Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TaylorC · 02-24-2009, 03:20 PM

I've noticed that J.P. Holding, Josh McDowell, and countless other apologists frequently invoke tests or measures for evaluating the historicity and reliability of texts from antiquity. However, most of the terms they use for these "tests" seem to only direct me to more apologists. Are there any generally accepted standards or criteria used by historians to determine the reliability or historicity of a text, short of finding blatant contradictions from other disciplines?

Toto · 02-24-2009, 03:35 PM

Not really. I think that McDowell et al. try to claim that historical texts must be treated as true unless there is some reason to discredit them. This is not the rule for any professional historian.

mountainman · 02-24-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaylorC

I've noticed that J.P. Holding, Josh McDowell, and countless other apologists frequently invoke tests or measures for evaluating the historicity and reliability of texts from antiquity. However, most of the terms they use for these "tests" seem to only direct me to more apologists.

Are there any generally accepted standards or criteria used by historians to determine the reliability or historicity of a text, short of finding blatant contradictions from other disciplines?

Dear TaylorC,

This is a question we have to ask of ancient historians (as distinct from "biblical historians" and/or "new testament scholars"). I have personally found no better and simply stated guidelines than the following:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

I think that everying cited above is directly relevant to you question, and that meditation on the above should provide solutions to questions you might want to ask the apologists. I have collated further resources on Momigliano here (links at bottom of page).

Best wishes,

Pete

Roger Pearse · 02-25-2009, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not really. I think that McDowell et al. try to claim that historical texts must be treated as true unless there is some reason to discredit them. This is not the rule for any professional historian.

Actually I think that this *is* how professional historians actually work. There is no real other alternative.

Think about it. If our only source of information on Sextus Lurcius is a single ancient one-chapter work telling us only that he lived near the forum and everyone hated him, that is the totality of our information. What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do? Why shouldn't we? Anything else is speculation.

The problem with this is that the data may lie to us. But the only way we can fix that is with more data. Just saying "we know men lie so I'm going to tell a story about old Lurcius, in which I find excuses to ignore the statement that everyone hated him" tells us nothing.

In practise matters are never so simple, and there is always more data; how reliable the source is, etc, is also data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on · 02-25-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not really. I think that McDowell et al. try to claim that historical texts must be treated as true unless there is some reason to discredit them. This is not the rule for any professional historian.

Actually I think that this *is* how professional historians actually work. There is no real other alternative.

Think about it. If our only source of information on Sextus Lurcius is a single ancient one-chapter work telling us only that he lived near the forum and everyone hated him, that is the totality of our information. What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do? Why shouldn't we? Anything else is speculation.

The problem with this is that the data may lie to us. But the only way we can fix that is with more data. Just saying "we know men lie so I'm going to tell a story about old Lurcius, in which I find excuses to ignore the statement that everyone hated him" tells us nothing.

In practise matters are never so simple, and there is always more data; how reliable the source is, etc, is also data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Well Roger, what you have described is another way of saying that history is actually worthless as an actual science.

I do believe however, that actual historians would most likely disagree with you.

Roger Pearse · 02-25-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Actually I think that this *is* how professional historians actually work. There is no real other alternative.

Think about it. If our only source of information on Sextus Lurcius is a single ancient one-chapter work telling us only that he lived near the forum and everyone hated him, that is the totality of our information. What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do? Why shouldn't we? Anything else is speculation.

The problem with this is that the data may lie to us. But the only way we can fix that is with more data. Just saying "we know men lie so I'm going to tell a story about old Lurcius, in which I find excuses to ignore the statement that everyone hated him" tells us nothing.

In practise matters are never so simple, and there is always more data; how reliable the source is, etc, is also data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Well Roger, what you have described is another way of saying that history is actually worthless as an actual science.

I do believe however, that actual historians would most likely disagree with you.

History is not a science, but an art. It amounts to telling the story of the past based on the data that survives, which inevitably is partial. The alternative -- to make up a story using the data selectively -- is known as fiction.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on · 02-25-2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Well Roger, what you have described is another way of saying that history is actually worthless as an actual science.

I do believe however, that actual historians would most likely disagree with you.

History is not a science, but an art. It amounts to telling the story of the past based on the data that survives, which inevitably is partial. The alternative -- to make up a story using the data selectively -- is known as fiction.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I thought the alternative was called Christian scholarship...

My bad...

Amaleq13 · 02-25-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If our only source of information on Sextus Lurcius is a single ancient one-chapter work telling us only that he lived near the forum and everyone hated him, that is the totality of our information. What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do?

Avoid pretending we can say anything with confidence about Sextus Lurcius because of the nature of the evidence?

Be honest about the inherent uncertainty of claims based on a single source?

Suggest that we know of no reason to doubt the location of his home but it is possible the alleged hatred was specific only to the author's personal feelings?

TaylorC · 02-25-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Think about it. If our only source of information on Sextus Lurcius is a single ancient one-chapter work telling us only that he lived near the forum and everyone hated him, that is the totality of our information. What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do? Why shouldn't we?

What if there are bold claims in the work that contradict known science and human capabilities? Should we be skeptical of a source because it utilizes fantastic language about miracles, resurrections, etc? I don't think we are to accept a work of antiquity and assume it is accurate based on the fact that it is the only source - we need to consider the content, historical context, and many other things.

...maybe I just partially answered my own question, lol.

Doug Shaver · 02-25-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

What are the choices? Accept or reject? We accept, of course. What else can we do?

We can suspend judgment.

02-24-2009, 03:20 PM	#1
TaylorC Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 54	Historical/Textual Standards & Criteria I've noticed that J.P. Holding, Josh McDowell, and countless other apologists frequently invoke tests or measures for evaluating the historicity and reliability of texts from antiquity. However, most of the terms they use for these "tests" seem to only direct me to more apologists. Are there any generally accepted standards or criteria used by historians to determine the reliability or historicity of a text, short of finding blatant contradictions from other disciplines?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-24-2009, 03:35 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Not really. I think that McDowell et al. try to claim that historical texts must be treated as true unless there is some reason to discredit them. This is not the rule for any professional historian.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.