An age old question

Dr. C asks a question as old as the study of history, "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" The question is not a simple one. I have friends and teachers who would give a straightforward no as the answer. While I don't entirely disagree with them, I think that the answer really depends on where you put the empahsis in the question. It can be asked two ways: "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" or "Can we indeed write history as it actually was?" To reformulate slightly, the two questions are: "Is it possible to write history as it actually was?" and "Do we, given the sources of information available to us, have the ability to write the history of X as it actually was?" The answer to the second question, with regard to Ancient Israel (the context of Dr. C's post), is clearly no. We have so little information, outside of the Bible, that it really is impossible for us to do more than make intelligent guesses about actual events. The first question is much more interesting, and much more complicated. I suppose that ultimately, given the subjectivity of all documentary evidence, and the silence of most material evidence, that the answer is also no. But I'm also certain that depending on the nature and quantity of the evidence available, sometimes we can come pretty damn close. I think it's silly to say, as some people do, that just because our knowledge can't ever be perfect that we don't know anything. We can and do know some things, and that is not insignificant.