The Bible, stories and history

Another problem that comes to mind when we talk about stories and the Bible, is the relationship between story and history. We already dealt with the fact that story does not equal fiction. Aren’t we weakening the historicity of the Bible by referring to those parts that have traditionally being viewed as historical truth by referring to it as story? Can story and history go together especially if we believe that our faith is grounded in historical truth?

Henry (1987, p. 19) warns that:

The narrative approach therefore seems not fully befitting the historic Christian faith. . . . One discerns here an enchantment with the affective, a flight from history to the perspectival that enjoins no universal truth-claims, a reflection of the revolt against reason, a reliance on ‘symbolic truth’ and imagination, and an interest in earthly theatre more than revealed theology.

For him the fact that narratives appeals to the emotive and imaginative goes against the fact that we are dealing with revelation. Revelation is based on historical truth (as we see it from a modernistic worldview) and therefore the whole idea that parts of Scripture may be called ‘story’ or categorised as ‘narratives’ is actually devaluating our faith.

For Merrill (1999, p. 68), however:

The history of the OT is overwhelmingly narrative in expression. From beginning to end the dealings of God with humankind, their response to him, and their interrelationships at both individual and corporate levels appear in story form. [Emphasis Merrill's]

Thus, there need not be a chasm between story and history. Story may be just that, story (as in fiction) but it is also possible to communicate real events by means of a story. Truth told in narrative form does not diminish its factualness. If I tell you my ‘life story’, it is the history of my life in the form of a story. Using literary devises in order to make the story more interesting and to engage others in my story will not take anything away from the truth I’m telling. Tate (2008, p. 105) refer to it as “storicized history”.

Acknowledging that huge parts of both the Old and New Testament are written in story form does not take anything away from its historicity. Interpreting these text from a literary point of view does not take away anything of the truth it communicates. 

Henry, C. F. H. (1987). Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal. Trinity Journal, 8(1), 3–19.

Tate, W. R. (2008). Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach. Hendrickson Pub.

Merrill, E. H. (1999). Old Testament History: A Theological perspective. In, VanGemeren, W. A. (Ed.). Old Testament History: A Theological Perspective, in: A guide to Old Testament theology and exegesis: an introductory articles from the New International dictionary of Old Testament theology and exegesis. Grand Rapids  Mich.: Zondervan.

The Bible, stories and inspiration

Another issue that came up in class (see my previous blog) is that of inspiration. How can we refer to stories in the Bible and use methods from secular sciences and at the same time hold to the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Or, are we not devaluating the Bible as Word of God by simply referring to large chunks of it as stories? What are the implication of the above for or view of the Bible as ‘inspired’?

We do not have the time and space to discuss inspiration theology here. What we should say is that the Bible did not fall out of heaven ready to go to print. It developed over thousands of years and many authors have been involved in its writing. In faith, we believe it to be the inspired word of God.

The interesting fact is, agreeing that the Bible is inspired by God, that God did not choose to communicate to us by means of a ‘flat’ abstract historical thesis. When one reads the Bible, it soon becomes obvious that the text, that we believe to be the inspired Word of God, is a multidimensional document. It uses narrative, poetry, parables and a range of other literary types (genres) to communicate to us.

We all know that one cannot read fiction, poetry, history or the newspaper in the same way. We need to understand the type of literature we are dealing with and interpret it according to that literature type’s rules. Not doing so, we might end up with a total wrong idea of what the text wants to communicate.

If God then, communicate to us by means of different genres, shouldn’t we take the trouble to understand his communication accordingly? If the inspired authors of the Bible used narratives to communicate God’s message, then we should take that serious and interpret it as such. Otherwise, we might end up with a totally wrong understanding of what God wants to communicate to us.

As Ryken (1990:9) correctly observes: “To view the Bible as literature does not require one to regard it as fictional or to compromise one’s view of its special religious authority.”

If God inspired the authors of the Bible to write huge parts of Scripture in story form, who are we to think that it is not fitting to read and interpret it as such?

The Bible, stories and fiction

For many people ‘story’ equals fiction. During a recent lecture on the interpretation of Genesis, I experience a lot of resistance to the approach I was putting forward. It was only towards the end of the class that I realised that students thought of stories as fiction. Thus, my references to the ‘stories’ in Genesis resulted in all sorts of questions. Is the lecturer implying that the Bible is fictious? Does he then believe the Bible not to be true but made up stories? What does he believe in regards with the inspiration of the Bible? Etc.

The first question we need to ask is whether ‘story’ necessarily equals fiction. Can stories also be true? Tate (2008:102) agrees that the idea the parts of the Bible may be read as literature seems to be foreign to many readers. Taking it a step further and study God as a character among other characters would be, for many Christians, inconceivable. To view and study God as “a character in a novel” (Clines 1995:190) stops short of profanity.

According to Ryken (1990a:7):

Fictionality, though common in literature, is not an essential ingredient of literature. The properties that make a text literary are unaffected by the historicity or fictionality of the material. A literary approach depends on a writer’s selectivity and molding of the material, regardless of whether the details actually happened or are made up.

It seems important that we distinguish between fiction and non-fiction when we talk about stories. Although a biography for example, is written in the form of a story, it is still a true representation of what happened in a person's life. The author may use of all the literary devices available to him to give 'colour' to the story and make it more interesting, it does not, however, take away anything of the fact that what is portrayed really happened.

Modern history on the other hand, endeavours to be “scientifically objective as possible” – “writing history for histories sake” and will not utilise formal narrative strategies as you would find in narratives (Tate 2008:104).

The Bible is, according to Tate (2008:105), “storicized history”. In other words, history written in the form of a story – history writing that makes use of all the literary devices available. Being “storicized history”, the Bible is also more than just history. “Storicized history” is more than just a representation of history. It reaches beyond the cold hard facts of history to “guide the reader into the discovery of some universal truth” (Tate 2008:105). The biblical narratives is about more than the stories itself. It wants to show us a God who really cares for his creation and a reality beyond the one we live in.

Thus, although the same principals are used to interpret fictious and non-fictious narrative, story (narrative) does not necessarily equals fiction. Even though we might refer to a passage in Scripture as a story, it does not necessarily imply fictionality. It is thus, not only, possible, but also vital, to read the biblical “stories according to their own rules and conventions”, without giving up on the high regard we hold towards Scripture.