Not much, some people would say.  When I hear that remark, I just usually consider the source and forget about the remark.  You see, I know better.  Who was it years ago who said that whoever fails to learn the lessons of history is fated or destined to repeat them? 

I teach a class in either Old Testament or New Testament for Mississippi College three times during a school year.  Tonight I begin the next class in Old Testament survey.  Over the years I have come to realize that the Old Testament intimidates people because of their lack of familiarity with the history and the relationships of many of the persons who appear in this history.  So one of the study helps I encourage students to create for themselves is a "time line."  That time line can begin with creation if you choose but certainly with Abraham and extend to the post exilic period when the Persians and Greeks were ruling the world.  You can see how the time frame fits everythiing into its schemes.  You can see what goes before or after what else.  You can put names with dates and then begin to see how the stories from the Old Testament fit into the larger scheme of things.  When you begin to see this, then you begin to see how God has moved in the lives of His people over the years.  The study of Old Testament makes sense, and you find yourself learning more from it than you ever dreamed possible.

That having been said, I need to emphasize the importance of accuracy in history.  As new evidence is discovered, old stories and old accounts need to be revisited and checked over.  Always the conclusions and stories must be taken from the evidence and not vice versa.  History never begins with a conclusion or a story and then seeks the evidence to substantiate it.  That is a misuse of history.  Furthermore, one should never make claims which cannot be supported by the evidence available.  For example, in the present day popularity of DNA testing, we need to remember that no one did DNA testing centuries ago--even a few years ago--to get a baseline against which to compare other DNA evidence.  No competent historian would ever agree that DNA evidence proves that anyone has found the tomb of someone who died two thousand years ago.  Why not?  You do not have DNA evidence conclusive from that era.  No one knew about DNA back then.  To claim that sort of evidence for that era is to be terribly anachronistic, and that is a serious error in historical methodology.

I'm sorry, but historians can only work with the evidence available and then they must be careful not to claim too much for the evidence at hand.  In the same way, we must simply let the Biblical texts speak for themselves and not make them say more than they do or make them say what we wish them to say.  When we let the Lord speak through His word, then we discover what He would have us be and do.  Then history takes His direction and becomes more of His Story.