History 101
History 101
efore we approach the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, let's become familiar with some of the principles historians employ to determine whether a
particular account of history is credible.' This brief overview will assist us when
we assess the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. These principles are important because historical data, such as archaeological finds, documents, and eyewitnesses,
are all we have to tell us of events that occurred and people who lived in antiquity.
The principles we are about to look at are not hard rules of evidential proof. Rather they guide the historian in assessing accounts of the past. A historian who is able to apply one or more of the following principles to a text can conclude with much greater confidence whether a certain event occurred. We will not cover all of the principles for evaluating facts that sometimes prove useful, but have only included those that normally come into play when evaluating evidence regarding the Resurrection. These are the principles that will be used throughout this book.'
Five historical principles speak to Resurrection
The importance of careful evaluation of sources is well known to police investigators. A detective is assigned to reopen the case of an automobile accident that occurred five years ago. She learns that the accident involved the collision of a blue car and a red car in an intersection. A group of five people waiting for a bus witnessed the accident. Three left when their bus arrived. However, one of the three told two others who came up to the bus stop after the accident that .the red car ran a red light." When the police came, both drivers as well as those at the bus stop were questioned.
1. Multiple, independent sources support historical claims.
When an event or saying is attested by more than one independent source, there is a strong indication of'historicity. It is important to determine whether the source is really independent. Suppose a friend told you of a crime he had witnessed. You told someone else, who in turn told a third person. There would not be three independent sources for the accident, but one. However, if your friend and his brother both witnessed the crime and both told you about it, you would have two independent sources.
In our car accident illustration, one driver is hurt and is taken to the hospital. The other driver claims that the light was green for him and that the driver who has now been taken from the scene went through a red light. Those at the bus stop claim that the red car was going through a red light when it hit the blue car. If only the driver of the blue car makes this claim, it may be difficult to ascertain who is telling the truth, since there would be conflicting accounts. The existence of several independent sources at the bus stop who claim that they saw the red car go through the red light increases the likelihood that the driver of the blue car is telling the truth.
Let's add a twist to our story. The people at the bus stop give conflicting accounts of which car ran the red light. Although the conflicting testimonies confuse the situation, the detective has no reason to question whether the accident occurred. There is other data, such as the two damaged cars. Witnesses agree that the accident did occur. The uncertainty concerns who ran the red light. Also, the fact that the witnesses disagree indicates that they had not consulted one another in order to bring about agreement. Their independent testimonies provide multiple attestation to the fact of the accident.
2. Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
If testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account, we have an indication ofauthenticity. An enemy generally is not considered to be biased in favor of a certain person, message, or cause. Suppose one of the witnesses to the accident was a friend of the one driving the red car. This witness admitted that his friend was the one who ran the red light. The new detective weighs this testimony as somewhat stronger than the testimonies of the other eyewitnesses. A witness who would be considered somewhat unfriendly to the driver of the blue car attested to his innocence.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, was known for his high standards of integrity, although this did not prevent his political enemies from attacking him. Alexander Hamilton was one such enemy. In a scathing fiftyfour-page pamphlet published to hurt Adams in a forthcoming election, Hamilton accused him of having "great intrinsic defects of character," "disgusting egotism," "eccentric tendencies," "bitter animosity," and an "ungovernable temper." Yet Hamilton made no charges of corruption, and he acknowledged Adams's patriotism and integrity.' If Adams's mother or wife had spoken of his integrity, we might have reason to believe them, yet with reservation. When even his enemies acknowledged his integrity, the matter is pretty well established.'
3. Embarrassing admissions support historical claims.
An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses his cause and `weakened its position in arguments with opponents. "5 The police officer asks both drivers if they have previously disobeyed a traffic signal. The driver of the red car says "no." The driver of the blue car admits that he caused an accident ten years ago because he ran a red light. The detective may tend to believe the entire testimony of the driver of the blue car over that of the red car driver because he willingly shared information although it would tend to embarrass or hurt him. He appears to be attempting to tell the truth.
Law professor Annette Gordon-Reed wrote articles arguing that Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, fathered children by his slave Sally Herrings. Before DNA results proved her correct, one of the arguments she employed in support of her position related to the Principle of Embarrassment. A declaration from a close Jefferson relative recorded the observation that it was obvious that Jefferson's "blood ran in I the l veins" of Sally Hemings's children and that one child could be mistaken for Jefferson. She argued that this testimony must be regarded as strong evidence indeed. "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves," she wrote.6
In other words, this statement by Jefferson's relative damaged the reputation of Jefferson and his family, given the social prejudices of the time when it was made. A relative would not likely have invented a statement that would hurt himself. Therefore, this statement weighs in favor of the argument that Sally Hemings bore children for Jefferson.
4. Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
Eyewitness testimony is usually stronger than a secondhand account. Two eyewitnesses remained at the bus stop when police arrived. Their report would carry more weight than that of the three who only heard a secondhand account after they arrived on the scene. If all of the eyewitnesses at the bus stop had left before police arrived, the secondhand reporters would provide support for the story that the red car went through the red light. They had been told this by eyewitnesses. Their testimony might be inelligible hearsay in a court of law, but a police investigator could take it into account. Historians must consider testimony of secondhand witnesses as they attempt to arrive at a conclusion regarding what happened.
5. Early testimony supports historical claims.
The closer the time between the event and testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into theaccount. Within two years of the accident, battles between insurance companies push the matter to court. At the trial, several eyewitnesses to the accident testify to what they saw. This is eyewitness testimony, and it is also early. Now suppose that thirty years after the accident some fact surfaces to suggest that the driver of the red car had deliberately staged the automobile accident in an attempt to kill the driver of the blue car. The detective on the case obtains statements from living eyewitnesses. He has eyewitness testimony, but it is not early. Obviously, the ideal is to have firsthand accounts that were recorded soon after the events being studied.
Since the historian does not have a certified video record of what occurred in antiquity, these principles are commonsense guides for evaluating the written record of something that is alleged to have happened. A balance scale of judgment is mentally installed into the brain of the historian who combs through the evidence. When she sees something in favor of the authenticity of the event, the principles run through her mind. Do any apply? If so, a weight goes into the dish on one side of the balance. The bar tips to that side. But another piece of evidence weighs against the event. A weight goes into the other dish.
With some events in antiquity, the scale may be pretty evenly balanced. In that case, no decision can be made. In determining the truth of another alleged event, the scale tips very definitely, one way or the other. When the scale tips significantly in favor of an event there is reason to believe it is "historical," that is "it really happened." In the real life of historical study, there is no magical truth-sensing scale, and one historian's evaluation often differs from another's. Still, a process of evaluation does take place. We will be sifting the data for and against Jesus' resurrection being an actual event of history.
Some Testimony Is Stronger Than Others
Historians employ a number of common-sense principles in assessing the strength of a testimony. Here are five of those principles:
1. Testimony attested to by multiple independent witnesses is usually considered stronger than the testimony of one witness.
2. Affirmation by a neutral or hostile source is usually considered stronger than affirmation from a friendly source, since bias in favor of the person or position is absent.
3. People usually don't make up details regarding a story that would tend to weaken their position.
4. Eyewitness testimony is usually considered stronger than testimony heard from a second- or thirdhand source.
5. An early testimony from very close to the event in question is usually considered more reliable than one received years after the event.