Do Scripture’s Narratives Meet Modern Standards?

Since the seventeenth century Enlightenment in Europe, many historians have sought to apply the standards of scientific rigor to written historical accounts. In this view, historians must seek to be as exacting as their counterparts in sciences like chemistry and biology.

We may say that in this outlook, trustworthy historical accounts must be comprehensive, precise and objective. That is to say, true historical records will include every significant fact about a situation to give a balanced account. Yet, the authors of Old Testament narratives did not completely follow these modern ideals. Now, they did not propagate religious fantasies. Nor did they present historical errors or fabrications as fact. But they did write in ways that were determined largely by their didactic purposes, and not by our modern sensibilities.

To see how this is true, let’s look briefly at the three modern standards that are often mistakenly applied to Old Testament narratives, beginning with the idea that historical accounts should be comprehensive. Simply put, Old Testament stories were only as comprehensive as suited the didactic purposes of their writers. They did not include every significant fact.

Consider an example from the book of Chronicles. When the writer of Chronicles composed his history of Solomon’s life in 2 Chronicles 1–9, he followed the record of 1 Kings 1–11 fairly closely. But he omitted every negative dimension of Solomon’s reign. He omitted references to Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter and other foreign women, his creation of worship centers for their gods at the temple, and the severe prophetic condemnation Solomon received. Solomon’s failures led to the division of the nation. But the Chronicler wanted to concentrate on Solomon’s positive accomplishments. And as a result, he focused his account on Solomon’s successes.

In the second place, Old Testament authors were only as precise as their didactic purposes required. There is a vital difference between precision and truth. Every day of our lives we speak of things imprecisely without misrepresenting the truth. When someone asks, “What time is it?” We don’t hesitate to say, “It’s two o’clock,” when it might be more precisely, two minutes and twenty seconds after two o’clock. In every aspect of life, precision is always a matter of degree. Consider for example Genesis 1:7, where Moses wrote about earth’s atmosphere in this way:

So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.

Here Moses wrote that God placed “the expanse” in the sky, using the Hebrew word raqia. The term raqia meant some sort of flattened solid material. Of course, the omniscient God of Scripture could have revealed to Moses a more scientifically precise understanding of earth’s atmosphere if had he wanted to. But this was not what the Holy Spirit wanted his people to learn. Moses did not misrepresent the true condition of nature. But he did speak of it imprecisely as it appeared to him.

Finally, let’s consider the fact that Old Testament narratives are not objective by modern standards. It’s common in our day to think that reliable historical writers remain objective in their reporting, never allowing their presentations of history to reflect their personal opinions or evaluations of events. But we must always remember that objectivity is a matter of degree.

This is even true when it comes to the Old Testament. God inspired Old Testament authors to shape the opinions of their readers. This goal influenced what they omitted, what they included, and how they described what they included. At times, it even moved them to express their biases and assessments boldly. For example, listen to these words from Genesis 13:13, where Moses reported that Lot pitched his tents near Sodom:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.

We should not shy away from Moses’ evaluation of Sodom. He gave his opinion on the city, but his moral outlook was inspired by God and therefore correct.

In summary, Old Testament authors did not meet the modern criterion of comprehensiveness in good history writing. Nevertheless, their narratives are true and authoritative records of the past.