When reading history, any good teacher would recommend that their students employ the discipline of multiperspectivity.[1]

That’s because there are almost always two or more perspectives on past events. A hero in one person’s story might be the villain in another person’s story. An event might have occurred because of a particular catalyst in one eye witness’s opinion, but a different witness may have a completely different idea about the same unfolding. History is complicated, and interpreting history even more so.

As an example, consider the person of Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln is one of the United State’s most cherished Presidents. Rightly so. He was the President who oversaw the end of our Civil War. He also signed the Emancipation Proclamation which declared African American slaves as freed within the Confederate States.

Yet, this perspective of Lincoln is a bit flattened. Here are Lincoln’s words in his first debate against Stephen Douglas for a seat on the Senate in 1858:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists…I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.”[2]

Here’s more from a debate one month later:

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not or ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people…there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races to live together on terms of social and political equality.”[3]

And few years later, after winning the presidency, Lincoln stated this in his inauguration address:

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that…their peace and personal security are to be endangered…[yet], I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”[4]

What changed? Lincoln saw the freeing of slaves in the south as paramount in keeping the Union together in the midst of the Civil War. It was a pragmatic, politically motivated move. As Lincoln states:

“My paramount object in this struggle is the save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”[5]

Lincoln may very well have come to understand the freeing of southern slaves as a good, moral move. However, it seems like his desire to do so, at least originally, was entirely born from political gain. And when we bring this perspective of Lincoln into view, we are able to gain a more balanced, sober portrait of the man. Lincoln isn’t the mythologized hero that he’s often portrayed as. He was a man, and his history is complicated.

As another example, and really, the point of this blog post, consider how the Old Testament contains a large number of repeated, and sometimes even competing, historical narratives.  

Repeated Stories in the Old Testament  

1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings tell of the rise and fall of the monarchy in ancient Israel. They begin with Samuel and King Saul and end with the people of God in exile. 1-2 Chronicles also tells this same story, albeit a bit more condensed.

What’s interesting is that 1-2 Chronicles cleans up a bit of the mess that these earlier historical accounts present. There is no story about David’s rape of Bathsheba in the Chronicles account. Saul’s daughter doesn’t see David dance naked in the Chronicles account either. And it isn’t God who incites David to take his military census as it says in 2 Samuel 24:1 but Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1).

2 Kings also portrays King Manasseh in a very different light than 2 Chronicles does.

In 2 Kings 21, we are told that King Manasseh reigned over Judah for 55 years. And during his reign, he did much evil in the sight of the LORD. He rebuilt the cultic worship “high places” that Hezekiah had destroyed and created additional alters to Ba’al and Asherah (2 Kings 21:3). He introduced pagan worship inside of the Temple itself (2 Kings 21:4-5), and even sacrificed his own son in the fire in worship of foreign gods (2 Kings 21:6). The book of 2 Kings tells us that, under Manasseh, the people of Israel “did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites (2 Kings 21:9)” and that “Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end (2 Kings 21:16a).” 2 Kings looks upon Manasseh as a wholly unfavorable character.

That is why 2 Chronicles depiction of Manasseh is so fascinating. The Chronicler doesn’t shy away from painting the former king of Judah as wicked. Yet, he includes details that 2 Kings does not. In 2 Chronicles, Manasseh is captured by the Assyrians, but the LORD rescues the king. This causes Manasseh to have a change of heart. He tears down the alters to foreign gods and removes all pollution from the Temple (2 Chronicles 33:15). He even entreated the people of Judah to resume their worship of the LORD (2 Chronicles 33:16).

King Josiah is another character that’s is depicted in a strikingly different way depending on the source. In 2 Kings 22-23, King Josiah is shown to be one of the best kings Judah ever had. He rediscovered the Torah in the Temple of the LORD and immediately began making sweeping reforms across his kingdom (2 Kings 22:8-13). He renewed the covenant with the LORD (2 Kings 23:2-3), tore down alters to foreign gods (2 Kings 22:6-14), celebrated Passover (2 Kings 22:21), and got rid of the mediums and spiritists in all of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings 22:24). As it states, “neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did – with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with the Law of Moses (2 Kings 22:25).”

Yet, 2 Chronicles isn’t so convinced that this portrait of Josiah is the only one. The Chronicler does mention Josiah’s rediscovery of God’s Law and the sweeping reforms he enacted, but this is not where Josiah’s story ends. 2 Chronicles 34 presents a lot more detail surrounding Josiah’s death at the hands of Pharoah Necho. Egypt, allied with the dwindling Assyrian nation, was marching against the new world superpower: Babylon. They had joined forces at Carchemish to keep Babylon at bay. For an unexplained reason, King Josiah also chose to march against Egypt too, implicitly siding Judah with the Babylonians. Josiah was warned not to do this, “…stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you” (2 Chronicles 35:21), but Josiah doesn’t listen. Consequently, Josiah was shot and killed by a group of archers.  

Biblical History is Complicated

There are many, many more examples of repeated biblical narratives than the few I’ve highlighted here. The point has been made, nonetheless.

Biblical history is complicated.

Different biblical authors give us multiple perspectives on the same events and characters, and they often emphasize the story in different ways. This does not make one story less-inspired than another. It instead should help us remember to not flatten, or mythologize, the heroes of the Bible.

It should also serve as a warning. We shouldn’t just remember the history we hoped we had but instead the history that we’ve actually had. We should not merely grasp onto idealized versions of the past (whether personal, familiar, national, or biblical) simply because they make us feel good. We should be willing to dive deep into perspectives we haven’t yet heard so that we might have a wider, more sober grasp of history as it actually happened, no matter how painful such probing may prove.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiperspectivity

[2] Abraham Lincoln – First Lincoln-Douglas Debate – August 21, 1858 in Ottawa, IL.

[3] Abraham Lincoln – Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate – September 18, 1858 in Ottawa, IL.

[4] Abraham Lincoln – First Inaugural Address – March 4 1861 in Washington D.C.

[5] Abraham Lincoln, “Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858 to 1864: Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday August 22, 1862 (Clipping from Aug. 23 1862 Daily National Intelligencer, Washington D.C.)” Library of Congress (website), www.loc.gov/item/mal4233400/.