copyright 2003 by jim beasley1 a christian view of history how should we approach history? the study...

Copyright 2003 by Jim Beasley 1

A Christian View of HistoryA Christian View of History How should we approach history? The study of history involves facts and

interpretation

Facts without interpretation is at best just a chronicle. But even with a chronicle there is selection involved. Where there is selection there is interpretation.

Facts need to be put together in patterns. This is interpretation


A Christian View of HistoryA Christian View of HistoryThe good historian insists that interpretation relate

to the facts. That is interpretation is secondary to facts. The relationship between fact and interpretation is like a foot and a shoe (facts are the foot, interpretation is like a shoe). Find a shoe that fits the foot!!


A Christian View of HistoryA Christian View of History Three contemporary views on doing history

(Historiography) Positivism

This is the belief that history is nothing but facts. Philosophical positivists believe that the only reality is the material world. Reality is determined by science. Any commentary is only expression of emotion or nonsense. This thinking has been generally discredited. Even so, the rationalistic, humanistic scientism that formed the basis to this approach was not tossed out!


A Christian View of HistoryA Christian View of History

Existentialist HistoriographyHistorical existentialists believe that what is real is the

“encounter” History becomes “histories” indistinguishable from autobiography. This results in relativism and solipsism (nothing is really there unless I see it).

The most famous existentialist philosopher-theologian is Rudolf Bultmann who did most of his work between the World Wars.



Bultmann accepted the assumptions of modernism which held that we live in a closed system of cause and effect

This means that miracles don’t happen. Therefore, the biblical records needed to be “demythologized.”



Bultmann’s mistake: He narrows historical meaning to the point of personal decision. The result is an absolutizing of subjective experience and a relativizing of history.

Bultmann believed that only a personal experience with Christ could free a man from himself so that he could understand the past. But without a Christ tied to history, what kind of Christ is it?



By dispensing with any meaningful historical record, one could concentrate on the true meaning of the gospel accounts– the coming of God into the human personality of every age. What was important was man’s “encounter” with God.



Bultmann’s viewpoint influenced Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy. Like Bultmann, Barth believed in the importance of the encounter. He also accepted Bultmann’s assumption about the supernatural. Unlike Bultmann, Barth believed in the historic doctrines of the church. These doctrines existed in heilsgeschichte or “salvation history” not in historie which could be verifiable.



Contemporary Historiography Contemporary secular historians know nothing of the existentialism from which religiously motivated “historians” suffer. They have correctly kept the inductive method championed by the positivists without becoming burdened by their philosophical assumptions of scientism. “Einsteinian relativity has made this world-view hopelessly obsolete.”



The Inductive MethodWhat is the inductive method? It is

fitting pieces together to form a pattern allowing one to reach a generalization based on evidence. It depends on what we already know to be true.“The meerkat is closely related to the suricat.The suricat thrives on beetle larvae.Therefore, probably the meerkat thrives on beetle larvae.”



A true Christian philosophy of history means that the history we read in our gospels and epistles must be falsifiable. That is the biblical records must be able to survive inductive investigation and stand on their own as history. After all, Paul before King Agrippa said “all these things were not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26) We do the Bible and our Christian history no favor if we do not claim the same.



Our Christian History begins in a manger in Bethlehem.

That in itself is a testimony to the importance of history.

How do we know that the documents that tell us about Jesus and the early church (the New Testament) are historically reliable?



Testing Historical HypothesesWilliam Lane Craig in his wonderful article “Did

Jesus Rise From the Dead” (appearing in Jesus Under Fire) quotes C. Behan McCullagh’s seven criteria for judging what historical reconstruction is the best.

1.The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data.



2. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.

3. The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.



5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.

6. The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.



7. The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.

According to Dr. Craig, the resurrection, THE pivotal event upon which Christianity stands or falls (1 Corinthians 15:13-19), meets and exceeds as the BEST explanation for the events surrounding disappearance of Jesus’ body.



The New Testament DocumentsThe New Testament itself claims that the

events recorded in the gospels and Acts can be attested by “eyewitnesses” (Acts 1:1-3). The science of textual criticism as well as the location and documentation of a multitude of manuscripts and scripture portions cause most scholars to conclude that our present New Testament was completed by the end of the first century.



The earliest Scriptures were Paul’s epistles: Galatians (48), 1 and 2 Thessalonians (50), Philippians (54), 1 and 2 Corinthians (54-56), Romans (57), Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians (c. 60), the pastoral epistles (64)



Gospels and Acts: Mark, written in Rome in the early 60s, Matthew (85-90), Luke-Acts (80-85), John (sometime in the 90s).

FF Bruce gives earlier dates: Luke-Acts (60-70), Matthew (after 70 AD).

The epistles of John and Revelation (before 96), James and Jude (close of 1st century), Hebrews and the epistles of Peter (before 65)



There is little room for doubt that the New Testament documents are reliable and historical primary sources. Only those who a priori (such as the Jesus Seminar fellows) disallow any possibility of the supernatural would dare contradict this conclusion. But logic would require those who disallow the reliability of the New Testament to be consistent with the rest of our sources for the history of antiquity.


A Christian View of HistoryA Christian View of History Can you think of other historical events that were

suppressed, other than the Exodus (by the Egyptians) or the rape of Nanjing (by the Japanese)?

Why is it important for us to know that the gospels are historically reliable?

Can a person be saved if he/she doesn’t believe that the gospel accounts are historically reliable?

How would you talk with someone that doesn’t believe miracles are possible?

Identify the elements of a Christian philosophy of history?

copyright 2003 by jim beasley1 a christian view of history how should we approach history? the study...

Documents

encounter history

salvation history

relativizing of history

study of history

interpretation slide

interpretation facts

jim beasley4

jim beasley9