Historical Methods

Background

It is generally recognized that the methods of science are more reliable and the results are more valid than that of historical methods. The modern scientific method has been around longer than modern historical methods. In addition, the methods of science are based on observation and experimentation, both of which are more difficult for the historian. However, much of our knowledge has been greatly enriched by historians.

- - - - - - - -

It is fairly well-established that the majority of biblical historians are believers in the historical Jesus. Vridar, in this blog post, explains the difference between non-biblical and biblical historical methodologies. Following are some excerpts:

Biblical historians often hold that miracles are reasonable historical evidence and are scientific.

Biblical historians often use the term "primary sources" when referring to the gospels or epistles of Paul. Non-biblical historians refer to such sources as "secondary sources" because they are not contemporary with Jesus or written by eyewitnesses. Virtually all written sources regarding Jesus are "secondary sources".

To most non-biblical historians, "primary sources" refers to evidence physically situated in the time and place under investigation.

In nearly every case, when non-biblical historians use the terms "evidence" and "source", they are referring to "primary" sources, "primary" documents and "primary" evidence. When they speak of the value of "secondary" sources they always specify strict conditions by which to judge their value, and these conditions relate at some point to primary evidence.

Non-biblical historians work with the primary evidence or sources that make up the factual data that needs to be pieced together into some explanatory narrative. Biblical historians are still struggling to find some facts to begin with. Did Jesus do anything at the temple or not? Was he a teacher or a healer or neither or both? Was he a rabbi or a rebel? There are no facts to work with.

Regarding "oral tradition", a noted non-biblical historian states that an event recorded a mere 20 years after the supposed event and with a partisan intent is untrustworthy and dismissible.

There are cases where all we have is secondary evidence and which nonetheless do give us good reasons for accepting the historicity of certain events and people, but such cases are rare and meet conditions not met by the gospels (e.g. genuinely independent corroboration, known provenance and authorship, positive text critical evaluation).

In another post, Vridar sums up the type of evidence for the historical Jesus:

"Historians have no primary evidence for Jesus. They only have secondary evidence. Worse, the secondary evidence for the details of Jesus’ life is anonymous and unprovenanced. We can only make educated guesses about when and where it was written, and why and for whom. Worst of all, we have no reliable external or independent controls or corroboration that any of its narrative is indeed historical."

This blogger leaves it to the reader to decide the value of the evidence for the historical Jesus.