History as Art

(With Implications for Biblical Studies: Some thoughts provoked by reflecting on Paul Ricoeur's Narrative Philosophy)

Modern historiography is presented as a purely rational, descriptive, science. Historians who correctly use the methods and tools will produce an accurate view of history that is capable of consensus throughout the profession. The goal in writing history is not creativity or novelty but accuracy and as exact a representation or reproduction of what actually happened as is reasonably possible. This view of history writing belongs in the pantheon of twentieth century mythology.

History writing is in fact an art form that is creative of understanding and interpretation. Far from simply "telling what happened" we are developing stories that enable ust ot define ourselves out of the raw material of the past. History is the canvas on which we prepare our self-portraits. History is created as we write, not simply revealed as we research.

The historian uses more of the tools of the artist than of the photographer. To reproduce an exact likeness of the past would require something that is technically impossible. It is not possible to reiterate everything that happened in a given era or period of time and to show the exact relationship of every event to every other and to assess every consequence of these interrelated events. If it were possible to achieve this, in fact, nothing would have been achieved other than a meaningless flashback. Instead, the historian takes up the tools of the artist. He compartmentalizes (sections off a piece of landscape or period of time), he enhances (paints large those things that seem most significant), he diminishes (fades out or eliminates vast amounts of material that don't contribute to the meaning), she shades (gives depth to certain things), groups isolated events together to create patterns, names events to give meaning and interpretation, colours to show continuity or discontinuity. Paul Ricouer speaks of plot as the soul of narrative which invents an ordered and intelligible whole out of a diversity of incidents and actions. History can never be a simple chronology of "facts." This is because history involves not only chronology but simultanaety (a huge number of disparate events occuring at the same time), and space (events occuring in different locations). It is the creation of the plots that brings history into existence.

Modern historiography may charge the Old Testament writing with terribly misrepresenting the facts. To read the Old Testament one would think that the nation of Israel was the central figure in the ancient near Eastern world when in fact it was only a bit player dwarfed by great and powerful nation states. Israel's history therefore is misleading and inaccurate if not self-centered. So much for the credibility of the Bible. Once this conclusion is reached the Bible can be relegated to a source for pithy sayings or insights helpful in our pursuit of a meaningful spirituality.

Not so fast! The same artistic tools that modern historians employ in order to create our history are being employed by the Biblical writers. For now we can leave aside the issue of Revelation since we are concerned about the human contribution and process in all of this. When the Biblical writers begin to paint on the canvas of history they discovered that some things that seemed so big at the time simply fade into the background and some things that seemed of little consequence are central to the plot. God, who was largely irrelevant to the great nations that overshadowed Israel, begins to emerge from the canvas of history as the painting progresses. The question is not one of whose history is most scientific and accurate but who has best grasped the plot and so written the most meaningful story.

Modern history creates plot all the time. Think of how we take the events that we have some record of and shape them into a statement of meaning or interpretation that ultimately defines who we are. How justified are we in giving names like "the Dark Ages," "the Rennaisance," "the French Revolution," etc. ? Are these the only possible names that could be applied to these periods? Are they even the best names that could be applied? What happens to history when we take what is a continuous flow of events occuring all over the world both simultaneously and chronologically and divide it up into clearly defined times and named events? Are we not involved in creating plot and interpretation?