Victors and Truth
Throughout history, it has often been the victor’s point of view or story that is told but does this make it true? History is usually written by the victors, but this does not mean that their interpretation or view of what happened is the most accurate. The victors in history are usually those that have the power and education to spread their ideas and back them up to a certain extent. For example, through history the church has been an extremely powerful force and anyone who tried to contradict the church ended up in jail. There are two sided to every story and there is always someone to argue a difference point of view however, whoever has the most power/ influence will have their opinion recorded as fact or truth.
For example, there are many works, including gospels and books that did not make it into the modern bible. It is said that these works did not pass the cannon. This list, or "canon," was affirmed at the Councils of Jamnia. No one church or group decided what books would be included in the bible, but some stronger religious groups were able to overpower the smaller sects which resulted it a Bible that reflect the views of some sects which lead to the demise of smaller sects that supported other gospels and stories that were not included in the Bible. In addition to what gospels and stories made it into the Bible the interpretation of theses texts was also determined by the group that had the most power at the time. For example, the Arians had some very unique beliefs when it comes to interpretations of Jesus Christ. Manny of the Arians’ beliefs were not accepted by the church. Today the Arians are considered to be the losers in the battle for what would constitute orthodoxy in the medieval ...
... middle of paper ...
...ect, religion, or group that has more power will write history in the way they want that event or story to be viewed in years to come. This leaves only one part of the story being told and it may not be completely accurate this could be detrimental to how different historical events are viewed. Also, the people who have power have the knowledge and resources to spread their ideas and back them up. Therefore, the ideas of the people in power are commonly accepted as true until some other person of power or knowledge challenges them.
Works Cited
The New American Bible. New York: P.J. Kenedy, 1970. Print.
"The Nicaean Creed." The New American Bible. New York: P.J. Kenedy, 1970. N. pag. Print.
"NPNF2-10. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters." - Christian Classics Ethereal Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014.
Wulfila. The Arian Creed. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
However, if any explanation other than historically accurate is accepted the disciples non- understanding might be explained. Overall, it is fair to say that scholarly opinion is divided on an explanation for the differences in the accounts; perhaps best explained by the writing perspective of the individual authors.
“History never says goodbye. History says see you later” (Eduardo Galeano). History teaches us valuable lessons from the past, which can be used for the present time, yet our leaders usually overlook these lessons and repeat previous mistakes. I have recently immigrated to the United States and since in my home country history classes are not a place to really discuss the history, I was amazed by the way that this history class challenged every event and fact. I have learned that history is told by bias, so we should be able to think critically and question what we are taught. History is usually written by the dominant group of the society, so if we are looking for the truth, we should study each event from different resources and different
To study history, the facts and information must be passed down. To do so, historians record the information in textbooks and other nonfiction works. Whether or not the historians retell facts or construct their own version of history is debatable. History can be percieved as being “constructed” by the historians due to their bias, elimination of controversy, strive for entertainment, and neglect to update the information.
It’s truly fascinating how there are so many different approaches to history, how so many different types of minds and schools of thought can come together to study the events of the world’s past. There are so many ways to approach what happened in our past, and the groups of historians previously mentioned are only a fraction of the actual number of different ways of researching and thinking that exists as it pertains to the study of history. History is in some ways, always a mystery, and all historians, regardless of schooling, training or biases, seek to accomplish one goal: to understand what occurred before us and why, and to use that knowledge to learn how the world was shaped into the world we live in today.
Even in today’s modern society of advanced technologies and research methods, there are still people who believe that history has recounted the horrific genocide of over six million European Jews incorrectly. These deniers are known as Holocaust revisionists. Now, these people do not believe that the Holocaust simply did not happen. Instead, they believe that historians have hyperbolized the death toll and that they have morphed the extermination camps into something that they are not. Some even believe that Hitler has been portrayed wrongly as the villain. They think that Hitler was one of the Jewish peoples’ best friends and was a great aid to them. Also, revisionists have conjured up the outrageous idea that the Jewish people were the real antagonists. Revisionists state that the Jews wanted land in the Middle-east, so they seized the opportunity to scream to the world that they were being oppressed and discriminated against. As a result, they received what is now known as Israel for compensation. Now, the previous examples are only a small percentage of the total number of revisionist ideas of how the Holocaust really played out (Lipstadt). Holocaust revisionists strive to dispel the widely accepted idea of the Jewish genocide during World War Two. However, the plethora of proof which historians have uncovered through war trials, film evidence, and written evidence, makes it blatantly obvious that history has been recounted correctly.
Marthaler, Berard L. “The Creed: The Apostolic Faith in Contemporary Theology”. 3rd ed. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2010. Print.
New Revised Standard Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1989. Print. The. Russell, Eddie.
people see history in different ways for the simple fact that they do not see them in
The four Gospels stand at the head of the New Testament, underlining their importance, forming a “seamless continuity between the story of Israel and the story of the church”. The four documents now known as the Gospels were not known by this name until late in the second century. Until then, there was only one Gospel, the proclamation of Jesus and the kingdom of God, with four books presenting it, each in its own way. Modern readers are so used to seeing the compilation of these writings as the New Testament that they forget that each one was originally conceived to stand on its own. Consequently, to understand the Gospels and the kind of literature that they are, it is crucial to look at them in the first century Palestinian environment in which they were written. At that time, the cultural landscape was dominated by three main elements: Roman rule, Hellenistic culture and, above all, the religious symbols of Judaism. In that context, Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God could be perceived as a challenge to Roman rule, a dismissal of Greek thought and an attack on Judaism.
The contents of the Bible have dealt with controversy in regards to its inerrancy since publication, and will surely continue to. Historians progress to learn more about biblical stories in order to provide evidence for the reliability of information. Many believers today understand that not everything in the Bible has been factually proven. An outstanding topic many scholars pay attention to lies within the four gospels. The three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, replay essentially the same story with minor inconsistencies, while John portrays Jesus in an entirely different way. The differences in each gospel are due to how each gospel entertains different portrayals of the life and understanding of Jesus himself, in order to persuade
History and time are considered to be cultural formations since a History cannot be detached from the culture in which it is produced and received. It is through culture that a historical sense is achieved and in fact, each culture experiences History in a different way leading us to the current perception of History as not being one, but many histories depending on the cultural groups involved. Historians have fought throughout the centuries on whether such thing as “objective History” can exist but in the end, even materialist historians will admit that the reality of History is so complicated and contradictory that no single version could possibly represent the truth; consequently different interpretations are inevitable.
Carson, D, & Moo, D. (2005) An introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
The authors of After the Fact The Art of Historical Detection, make the assertion that history is not an account of what happened in the past because what happened in the past is only the raw material: "History is not some inert body of knowledge `out there' in the past, but a continual act of construction whose end product is being reshaped and made anew every time someone ventures into the archives" (Davidson and Lytle IX). Davidson and Lytle mean that the interpretation of history changes based on the methods of investigation used by the historian. Interpretations also change based on how long "after the fact" we choose to go back and investigate. Current beliefs, social trends, and a person's racial background can't help but play an influential role in how we perceive a past event.
History is a story told over time. It is a way of recreating the past so it can be studied in the present and re-interpreted for future generations. Since humans are the sole beneficiaries of history, it is important for us to know what the purpose of history is and how historians include their own perspective concerning historical events. The purpose and perspective of history is vital in order for individuals to realise how it would be almost impossible for us to live out our lives effectively if we had no knowledge of the past. Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying.
Learning about history helps us learn about the humanities own reflection and what’s good or bad about it. This is just like a diary , people and by people I mean historians , just wrote what they saw and what seemed to cause a major change in society and we just happen to be reading it a couple of years later. I believe that historians actually wrote historical truth because it makes sense and it has been scientifically proven