Is the Bible Historically Reliable?

Or should we just talk about something else?

This past month I was invited to engage in a dialogical debate with Peter Enns at the annual Exiles in Babylon conference on the question above: “Is the Bible Historically Reliable?" I love Exiles. I love how Preston Sprinkle and his team work so hard to engage current questions with an authentic posture of curiosity and care while maintaining a high view of Scripture and a deep concern for the seeker. So although I really didn’t have time (I knew I would be just coming off of the “Called” Conference in Chicago and heading straight into finals and graduation at Westmont), because the topic is so, so important, and I am an historian, and this is my gift to offer … I said “yes.”

The 1892 BCE tomb mural at the Beni Hasan cemetary in Egypt portraying 37 “Asiatics” (Semites) coming to Egypt for trade

Let me lead by saying that I also love Pete Enns. We went to Harvard together, I remember when his babies were born. Pete now runs an outfit called “The Bible for Normal People” where he speaks of himself as a “Christian Universalist” and an “Agnostic Christian,” a postmodern theologian who I am well aware is not terribly interested in issues of historicity. But as I also know that ours is a faith built upon the Exodus and the Empty Tomb, well, I was willing to engage. So I prepped, sent my slides ahead, packed the carry-on, and headed out to Minneapolis. Preston will be releasing a video at some point soon, so you’ll be able to get the “rest of the story.” For now, let me say that it was good to reconnect with an old friend. Pete is winsome and well-trained. But I am disappointed to report that the actual question of the day, “Is the Bible Historically Reliable?” did not get a seat at the table. Hence, the goal of this post is to offer here what didn’t get discussed there, an historian’s response to the question, “Is the Bible Historically Reliable?”

So let’s start with some definitions.

We begin with “History.” According to Johan Huizinga, a prominent dutch historian from the early 20^th century, history is defined as: “The intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of the past.” Each phrase of this definition is significant. “The intellectual form …” tells us that the recording of histories is not a spontaneous exercise. It is not random. Rather, the writing of a “history” is intentional. Someone has gathered sources and resources, interviewed witnesses, and engaged the task with the intention of creating a history. That history can be written, it can be oral, it can even be pictographic. But it is intentional.

“in which a civilization ….” This means that histories are not written by a rando with a Substack account; nor an aggregate who’ve launched a commune; not even a kinship group during the rainy season. But a civilization.

“… renders an account to itself of the past.” Do you hear it? An account to itself. This means that each civilization, in recording their national histories, makes decisions as to what cultural and historical issues they believe shaped them.

An example. When I was in high school in Montgomery County MD oh so many moons ago, my curriculum in world history included American History (the 13 colonies, the revolutionary war, the civil war, the industrial revolution, etc.), then European History, and (because I was a good student) my AP World History course took me back to the Greco-Persian War (499 BCE). And … well, that was it.

Whereas right now, world history in the public school system of the great state of California includes California history (with an emphasis on Native Americans and the Spanish catholic missions), the ancient Nubian Kingdom of Kush (I’m intrigued by that one), Islam, and Japan. That’s elementary school. Then in 6^th grade China and Africa. And in High school the 13 Colonies, Revolutionary War, Civil War and all the stuff I learned. (With an emphasis on Mexican Repatriation, Japanese American incarceration, and the roles of women and minorities.)

The point here, is that when I was in high school (back in the dark ages) the United States of America (on the east coast) defined itself as descended from European expansion, and therefore no one thought I needed to know about East Asia (even though China is like the largest country in the WORLD), or the continent of Africa (with 54 recognized sovereign states).

Why? Because the intellectual form in which my civilization rendered an account to itself of its past, only focused on those historical persons and events that my civilization (at the time) understood to be important. Those decisions were made by the intellectual elite (just as they are now), and looking at high school history curriculums in 2026, well, it’s obvious that the intellectual elite have broadened their perceptions as regards the cultural and historical forces that shaped our country.

Ok, that’s super interesting all by itself. But in this discussion it is particularly interesting because it demonstrates in real space and time that histories, all histories, are biased by definition. The national histories of Israel are not interested in Mesopotamia or Egypt, the Canaanite City-States or the Hittites unless they perceive that those massive historical achievements (the arch, the pythagorean theorem, chariot warfare, etc.) somehow crossed paths with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So the next time someone tells you that the Bible can’t be “historical” because it is biased … you just pull out your 7^th grade history textbook and say, “yes, and that surprises you?”

Additional issues with history-writing that you may not have pondered are (1) a civilization has to survive long enough to write a history, so know that it is the winners who tell the story. And (2) as history-writing requires sponsorship—someone needs to feed, clothe, and house the historian as he/she writes and researches—patronage is required. Which means that history is typically written by the educated elite, sponsored by the wealthy and the powerful.

Ok, how about “Historicity”? This term refers to the historical authenticity of the persons and events recorded in a text. And yes, “historicity” is important to the Christian faith. I could offer a thousand illustrations (not the least being the Old and New Testament’s constant command to remember, remember, remember the mighty acts of God) but let me summarize by pointing out that the historical prologue of Israel’s covenant (the reason that Israel should keep the covenant made on Mt. Sinai) is that: “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” AND in the New Testament our man Paul says “if Christ has not been raised from the dead, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins …we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:17-19). These claims of FAITH are also claims of HISTORY. Even the Apostle’s Creed, one of the few things Christendom agrees on, makes the very specific historical claim that “He suffered under Pontius Pilate”—a mid-level Roman provincial governor, who ruled the equally obscure province of Judah from 26-36 CE. That’s our creed. So, yes, historicity is important to biblical faith.

Last vocabulary term, “Historiography.” This has to do with the study of history-writing, and determining what aspects of a record are historical by critically engaging the credibility of the sources and authors of that record.

So that’s our vocabulary: History, Historicity, and Historiography. Next question … “What did history-writing look like in the ancient world?” Stay tuned for part two coming soon!