Presentation of my view of History

For those coming across these page through search engines or what not, without the context of familiarizing yourself with who I am and how I think I thought it might be helpful to lay out some of my guiding principles when it comes to historical inquiry.

I am at my core what we might call an 'experimentalist.'  In the olden days, we might simply say that I prefer science, but that was in the olden days, when science restricted its assertions to experimental results, and only asserted in proportion to the amount of experimental data on hand.  Those days are past.  A good way to think of how this applies to a rational historical methodology (mine ;)  ) is to think of the famous Popper and his insight that science ought to be, in principle, falsifiable.  Better:  In practice, it ought to be falsifiable.  The strength of a factual assertion's claim on our intellect depends, in part, on whether or not the view can be falsified or not.  This principle is not by any means limited to scientific inquiry.  I believe it applies well to a rational historical methodology, as well.  In practice, that means when a historical assertion is made, I immediately try to think of ways to verify or falsify the claim.  If it cannot be verified or falsified, I may make the same types of intellectual categorizations that others might to form an initial opinion, but I will not forget that at that point, there is no good way to test the proposition, and therefore no evidential basis for affirming it or rejecting it.

The current example is a good case in point.  In my defense of Tacitus' passage in Annals 15, I focused on trying to figure out ways I could test various hypotheses that I had in mind.  However, this was all just desert, really.  The Tacitus passage is found written by a man (Tacitus) who put together a pretty good history.  He shows good attention to detail and is considered by all to be a remarkable historian, taking into consideration that he wrote in a different day and age that didn't have the same set of expectations that we do today.  So when we approach the 'Christus' passage, and we begin thinking of sourcing, the weight of Tacitus' credibility leans over into this passage as well.  True, Tacitus does not provide us with details on his sourcing here.  But then, he doesn't provide us with details on his sourcing in many places.

Consider this passage from Tacitus in his Histories, Book 1:

"Every thing was then ordered according to the will of the soldiery. The Praetorians chose their own prefects. One was Plotius Firmus, who had once been in the ranks, had afterwards commanded the watch, and who, while Galba was yet alive, had embraced the cause of Otho. With him was associated Licinius Proculus, Otho's intimate friend, and consequently suspected of having encouraged his schemes."

I'd be willing to bet that Plotius Firmus and Licinius Proculus are not mentioned anywhere else in any history, and Tacitus makes no mention of his sources here.  Perhaps Tacitus' source for the existence of Firmus was descendants of Firmus:  thus (see if you can follow this), in this case Tacitus' remarks here would only show that Firmus' children existed, and not Firmus himself.  

There are a thousand such examples in Tacitus and other historians, but we can nonetheless find other examples where Tacitus' material checks out against other sources.  See, that's the voice of experimentalism- we develop a pattern of corroboration and that allows us to make the reasonable leap that Firmus really existed, and Proculus, too, and seeing as both men were alive and dead long before Tacitus was born, some sourcing is implied, and it is reasonable to infer its existence.  Thus, barring any real reason to challenge the 'Christus' passage, I am apt to rely on the 'experimental results' that hep me make the rational jump that some sourcing is implied, and it is reasonable to infer its existence.  As Tacitus had access to the Roman archives, and obviously made use of it, I can infer further that it is more likely then not that these sources were Roman.  This all assumes that there isn't some piece of real evidence that can either help advance or detract from such a prima facie interpretation of the passage.

Some have argued that various aspects of the Tacitus passage I am defending are suspect.  Only one of them is based on any kind of evidence at all, but at least in that respect its worth of consideration.  That is why I have my big article about the 'procurator,' because that gives us something tangible to sink our teeth into.  Some raise it as a criticism of Tacitus, but I think in fact it is an asset.  However, I do not leave it there.  I begin thinking of ways that I can test the claim one way or the other.  The result in this case was this massive argument.  However, there are other people involved in this debate that view things differently.

Others, for example, are willing to speculate endlessly and never consider whether or not such speculation can be either established or refuted by fact.  It's a matter of degree, or course, but I tend to find in modern scholarship in regards to Christianity, a little speculation goes a long way to constituting a 'fact.'  Typically, you can get a good sense of the strength of the argument simply by comparing the amount of argumentation with the amount of evidence provided.  Evidence is something that is supposed to sway us towards giving assent towards a view.  Argumentation is an attempt to show that the evidence means that.  The most robust claims require very little argumentation.  You just point to the evidence, and it speaks for itself.  The evidence is clear enough if you take it prima facie.  But modern arguments typically rely on hordes of assumptions and argumentation.  The reason for this is clear in my opinion:  if you took the various evidences for Christ on their face, you'd probably have to completely surrender to the fact that he definately existed and probably rose from the dead.  So moderns are constantly trying to explain why you cannot take such evidence on their face, which usually requires taking some other piece of evidence on it's face, combined with 90% more rank speculation and argumentation.

A good example of this sort of problem is the famous disputed Testimonium Flavium in Josephus.  A thousand reasons are offered for why the TF must be, and obviously is, a Christian interpolation.  The cold hard facts, however, is that the textual tradition is more or less in line with what we have in our current manuscripts.  Skeptics seek to justify their speculations by pointing out, for example, that an Islamic manuscript in the 10th century was substantially different then the text that was in the west.  But nooooooooooooooooo, we can't possibly imagine that Muslims might possibly interpolate!  We are invited to take the Muslim manuscript on it's face, combine that with a liberal helping of an uncanny ability to know what Josephus really could or would have said, and conclude that the TF cannot be taken on it's face.  We are not invited to wonder about the motives of the Muslim copyist, or the source for our knowledge of how Josephus really thought.  The TF might very well be interpolated- I don't care.  But those who think it is were planning on rejecting its prima facie message, anyway.

My approach is different.  As much as it is in my power, when a possibility is

You will note in my essay, I make great pains to link each of my arguments with some piece of documentary evidence.  Agree with my conclusions or not- deny the implications- but at least I'm attempting to constrict myself to the evidence.  I'm trying to move beyond speculation and say of this claim or that, "This is actually probably true."

Others are satisfied raising a series of speculations, many of which they know cannot be tested, and some that can be tested but won't be, and considering that the basis for a reasonable argument.  

However, put it in perspective:  If the only argument against a Christian evidence is that some other thing is possible, it cannot be concluded that the Christian evidence no longer serves as evidence.  It can only be considered as POSSIBLY no longer good as evidence.  For those who admit, or cling, or insist, on hiding only behind possibilities, while refusing to try to move beyond to the realm of probabilities, obviously no evidence is possible for any claim that they have been pre-disposed to reject. After all, 'possibilities' can be raised against literally every truth claim.  An evidence driven view of history is not subject to such whims, however.  I may be forced to remain agnostic about a number of things for lack of evidence, or forced to conclude things about reality that I would not otherwise like, but at least I am making the effort to be objective.

In my essay, then, you will see that the pattern is pretty basic:  I raise hypotheses and then I determine ways, if any, to try to test those ways.  I happen to think it a very brave way to do history.  The reader may very well disagree.  I thought, however, that it was a good idea to let people know where I was coming from.

So yea, I'm a Christian because I believe the evidence compels me to be a Christian.  Not because of 'faith.'  For the record.