You may have noticed some recent changes here. Technology has moved on in the 18 years since this site was launched, some of the systems we used were no longer supported and many of our visitors are now using smartphones and tablets. Therefore we have copied all the old content into a modern system that is easier to navigate and maintain, and restyled it with a “responsive” theme that works with mobiles. If you have used our online shop before you will need to re-register, I’m afraid. Apart from that all the old information is still here somewhere – the menus haven’t changed much and the search box now works for the entire site. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope you like the new look.
Volume 26 Issue 1: Jim Al-Khalili
JIM AL-KHALILI
quantum mechanics, quantum biology & the history of science
MORE MIRACLES
the return of Peter Popoff
BRAIN TRAINING
evidence please?
CORRELATION or CAUSATION?
mozarella cheese & civil engineering
REVISITING THE SECRET
a psychological perspective on the self-help bestseller
The Uncontested Word: Why do Some Historians Treat Religious Texts as Sacred?
Richard Firth-Godbehere contemplates the historical provenance and value of religious texts.
Published for The Skeptic online on 17th April 2013.
Photograph: Kevin Peters
There are a great many historians who practice religions of all flavours. Some historians jump headlong into the history of their particular faith, blending it with apologetics and philosophy. Others simply ignore their religious predilections and concentrate on other areas of history, sealing their faith in a mental box with a sign huge on the lid reading ‘do not enter while studying’. I am sure this arrangement or something similar to it is found throughout all walks of academic life, but I find it particularly puzzling when I find it amongst historians. I know of many good historians who take their collection of fables as absolutely true; it is one of the most fascinating and puzzling examples of cognitive dissonance I know of.
After all, a historian is, by definition, someone who is deeply sceptical about old texts and artefacts. It is a historian’s job to dust off manuscripts, wade through archives, dig things out of dark corners and not believe a word of it (unless there is some good supporting evidence, of course). Even when a historian does believe a word of it, he tempers this with a deep analysis of the text or object at hand, stripping it down in order to work out what the narrative really is, as opposed to what the text or object claims it is. In short, we historians are deeply sceptical pedants: each and every one of us. So why does pedantry, suspicion and obsessive checking, cross-checking, double checking and rechecking disappear so often in the face of a religious text? Here, I’ll take a lightly meandering journey through the peripheries of the philosophy of history in order to find out if there is any validity in accepting a religious text as good source of history.
