The selectivity of history

I was listening to a radio programme this week about the proposed creation of a universal pan-European history textbook.  The idea is to have one single text that can adequately sum up the history of Europe.  Needless to say most are suggesting it's a ludicrous idea; how will you manage to get 27 professors all in a room and get them to agree on everything; history is so subjective, constantly manipulated by those who want to write history their way, as China has been doing by systematically erasing the Tiananmen Square massacre from every text and, with the co-operation of search engines, from any other place of reference.  Winston Churchill famously said, "History will be kind to me, because I will write it."  So this is the conclusion of our age, and it is true - men will doctor history to their own means to make themselves and their empires look good, to discredit opposition, and avoid the suggestion that they did anything that might be considered wrong, unethical, or a contravention of human rights.

This view is often extrapolated to say "objective knowledge of history is inaccessible"; but is this really true?  We don't really mean this, I think.  Because we're very happy to correct those biased views of history that we come across; we can point out the inaccuracies (deliberate or not) in say, the history books of Nazi Germany; we can point out what they omitted, what they confabulated, what they blatantly lied about in order to produce the political force they required. Being able to offer such a critique suggests that although we may espouse no access to history,  this isn't lived out in practice.  In practice, we live as though knowledge IS there 
and we can know about it.  

This view of history is commonly used as an excuse not to consider the claims 
of the New Testament writers concerning Jesus of Nazareth.  Interesting then 
that John is so candid about the aims and the agenda of his account; "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."  Not an orthodox way of writing history...openly acknowledging the finitude of 
your account and your reasons for writing.  There is in this an invitation we should take seriously; this account is not complete, much more could have been written, but this is what is important; here is why I've written it - now read it, and see what you make of it.  

The New Testament does not tell us every detail about the life of Jesus, nor about the early church.  It is a finite account.  It is written for a particular purpose.  But this doesn't render it inaccessible or unverifiable.  The challenge at least is to consider it.  As G.K. Chesterton has said, "Christianity has not so much been tried and found wanting, as it has been found difficult and left untried."