By Chaplain Mike
One of my primary New Testament professors in seminary was Grant R. Osborne. I loved his infectious enthusiasm and approach to teaching, especially with regard to Greek. He believed that seminaries should be training pastors, and so our projects and examinations were always exercises in taking a passage in the original language and working on it until we could produce a finished product in the form of a sermon outline or Bible study.
He was also another key voice in my life emphasizing the importance of hermeneutics—the art and science of how we study the Bible—particularly the four Gospels. With his studies on the Gospels, he complemented my OT teachers, who were opening new vistas for me in learning to read and appreciate the message of Biblical narratives.
Grant has written a commentary on Matthew
in a new series from Zondervan that I am eagerly looking forward to digesting. The series is called The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Starting next week, I will be blogging on Matthew and using his commentary as my main resource.
Today, I was intrigued by a quote I read in the commentary’s introduction. Osborne writes: “Biblical narratives contain both narrative and historical elements. As narrative, they exemplify real/implied author and reader, point of view, story time, plot, characterization, and dialogue. As history, they attempt to trace what actually happened.”
Then, he quotes a definition to help us “get” the character of Biblical narratives:
“Narrative history” involves an attempt to express through language . . . the meaning . . . that is, a particular understanding/explanation . . . of the relationship of a related sequence of actual events from the past . . . and to convince others through various means, including the theological force and aesthetic appeal of the rendering . . . that the sequence under review has meaning and that this meaning has been rightly perceived.
• From Provan, Long, Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel, p. 84
So then, Osborne is saying, biblical narrative (and I would argue all narrative forms of communication) involve a complex interplay of factual information and authorial or editorial interpretation. They are both history and theology (interpretation). Furthermore, they are a reflection, not only on historical events, but also on the theological movements and perspectives that shaped the world they are writing about.
The Biblical authors were writing “history” in the sense that they believed they were portraying events and ideas that were actually realized in this world. Fiction writers, on the other hand, create an imaginary world that may or may not reflect reality on the ground, and then fill that world with characters and events. Through dramatic development they seek to speak “truth” in more indirect ways. By stepping outside this world, they hope to shine a light on this world. Narratives in the Bible, however, interpret events that the authors believe took place in this world of space-time history. Nevertheless, they still write about them in creative, interpretive ways that bring out what they consider to be the significance and meaning of those events.
In a nutshell, I would call it history presented in an interpretive framework.
Your response?