Can We Know Anything About “History”?
In one sense, everything is history. What I just wrote, five seconds ago, is now “history.” It is in the past. It will never change. I can go back and change the words now, but I cannot change the fact that I wrote what I wrote when I wrote it. “History” is not just something that happened long ago. Once something has happened, even those five seconds—one second—ago, it is now unchangeable history.
We live in the present, but the present changes into the past in—one second. Or less. The future isn’t here yet. We hope it comes, but have no guarantee it will. We don’t know what the future will hold. We only have the past.
And once something happens, it becomes unchangeable fact. I had a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday. That is the truth, it is a fact, it cannot change. It is absolute. Nothing can change the FACT that I had a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday. I, or somebody else, could deny it, but that won’t change anything. I had a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday, that is true now, it will be true tomorrow, it will be true 2,000 years from now. Nothing can alter it. History is absolute in that regard.
Of course, most historical events aren’t very important. The world isn’t going to be revolutionized by my eating a ham sandwich yesterday. But some historical events ARE very important, indeed, revolutionary, and the more we know about them, the wiser we will be.
The problem is, how can we be absolutely sure about past events? They happened, but can we really know them? My dear, far left-wing brother once said, “History—if we can really know anything about it...” Well, that is convenient for those who want to deny historical truths they don’t like, and want to revise them to fit their personal, selfish lifestyle. It isn’t an uncommon thing among humans.
History doesn’t lie. But historians do. Especially left-wing historians and other Democrats (well, all politicians for that matter). How many times has Joe Biden lied about something he says happened in his own past? Humans tend to want to justify most everything they do, and that—very often—involves lying about the past. It’s either lie or repent, and lying is easier, more pleasurable, and allows us (we think) to escape responsibilities to God and fellow man and the consequences of our actions. That is a near-universal phenomenon among our species. We lie, and what is a lie if not a changing of the facts of history?
But facts don’t lie. And they are unchangeable. The ham sandwich thing. I could lie and say I ate a pizza for lunch yesterday. But that would be a lie, and it wouldn’t change the FACT that I had a ham sandwich. And even if someone believed my lie, it wouldn’t change the facts.
Now—except for Democrats (and most politicians)—most people don’t lie continuously. Most historical facts are harmless—the ham sandwich thing—so why should we lie about them? People only change history when there is a distinct motivation to do so—again, some (usually) personal reason to deny a past event. This is what we are facing today among Leftist historians who continually deny facts of American history (CRT), or re-interpret them if they cannot be negated (the 1619 Project). And always, always, always with personal and/or political aggrandizement in view. The word “power” comes to mind.
But how can we truly be sure of any historical event, especially those hundreds or thousands of years in the past? People DO lie, even people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. A couple of thoughts on how to verify historical events.
1. People generally don’t lie about not-important matters (the ham sandwich thing). People will (often but not always) lie if there is personal gain or harm involved. Honest, decent, noble people will tell the truth even to their own harm. Such is a major difference between honest, decent, noble people and scumbags. But most recorded historical events can be believed because there is really no reason for the “recorder” to lie about them. “Most,” I say.
2. Obviously, the more people who attest to a certain event, the more credible it becomes. This is how courts can convict criminals. In America, one witness is sufficient (if their story holds up in court), and more than one witness is devastating. The Law of Moses required “two or three witnesses,” but one is sufficient in America. You can believe me that I had a ham sandwich yesterday for lunch (I really did). But if five or 10 people affirm it, it becomes virtual certainty. Mass hallucination is not common. And especially if there is no reason to lie.
Witnesses might say different things about a situation but not contradict one another. “I saw a gun at the scene of the crime,” one witness says. “I didn’t see a gun,” another says. That isn’t a contradiction, it is simply an addition, and is why the more witnesses, the better. Indeed, if multiple witnesses agree on every single detail, police begin to suspect a conspiracy, probably justifiably.
And, of course, crime scenes are “history,” just like wars and other events. The main things to be asked about historical documents is—were those who recorded them in a position to know, and did they have a reason to lie? If they didn’t, or even more convincingly, if they (especially multiple witnesses) are willing to affirm an event even at grave cost to themselves, then we can more confidently affirm their veracity. People lie, but will rarely die for that which they know is a lie.
One more thought about this. People will, of course, lie (and sometimes die) under torture. But they lie to tell the torturer what he (the torturer) wants to hear. They lie to escape pain. If they hold to their (true) story even in the face of torture, this verifies their account even more substantially. Or at least, their belief in their account. If multiple people die like this (affirming the same truth), that truth becomes virtually absolute.
Yes, historical facts can be known. The fact that humans do lie for personal gain does introduce a note of caution, but doesn’t change that history, in most particulars, can be known. The ham sandwich thing.