I will agree with you that this book can help us better understand the world of the Old Testament because the writings, genres, etc. Enns refers to actually did exist. But there are many books that can provide that same insight without undermining the authority of Scripture and of God. Besides this, the "modern assumptions" you mention aren't actually modern. The Old Testament was written as history, it reads as history, and the Jews believed it as history (despite Enns' claims). The New Testament refers to it as historical, and the Church has always held that position. Who are we to decide in the presence of God what parts are and aren't historical...thousands of years removed from its writing? The real "modern assumptions" are those of the world: that the Bible isn't true, it isn't historical, and at best it merely "contains" God's Word. What Enns has done is found a way to affirm these assumptions of the world about the truth and historicity of the Bible while asserting (without a leg to stand on) that it still is God's Word, tied a pretty bow on it, and called it orthodox...but it isn't. Again, I encourage you to read G.K. Beale's response to this work in his book, "The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism." I should point out that I have nothing against Peter Enns. I think he's a fine scholar who started with a bad presupposition which led him down a very unorthodox path. My real question is where were his peers before he published this work? Why didn't anyone point out the errors before he published it and it blew up in his face? He got a raw deal, not because his ideas didn't merit the blow-back, but because the peer review process failed to correct him.