Enns’ Flippant Attitude Toward Scripture
Posted by Pastoral Musings on June 14th, 2012
Too bad Joseph is a total stud and Potiphar’s wife has a thing for him.
Byas, Jared; Enns, Peter (2012-04-09). Genesis for Normal People: A Guide to the Most Controversial, Misunderstood, and Abused Book of the Bible (Kindle Locations 1529-1530). Patheos Press. Kindle Edition.
This flippant attitude toward Scripture is one that seems to be prevalent among modern day “Evangelicals”. I must honestly say that I have a great disdain for it.
1. Nowhere do we read that Joseph is a stud. That is exaggeration and eisegesis.
2. It is a careless handling of Scripture that wants to bring modern profane viewpoints to bear on this ancient, holy book.
Along with his very bad theology, this is the reason that I refuse to recommend Enns’ work.
June 14th, 2012 at 9:57 am
wow. I’m speechless…
[Translate]
June 14th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Indeed…
[Translate]
June 21st, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Jason -
I’m a little confused at quoting 15 words out of a short book and saying Enns is being flippant (or even profane) with the Bible. I mean, I need to read the larger context – paragraph, section, maybe chapter. But I am going to guess that, yes, it is exaggeration. This happened in Mel Gibson’s, The Passion. It happened in Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston. It happens in sermons when we try and flesh out details (possibly to make a joke or to give details behind the scenes that we can only guess about). It happens in the NCV or Message versions of the Bible.
So this would generally not be categorically known as eisegesis. To make a statement like Enns’ probably has nothing to do with bad hermeneutics, but trying to make a story come alive today. And I can only imagine he is not trying to be disrespectful to Scripture. Read Jesus’ reaction to some of the religious leaders of his day. At times, one might fill in the gaps of the look on his face, what others are whispering behind the scenes, or how that might play out in today’s society. So some things are fleshed out a little. Enns did it, the examples above did it, I do it, I would suppose you also participate in it in some fashion.
I love Scripture. I love your love for Scripture. But I can only imagine Enns is not practising eisegesis nor disrespecting Scripture.
[Translate]
June 21st, 2012 at 8:50 pm
ScottL,
I’m not sure why you’re confused. Just because it is a short quoted doesn’t mean that it isn’t genuine. If you wish for context, you are welcome to go get the book. It’s very cheap on Amazon.
As far as it being exaggeration, I can only tell you that it is far more than exaggeration. It is true exegesis. Joseph is not shown to be a lady’s man in Scripture. He is shown to be a chaste young man who fled when tempted. That is also very different from our giving an opinion about what we think may have happened.
Enns’ statement is not only eisegesis, but it is anti-Scriptural truth about Joseph.
To be honest I’m not sure what you are trying to say about Jesus. I can assure you, however, that Jesus did not treat Scripture so carelessly as Enns.
In the end I’m left confused about your response here. Context or no, there is no reason for Enns to call Joseph as stud, i.e. a lady’s man. That is obviously what he was NOT. That leaves me wondering about your response. I simply don’t know what to think about a response of the nature of this one. Enns is probably a great guy, should he be known personally. His treatment of Scripture and his approach to the Word of God in this instance leave much to be desired. Surely that can be accepted, no matter what one may think of him in general.
[Translate]
June 21st, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Jason -
I wasn’t trying to denote anything negative about Jesus or his view of Scripture. I’m simply pondering his reactions to some of the religious leaders, how it would have all played out in details. If you just pondered facial expressions, tone of voice, etc, I think one might chuckle at some of the scenes presented. Again, I don’t want to speak badly of Christ, or his view of Scripture. Neither of those was coming in to play for me. It was simply filling in the details that we don’t have and it makes me chuckle at times as I ponder that he might have thrown out a bit of sarcasm to those religious leaders.
To call someone a stud does not necessarily denote he is a ‘lady’s man’, at least in the fact that Joseph was initiating anything. I know many Christian guys that could be denoted as studs, but that does not inherently speak of them being a ‘lady’s man’. Again, I would need the context, but I can only imagine that Enns (or Byas) is simply making a joking statement. Not to denigrate Scripture, not to be disrespectful to God, but making a humourous statement. We all participate in filling in the lines of the story, since it is mainly a summary at many points. I ponder the story of Jonah and what he would have told himself in the belly of the fish. Think about some 3 days in that situation! There would have been all sorts of emotions. I ponder Isaac’s journey back to meet Esau. I could think of a few funny scenarios on that trip back, at least in his own thought process.
In the Joseph story, we are not directly told Joseph is a stud. We are directly told that David was handsome. But not with Joseph. But I suppose there was something attractive about Joseph (‘stud’ being a very slang term in our modern day) that made Potiphar’s wife attracted to him (but not denoting a sexual lady’s man). I suppose you feel it was stepping over the line. Again, I can only imagine Enns (or Byas) is making a joke. And I wouldn’t argue they are doing it to simply ‘tickle our ears’. They are relaying an account and thinking how to do some in a more modern humourous way.
That is why I don’t think we should simply identify this as hermeneutical eisegesis and disrespect for Scripture.
[Translate]
June 22nd, 2012 at 1:48 pm
ScottL,
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I thought you were speaking disrespectfully of Christ. As strongly as we may disagree on some things, I think better of you than that. That being said, I cannot see how that particular comment is relevant to the discussion. Perhaps that’s my fault.
The fact that it probably was an attempt to speak of Joseph in a modern, humorous manner is the very thing that disturbs me. You see, we speak of a guy as a stud because he is like a stud horse- he has quite a few mates and gets around. At least that is the derivation of the slang term, stud. To say the least, Enns should be a little more careful.
[Translate]