Christianity is based on historical events such as those in the lives of important biblical figures. Without the historical reality of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, Christianity would not exist. The knowability of history is important for both theology and defending Christianity, as the arguments are based on the historicity of the New Testament documents.

2.  Christianity is inseparably tied to historicalChristianity is inseparably tied to historical
events, including the lives of Adam,events, including the lives of Adam,
Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.
 Without the historical reality of Jesus’ life,Without the historical reality of Jesus’ life,
death and resurrection Christianity woulddeath and resurrection Christianity would
cease to exist.cease to exist.
 The knowability of history is important notThe knowability of history is important not
only theology but apologetically, for theonly theology but apologetically, for the
overall argument in defense of Christianity isoverall argument in defense of Christianity is
based on the historicity of the NTbased on the historicity of the NT
documents.documents.

3.  The Unobservability of History: History is all
second hand accounts and cannot be
tested as in “real” science.
 The Fragmentary Nature of Historical
Accounts: We never have the whole
story.
 The Historical Conditioning of the
Historian: Written history says as much
about the historian as it does about
objective history.

4.  Epistemology deal with how one knows,
and the relativists believe that objective
truth is unknowable.
 Historical relativists contend that the very
conditions by which one knows history
are so subjective that one cannot have
an objective knowledge of it.

5.  The historian cannot avoid making value
judgments. Therefore, objectivity is
unattainable. Even the choice and
arrangements of material reflect value
judgments on the part of the one
making them.
 Once the historian admits that he
cannot avoid some value judgments,
then history has lost objectivity.

6.  The Selective Nature of Historical
Methodology: The historian does not
have direct access to the events of the
past, but merely to fragmentary
interpretations of those events contained
in historical documents. The historian
must chose which documents, or parts of
documents to use, and thus objectivity is
hopeless.

7.  The Need to Select and Arrange Historical
Materials: Once the historian takes his
fragmentary documents that he must view
indirectly through the interpretation of the
original source, and once he takes his
selected amount of material form the
available archives and begins to provide
an interpretive structure to it, by the use of
his own language, and within the overall
worldview that he presupposes.

8.  The Need to Structure the Facts of History:
Partial knowledge of the past makes it
necessary for the historian to “fill in’
gaping holes out of is own imagination.
 Further, historians are compelled to tell
not only what happened, but why it
happened.

9.  The Unavoidability of Worldviews: EveryThe Unavoidability of Worldviews: Every
historian interprets the past from thehistorian interprets the past from the
perspective of his or her own cultural, social,perspective of his or her own cultural, social,
ethic, racial, worldview.ethic, racial, worldview.
 Miracles Are by Nature Supernatural: SpiritualMiracles Are by Nature Supernatural: Spiritual
history has no necessary connection with thehistory has no necessary connection with the
spatiotemporal continuum of empiricalspatiotemporal continuum of empirical
events.events.
 Miracles Are in Principle HistoricallyMiracles Are in Principle Historically
Unknowable: It is impossible to establish theUnknowable: It is impossible to establish the
historicity of a miracles based on testimonyhistoricity of a miracles based on testimony
about the past.about the past.

10.  History recorded by the NT authorsHistory recorded by the NT authors
contain religious motives and thereforecontain religious motives and therefore
cannot be trusted.cannot be trusted.
 NT writers were creating or recreating theNT writers were creating or recreating the
words of Jesus rather than strictlywords of Jesus rather than strictly
reporting them.reporting them.

11.  A radical form of historical relativism isA radical form of historical relativism is
deconstructionism, which treats history asdeconstructionism, which treats history as
literature. As such, any written accountliterature. As such, any written account
of history is filled with multiple meanings,of history is filled with multiple meanings,
and not one objective history.and not one objective history.
 According to this view, the meaning ofAccording to this view, the meaning of
history is in the eye of the reader, not thehistory is in the eye of the reader, not the
author.author.

12. Response to Epistemological ObjectionsResponse to Epistemological Objections
 Unobservability of History: How can oneUnobservability of History: How can one
know that someone’s view of history is notknow that someone’s view of history is not
objective, unless someone has anobjective, unless someone has an
objective perspective? Further if theyobjective perspective? Further if they
mean absolute knowledge, then no onemean absolute knowledge, then no one
can know, but if they meancan know, but if they mean accurateaccurate
and adequate,and adequate, then the door is open tothen the door is open to
objectivity.objectivity.

13. Response to Epistemological ObjectionsResponse to Epistemological Objections
 Unobservability of History: If “fact” meansUnobservability of History: If “fact” means
the original event, then neither geologythe original event, then neither geology
nor history is in possession of any facts.nor history is in possession of any facts.
 Facts must be taken to mean informationFacts must be taken to mean information
about the original event. Facts areabout the original event. Facts are
objective data whether anyone readsobjective data whether anyone reads
them or not.them or not.

14. Response to Fragmentary ObjectionsResponse to Fragmentary Objections
 This does not destroy historical objectivityThis does not destroy historical objectivity
any more than the existence of only aany more than the existence of only a
limited amount of fossils destroys thelimited amount of fossils destroys the
objectivity of geology.objectivity of geology.
 Historical objectivity is most certainlyHistorical objectivity is most certainly
possible within a given framework—suchpossible within a given framework—such
as a theistic worldview.as a theistic worldview.

15. One may grant the point that ordinaryOne may grant the point that ordinary
language is value-laden and that valuelanguage is value-laden and that value
judgments are inevitable. This does notjudgments are inevitable. This does not
make historical objectivity impossible.make historical objectivity impossible.
Objectivity means to be fair in dealing withObjectivity means to be fair in dealing with
the facts; it means to present whatthe facts; it means to present what
happened as accurately as possible.happened as accurately as possible.
I may make a value laden statement aboutI may make a value laden statement about
this history of abortion in America. Thethis history of abortion in America. The
objectivity of the statement is not diminishedobjectivity of the statement is not diminished
if I state the facts, for example the number ofif I state the facts, for example the number of
abortions each year.abortions each year.

16. Problem of Historical Conditioning: True,Problem of Historical Conditioning: True,
each historian is a product of his time. Iteach historian is a product of his time. It
does not follow, however, that his history isdoes not follow, however, that his history is
also purely a product of the time.also purely a product of the time.
The criticism confuses the content ofThe criticism confuses the content of
knowledge and the process of attaining itknowledge and the process of attaining it
as well as incorrectly joining the formationas well as incorrectly joining the formation
of a view with its verification.of a view with its verification.

17. Selectivity of Materials: This is true in disciplinesSelectivity of Materials: This is true in disciplines
other than history. For example, jurors makeother than history. For example, jurors make
judgments “beyond reasonable doubt”judgments “beyond reasonable doubt”
without having all the evidence.without having all the evidence.
No scientist has all the facts, and yetNo scientist has all the facts, and yet
objectivity is claimed for his discipline. Asobjectivity is claimed for his discipline. As
long as no important fact is overlooked,long as no important fact is overlooked,
there is no reason to eliminate the possibilitythere is no reason to eliminate the possibility
of objectivity in the historian any more thanof objectivity in the historian any more than
in science.in science.

18. Arrangement of Materials: There is noArrangement of Materials: There is no
reason why the historian cannot arrangereason why the historian cannot arrange
materials without distorting the past.materials without distorting the past.
Structuring of Materials: It is true that withoutStructuring of Materials: It is true that without
a worldview it makes not sense to talka worldview it makes not sense to talk
about objective meaning. However, thisabout objective meaning. However, this
does not eliminate the possibility of andoes not eliminate the possibility of an
objective understanding of history, but itobjective understanding of history, but it
points the necessity of establishing apoints the necessity of establishing a
worldview to attain objectivity.worldview to attain objectivity.

19. Structuring of Materials: Granted that thereStructuring of Materials: Granted that there
is justification for adopting a theisticis justification for adopting a theistic
worldview, the objective meaning ofworldview, the objective meaning of
history becomes possible, for within thehistory becomes possible, for within the
theistic context each fact of historytheistic context each fact of history
becomes a theistic fact.becomes a theistic fact.
Theism provides the sketch on which historyTheism provides the sketch on which history
paints the complete picture.paints the complete picture.

20. Alleged Unknowability of Miracles: First, asAlleged Unknowability of Miracles: First, as
C. S. Lewis observes:C. S. Lewis observes:
If we admit God, must we admitIf we admit God, must we admit
Miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have noMiracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no
security against it. That is the bargain.security against it. That is the bargain.
Theology says to you in effect, “AdmitTheology says to you in effect, “Admit
God and with Him the risk of a fewGod and with Him the risk of a few
miracles, and I in return will ratify your faithmiracles, and I in return will ratify your faith
in uniformity as regards the overwhelmingin uniformity as regards the overwhelming
majority of events (in Geisler).majority of events (in Geisler).

21. Alleged Unknowability of Miracles: Second,Alleged Unknowability of Miracles: Second,
the historical evaluation of miracles in thethe historical evaluation of miracles in the
record should be evaluated in the samerecord should be evaluated in the same
manner as other historical events. Eye-manner as other historical events. Eye-
witness accounts of the resurrection arewitness accounts of the resurrection are
as reliable as eye-witness accounts of aas reliable as eye-witness accounts of a
crucifixion.crucifixion.

22. Nature of Miracles and History: First, ChristianNature of Miracles and History: First, Christian
apologists do not want to contend thatapologists do not want to contend that
miracles are the mere product of themiracles are the mere product of the
historical process. The supernatural occurs inhistorical process. The supernatural occurs in
the historical, but is not a product of naturalthe historical, but is not a product of natural
process.process.
Second, there is not good reason why theSecond, there is not good reason why the
Christian should yield to the radicalChristian should yield to the radical
theologians on the question of the objectivetheologians on the question of the objective
and historical dimensions of a miracle.and historical dimensions of a miracle.

23. Nature of Miracles and History: Third, aNature of Miracles and History: Third, a
miracle can be identified within anmiracle can be identified within an
empirical or historical context bothempirical or historical context both
directly and indirectly, both objectivelydirectly and indirectly, both objectively
and subjectively. A miracle is bothand subjectively. A miracle is both
scientifically unusual as well asscientifically unusual as well as
theologically and morally relevant.theologically and morally relevant.

24. First, there is no logical connection betweenFirst, there is no logical connection between
one’s purpose and the accuracy of theone’s purpose and the accuracy of the
history he writes.history he writes.
Second, other important writers from theSecond, other important writers from the
ancient world wrote with motives similarancient world wrote with motives similar
to the Gospel authors.to the Gospel authors.
Third, complete religious propagandaThird, complete religious propaganda
literature was unknown in the ancientliterature was unknown in the ancient
world.world.

25. Fourth, the Gospels were written, aFourth, the Gospels were written, a
maximum of only decades after themaximum of only decades after the
events. Other ancient historians wroteevents. Other ancient historians wrote
centuries after the events.centuries after the events.
Fifth, the historical confirmation of the NTFifth, the historical confirmation of the NT
writing is overwhelming.writing is overwhelming.
Sixth, the NT writers took great care toSixth, the NT writers took great care to
distinguish the words of Jesus from thedistinguish the words of Jesus from the
narrative.narrative.

26. Seventh, in spite of his religious purpose,Seventh, in spite of his religious purpose,
Luke states a clear interest in presentingLuke states a clear interest in presenting
an accurate historical record of the lifean accurate historical record of the life
and ministry of Jesus and the earlyand ministry of Jesus and the early
church.church.
Eighth, religious bias does not necessitateEighth, religious bias does not necessitate
historical inaccuracy. If this were so, thenhistorical inaccuracy. If this were so, then
non-religious, or anti-religious peoplenon-religious, or anti-religious people
could not write accurate history either.could not write accurate history either.

27. Ninth, the NT is confirmed to be historical byNinth, the NT is confirmed to be historical by
the same criteria applied to other ancientthe same criteria applied to other ancient
writings. Thus, this criticism misses thewritings. Thus, this criticism misses the
mark or else it destroys all ancientmark or else it destroys all ancient
histories.histories.
Tenth, if the historicity of an event must beTenth, if the historicity of an event must be
denied because of the strong motivationdenied because of the strong motivation
of the person giving it, then virtually allof the person giving it, then virtually all
eyewitness testimony from the survivors ofeyewitness testimony from the survivors of
the holocaust must be discounted.the holocaust must be discounted.

28. The Relativity Argument Presupposes SomeThe Relativity Argument Presupposes Some
Objective Knowledge: Relativists reveal thatObjective Knowledge: Relativists reveal that
they presuppose objective knowledgethey presuppose objective knowledge
about history. First, they speak of the needabout history. First, they speak of the need
to select and arrange the “facts” of history.to select and arrange the “facts” of history.
Their reference to “facts” presupposes anTheir reference to “facts” presupposes an
objective history. Second, the view thatobjective history. Second, the view that
one’s worldview distorts history implies aone’s worldview distorts history implies a
correct (objective) way to view it.correct (objective) way to view it.
Otherwise, how can you know it is distorted?Otherwise, how can you know it is distorted?

29. Historical Relativity is Self-Defeating: TotalHistorical Relativity is Self-Defeating: Total
relativity is self-defeating. How can onerelativity is self-defeating. How can one
know all historical knowledge is subjectiveknow all historical knowledge is subjective
unless he had some objective knowledgeunless he had some objective knowledge
of it?of it?
Historical Relativists Write Books: TheyHistorical Relativists Write Books: They
believe their own books or articles arebelieve their own books or articles are
objective and factual.objective and factual.

30. Recognizing Bad History Implies ObjectiveRecognizing Bad History Implies Objective
Knowledge: The ability to detect badKnowledge: The ability to detect bad
history is itself a tacit admission thathistory is itself a tacit admission that
objectivity if possible.objectivity if possible.
Historians Employ Normal ObjectiveHistorians Employ Normal Objective
Standards: Like science, history employsStandards: Like science, history employs
normal inductive measures that rendernormal inductive measures that render
the facts knowable.the facts knowable.

31. First, absolute objectivity is possible for onlyFirst, absolute objectivity is possible for only
an infinite mind. Finite minds must bean infinite mind. Finite minds must be
content with systematic consistency, thatcontent with systematic consistency, that
is, fair but revisable attempts tois, fair but revisable attempts to
reconstruct the past based on anreconstruct the past based on an
established framework of reference thatestablished framework of reference that
comprehensively and consistentlycomprehensively and consistently
incorporates all the facts into the overallincorporates all the facts into the overall
sketch provided by the worldview.sketch provided by the worldview.

32. Second, without this absolute perspective, andSecond, without this absolute perspective, and
adequately objective, finite interpretation ofadequately objective, finite interpretation of
history is possible, for, as was shown above, thehistory is possible, for, as was shown above, the
historian can be as objective as the scientist.historian can be as objective as the scientist.
Third, in reality, neither the scientist nor the historianThird, in reality, neither the scientist nor the historian
can attain objective meaning without the use ofcan attain objective meaning without the use of
some worldview by which we understands thesome worldview by which we understands the
facts. If there are good reasons to believe thatfacts. If there are good reasons to believe that
this is a theistic universe, then objectivity inthis is a theistic universe, then objectivity in
history is a possibility, for once the overallhistory is a possibility, for once the overall
viewpoint is established, it is simply a matter ofviewpoint is established, it is simply a matter of
finding the view of history most consistent withfinding the view of history most consistent with
that overall system.that overall system.

33.  Argument that history cannot be
objectively known and that miracles are
not possible, fail on several points. History
can be as objective as science.
 The argument that miracle-history is not
objectively verifiable is wanting. First,
miracles can occur in the historical process
without being of that natural process.
Second, the moral and theological
dimensions of miracles are not totally
subjective.