(Oct. 10, 2026)
It’s important to start with an explanation of how I intend to conduct my research, so readers can hold me to account if I violate my methodological standards or the standards are judged to be inadequate. Bear in mind that on this website I am not analyzing Christian scriptures primarily for their theological meaning, even though they were intended to deliver theological meaning and that is by far what they are most commonly used for. Here I am using them along with other sources for clues in reconstructing early Christian history. Answering theological questions requires different methods.
In conducting historical research, particularly when it involves a controversial subject such as the life of Jesus and the development of Christianity, you need to use two essential methods in order to get credible results. The first is to be as honest as possible about any pre-existing views you have that might impact your analysis. The second is to clearly state the hypotheses you are using as building blocks for the more comprehensive theory you will propose for your historical narrative.
As for the first, let me expand upon the views I expressed on the homepage for this website. I don’t currently subscribe to any Christian creed, although I have in the past, but I am not hostile to Christianity in general and in fact think Christian concepts have led to much good, as well as much harm, in the world; that is really a matter of how different people make use of those concepts. The word “God” has experiential meaning for me as referring to the source of what I sense as a kind of inner direction along with unexpected synchronicities that have guided my decisions in life. I also think the broad category of “spiritual growth” has a reality in personal human development and that there are people who exhibit an aura of high spiritual development, and therefore Jesus may well have been such a person. I am open to the possibility that some Christian beliefs about unusual historical events may be true, as I am not a philosophical materialist and think that there is still a huge amount we do not know about the nature of reality.
That said, I don’t think a historical analysis should explain highly unusual events by relying on a theory of divine intervention as a default assumption. At best one can say the evidence cannot plausibly be explained using widely accepted understandings of how the world usually works. Otherwise you are using theology to inform history, which departs from modern standards of historical research; the two should be clearly separated as long as people have different theological beliefs.
In sum, I am agnostic about most Christian theological claims but I do have pre-existing views about spirituality that, if I think they are impacting my historical analysis, I will be forthright about. If you, as a reader, think any underlying views of mine are impacting my historical analysis in ways I have not recognized or acknowledged, please let me know.
The second method is the clear statement of key hypotheses you build upon to construct your history. A hypothesis is a proposed truth statement that is set forth for testing. Hypotheses in historical research are not like those of research in the natural sciences, because in most cases they cannot be tested by controlled experiments. Hypotheses about historical truth are tested by marshaling various kinds of evidence and using reasoning to support or undermine the hypotheses. A clearly stated hypothesis of relatively limited range allows others to identify relevant evidence and to challenge your reasoning. The explanatory strength of a hypothesis will always be open to question when evidence not addressed by the researcher is produced or more convincing reasoning is applied.
To generate hypotheses I first define a sub-topic (for example, “the ending in the gospel of Mark”) and examine relevant primary sources, which in this research are usually English translations of ancient writings. I then identify what seem to be the most important books and articles written about the sub-topic and read those that are accessible to me. When this initial research has given me sufficient knowledge to do so, I formulate my initial hypotheses. (For example, “the first and last pages of the gospel of Mark were lost early on.”) Then, with the hypotheses in mind to guide me, I do a more careful analysis of the primary sources, sometimes informed by the koiné Greek they were originally written in, and further reading of secondary literature where I judge it can illuminate my understanding. I then apply the evidence and my best reasoning to evaluate the hypotheses.
I will separate my evaluation of hypotheses into three categories: likely, plausible, and speculative.
“Likely” will mean the hypothesis is more likely true than not true, based on my evaluation that the strength of the hypothesis as a truth statement is high. This evaluation requires more than one piece of reliable evidence, the correspondence of the hypothesis with widely accepted modern understandings of how the world usually works, and a lack of more compelling hypotheses to explain the evidence. (I will highlight hypotheses I judge “likely” by putting them in boldface type.)
“Plausible” will mean the strength of the hypothesis is only moderate. In this evaluation evidence to support the hypothesis is available although relatively sparse or ambiguous, the hypothesis does not violate widely accepted understandings of how the world usually works, and there is no evidence to outright refute the hypothesis. There may be alternative hypotheses that explain the evidence just as well, but no sound reason to prefer the one hypothesis over the other.
“Speculative” means the strength of the hypothesis is weak. The evidence to support it is minimal or controversial, but there is not enough counter-evidence or good reasons to refute it either. Speculative hypotheses can be useful in bridging gaps between stronger hypotheses in the historical narrative being constructed. Their relative usefulness in this task gives them more strength than they have when assessed on their own.
As I proceed in my discussion, for the reader’s ease in identifying where on this website I first discuss a hypothesis, I will identify each hypothesis by the number of the section in which that discussion takes place. For example, a hypothesis first discussed in section 2 will be identified as H2, and a hypothesis first discussed in section 3 will be identified as H3. Multiple hypotheses discussed in the same section will be further enumerated in the order of their presentation, for example: “H2.1; H2.2; H2.3,” and so on.
(As you can see by navigating the menu bar at the top of the website, each section includes multiple pages. This page, “1a. Methods,” is in section 1, “Starting points.” Section 1 also includes the pages “1b. Primary sources” and “1c. Galilee and Judea in the 1st century.”)
