Church History

[lee]

I'm listening to Mr. Gregg's lectures on church history. I'm wondering where all of his information comes from? Is church history done from primary sources, or from books of books of books? For example, how does one arrive at the understanding that Athenasius was at one point losing the debate against Arius, but then eventually triumphed? Where would a person learn that other than current church history books in print? Steve, did you read all of the primary sources if there are such concerning all of the facts you present in your lectures?

[steve]

No. Reading primary sources is generally the work of the historian. I am a teacher, not a historian. However, those on whom I relied for my information are historians. I do not remember which one provided that detail about Athanasius. While preparing those lectures, I had eight or more church history books open on my desk simultaneously, and took the details from each that I found salient.

Thus far, I have had only two mistakes in these lectures brought to my attention. In speaking about Calvin, I said that his wife had been the widow of an Anabaptist martyr. In fact, she was the widow of an Anabaptist—though not a martyr. I had made the assumption that few Anabaptists died of natural causes in the sixteenth century (the correction came from one of my children, who had read a book about Anabaptists). The other mistake was that I gave the Albigensians (or Cathars) credit for being less heretical than they actually were—suggesting that they may have been true Christians. The correction, in this case, came from Ken Huffman (a.k.a., "priestly1" at this forum) who attended most of these lectures when they were given.

My research was careful and honest, but if I was wrong about these points, I could also have been wrong about other things, and I would welcome corrections from those who may be more familiar with the facts of certain movements.

[lee]

Ok. That's cool. I've just wondered about those things and how people come up with teaching what they do. I guess I feel like if I'm talking with someone about a given Biblical topic, I can always reference the Bible and cite chapter and verses. I can also talk a little about where the Bible came from. But I am not at all privy at the moment to information that I could cite in the event someone asked, "Well how do you know that?"

[steve]

Actually, this is true of our knowledge of almost all of history, Christian or secular. We know things because we have read the historians, not because we have read Assyrian monuments, parchments from the age of Artaxerxes, nor the German government files documenting how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That is what historians do for a living. The rest of us have to either trust or distrust them.

All historians have preferences, and some may even suppress certain details that go against their preferred opinions about historical people or events. Guarantees against this kind of revisionism are not available to us. However, I don't think the Orwellian ministry of truth has yet gotten to all of the history books, so, if we find enough of them showing substantial agreement, it seems unavoidable that we should believe much of what they say.

No one should fault you, if you cannot pull out the earlier documents upon which the writer of Chronicles relied before you cite information about the reforms of Josiah. It is perhaps unfortunate, but almost everything we know about the past has been conveyed to us by historians and archaeologists, and we cannot be expected to be personally acquainted with all of the scraps of papyrus and bas-reliefs that they have looked at over the course of their careers. Even they can misinterpret what they study. Therefore, there is an element of uncertainty in much of what we have been told about history.

[kaufmannphillips]

Steve - It is nice to find your discussion of historical matters here.

steve wrote:
Actually, this is true of our knowledge of almost all of history, Christian or secular. We know things because we have read the historians, not because we have read Assyrian monuments, parchments from the age of Artaxerxes, nor the German government files documenting how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust. That is what historians do for a living. The rest of us have to either trust or distrust them.

In our information age, it is easier than ever to have access to photographic documentation of monuments, parchments, and files. This affords a closer vetting of sources.

Incidentally, I studied Akkadian while at George Fox. Due to the mechanics of cuneiform, it would be highly desirable for a researcher to be have access (direct or at least photographic) to the original sources. The script affords a lot of wiggle room. Even a historian who is competent and pure of heart might wind up misrepresenting something.

steve wrote:
All historians have preferences, and some may even suppress certain details that go against their preferred opinions about historical people or events. Guarantees against this kind of revisionism are not available to us.

One guarantee is to do the research for yourself. That still leaves you with one human filter, of course - but it's one you can't escape.

steve wrote:
However, I don't think the Orwellian ministry of truth has yet gotten to all of the history books, so, if we find enough of them showing substantial agreement, it seems unavoidable that we should believe much of what they say.

History is ever evolving. So it is easy for us to avoid believing hearsay and conventional wisdom. It's just a matter of mental posture.

steve wrote:
It is perhaps unfortunate, but almost everything we know about the past has been conveyed to us by historians and archaeologists, and we cannot be expected to be personally acquainted with all of the scraps of papyrus and bas-reliefs that they have looked at over the course of their careers. Even they can misinterpret what they study. Therefore, there is an element of uncertainty in much of what we have been told about history.

Nice to find you saying this.

[steve]

Nice to find you saying this

.

I thought of you when I wrote it. Thought you'd like it!

[kaufmannphillips]

[steve]

While many photographic records and documents may be "out there" in the internet world, relatively few people have the leisure or know where to find them (or even know what records they should be looking for). It is simply unrealistic to expect everyone who comments about the founding principles of America to have read the Federalist Papers carefully for themselves. The fact that a professional historian can spend a lifetime specializing in the history of a very narrow field means that no one person can have carefully examined every relevant document before having anything to say about history.

[lee]

In terms of apologetics then, and faith in general, what would you say is the point at which an individual can exercise a "thinking" faith? I could easily see someone saying, "Well then, I can't know for certain anything about history, so I shouldn't have to commit my life to a certain faith. In addition, it is more rational that I be an infinite skeptic than a Christian, or any type of devotee." What would you challenge this position with?

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
While many photographic records and documents may be "out there" in the internet world, relatively few people have the leisure or know where to find them (or even know what records they should be looking for).

(a) Lack of know-how is not an irremediable condition. But if a person is reading a history book to begin with (especially one with footnotes/endnotes), and if a person has access to a decent search engine, then they are already tremendously equipped to dig deeper.

(b) As for "leisure," most people manage to make time for whatever is really important to them.

steve wrote:
It is simply unrealistic to expect everyone who comments about the founding principles of America to have read the Federalist Papers carefully for themselves.

But the one who presumes to comment is accountable for what they say. And a commentator who is both sensitive and scrupulous can disclaim when they are passing along content that they have not closely vetted.

steve wrote:
The fact that a professional historian can spend a lifetime specializing in the history of a very narrow field means that no one person can have carefully examined every relevant document before having anything to say about history.

But one person can have examined more relevant documents, rather than less. And where they have less carefully examined for themselves, they naturally should be the less dogmatic.