The Most Likely Story

We are making our way through Victor Matthews’ book Studying the Ancient Israelites and in the chapter History and Historiography he makes an illuminating statement about historians. It is found on page 160 and goes like this:

However, it is not enough to want to retell a story that was lost or whos emeaning hazy to modern readers. The historian must strive to tell ‘the most likely story’ in order to ‘accounbt for the reality of what happened in the past.’ (Barstad 1997:44)

This guideline is similar to the one used by secular and other scientists. They go for the best explanation. The secular and other scientists do not go for the truth but look for a subjective answer to a seemingly complex question.

This is the same for a historian. They are not necessarily looking for the truth of why an event took place in the past. Instead, they are telling the most likely story influenced by their perceptions, beliefs, unbeliefs, and ability to accept the real reasons.

They are no more going for the truth than a secular scientist is. This may be why when we read Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, and Macpherson’s works on the Civil War, we read three different viewpoints for the same events.

When you have three or more perspectives, someone has to be wrong. Or all of them are wrong because they all selected a perspective that is not the truth. We are not saying all historians do this nor are we saying that all archaeologists do this, but a large majority of both groups do.

The truth does not matter as long as the historian and the archaeologist are satisfied with the story. This is also why people say that when you ask 4 archaeologists a question, you get 6 different opinions. They are searching for the most likely story and do not know what took place in the past.

This is why believers cannot blindly accept the content or conclusions from historians or archaeologists. They may have years of education and experience, but they are still human and follow what they believe. Which is often not in line with Biblical instructions.

They are also deceived people who may not recognize the truth when they see it. One example of this is a chapter on Egypt in a book called Histories of Nations edited by Peter Furtado. It was not an honest rendering of Egyptian history by the author Hussein Bassir.

In the first paragraph of the first page, he writes ‘Civilization itself began in Egypt’s Nile Valley and delta…’ (pg. 15). This is not true of course except to the Egyptian author. It also calls a victory against Israel in 1973 a ‘glorious victory’ (pg. 18) thus the bias for this short history of Egypt is the best story according to Hussein Bassir. It is not the truth

This is an example and a guideline a Christian cannot follow. If you do a word study on the term truth, you will find 186 verses talking about this important topic. However, you will not find one verse instructing believers to go for the ‘most likely story.’

Just because secular historians and archaeologists go for the most likely story does not mean that Christians have God’s permission to do the same. The Bible is very clear not to follow the counsel of the ungodly and using ‘the most likely story’ guide is following the counsel of the ungodly.

We go for the truth in writing history as nothing else will do. One of Jesus’ titles is ‘The Truth’, not the most likely story. Christians cannot do better than that. The most likely story hides the truth, protects reputations, hinders investigations, and much more.

Also, when one goes to the truth they must be ready to let go of any ideas they hold on a given topic. The truth does not always line up with personal opinions, ideas, or even denominational ideas or beliefs (we are not talking about the Nicene or other creeds here).

When it comes to biblical content, one must be ready to hear what God says on a given topic from God’s perspective and accept that over personal subjective opinions. For example, someone may hold to the idea that two creation accounts are in the first two chapters.

That is a faulty concept as chapter one is the creation account and chapter 2 holds more specific details about what God did on Day 6. Also, God stopped on Day 6 not because he was tired but because he is consistent.

He instructed his followers to work 6 days and rest one and God set the example at creation. Getting to the truth has its surprises. Then in the first sentence starting the chapter on History and Historiography, Dr. Matthews has this to say:

What are the sources that contribute to the creation of a history ofancient Israel and Judah (pg. 159)

When it comes to the Bible, the only source is the Holy Spirit. Yes, there were other books written throughout Israel’s history that provide more details about where someone could get more information on specific people and events, but they are not the source books for biblical authors.

These books have been mentioned in 1 & 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Luke said he did his research. However, these books did not provide biblical content. The verses containing the words ‘are they not written in…’ are words pointing the reader of the book to where they can find those missing details about a King’s life, etc.

They are not indications of the source material for the biblical authors. The Bible is not wrong when it talks about what took place in Israel’s past. Nor is it wrong when it talks about creation and so on. All other books written during the time of Israel’s history only provide additional information.

That is if the authors did not lie, embellish, hide the truth, or leave out details because it did not fit the most likely story. Where extra-biblical histories fail is that they are not inspired works, they are written by humans and the majority of them have been deceived by evil.

You will not get a clear picture of Israel’s past reading extra-biblical historical works. You may get more details from different perspectives but that is about all. There is no problem with the existence of these works.

The Bible could not contain all the details for every event it records. If it did, the Bible would be too thick to read. It is okay to read those ancient and modern histories as long as one does not place them above the biblical content and use them to say the Bible is wrong.

Knowing history helps the believer to defend their faith, and refute unbelievers when they twist history and more vital biblical strategies. The key is to go for the truth as unbelievers can do nothing against the truth

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.(2 Corinthians 13:8)

Learn the truth and stay with it for that protects your faith and helps keep you strong as a believer. Jesus is the Truth and we cannot do better than the truth.

——————————————————-

Update- we wrote a part two for this topic and placed it on our sister website Theoarch. You can read that article by clicking on this title- Writing History