Weird kind of thoughts?

As my ques are always weird I am little bit confused about all these ithehaaskaars(Historians) knows all about Guru Sahiban.
Like Any historian who born in 1970 is writing about Guru Nanak dev Jee.How he would came to know all the doings and deeds
Of Guru Patsah.I know they studies but what they studies?
How they came to know that a person came to Guru Sahib and put some questions?
I know this will be weird to all of you but whenever I listen katha and if in katha the kathavachak told that some historian wrote this
about Guru Maharaaj I start thinking that how he could know all these things if the historian is like Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Jee.
I think there would be no issue of shankaa of how they know all these things.But all writer don't have kamaee like Bhai Sahib Jee..

Please Help Jee....

Maaf kareyo I know I am little bit Tarakvaadi I also realise this now.

If we view history, we will notice oral traditions about religious figures are usually documented and written some hundreds of years after the person and then discerned by the religious scholars. For example, the stories of Jesus were written some 300 years after Jesus was crucified. The early church then decided which stories will be canonized ( accepted) and which stories will be rejected. Same with Muhammad, the Hadith came much after his death, and a body of Islmaic scholars filtered out stories that contradicted the Quaran and Islamic traditions.

Modern Sikh historians have heavily relied on oral traditions which were written down, but they did not filter them down. For example, Gurbilas ( Bhai Koer Singh ) which is allegedly scribed during the times of Sri Guru Gobind SIngh Ji mentions GUru Sahib took the heads of 5 goats and not panj pyaare. Modern historians have accepted this info. without questioning its source.

Some say we have sources which were written from the Gurus time such as Bhai Bala Janam Sakihs and Sikha Da Bhagat Mala; however, both sources contradict one another and there hasnt been a through examniation on what is correct and incorrect. So our job is to take sakhis which inspire us to live up to the Gurus example, jaap naam, and keep rehat the rest is to be discarded.

You should also be weary of people such as Kathavachiks who narrarate Sikh history but do not keep rehat. Such people have a tendency to distort Sikh history.

Quote
So our job is to take sakhis which inspire us to live up to the Gurus example, jaap naam, and keep rehat the rest is to be discarded.

Thanks Bhai Sahib jee.

A basic weakness in history in general, is that it narrates the events. It does not capture the mental state/transformations and spiritual aspirations of its characters. Wheresoever, whatsoever, is there in sikh history about such episodes; we should try to extract maximum from that.

Those who narrate or write history; speak up their mind, along with some facts. That must be taken care of and ignored.

Quote

A basic weakness in history in general, is that it narrates the events. It does not capture the mental state/transformations and spiritual aspirations of its characters. Wheresoever, whatsoever, is there in sikh history about such episodes; we should try to extract maximum from that.

Those who narrate or write history; speak up their mind, along with some facts. That must be taken care of and ignored.

Good points Veer Ji! Much of our history, with the exception of " Sikhi Da Bhagat Mala" does a poor job in personifying the characters of Gurmukhs. This is why "Sikhi Da Bhagat Mala" is perhaps my favorite history text.The character of the puratan gurmukhs were simply amazing?