Thomas

Rachel Thomas
1 September 2016
Reading Response 1
Howard breaks the article into two major sections, which are historical narrative as
history and historical narrative as literature. He begins with defining history, which is made up of
facts, records and accounts, and study of the facts (29). Howard argues that the Bibles historical
narratives mostly fall into the second part of the history definition, which is the record and
account of the facts. The recorded history of the Bible contains that which was deemed
significant by the author of the particular book (30). Howard claims that the Bibles absence of
certain facts or stories does not mean that those events did not happen. They simply were not
included in the text; thus a record was not left (31).
One of Howards major arguments is that the historical aspect of the Bible is extremely
important, because it is through these historical writings that we learn the most about God and
his ultimate purposes for humankind. But while God reveals himself through events of history, it
is imperative to remember that this particular mode of revelation is limited. These limitations
apply to both when the events took place and the current reading of the historical account of the
event (36). The idea of Gods revelation is important because believers need to remember that
while we have been given a significant amount of revelation about who God is, we have not been
given the entire picture. There is still much about God that continues to be unknown, and this is
how God intended it to be. This raises a question of why God chose to reveal certain things about
Himself, but not others. While this is not a question that can be answered by finite human minds,
the idea further emphasizes the divine mystery of the character of God.

Thomas

Howard argues that in modern historical study of the Bible and the history of Israel, the
evidence found actually strengthens the reliability of the Biblical accounts (34). This is
significant because many historians attempt to find evidence that will poke holes in the Biblical
narrative or somehow disprove the accuracy of the Bible. However, try as they may, the Bible
has continued to stand the test of time and study. The accuracy of the Bible against historical
evidence allows believers to trust even more fully in the inerrancy of the word of the Lord.
Along with historical accuracy, Howard discusses the importance of remembering the
individual perspectives of the authors writing in the biblical historical narrative (39). All
historical writing contains some amount of subjectivity that is unavoidable. No matter how
objectively a historian attempts to be, her or she cannot remove the personal lens that history is
filtered through. It is impossible for a human being to be completely neutral or scientific in any
circumstance (40).
The importance of the argument for the accurate historical narrative of the Bible is the
implication that missing details from the historical Biblical accounts should not cause people
to question the validity of the text. As Howard quotes Halpern, he says All history is at best an
abridgement better or worse of an originally fuller reality . . . History is always the study of
one thing, or several things, and the exclusion of many others (31). Critics tend to tear apart the
Bible for its apparent missing information, but Howards argument explains that the information
is not missing, it has simply been omitted by the author for the sake of clarity in the overall
work.
A question that is not raised or not fully touched upon in Howards article is the role of
the Holy Spirit in the writing of the Bible. The article focuses primarily on the human authors,
but does not touch on divine inspiration. The argument for the validity of the historical narrative

Thomas

of the Bible could take an interesting turn if the subject of divine inspiration enters into the
conversation.
A question that surfaces in the article, but is not fully wrapped up, is the subject of
modern arrogance in response to historical studies (34-35). Howard brings up the point that
modern extrabiblical discoveries aid in illuminating the biblical texts and concepts. However,
ancient Israelites and Christians alike did not have access to these sources, yet they still seemed
to grasp an understanding of the scriptures. Their faith was not measured by understanding every
single nuance of the Biblical historical narrative. What is the point of deeply studying the extra
biblical sources next to the Bible besides continuing to confirm its accuracy? Howard mentions
this a little bit when he says that extrabiblical discoveries may highlight in bolder relief truths,
assumptions, or patterns that already reside in the biblical texts (34). Do we do ourselves any
good by continuing to study these sources? Is it possible to over-study these sources? The article
does not address these concerns fully.
Once Howard completes his discussion on historical narrative as history, he turns to
discussing historical narrative as literature. The switch is interesting, as it brings greater depth to
his previous arguments regarding history. Howard makes a point of saying the idea of history is
far more narrow and limiting than the idea of a story (44). While looking at biblical history is
interesting and important, it is also imperative to view the literary aspects of the text.
Howard discussed an interesting list of characteristics of historical narrative. It is
obviously historical, but it is also artistic, entertaining, anthological, selective, unified, realistic,
romantic, revelatory, response-evoking, and theological (45-48). The Bible is more than a simple
anthology of history because it draws upon countless other literary devices and styles. These
styles reflect their historical periods, while also displaying the unique individuality of each

Thomas

author. This raises a question about the balance between studying the history of the Bible and the
literary aesthetics of the Bible. Are they of equal importance, or is one more important than the
other? Overall, it appears that studying the Bible as historical narrative from both a historical and
literary perspective are paramount to gaining a greater and deeper understanding of the inspired
word of God.