Story or History?

Thanks, Phil, for sharing Paul Tripp's description of the Bible as a story with God's annotated notes.  I think that is a good way of putting it.  But I have started to use 'story" less and have been using the term "history" instead.  I know that "story" is effective in highlighting the integrated narrative of the Bible.  But I worry that post-moderns may be comfortable with story without being comfortable with the Bible as history.  It is a great story, but it also has really happened in such a way as to authoritatively define human experience.  Now, of course, this is something covered in God's annotated notes: the strength of Paul's expression is that it adds in the didactic and dogmatic element.  But I just worry that the current vogue of always highlighting the Bible "story" we may be playing into postmodern hands. 

What do you think?  How about the Bible as a history with annotated notes from God.