Reference has been made to a remark by a modern writer about "the essential element in Christianity which transcends history" and nothing displays more vividly the general intellectual decay of our age than the widespread use of vague and ambiguous phrases of this sort. For it is impossible to discover from the context what the writer means by it; and he takes great care to avoid a definition. At first, he appears to mean simply that Christiani ty is not only history but something more - a truism that none of us could possibly deny. Yet, if that was what he meant, one must query why he did not say so plainly and leave his meaning beyond doubt. He even reinforces this interpretation of his apparent meaning by telling us that "both the Christian and the historian are concerned with what happened in history".
This is true, and an admirable statement of the truth of the matter; and if he had left it at that all would have been well. But at once he gives it a twist, thus, "but they start from different places and with different presuppositions".
No explanation of this strange assertion is provided, and there is no attempt to justify it, let alone prove it. So in spite of what went before, we are left without any clear idea of his meaning.
Nevertheless, the purpose in this writer's mind soon becomes clear enough. It is to suggest that it does not matter whether the events recorded in the Scriptures are historically true or merely myths. So he presents us with a brand new myth. In his own words:
"As the Biblical writers and their predecessors over a period of time reflected on and interpreted what God was remembered to have done, expressing it in what seemed to be the most telling imagery, God was giving them a better understanding of the substance of His revelation."
As invariably happens with people of his sort, no proof of any kind is offered by this man. This is easily understood, for none exists; yet he evidently expects his readers to believe HIM. Why this should be so is not explained either, and in a saner age than ours the immediate retort would be: "If you believe not Moses and the Prophets, why on earth should we believe you?" In effect, we must not believe the Word of God, but we are expected to believe this man's myths:
"Rationalists" in past days, though seldom very rational in practice, were far less irrational than this person. They believed that the Biblical writers were mistaken and the victims of superstition: but they were not so credulous as to believe what this modern teacher regards as their GUESSES and superstitions as being able to give anyone a better understanding of God. A god who supposedly reveals himself in speculations and memories regarding events that never happened, or never happened as they are recorded as happening, is hardly a subject for our admiration or worth even a moment's serious consideration.
Let us, however, suppose for a while that this myth gives us a true picture of how Scripture was written; in other words, that what is presented in Scripture as history is simply the reflections of the writers on memories of events that may (or may not) have happened. Several awkward questions at once arise. Why should we taka seriously the reflections of such people? Why could not they, or their predecessors, have told us what actually DID happen? Why should we suppose that God, Who is Truth, should have a hand in so dubious a transaction? In short, what ground have we for believing ANYTHING AT ALL of the whole silly idea?
Indirectly, all this rubbish has a us to ask one further question, this time one that concerns realities: What is history?
Few people have any precise idea of the answer, because so much of what nowadays passes for history is no better than tendentious propaganda. This results from the circumstances that in the modern world events are so vast, and so complex, and are so numerous and move with such speed, that it is impossible to keep up with more than a fraction of them. The tendency, therefore, is to report only such events as happen to interest the one who is reporting. Quite often something "hits the headlines" for a day or so, and then subsides into oblivion, so that few ever discover what eventually took place unrecorded.
The history of any event is, simply, the record of what happened. It is truly history only if it is COMPLETE, CONSECUTIVE and ACCURATE. By these three tests, all modern history and most ancient history falls to the ground. At best, they are only history in part.
Where then can we find true history? By a strange paradox, only where the writer quoted rejects is as largely myth: in the Sacred Scripures.
Complete history, as with complete truth, cannot be set out in earthly circumstances, for the reason so cogently stated by the Apostle John (21.25), but history that is complete within suitably defined terms of reference is possible...a good diary is also consecutive and, with men of probity, reasonably accurate. This is as about as far as history in the ordinary sense can go.
Scripture, however, comes on a higher plane, simply because, if it is anything at all, it is the Word of God. If it is not in fact just that, it is too diffioult to believe to be anything better than a myth. Some think they are able to demythologize Soripture, that is, to sift out the grain of truth that, they suppose, lies beneath the myth. The towering pride of such a claim is staggering. For those who have any realixation at all of what Chriatian humility and modesty mean, it makes them out at once and finally as teachers not worth even the slightest notice.
R. B. Withers
