By David M.Howard, Jr.
This review appeared in Trinity Journal 16.2 (Fall 1995): 243-45.

V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. 247 pp., $17.99, paper.

This is the final book to appear in the seven-volume Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation series edited by Moisés Silva, and it is a good one. It can confidently take its place alongside the others, which deal with other aspects of hermeneutics, such as linguistics, science, theology, and literary theory; indeed, it is one of the better volumes in an already impressive series.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I read the work at an early stage [at Zondervan's request] and gave a recommendation to publish it, along with some suggestions. However, the work was excellent even at that early stage, and my few suggestions [which I do not now recall and which may or may not have been incorporated into the final product in any case] are not the basis for my present praise of the book.)

Long's title is the first item worthy of comment. Many readers of this journal will recognize its affinity with the influential work by Robert Alter entitled The Art of Biblical Narrative. Long states that his choice of title intentionally evokes Alter's work, since he is convinced that understanding historical writings requires one's understanding the workings of narratives. Beyond this, Long uses the word "art" to draw helpful parallels between verbal representation (as in history writing) and visual representation (as in painting). Third, Long uses the term "art" to denote the Bible's "slants" or "perspectives," which he gives as theological, historical, and literary (pp. 12-13).

This book is a fascinating read, and Long is well-versed in the literature of historiography (i.e., history writing), hermeneutics, and literary theory. One of Long's most helpful and distinctive contributions, however, is his appeal to the visual arts (especially painting) from which to draw analogies to interpret the literary arts. His introduction (pp. 17-26) is a captivating account that he creates of two young boys discovering an old painting in an attic, and the processes of analysis they go through in order to discover its true identity and meaning. Here and thereafter, he shows how analysis of literary documents can profitably proceed along similar lines.

Much of Long's work on "Biblical history" discusses literature, because the events or happenings of ancient history (perhaps the most widely understood meaning of the term "history") are available to us today primarily through written records (a second meaning of "history"). In contrast to many scholars of generations past (and present), Long argues in his first two chapters that historical portions of the Bible should first be approached as literature, and only later be subjected to historical questions.

Long's first chapter considers the question of genre. He asks "Is the Bible a History Book?" He answers by saying that "history" is not the "essential character" of the Bible (which is that it is a religious book, indeed, the religious book). However, he demonstrates that "a historical impulse runs throughout the Bible" (p. 57). What is crucial is what the different genres of the Bible intend, since some do not intend to be "historical" in the sense of telling a coherent story of past, actual events (e.g., Proverbs, Psalms, Jesus' parables). Long devotes well-deserved attention to the issue of "ancient literary competence," by which is meant an immersion in the "world" of the literature under study, and an avoidance of importing modern literary categories and historical assumptions on an essentially "foreign" literature. He points out some strengths and pitfalls of genre criticism, including the helpful point that context should be an ever-present guide to interpretation, including (especially) the higher-level contexts above the sentence or story levels.

In his second chapter, Long addresses the complex issue of the relationship between history and fiction. At first glance, the differences seem to be obvious: history is true, whereas fiction is not. However, both history and fiction are selective and artistic in how they are presented, and both are (usually) true-to-life. What is crucial is the intent in the work: history's intent is "representational," to represent reality in some way, to convey a sequence of actual events accurately, whereas fiction's intent may not be -- indeed, usually is not, regardless of how realistic or true-to-life it may be. However, readers of the Bible's historical narratives will be immeasurably well served if they read these historical portions with the same careful eye that they would read fiction. Long well reminds us that even writers of history must be selective and creative, just as writers of fiction are.

The third chapter is a defense of the importance of the historicity of the Bible. He borrows from a wide array of orthodox scholars who argue that the Bible's historicity in matters it affirms is indeed important, and he devotes significant attention to D. F. Strauss, a 19th-century German theologian whose work on the life Jesus was very destructive, since he denied the miraculous and the accuracy of much of the Gospels's accounts. Long traces the effects of Strauss's influence and offers helpful criticisms.

In a lengthy fourth chapter, Long asks "Why Do Scholars Disagree?" and he deals with contemporary historical-critical, social-scientific, and literary approaches. The first often are anti-theological; the second often are anti-literary; and the third often are anti-historical. Long shows how scholars's world views (presuppositions) affect even their choices of methods by which to examine Biblical texts and how these world views affect their interpretations of data gathered. He gives well-reasoned responses to anti-supernaturalist tendencies among many historians, sociologists, archaeologists, and literary critics (including deconstructionists).

In his fifth chapter, Long builds upon the ideas he has developed in Chapter Four about presuppositions and models of reality (and in the process, he lays bare his own presuppositions: p. 175). He attempts to provide a model for reading the Bible historically. First, one must "listen" to the text with an open mind and with an eye toward proper literary context (pp. 176-84). Then, one must "test" the reliability of the text by, first, looking at its internal consistency, and, second, by examining its external consistency (i.e., how well does it fit in with externally known facts, if any?) (pp. 184-94). Long then concludes by introducing an influential model for testing arguments developed by Stephen Toulmin (pp. 194-98), which he then applies in some detail in his concluding chapter.

Finally, in his last chapter, Long gives a practical example of the method of analysis of a historical text that he advocates, by examining the story of Saul's rise to kingship in 1 Samuel. Critical scholars have pointed to many difficulties in these stories, and have tended to devalue or reject their historical reliability entirely. However, using Toulmin's model carefully to question these (and his own) assumptions, and using careful comparative and literary models, Long is able to show that the texts containing these stories not only are internally coherent, but also cohere with what is known externally of conditions and others's rise to kingship in the ancient Near East.

In sum, this work provides help to those affirming the Bible's historical reliability on at least two levels: the exegetical and apologetic levels. Many of his insights concerning the literary nature of historical writing will be valuable as one exegetes a text. In addition, many of these and others of his arguments are valuable as apologetic tools. Indeed, I would say that the latter area is the one where Long makes his best contributions (however, I would wish that he had made clearer the distinctions between exegesis and apologetics). A further strength not mentioned above is his repeated emphasis upon -- and distinctions between -- the Bible's (or any other literary work's) "truth claims" and "truth value" (see, e.g., pp. 29-30, 90-93, 176-94).

What, then, is the value of Long's work, and how will it be received? Concerning the second question, I do not think that it will sway the minds of very many established scholars who differ with him concerning approaches to history. Nevertheless, this is a valuable book, and it will have a positive impact in at least three areas. First, it will provide a solid foundation for all who believe that the Bible is trustworthy and true in what it affirms. Second, it will provide a persuasive argument about the Bible's reliability for those students and others who may have genuine questions and who are truly seeking an answer. This may be just the book to convince them. Third, it will demonstrate to scholars who are skeptical about the Bible's historical reliability -- and who think that anyone who differs from them is a simpleton -- that a cogent, reasoned, sophisticated case can indeed be made for its reliability. This should prevent such scholars (if they read the work) from constructing straw men and scornfully dismissing "fundamentalistic literalists." This is the best work about history writing that I have read by a Biblical scholar (Long's specialty is Old Testament) and I recommend it highly.