When it comes to history, how do we know the truth?

[kingsan]

I read something in a blog once where a college professor says something to this effect: When we study history its actually like listening to gossip; you cannot know the whole truth. At first I found it rather odd for a college history professor to say something like that but thinking about it for a while makes me realize that there is truth to what he said. There are many different opinions and facts when it comes to history but for those of us who are studying church history, wouldn’t we like to know the whole truth? So the question must be asked: How do we know that what we are reading and what we are being told is the truth? For example, you have a history book authored by this “scholar” and what he says in it is, according to him, the truth of the subject. And then another “scholar” shows up and says the opposite. Confronted now with two conflicting ideas, how do we know the truth in what we are studying?

 

[Della]

We have to go by the evidence–documents from the time in question is the best resource. Anyone can write a history book, but can his documentation be authenticated? That’s the question. There are many pseudo-histories written by people with agendas, but real history needs reliable sources. The Church has many sources for its history–indeed, the Vatican has extensive historical archieves that go back several centuries. What history do you question?

 

[rickpizzaro]

Good points kingsan Whenever we read any kind of history or social science, we have to critically evaluate all the information being presented. This means we have to ask ourselves:

1. Are the facts and propositions being offered actually “true” - ie correct and accurate;
2. Are the facts being presented “true” in some sense, but are being analyzed incorrectly or taken out of context, so that incorrect and / or misleading conclusions are being drawn from them;
3. Regardless of the veracity of the facts and analysis, what is the agenda of the writer or presenter, and what type of response does he seek to elicit from the listener.

People can be very easily mislead with false versions of history and social science because these disciplines present themselves as “sciences”, presenting facts in an objective manner. When people open history books with this mindset, they can be very easily influenced and manipulated. In reality, all history is basically a form of journalism - once you get past the most basic of facts (eg Vatican City is an enclave located in Rome), any other information presented is editorial in nature, which may or may not be true. Another issue is that the victors tend to always write history (usually because they have killed or suppressed the other side militarily, &/or socially and economically), and many professional historians can be described as “court historians”, who build careers and livelihoods on spreading versions of history friendly to those most influential in their societies. Often you can get a sense of the “court history” on any particular subject in American society today by checking out the latest historically-themed Hollywood or TV movie about it. Generally, any historian who questions prevailing historical ideas will be attacked both professionally and personally. Its important to remember that today the study of history, and all academics itself, is a business, and a very political one.

I think its important for us as Catholics to realize that most “mainstream” academics have been quite hostile to the church for the last few decades. So if you were to open up a random book discussing the church in a public library, Barnes & Noble, or turn on a random History Channel show or Hollywood movie, you are going to be bombarded with anti-Catholic distortions and lies. Every real or perceived evil ever committed by the Church will be discussed ad nauseum. In this case the prevailing viewpoint, that the Church has been a negative and destructive force throughout history, is simply not true, and is politically motivated.

 

[Jerurussia]

The bona fides of the author of any historic account that is skewed, to my mind, often include secret society ties. I monitor for cheap shots at the Catholic Church, not unlike the spin on the Paris massacre “Je Suis Charlie” that had commentators recasting Catholicism as a terrorist institution. SWISH! That’s the guillotine at work.

The greatest lie in circulation at present is ancient history, which can be triangulated–quadrangulated?-- with art, law, architecture, and extant texts to show that the whole and entire world was originally monotheist and carried forward corrupted remnants of Genesis, including the first couple and the Great Flood and a universal marriage rite. So…Ready for that? Ready to chuck your pricey college cover-up and rewriting of ancient-dom for reality?

The lodge system of today parallels the original rebellion against monotheism, with a cabal of kings–a foreign system–seizing lands that were inherited through the Woman & Seed Genesis 3:15 system of EN-dom, the “woman of grace.” This is the golden age, so-called, and overthrow of the system is perfectly in sync with the DAVINCI CODE secret society rebels. The elite turned the elect EN into a “sacred prostitute” having sex with strangers to muddy the orthodox lineage–today it’s “Christ’s seed via Mary Magdalene through the Merovingians.” Genetic Christians. That’s the punchline of DAVINCI CODE with Wisdom Incarnate–ugh–heading for the shack out back to continue the lineage with strangers. Got it?

As today, in this rebellion the EN’s children were put to death and daddy was enslaved. It’s exactly the same today, and was termed the “patriarchal revolution” in ancient history, and it is delineated in the Hebrews demanding a king, God saying no via Samuel, and relenting at the people’s demands. That’s it in a nutshell. Nothing new under the Sun. Any questions? King of Kings, reign and rule all hearts.

 

[kingsan]

Thank you for your answers! I asked this because I don’t want to be victimized by history authors with agendas. When authentic documentations or evidence are presented I believe the truth can still be twisted. Its either black or white but they can still make it all gray for the readers and listeners. And also, its the second time I’ve read this “victors tend to write history” thing. A Bart Ehrman book says the same with regard to the Catholic Church when it was able to supress the heretics in its early years. But still we are wrong and it just so happened that we won the fight against heresy during the early stages of the church’s development.

 

[oldcelt]

We have to go by the evidence–documents from the time in question is the best resource. Anyone can write a history book, but can his documentation be authenticated? That’s the question. There are many pseudo-histories written by people with agendas, but real history needs reliable sources. The Church has many sources for its history–indeed, the Vatican has extensive historical archieves that go back several centuries. What history do you question?

One must also consider the bias of historic sources. The more sources, the better. However, the historian must eventually make a decision regarding what story is the most verifiable. Having written two full books and hundreds of articles on historic subjects I can personally attest that this is the most difficult aspect.

John

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I read something in a blog once where a college professor says something to this effect: When we study history its actually like listening to gossip; you cannot know the whole truth. …]How do we know that what we are reading and what we are being told is the truth? …]

You don’t. History books contain constructed narratives, some of which may conform to what happened, some might not. Information might be added or removed (especially in school books) for other purposes. This is no secret as some of the groups that have decided not to present certain portions of history have stated some of their motivations for doing so and it seldom has to do with historical accuracy. Take a look at some of the more recent revisions that Texas has requested and proposed for their school history books and their stated reasons why.

Related interesting reading: Lies my Teacher told Me

My advice: consider multiple sources and look deeper that the materials that were made specifically for students.

 

[Jerurussia]

Elitism is the most sanitized movement in the USA. The most egregious abuse of the term “American history” is Schlesinger’s AGE OF JACKSON with his putting lipstick on the genesis of U.S. liberalism’s pig with his treatment of Jackson’s seizing Native American lands by over-riding the Supreme Court decision to back off; and the issue of slavery. White makes right.

Professor-to-president Woodrow Wilson’s institutionalized racism has NEVER been exposed, with his hosting the KKK and demanding pictures be submitted with civil service job applications to weed out any dark-skinned types. “No Jews, Catholics or Negroes” makes right.

The New York Times’ praising of Pius XII during WW II and punking him afterwards via protestant pastor protesters to neutralize Catholic influence is of note in the NYT’s “all the news that fits the agenda” legacy. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/WASP makes right.

Public Television’s recent paean to the Roosevelts downplays Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Supreme Court packing let alone the sweetheart deals to his fellow blue-bloods with the Depression public works projects having to purchase raw materials at wildly inflated prices from his industrialist buddies. “Ship of Fools” Jews were repulsed by anti-Semitic FDR to die in the holocaust. WASP monopoly industrialist oligarchs make right.

Republicans were robbed of their Civil Rights record by starting the clock with Kennedy, not Eisenhower who passed two measures. Republicans pushed through the third under Kennedy and the fourth under Johnson. White southerners take credit for rights.

Faux Republicans that are elitists and globalists with CIA ties are well-represented in the Bush family. Skull & Bones makes right.

Good public relations shape badly rewritten or unwritten history.

 

[oldcelt]

You don’t. History books contain constructed narratives, some of which may conform to what happened, some might not. Information might be added or removed (especially in school books) for other purposes. This is no secret as some of the groups that have decided not to present certain portions of history have stated some of their motivations for doing so and it seldom has to do with historical accuracy. Take a look at some of the more recent revisions that Texas has requested and proposed for their school history books and their stated reasons why.

Related interesting reading: Lies my Teacher told Me

My advice: consider multiple sources and look deeper that the materials that were made specifically for students.

I had a great professor in college who would tell us that we were getting history according to him and that we should all dig deeper. That has always stuck with me. You could debate with the man, but you’d better have all your ducks in a row.

John

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Bear in mind that “History is written by the victors.” Actually, this quote is attributed to Churchill, but historians differ as to whether even that is true - an ironic example of how slippery history can be.

 

[Della]

Whenever possible, original sources must be used. When they aren’t available–destroyed or lost, then other writings of the times are all that’s left to come close to the truth. Original documents might tell a very different story from one being promoted by someone out to make a buck. For instance, the modern tendency to psychoanalyse dead people and their motives does a huge disservice to real history. History can definitely be skewed, especially in the popular media. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as sound history. It only means we need to be careful to not believe the latest “revelation” that comes along merely because it titillates or reinforces what we already want to believe instead of what’s actually true.

 

[edwest2]

As someone who specializes in World War II history, one needs to know who has what documents. Regarding certain periods of the war, certain documents are “missing” or still classified. Go figure on that last one. In other cases, I’ve located a number of obscure but scholarly sources that have brought much new information to light but you won’t find 99% of these books at your local bookstore. And I’ve had the good fortune of getting commentary from authors who have spent 10, 20 or 30 years researching a subject, and suggestions about where to look.

History is written by the victors? In some cases, I’ve seen more copies of original American documents published in German books than in American (and mostly from American archives). The result is a far more balanced picture. Research is difficult but very rewarding.

As a professional researcher, even though I may have certain preconceived ideas, I either find evidence for it or I don’t. One always needs a starting assumption, no matter how unlikely. In doing research for a book, I started with a basic premise that, to my surprise, turned out to yield evidence. Sometimes, one has to ask the right questions before starting and even chasing down the occasional “outlandish” idea because I’ve seen other authors come up with surprising information.

Ed

 

[oldcelt]

As someone who specializes in World War II history, one needs to know who has what documents. Regarding certain periods of the war, certain documents are “missing” or still classified. Go figure on that last one. In other cases, I’ve located a number of obscure but scholarly sources that have brought much new information to light but you won’t find 99% of these books at your local bookstore. And I’ve had the good fortune of getting commentary from authors who have spent 10, 20 or 30 years researching a subject, and suggestions about where to look.

History is written by the victors? In some cases, I’ve seen more copies of original American documents published in German books than in American (and mostly from American archives). The result is a far more balanced picture. Research is difficult but very rewarding.

As a professional researcher, even though I may have certain preconceived ideas, I either find evidence for it or I don’t. One always needs a starting assumption, no matter how unlikely. In doing research for a book, I started with a basic premise that, to my surprise, turned out to yield evidence. Sometimes, one has to ask the right questions before starting and even chasing down the occasional “outlandish” idea because I’ve seen other authors come up with surprising information.

Ed

Agreed Ed. I have found some of my theories (particularly on local history) blown to bits by the evidence I have found or people have offered to me. It’s humbling…but a researcher/writer had best be prepared to take their knocks when they miss. Actually, I’d rather be shown to be wrong and always printed the new information in the local newspaper where I worked.

 

[marymary1975]

That is so true. When we learn history we don’t really learn the truth. We either learn chops of what happened, half truths or one person 's version of what happened the fact that winners and the most powerful are the ones who write the history makes it even more difficult. Another thing to consider is that the actual historical truth is too long and extensive to be properly condensedbin a book or in a class hence what we learn is just incomplete fragments and there is many more details that are left behind. I realized this after doing some extensive traveling and going to many museums. Every museum showed me that I was thought in the past incomplete stories or one person’s version of the event.

I think finding the actual truth is not an easy job but if you are up for some research here are some points that helped to find the actual ttueth in some subjects.

First, go to the place of origin. What we learn in other countries is not necessarily what people in the country where the event happened know or learn. I realized this when I went to Egypt. By going to the Gyza piramifs and Egyptian museums I learn that much of the story we learn with regard to the Gynza pyramids is incorrect. I learned at the Egyptian museum that the British changed their story to suit them (again the most powerful party is the one that reports the history) and apparently the first reporter that came back to the UK to report the discovery of the pyramid forgot several facts, like names, spellings etc, so he reported what he thought it was. Due to that in occident Egyptian history has been incorrectly thought for a long time. Egyptians have been fighting hard to educate the world on what happened but you need to go over there to get it directly from the horse’s mouth.

Read the versions of all parties involved in the event. When I went to Turkey and Greece it blew my mind to see how out of the same historic event, there can be two completely different versions of the story. Greeks claim that XYZ happened and Turks claim A BC happened. Each country teaches a completely different version. This happens very frequently and it can be hard to figure out what is right and wrong but if you hear both sides of the story sometimes you will be in a better position to at least understand the situation

Use common sense. I was thought in history class once about how pirate henry Morgan burned certain city on the pacific coast. The story never made any sense to me because it implied that a ship had arrived on the pacific shore and when you look at the pacific shore of the area is full of something similar to quicksand. No way that a ship would ever be able to make it there. I spent countless days at several libraries figuring out the whole thing. Finally at the Smithsonian library I found one detailed report that explained that pirate Morgan arrived through the Atlantic and walked to the pacific. However the history was too long soy guess is that in order to condense it for a class professors didn’t have the time to go into details and like the gossip people assumed he entered by the pacific which was not correct. If it haven’t been for my common sense I’d have never found the actual history.

Talk to the elderly! Granpas, grandmas and greatgrans are a wonderful source of history and their memories can be very helpful. Never underestimate the live experiences of the elderly in certain events. You will learn more than what you think.

Finally read different versions, different books and different perceptions even if you don’t agree with them. You would never be able to find out what actually happened if you don’t read everybody’s version. It is like a puzzle and by reading different and sometimes contradictory versions, at the end you will get a much better picture of the event.

Those are my two cents

 

[Neofight]

Only certain elements of what comprise history are objective; most of the elements are subjective. So while we may find truth IN history, we may or may not find the “big picture” history of anything (outside the history of the economy of salvation) being the truth.

 

[Thorolfr]

Confronted now with two conflicting ideas, how do we know the truth in what we are studying?

Good question, kingsan. I’m reading a book by the well known historian of early Christianity, University of North Carolina professor Bart Ehrman which challenges the Catholic version of history. In his book *Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew *(Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 1-2, he writes:

What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day-Adventists pale by comparison.

Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed that they had been forged….

Ehrman then continues on page 4:

Modern Christianity is not lacking in a diversity of its own, with its wide-ranging theologies, liturgies, practices, interpretations of Scripture, political views, social stands, organizations, institutions, and so on. But virtually all forms of modern Christianity, whether they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it determined who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas.

And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective, in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e. the “right belief”) and that its opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested into deceiving people into “heresy” (literally meaning “choice”; a heretic is someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right things).

There is no doubt that to Ehrman, the “victorious party” that “rewrote the history of the controversy” was what he calls “proto-orthodox” Christians who became what is now the Catholic Church. So whose version of early Christian history is correct? Ehrman has a lot to say in his book about some of these books that were “stamped out” by the “proto-orthodox” group such as the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Secret Gospel of Mark and so forth.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed Ed. I have found some of my theories (particularly on local history) blown to bits by the evidence I have found or people have offered to me. It’s humbling…but a researcher/writer had best be prepared to take their knocks when they miss. Actually, I’d rather be shown to be wrong and always printed the new information in the local newspaper where I worked.

I look at it as a friendly and collaborative effort. The challenge, should one accept it, is taking the time to look and especially beyond the usual reference sources. I usually ask myself, who might know about this or that? And other times, I’ll get books on a related subject only to find a large and helpful bibliography in the back that references obscure sources and with studies, papers and similar written by people who were there. Having a lot of information is good but multiple sources is best. And when new information comes to light, I let people in the World War II community know.

It’s great that you work at a local newspaper. I have a friend who also works at one.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Good question, kingsan. I’m reading a book by the well known historian of early Christianity, University of North Carolina professor Bart Ehrman which challenges the Catholic version of history. In his book *Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew *(Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 1-2, he writes:

Ehrman then continues on page 4:

There is no doubt that to Ehrman, the “victorious party” that “rewrote the history of the controversy” was what he calls “proto-orthodox” Christians who became what is now the Catholic Church. So whose version of early Christian history is correct? Ehrman has a lot to say in his book about some of these books that were “stamped out” by the “proto-orthodox” group such as the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Secret Gospel of Mark and so forth.

What evidence does he present? The Vatican has a vast archive. If he’s suggesting a conspiracy then he needs to present his reasoning. And what is his point? To illuminate or confuse?

Ed

 

[Mintaka]

The problem is that Ehrman spends most of his time in that book pulling all kinds of unscholarly tricks. He quotes selectively. He tells straightforward stories as if they are secrets or hidden, and he radically simplifies complicated things. Sometimes he says something that’s an outright lie. It gets worse in his later books.

If you look on patristic and Biblical scholars’ websites (and I particularly encourage you to look at the atheist ones’ websites), you will see that Ehrman’s “popularizations” are constantly being reviewed poorly because he lies to his readers who don’t know enough to call him on it. He used to have a good reputation which is he is now trampling down.

Christianity was a fairly lively group of people who were Jewish followers of Jesus, who was both God become man and the Messiah. Since they were famous for doing miracles and driving away demons, they attracted a lot of people who were occult-hungry as well as a lot of normal people. Many of the occult-hungry people went off to do their own occult thing, dressed up in fashionable Christian clothing. Others wanted a simpler, less Jewish Christianity and came up with “reasonable” ideas, like dropping most of the OT and NT, or believing that Jesus was a standard issue hero who wasn’t really divine, or a standard issue god who wasn’t really human.

But even at the time, everybody knew who was Catholic, and who was a weird offshoot. That’s why the weird groups usually had to appeal to “secret teachings,” or say that the ordinary Bible books didn’t count at all. That’s also why most offshoot groups didn’t have any martyrs. (To be fair, there were some. But most Gnostic groups didn’t hold with that messy death stuff, and certainly the Docetists didn’t.)

The only time you get serious cases of “other Christianities” that rival the Catholic Church is when there are schisms, which tend to start rather late; when we get to the Arians who also came along rather late; and the the few odd cases when heretical groups got somewhere first (which is mostly the Arians, again).

 

[oldcelt]

I look at it as a friendly and collaborative effort. The challenge, should one accept it, is taking the time to look and especially beyond the usual reference sources. I usually ask myself, who might know about this or that? And other times, I’ll get books on a related subject only to find a large and helpful bibliography in the back that references obscure sources and with studies, papers and similar written by people who were there. Having a lot of information is good but multiple sources is best. And when new information comes to light, I let people in the World War II community know.

It’s great that you work at a local newspaper. I have a friend who also works at one.

Best,
Ed

One of my great joys has been the ability to interview dozens of WWII vets. Are their memories 100% reliable…probably not. But it is their story, and I let them tell it. If something conflicts with well-established knowledge, I simply leave it out of my final draft.

BTW, I intend to reassemble all the stories I wrote if you would ever like the info. One Bataan Death March Survivor, Airborne members, Marines, surface Navy, sub crewmen and so on. I’ll be more than happy to share if you think it will be of any value to your work.

John

John