Christianity is inherently concerned with history. Early twentieth-century historian Marc Bloch went so far as to say, “Christianity is a religion of historians.”[1] He could make this claim because, unlike other religions, Christianity doesn’t derive its doctrines or rituals from mythology that is inherently outside time. Rather, “for sacred books, the Christians have books of history.”[2] The Bible is filled with history and provides humanity with a firm basis for studying the past. When historians abandoned this base, it led to the end of history.
A Biblical Basis for History
Christians derive from Scripture a firm philosophical foundation for the discipline of history. First, the doctrine of creation demands that Christians take history seriously. As Matthew Bracey (b. 1985) has written, history reveals God’s creative acts in time as He crafts the universe and directs the continuation of His creation.[3] Scripture is filled with commands to remember God’s works in history so that we may avoid sin (e.g., Deut. 4:9-10; 8:19-20). Paul explains that we become vain in our imaginations and that our foolish hearts are darkened when we ignore these works, such that we turn to idolatry and God gives us up to the lusts of our hearts (Rom. 1:20-25).
More fundamentally the doctrine of creation is necessary for the discipline of history to exist at all. History is the study of changes in ideas, political structures, societies, and cultures, outside of ourselves. Our faith in God’s creative act provides an essential pillar in the foundation of our confidence that we can know this outside world.[4]
Second, the person of Jesus Christ brings value to history. Bradley Green notes that the “fundamentally incarnational” character of Christianity emphasizes the importance of history.[5] When God took on flesh, He entered into time and space, bearing witness to His statement in the beginning that creation was good.
As with the doctrine of creation, this core Christian belief also speaks to the possibility of historical knowledge. Both Luke and John argued that careful investigation of the material world supports the veracity of the incarnation. Luke investigated sources and compiled evidence (Lk. 1:1-4), and John spoke of the physicality of Jesus that had been witnessed (1 Jn. 1:1-3). These men plainly affirmed that we could understand the truth of historical events through careful investigation.
Third, God’s narrative plan of redemption speaks to history’s linear nature and gives an intellectual framework for interpreting the rest of human affairs. Paul explained that Jesus came in “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4; cf. Eph. 1:3-10), which means that God was waiting for a particular moment in the development of human history to enter in. When this concept is coupled with Jesus’ statement that the Father alone knows the timing of the final judgement (Mt. 24:36; Mk. 13:32), we must conclude that history is linear and that God is deeply invested in its fulfillment.
Additionally, God’s plan for history provides us with a polestar to guide us as we try to make sense of events in time. As Gordon Clark (1902-85) has noted: If the Bible presents history as linear, it is a “thin line.”[6] God was very selective in what historical events He recorded in the Bible. Yet these events serve as the “norm and judge of all the rest.”[7] Therefore, we can have confidence that all historical events receive their fullest meaning in relation to God’s narrative (or, in historiographical terminology, metanarrative) of redemption, even if we don’t now fully perceive how.[8]
However, though Scripture gives us confidence in the ability to know the facts of history and provides us with the metanarrative that gives all of history meaning, these two points don’t mean that Christians understand history perfectly. Scripture doesn’t fully reveal the entire redemption narrative. God has chosen not to tell us many things about the past and the future. Therefore, Christians can’t claim to hold an exhaustive understanding of history. Nor can we assume that our interpretation of historical events matches the plan of God. We can hold this kind of confidence only when God reveals the interpretation of events in Scripture.
Lastly, sound historical methodology also has a foundation in Scripture. As mentioned earlier, both Luke and John made appeals to careful investigation and observation of the physical world. Luke’s opening statements to his Gospel (1:1-4) are particularly important for the development of Christian historiography. To assure Theophilus of the truth of Jesus’ appearing, Luke explained that he had reviewed the many accounts of Jesus’ life and synthesized them with his own investigations, interviews, and experiences after considering the matter at length. As Earl E. Cairns (1910-2008) noted, these are the “essential elements of historical discipline.”[9] When Leopold van Ranke (1795-1886) developed modern methodological standards for historical research in the late nineteenth century, he essentially applied and expanded on Luke’s principles.
Augustine and Christian Historiography
Augustine of Hippo was the first Christian thinker to engage this Biblical foundation for the study of history. When Rome was sacked in A.D. 410, many Romans blamed Christianity and called for a return of the old pagan religions. To counter these accusations, Augustine spent over a dozen years penning Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans (better known as City of God). He argued that the world consists of two opposing cities: the city of God (founded and ruled by God) and the city of this world (ruled by sinful desires).[10] In the words of Clark, the “interaction, competition, and antagonism” of these two cities “produce history.”[11]
Augustine’s historiographical method is implicit but clear in this work. For him history is knowable through careful study of “things which are within reach of our senses” and “witnesses for things which are out of reach of our senses.”[12] It is also linear, valuable, and properly understood in relation to God’s metanarrative plan of redemption.
Underlying his entire historiographical approach is his belief that the Bible is the “outstanding authority in which we put our trust concerning those things which we need to know for our good, and yet are incapable of discovering by ourselves.”[13] According to Augustine, we grasp the truth through an understanding that is guided by faith. This specifically applies to our methods, epistemology, and metanarrative. Augustine’s general historiographical framework dominated the Western world for nearly fourteen centuries, even if individual historians brought their own developments and refinements to the subject.
The Failure of A Secular Augustinianism
Enlightenment faith in objectivity began to contend with this framework during the late nineteenth century. The academic discipline of history emerged at this time with a few paid university positions in Europe and America. In addition to teaching, these professors were able to focus on research and refining their discipline.
The German historian Leopold Van Ranke was the most influential professional historian from this group. Drawing on the methodology of classical philology, Ranke taught his students to appraise sources critically and to marshal arguments through detailed analysis and documentation.[14] Though Ranke was indeed refining the historical method, his ideas on this matter had firm Biblical support.
However, through Ranke’s influence, historians also optimistically began to believe that they could produce objective knowledge of the past that was not shaded by their subjective perspectives if they followed these methods. This Enlightenment mindset made history, rather than religion, the arbiter and revealer of truth. Karl Marx (1818-83) especially showed a fondness for Ranke’s understanding of history.[15] He and other materialists like him began to suggest that history could not only provide objective knowledge of the past but also could accurately predict the future.
Marx was not an academic historian. However, those who were began developing professional historical organizations and journals. These organizations constructed and enforced a “consensus not only on how history should be written but on what history was about.”[16] While historians disagreed about the specifics, most held that history is knowable, linear, and headed to a definite destination. However, they rejected God’s metanarrative and involvement with humanity.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the vast majority of professional historians had adopted a secular version of the old Augustinian understanding of history. However, this understanding of history becomes brittle and tenuous when separated from its Biblical foundation.
Much changed in the historian’s craft during the twentieth century. After World War I, historians, like many in the West, lost their confidence in reason and progress. The pessimism of post-modernity began to seep into the cracks left by worldwide conflict. Historians began to doubt that objective knowledge of the past is possible; some even began to question whether any knowledge of the past is possible.
A series of philosophical theories that promised metanarrative satisfaction have risen to prominence and been rejected. Today, most historians have concluded that any universal explanation for history is impossible. As a result, identity politics has consumed much if not all of modern historical discourse. In addition, some historians, like Dipesh Chakrabarty (b. 1948), even question the linear nature of history. By disconnecting it from its Biblical foundation, historians have killed history.
Conclusion
The Christian worldview provides a firm foundation for historians. The doctrines of creation and the incarnation give us confidence that the world outside of ourselves is knowable and valuable, both in the present and the past. The redemption narrative serves as our revealed metanarrative, which provides meaning to the rest of human history. Last, Luke and John set a clear example for how historians should pursue their craft. Without these supports, history as we know it disappears and ends.
____________________
[1]Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, trans. Peter Putnam (New York: Vintage, 1953), 4.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Matthew Steven Bracey, “Is History ‘Bunk’? A Biblical Theology of History” September 10, 2012, accessed January 4, 2019; https://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/is-history-bunk-a-biblical-theology-of-history/; Internet.
[4]Bradley G. Green, The Gospel and the Mind: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 35.
[5]Ibid., 41.
[6]Gordon H. Clark, Historiography, Secular and Religious, 2nd ed. (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1994), 312.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid., 228.
[9]Earl E. Cairns, God and Man in Time: A Christian Approach to Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 31.
[10]Augustine, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, I, 1, tr. Henry Bettenson (New York: Penguin, 2003), 5.
[11]Clark, 216.
[12]Augustine, XI, 3, page 431.
[13]Ibid.
[14]John Burrow, A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century (New York: Vintage, 2009), 435.
[15]William D. Dennison, Karl Marx, Great Thinkers Series (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017), 47.
[16]Burrow, 427.
Recent Comments