The relationship between historical-critical approaches to biblical interpretation and matters of revelation and faith is quite complex. Modern biblical scholarship is dominated by what is referred to as the “historical critical method.” This approach is actually a collection of methods, each with a slightly different focus—dealing with possible sources, existing manuscripts, ancient social and political life, linguistics, etc. Historical interpreters attempt to situate biblical texts in their original (and differing) contexts in the ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamian worlds. They also attempt to account for both the production and reception of biblical texts against known historical events, persons, and places. To this end, they treat biblical texts like any other ancient text, explaining both the events in the text and the production of the text itself as the result of recorded material causes. Supernatural forces or events are grouped together as historical explanations because they are not amenable to scientific scrutiny and more often than not, claims to supernatural causation work to obscure more mundane factors at work in human history.

Divine Revelation

When questions of revelation or the truth about God arise, they are not dismissed; they are, however, put within the specific conceptual frameworks of historical criticism. Sometimes this means that biblical scholars simply do not address the question of revelation or related theological beliefs. While doing historical research, a scholar will often be less concerned (consciously, anyway) with assessing the validity of a theological claim. Historical methods simply are not calibrated to detect or assess divine agency at work in the world. 

Historical-critical approaches, however, do intrinsically pose some challenge to received notions of biblical truth and revelation that mystify the human dimension of both divine revelation and the work of biblical interpretation. When seeking to determine how scholars see the relationship between divine revelation and human history, including the role of human endeavor in writing the biblical texts, it is important to also determine how revelation itself is to be understood. Notions of revelation that see the Bible as a (mere) conduit or vehicle of truth that can be best summed up and experienced as a proposition—”God created the world” or “God loves you” or “Jesus is the Son of God”—typically downplay the extent to which any truth beyond human understanding is always already and unavoidably mediated by finite and flawed human individuals.

Biblical authors come to their task of communicating divine revelation with all the limitations, biases, and frailties of other human beings. Biblical authors, no less than biblical readers, were individuals situated in particular historical contexts. And those contexts both enabled and constrained their ability to comprehend and communicate divine revelation. So to that extent, historical criticism involves rethinking some notions of revelation, although much more needs to be said about how one defines revelation.

Historical research takes the full humanity of the Bible and biblical authors and readers as seriously as early Christian theologians took the full humanity of Jesus himself, seriously. Unlike early Christian theologians, however, modern biblical scholars, who also serve as historians, do not attempt to make claims about the divine nature of the Bible as the Word of God. While historical critical methods were initially developed and used to question specific theological claims made for, and on behalf of, the Bible, scholars today take up a number of different positions with respect to the relationship between history and faith. Some continue to see historical explanation as a rational critique of Christian myth, some see historical methods and evidence as confirming the basic reliability of the Bible, and many others fall into a more complicated gray area that gives historical research a critical role, while also rethinking the implications of historical conclusions for faith in God. Thus, it would be difficult, in other words, probably impossible, to provide a definitive scholarly view of history and faith.

Literal Interpretation

Sometimes the claim is made that unless one interprets the entire Bible literally, one is interpreting selectively, believing only parts of the Bible and interpreting other verses as one sees fit. However, attempts to always interpret the Bible literally are inherently problematic for a number of reasons. Such attempts usually stumble at some point upon common sense or upon plainly absurd ideas or upon different views expressed elsewhere in the Bible itself. The notion of literal interpretation also tends to collapse various kinds of truth claims into one single category of “truth.” From this perspective, the Bible must speak the truth equally and unequivocally about all matters or else its claim to speak truthfully about anything is overturned. What is presented as a guarantee of the truth of our beliefs about God and the world ends up being a very weak foundation if we believe that truth, from a human perspective, must always be “either/or” (which is not to deny that sometimes the truth is clearly “either/or”).

These criticisms of the theological value of literal interpretation are not raised to belittle the hope that biblical texts have one and only one meaning—a meaning that is simple, straightforward and can be easily known with little effort. The desire behind this approach often is to enable everyone, regardless of education or role in the church, to read and discern Scripture for him or herself. This is a very valuable corrective to the pretensions of self-satisfied interpreters, which sometimes includes both scholars and church leaders. What the desire for the literal meaning overlooks, however, is the human dimension of interpretation and the uncertainty and the debates that surround the work of scriptural discernment. First, readers of the Bible, no less than biblical authors, are finite persons who bring to the texts all their limitations, prejudices, and self-seeking desires along with their highest goals and noblest, most altruistic desires. Secondly, we are always interpreting the Bible with less than perfect knowledge assuming that our readings are “correct” or helpful. Interpretation is, by nature, selective; we have to choose which texts are important and which meanings are important. It is what we choose and why that matter. We do the best we can and the church, one could argue, ought to be the place where we can defend and debate our readings with the hope that as we seek the truth through the Spirit, we can also acknowledge that our readings may well differ and that our readings themselves may change in new circumstances.

Building on Old Ideas

The entire range of theological matters can be discussed and debated in the church, all with reference to the Bible. New ideas will sometimes be shocking, sometimes persuasive, sometimes absurd, and most of the time will require some demonstration of their validity. New interpretations will attempt to show continuity with old ideas. Yet, even “old” ideas were “new” at some point. For example, Paul’s experience of the risen Christ led him to reinterpret the story of Abraham and its meaning for understanding the basis of people’s relationship to the God of Israel. His interpretation was radical and innovative, indeed shocking, though for Christians it is now foundational, indeed “traditional.”

Debating the nature or degree of continuity and fidelity is an unavoidable part of interpretation and the life of the church. Nobody has a “lock” or patent on the truth, but not every interpretation builds up the church or maintains fidelity to the nature of the Gospel. People may indeed interpret as they please, but within the church they may not do so legitimately, unless their readings also please the Spirit. All of our interpretations are ultimately borne out not in scholarly theory, but in the day-to-day practice of our faith, the final court for judging the truth that Christians confess.

And What Is Truth?

In mocking jest, Pilate asked Jesus this question. Today, many ask the question pointing to the issue of contradictions in the Bible. There are, perhaps, numerous ways one could respond to the charge that the Bible contains contradictions or that it contradicts itself. Any such answer, of course, will be based in part on the perceived importance of this charge. For some, particularly, those who hold to the idea that the Bible is infallible and inerrant in all matters, the charge is extremely important because it directly challenges the Bible’s authority and claims to the truth. If one challenges that one of the two contradictory claims is wrong, then the challenger holds that the Bible is not only inconsistent in its witness to the truth, but also knowingly contains error. If any part of the Bible on any topic, no matter how obscure or minor, is in error, the credibility of the entire Bible is undermined for the hypothetical inerrantist. It is not hard to see, then, that idea of inerrancy is deeply problematic—the Bible is like a chain, so to speak, that is only as strong as its weakest link. So for the inerrantist, refuting every charge of contradiction becomes crucial. Whether or not such refutation can be successfully sustained is, of course, another matter. The will to rationalize away contradictions can be strong and may not always be hindered or altered by counter arguments and demonstration.

For others, contradictions in the Bible are less a worrisome sign of biblical fallibility than a sign of the unsurprising result of several dozens of ancient texts written across millennia by different human authors, for various purposes and audiences, who lived in different historical contexts. This is basically the perspective of someone who adopts a more historical approach to the study of the Bible. Contradictions are no less important or crucial from this perspective: they still present theological and sometimes moral puzzles to be solved, puzzles that can sometimes, but not always, be seen more clearly with historical methodologies.

The main distinguishing feature of the historical approach from the inerrantist position is the significance of the contradictions: What finally is at stake by recognizing them or rationalizing them away? For the inerrantist, the authority of the Bible itself is at stake. For the historian, the stakes may vary depending on the nature of the contradiction. Two different reports of a historical event are not theologically troubling, but can be historically confusing; two different images of God (allowing that such simple contrasts can indeed be found) can be both historically and theologically troubling, but without necessarily calling the Bible’s authority, as a whole, into question. However, two different theologically troubling images of God, to stick with that idea, would require interpretation and discernment concerning their relative claims to witness to the truth about God.

This process, however, is not hindered by the lack of an understanding of authority, revelation, and truth usually held by an inerrantist. Our all too human interpretations may be ultimately mistaken. Our capacity for error as readers, however, is not lessened by any degree by asserting that the Bible itself contains no contradictions, no errors. One could say from this perspective, then, that the authority of the Bible is perhaps better supported by how we live our lives in light of the truth to which we believe it points.