2.3 Summary of standards

Published by 1c15 on 4th November 20194th November 2019

Summary of standards

So to summarise, we are using five widely accepted philosophical standards seen as crucial for determining the validity of evidence. Along with this, we have five historical standards that have been identified by New Testament scholars as relevant for the study of the Judeo-Christian worldview, widely used by the evangelical and sceptic scholar. Apart from these standards we identified the value of setting certain requirements to both begin and end our evaluations. A Principle of testimony aids us in understanding that we should investigate historical written testimony as we’ve done fruitfully in the 20th century. Historical certainty level helps us to bracket how probable an event is based on the data, so the more boxes a case ticks from these ten standards, the higher the historical certainty. The standard is set quite high because historical events are significant and are worth investigating (but not to the point where you need to physically watch Julius Caesar cross the rubicon, but be very confident he actually did).

Since historians don’t have video footage, these principles are common sense guides for the record of something that is to alleged of happened. The historian has his methods installed in his brain as they sift through the evidence. When finding something of authenticity, apply the principles, do any apply? If so, this tips the scales in favour of that.  When some facts required are lost to ancient history, this weighs on the other side of favour. When the scale tips significantly in favour of an event, there is reason to believe that it is “Historical” that it “really happened”.

Glossary

Principle of testimony: Believe and value testimony if there is none to counter it (Like knowing Neptune exists without personally seeing it yourself)

Historical Certainty level required: This would be where the evidence points to the conclusion, aligns with the facts and is the best explanation. You can’t be absolute unless you were there, even then your friends may doubt you.

Explanatory scope: A theories ability to account for all the relevant facts 

Explanatory power: Accounting for all the relevant facts without forcing the data to fit 

Illumination of history: offering insight into other areas of history (e.g. the origins of Christianity and belief of a physical resurrection)

Level of Ad hoc: The least amount of additional beliefs added is the least ad hoc and least contrived (e.g. assuming mass ecstasy in Jerusalem to explain all group hallucinations in and around Jerusalem for 40 days post Jesus resurrection).

Plausibility: Where the reasons for accepting the evidence far outweighs the evidence for rejecting the theory (Most reasonable, it may not be absolute as you weren’t there 2,000 years ago) 

Multiple independent sources: This is when an event or saying is testified by more than one independent source, you get a strong indication of historicity.

Enemy attestation: If testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathise with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account, we have an indication of authenticity.

Embarrassing admissions: Embarrassing admissions are an indicator that an event or saying is authentic because the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses his cause and “weakens their position in arguments with opponents.” 

Eyewitness testimony: Eyewitness testimony is usually stronger than a secondhand account. Historians must also consider testimony of secondhand witnesses as they attempt to arrive at a conclusion regarding what happened.
Early testimony: The closer the time between the event and the testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into the account.