The Modernization of Historical Inquiry

The Scientific Revolution reinstated the importance of empirical knowledge, establishing methods of inquiry that prioritize accountability. Scientists developed techniques to test hypotheses, ensuring that findings are objective and independent of personal biases. For example, results should be corroborated by independent sources.

This transformation influenced the field of history, particularly during the Enlightenment, when thinkers began to integrate scientific principles into historical analysis. Historians adopted rational approaches to evaluate data and test interpretations. While a historian's “experiment” might occur in the mind rather than a lab, it nonetheless serves to mitigate biases and dogmas.

Historically, critical thinkers existed, even in ancient times, who understood how to evaluate sources and dismissed widespread superstitions. Yet, they lacked the institutional support provided by modern science, which has fundamentally reshaped intellectual discourse based on critical thinking principles.

In more recent centuries, figures like Spinoza initiated a critical examination of Christianity’s origins. Albert Schweitzer famously referred to this as the “quest for the historical Jesus.” Historians began to scrutinize Christian traditions, evaluating their claims against a naturalistic framework informed by scientific objectivity.

The discipline of history distinguished itself from theology by adopting a scientific epistemology. The role of a historian became one of uncovering genuine past events rather than promoting narratives for religious or political motives. The distinction between comforting myths and historical truths became increasingly clear.

A naturalistic approach to history necessitates the exclusion of miraculous claims, as these pertain to the supernatural, which lies outside the parameters of modern historical inquiry.

The Consequences of Critical Historical Methods

Applying critical historical methods reveals two significant conclusions: modern historical analysis excludes miracles, and the concept of God’s involvement in history is rendered irrelevant.

At this juncture, defenders of the faith may argue that critical historians are prejudging Christianity. They contend that presuming a naturalistic framework inherently dismisses theological explanations. Thus, the narrative of Jesus performing miracles and his resurrection is deemed invalid.

However, this argument overlooks a crucial point. The critical perspective emerged from the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, which irrevocably altered the study of history. These developments are well-documented and form a part of the established historical narrative. The evolution of historical analysis has progressed from ancient propaganda to a modern, critical approach.

To claim that historians should consider miraculous events equates to imposing a methodological naturalism that respects established scientific inquiry. It is not merely a presupposition; rather, it acknowledges the vast body of scientific knowledge that has systematically examined the universe, steering clear of anomalies like miracles.

The Challenges of Supernatural Claims

Understanding why appeals to the supernatural conflict with the principles of modern historical analysis can be seen as a lesson in critical reasoning. Here are six key issues related to miracle claims and theistic beliefs:

1. Improbability: As David Hume articulated, claims of miracles challenge the established laws of nature, which are supported by extensive experience. Thus, naturalistic explanations hold greater weight than assertions of supernatural violations.
2. Untestability: Supernatural claims often lack the ability to be tested or disproven, which diminishes their credibility. Modifying these claims to accommodate contrary evidence detaches them from empirical reality.
3. Special Pleading: Why should only Christian miracle claims be accepted? A consistent application of critical thinking would necessitate a skeptical view towards supernatural claims across all religions and beliefs.
4. Inconsistency with Scientific Knowledge: Miracle claims often conflict with established scientific understanding, rendering them non-naturalistic.
5. Lack of Explanatory Power: Miraculous claims often fail to provide reductive explanations, suggesting grand mysteries as solutions to smaller questions, which ultimately offers no clarity.
6. Semantic Weakness: Many claims are internally incoherent and based on ambiguous concepts, signaling social allegiance rather than presenting meaningful assertions.

The Dilemma Facing Christianity

Returning to the initial question, what does it mean to assert that the foundational narrative of Christianity is historical? In the technical sense, informed by centuries of scholarly advancement, it becomes nonsensical to maintain that the Christian narrative is historical.

The New Testament incorporates divine beings and miracles, categorizing it as theological and thus incompatible with a skeptical, naturalistic historical account. Moreover, the New Testament serves a propagandistic purpose rather than providing a neutral recounting of events.

What, then, can an apologist mean when claiming historical accuracy? There are two potential approaches:

1. The apologist might adopt a modern, skeptical perspective, suggesting that beneath the theological embellishments of the New Testament lies an authentic history. This could involve acknowledging a Jewish man who preached moral principles and was executed during a politically charged period, with subsequent legends embellishing his story.

However, this view would effectively strip the narrative of all miraculous claims, resulting in a version of history devoid of divine intervention or supernatural occurrences.

2. Alternatively, the apologist could conflate modern historical rigor with premodern notions of history. This would allow for the prestige of objective fact-finding while sidestepping the stringent principles that govern contemporary historical analysis.

This approach is fallacious, akin to a magician masquerading as a medical professional. A narrative can only be deemed “historical” if it adheres to rational principles established through the Scientific Revolution's challenge to medieval dogma.

In the pursuit of understanding historical facts, one must critically evaluate possibilities against a backdrop of scientifically validated knowledge while remaining cautious of implausible supernatural explanations.

This video discusses the common misconception that Jesus's story was merely lifted from pagan myths, providing a rebuttal to claims made in the documentary "Zeitgeist."

This video explores the impact of ancient religions on Western thought and how Christianity has influenced contemporary moral frameworks.