DOES HISTORY MATTER IN THE BIBLE?
Richard T. Nolan

Many fine biblical scholars provide welcome antidotes to rampant fundamentalism. However, many of these faithful scholars seem to categorize all biblical writings as inspirational “stories” without factual underpinnings. Clearly, all historical accounts, whether in Scripture or history textbooks, are written within a perspective; none is “raw.” [See “BLIK” within the ALL HANDOUTS subsite.]

In the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, reports of events are offered within a providential perspective, that is, within the context that God is the Sovereign Lord who participates non-coercively in human history. When and how the Creator specifically participates is open to question. For example, some propose that nature miracles (such as, Jesus’ walking on water) are allegorical rather than historical.

In any case, the Old Testament is written within the basic conviction that God really acted in history during the Exodus. Repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible, the authors cite this pivotal event as foundational to the way they understand their communal life. The New Testament is written with confidence that the Resurrection was the new pivotal event within which the disciples of Christ understood their emerging community of faith. Contemporary Judaism and Christianity generally continue these central convictions, even though modern scholarship admits to embellishments, and perhaps some inaccuracies, among the many details in the reports.

If the Exodus and Resurrection are not grounded in historical reality, the Bible becomes just one more book of myths that one either finds illuminating or not, inspiring or not, depending on one’s individual response. The Bible turns out to be a collection of stories that have made some human beings comfortable in a puzzling, sometimes frightening, world.

By way of contrast, a scholar-friend commented in an email that it might be more accurate to say that “the Bible is the human record of various encounters with God at various times and places in history. As such, it is bound to contain some discrepancies, some different emphases from cultural moment to cultural moment. But I would think that for Christians there must be some decisive historical moments in which God was truly acting in a special and focused way (no matter what we might think) and that there is a continuing and consistent intention to be discerned behind those acts of God, again no matter what we might think of that intention or whether we can ‘buy into’ it.”

My scholar-friend’s comment takes into account the ancient Semitic/Hebraic passion for basing their lives on pivotal historical events, however interpreted, rather than their subjective, internal imaginations or wishful thinking. Our recognition of the role of pivotal events leaves open, and less crucial, the issue of whether subordinate accounts (such as, walking on water) are intended to be allegorical or reports of perceptible history.

If actual, external history does not undergird the Exodus and Resurrection, why bother with Judaism or Christianity? Instead, one could adopt a principled humanism, tell stories that inspire humanistic behavior, develop human centered rituals for support and celebrations, and be freed from an ever-evolving Church. Or, individuals could assume one of many available “spiritualities.”

A 19th century secular scholar commented about the reality of God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.” One wonders whether some contemporary biblical scholars have unwittingly developed some kindred notions as they seek to understand the Word of God.