These questions about objectivity are crucial to life. How much faith do you put into history books? How much faith should you put into history books? Much more importantly, how much faith do you put into Biblical history? Whether you view particular historical events as facts or fiction will change your life. If you did not believe in the emancipation proclamation, that would seriously affect the way that you treated African Americans. If you did not believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead to save you from your sins, that would leave your life sadly unchanged.
The two questions, "Can History Be Objective" and "Is Biblical History Objective" require two separate answers. I will differentiate between regular history and Biblical history by using different terms. Regular history will refer to everything recorded from the beginning of time, besides what has been written in the Bible. Biblical history will refer to all of the historical facts listed in the Bible.
Webster's dictionary defines the term objective like this: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. The opposite of objective is subjective. Objective history does not change. It cannot change. Subjective history is unique to the individual and cannot always be correct.
Beginning with regular history, there are five kinds that need to be discussed. The major types of history that we will analyze are wars, inventions, governmental (statehood, new governments, etc.), archaeological and evolutionary.
The topic of wars could be the most subjective and least objective type of history. Most people will agree on the date for a war. Wars have been recorded in books and by militaries for hundreds of years. Death tolls have also been noted. But would there be a reason for someone to lie? That is the question we must ask when we consider the objectivity of history. In this case, of course there is. If you had an army and they suffered a terrible defeat, would you care about statistics? Would you count all of the dead bodies if you knew it was only going to loom over your head for the rest of your life and beyond? It is highly unlikely that a losing army would record and publicize their shortcomings. This is one way that regular history can be subjective.
Inventions generally have more objective dates than wars. Most people know when the telephone and the automobile were invented. These breakthroughs were widely known and have made life much easier, as most inventions attempt to do. Who would not want to announce their invention? On this premise, the history of inventions is usually objective. I cannot declare that every invention has been reported correctly and at the correct time of production. In light of this, the term usually objective must be used.
Governmental and statehood history refer to the dates of civilizations and countries. Would there be reason to lie about the year that the United States became a nation? I should think not. Take any country in the world and apply the same question. Unless the particular civilization is wiped out by another, which would change the type of history into war history (and we've discussed the reliability of that already), there would be no logical reason to be subjective. This was a glorious moment for the United States, as it was for Israel and every other nation. Governmental and statehood history are usually objective. Unknown circumstances and human error have given governmental history the label of usually objective. Could there be a recording error in the date the Mayans formed their civilization? Yes, there could. We can not comprehend all of the reasons why mankind has lied or will lie, but we must realize that it is a possibility, if not a probability.
Finally, the topics of archeological and evolutionary history will be discussed, together. Are the ancient cities being excavated the same ones we have read about in Biblical history? Unfortunately, secular scholars have dated ancient ruins at times that are contradictory to Biblical history. Who do you trust? According to Dr. Harvey Hartman, a Biblical scholar, archeologists have been digging in the wrong spots. Why would a secular archeologist want to coincide with the Bible, anyhow? Secular evolutionists have a timetable for the world and it's contents that is unbiblical. They seem to think that if they keep pushing back the date for the beginning of creation, then evolution will be possible. These same people help date rocks and artifacts and they date them incorrectly to further their incorrect belief. It is very unfortunate and an act of the devil that makes people deny God and the truth of creation. So, archeological history has been, can be, and will be subjective as long as the Liar (Satan) is loose on the earth.
The topic of Biblical history is most interesting. Some people deny the existence of God. Others say that we were left on this planet by God and he has cut off communication with us. The average citizen may believe that the Bible is a good book, but not entirely true or inspired by God. For the answers to the question of the objectivity of Biblical history, we will look to the Bible (God's Word). There are many evidences outside of God's Word that help prove its authenticity. However, it will take a degree of faith to believe anything in the past. It takes faith to believe in evolution--more faith, incidentally, than creation. You have faith in the chair you are sitting in or the ground you are standing on. God tells us many things about His Word, in His Word, that proves its authenticity and objectivity.
2 Timothy 3:16, in the King James Version Bible, states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This illustrates how the entire Bible is inspired by God. Although He did not write it by an incomprehensible means, He inspired people to write it. Can people make mistakes? Of course they can. But can God make mistakes?
Psalm 18:30 and 2 Samuel 22:31 both say this, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." Webster's dictionary describes perfect as: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless. The Strong's Concordance reveals this from the Hebrew word for perfect: "8549. tamiym, taw-meem'; from H8552; entire (lit., fig. or mor.); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole. A perfect God cannot make mistakes. Since God inspired the Bible, and God is perfect, then the Bible does not have mistakes. This takes faith to believe. Skeptics and evolutionists will argue. But it takes faith to believe most things. It really takes less faith to believe in a tangible text and a perfect Creator.
As you now know, these are complicated sounding questions with quite simple answers.
There are several types of regular history. Each one has the capacity to be subjective. However, governmental and invention history are more reputable. War, archeological and evolutionary history should be questioned. Ask yourself what the author is trying to convey by writing his or her date for the particular historical event. Also ask where the dates you are studying were located. Where they found scrawled on the wall of a cave? Do they have other supporting evidence by reputable sources? Most people do not have pure motives and intentions. For no other reason, a secular historian could be assuming evolutionary dating for the sake of impunity. Without God, they will not have to be accountable to anybody. And without being held accountable for anything, they can act however they choose without guilt or repentance.
Josh McDowell has said, "If you do not believe in absolute truth outside of yourself and from God, you just advocated every heinous crime ever committed, including the holocaust and apartheid." This will confuse the atheist, in my experience. However, it should not confuse a Christian. We believe that God made truth and the laws in His Word. Why is it wrong to lie? Is it because your parents told you not to lie? No! It is wrong to lie because it is against God's very character. He is truth. Jesus proclaimed to be God in John 10:30. He also said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me." Take another situation for example. Most people will agree that murder is wrong. If you asked this question to ten people, you could easily get ten different reasons why murder is wrong. The only correct reason why murder is evil and wrong is because Jesus or God (used here interchangeably) is life. Life is His to give and to take.
Just as God is the source of absolute truth, Biblical history is objective and correct. Everything else must be tested and questioned until we see God face to face and ask Him about it. Regular history can be beneficial and it is surely not sinful to enjoy studying history. But don't put more faith, love or value in history than in the perfect, true, objective God. History was written and inspired by mankind. If history has every changed, even once, in the slightest way, it has changed more than God. Hebrews 13:8 tells us that, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."
Bibliography
"Form Criticism of the Old Testament," by Gene M. Tucker, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971.
"The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism," Journal of Theological Studies, PJTS, part 2, ISSN: 0022-5185 Vol. 47, October 1996, pgs. 555-560.
"The Holy Bible," King James Version.
"Josh McDowell," Absolute Truth Sermon, El Cajon and Los Angeles, Ca., 1997.
"Long Ago God Spoke: How Christians May Hear the Old Testament Today," Theological Studies, PTHS, ISSN: 0040-5639, Vol. 58, March 1997, pgs. 149-150.
"Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary," Ver. 2.5, Zane Publishing Co., 1994-1996.
"New Perspectives on the Old Testament," by J. Barton Payne, Word Books, Waco, Texas, 1970.
"Strong's Concordance of the Bible," Parsons Technology.
"Studying the Old Testament, From Tradition to Canon," by Anne Marie Ohler, T & T Clark Limited, Scotland, 1985.
