Scan barcode
A review by allisonjpmiller
The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Peter Enns
4.0
Biblical literalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. It's not how scholars historically understood the Bible. Peter Enns explains this in a way the average Joe can understand. Yay, Peter Enns!
Karen Armstrong also sums it up well:
Trying to understand the Bible without understanding this is like clipping the flight feathers off a bird and shoving it into a cage that doesn't allow it room to even twitch. Creative interpretation of Scripture was an essential part of Judaism; it's why (most) people were delighted to hear Jesus play "free association" with the Torah. The way he drew new depths of meaning out of Scripture was right in line with Jewish tradition, which saw God's word as a living thing that was constantly revealing new insights to those who wrestled with it. (The thing people weren't so charmed by was Jesus's claim to be God.)
On a larger scale, Peter Enns argues, that's how exactly how we should engage with the Bible. Asking it to be a rulebook is asking it to be something its writers never intended it to be. The Bible is best understood as a story, one that is told through many different genres (poetry, prophecy, law, epistles/letters, parables, eyewitness accounts, and yes: history). The New Testament itself presents a brand new interpretation of the Old; it re-casts the same story in a new light, with a new lens, all in an effort to better understand the God people thought they knew.
For all intents and purposes, God appears to be cool with that. He lets his children tell the story as they understand it. So... why aren't we cool with that? Especially when Jesus almost exclusively used parables to make important points. He could have just spoken in statements and facts, but considering 96% of the universe remains scientifically unknown to us even today, God dropping facts would no doubt sound like pure gibberish (kind of like how the sheer irrationality of quantum physics makes the best scientists flail in frustration).
Besides... that's just not how human beings are wired. We're wired for story. Story is the language we use to understand ourselves and the world around us. It always has been, and it always will be. Just as people today use memoir to re-shape their messy, amorphous past into a coherent narrative that informs their present, the Bible is the spiritual history of a nation written to help that nation better understand who they are, and how their relationship with God has evolved. That was the priority for ancient writers.
While I don't agree with absolutely every conclusion Enns draws here, I think his overall thesis is a sound one, and incredibly important for Christians (as well as atheists) to grasp. This is not a black-and-white historical document, and trying to make it into one is not only disingenuous, it also ensures we sail past the point so fast we never even notice it.
Karen Armstrong also sums it up well:
"Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of Scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge."
Trying to understand the Bible without understanding this is like clipping the flight feathers off a bird and shoving it into a cage that doesn't allow it room to even twitch. Creative interpretation of Scripture was an essential part of Judaism; it's why (most) people were delighted to hear Jesus play "free association" with the Torah. The way he drew new depths of meaning out of Scripture was right in line with Jewish tradition, which saw God's word as a living thing that was constantly revealing new insights to those who wrestled with it. (The thing people weren't so charmed by was Jesus's claim to be God.)
On a larger scale, Peter Enns argues, that's how exactly how we should engage with the Bible. Asking it to be a rulebook is asking it to be something its writers never intended it to be. The Bible is best understood as a story, one that is told through many different genres (poetry, prophecy, law, epistles/letters, parables, eyewitness accounts, and yes: history). The New Testament itself presents a brand new interpretation of the Old; it re-casts the same story in a new light, with a new lens, all in an effort to better understand the God people thought they knew.
For all intents and purposes, God appears to be cool with that. He lets his children tell the story as they understand it. So... why aren't we cool with that? Especially when Jesus almost exclusively used parables to make important points. He could have just spoken in statements and facts, but considering 96% of the universe remains scientifically unknown to us even today, God dropping facts would no doubt sound like pure gibberish (kind of like how the sheer irrationality of quantum physics makes the best scientists flail in frustration).
Besides... that's just not how human beings are wired. We're wired for story. Story is the language we use to understand ourselves and the world around us. It always has been, and it always will be. Just as people today use memoir to re-shape their messy, amorphous past into a coherent narrative that informs their present, the Bible is the spiritual history of a nation written to help that nation better understand who they are, and how their relationship with God has evolved. That was the priority for ancient writers.
While I don't agree with absolutely every conclusion Enns draws here, I think his overall thesis is a sound one, and incredibly important for Christians (as well as atheists) to grasp. This is not a black-and-white historical document, and trying to make it into one is not only disingenuous, it also ensures we sail past the point so fast we never even notice it.