top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Oct 289 min read

How Can We Defend the Objectivity of History and the Historical Claims of Christianity?

Can History Truly Be Objective?


The question of whether history can be known objectively has significant implications for defending Christianity. The historical reliability of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is foundational for the Christian faith. If history is purely subjective, as some argue, then it would undermine the historical basis of the Gospel accounts, the life of Jesus, and His resurrection. This would effectively destroy any objective basis for Christian apologetics, which relies on historical evidence to substantiate the truth claims of Christianity.


The notion of historical relativism has been widely discussed, particularly in the context of the 20th century, where philosophers and historians have debated the limits of objectivity in studying the past. A common argument by historical relativists is that because historians are subjective beings, they can never fully escape their personal biases and presuppositions when interpreting past events. They claim that history is not so much an objective account of past events but a reconstruction based on fragmentary and interpretive evidence.


However, a conservative evangelical response rejects the premise that history is inherently unknowable. While it is true that historians work with limited data and personal perspectives, this does not render objective knowledge of history impossible. Rather, it calls for careful methods of interpretation, rooted in evidence, that acknowledge human limitations without denying the possibility of historical knowledge.



What Are the Objections to Objective History?


Several categories of objections are raised against the idea of objective history. These objections can be categorized into methodological, epistemological, axiological, and metaphysical arguments. Each of these challenges seeks to question whether historians can attain any real understanding of past events in an unbiased and accurate way.


1. Epistemological Objections: Epistemology deals with the nature and scope of knowledge—how we know what we know. Historical subjectivists argue that historians can only work with second-hand records of events that cannot be observed directly. They argue that this inherent limitation makes history an imaginative reconstruction, not an objective recounting of facts.


For instance, Carl Becker once remarked, "The event itself, the facts, do not say anything, do not impose any meaning. It is the historian who speaks, who imposes a meaning." According to this view, historical facts are not self-evident; they must be interpreted, and this process of interpretation introduces subjectivity.


Furthermore, critics argue that historians do not have direct access to past events. Unlike empirical scientists, who can test theories through experimentation, historians can only interpret documents and artifacts from the past. These sources are often incomplete or ambiguous, leading to gaps in our knowledge. The subjectivist concludes that history, being unobservable and unverifiable, is essentially unknowable.


While it is true that history lacks the direct observability found in natural sciences, this does not mean historical knowledge is unreliable. Just as paleontologists reconstruct the past from fossil evidence, historians work with documents, inscriptions, and artifacts to reconstruct historical events. The apostle Luke, for example, undertook a careful investigation of the facts to ensure the reliability of his Gospel account (Luke 1:3). His methodology was historical in nature—based on eyewitness testimony, cross-referencing sources, and a thorough examination of the data available.



2. The Fragmentary Nature of Historical Accounts: Historical accounts are inevitably fragmentary. Documents that survive from the past often cover only a small fraction of the events they describe. Some critics argue that because these records are incomplete, historians cannot draw full conclusions about what happened. Rather than objective history, they believe what we have are partial interpretations of the past filtered through the limited viewpoints of those who recorded them.


This objection, however, overlooks the fact that historians, like scientists, often work with partial data. Despite the fragmentary nature of historical sources, it is still possible to arrive at well-supported conclusions by analyzing the available evidence in its proper context. For example, the apostle Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, cites multiple witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, grounding the event in a historical context with numerous verifiable testimonies. The very fact that multiple accounts and eyewitnesses were available, even if not exhaustive, lends credibility to the historical event of the resurrection.


3. The Historian's Subjectivity: Another epistemological challenge is that historians themselves are products of their time, conditioned by their cultural, social, and religious contexts. As R.G. Collingwood stated, "There is no such person as a neutral historian." This leads critics to argue that no historian can escape bias, and thus, historical accounts are subjective reflections of the historian’s worldview rather than objective truths.


However, acknowledging the historian's subjectivity does not automatically negate the possibility of objective history. Historians can strive for fairness by using rigorous methods of inquiry, checking sources, and engaging in critical dialogue with other historians. The biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), sought to faithfully report the events of Jesus’ life and ministry, aware of the importance of accuracy. Furthermore, the presence of multiple independent accounts of the same events, such as the four Gospels, offers a way to cross-check and validate the reliability of historical facts. The harmonization of the Gospel accounts shows that objectivity is not unattainable, even in the presence of different perspectives.



How Does Methodology Affect Historical Objectivity?


1. The Selective Nature of Historical Research: One common objection to historical objectivity is the selective nature of research. Historians choose which documents to examine, which events to focus on, and which interpretations to pursue. Critics argue that this selection process introduces a degree of subjectivity, as personal biases, availability of sources, and the historian’s own interests affect what is included or excluded in a historical account.


While it is true that historians must select from available data, this does not necessarily result in bias or distortion. Objective history is not about including every possible detail but about faithfully representing the most relevant and significant facts. Jesus Himself emphasized the importance of faithful testimony when He said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32). Faithfulness to the truth means carefully selecting the most relevant facts to communicate the full reality of an event, even if every minor detail is not included.


2. Structuring the Facts: Historians must also provide structure to the facts they uncover. Raw data without context is not meaningful, and historians must connect events and causes to create a coherent narrative. Some argue that this process of structuring introduces subjectivity because historians impose their own interpretations on the facts.


However, structuring historical data does not invalidate the objectivity of the facts themselves. The connections that historians draw between events can and should be based on careful reasoning and evidence. For example, the Gospel writers structured their narratives to present Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 1:22-23), drawing on facts and interpreting them within the framework of divine revelation. This structuring was not arbitrary but rooted in the objective reality of God's promises being fulfilled in Christ.


3. The Role of Value Judgments: Critics also argue that history cannot be objective because it is impossible to avoid value judgments when interpreting events. For instance, historians must describe events in morally charged terms—wars, assassinations, revolutions—which inherently involve judgments about right and wrong.


From a Christian perspective, value judgments are not only unavoidable but necessary. God’s moral law, revealed in Scripture, provides an objective standard by which we can evaluate human actions and historical events. The Bible consistently presents history as a record of God's interaction with humanity, where divine standards of justice, mercy, and righteousness are applied to human actions. The apostle Paul, when speaking to the Athenians in Acts 17:30-31, declared that God "commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness." History is not morally neutral but unfolds within the context of divine justice.



Can We Know the Truth of Historical Events Like the Resurrection?


At the heart of Christian apologetics is the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul recognized that Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of the resurrection: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The resurrection is a supernatural event, but it occurred within history and is therefore subject to historical inquiry.


Critics of miracles, such as Ernst Troeltsch, argue that the principle of analogy—based on the assumption that the present is the key to the past—rules out the possibility of miracles. Since we do not observe miracles today, they argue, we should not believe in miracles in the past. This naturalistic bias assumes that miracles are impossible and thus dismisses any evidence for them before it is even considered.


However, this objection is flawed. The principle of analogy cannot be applied to unique events like the resurrection. The fact that miracles are rare or unprecedented does not mean they cannot happen. Historical inquiry should be open to the possibility of miracles if the evidence supports them. The resurrection is not an ordinary event, but it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, and the transformation of the disciples.


The empty tomb is well attested in all four Gospels (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10). If the tomb had not been empty, the Jewish authorities could have easily produced Jesus’ body to disprove the resurrection claim. The post-resurrection appearances are recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, where Paul lists numerous eyewitnesses, including over 500 people who saw the risen Christ. Many of these witnesses were still alive when Paul wrote, providing ample opportunity for verification.


Moreover, the dramatic transformation of the disciples, who went from fear and hiding to boldly proclaiming the risen Christ, cannot be explained apart from the resurrection. These men, who had fled during Jesus’ arrest, were now willing to face persecution and death for their testimony (Acts 5:29-32). Their willingness to suffer and die for their belief in the resurrection is powerful evidence that they had truly encountered the risen Lord.



How Does a Christian Worldview Support Historical Objectivity?


Objectivity in history ultimately depends on having a worldview that provides a coherent framework for interpreting the facts. A Christian worldview affirms that history is the unfolding of God's plan, where events have meaning and purpose. History is not a random sequence of events but is directed by a sovereign God who works all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11).


The Bible consistently presents a linear view of history, moving from creation to redemption to the final consummation. This theistic framework provides a basis for understanding the significance of historical events. Without a worldview that acknowledges God's sovereignty over history, historical events would be meaningless and disconnected. The Christian apologist, therefore, argues for the objectivity of history within the context of God's revelation.

The resurrection of Jesus is the central event in this divine plan. It is the culmination of God’s redemptive work, foretold in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Christ. As the apostle Peter proclaimed on the day of Pentecost, "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).



About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE


Explore the relationship between faith and reason through scripture and theology. Discover the balance between belief and logic.


Explore the evidence of intelligent design in cellular complexity. Discover how biology points to purpose. Read more now.



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


15 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page