On History

My recent reading in some commentaries on Classical literature (the Romans, not the Greeks) has lead me to one writer who made the claim that the Hebrews did not write history; but their books (in the Old Testament) regarded as 'history' are in fact not history as western tradition has come to understand it.

As I thought about this, I think I could see the author's viewpoint.

History in Ancient Rome was concerned with polemic to a large extent, as one example to grab from the shelf: Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars. For instance, the Wikipedia entry says: "This military campaign is painstakingly described by Julius Caesar himself in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which still is the most important historical source. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome."

Other historians had other things to say, argument or portrayal regarding factors and players, the forces that did or did not result in an event or outcome, etc. Western History has tended to follow in this fashion, with some modern writers even picking up the Ancient's tendentiousness. See for instance Windschuttle on the fake history of oppression of Aboriginies.

But OT history is not like this. Indeed, as the commentator I refer to above claimed, it is not history in our sense, but more a chronicle or explanation of the acts of God in bringing about the effects of his covenant. A very directed and purposeful relating of events that bring to life his overarching act in Christ.

So, extending this line, one could wonder that, if the Hebrews did not weave literary speculation into their history, but sought to chronicle the acts of God, often in a rather blunt and unadorned manner, then it would be highly unlikely that Genesis 1 would be the literary 'art' formulation that some (the so-called 'genre' critics, for instance, John Dickson, bete noire of this blog) make it out to be, and thus overturning their claim that it does not refer to the events that it describes, but some other events which it does not describe (astonishing but true) and is a literary representation of how we should think of God; not, mind you because of what it says, but I guess, because of what it doesn't say!

Hebrews 9

Mediating through Hebrews 9 recently, I came to verse 26:

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

It seems that there is an acknowlegement of continuous history connected with human's soteriological need extending to the foundation of the world.

Within the Bible's frame of reference, the reference to the foundation of the world can only be to the opening chapter of Genesis 1. It also seems to be in presumptive harmony with the chronological milestones marked through the OT, from which the Jews calculate the age of the world to be a mark under 6000 years.

Here we have, it would seem, a statement of the necessity of a salvation connection extending to the year dot, implying pretty obviously that humans in need of salvation had a history coextensive with the history of creation.

Along with Hebrews 11:3 (By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.) this would seem to eliminate realist views of origins that reject the biblical conception of time that is woven through the OT, and reinforced in the NT. The purely realist treatment of Cain and Abel and their connection to the original man made in Genesis would also seem to set the dependence of these concepts on a continuity in the biblical time-frame of reference that is denied systematically and without real biblical warrant (to my mind) by the SADs and their pals.

The biblical language and flow of historical ideas do not allow the extended periods of earth history that is insisted by materialist views.