Skip to content

Course 16 · Lesson 1.4

Where history stops and theology begins

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 16 outline

Module 1: How Historians Reason

  1. Sources and evidence: primary, secondary, early and late
  2. Criteria of authenticity and their limits
  3. What historical probability means
  4. Where history stops and theology begins

Module 2: Jesus in the Ancient World

  1. The three quests for the historical Jesus
  2. Josephus and the Jewish sources
  3. Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius on the Christians
  4. What outside sources can and cannot prove

Module 3: The Gospels as Historical Sources

  1. Dating the Gospels
  2. Authorship, anonymity and church tradition
  3. The Synoptic problem and John
  4. Eyewitness testimony, memory and reliability
  5. The Gospels as ancient biography

Module 4: The Death of Jesus

  1. How the Romans practiced crucifixion
  2. The evidence that Jesus died on a cross
  3. Burial and the empty tomb accounts

Module 5: The Earliest Testimony

  1. What the first Christians actually claimed
  2. Paul and the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15
  3. The appearance accounts in the Gospels and Acts
  4. Jewish and Greco-Roman expectations about resurrection

Module 6: Martyrdom and Its Limits

  1. Early persecution and the martyrdom traditions
  2. Late legends and early evidence about the apostles
  3. What martyrdom shows about sincerity and what it does not show about truth

Module 7: Alternative Explanations

  1. Hallucination and visionary experience
  2. Legend and the development of belief
  3. Conspiracy, the swoon theory and the wrong tomb
  4. Comparing explanations by explanatory power

Module 8: Building and Testing a Case

  1. Assembling the evidence into a case
  2. Background beliefs and the question of miracles
  3. Stating the limits of the case honestly

All courses

Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 1.4

What you will learn

  • Distinguish a historical conclusion from a theological conclusion with examples.
  • Explain why a historical argument for the resurrection cannot by itself establish the Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
  • Describe how Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions relate faith to historical argument.
  • State what kind of claim each later lesson in the course is making.

The big idea

A historical conclusion says what probably happened, using evidence open to any inquirer. A theological conclusion says what an event means and what it shows about God, and it rests on faith, revelation and the life of the church as well as on evidence. History may support a claim that Jesus was crucified and that his followers sincerely believed he appeared to them alive. Whether this means that Jesus is the risen Lord, God the Son, is a further step. Christians disagree about how much history can contribute to that step.

Key terms

Historical conclusion
A judgment about what happened in the past, reached by weighing sources and open in principle to anyone who studies the evidence.
Theological conclusion
A claim about God and the meaning of events for faith, such as that Christ’s death atones for sin.
Methodological naturalism
The working rule of much academic history that explanations should refer only to natural causes. It is a method, and some scholars say it is not a statement that nothing else exists.
Apologetics
Reasoned defense of the Christian faith. The word comes from a Greek word for a defense in court.
Revelation
In Christian teaching, God making himself and his purposes known, especially in Christ and in Scripture.
Fideism
The view that faith does not need, or should not rely on, rational or historical support.

Background

The resurrection is a good example of a claim with two sides. Christians do not mean only that a man’s body was revived. They mean that God raised Jesus to a new, glorified life, that Jesus is Lord, and that death has been defeated. The first part concerns an event that happened, or did not, in the world. The second part concerns the meaning of that event, and it can be accepted only by someone who already holds certain beliefs about God.

Keeping the two apart does not weaken either. It makes each easier to discuss honestly. A historian can ask what happened after the crucifixion without first deciding what it means. A theologian can discuss the meaning of the resurrection without pretending that this meaning is something archaeology could confirm.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: What history can say

History can address questions such as these. Did Jesus exist? Was he crucified under Pontius Pilate? Did his followers claim to have seen him alive afterward? Did they stake their lives on this claim? What were the earliest forms of the claim? What best explains the rise of the movement? These questions have answers, or at least better and worse answers, that do not depend on faith.

History is less well placed to say whether God exists, whether God acted in a particular event, or what that event signifies for human salvation. Those are questions of philosophy and theology.

Step 2: What theology adds

Christian theology adds interpretations. The resurrection is understood as vindication of Jesus, as the beginning of the new creation, as the foundation of the church’s worship and as the pledge of the resurrection of the dead. Paul writes that if Christ has not been raised, “your faith is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:17), which shows that early Christians tied their faith closely to an event. At the same time, the meaning Paul draws from it is drawn by faith.

Theology also uses sources besides history: Scripture received as inspired, the creeds, the liturgy and the experience of the church. A Christian may find these convincing even if the historical argument is held to be inconclusive.

Step 3: The problem of naturalism

Many academic historians work under methodological naturalism: they look for natural explanations and set aside appeals to divine action as outside the field. Some believers accept this rule for professional work and still hold that miracles occur. Others argue that the rule quietly decides the question in advance, since if a miracle is excluded as an explanation, no evidence could ever support it.

Both views have weight. The first protects history from being a tool of any religion. The second points out that a method which cannot even consider an event may not be neutral. Module 8 returns to the matter.

Step 4: How the traditions relate faith and evidence

Catholic teaching holds that reason can establish that the Christian faith is credible, and that miracles are signs that support faith, while the act of faith is a gift of grace and goes beyond what argument proves. Orthodox tradition emphasizes knowing Christ in worship and in the life of the church, and is generally less interested in proofs. Many Protestants of the evidential tradition value historical argument, while others hold that the Spirit’s testimony, not argument, grounds faith.

So the line between the two is not drawn in the same place by every tradition. This course does not impose one.

Step 5: What this course will claim

The aim of the course is modest and clear. It asks what history can say about Jesus, the Gospels and the origin of the resurrection belief, weighs the strongest objections, and states where the evidence stops. A student may conclude that the historical case is strong, or weak, or mixed. Whatever the conclusion, it should be called a historical judgment and held with the degree of confidence the evidence warrants. Whether to place faith in Christ is a further question that no argument settles for another person.

  1. Is this claim about what happened, or about what it means?
  2. What kind of evidence could support or weaken it?
  3. Does the argument quietly assume a theological conclusion at the start?
  4. Does it quietly assume that miracles are impossible?
  5. Would a person of a different faith or no faith recognize this as a fair argument?
  6. What part of my own view rests on faith, and what part on evidence?

Examples

The crucifixion

That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate is a historical claim, supported by Christian and non-Christian sources. That his death was an atoning sacrifice for sin is a theological claim. The first can be assessed by any historian. The second depends on beliefs about God and sin.

Visions of the risen Jesus

A historian can ask whether the first disciples sincerely reported seeing Jesus alive. Whether those experiences were caused by God, or by grief, is where historical and philosophical questions meet, and where background beliefs enter.

A believing historian

A Christian historian may write a careful study of the empty tomb accounts without referring to her own faith, and then preach on Easter morning. The two activities use different kinds of reasons, and honest scholars try to be clear about which is which.

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the resurrection is a real event that happened, and also the central mystery of faith. It holds that faith is reasonable and that miracles are signs, while insisting that faith is a gift and exceeds what historical evidence can establish.

Orthodox

Orthodox Christians celebrate the resurrection as the center of the church’s life. Orthodox theology is more likely to speak of knowing Christ through participation in worship and the sacraments than of proving the resurrection by argument, though Orthodox scholars also take part in historical study.

Protestant evidentialists

Many Protestants, especially in the evangelical and Reformed traditions, hold that the resurrection is a public event open to historical investigation and that the evidence for it is strong. They treat apologetics as an act of service to those who doubt.

Protestants who stress faith over proof

Others, influenced by Luther, Calvin or Kierkegaard, hold that faith is not the conclusion of an argument and that trying to prove Christ risks reducing faith to a calculation. They regard the Spirit’s work as the foundation.

Secular and skeptical scholars

Many scholars hold that history cannot establish a miracle because historical method rests on the regularities of nature. They accept that the early Christians believed in the resurrection and study why, while holding that the cause lies within history and psychology.

Why it matters

Confusing the two kinds of conclusion causes errors on every side. A believer may think a historical argument has proved doctrine, and be shaken when it is questioned. A skeptic may think that the weakness of a historical argument has refuted the faith. Keeping the categories separate lets a student examine the evidence calmly and understand what is and is not at stake.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: If history cannot prove the resurrection, the faith is groundless.

Correction: Christians have never rested faith on historical argument alone. They appeal to Scripture, the church’s witness and the experience of worship as well, and traditions differ about how much weight each carries.

Misunderstanding: If the historical evidence is strong, nobody can reasonably refuse to believe.

Correction: A historical judgment is not faith. Strong evidence for an event still leaves open what it means, and thoughtful people differ over background beliefs.

Misunderstanding: Historians are required to reject miracles.

Correction: Some adopt methodological naturalism as a working rule. Others consider the evidence for specific miracle claims on its merits. This is an active debate.

Misunderstanding: Studying the evidence critically is disloyal to the church.

Correction: The church fathers and many later theologians used reason and evidence in defense of the faith. Honest examination of evidence is a long Christian practice.

Knowledge check

Give one example of a historical conclusion and one of a theological conclusion about Jesus.

A historical conclusion is that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, which historians assess by sources and open to any inquirer. A theological conclusion is that his death atones for the sins of the world, which depends on beliefs about God and cannot be settled by evidence alone.

What is methodological naturalism, and why is it debated?

It is the working rule that historians should seek natural explanations. Supporters say it keeps history neutral and testable. Critics say it can exclude a miracle in advance, so that no evidence could count for it. Believers and nonbelievers appear on both sides of the debate.

How do traditions differ in the weight they give to historical argument?

Evidential Protestants and many Catholic apologists use historical argument actively. Orthodox Christians stress worship and participation more than proof. Some Protestants say faith is a gift of the Spirit and not the result of argument. Each tradition still affirms that Christ rose.

What will this course try to establish?

It will weigh what history can say about Jesus, the Gospels and the origin of belief in the resurrection, present objections fairly, and state the limits. It does not claim to prove the Christian faith, which involves further commitments beyond what any historical argument settles.

Think it through

  1. Which of your beliefs about Jesus are historical and which are theological?
  2. Do you expect history to confirm your faith or to challenge it? Why?
  3. What would it mean to hold a historical conclusion loosely and a theological commitment firmly?
  4. How would you explain this distinction to a friend of another faith?

Independent assignment

Sorting claims

In your own notebook, write a list of ten statements about Jesus taken from the Nicene Creed and the Gospels. Sort them into historical, theological and mixed claims, and explain one placement you found hard. Write 300 to 500 words in all. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study