Program / Course 26: Comprehensive Assessment / Lesson 4.3
What you will learn
- List the sources for a historical claim and classify them as primary or secondary.
- Ask of each source: who wrote it, when, for whom and why.
- Separate scholarly consensus, active debate and personal interpretation.
- Write an assessment that states what the evidence supports and where it falls short.
The big idea
Historical claims are assessed by their sources. For each source, ask who wrote it, how close the writer was to the events, when it was written, for what purpose, and whether it can be checked against others. A good assessment then sorts what historians broadly agree on from what is actively debated and from what is a matter of personal interpretation. This is a private self-assessment, and the student alone decides how well the evidence supports a claim.
Key terms
- Primary source
- A source from the time of the events, such as a letter, inscription or manuscript.
- Secondary source
- A later work that interprets the primary sources, such as a scholarly book.
- Corroboration
- Support for a claim from independent sources.
- Bias
- A slant in a source due to the writer’s aims, loyalties or setting. All sources have some. The task is to account for it.
- Consensus
- A conclusion held by most scholars in the field, across different beliefs.
- Textual criticism
- The study of manuscripts to work out the most likely original wording of a text.
Background
The plan asks the student to choose two central claims, for example the resurrection of Jesus or the reliability of the Gospels, to list the main sources, and to state what is consensus, what is debated and what is personal interpretation. The method is the one historians use for any ancient subject, and its main virtue is that it can be applied equally to claims the student likes and those the student doubts.
Ancient evidence has limits. Few writings survive, most from members of the educated elite, and nearly all were copied by hand for centuries. For the New Testament, thousands of Greek manuscripts survive, many much closer in time to the originals than is usual for ancient works, though the earliest complete copies come from the fourth century and the wording differs in many small places. Scholars of textual criticism, such as Bruce Metzger, have described these differences, and the large majority do not affect any major teaching.
Bias must be handled with care. A Christian writer has reasons to present Jesus favorably. A hostile writer has reasons to present him unfavorably. This does not make either useless, but it means that each should be read for what it can tell and for what it intends. Historians also separate what a source says from what the source’s author could have known, and they weigh the fact that some claims are supported by sources from opposed sides.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Name the claim and its parts
State the claim narrowly. For example: Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Break a larger claim, such as the resurrection, into parts that can be assessed separately: the death, the burial, the report of an empty tomb, the appearances, the early belief of the disciples.
Step 2: List and classify the sources
For each part, list the sources: the New Testament writings, including the letters of Paul, which are among the earliest; the other early Christian writings; and non-Christian writers such as Tacitus and Josephus. Mark each as primary or secondary and record the date, as accurately as you can with c. where needed.
Step 3: Ask the questions of each source
Who wrote it? How near was the writer to the events? When? For whom? What aim did the writer have? Is there an independent source that agrees? Is there one that disagrees? Where scholars debate the answer, say so and name the positions.
Step 4: Sort the conclusions
Divide your findings into three lists. Consensus: claims that most historians accept whatever their beliefs. Debate: claims on which serious scholars differ. Interpretation: claims about meaning or about what the events show, which depend on a person’s wider beliefs, including whether miracles can occur. Keep the lists honest.
Step 5: Write the assessment
Write a short assessment of about 250 words for each claim. State what the evidence supports, what remains uncertain, and what a skeptic and a believer would each say. Avoid claiming more than the evidence allows.
- How close in time and place is each source to the events?
- What was each writer trying to do?
- Which claims are supported by sources from opposed sides?
- What do textual critics say about the reliability of the manuscripts?
- Which of my conclusions depend on a prior view of whether miracles occur?
- What would change my assessment?
Examples
A sort of conclusions
The crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate is widely accepted by historians, including nonbelievers, and is mentioned by Tacitus as well as by Christian writers. The meaning of the event is a matter of interpretation. (A common scholarly statement, to be verified against sources.)
A source question
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (15:3 to 8) reports an early tradition about the death, burial, resurrection and appearances of Jesus. Scholars generally date the letter to the 50s of the first century and think the tradition is earlier. The exact date of the tradition is debated. (A summary.)
A bias question
Josephus, a Jewish historian writing in the first century, mentions Jesus in a passage that was probably edited by later Christians. Scholars debate how much of it is original. A student should state this and not rely on the passage without comment. (A summary of a known debate.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that the Gospels are historical in character, that they come from the apostolic tradition and that they present true accounts, while allowing for the literary shaping of the material by the evangelists, as stated in Dei Verbum.
Orthodox
Orthodox teaching receives the Gospels as part of the church’s tradition and does not usually frame their reliability as a question to be settled by external evidence. Orthodox scholars also take part in critical study.
Protestant
Protestants vary. Evangelical scholars such as Bauckham and Bruce defend the reliability of the Gospels on historical grounds, while others use critical methods more freely and hold the Gospels to be theological as well as historical.
Secular scholarly
Many secular historians accept the crucifixion and the fact that the earliest followers claimed to see Jesus alive, and explain these by natural means. Some, such as Bart Ehrman, hold that the Gospels contain legendary development. Others in the field dispute this.
Why it matters
Evidence is the common ground on which believers and nonbelievers can talk. A student who has learned to ask who wrote a source, when and why will read all historical claims more carefully, and will speak with more credibility about what can and cannot be shown.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: A source written by a believer is worthless as history.
Correction: Bias must be considered, but it does not make a source useless. Historians read many ancient sources written by partisans.
Misunderstanding: Historians can prove or disprove a miracle.
Correction: History can assess sources and the ordinary probabilities. Whether a miracle occurred also depends on views about what is possible, which history alone does not settle.
Misunderstanding: There are no differences among the New Testament manuscripts.
Correction: There are many differences, mostly small. Textual critics work to establish the most likely wording, and the large majority of variants affect no major teaching.
Knowledge check
What questions should be asked of every historical source?
Who wrote it, how close the writer was to the events, when it was written, for whom and for what purpose, whether other independent sources agree or disagree, and what biases or limits it has. These questions apply equally to Christian and non-Christian sources.
How are consensus, debate and interpretation distinguished?
Consensus is what most historians accept regardless of belief. Debate covers questions on which serious scholars differ. Interpretation covers claims about meaning or significance that depend on wider beliefs, such as whether miracles occur. A good assessment keeps the three apart and does not label a debated claim as settled.
Why is bias not a reason to dismiss a source?
Because almost all ancient sources were written by people with aims and loyalties. Historians account for bias, read the source for what it can show, and compare it with others. Dismissing every partisan source would leave little evidence for most ancient history.
How reliable are the New Testament manuscripts?
Thousands of Greek manuscripts survive, with earlier support than for most ancient works. They differ in many small details, which textual critics study to find the most likely original wording. Most variants are minor, and the major teachings do not depend on a disputed reading.
Think it through
- Which of your conclusions depends most on what you already believe?
- How would you describe the evidence to a skeptical friend, and to a devout one?
- What sort of evidence would you find convincing on the other side?
- Which source in the list do you trust most, and why?
Independent assignment
A source assessment
In your own notebook, write about 400 words. Choose one claim, list at least five sources, classify them, answer who, when, for whom and why for each, and sort your conclusions into consensus, debate and interpretation. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosophy of History On how historical knowledge works.
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? A defense of the reliability of the New Testament, to read critically.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses An argument about eyewitness testimony in the Gospels.
- Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration On the manuscripts and textual criticism.
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God A major scholarly case, to read alongside critics.
- Luke 1:3 Luke states that he investigated the events before writing.