Historical science came into its maturity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This does not mean that all the problems of a scientific historiography were settled, but at least the historians know what the problems are. Herbert Muller (The Uses of the Past, pp. 35 ff.) and Hans Meyerhoff (The Philosophy of History in our Times, pp. 18 ff.) are forthright in listing them.
Biblical studies have also entered into a period of maturity in reflecting upon the character of biblical history. The pioneers were Cocceius, Bengel, Beck, and von Hofmann. These men saw the raw materials of theology in the great saving and revealing acts of God in Israel, in Christ, and in the Church. These saving acts were not unrelated but formed a history, in fact, a special history, a Holy History. This history is temporally prior to the Scriptures, but the Bible supplies out only authoritative access to it. The Scriptures, in turn, are to be interpreted as the inspired account of this special Holy History (cf. J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible). This has led to a large acceptance of the Holy History method of interpreting the framework or backbone of Scripture. The most famous example in our times is O. Cullmann’s Christ and Time. K. G. Steck is correct in pointing out that a general method of historical interpretation is to be differentiated from any narrow scheme of Holy History (Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte, p. 10).
The truth is somewhere between a strict theory of Holy History and the view of the post-Reformation theologians who stressed emphatically the revelatory character of Scripture itself. In attempting to do justice to the elements of truth in both these positions, we propose the following theses concerning the relationship of biblical faith and history.
Thesis 1: Biblical history is a mixed history
By biblical history we mean all the events recorded in Scripture. Some of these events fall within, the scope of scientific historiography. Thus the lives of such persons as Pilate, Herod, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa represent materials which can potentially be handled by the methods of scientific historiography.
Some events fall outside the scope of scientific historiography. This is due to the special character of both Old and New Testament history in which God is represented as historical Actor and Agent. Certainly the phrase “God acts in history” is anthropomorphic and complex, but we forego analysis of it at this time. The rules of scientific historiography do not allow for God as Actor and Agent in history, and therefore all events of Scripture which involve God as Actor and Agent are outside the scope of scientific historiography. This ought to be conceded by theologian and historian alike.
In order to be true to the biblical record, this mixed character of history must be confessed. A pious, uncritical faith has no right to supernaturalize all of biblical history and so remove all of it from the historians’ scrutiny. Nor can we use the critical razor of scientific historiography (à la Bultmann) and deny the eventness of all events which represent God as Actor and Agent in history.
Thesis 2: Biblical history is interpreted history
It is conceded by historians that all historical writing is interpretation. Facts and chronicles are not history but data for historians. Biblical history is that history which is written with a divine interpretation. This includes both the events within and those without scientific historiography. Cyrus, as a human figure, is open to the usual methods of the historian. The role of Cyrus as the shepherd of God is known only by divine revelation (Isa. 44:28). Daniel’s four kingdoms have been the proper subject of historians writing on world history. But their role in the preparation for the Messiah and his kingdom is known only from the standpoint of a divine interpretation made known through divine revelation. All aspects of the life of Christ which intersect life in ancient Palestine are open to the scrutiny of scientific historiography. All aspects of the life of Christ which are the product of the Act and Agency of God are known only through divine interpretation.
The eventness of this history must not be evaporated away by existentializing, demythologizing, or mythologizing, or by a plain, unvarnished unbelief of the supernatural. These events have space and time coordinates. Furthermore, we must not grant the eventness of this history and dilute the revealed character of the divine interpretation. Both event and interpretation are hard data, and we do justice to biblical history only as we hold firmly to both. That Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate deserves a place in every book on world history. But it is an equally hard datum of biblical history that on the cross he died for the sins of the world. Both the historical death and the revealed interpretation are firm realities of biblical history.
Thesis 3: Biblical history is teleological history
The teleology of biblical history can be seen in its beginning in creation, its continuance in redemption, its end in consummation. The teleology of biblical history may be seen in the relationship of the Old and New Testaments. The Old is the preliminary revelation; the New, the final. The Old is the shadow; the New, the substance. The teleology of biblical history may also be seen in Christ. The Old Testament is the preparation for Christ; the Gospels are the manifestation of Christ; the Epistles are the explanation of Christ; and finally the Revelation is the triumph of Christ.
Being teleological history it is also eschatological history. As soon as we postulate creation we postulate a purpose, and as soon as we postulate a purpose we postulate a goal, an end. As soon as we postulate a redemptive history we postulate a redemptive conclusion. Thus a teleological history is also an eschatological history. Thus biblical history is also a history of hope. There is no hope in the endless repetition of history nor in the endless extension of time (cf. N. Berdyaev, The Beginning and the End). Teleological history with an eschatological end is a history which proffers man a realistic and vital hope.
Teleological history is not “dead history.” It is the history with which God chooses to confront the human race. God acts in the present according to the biblical history of the past. More precisely, the gospel history is the basis of my present saving experience (1 Cor. 15:1 ff.). Redemptive history calls for my believing response, my obedience to this Lord of history, and, further, for my personal involvement in the ongoing of history, particularly in the evangelistic and missionary activity of the Church.
Thesis 4: Biblical history is Christological history
The introduction of sin into the universe introduced the teleology of divine redemption. In spite of the great literary diversity of the Old Testament, its main burden is the redemptive activity of Yahweh for Israel. Thus as a redemptive stream of history it flowed toward Christ. In Christ comes the fullness of the teleology of history as the history of redemption. John Marsh writes some telling lines in affirming that the Christian finds the transcendent clue of history in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (A Hand-book of Theology, p. 109). Karl Löwith, commenting on Augustine’s views of history, says that Augustine saw the meaning of the end and the meaning of the beginning in the central event of the advent of Jesus Christ (Meaning in History, p. 169). Oscar Cullmann, in his famous Christ and Time, says that the remarkable feature of the drama of biblical history is that the climax is in the center of history, in Jesus Christ, and not at the end of history where the climax normally comes in drama.
One of the great contributions of Luke as historiographer is that he not only shows history coming to its climax in Christ (in his Gospel) but also shows how history flows from Christ in his history of the acts of the Risen Lord (in the Book of Acts).
Thesis 5: Biblical history is credible history
The Scriptures have had a remarkable historical confirmation. We, however, as Christians, do not expect confirmation of all statements in the Bible, nor do we expect the scriptural history to be free from all problems.
We would have confirmation of everything in Scripture only if we had parallel records of everything that happened in Scripture. But in view of the ancient origin of the Scriptures it is not proper to expect this kind of total confirmation. Concerning the problems of biblical history we must realize that methods of historiography of the ancient world differ widely from ours. Therefore we have no cause for alarm when we have events recorded which seem strange to us (e.g., the age of some of the ante-diluvians) or a historiography that does not conform to the contemporary scientific historiography.
Von Hofmann (Interpreting the Bible) argues correctly when he says that we don’t have any Holy History unless it has solid historical props underneath it. It was his conviction that in spite of the advance of historical and critical knowledge of the Scriptures, these main props remained unaffected. C. R. North asks whether contemporary man can believe the broad outlines of the biblical interpretation of history, and answers that “the biblical interpretation of history is, at least in the broad outline, right” (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, II, 611).
But some biblical events (like the resurrection of Christ) are outside any verification by the means of scientific historiography. Wherein is their credibility? First, we accept their credibility because up to a point we can pursue their space-time coordinates. Second, we accept them because they fit into the teleology of Holy History. We make an aesthetic, theological judgment. We see and accept the fitness of the event in the total panorama of redemptive history. Third, we are lead by the Spirit of God into the acceptance of the total corpus of scriptural revelation. Barth, speaking of the credibility of the creation account where there were of course no observers of creation, says that this witness of creation “is received and accepted through the power of the Holy Spirit” (Church Dogmatics, III/1, p. 82).
Thesis 6: Biblical history is a total history
Biblical history includes creation and consummation. But creation and consummation form special problems, as there were no observers of creation and consummation has not occurred. The beginning and the end are integral parts of the biblical history and cannot be sacrificed. Furthermore, the beginning and the end were written within history.
The beginning and the end were written by historical projective techniques. The future, in Scripture, is written by means of the alphabet of apocalyptic symbols. This is most obvious in Daniel and Revelation. Thus the End-Time of biblical history is reproduced for our faith by the use of the alphabet of apocalyptic symbols (which of course in no manner detracts from the eventness of the End-Time).
A pioneer with reference to the creation account was J. Kurtz (Bible and Astronomy, E. T., 1857). He reasoned that just as God enabled the prophet to write of the future by use of his present culture, He could enable him to write of the past by the same means. I attempted to deal with this problem in my work, The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Barth struggles with the same problem and says that the poetic-divinatory use of saga and legend is how God revealed creation to man (Church Dogmatics, III/I, pp. 91 ff.). The creation account is projection in reverse. It is the prophetic looking backward by use of the cultural grid of the prophet.
Thesis 7: Biblical history is culturally conditioned history
Biblical histories were written by men who were not released from their own times and hence used the historiographical methods of their times. The article on “Geschichte” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (third edition, II, 1473 ff.) attempts to sketch out the biblical historiographies of both Testaments. Historical materials form half of the scriptural corpus and reveal a diversity of historiographical approaches. Concerning these diversities of approaches two things may be said: (1) The unifying factor is that of Holy History. In the Old Testament it is the ongoing of Israel before Yahweh’s salvation and judgment, whether written from the so-called Deuteronomic perspective in Samuel or that of the Chronicles. The Gospels may vary much, but they have in common the theme of world redemption in the incarnation of God in Christ and his suffering and resurrection. Thus historiography is totally secondary to the purpose of the historiographer, which was to add another section to the corpus of Holy History. (2) We can expect to find tensions between biblical historiography and contemporary historiography. God did not loose his historians from their cultural bonds. The Bible is not written as if it were done by a doctoral candidate in history. The Gospels, for example, are not scientific, notarial lives of Christ; they are witnessing documents, kerygmatic documents whose purpose is not to satisfy exacting canons of modern scientific historiography but to summon to faith in Jesus Christ. The historiography of the Gospel writers is totally secondary to their purpose to give a gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thesis 8: Biblical history is related to world history
Redemptive history occurs within the wider circle of world history. If the total human race is under the lordship of God, there must be a correlation between biblical history and world history. We have three traces of this in Scripture: (1) The book of Daniel attempts to place the occurrence of the Son of Man and his kingdom within the structure of world history. This means that world history was to unfold so as to fulfill the will of God. Hence it is recorded that Christ came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). (2) The parousia of Christ is represented in the New Testament as the dramatic ending of history as we know it (cf. Rev. 1:7). Thus world history and Holy History come to an intersection in the return of Christ. (3) Revelation 11:15 says that the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever. Here is world history coming under the lordship of Christ and merging into his messianic history.
How Holy History is related to world history is not a matter of revelation. We know from Romans 9–11 that God is working out his eschatological purposes with Jew, Gentile, and church of God. We know that the Gospel must be preached in all the world before the End comes. We know that now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2) and that we all live in the today of God’s gracious invitation (Heb. 3:7). But God has not made Christians super-historians. Christians are in no position to sketch out schemes or charts of the ongoing of world history. We live in a firm faith that God is sovereign and that in his time Holy History shall bring to a conclusion world history.
END
