It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

Read more on The Erosion of Inerrancy…

To many people that accept some version of the Documentary Hypothesis or who believe that, regardless of how the Pentateuch came to be, it wasn’t written by Moses, this may be a moot question – a question that only the religious-minded would ask. The link between Childs and Kugel, to use but one example, is that these are men who read the Bible critically but are also part of a community whose tradition is at odds with their critical reading.

Read more on Authors and Divine Authority…