This presumes that our attitude toward the Bible should always be one of “getting beyond the text” to the truth that the text teaches or asserts. I think Vanhoozer is proposing (or at least engaging with) different approaches to getting meaning out of the text altogether, so it makes comparisons with the modern paradigm difficult. People like John Z and Vanhoozer are operating under completely different assumptions about how language works, where meaning resides, what texts do to readers and what readers do with texts.
The whole concept of Austin’s speech act theory that Vanhoozer appropriates proposes that language does much more than describe reality (in propositions or assertions that have a truth value), and by their nature speech acts, or performatives, either cannot be assigned a truth value or are not assertions.
But, yes, where the Bible describes reality, it describes reality truthfully. But as I understand it, the argument is that the main point of theodrama is not to provide us with a set of true propositions from which we can construct a systematic theology. The point is to shape ongoing reality and the participants in it toward its ordained eschatological end. And it does that through providing the story of ultimate meaning and inviting participation in that story. At least that’s how I understand it; reading Vanhoozer is not exactly relaxing and no cookies are left on the lower shelves.