How to Weigh Evidence

When trying to find out what the early Christians believed, we deal with multiple kinds of historical evidence. Our goal is to properly weigh the evidence that we have, so that we come to the correct conclusion as to what they believed.

The evidence that we’re dealing with are mostly written texts. We have letters, treatises, apologetics, and so on from early Christian writers, and these texts often give insight into what they believed to be true. Besides texts, we also have artifacts, like churches, pictures, etc.

When evaluating evidence from historical theology, we need to recognize that some pieces of evidence carry more weight than others. For example, one piece of evidence might only demonstrate what one individual Christian believed. If so, it would only provide limited evidence for what all Christians believed. If another piece of evidence demonstrated what many Christians believed, it would be better evidence for what all Christians believed.

Also, different types of evidence are written with different intentions. If a letter is addressed to an enemy of Christianity, it describe Christian beliefs differently than if it’s written to a friend of Christianity. Knowing this can help us to accurately weigh the evidence that the letter provides.

Properly weighing evidence is important, because we want to accept whatever belief best fits the available evidence. It’s not okay to just ignore certain pieces of evidence and only base out beliefs on what’s left. But if we’re going to include all the evidence, we’ll need a way of categorizing it.

This article will provide some tools for weighing different types of evidence. The examples used will especially be in the contexts of teachings on violence and evidence for the veneration of icons, since those are two areas that are relevant to this website’s project.

Whose Beliefs Matter?

To clarify, we’re not looking for just anything that just any Christians believed or did. The entire goal of this website is to find the correct teachings of the historic faith.

The apostles knew what was definitively true of Christianity, and they passed it on to other Christian leaders, who taught it to lay people. So what we’re looking for is what Christian leaders believed and what was taught as part of the true Christian faith, before any changes took place.

Textual Indications

In this section, I’ll look at different things that a text could either say or indicate, and how much support each one gives.

All churches or all Christians believe or teach X—Extremely Strong

If a text indicates that all churches or all Christians teach X, this provides extremely strong evidence for what was taught in Christianity in that time period. It’s very likely that virtually all the authoritative Christian teachers believed X.

This is especially strong, because a Christian writer would be very slow to say this unless it were true. Otherwise, somebody could check up on him and find out that it wasn’t.

The Christian belief is X—Strong

This provides significant evidence for what was taught in Christianity in that time period. If he is able to say what the Christian belief is, it’s very likely that the most authoritative Christians were teaching that.

However, it’s not quite as strong as the last one, because a Christian writer could say this even if not everyone agreed with him. If you found someone who disagreed, he would believe that that person was wrong. But there might be people who disagreed.

These Christians believe X—Good

If a writer tells of a belief that multiple Christians hold, that provides good evidence for what was taught in Christianity at that time.

This might happen when a writer says something that demonstrates that all the Christians around him believe a certain thing.

Or if there’s an artwork or inscription found in a space with shared ownership, like a church, that would provide good evidence for what the people using that space believed.

This individual Christian believes X—Some

If a Christian writes of a belief that he holds or that someone he knows holds, that provides some evidence. It provides more evidence if that person is a Christian leader, and less if that person is a lay person.

Graffiti, or an inscription in a space with private ownership, would fall under this category.

Genre Implications

Describing beliefs of past Christians—Weak

Some evidence, if for people in immediate history (within 100 years), but not a lot, unless there is corroborative evidence from there.

If it describes them as disagreeing, the evidence should be taken as stronger, because they’d be undercutting themselves. If it describes them as agreeing, the evidence should be weighed more weakly.

Stories of Lay Christians—Weak

If we have an account that describes what one or more lay Christians did, that does provide some evidence. But it can’t overrule what Christian leaders said.

Gnostic or Heretical Texts—None or Good (depending on context)

If a text was written by someone who at the time was outside of the Christian church, the beliefs of its author cannot be taken as evidence for or against Christian beliefs. However, in cases where it says that Christians held a belief, that is good evidence for that belief among Christians. It’s not the best of evidence, because that person can’t be expected to fully understand Christian teachings as Christian leaders did, but it shows what the Christians were known for, at least.

Writing an “Apology” to non-Christians—Complex

If a text is an “Apology,” defending the claims of the Christian faith to non-Christians, this evidence can cut multiple directions.

  1. What is said is not likely to be easily disproved, because the apologist will be careful not to say things that would draw his proposal into question.
  2. The apologist will be careful to represent what at least a significant portion of Christianity believes—or at least to make statements that most Christians won’t disagree with.
  3. The apologist will likely present an idealized picture of Christianity, mentioning all the good aspects, but not drawing attention to negative aspects.

In some cases, these different motivations contradict each other. In the case of Christianity, which teaches honesty, we can generally trust that 1 and 2 will win out over 3. In the case of other belief systems, results may be similar or different.

Correcting a Wrong Belief Among Christians—Complex

If a text is written by a Christian and is correcting beliefs that other Christians hold, that could provide support either for or against the belief that the author holds.

If the author is a Christian leader, and the parties being corrected are lay people, then there is good reason to expect that the author’s beliefs are representative of Christianity. If the opposite is true, than the author’s beliefs can’t be considered representative.

If textual implications show us that more Christians or more influential Christians agree with the author than with the parties being corrected, then there is good reason to expect that the author’s beliefs are representative of Christianity.

However, if influential Christians are disagreeing on the issue, then we should assume that multiple beliefs coexisted, and there was no one correct Christian belief on that issue during that time period.

Putting Texts Together

Individual texts can go together in different ways to add stronger or less strong support to a hypothesis.

Geographical Location

If multiple texts over a wide geographical area teach something, that is a good indicator that the belief was held throughout the church. Conversely, if most texts that teach a belief come from one area, that is a less strong indication that the belief was an essentially Christian one.

Time of Writing

Texts that are describing beliefs held during the time they were written are more likely to be accurate. When people write about beliefs held before their day, they should be counted less strongly than texts about current beliefs. This becomes even more important if there is reason to believe that changes might have happened in between (though we can never entirely rule such changes out unless we adopt the Catholic and Orthodox belief of the indefectibility of the church as an a priori lens, which of course would be a fallacy).

What Will Imply That Multiple Beliefs Coexisted?

We can’t assume that the pre-Nicene church taught entirely consistently on every area of doctrine that we care about today. It could be that, in some cases, some Christians taught one thing and some taught another.

However, if virtually all the Christian leaders who weighed in on a topic agree with each other, then we should expect that belief to be representative of Christianity. In some cases, we may find that they seem to disagree, but when we better understand their views, they may end up agreeing.

The only way that we can be justified in believing that multiple beliefs coexisted is if we know of Christian leaders on both sides of the issue. If we want to consider a belief to be viable, we’ll want to see evidence that a Christian leader or apologist taught it. Just pointing to the actions of lay people aren’t enough. Of course, if a lay person said that their bishop taught it, that could be good evidence.


In this section, I’ll look at some examples and how this methodology helps us understand each case.


In the case of nonresistance, we know of quite a few pre-Nicene Christian leaders who taught against violence. Besides writing against personal violence, some of them specifically mentioned the wrongfulness of war, and some specifically wrote against joining the military.

On the other hand, we have a number of examples of Christian soldiers. Even though many of them may have performed noncombatant duties, some of them seem to have fought.

Since we know that the direct teachings of Christian leaders carries more weight than the individual beliefs or actions of lay Christians, we can conclude that pre-Nicene Christianity was against violence.


In the case of veneration of icons, we have many quotes from pre-Nicene Christian leaders that show that they didn’t believe iconodulia to be a Christian practice. We also don’t have any examples of images in Christian worship spaces that suggest veneration by their content.

On the other hand, there’s a gnostic text that condemns veneration of images from this era. One could use this as evidence that veneration of images was happening in some circles in those days. There is also some graffiti that may be from this era in a Christian church, speaking of iconodulia.

The beliefs of multiple leaders, representing a large amount of the church, definitely carry more weight than a few individuals who aren’t Christian leaders. So we can conclude that pre-Nicene Christianity did not teach veneration of icons.

Is This Methodology Valid?

The principles I gave above are common-sense principles which are often used without being explicitly spelled out. I’m spelling these principles out so that people can see how I come to my conclusions. If you disagree with my conclusions, it may be because you disagree with these principles. In that case, feel free to contact me and let me know why you believe these principles to be mistaken.

7 thoughts on “How to Weigh Evidence”

  1. Hi Lynn,
    I enjoy our interactions because I find your questions challenging. The issues of non-resistance and icons are definitely complex than most of the issues that Orthodox tend to defend such as the three-fold ministry, or triple immersion baptism, or baptismal regeneration or weekly Eucharistic liturgy or the real presence or Sunday worship or even a male priesthood. I will admit the evidence for icon veneration in Pre-Nicene times is fairly week but luckily I don’t hold to your arbitrary cut off of 313 or 325AD.

    On the other hand your evidence for non-resistance isn’t particularly strong either. I totally agree that Tertullian supports non-resistance. But he was a layman (that is the consensus even though Jerome claims he was a presbyter) so we can categorise his thinking as an individual Christian belief. I also admit Origen advocated pacifism even though his claims that no Christians were in the army is contradicted by other evidence. But it is clear that Origen is guilty of ‘spiritualising’ the issue of military service (due to his heavy Platonist influence) that puts doubt to his testimony. Other than these two I don’t see too much other evidence in support of your views.
    As for Lactantius I would say that his rhetorical idealism was tempered by the reality of the Great Persecution. He is actually one of the primary sources that God sent Constantine a dream to encourage him to conqueror his enemies.

    I don’t see a single Pre-Nicene bishop advocating absolute pacifism, do you?

    On the other hand a little deduction shows a lot of evidence that you neglect or marginalise. For example the story of the Thundering Legion was originally contained in the lost Apology of Bishop Apollinaris of Hierapolis (as mentioned by Tertullian and Eusebius). Clearly Apollinaris had positive things to say about the Christian soldiers. I have also mentioned that Tertullian is responding to his (Christian) opponents in the De Corona as only fellow Christians would use Cornelius the Centurion or the centurion who pleaded with Jesus as evidence.
    I would also add that the respect and veneration of ‘military’ martyrs like Julius the Veteran or Marinus of Caesarea or Theodore Tiron or Sebastian or the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste shows these Christians weren’t just renegade lay Christians but represent a consensus view as multiple bishops from multiple locations proceeded to venerate them and hold them up as examples for other Christians. You are right that there is no definitive statement from a bishop so I would say the evidence for active participation in the military is only ‘Good’.

    Now, how about we use your same criteria for infant baptism (or the reverse if you like – the rejection of infant baptism). How about I start by throwing in some extremely strong evidence from Origen.

    “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

    “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

    I also have the list of other sources from Joachim Jeremias’s excellent book ‘Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries’ but I’ll stick to the Pre-Nicene evidence. How do you rate the evidence for infant baptism?

    1. Hi Stefano,
      These are definitely insightful questions. At the moment, I’m working on a rewrite of my arguments for nonresistance and against veneration of icons. That’s why I posted this, as a set of criteria for myself for when I go through and evaluate the evidence more carefully. So I’ll try to take those questions into account when I get those articles done. First, I want to rewrite some of my material on apostolic succession, because I don’t think I communicated it as well as I could.

      So far, I haven’t focused on infant baptism, so I don’t have enough knowledge to weigh in on it. That’s because there seems to have been disagreement among the pre-Nicene church, with neither side condemning the other as heretical. So it seems that there can be legitimate disagreement among Christians on this issue. I typically focus on the areas where there’s enough evidence to know that only one view was held to be the appropriate Christian view among Christian leaders. However, it’s a question that comes up often enough (since I’m from an Anabaptist tradition) that I’ll start doing some preliminary research on it.

      Thanks for these links and resources. I’ll definitely check them out further.

      1. Can I say I really like your criteria! There is lots of level-headed logic, which I respect. What you have written is very valuable for any dialogue and I agree with your weightings except I would give more authority to later testimonies.

        Might I suggest that evidence from a range of geographic regions might carry more weight than evidence that is isolated. For example the art at Dura-Eurpos, at the catacombs at Rome, Naples, Malta and Thessalonica and even at the Megiddo Church (traces of painted plaster were found during the excavations) suggest a wide ranging practice.

        For individual Christians evidence such as tombstones and papyrus letters are a growth area for new evidence. Finds from Oxyrhynchus show that Christians there were readings Irenaeus and Philo, which suggest they considered them important authors. The same with Biblical manuscripts which show them using the Septuagint and using the anagignoskomena.

        1. Thanks, Stefano! It’s important to me to get to the actual points of disagreement between my view and other views, so that people can make the correct decision when it comes to what faith tradition they choose. The more of a foundation we can agree on, the better equipped we’ll be for figuring out who is going astray. So it’s good to hear your points of agreement and disagreement with these criteria.

          Your point about widespread geographic regions is a good point. I’ll figure out a way to add it to this article.

          On the subject of images and archaeology, I’ve been researching early Christian art, and I’ve found quite a bit of evidence for their use of art, but no examples so far of anything that appears to be art that would be venerated until after Nicaea. Do you know of any examples of art that suggests veneration from before Nicaea?

          It’s really interesting to hear about the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Do you have sources you’d recommend for reading up on them?

  2. I have just thought of a great example of praxis. No where is the New Testament is the idea of translating it dealt with yet in the Pre-Nicene era the New Testament was translated into Syriac, Coptic and Latin. The literary sources give no approval or disapproval for this practice yet the logical conclusion is to there was some kind of ecclesiastical acceptance.

    Fast forward to the middle ages and the Roman Catholic Church is denying vernacular scripture to the people, which is a clear break with tradition.

  3. Hi Lynn,
    I’ve been doing some reading on Anabaptist history and theology and here are my thoughts
    1. Anabaptism started in the 1620s (created by angry Germans) and if the pre-Nicene Church was Anabaptist, then I find it hard to reconcile the gap of 1,000 years with the promises made by Christ to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. There is no Biblical evidence for a ‘Great Apostasy.’
    2. Anabaptist origins are so diverse that it is unclear who is the modern successor or successors. There were apocalyptic groups (Jan of Leiden) and groups who had no problem with civil office (Balthasar Hubmaier). The only commonality was re-baptism. Why weren’t these the ‘real’ Anabaptists? The claim that modern groups are the most ‘Biblical’ is just lost in subjectivity. I don’t see the slightest evidence that any Anabaptist leaders or groups have any special insights into the Gospels. On the other hand, even the most strident opponents don’t deny the antiquity of Orthodoxy or our continuity with the past.
    3. Anabaptists grew out of the same religious, social and political turmoil that spawned the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Socinians (and other non-trinitarian groups) so the movement is nothing special. Each group does exactly what you do by claiming fidelity to the Bible.
    4. Anabaptists are stagnant groups that are obsessed with petty rules. I recently saw a show called ‘Leaving Amish Paradise’ that shock me when it said the Amish don’t even understand their own Bibles because they use archaic German translations. The main focus of these Old Order groups is to scare their members with the threat of hell if they leave or break the rules (and are shunned.)
    5. Anabaptism is racked by schism and divisions over such trivial matters that it is just embarrassing. Also, there seems to be a large stream of liberalism like the Dutch Mennonites that you just brush aside that I find troubling. Conservative groups are either cultural ghettos or influenced by modern fundamentalist ideology.
    6. The seems to be an agenda among conservative Anabaptist groups to keep their members uneducated as possible. It is basically a method of keeping people compliant. This is very problematic for me.
    7. There are no Anabaptist martyrs. Anabaptists were murdered for denying infant baptism, not for witnessing for Christ like real martyrs. I should point out that no Orthodox had anything to do with the persecution of Anabaptists. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church has had millions of martyrs just in the last 100 years from atheist communists, Nazis and militant Islam and Turkish nationalists.
    8. I should point out that no Orthodox Christians persecuted Anabaptists. In fact many persecuted Mennonite groups found sanctuary in (Orthodox) Russia.
    9. Early Anabaptist writers like Menno Simons are obsessed that other Christians were going to hell for denying their version of ‘true’ Christianity. No wonder the authorities were all riled up against them. The early Anabaptists were triumphalist in order to get recruits like modern JWs. I get the impression that you don’t think Orthodox are going to hell for having icons, a liturgy and being baptised as infants. You need to reconcile this contradiction to be remotely convincing.
    10. It took over 300 years for Anabaptist to actually convert anyone. For most of its history it just converted Christians to it own version of Christianity.
    11. Early Anabaptist accounts of the origin of infant baptism are so unhistorical and inaccurate that it leads me to think they were ignorant of the facts. Most modern ones are the same. You seem a bit more knowledgeable about the issue, which is probably why your blog avoids it even though it is your signature belief.
    12. I see no evidence for a break between the pre and post Constantinian Church. Every crazy group makes the claim of discontinuity to justify their existence. Please find me a testimony of a Christian from the time who says Constantine changed things.
    13. No Anabaptist (reformation or modern) is known to be a Greek scholar of any reputation, while Greek Orthodoxy has a living continuity with the Greek language of the New Testament. Frankly, I find it a bit racist that others think they know more.
    14. I reject your sola scriptura methodology. It is simply an indication of your Reformation origins. It doesn’t even meet its own criteria, it doesn’t work (i.e. the 20,000 Protestant sects) and was not the methodology of the early church.
    15. Anabaptists make too much of a radical break from the example of the Old Testament when it comes to justifiable war and civil offices.
    16. John Howard Yoder
    17. I find that the way you discuss icons in the pre-Nicene Church a bit unreasonable. Lack of evidence simply means a lack of evidence. You want specific evidence for kissing or bowing when Pre-Nicene writers clearly had other more important things to discuss. Let me give you a comparison. What is the pre-Nicene evidence for baptism at the age of accountability? Show me a child from a Christian family that was baptised at 8 or 12 or 18 or 33 or whatever because they had to ‘believe’? If you don’t have evidence for that then you must conclude it wasn’t happening, right? The way you treat the Pre-Nicene evidence is much the same as the way you treat the Bible. Sorry, but all the answers aren’t there. They had no idea that 1,600 years later some tiny group was going to doubt a practice that they took for granted.
    18. At the Reformation the assumption by Reformers was that there was no Pre-Nicene art. This was very much a misreading of the Patristic evidence. In the subsequent centuries this has been proved emphatically wrong. The scholarly consensus is that pre-Nicene Christians had no problem with all sorts of art. The tract record isn’t in the Reformers favour so I’m more than happy to give icon veneration the benefit of the doubt.
    19. What’s with the obsession with foot washing? It’s mentioned in all these early Anabaptist confessions. It’s weird!
    20. Your focus on icons is strange when no early Anabaptist confession dealt with it. If it is such a key thing then why isn’t it mentioned in all those various Anabaptist confessions? For me you need to show me a clear New Testament verse that bans the veneration of icons to show the practice is not allowed. All the ones about idols are simply off topic.
    If you have a problem with venerating icons then don’t do it but get rid of your guitars, altar calls and two hour sermons and all the rest of your non-Biblical practices and go back to the biblical, liturgical, sacramental, hierarchical and creedal Christianity that still exists today.

    1. Stefano,

      Ever heard of a Gish gallop? That is basically what you’re doing. And some of your arguments (“claims” is more accurate) are a bit offensive (and inaccurate)! Maybe slow down, be more charitable towards another faith tradition, and focus on one thing at a time?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *