms of models and their persuasiveness).
I for one find the second model more persuasive since it strikes me as special pleading to claim that “prophesy” does not here mean inspired revelation. Jude uses this term to refer to a “prophecy” that he considered to be finding fulfillment in his own day; this seems to point pretty clearly to his considering it inspired revelation. Art’s identification of parallel language in Matt 15:7 increases the persuasiveness of this interpretation.
I’m not saying A Barne’s model is impossible; I just find it extremely unpersuasive. It would help we were provided with some contextual cues to show that Jude doesn’t really think he is talking about inspired revelation or some contemporary examples of 2nd temple Jews using “prophesied” in the way A Barne’s is suggesting as a possibility for this passage.
24 July 2008 at 2.27 pm
Kevin:
Scripture itself tells us that Paul wrote 3 letters to the church at Corinth, yet we only have 2. I’m not sure that qualifies as taking “a fairly low view of God’s providence” as much as it qualifies as believing what Scripture itself tells us.
But he didn’t say “says,” he said “prophesied.” Prophesied has a pretty restricted semantic range. It seems to me that you are letting something else guide your understanding of “prophesied” besides grammar and lexicography.
If he was simply referring to the book, he could have done so without using the term prophesied. For the sake of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the author of Hebrews quotes the OT extensively without using the term ‘prophesied.’ Paul also quotes contextual, non-canonical sources without using the term prophesied or even alluding to inspiration.
If Jude was referring to the book, he had many ways to do it.
If he was referring to the actual prophesy, as a prophesy, there were few ways to do it, all of which include the term prophesy.
It seems, at least from where I’m sitting, to be the latter.
He isn’t simply “using” it. He is claiming that it is prophecy.
Again, let me make this crystal: no one is claiming (a) that 1 Enoch is inspired or (b) that Jude is not inspired. That is not the point of the discussion. One thing that Pete has taught me is that the Bible is the Word of God. All these discussions are not attempts to prove that the Bible is the Word of God; rather, they are attempts to understand what it means to say the Bible is the Word of God (i.e. how do we articulate our beliefs about Scripture in a way that does not compromise our faith in Scripture, but is also consistent with the data that we are all confronting).
Again, no one is claiming that 1 Enoch is inspired. You are missing the point.
24 July 2008 at 2.36 pm
What are you saying then, if not that 1 Enoch is inspired? What is the point?
24 July 2008 at 2.41 pm
Andrew: The point being that Jude, most likely (see Nathan’s last comment), saw 1 Enoch 1.9 as an actual prophesy.
But we know that it wasn’t (aka, it was not inspired).
So, how does the fact that a Biblical author, who wrote while being inspired by the Spirit of God, mistakes a pseudoprophesy for an actual prophesy and quotes it in his inspired letter affect our understanding of Scripture?
In other words, does this affect our doctrine of Scripture?
If so, how? If not, why not?
24 July 2008 at 3.04 pm
Art,
What do you mean by “inspired”? I’m also interested to know how you would justify the assertion: “we know that it wasn’t”?
24 July 2008 at 3.34 pm
Carlos: I’ll have to give it a little more thought before I can state a fully developed definition of inspiration. What I am referring to, however, is “God breathed” as distinct from something with an extraordinary quality.
In other words, when I say Torah is inspired I mean something different than when I say Amichai is inspired.
In terms of how I would justify that 1 Enoch is not inspired in the former sense (being God breathed), I haven’t heard any good arguments otherwise.
24 July 2008 at 4.06 pm
THanks, Art, for your note. All scripture is God-breathed. There is no implication of canon here. I am not inclined to reduce inspiration to canon. If Jude thought Enoch was inspired, maybe it was. I would say he’s in a better position to judge than we. His community was much closer in time and culture to its writing. Yet its inspired-ness is less profitable for our communities today. Simply because it did not make it into the Protestant Christian canon doesn’t mean it’s not inspired. I’d leave the matter of its inspiration to one side and focus that the writing is not profitable for our communities and the heritage that our communities happen to draw on.
24 July 2008 at 4.36 pm
I disagree with those who claim this discussion is about inspiration. That is the crux of this discussion.
I don’t think Jude’s citation of Enoch proves what you think it does, Aboulet. I also think we are in fact quibbling about what the word “inspiration” means. That is a critical touchstone for this discussion.
Scripture is inspired. If it’s in the Scripture, it’s inspired. If it isn’t, it isn’t. It matters not if the SOURCE (in this case Enoch) was inspired, Jude was. And the quotation was inspired inasmuch as the Holy Spirit moved him to quote it.
Personally, I would not accept the third letter to the Corinthians (which was probably the first) as canonical, even if we found Paul’s DNA on it. Why? Because the canon is closed. God has given us all that we need. That third letter would not have much more weight to me than, say, Clement does, beyond giving us insight into the apostolic mind.
Aboulet wrote,
“So, how does the fact that a Biblical author, who wrote while being inspired by the Spirit of God, mistakes a pseudoprophesy for an actual prophesy and quotes it in his inspired letter affect our understanding of Scripture?”
It makes no difference at all. Zip. Zero. Nadda. It is theologically as unimportant as Paul quoting a pagan poet in Titus. What is important is the inspired message of the inspired author. It looks like, in reading WTS documents on Enns, that they perceived his book as an assautl on orthodox bilbliology. He apparently did not dispel those fears sufficiently to keep his job.
24 July 2008 at 4.42 pm
“Scripture is inspired. If it’s in the Scripture, it’s inspired.”
This statement presumes too much. It is being given as if it is a settled matter but the declaration is most certainly debatable. Just because the majority of evangelicals operate under this assumption doesn’t mean that it is indubitable. In fact, I think it evinces just how different our faith is from that of the early church. Early Christian writings give evidence that believers did not always accept this evangelical assumption.
24 July 2008 at 4.43 pm
I forgot to include Kevin’s last assertion in my quote: “If it isn’t, it isn’t.” It’s this sentence especially that I take issue with in my last comment.
24 July 2008 at 3.50 pm
Kevin Carroll: Art already responded to the comment about Balaam, but led me add a little more. It is true that the noun “prophet” can refer either to a false prophet or a true prophet in biblical literature (the prophets of Baal, some of Jeremiah’s opponents, etc.). The verb “prophesy”, presumably, can also refer either to false or to true prophecy. Jude’s citation of Enoch’s prophecy is favorable, hence the context is overwhelmingly in support of his seeing Enoch’s prophecy as an instance of divinely inspired revelation analogous to the canonical prophets. Again, I have not yet seen evidence for “prophesy” being used in 2nd temple or ancient Israelite literature in a sense that is neutral about its claim to divine inspiration, i.e. to a sense that allows “he prophesied” to be interpreted merely as “he said.”
24 July 2008 at 5.25 pm
Cbovell, my statements are not one of presumption they are:
1. Statements of faith and,
2. Statements that in are conformity with the orthodox opinion of the Church for the last 1600 years.
If this discussion is really about “What is Scripture,” I have a number of good theologians I can refer you to without talking up space on this blog.
24 July 2008 at 5.31 pm
I don’t know about an era but it might be the end of a future…
Here are my thoughts at http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/bitter-sweet-choice-peter-enns-resigns-from-wts/
24 July 2008 at 5.42 pm
Thank you for your clarification. I would like to ask for another if I may. When you talk about what this discussion is “really” about, what do you mean? In an earlier note I read you as disagreeing with those who say there is a need to revisit what inspiration means and what it entails with regard to what type of authority scripture might be said to have. Now you just made a remark about “if” this discussioin is really about what scripture is. Could you please clarify what you think this discussion is really about and what you intended by those remarks?
I would also not mind seeing your list of theologians who speak on this topic of what scripture is, if I am permitted to trouble you with such a request. My concern is that we now need to look at what scripture is all over again, in a critical fashion and in light of the explosion of knowledge biblical studies has experienced regarding modes of thought that were current during the course of Second Temple Judaism– the precise time during which our scriptures were being written. This is very pertinent information, information to which, I might add, the 1600 years of church history that you invoke was unfortunately not privy to.
24 July 2008 at 5.57 pm
Maybe we can take this offline, because it is veering away from the topic. If so, let me know and I will provide you with my email address.
I will say that I am not at all inclined to revisit an orthodox view of the Scriptures based on “modern scholarship” any more than I feel necessary to revisit orthodox Christology everytime modern scholarships questions the historical Jesus.
Since you keep brining up Second Temple Judaism, I can only assume that you have been affected by the writings of Dunn, Wright. While both of them have made some good contributions to theology, they have also made some (like the New Perspectives) that have been denounced by several Reformed denominations, including my own.
My comments wondering whether this discussion was devolving into a “what is Scripture” debate spring from several of your posts that belie a low view of the Bible. I don’t say that by way of criticism, just observation. If inspiration is not ineseparably linked to the Scriptures, if all Scripture is in fact not inspired, then you and I have a theological gulf between us that has to be spanned before we can meaningfully discuss this further.
24 July 2008 at 6.30 pm
The Epistle of Barnabus, written between 70 and 131 AD and used in the primitive church to teach new believers, names and quotes Enoch as Scripture. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.iv.html
Justin Martyr (110-165) in his 2nd Apology, discusses Enoch in depth and uses it to establish doctrine on fallen angels and the origin of demons. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iii.v.html?highlight=are,called,demons#highlight
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin charges that Jews were removing portions of Scripture which they felt were too Christological. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.i.html
Irenaeus (d. 202 AD), the famous anti-cult apologist, in Against Heresies, Book IV, chap. XVI, uses Enoch to establish the doctrine that Enoch was God’s legate to fallen angels. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.html?highlight=enoch#highlight
In chap. XXXVI, he uses Enoch to establish the doctrine that fallen angels found a way to commit adultery with women. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxvii.html?highlight=commingled#highlight
Tertullian (155-222 AD), the founder of Western theological scholarship, in On the Apparel of Women (Book I), names and cites Enoch as “Scripture” and “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. He tells why he believes that the Jews had removed it from the “canon.” He states:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.i.html
In Book II, he uses to establish doctrine against the excessive ornamentation of women attributing its origin to demons http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iii.i.ii.html?highlight=destined%20to%20judge#highlight http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iii.ii.x.html?highlight=enoch#highlight
In his Apologetic, in On Idolatry, he uses Enoch to establish the doctrine that idolatry and astrology originated from demons. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iv.ix.html?highlight=lovers%20of%20women#highlight and that demons are the product of fallen angels. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxii.html?highlight=angels%20who%20fell#highlight
Clement of Alexandria (ca.150 – 211/216), in comments of the First Epistle of Peter uses Enoch to establish that fallen angels are apostates from God, and says that Jude in v. 14, “n these words he verifies [Enoch's] prophecy.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ix.html?highlight=enoch#highlight
Melito (d. ca 180 AD), quoted by Eusebius, lists the canon of Scripture less Esther, which would later come to occupy Enoch’s location in the canonical list. Enoch and one other book are required to bring the total of books in the OT to 22 according to the groupings named in Jewish literature such as Josephus’ Against Apion (5 of Moses, 13 prophets, and 4 of wisdom).
Origen (185-254) in De Principiis names and quotes Enoch as “Scripture.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.ii.iii.html?highlight=enoch#highlight http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.iii.html?highlight=enoch#highlight
Anatolius (early 3rd c – July 3, 283) uses Enoch to describe ancient Jewish custom. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.vi.iii.ii.v.html?highlight=enoch#highlight
By 240 AD, the Jewish canon lists Esther in place of Enoch.
24 July 2008 at 6.57 pm
Carlos, I’ve read your blog and some of your papers and I have a fairly good idea of where you are coming from. I don’t think it will do (nor do I have the time) to write a full blown apologetic for orthodox bibliology. I would refer you to Warfield for starters…but hey.
24 July 2008 at 9.00 pm
I may have missed this in reading the above thread, but we do not know for sure when the Book of Enoch was written, or at least the part seemingly quoted by Jude. My understanding is that the earliest mss. of the Book of Enoch which quote the passage alluded to by Jude could have been written after Jude was written. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the passage was composed to fill the perceived lacuna caused by the quotation in the Book of Jude, rather than the passage in Enoch coming first. In fact, Jude may have been writing by direct inspiration and not relying upon any written source, and the writer of Enoch recognized this. The verse in Jude does not purport to be a quotation from another writing, only a quotation of what Enoch had said, and this would comport with my suggestion (not original with me).
24 July 2008 at 10.05 pm
Its been asked if Jude thought Enoch was inspired (God-breathed) but did Jude think Jude was inspired. There seems to be a case that Paul sensed the divinely invested authority of his own and the other apostles’ writings, along with the OT, but was this a universal belief shared by all the apostles? That is, it seems that God is still providential in the collection of Scripture, its quality and authority. This is often seen in reflection upon the historical out-workings of God’s providence and we can’t assume upon the development of the “doctrine of inspiration” in the minds of the apostles .
If two discursive parties have naught but their own subjective perspective upon reality and are trying to come to terms about reality they need to appeal to something transcendent of subjective viewpoint. However, how can one subjective party make an authoritative claim to said transcendence? Only if it claims for itself authority in ways that either party can readily see as a claim to transcendent authority. Then the claim is either submitted to or rejected. That which claims transcendent authority – the Bible.
Nick: I like you and often like what you say but the hard core correspondence/coherence discussion is a little too rigidly constructed to survive. 2nd Temple people (er…all people including those who write about coherence models of truth) wanted (want) what they relay to be believed as truly corresponding to a real state of affairs, “I will see you tomorrow” “my child is sick and needs medical attention” “Lazarus is dead” etc.
This is fun
24 July 2008 at 10.21 pm
Returning to the point… I will miss Dr. Enns. May God continue to use him, bless him and now let him work within the wall of peace rather than in strife.
24 July 2008 at 10.50 pm
MN – It is not my contention that the correspondence theory of truth was non functional in the ancient world; but only that there were other modes of thought. I am arguing that we have relegated all biblical truth to correspondence theory; and this is alien in the first century.
One might use a strict correspondence theory for, say, an ancient grocery list. Pick up some figs and fish from the agora would be a fairly plain directive.
However, this was not the ONLY way in which people communicated. It dominates the 21st century but it didn’t dominate the 1st century; hence we get things like Midrash…
…and the book of Revelation
…and Neo-Platonic discussions of creation being instantaneous and yet taking 7000 years. (ala Augustine)
To give a better example, when was the last time you had a professor who taught you in parables, or a historian who wrote a book pseudopigraphically; passing it off as the authentic biography of Robert E. Lee to make a point about civil war?
When was the last time that you had a preacher read from Orwell’s 1984 and tell you that Winston “prophesied rightly” when he spoke about big brother – and then go on to lambast the controlling regimes of communism.
I’m not trying to throw the writers of the bible into a fanciful world where there is no such thing as a correspondence theory of truth. I’m arguing that modernists have made correspondence theory into a pre condition when they read scripture, and we should rather let the phenomenon of scripture in its varied richness speak without assuming that every word written is a modern scientific treatise or a historical reconstruction of rigid factual data.
Oh, and I’m glad you like what I have to say…I usually don’t….lol
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 10.54 pm
One final example – which just occurred to me
When one understands a Platonic/Aristotelian view of truth (what a thing actually is – is not its accidents, but its substance) then the much of the theology of the early church becomes clear – transubstantiation and even the hypostatic union make a lot more sense in a generally platonic worldview then in a empirical one.
Pax Christi…Nick
24 July 2008 at 11.27 pm
MN – I just reread my previous statement above. You are right, my wording was too strong. I should have said “The scriptures are not bound to just a coorespondance theory of truth, but the usurpation of all other views of truth by this one understanding is a modern invention.”
Pax Christi…Nick
25 July 2008 at 12.42 am
The references provided by Second Peter above document how there was some kind of Enochian scripture accepted by the early church, a scripture that had achieved a rather wide circulation and that had been recognized as profitable for use in the church for practical as well as theological purposes. Again, I submit that contemporary evangelical understandings of “inspiration” and “scripture” are quite different from those of the early church. It is a shame that most evangelicals’ self-understanding of what it means to be a believer conditions them in such a way that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this.
25 July 2008 at 9.15 am
Carlos, you wrote: “I submit that contemporary evangelical understandings of “inspiration” and “scripture” are quite different from those of the early church. It is a shame that most evangelicals’ self-understanding of what it means to be a believer conditions them in such a way that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this.”
Would you count it equally a shame that we are not, say, Docetists, as many of the early Fathers were? Just curious…
25 July 2008 at 11.01 am
Where I was initially taught about scripture’s authority and how it is the key doctrine that sets real believers apart from their mediocre counterparts the idea that inerrancy as it is understood on the popular level is not that which the church has ALWAYS had is simply preposterous. Imagine my surprise when I learned that there are a variety of views that the church has entertained. So when we appeal to the fathers for various christological and trinitarian formulations, evangelicals often and conveniently overlook the fathers’ un-evangelical views of scripture.
So there are a variety of options open to believers with regard to how “scripture” should be understood. Christendom seems not to exhibit the degree of solidarity that churches’ frequently give the impression it has, especially regarding scripture.
In response to your Docetist remark, I’d say it indicates nicely how scripture is not a central doctrine and should not be made out to be one, whereas christology and trinitarianism are more central, more defining features of Christian faith historically speaking.
25 July 2008 at 1.32 pm
Two relating thoughts:
http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopoly/
http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/bitter-sweet-choice-peter-enns-resigns-from-wts/
25 July 2008 at 4.22 pm
Kevin:
Paul did not claim that the pagan poet was a “prophecy,” so your connection there is a non sequitur.
I would think that if an inspired author mistakingly quotes something as prophecy, it would be a pretty big deal on how we think about Scripture.
Also, your observations on Enns and the situation is utterly mistaken. It was not “orthodox” bibliology that was the issue. It was the WCF and WTS’s interpretation of it that was the issue. In other words, it was a certain strand of “Reformed Orthodoxy” that was the issue.
I think you made a typo here. Did you mean to say, “I disagree with those who claim this discussion is not about inspiration?”
If so, that’s fine. You can disagree. But the fact remains, I am not arguing against the inspiration of Jude or for the inspiration of Enoch (in the “God breathed” sense).
Rather, the issue is about our doctrine of Scripture and how it is affected (especially inerrancy and accommodation) by Jude, who includes something as true prophecy that the modern church disavows.
That is the crux of the discussion.
25 July 2008 at 10.32 pm
art – great post.
One of the great ironies of this whole thing, which I am sure has not escaped your attention is that our (Enn’;s subscribers) concerns are for giving the message of scripture prima pares.
I am concerned to let scripture be what it is, come what may, and that leads me to the funky ideas about what it is actually doing.
It is ironic that to safeguard the principium of scripture one places oneself under the gallows of much of the evangelical world. I havent thought enough about this, but it is a great irony that it is hard to serve both the word of God and his people.
Im rambling….perhaps more later over a beer.
Pax Christi…Nick
25 July 2008 at 11.48 pm
Carlos wrote: “In response to your Docetist remark, I’d say it indicates nicely how scripture is not a central doctrine and should not be made out to be one, whereas christology and trinitarianism are more central, more defining features of Christian faith historically speaking.”
Ok, upon what then do you base your Christology and Trinitarianism, if not the Scriptures?
25 July 2008 at 11.50 pm
Art, sadly I am one of the world’s worst typists and I often blast through these things without proofreading properly. I see you have noticed this as you have had to “sic” me twice. You are correct, my last comment re: inspiration was not worded properly.
25 July 2008 at 11.59 pm
My, my I wish I could get this all done at one whack. Please forgive the multiple posts.
Art wrote: “Rather, the issue is about our doctrine of Scripture and how it is affected (especially inerrancy and accommodation) by Jude, who includes something as true prophecy that the modern church disavows.”
You are putting words in Jude’s mouth that aren’t in the text. He does not say that Enoch’s prophesy was true but that he prophesied. The semantic range of the word “prophesy” in Greek (including the LXX) includes things that were NOT true. I think the prophets(!) of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Ki. 18:29) is a good example. In fact the OT is replete with numerous prophesies that were false. One thinks of the evil spirit God sent to put a lying tongue in Ahab’s prophets.
Anway, the only thing we can infer properly from Jude’s use of Enoch is that the Holy Spirit inspired Jude to use it. Anything beyond that is shaky.
26 July 2008 at 12.31 am
Kevin,
I think proposing that the only thing we can conclude is that Holy Spirit inspired Jude to use a book that his contemporaries happened to think inspired to be kind of shaky. If we are to infer to the best explanation, I think we can say that not a few people in Second Temple Judaism considered some Enochian scripture inspired, Jude was following a contemporary hermeneutical practice in invoking Enoch as an authority. At least this is how it appears to me. Fear of the consequences of admitting Jude’s complicity in Second Temple cultural beliefs no longer binds my conscience, no longer prohibits for me that such an explanation is thoroughly possible, or even that it may indeed be, in the final analysis, very probable.
26 July 2008 at 10.48 am
Kevin – I must disagree
The context of Jude establishes a true prophecy; because he is using the prophecy to support his thesis. He is not rebuking this as a false prophecy, but rather he is building towards a central argument, and all of these are proof texts for his conclusion.
Let me explain how I have understood (exegeted/eisogeted?) this passage.
4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Formally speaking, these are antinomians, who both deny Jesus and give themselves a license to immorality. One cannot help but think this situation parallels Corinth et. al. in the early church.
Now watch what Jude does. He begins a string of arguments to show his thesis is correct; these men should be rejected (which is found in the conclusion of the book.) He does this by establishing a joint group of clauses showing how what these men are doing is the same as what other notorious evil doers have done. He even employs a rhetorical device of “in the same way” to give the passage more cohesion. He begins in Exodus and ends in Enoch; and all his examples are connected to his central thesis about these evil men.
5b – the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6a – the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home
7a – In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.
8a – In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.
11 – They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.
Note that he is incorporating things from canonical history as well as things from non canonical history. For instance the debate (verse 9) between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses is part of the assumption of Moses, a non canonical work. Yet the other examples; Korah’s rebellion, Cain’s rebellion, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc…are canonical examples.
Into this string of arguments comes the touchstone
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
His argument is a string of things which all support his central thesis. These men are blemishes, spots in your love feasts, they should be avoided and you should not be like them.
If, as you think, verse 14 is meant by Jude to convey that this is not a true prophecy, but fits the argument then it destroys the whole thesis which he has been building. Given the historical veracity of all his previous examples you would have a hard road to hoe, exegetically speaking, to convince people that Jude is now breaking with his previous examples and citing a false prophecy which he knows to be false but supports his view. Wouldn’t Jude’s detractors (those lawless men he is attacking) have simply pointed out that Jude believes in false prophecies? As an analogy what would happen in a blog debate over 2nd temple literature if someone participating were to say “the DSS contain copies of the New Testament.” Wouldn’t that persons ‘ethos’ be utterly destroyed and call into question any previous points he might have made that sounded solid? In the same way if Jude was to make such an argument, using a known false text to support his thesis, it would seem to lessen his credibility a great deal.
Personally, I think to try and doctor what Jude is arguing does a bit of violence to the text, and is more concerned with defending the assumptions of what constitutes truth in modernity then defending the actual phenomenon of scripture.
Pax Christi…Nick
26 July 2008 at 1.42 pm
cbovell-
The primitive church did believe in the inerrancy of Scripture just like conservative evangelicals do today.
We also know that their Septuagint had a very slightly different canon from our Masoretic texts. This is nothing new.
Addtionally, by showing that the primitive church from ca AD 70 to AD 240 believed that Enoch was Scripture means that they did not believe that Jude was citing some sort of vague “Semitic oral tradition” that someone who does not believe in inerrancy might claim.
So I think that since Enoch was found among fragments at Qumram and since the early church fathers thought that it was Scripture, it would be helpful if more conservative evangelical scholars would do research on Enoch, instead of leaving it to liberal scholars.
Such research, if properly approached, would add to our knowledge of the early church and pre-Christian Judaism, while reaffirming biblical inerrancy in books such as Jude.
I spent the considerable of time gathering the quotations from the earliest church fathers in hope that maybe some such scholar would notice.
26 July 2008 at 7.57 pm
“The primitive church did believe in the inerrancy of Scripture just like conservative evangelicals do today.”
Sure there are some similarities and there are also some differences. That the BIble does not have any errors will mean different things to different people depending on what conceptual framework is culturally prevalent at a given time. Our scientific and historical understandings of reality are not those of the primitive church. Our beliefs and their beliefs are not going to match up so closely upon inspection, sometimes even when they purport to refer to the same thing. I mean even today, when ETS members say they believe in an inerrant Bible, they mean different things from each other. It depends on what philosophical perspective is being used to unpack “inerrancy.” I myself already went on the quest to find “sola scriptura” in the early church and found that inerrancy, scripture, inspiration, Bible, these all operated within a cultural matrix that is light years apart from ours. In fact, as I argue in my book, it is not practically viable to say that scripture is the ultimate authority. (My own view is that inerrancy in our particular historical moment does not measure up.)
“Such research, if properly approached, would add to our knowledge of the early church and pre-Christian Judaism, while reaffirming biblical inerrancy in books such as Jude.”
I find interesting your certainty that if the study is “properly approached” it will reaffirm biblical inerrancy, the results of the said research already being determined before the research is even undertaken. You are not even allowing for the possibility of what some other commentators here are suggesting: that Jude’s reference to the Enochian scripture casts some doubts on inerrancy or, at the very least, has persuaded us to reformulate the doctrine of inerrancy since today’s understanding of inerrancy cannot adequately assimilate Jude’s reference to Enoch. I would have been happier if you said something like: “I’d scholars to engage in such research involving the book of Jude. Then we could see whether, in addition to adding to our knowledge of the early church and pre-Christian Judaism, their findings would reaffirm biblical inerrancy in books such as Jude.”
27 July 2008 at 12.33 am
Nick, just for fun, do you believe the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels procreating with human women? Enoch did…
27 July 2008 at 11.54 am
Pete Enns is a symbolic of an era. An era where traditional orthodoxy isn’t enough, but needs to be “added”, “advanced” by “cutting edge scholarship.” An era where “new evidences” demands a “new paragidm”. An era where someone can teach at a Confessionalist school and freely redefine the definition of the very same Confession that one is suppose to uphold and stand on.
This is definitely an end of an era. An end that WTS BT can return to the Bible, return to true Biblical Wisdom, and true Biblical Scholarship. Gaffin, a Biblical scholar trained under Young and Murray, are to me more trustworthy to tell us what Reformed Biblical scholarship is.
With that said I’m glad Enns and the board can reach an agreement to part ways like gentlemen. It would be ashame if Enns would force WTS to fired him. I’m sure after this Enns can go anywhere he wants as he will be a very “hot commodity.” I wish him well, but at the end of the day he’s not a Reformed Biblical Scholar, but no doubt he will be a great non-Reformed Biblical scholar.
27 July 2008 at 3.34 pm
Kevin –
To be honest I havent given it a lot of thought; could I just say its babylonian midrash and move on? (thats a joke)
If you want a serious discussion on it, I am willing to have one, but I would need to inquire a bit deeper into the text and commentaries/cultural cues; (which may take some time as I am currently on vacation and my library is far far away.)
Just to clarify from previous posts, I am not claiming enoch is inspired, hence because enoch says they are angels doesnt mean he is right or that I agree with him. I am only claiming that it appears that Jude thought Enoch was inspired.
Pax Christi…Nick
28 July 2008 at 1.35 pm
I wonder how Peter Enns compares to outstanding scholars such as WTS’s Robert Dick Wilson.
28 July 2008 at 4.59 pm
Kevin –
I wonder what R.D. Wilson would have said had he lived long enough to see the discovery of the DSS, the Nag Hammadi Library, and scores of other archeological and textual finds?
I also wonder what the case would have been had he been dealing with something other than just german higher critical theorists (which has nothing to do with Pete Enn’s book – in fact he shares much of Wilson’s distain of them.) and had instead dealt with the sitz im leben of scripture – much of which came to light long after his death?
I think in unwise to paint broadly between Peter Enns in the 21st century and R.D. Wilson in the late 19th and early 20th century.
It is even worse (as Dr. Enns points out) to paint broadly between the 5th century BCE, the 1st century CE, 16th century reformation and early 20th century fundamentalism.
To do so is to almostly certainly misunderstand the historicity of the issues.
Pax Christi…Nick
5 August 2008 at 1.19 pm
Question — when WTS states that “(Enns’) teaching and writings fall within the purview of Evangelical thought,” is WTS including themselves, as Reformed, within Evangelical thought, or are they saying that, as a Reformed institution, they are not Evangelical?
5 August 2008 at 3.48 pm
elnwood: I believe they are including themselves within the wider umbrella of “Evangelical” to which they are a subclass.
It was worded so that two things would (hopefully) be said about the situation:
1) Pete is an Evangelical and not a heretic.
2) WTS does not believe that Pete’s work falls within the WTS tradition (i.e. their interpretation of the WCF).
Picture Evangelicalism as a large circle. Now picture “Reformed” as a smaller circle within Evangelicalism.
The statement is saying that WTS believes that Pete is within the larger circle (Evangelicalism), but not the smaller circle (“Reformed”).
5 August 2008 at 10.47 pm
Art, I hope that is the case. I live on the West Coast in Westminster Seminary California territory, and here many of the Reformed refuse the moniker “evangelical.”
See especially Professor R. Scott Clark’s blog entry:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/are-reformed-evangelical-or-evangelicals/
I’m just curious if there is that kind of thought over at WTS Philly.