Is the Bible an accurate historical document?

[hume]

Originally posted 12/22/05:

This seems to me in a certain sense not all that important a question. History books are just history books! Scripture is another thing entirely, and to reduce it to history by asking of it, "Yeah, but is this thing historically accurate?" is to substantially miss the point. Imagine that archeologists unearthed a previously unknown book which precisely, and with verifiable accuracy, described the entire history of Israel, the early church, and the Second Coming. Would it then be the Bible? I think we'd all say, no, that's silly.

[Josh]

Originally posted 12/23/05:

I guess my thoughts on this are somewhat split. I think there is a sense in which it is important that the bible be an accurate historical document, and another sense in which that question is missing the mark.

Also, I'm 'thinking' into new territory as I write here, so feel free to help me clarify my own conclusions.

Part of the problem is how we answer the question, "What kind of book is the Bible, after all?"

To just say it's a historical narrative, or a selection of poetry, or a catalogue of moral advice, or a science textbook [heheh], is certainly off-track.

But I think we must admit that it does play all of those roles (some more than others). The thing about the Bible, I suppose, is that the sum is greater than the parts. It is history, it is art (poetry, etc..), it is wisdom, it does touch on science, it is biography, it is pithy philosophy and theology, it is apocalyptic literature. But it is never just those things- ultimately it is the inspired Word of God, transcending all those forms and not limited by those forms.

Still, there is a sense in which historical accuracy is important- I think it's important when in a particular part of the Bible historical accuracy is in focus and intrinsically necessary to the narrative's credibility.

Is the point of including a precise number of soldiers in a battle in the OT primarily historical accuracy? I think the OT even is remarkably accurate, but I don't think a lot of the history in it primarily NEEDS to be accurate.

But some elements do NEED to be accurate, and I think we get a clue of this from the authors themselves- like when Luke in his chapter 1 stresses his careful investigation because it is important that his readers be certain about the events.

I could go on, but some feedback at this juncture would be great.

[hume]

Originally posted 12/23/05:

I'm not trying to call the bible unhistorical, I'm trying to call it beyond historical.

The bible introduces God to man. In part this is accomplished by describing some of God's interactions with us at various places and times; these descriptions are historical in the literal sense (stories about what happened at a particular time & place in the past). Take the gospels -- these books tell many stories that relate to actual events (was Jesus in fact born in the time of Herod, in Bethlehem? Did he in fact die at the hands of the Romans 3 decades later? etc.). It's critical to know whether those events really took place -- that's the historical question. But the gospels are so much more than a record of events: they give us insight into the meaning of those events, the character of Jesus, the meaning and potentials of our own lives, and certainly more than this (a theologian I ain't).

Scripture is written language; written by human hands. Therefore it takes the form of familiar styles and genres (poetry, history, parable, etc.) -- how else would humans write anything? However, as soon as we talk about it as if it is simply "the best or most important book of history / poetry / etc. ever written," we're in danger of mistaking the form for the substance. It's a little like the difference between a fake marriage ceremony performed on stage as part of a play, and the real thing -- the words are identical in both cases, but in the real case, those words signify something profound; they accomplish something important; they are more than "just words." In a similar way, scripture has to transcend ordinary genres and language, or it's no longer scripture.

[Josh]

Originally posted on 12/23/05:

Agreed that it is beyond historical... in fact, agreed with everything here. At the end of the day I would say that it IS an important question whether the Bible is historically accurate in many instances, but that we should remember it is not primarily a history text.

Side notes:

Now, there's there's the subtle difference of words. While I say the Bible is not primarily a history text, I would say that it is thorough historical (oh, where are the italics when you need them!) in its outlook, being rooted in people and places and narrative.

Another spoke of this wheel is that the Bible is more Story than Manual. NT Wright's article "How can the Bible be Authoritative?", which I will borrow from next month for the Tuesday study, points this out, among many other things.

We might want a How To Book on Christian spirituality, but for the most part that's decidedly NOT what we get in Scripture. What we do get might not satisfy our Self-Help cravings, but in the long run (if we invest the time and energy), it serves up something far more penetrating: Story. In particular, the narrative of God's interactions with man. Think about how well most of us learn from story- stories stick in the memory and become part of us. They often elude 'pinning down' into cute little maxims. Alternately, they may sometimes, to a good end, be reduced to nuggets of truth or theological propositions. But ultimately and primarily they are Story.

Here's NT Wright's article:

www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

[hume]

Originally posted on 12/23/05:

Your side note is really a whole new, and important, point. "Rooted in people and places and narrative" -- isn't it fascinating how the whole Christian message comes back to this over and over. Jars of clay. Body of Christ. The Incarnation. Human freedom. It's striking that the form and approach of the Bible itself is a further embodiment of God's profound intention to involve us (I wanted italics there, too) -- involve us -- wow.