The history of man as we find in the Bible has been communicated and handed down in the form of what is referred to as “narrative.” In essence, the history as we read it in the Bible has been presented in the form of story which was handed down through the generations. Such reality can make it difficult for moderns to interpret and appreciate what the Bible has to say. Let me explain further.
The scriptures we read in the Bible were communicated down through the generations and written down long before there was the Internet, cell phones, RAM, ROM, bandwidth, megabytes and terabytes. The stories in the Bible were told centuries before there was even electricity. This being the case, it is totally unreasonable and extremely non-intellectual to attempt to “apply” the same standards of historical interpretation that we have at our disposal in the modern age. To be sure, it cannot be done as to try to do so would be like “trying to put a square peg into a round hole.”
To further make the point about attempting to apply modern standards of interpretation to the Bible, let me ask, “When was the last time you saw an 8-Track tape player in the store?” Or, “Have you recently played any of those old cassette tapes you saved from the early 80’s, and if you did, you might now notice that the music quality is horrible and the recording actually seems to be fading – it is!” My point is that even the more recent technology is now vastly outdated.
Next, consider the plethora of news services we have today and the frenzy to be the first to “get the big story.” We have MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, BBC, NPR, Yahoo News, and the list is endless. With all of these various news services reporting on the same story, it is inevitable that we see different people reporting on the same story and more often than not, interpreting the story very differently from their perspective and “how they saw it.” It is this reality in news coverage and telling of events that points to the shortcoming of applying our modern “historical-method” to the interpretation of the Bible. It simply is a misapplication to use such a modern method on a transcript that was recorded in a vastly different method ages ago. Furthermore, the historical-critical method isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be as you can experiment and watch the same news story on MSNBC, FOX News and CNN and find yourself scratching your head and asking “Are these guys talking about the same story.” The point of this, is that those who use the historical-critical method have the tendency to say “Well, if everyone is telling the story in a different way, and saying that they all saw different things, then perhaps there is a chance, that it didn’t happen at all.” This is the problem with the historical-critical method of scripture interpretation.
When it comes to interpreting the Bible, one must go back and re-gear their thinking to a time when telling the story was the primary method of keeping a historical record and elders handed down these stories through the ages. Before you are too quick to think that such story telling could not be trusted for factual accuracy, try to remember that this was the “only” way it was done for most people; therefore, one has to understand that great time and energy was given to keeping the stories accurate and true to the actual event. Such a thing is virtually lost in our modern society and thus the difficulty in trying to appreciate it.
Today we have those who claim to be biblical scholars who apply the historical-critical method to the Bible and in doing so, end up telling us that most, if not all of the stories in the Bible didn’t happen. How can anyone call himself a “scholar” of the Bible if he doesn’t believe in the Bible? Just a thought. These same folks write books (and make money) about how the Bible is contradictory and contains errors and therefore cannot be taken as historical fact. This sort of interpretation of the scriptures contained in the Bible shows virtually no value of, or appreciation for the historical context in which the Bible was written. How is this scholarly?
Let’s look at a couple of verses that will present much difficulty for the person who chooses to ignore the narrative of the Bible. In Luke 1:1-2 we see Luke use the very word “narrative” as he is describing to his friend Theophilus how the story of Jesus and His ministry has been handed down. And, of very great significance also note in verse 2 that Luke discusses the “eyewitnesses” who delivered the narrative stories to those who were living at that time. This is crucial in interpreting the Book of Luke and any scholar who ignores these two towering elements of the historical context, is a scholar in name only. It is on this point that the “historical-critical camp” wants to put forth the modern standard of interpretation and suggest that if the stories of Jesus and His ministry were not “recorded” at the time they happened, in some reliable method, then they must not have happened at all. So, what is the method that they could have been recorded with? A TV camera perhaps, or, maybe a cell phone? Anyway, you get the point. It was only by the spoken word and a portrayal of such stories by telling them with words that they could be recorded.
Another knock against the narrative method of interpretation is that some suggest that we see supposed contradictions of fact between the four Gospels. Let’s look at the problem using two more recent and dramatic news events of our modern time. First, there was the Kennedy assassination and secondly, there was the Princess Diana auto accident. Books have been written about the controversies and variations about what different “eyewitnesses” saw during these two events. With so many people telling their “stories” in varying and different ways and, giving seemingly conflicting reports of what actually happened, it gets to the point that in some areas of the story, they don’t agree. We even see that there were government investigations that ended up creating more controversy than they solved. The point here is that if the historical-critical method of event interpretation is applied, in the strictest terms, to these two events, you might find yourself hearing some say, “Well maybe it didn’t happen at all.” Absurd, you say? This is exactly what some are doing with the Bible.
When reading the Bible, one must first understand and appreciate the way in which the scripture was handed down. Once the reader begins to allow his or her mind to give the scripture a fair and honest assessment in its interpretation, there will begin the process of insight and revelation given by the Holy Spirit. But, on the other hand, if one who is reading the Bible does so with a predisposed and skeptical mind, then the reality will be that such a person won’t ever receive anything and remain in spiritual darkness.
If you are interested in a book that addresses the theological perspective of the biblical narrative, the book titled “Four Gospels, One Jesus?” by Richard A. Burridge discusses this issue very nicely.