Source: “On the Resurrection: volume 1”: Evidences, 2024 by Gary Habermas Published by B&H Academic Brentwood, Tennessee.
2. Historiography- The Tools and Rules of the Discipline.mp3
This text outlines the professional methodology of historiography, specifically focusing on the tools and rules used to reconstruct the past from surviving data. The author categorizes historical evidence into primary and secondary sources, ranging from eyewitness testimony and physical artifacts to written documents and oral traditions. To determine the reliability of these sources, scholars apply several criteria of authenticity, such as multiple attestation, early testimony, and the principle of embarrassment, which suggests that potentially damaging reports are more likely to be true. Ultimately, the historian functions like a researcher who sifts through conflicting accounts to reach an inference to the best explanation, providing a scholarly foundation for investigating significant events like the life of Jesus.
How can we possibly know what truly happened thousands of years ago? When faced with ancient texts filled with extraordinary claims and conflicting accounts, it’s easy to assume that history is little more than a collection of subjective stories. But for professional historians, the past isn't just a matter of opinion. They use a rigorous, detective-like set of tools to sift through evidence and establish what most likely occurred.
This article reveals four of the most surprising and counter-intuitive "rules of the trade" that historians use to establish historical probability. Drawing examples from the critical study of ancient texts, these principles show how scholars separate legend from likely fact, building a case for the past one piece of evidence at a time.
The "principle of embarrassment," or negative report, is a powerful tool for authenticating a historical claim. The core idea is simple: if a source includes details that are awkward, unflattering, or counter-productive to the author's own cause, those details are very likely to be true. The logic is that people don't typically invent stories that make their heroes, their leaders, or their movement look bad. Such self-damaging material would likely be omitted unless it was too well-known to be denied.
The Gospels, for instance, contain several accounts that meet this criterion: