Bible Stories

Most of the areas of conflict lie in the narrative parts of the Bible — Genesis to Esther in the Old Testament, and the Gospels and Acts in the New. How should we read these? Although interpreted history is the central means of biblical revelation it is not the sole means. There are parts of the Bible where history is not an issue — poetry, wisdom, letters and so on. There are also portions of narrative itself which are not, or are not likely to be, intended as history.

There need be no objection in principle to the presence in the Bible of fable, allegory, moral tale, legend and so on — all of which were widely and meaningfully used in the ancient world. The parables of Jesus are an obvious example of the imaginative telling of a story to convey a point. In our modern world, realistic novel writing and some types of drama and film are in some ways parallel.

A difficulty, of course, is that such writing may superficially appear similar to historical writing — so how are we to tell the difference? The short answer is that there is no rule of thumb and there can be legitimate difference of opinion.

The more sensitive the reader is to a wide variety of literature, both ancient and modern, the more he will be sensitive to different types of writing in the Bible. This is the sort of area where the expertise of the scholar can be of particular value to the ordinary reader. Nor need any uncertainty really be a matter of concern. For the issue is not the value of what is written, but simply the means by which its value is conveyed, whether historical, literary and imaginative, or a blend of both.

An interesting example is the famous story of Jonah. How are we to understand it? Many have assumed that for the book to be true it must be historical. Yet there are many who think, for literary reasons, that it is not historical, but rather a story making a point. They are not arguing that it is false, but that its value is to be assessed on grounds other than the historical. It would only be false if it was misleading in the picture it gives of what prophecy is, what God is like, and the attitude of God to non-Jews. And nobody suggests this.

Or consider the early chapters of Genesis, which have given rise to much ’science versus religion’ conflict. If you read them carefully, you will soon notice that this narrative is quite different from a straightforward historical account, such as the fall of Jerusalem. Clearly too the writer is simply not interested in the sort of issues that bother the modern historian or scientist. This makes it difficult to pinpoint where, if anywhere, there is a genuine conflict.

There need be little doubt that the majority of biblical narratives are intended to be historical. Yet, even so, very few are bare historical reporting. Most make use of literary techniques to interest and involve, the reader. The history is simplified and interpreted, so that the reader can the more easily grasp and remember it. The stories are so told that we can identify with the bold faith of David, feel the depression of Elijah and experience the awful challenge of obedience and trust that confronted Abraham. The stories are historical but they are more than that. They present not only information but also challenge; not just a record of facts but an imaginative and evocative portrayal of them.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Bible, different kinds of story, conflict lie?

• The real problem behind Bible, Soul God
• Sitemap
• Opposition of the Spirit of Jesus
• The Image of God
• Date Back Bible and Jonah: fact or fiction?
• Jonah — a short story with a healthy dose of satire
• Bible Perspectives, Jonah as a short story
• The place of the Bible part 1
• Pink Ray, the union of Heaven and Earth
• Christian Religion, Witnesses of the Jesus Resurrection