Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 36:2 (Jun 1993)
Article: The Historian, The Believer, And The OT: A Study In The Supposed Conflict Of Faith And Reason
Author: Mark W. Chavalas

JETS 36:2 (June 1993) p. 145

The Historian, The Believer, And The OT:
A Study In The Supposed Conflict
Of Faith And Reason

Mark W. Chavalas*

The historian must not try to know what is truth if he values his honesty, for if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.

—Henry Adams

The study of Israel’s past concerns not only the historian but also the believer. The relationship of the Christian historian to the modern historical-critical process, however, especially in regard to the study of the OT, has generally been unclear. Few problems have been more traumatic for the Christian than the imposition of historical methods on the study of the Bible.1 This is one of the most serious tests that Christianity has had concerning the nature of Biblical authority.2 Many have seen the historical method as incompatible with Christian faith. Christianity has normally been based on supernatural metaphysics, while the historical method has been founded on a rational assessment of the probability of an event, not on doctrinal canons.3 The historical method is now taken for granted in many circles, and it would be difficult for the secular historian to return to a precritical age.

What, then, are the parameters of “reason and faith” for the Christian historian? In other words, in the context of Biblical studies how have Christians attempted to reconcile the historical-critical method and their faith? The Christian historian does not have to make an excuse for an interpretation that is colored by his faith. He cannot be entirely separated from his faith. He is not truly autonomous, like the nineteenth-century historian tried to be. How can a Christian or Marxist historian, out of supposed objectivity, be forbidden to interject his own theological convictions into his work? There is no such thing as pure objectivity.4

The goal of the Christian historian is to understand the cultural milieu of the Bible, not to defend its theological truth. We can defend the historical character of its narratives, though. But historical character and theological

* Mark Chavalas is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, WI 54601.

JETS 36:2 (June 1993) p. 146

interpretation are not the same. The historian may concur that God acted in history, and faith can affirm this. But it cannot be a datum point for his research. The historian attempts to undertake a critique of the narratives for their historical value and to understand the context and mot...