Should We Be Reading the Bible with a Literary Model or Reportage Model?

I have numerous examples that a literary model follows the evidence of Scripture whereas a more reportage model, one that stems from what I would say is a modern view of what Scripture should look like if it is true, held by both fundamentalists and liberals alike, leads to either a blind eye to what the text is doing or a rejection of the text as being false.

One only has to look at an example found in the Old Testament Synoptics. In 1 Chronicles 17:14, the author draws from 2 Samuel 7:16 in order to use God's speech to David through the prophet Nathan to say something about the temple instead of the original statement which was about the Davidic Dynasty. The two texts are as follows.

ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך עד עולם לפניך כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם

"But I will establish your house and your kingdom forever before you, your throne will be established forever." (2 Sam 7:16)

והעמדתיהו בביתי ובמלכותי עד העולם וכסאו יהיה נכון עד עולם

"But I will cause him to stand over My house and over My kingdom forever, and his throne will be established forever. 

Now, some of these are just word variation and an updating of grammar from older to later Hebrew. However, notice the change of the pronouns. This is not a different conversation had at a different time. It is the same conversation with this variation added by the author of Chronicles. It is added for the purpose of uniting God's kingdom, as represented by His temple, with David's kingdom, represented here still by keeping the pronoun on the word "throne," as it also appears in 2 Samuel 7:16.

Now, if we were to read the Bible on the reportage model, we would have to conclude that someone is in error, as many liberals do, or try and argue that these are two different conversations, as some fundamentalists do. Neither of these is acceptable. The Chronicler is not mistaken. He either has the text of 2 Samuel in front of him or has a photographic memory. This is made clear by the detailed accuracy to the text when he uses it without variation. Hence, he means to change the pronouns from "your," referring to David, to "My," referring to God. This is consistent with a literary reading of the Bible. The Chronicler and the Deuteronomic Historian have two different purposes in communicating what they do. Hence, there is purposeful variation, not error, because good literature that is derivative of an established literature adapts that literature to a further need of its audience, and therefore, communicates a different message to meet that need. 

The people of God needed to know if God would still be with them as a people, which is what the temple represented. The promise given to David provides the opportunity to bring out the fact that God's original promise to perpetuate the rule of David was, in fact, also a promise that God's presence would remain with His people through David's rule forever. 

If one demands that the literature take a photograph of the conversation in words then he is left with wondering whether the Bible is accurate. However, if one understands that God speaks through literary devices just as well as through a more exacting report, then the artistry of the Scripture comes alive, and the message is highlighted by the differences.

Hence, something like the Sermon of the Mount/Plain in Matthew and Luke do not have to match one another in their details, precisely, because one has a particular message communicated by those details and the other has a different, yet compatible, message it wants to communicate through the recasting of details.  

One can also see from above that not all of the details are changed. Most are kept in the larger narrative. It is only a detail here or there that is altered to highlight or emphasize the particular direction the author wants to take the message of the narrative. Likewise, a literary reading does not mean that one will not find tons of details that accord with the historical verification of other texts and archaeological data. Often it is in the real details that are selected by an author that need little or not change at all. It is just that there are quite a few cases when an author takes literary license to alter a detail in some way in order to communicate the intended message (as pretty much all derivative literature does).

Either way, a reportage model is untenable here.