http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/exodus-and-the-problem-of-historiography-rr-new-version-final-dec-05.pdf
In this post I am going to be referring to the above article by Dr. Peter Enns of Westminster Seminary. Dr. Enns has become somewhat of a controversial figure in Evangelical Biblical Studies (EBS), and it is because of the type of questions that he raises. He wrote a book recently on the nature of scripture that caused quite a stir, and for good reason, he simply asks some very difficult questions.
In this article Enns makes a very helpful distinction in how EBSch (Evangelical Biblical Scholars) try to establish the historical veracity of scripture. They are not trying to prove that the events, dates of the books, etc. are proven, or certainly dated, but only plausible as historical considerations. This does not force the Evangelical to abandon his/her doctrine of scripture, because all one has to show is plausibility. So the position seems to be that, as long as an evangelical can account for the data, as well as, if not better than an opposing position then it can be rationally held. This is how I would argue it, and since there is no such thing in history as “absolute proof” that is all we can expect.
After reading him note this, he goes on and raises the big question of the article. He never really pin points his question, but I would paraphrase it as: “Since the biblical author is separated from the events by time what is the relationship between the historical event (HE) and the Literary convention (LC), and how does the fitting of (HE) into (LC), which produces a Historical Telling (HT), affect the historical truthfulness of the (HT)?
An example may be helpful, Enns uses the example of the Tabernacle. He notes that in On the Reliability of the Old Testament , Kenneth Kitchen shows that the Tabernacle account in Exodus may have been edited by later priests, or scribes (This is our HT), Enns then asks the question whether or not the HE (The tabernacle as it existed in history) differs from the HT (Tabernacle described in Exodus). He notes that he does not want to read anything into what Kitchen is saying, but that it still raises a very good question. If the tabernacle description in the text (HT) differs from that of the (HE) how does that affect out view of inspiration? This question is big for Enns because he seems to assume that if a retelling of an event follows a literary convention that it must have therefore been skewed a bit. Enns may not like the word skewed, but I am having trouble finding a better word.
If his concept that Literary Genre automatically means (mild?) distortion of the retelling in the biblical text, then there is a problem for most Evangelical scholars. The problem is that Evangelicals want to say that scripture is God’s word, and since it is God’s word it is truthful in all that it says; but if scripture distorts what the tabernacle was like is God mistaken, or lacking in knowledge of how the tabernacle was built?
Of course I would simply answer that Literary Convention does not necessitate distortion, and as an evangelical who upholds the sovereignty of God, why couldn’t God orchestrate events such that the events line up with the retelling in the literary conventions? Of course this cannot be proved, but neither can Enns assumption that Literary Convention almost always equals distortion.
You will notice that I kept the discussion general, because my problem with Enns is a matter of logic, and theology not history, though that would be there also. I was simply showing that it is not logically impossible that Text and Event are necessarily at odds if you have a Sovereign God and he is the author of the text. This is what I understand a good reformed doctrine of inspiration to hold.
