Bro. Glen wrote:
I was going to start a separate post on this question but felt it fit in right here... Since there are so many different writers on Baptist History how can we say with true validity which writer is the writer of truth?... Or must we take a little here and a little there like the scriptures... Precept upon precept... Line upon line... Here a little there a little? What stand do you take when one writer contradicts another and would that be a deliberate error or just from the position of the writer?
Many times in the New Testament... Matthew, Mark, Luke and maybe John saw the same thing but from their own perspective and put it in their words as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Is not Baptist History and Biblical History the same and it depends on whose perspective you see it from?... Or do we take what we read to be true comparing it with others that wrote in the same time and era and except it with an eye of faith... but keeping that eye of faith with an opened mind!... How do you validate history knowing that the history you validate is true?... Brother Glen
Bro. Glen
A very valid question. One that has volumes of material in the academic world, so I hope I can bring out the highlights in a short post. The question is valid for non-Biblical/church history as well. As has been noted many times the victors get to write the history (for the most part). And there is always some danger in accepting the majority position on any subject.
History should be, and is properly defined as Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. In most histories the Why and the How are the more difficult questions. In Church/Biblical History in addition to Why and How, What also becomes very important.
In other words, Who were the people under discussion, What did they believe, What did they understand, where were they located, when did the events under discussion take place, How did the group accomplish their purpose, how did they get to that point in space and time, how did they interact with those external to their group, how, how, how??? Why did they take their positions, why were these positions different/unique from those they were in conflict with? Why, Why, Why? There are lots of variants on the how and why questions, which can be unique to the study of the particular topic.
To be a valid history, the questions must be properly framed. In addition the historical writer, must present cogent answers to those questions, with valid source materials for coming to those answers. Valid source materials are considered as primary source materials. Primary source materials are defined as documents produced at the time of the historical inquiry by members of the group under study, those who had first had observation of them, or their opponents. Interviews would qualify as primary source material if the subject of the study are still active/living. (These are the difficulties with Ivey's book). Secondary source materials may be used to reinforce the theories/conclusions advanced, but should never, never, ever, be the sole basis for a proper history.
As for the question of historical truth. There are absolutes there, just as there is in scripture. The problem is discovering what those absolutes are. For ancient groups it is exceedingly difficult. Isolation of source materials, difficulties in understanding archealogical method, linguistic problems, etc., etc. The problems with ancient historical inquiry are probably best left to those who have access to original source materials. (Another problem with the Ivey book. Hassell had the linquistic abilities to overcome some of Ivey's shortcomings in this area, and one reason Hassell is still to be esteemed higher). When I was in college, I had courses on the identification of historical source material, and how to determine which was vallid, and which was not.
Another problem with historical works are the prejudices of the historical writer. In an ideal world these prejudices should be put aside. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. You know I write Civil War histories, but I wont write about a unit or engagement that I had an ancestor in. It colors my judgment about the event or group.
At any rate, hopefully this will give some insights on how academic historians work.
