What can we truly know about the past?

What can we truly know about the past?

Between facts, evidence, hypotheses, and interpretations: how do we know when a historical claim is truly well-grounded?

In the previous article, we saw that there are many ways to investigate the past.

We have manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, buildings, objects, accounts, documents, and many other traces.

But that still does not solve our problem.

Because there is a huge difference between possessing evidence and knowing exactly what that evidence proves.

An ancient inscription can be genuine and still not answer the question we are asking.

A manuscript can be authentic and still not prove that all the events described in it happened exactly as narrated.

A tradition can be very ancient and still contain elements that are difficult to verify.

And a hypothesis can seem convincing without being sufficiently demonstrated.

So we arrive at a fundamental question:

• What can we truly know about the past?

The answer begins with understanding that not all historical claims have the same degree of certainty.

Not everything is simply "fact or opinion"

In internet discussions, it is common to find two seemingly opposing positions.

On one hand:

• "That is a fact."

On the other:

• "That is just an opinion."

The problem is that historical investigation is much more complex than this division.

Between absolute certainty and baseless opinion lies an enormous amount of well-substantiated knowledge.

We can have:

something directly documented;

something supported by multiple independent sources;

something highly probable;

a plausible hypothesis;

a controversial interpretation;

or simply:

a claim for which we do not have sufficient evidence.

Learning to differentiate these categories is one of the best ways to study history honestly.

First: what is evidence?

Evidence is something that can be used to support or evaluate a claim about the past.

It can be a document.

An inscription.

A coin.

A manuscript.

A building.

An artifact.

An account.

A tradition preserved in a text.

Or even linguistic characteristics of a particular document.

But there is an important thing:

• Evidence is not synonymous with conclusion.

Imagine we find a coin bearing the face of a particular ruler in an ancient city.

That is evidence.

We can conclude that that coin circulated or reached that region.

But that does not automatically mean the ruler personally visited that city.

To reach that conclusion, we would need other information.

Perhaps an inscription.

Perhaps administrative documents.

Perhaps archaeological evidence.

Perhaps sources from other regions.

Evidence is the starting point.

The conclusion must be built.

Fact, evidence, and interpretation

These three things constantly appear together, but they are not the same thing.

Imagine we find an ancient document stating that a particular king conquered a city.

We have at least three different levels:

Evidence

The document exists and states that the conquest happened.

Historical fact about the source

We can establish that a particular document was produced at a particular time and that it contains that claim.

Historical interpretation

We can then ask:

Did the conquest really happen?

Did the king exaggerate his victory?

What exactly does "conquer" mean in this context?

Who controlled the city before and after?

Historical investigation happens precisely in this passage between evidence and interpretation.

A source can be true and still be biased

This is very important.

Imagine an ancient king records his victories in a grand inscription.

The document may be authentic.

It may have been actually produced by the king himself.

It may truly describe events that occurred.

And yet it may present an extremely favorable version of the ruler.

This does not make the inscription useless.

Quite the contrary.

It can reveal how that ruler wanted to be remembered.

It can show which titles he used.

Which enemies he considered important.

Which conquests he wanted to celebrate.

And which events he chose not to mention.

Therefore:

• A biased source is not necessarily a false source.

It needs to be interpreted taking its purpose into account.

What if a source is wrong?

That is also possible.

People in the past could make mistakes.

They could forget.

They could misinterpret events.

They could repeat information they received from others.

They could exaggerate.

They could lie.

And they could simply not know.

This means that a historical source needs to be examined.

Who wrote it?

When?

For whom?

Why?

With what information?

In what context?

These questions are not just meant to discredit a source.

They serve to discover how to use it correctly.

The date of the source matters

Imagine two sources about the same event.

The first was written a few years later.

The second was written four hundred years later.

This does not automatically mean the first is right and the second is wrong.

But the time difference matters.

A source closer to a particular event may have access to witnesses or earlier traditions.

On the other hand, a later source may preserve information that disappeared from earlier sources.

Therefore, the age of a source is just one of the questions.

We also need to investigate:

where did the information come from?

which tradition does it preserve?

does it depend on another source?

are there independent pieces of evidence that confirm it?

Historical analysis rarely depends on a single criterion.

The problem of dependence between sources

Imagine someone publishes a historical claim today.

Then ten other people copy exactly the same claim.

Do we have eleven sources?

Not necessarily.

Perhaps we have only one piece of information repeated eleven times.

The same problem appears when studying ancient documents.

One source may depend on another.

Two works may have used an earlier document that has not survived.

Several authors may have received a common tradition.

Therefore, counting how many sources exist is not enough.

We need to ask:

• Are these sources independent of one another?

When different independent sources converge on the same conclusion, the evidence becomes much more interesting.

The convergence of evidence

Imagine we have four types of evidence about an ancient city.

A text mentions the city.

An inscription found at the site mentions the same ruler.

Coins from that period appear in the region.

And archaeology shows an occupation layer corresponding to that time.

None of these pieces of evidence, in isolation, needs to answer all the questions.

But together they can form a much more consistent picture.

This is one of the great strengths of historical investigation:

• different types of evidence can reinforce one another.

That is why archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, manuscripts, and ancient literature can be studied together.

What does it mean to say something is "historically probable"?

This expression may seem strange.

If something is probable, wouldn't it just be a hypothesis?

Not necessarily.

Imagine we have several independent pieces of evidence pointing to a particular conclusion.

We do not have a recording of the event.

We do not have absolutely all the information.

But the explanation fits the available evidence much better than its alternatives.

In that case, a historian may consider it historically probable.

This does not mean:

• "We have absolute certainty."

It means:

• "With the evidence currently available, this explanation is strongly supported."

This difference is essential.

Probability is not a guess

When we say something is probable, we are not simply saying:

• "I think so."

There is a huge difference between the two.

A guess can arise from personal preference.

A probable historical conclusion must be linked to evidence and arguments.

For example:

"I think it happened because it seems to make sense."

is different from:

"We consider this hypothesis probable because different independent sources, close to the period, point in the same direction, and we do not have strong evidence to contradict it."

Both sentences express an opinion.

But only one presents historical justification.

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a given set of evidence.

It can be strong or weak.

It can be very probable or highly speculative.

And a hypothesis can change as new evidence appears.

This is not a weakness of investigation.

It is one of the characteristics of historical knowledge.

If a new discovery contradicts a previous explanation, the researcher needs to reconsider their conclusion.

Therefore, a good investigation does not begin by deciding which answer we want to find.

It begins by asking:

• What do the evidence allow us to conclude?

And when we do not know?

This is perhaps one of the hardest answers for anyone who wants to study history:

• "We do not know."

There is a huge temptation to fill in gaps.

If we have little information about a particular event, we can create a narrative that seems complete.

The problem is that a complete narrative is not necessarily a true narrative.

Sometimes the most intellectually honest answer is:

• We do not have enough evidence to determine that.

This does not mean we will never find out.

It only means that, with the evidence currently available, we cannot assert it with confidence.

The ability to recognize a gap in knowledge is an important part of serious investigation.

Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence

This phrase deserves attention.

Imagine a historical figure lived in a city.

If we do not find any object belonging to him, that does not automatically mean he was never there.

Perhaps his belongings have disappeared.

Perhaps they were not preserved.

Perhaps they have not yet been found.

Perhaps we do not know how to identify them.

But this also does not mean that any claim is possible.

In certain situations, the absence of evidence can actually weigh against a hypothesis.

The point is that we need to ask:

• If this claim were true, would we expect to find some evidence?

If the answer is yes and that evidence is absent in a record we know to be fairly complete, the absence may be relevant.

Therefore, there is no simple rule.

Context matters.

And when there is a contradiction?

Suppose two ancient sources tell different stories about the same event.

What do we do?

We do not automatically choose our favorite.

First, we investigate.

Which source is older?

Are they independent?

Does either of them present details that can be externally confirmed?

What was the purpose of each author?

Is there an explanation that reconciles the two?

Are the differences truly contradictory or do they only appear to be?

And if there really is a contradiction?

Then we need to admit there is a problem in the evidence.

This may mean that:

• one source is mistaken;
• one source is exaggerating;
• the sources are speaking of different events;
• one source depends on a problematic tradition;
• or we simply cannot determine which version is correct.

Historical investigation does not need to eliminate all uncertainty to produce knowledge.

The role of archaeology

Archaeology is particularly important because it offers evidence that does not depend exclusively on texts.

It can confirm the existence of places.

It can establish periods of occupation.

It can reveal cultural changes.

It can show destruction caused by wars.

It can identify funerary practices.

It can provide information about diet, trade, architecture, and economy.

But we also need to avoid the opposite exaggeration.

Archaeology does not "prove the entire Bible."

Nor does it "disprove the entire Bible."

This way of speaking oversimplifies a much more complex discipline.

An archaeological discovery can confirm a specific detail.

It can make a particular historical reconstruction more probable.

It can contradict an interpretation.

It can leave a question open.

And it may have no direct relation to a particular claim.

The right question is always:

• What exactly does this evidence demonstrate?

The same applies to manuscripts

Finding an ancient manuscript does not mean everything in it has been proven.

The manuscript can prove to us that a particular text existed at that time.

It can show how a community transmitted a particular content.

It can preserve a specific version of a passage.

It can present a textual variant.

It can reveal information about language and transmission.

But each of these conclusions is different.

The document needs to be analyzed within its context.

This is precisely why textual criticism and other specialized disciplines are important.

History and faith ask different questions

When we come to Christianity, this distinction becomes especially important.

History can investigate:

Did Jesus exist?

When did he live?

Where did he live?

Which ancient sources speak about him?

How did his followers organize themselves?

How did the movement spread?

Which ancient texts were produced by Christians?

When did certain controversies appear?

These are historical questions.

But Christianity also affirms things of a theological nature.

For example:

Is Jesus the Son of God?

Does his death have salvific meaning?

Did he rise through God's action?

Are the Scriptures divine revelation?

These questions are not simply equivalent to historical questions.

They also involve philosophy, theology, and faith.

This does not mean faith is irrational.

It means that different questions require different forms of argumentation.

Does this mean history cannot investigate the resurrection?

Not exactly.

A historian can investigate what the sources say about the resurrection.

They can study:

• when the beliefs emerged;
• which sources preserve these beliefs;
• how the first Christians spoke about Jesus;
• what experiences the first followers claimed to have had;
• how these beliefs developed.

But there is a difference between historically establishing:

• "The first Christians believed that Jesus had risen."

and establishing:

• "The resurrection was a miracle performed by God."

The first claim can be directly investigated through historical sources.

The second involves a conclusion about a supernatural event and divine action.

We do not need to deny one to recognize the difference between them.

And where does opinion come in?

Opinions are part of life.

We all have interpretations, convictions, and preferences.

The problem arises when an opinion is presented as if it were a mandatory conclusion from the evidence.

For example:

• "I believe this happened."

is a personal statement.

Meanwhile:

• "The evidence demonstrates that this happened."

is a claim that needs to be defended.

The second demands much more.

We need to ask:

What evidence?

Which sources?

Are they independent?

What is the date?

How do we know they are authentic?

Are there alternative explanations?

Do experts disagree?

This is the difference between simply having an opinion and presenting a historical argument.

Not every disagreement means everything is relative

This is another very common mistake.

Two people can disagree about a particular historical event.

That does not mean both versions necessarily carry the same weight.

Imagine one researcher presents ten independent sources and another presents a social media post.

The fact that both have opinions does not put their arguments on the same level.

We can evaluate:

• quality of sources;
• temporal proximity;
• independence;
• coherence;
• external evidence;
• method used;
• specialized knowledge.

Therefore:

• The existence of different opinions does not mean all opinions carry the same weight.

Nor should we turn consensus into an argument from authority

The opposite can also happen.

Someone might say:

• "All experts say this, so you simply have to believe it."

This is also insufficient.

Expert consensus is relevant because it results from accumulated research, source comparison, and academic debate.

But the ideal is to understand why that consensus exists.

What is the evidence?

Which arguments were considered?

Which objections were answered?

A good study does not simply ask:

• "Whom should I believe?"

It asks:

• "What is the argument and what evidence does it rely on?"

Historical knowledge has levels of certainty

A useful way to organize all of this is to imagine a scale.

Very well established

There is broad convergence of sources and independent evidence.

Well substantiated

There is good evidence, although some details may remain debatable.

Probable

The explanation is currently the best interpretation of the available evidence, but there are relevant uncertainties.

Possible

The hypothesis does not contradict the evidence, but the evidence is not sufficient to make it probable.

Speculative

There are few foundations or many gaps.

Unsupported

We have not found sufficient evidence to defend the claim.

This scale is much more useful than simply dividing everything into:

"truth"

and

"opinion".

Why are we learning this before studying Jesus?

Because very soon we are going to enter one of the most studied figures of Antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth.

And we will encounter very different claims about him.

Some will be very well established.

Others will be probable.

Others will be debated among experts.

Some will be theological interpretations.

And some will simply have insufficient evidence.

If we do not learn to distinguish these categories, any discussion about Jesus quickly turns into a dispute of opinions.

But if we learn to analyze the sources, we can do something much more interesting:

investigate.

And this will also be important for the councils

Further on, we will encounter claims like:

• "The Council of Nicaea invented the divinity of Jesus."

Or:

• "The Council decided the entire Bible."

Or:

• "The Church always believed exactly the same thing."

Or even:

• "Everything was manipulated by Constantine."

All of these claims may seem convincing depending on what someone has seen on the internet.

But now we know we need to ask:

What is the source?

When is it from?

Is it independent?

What does it actually say?

What can we conclude from it?

What is later interpretation?

Is there contrary evidence?

This is how we are going to study the councils.

Not starting from the conclusion.

Starting from the evidence.

The rule we will carry throughout this journey

From here on, we can establish a simple rule:

• We do not need to believe everything we find. We need to learn to evaluate what we find.

This applies to an ancient manuscript.

It applies to an archaeological discovery.

It applies to a religious tradition.

It applies to an academic book.

It applies to a YouTube video.

And it also applies to this blog.

The goal of Kanon should not be to replace one opinion with another.

It should be to offer the reader tools to investigate.

When a claim is very well established, we will say so.

When there is debate, we will show it.

When a conclusion is probable, we will distinguish it from a certainty.

When we do not know, we should say we do not know.

And when a question goes beyond what historical investigation can establish, we also need to recognize that limit.

Now we can truly begin

We have finished our first stage.

We already know that the past can be investigated.

We know there are different types of sources.

We know sources have limitations.

We know evidence is not the same as conclusion.

We know a hypothesis is not automatically a fact.

We know consensus does not mean unanimity.

And we know a historical question can be different from a theological question.

Now we are prepared to go back in time.

Long before Jesus was born.

Long before Rome dominated Judea.

Long before the Christian councils existed.

Long before there was a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Church as we know them today.

We need to get to know Israel.

The next step

Before Jesus: the world that prepared the way for Christianity

To understand Christianity, we need to go back to a world that already had centuries of history.

A world of kings and empires.

Of exiles and returns.

Of wars and reconstructions.

Of Jews living among different cultures.

Of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

Of religious traditions that were in full development.

It is in this world that the story of Jesus begins.

And that is where we are going now.