The Historian as Investigator
What do historians do? How do they do what they do? What is, to use modernistic terms, their method, and the more scientific the method the better?
What historians do is not unlike what investigators do in crime investigations. Historians discover evidence in a variety of sources — texts, archaeology, coins, inscriptions — and they evaluate the evidence, examine the potential associations of that evidence, and eventually frame a narrative that puts that evidence into a credible, humanistic context. Most of them also write up thesis-defense articles, essays, or monographs. However one frames the historian’s method, investigation is what they do.
Some historians are controversial and, at times, Steve Mason has been just that. He is one of the world’s upper most scholars on Josephus but, at least since his PhD days (about my age), Mason’s method of studying Josephus has often been criticized for being too much a looking at Josephus and not enough looking through Josephus to the realities about which he wrote. Mason was making use of the approach Jacob Neusner used when examining the Pharisees in the rabbinic writings. Mason’s approach was an important step forward.
Mason has often been said to be skeptical, or some such criticism, of the historical value of sources, in his original case the source Josephus on the Pharisees. He has responded, “Well, no, not exactly. I believe one must first see how the Pharisees fit into the narrative and rhetoric of Josephus before we can determine what happened.”
I believe I am being fair to Mason, whose work I have grown to respect. If at times Mason has overstated or been understood, at time his critics have failed to comprehend his nuanced method. His new book helps clarify his method and what it looks like when doing historical investigations.
In a recent book of his, called Orientation to the History of Roman Judaea, Steve Mason sorts out a method for the historian as if he or she was an Investigator. I teach a Thesis Design course that does deal some with method, though I have found that the Method First crowd can actually crowd out problems until one has done rigorous work first, and only then learned the nuances of methods for a specific sort of question and investigation.
There is much in this book worthy of discussion, including his excellent sketch of two approaches to doing history as well as his studies about how societies organized themselves — the ethnos/polis axis of his approach provides much insight for NT students.
Back to the investigation theme.
How does the Investigator, the Historian as Investigator, operate?
First, the historian begins with a problem or a question like Were the inhabitants at Qumran Essenes? Was Jesus raised from the dead? Did Paul write 2 Timothy? But the historians can only be fair to the evidence if they don’t prejudge the case. So, let me give an example.
Back in the day, to use a dog-eared trope, the evangelical student learned NT critical thinking by reading Donald Guthrie’s lengthy NT Introduction. His approach to authorship questions was something like this: the traditional author of 2 Timothy was Paul; the arguments against it are this and this and this and these scholars say this and that; but the arguments are taken down one by one so that they do not sustain the weight they are asked to shoulder; and then he concludes, Therefore, Paul wrote 2 Timothy. That prejudgment of “tradition is right unless proven otherwise” ruins the logic of a historian as an investigator. A good investigator not only knocks down weak arguments but discusses if the evidence actually supports the tradition.
Historians are unafraid of doubt and they hold themselves from any conclusions until they can assess the evidence and render a decision. One problem Mason points out is that historians abhor a vacuum, that is, they abhor the conclusion that says “I don’t know.” They are prejudiced to offer a conclusion. They need to learn to know only what they can know and not more.
Second, they need to be more aware of the “frequentist probability/possibility” theory in that historians don’t operate with numbers; rather, they weigh judgments and operate with a “qualitative” judgment. Too many use the cumulative argument that work like this: A or B or C or D individually aren’t strong arguments, but cumulatively they add up to a strong conclusion. His point is a good one.
Third, historians “identify and interpret the potential evidence.” This one is harder for younger students, or unsophisticated students. One must find the evidence first, and this takes lots and lots of work. Read John Barclay’s books on grace and you can encounter a scholar who worked hard to find all the evidence. One must assess the evidence then. One then needs to interpret the evidence, but interpretation is not as simple as looking at the evidence.
Here is what Mason’s approach to Josephus comes into play, too. Josephus must be studied on his own terms first, not to mine his data but to see what he’s doing with his narrative “facts.” How did Josephus present the Essenes? comes before What were the Essenes like in their historical realities?
And there is with Josephus’s account of the end of the rebels on Masada a big big big issue: one source, Josephus, and no one else tells the story. And the skeletal remains hardly confirm the story of Josephus. In fact, they don’t. At all. Now what?
Mason explains that ancient texts, including Josephus, were not modern day historical monographs but moral narratives and the truths were more moral than historical or scientific. Those historians were qualitative type writers.
Fourth, the historian then seeks to “imagine scenarios” and seeking through various scenarios for the one scenario with the greatest explanatory power. Yes, the approach is best when the historian uses the “principle of economy” or the simplest theory is the best theory if it has explanatory power of the evidence.
And one needs corroborative evidence. If two or three or four different texts, or sorts of evidence, with more or less independence make the same claim one has a better chance of standing on a firm conclusion. “The problem in studying Roman Judaea is that we rarely have it.”
Fifth, Mason thinks the aim of all good historians is to understand humanity, that is the “thoughts and actions” and what the “actors thought they were doing.”
Finally, we write up our conclusions. How is this done best? He opts against what many think is the best way – through a reconstructed narrative (typical “NT History” books, history of Israel, life of Jesus books) – and opts instead for the argumentative thesis that unmasks the method and the question and the evidence and what the historian weighs most or relies on most. I would argue that the “best” approach varies by audience, and in most cases the best approach is a combination of narrative with thesis argument. An introductory book might do more narrative while opening up method issues, while a more advanced study, like the one Mason has done on the Jewish war with Rome, can be shaped into a more academic framework.
Excellent! I need to go buy Mason's book.