His point was to cover his ass. Basically, “It’s that way because they did it that way back then. Quit asking questions.”
Look at the Iliad and the Odyssey as more proof of that. History was for a purpose, not to have some objective recitation of facts.
Or he was saying - “Its good to ask these questions and to keep in mind how we got where we are with it”.
When were the Iliad and the Odyssey taught as history?
The minister was generally right that pre-modern people had different approaches than we do (and they certainly were not a monolith either), even if he couldn’t explain the idea with more nuance at the time. I would imagine that he dealt with this extensively in seminary.
An excellent scholarly work that looks into how experiences are deemed ‘religious’ (like your socks example 
) is Ann Taves’ “Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things.”
Cite? (that people thousands of years ago looked at history the same way we do)
Sorry, but that’s not the way it works. If the minister says that history was recorded differently back then, it’s up to him to show that it’s so.
cite that he’s just “covering his ass” or state that is your opinion as you put words in his mouth.
The other side of this coin when you disagree with a point is to show WHY you disagree with it, not just to demand the others prove it.
IOW - you can show, thru cites, that people 1000 years ago treated history in writings with as much (dis)respect as we do today.
Augustine’s commentary on Genesisis a common example of Biblical exegetes treating ‘historical’ scripture as communicating larger messages than the literal. Talmudic literature is also a valuable resource.
Even such recent figures as John Calvin advanced interpretations of scripture that explored not just ‘what’ scripture means, but ‘how’ it means. Passages in scripture are taken into account not just for what they say, but the reactions that they inspire.
Are you seriously contending they were not? Because that would be pretty much saying the exact same thing you are arguing against. You’re saying the Bible must be history, and any explanation that it wasn’t treated as such is just covering someone’s ass.
Unlike other people in this thread, you were deliberately and directly impugning the motives of the religious. Your post is an anti-religious snipe.