Chapter 106 of 404

Historians’ “Theology”

Historians’ moral illustrations, social commentary in speeches, and political interests often reveal their distinctive philosophic and theological perspectives.¹⁷⁴ Most importantly for understanding the gospels, most ancient historians also sought to interpret the divine will in some patterns in history.¹⁷⁵ Oracles and omens were said to reveal Rome’s divine destiny.¹⁷⁶ Some deity helped the Greeks escape Persia, Xenophon decides.¹⁷⁷ Despite Herodotus’ occasional rationalism, he reports dreams, omens, and other signs of divine activity, his ideal audience’s consensus on the reality of which he seems to assume.¹⁷⁸

Israelite historians also sought to interpret from a divine perspective the events they recited.¹⁷⁹ While postmodern critics may view history as useable for agendas, the thought that it included objectively recognizable patterns seems odd to both modern and postmodern readers; yet this was the dominant perspective in many other eras (albeit a perspective that could not preclude diverse opinions concerning what constituted those patterns).¹⁸⁰

From a broader perspective, Hellenistic historians saw providence in history, so that Diodorus could describe “historians as ‘ministers of divine providence’ who arrange their accounts in the light of their understanding of providence in human events.”¹⁸¹ Dionysius of Halicarnassus includes among history’s lessons the virtue of piety toward the gods.¹⁸² Jewish historians naturally offered such an approach as well;¹⁸³ Josephus is often explicit about providence in human affairs.¹⁸⁴ Of the four Gospels, Luke, the most hellenistic, has been compared most frequently with this approach.¹⁸⁵

Most Jews viewed God’s communication to them in Old Testament narrative as historically true,¹⁸⁶ hence would have taken for granted that history could communicate theology.¹⁸⁷ Even most Hellenistic Jewish intellectuals viewed most of Scripture as historically as well as theologically true.¹⁸⁸ While foundation stories could use evocative mythology, some scholars rightly point out that the earliest Christian writers, grounded in this traditional Jewish framework, claimed to use genuine history as their “myth,” purporting to announce historical truth in the public arena.¹⁸⁹ The Gospel writers, some or most writing within half a century after the events narrated, believed that they were communicating genuine historical information in a theologically relevant way.

Separating their history from their theology is not as simple as many modern readers assume. Part of the gospel writers’ “theology” involves the proclamation of God’s acts in history; thus if some modern readers reject their claim that God acted in history in Jesus of Nazareth, they are also disagreeing with the Gospels’ theology (and not just with their historiography). Disagreeing with their theology may also lead to displeasure with how they frame their historiography. Attempts to screen out anything in the Gospels that is compatible with the writers’ faith prejudice the case against their perspective, for the early Christians believed that their faith flowed from the faith-stimulating impact of Jesus.¹⁹⁰

All other ancient historians and biographers, like many modern ones, had agendas they considered important; they used history to shed light on their own time, no less than did the Gospels.¹⁹¹ But had the Gospel writers wished to communicate solely later Christian doctrine and not history, they could have readily chosen simpler forms than biography for this purpose.¹⁹²

↑ Back to top