BIBLE INTERPRETATION: HISTORY BOOKS (PART 1)

The Nature of Biblical History

One way to look at the distinctives of Biblical history is to contrast it to similar early “historical” accounts that didn't make it into the Bible.

Apocryphal additions to Esther

Let's start out with the Old Testament writings known as the Apocrypha, which you will find in Catholic and Episcopalian Bibles. They include nine additions to the book of Esther written around 100 BC, some a chapter long. They were apparently felt to be needed in order to beef up the book by adding some of the missing religious elements. We'll just look at the accounts of Esther's preparation to go before the king so you can compare their style of writing with that of genuine OT historical accounts.

Biblical: “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat no drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)

Apocryphal: “And Esther the queen, seized with deathly anxiety, fled to the Lord; she took off her splendid apparel and put on the garments of distress and mourning, and instead of costly perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she utterly humbled her body, and every part that she loved to adorn she covered with her tangled hair. And she prayed to the Lord God of Israel, and said...(followed by sixteen verses of prayer).” (Esther 14)

Notice that the added adjectives and adverbs make it read more like a romance novel.

The Pseudepigraphical NT

There are also various writings from the second century AD through the Middle Ages, purporting to come from apostolic sources. Renewed interest in these has come about for at least two reasons: the publishing of Dan Brown's novel The DaVinci Code and the discovery of the Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic document dating from the late 2^nd century. In fact, there were very good reasons these were not included in today's Bible, and it has nothing to do with any conspiracy. Besides the different style of writing such as shown in the above example, there is another difference with the genuine article. This time we will concentrate on the content of these writings rather than their style.

Biblical: “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:1-7)

Notice the straightforward account and all the underlined historical details of specific time and place.

Pseudepigraphical: Consideration of the birth stories in the Protoevangelium of James (140-170 AD) and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (600-625 AD) demonstrates how incidents were manufactured to address concerns and beliefs of the later church:

    Joseph's son leads the donkey on which Mary is riding.

    Mary has a vision which explains that the Jews will lose the salvation given to the Gentiles.

    They stop at a dark cave which conveniently lights up when Mary enters it.

    A midwife conveniently shows up and doubts that Mary is still a virgin after the birth so she performs a gynecological exam.

    God sets her hand on fire (or dries it up) for her lack of faith.

    The midwife prays to God and He promises her eternal salvation if she just touches the baby.

This account is totally lacking in any specific historical details, but just happens to “prove” later doctrines such as Mary's eternal virginity; the fact that the Jews are cursed by God (leading later to widespread persecution in Europe); miraculous events involving Mary; and the idea of salvation by works or rituals.

Biblical faith is rooted in historical events

In the Old Testament, all of the religious observances looked backward to God's saving acts.

    “Throughout your generations you shall observe it [Passover] as a perpetual ordinance. (Exodus 12:14)”

Paul stresses the vital importance of historical events to our faith.

    “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.” (I Corinthians 15:14)

Christianity, as an historical religion, is more vulnerable to the results of historical investigation than other religions such as Buddhism. One can be a good Buddhist without even believing that the Buddha ever existed. That is not true of Christianity.

All history is interpretative

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are are not written in this book. But these are written so that you might believe...” (John 20:30-31)

Secular scholars often distrust the historical accounts in the Bible since the authors “had an ax to grind; They had a point to make.” That is very true but it is also a false argument. To begin with, all historical accounts have a certain degree of subjectivity to them.

Examples: Edward Gibbon wrote his Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to blame Christianity for weakening the glorious Roman empire. H.G. Wells started his book The Outline of History in prehistoric times so that he could help popularize the theory of evolution.

Totally unbiased accounts are very rare. Secondly, it is illogical to expect than someone like the apostle John who had witnessed the life of Christ first hand would still be able to remain a totally impartial observer and recorder of those events. His emotional involvement with what he had seen actually proves the reliability of his account rather than disproving it. Some skeptical historians apparently are demanding the testimony of someone who witnessed the deeds of Christ and then recorded them without believing them.

Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Narratives

As a summary of this important subject, here are some general principles gleaned from How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (Zondervan Publishers):

    1. An OT narrative usually does not directly teach a doctrine.

    2. An OT narrative usually illustrates a doctrine or doctrines taught propositionally elsewhere in the Bible.

    3. All narratives are selective and incomplete. Not all the relevant details are always given (compare John 21:25). What does appear in the narrative is everything that the inspired author thought important for us to know.

    4. Narratives are not written to answer all our theological questions. They have particular, specific, limited purposes and deal with certain issues, leaving others to be dealt with elsewhere, in other ways.

    5. Narratives may teach either explicitly or implicitly.

    6. In the final analysis, God is the hero of all biblical narratives.

    7. Narratives record what happened, not necessarily what should have happened or what ought to happen every time. Therefore not every narrative or every piece of a narrative has an individually identifiable moral.

    8. What people do in narratives is not necessarily a good example for us. Frequently, it is just the opposite.

    9. Most of the characters in OT narratives are far from perfect and that is reflected in their actions.

    10. We are not always told at the end of a narrative whether what happened was good or bad. We are expected to be able to judge that on the basis of what God has taught us directly and categorically already in the Scripture.