The Historical Process: How Historians Decide What Probably Happened

I have noticed that very few Christians understand the historical-critical method, the approach scholars use to determine what most likely happened in the past. History, along with archaeology, has been a long-standing interest of mine. In recent years, religious history has also come into focus. I make no claim to expertise in this field beyond many years of reading, visits to ancient Greek and Roman sites all around the Mediterranean including Israel's religious sites, and, more recently, listening to podcasts, debates, and discussions on religious topics, especially the origins of the Bible. This article is not a detailed explanation of historical methodology, there are many books that cover that in detail. It simply summarises my understanding of how historians work, what we can reasonably know, and what we cannot. I would be delighted to hear readers’ comments, especially any suggestions for improvement.

Introduction

First, a brief word about what history is. The past is inaccessible to us; it is gone forever. We will never know what happened in the vast majority of events and lives that once existed. Only a small amount of evidence has survived into the present for us to examine. The further back we look, the scarcer and poorer the surviving evidence becomes.

Compare, for example, the documents and other material available from the time of Jesus in the Middle East with those from Elizabethan England: the difference in quantity and quality is enormous. Go back still further, and much of what we have is informed speculation based on the thinnest of data. That is simply the reality of studying the distant past.

History, then, is the disciplined search for whatever evidence survives, documents, artefacts, and other data, followed by careful examination, investigation, and analysis aimed at making sense of what actually occurred. Although the process is not scientific in the same way as physics or chemistry, its principles are similar: facts are identified, hypotheses are formed to explain the evidence, and those hypotheses are tested where possible. Testing is often difficult, however, because we cannot rerun past events or reliably predict what evidence “should” exist. As a result, historians frequently arrive at a best available explanation rather than a proven certainty. In many cases the hypothesis remains untested and unchallenged, but when abundant evidence exists, especially for more recent periods, historians can reach confident conclusions.

The Historical Process

As evidence comes to light, historians evaluate the quality of sources using several key criteria:

1. Are the sources independent of one another? 

2. Are they primary sources (original documents or eyewitness accounts)? 

3. How close in time are they to the events they describe? 

4. Are the sources authentic and reliable? 

5. Do they show signs of bias? 

6. What was the purpose for which they were created?

It is rare for any source, or set of sources, to satisfy all these criteria perfectly. When several are met, however, historians can be reasonably confident that the reported event probably occurred. Conversely, when most criteria are not satisfied, there is usually little reason to accept the claim unless exceptionally strong compensating evidence exists.

For example, suppose twenty independent Christian writers from 1100 to 1300 CE in Europe stated that Stephen was stoned to death as described in Acts. Although the accounts might be independent, they would carry almost no historical weight on their own because they fail virtually every other criterion.

Inference to the Best Explanation

Once the evidence has been assessed, historians often use ‘inference to the best explanation’. This method, also employed in science, involves constructing competing narratives around the available data and judging which one best satisfies a set of criteria. The strongest candidate is then regarded as the best explanation among the options, not as proven truth.

The criteria vary slightly between scholars, but C. Behan McCullagh’s work in Justifying Historical Descriptions [1] highlights key factors in arguments to the best explanation, including:

1. Explanatory scope — explains a greater variety of data 

2. Explanatory power — makes the data more probable than rival accounts do 

3. Plausibility — fits well with existing knowledge and is less strongly contradicted by it 

4. Not being ad hoc — requires fewer unsupported new assumptions 

5. Minimal disconfirmation — conflicts with fewer accepted beliefs

(Other formulations may include additional elements like simplicity or durability.)When the evidence strongly supports one explanation according to these standards, historians may justifiably accept its conclusions as accurate.

Historical Facts

There is often confusion about what counts as a ‘historical fact.’ In everyday speech, people may call something a fact simply because they believe it strongly, regardless of evidence. Many Christians, for instance, are certain that the resurrected Jesus appeared to five hundred people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6) [2]. The tradition containing this claim (the so-called creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7) is widely regarded by scholars, including many non-Christian ones, as very early, likely dating within 2–8 years of Jesus’ crucifixion (late 30s CE). This makes the belief in post-resurrection appearances one of the earliest elements of Christian tradition. However, the specific appearance to the 500 is mentioned only here, without independent corroboration, so historians generally treat the event itself as uncertain. (I have discussed this claim more fully [here] ***link to blog.)

In academic historical study, a ‘historical fact’ means that critical scholars, those who examine the evidence objectively, conclude there is a high probability the event occurred. For ancient events, this rarely requires voluminous multidisciplinary evidence; more often, it rests on multiple independent sources, contextual plausibility, and other supporting data.

Nearly all critical scholars accept certain events from Jesus’ life as historical, such as his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. These are attested in multiple sources (including non-Christian ones like Josephus and Tacitus) and fit the historical context well, ranking among the most certain facts about Jesus.

When sources are few, late, or secondary, historians often rely on tools such as multiple attestation, the criterion of dissimilarity, and others to weigh reliability, though these traditional criteria have faced significant criticism in recent decades (especially since the 2010s) for potential circularity or over-reliance on form-critical assumptions. If a passage appears to be a later addition (as happens frequently in the New Testament), its accuracy becomes harder to establish.

When evidence is weak or rests on a single source, the responsible historical position is usually “We do not know” or “We cannot confirm it happened.” This is not the same as claiming it definitely did not happen; it is simply an honest acknowledgment of the limits of the evidence, similar, in a way, to the “lack of belief” stance many atheists take toward unproven religious claims.

For example, scholars might say that - "The Magna Carta was signed by King John in 1215". There is much supporting evidence that it actually was the case. We have copies of the document including the King's signature, documented conversations from those present when it was signed, and we see the consequences of the content coming to fruition over the following years. Thus, the existence of the Magna Carta signed by King John would be considered as historical fact.

Alternatively, they might say that - "Josephus writes that X did Y". Note, they won't say that X did Y, or it is probable that X did Y if there is nothing else available to confirm the event. However, they also do not say that Josephus must be wrong and X did not do Y either, simply because there is not supporting evidence for the event. But, as other evidence becomes available, they may say - "Josephus writes that X did Y. This was also noted by Tacitus, and we have evidence that X was in the region at the time and from other writings we have, and this is typical of what he would have done". Eventually, as more evidence accrues, the historian will say - "We have good evidence from many sources that X did Y."

Conclusion

The academic study of history is carried out mainly by specialists in universities and other institutions,  using rigorous, long-established methods. Like the sciences, it is never fully settled; new evidence can lead to revised conclusions. At the same time, historians work conservatively. Progress is often slow, and conclusions are carefully qualified. Speculation may play a role in early stages, but final claims must rest on the available evidence. When that evidence is insufficient for a positive conclusion, the most honest answer is often simply “We do not know.”

Notes

1. McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions 1984

2. I Corinthians 15:5-8

November 2025