The Shape of the Past

This monograph presents a comprehensive defense of Christian historiography against secular historical methodologies, particularly targeting relativist and naturalistic approaches to historical knowledge. Montgomery argues that orthodox Christian faith provides the most coherent framework for understanding historical events and their meaning, while secular historiography suffers from fatal epistemological weaknesses that undermine its claims to objectivity.

The work engages directly with the philosophy of history dominant in mid-20th century academia, critiquing figures like Carl Becker and Charles Beard who emphasized the subjective nature of historical interpretation. Montgomery contends that their relativism leads to historical skepticism that makes genuine knowledge of the past impossible. Against this, he proposes that the Christian worldview, grounded in the historical reality of divine revelation and the incarnation, offers unique epistemological advantages for the historian.

Central to Montgomery's argument is the claim that historical facts require an interpretive framework to be meaningful, and that Christianity provides the only framework capable of accounting for both the particularity of historical events and their universal significance. He maintains that the resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as a historically verifiable event that validates the Christian interpretive scheme while exposing the inadequacy of naturalistic explanations that exclude supernatural causation a priori.

The author develops a sustained critique of historical positivism and its assumption that historical method must mirror natural scientific method. He argues instead for a historical methodology that remains open to all possible explanations, including divine action, while maintaining rigorous standards of evidence. This approach, Montgomery suggests, actually enhances rather than compromises historical objectivity by refusing to impose artificial limitations on what counts as legitimate historical explanation.

Montgomery's defense extends to addressing the relationship between faith and historical knowledge. He rejects both fideism and rationalism, arguing that Christian faith rests on historically accessible events that can be investigated using ordinary historical methods. The resurrection, in particular, serves as the linchpin connecting historical investigation to theological truth.

The work represents a significant contribution to 20th century debates about the relationship between religious commitment and historical scholarship. By challenging the supposed neutrality of secular historiography while defending the intellectual respectability of Christian historical interpretation, Montgomery offers a robust alternative to both naive fundamentalism and accommodationist approaches that sacrifice historical claims for theological ones.