N. T. Wright so eloquently quipped:
If the systematician waits for history to produce consensus-based ‘facts’, he or she may wait in vain. In any case, the idea of the historian as the neutral, objective observer simply discovering facts is of course hopelessly outdated. The historian is every bit as much influenced by shifting philosophical and cultural opinion as the philosopher or systematician. Indeed, when the systematician goes in search of a historian who can be used within his project, one fears that what he is really looking for is the reflection of his own face in a mirror at the other end of the library stacks.1
B”H
_________
1 “Jesus’ Self-Understanding” in The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation (ed. Stephen T. Davis, et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 49-50.
This is known as the Copenhagen effect most philosophy in recent times have come to acknowledge even in science that everything is in the eye of the beholder as it were and that even observing effects the outcome of an event or its context. As Anne Hunt writing on the Trinity all is interrelated. I have an analogy for the Trinity the triple helix like DNA. i like Wright`s analogy of Loisy`s