A current Oxford dictionary defines the term “Historiography” as the study of writing about history. The etymological facts from the Greek language support that definition. However, a student of history should generally understand historiography as the interpretation of written and unwritten historical events as preserved from valid historical sources.1 The distinction made between the study of history and historiography is clearly articulated by what each is and does. Widely put, history concerns events of the past, while historiography is about interpreting historical facts. Historiography is a composition of its various contributing factors in either literary or nonliterary form.
Through formal or informal articles of written material, historiography informs us about people, places, and past events to communicate historical, biblical, and theological meaning. Often, a substantive meaning with numerous tangible and observable geographical locations, landmarks, and archaeological artifacts educates us and piques our interest. Most especially concerning historical significance with immense depth and range of written work that builds a comprehensive view of what happened back in time.
Like pieces of a puzzle, literary, physical, and metaphysical objects form the basis of recognizable materials for interpretation and understanding. Specifically, accurate analytical descriptions of those historical objects offer an interpretive value that builds coherent knowledge leading to a reliable and true meaning of interest. Historical things that are rooted in objective facts form substance through writings of intended communication, especially by literary genre or written materials and by unintended circumstances from physical materials, structures, or relics of the past such as art, attire, utensils, or pottery.
Historiography matters because by it, we understand objective facts about what happened in the past.
Researchers, scholars, and historians who have a low or indifferent view of Scripture can take it as suspect and theologically loaded, so they approach the Bible with blind objectivity at best. Virtually all scholars reject supernatural revelation2 while the historical meaning of Scripture is subordinate to its theological messaging. The concern of the Bible is not a linear and chronological account of narrative events to historically align with activities that occurred over time with sequential calendrical precision. Individuals who approach Scripture without confessional commitments will not (probably cannot) recognize its full authority and reliability to begin from. Consequently, efforts around the reconstruction of Israel’s historical events become more subjective around a mixed patchwork of speculation to build cases around.
There are numerous examples of how some scholars, historians, theologians, academics, or students view historical events of the Bible differently. The popular articles between Bryant Wood and Kathleen Kenyon illustrate the differences in outcomes concerning what happened during the raid and destruction of Jericho that Dr. Wood eventually validated through the analysis of pottery. His research, rooted in a theological commitment to Scripture, supported his approach to prevail over Ms. Kenyon’s assertions concerning what happened at Jericho, contrary to the biblical record.3 The primary difference between them was about the authority of Scripture.
There are further examples of historical details around the flood of Noah (Gen 6:9-9:17), as to whether it was global or local (i.e., John Walton, Tremper Longman III, Gleason Archer, and others). Or the Exodus matter (Ex 3-19) and its timeline during the correct era to comport with the biblical narrative. Moreover, ANE epics are often relied on as a source of comparison to dispute the historical accuracy or validity of the OT. At the same time, further research and archaeological discoveries continue to reveal historical certainties that align with biblical truth. Just not in a way that scholars, academics, or skeptics want to fit a flawed anti-supernatural worldview.
___________________
1. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 27–28.
2. Ibid, 21.
3. Bryant G. Wood Ph.D., Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence, Associates for Biblical Research, accessed May 10th, 2021.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/conquest-of-canaan/2310-did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence
Comments are closed.