Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-05-2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Texts make history, through narrative.

Firstly, if the historian has integrity and worth, then his or her text constitutes a narrative of historical events and people. On the other hand, if an author who presents as an historian has no integrity as an historian, and is simply writing polemical fiction and propaganda, then the narrative is a pseudo-history. In fact, it is fraudulent misrepresentation.

We must regard Eusebius with the greatest suspicion. Jakob Burckhardt has called Eusebius "The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

He goes on to write (about Eusebius) .....

Quote:

"After the many falsifications, suppressions, and
fictions which have been proved in his work, he has no right to
be put forward as a decisive authority; and to these faults we
must add a consciously perverse manner of expression, deliberate
bombast, and many equivocations, so that the reader stumbles
upon trapdoors and pitfalls in the most important passages".

(J.Burckhardt, Leben Konstantins, 2nd Ed, 1860, pp 307,335,347)

Secondly, history is also comprised of the non-literary remains, aka the monumental evidence (as distinct from literary evidence). Historians would naturally like all the elements of history to be consistent, one supporting the other, so to speak.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

DevilsAdvocate · 03-05-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Paul is not depicted in any conflict with Peter or James.

Even the final compromise fails to indicate any conflict.

Quote:

Do we agree?

No, you are still reading conflict into the passage. Your original claim continues to have no basis in Acts.

You really need to read more carefully. You miss a lot.

I see conflict where there is incomplete agreement of conformance.

OK. So, if there was no possible conflict, then ...
- there was no possible conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
- Paul and Barnabas saw no connection between the authority of the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem and those causing trouble in Antioch.
- the Antioch party was not with the Jerusalem church leaders to ask for relief because they had no authority and responsibility over the troublemakers.
- some Pharisees from outside the Apostle's influence were sent in to stir up trouble with the gentile missionaries.
- Paul stood with the apostles and elders and they all resisted the Pharisee party in complete agreement from beginning to end.
- the final resolution was a complete vindication of Paul's position, and showed no support by the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem for requiring gentile Christians to observe any Jewish customs.
- since there was nothing in the "compromise" that requested gentiles to observe any jewish customs, there was no source for conflict.

How does this conflict with the Paul of Galatians?

Amaleq13 · 03-05-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

You really need to read more carefully. You miss a lot.

I've missed nothing and you've offered nothing to suggest otherwise except your refusal to accept that the text of Acts simply does not support your contention.

Quote:

I see conflict where there is incomplete agreement of conformance.

You imagine conflict for no other apparent reason than you find it explicitly described elsewhere. The author of Acts tells us that Paul's people were quite happy with the compromise offered by James.

Quote:

- there was no possible conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church.

There is none described in Acts and this is a direct contradiction of your claim.

Quote:

- Paul and Barnabas saw no connection between the authority of the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem and those causing trouble in Antioch.

Except that they believed the Apostles and elders could resolve the conflict between Paul and the Pharisees.

Quote:

- the Antioch party was not with the Jerusalem church leaders to ask for relief because they had no authority and responsibility over the troublemakers.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here but I suspect it is ultimately irrelevant to my point.

Quote:

- some Pharisees from outside the Apostle's influence were sent in to stir up trouble with the gentile missionaries.

Where in Acts do you find the Pharisees being "sent" by anyone?

Quote:

- Paul stood with the apostles and elders and they all resisted the Pharisee party in complete agreement from beginning to end.

Paul obtained the complete support of Peter and enough support from James to make his people happy. They "won" on the primary issue of circumcision and don't appear to have been terribly concerned about the requirements James offers.

Quote:

- the final resolution was a complete vindication of Paul's position, and showed no support by the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem for requiring gentile Christians to observe any Jewish customs.

You know that is contrary to the text of Acts so why play such silly games? It is complete waste of time. :banghead:

Quote:

- since there was nothing in the "compromise" that requested gentiles to observe any jewish customs, there was no source for conflict.

No, since Acts depicts Paul's people rejoicing upon hearing of the compromise, there is no reason to think they considered themselves to be in conflict with James.

Quote:

How does this conflict with the Paul of Galatians?

I'm not going to repeat myself. This is just more game-playing.

Toto · 03-05-2008, 11:50 AM

Devil's Advocate: You might want to read what others have written on the conflict between Acts and the epistles:

How Acts subverts Galatians

Quote:

The author of Acts on the other hand had a different agenda, which was to cut Paul down to a subordinate position to the Jerusalem apostles. The various scholarly attempts to rationalize or harmonize the Paul of Acts with the Paul of the epistles, including Galatians, have struck me as strained to breaking point, but this is another discussion. It is easiest to read Acts treatment of Paul as an attempt to portray Paul in many ways echoing the accomplishments of Peter, but at the same time subordinate and conforming to the teachings sealed with the authority of Jerusalem. Acts rejects the Paul of the letter who sniffs at the status of Cephas, James and John, and who reminds readers he owes nothing of his conversion or gospel message to them.

...

Galatians, apparently from the pen of Paul, informs its readers that James, Peter and John all agreed with Paul in Jerusalem. But afterwards back in Antioch, these men reneged — Peter and others were sent by James to preach observance to Jewish customs. Paul declares what he said to Peter about it, and then drops the subject leaving his own words the last for the reader to hear on the matter.

The author of Acts resolves this problem of disunity by moving the Antioch dispute to the beginning of the narrative. So instead of the story of the conference blowing up with a subsequent dispute in Antioch as it does in Galatians, Acts rearranges the story so that the Antioch dispute initiates the Jerusalem conference — where it is harmoniously resolved.

...

Note the discussion of the textual evidence that the author of Acts knew Galatians, and attempted to shift its message.

For the opposing view, that the epistle was written in the second century based on Acts, see The Spuriousness of So-called Pauline Epistles Exemplified by the Epistle to the Galatians

Gamera · 03-05-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Texts make history, through narrative.

Firstly, if the historian has integrity and worth, then his or her text constitutes a narrative of historical events and people. On the other hand, if an author who presents as an historian has no integrity as an historian, and is simply writing polemical fiction and propaganda, then the narrative is a pseudo-history. In fact, it is fraudulent misrepresentation.

We must regard Eusebius with the greatest suspicion. Jakob Burckhardt has called Eusebius "The first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

He goes on to write (about Eusebius) .....

Quote:

"After the many falsifications, suppressions, and
fictions which have been proved in his work, he has no right to
be put forward as a decisive authority; and to these faults we
must add a consciously perverse manner of expression, deliberate
bombast, and many equivocations, so that the reader stumbles
upon trapdoors and pitfalls in the most important passages".

(J.Burckhardt, Leben Konstantins, 2nd Ed, 1860, pp 307,335,347)

Secondly, history is also comprised of the non-literary remains, aka the monumental evidence (as distinct from literary evidence). Historians would naturally like all the elements of history to be consistent, one supporting the other, so to speak.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

The ethics of historians didn't really exist in antiquity, so your suspicion of Eusebius is equally applicable to every ancient historical text. It's impossible to name any ancient historian who didn't have an obvious political or personal agenda. Indeed, it's impossible to name a contemporary one who doesn't.

Regrettably, when it comes to antiquity, texts are often all we have.

Gamera · 03-05-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is hopelessly naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

"Intent" of an "author" are both constructs of the reader, as Foucault has shown, or rather result from a relationship between reader and text. See "What is an Author?"

Authors are constructed by readers and don't exist in reality -- they aren't the guys who wrote the text, since that whole process has passed into history. Text create authors, not vice versa.

Accordingly, the author's intent is a construct of the reader, and has nothing to do with some putative process of some person's mind. Intent is an artifact of discourse, not something we have access to directly.

I'm pleased to see that you struggle on with your quest for Foucault 101, but your tone comes through anyway, so unfortunately your post mocks your message. You need to write with a tone of impassive inscrutibility. Any author will tell you that text creates readers.

The snake oil you are flogging is the sound of one hand clapping. You're sitting in the dark hard at work and breathing heavily in a peepshow with your eye on the glass telling yourself you can't see the body on the other side. Text doesn't come into existence without author.

spin

Whoosh! Right over your head, once again.

Gamera · 03-05-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

[Fiction is anything that is false or presented as truth that cannot be objectively verified to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is of course circular since history is textual. The categories of "true" and "false" are dubious when applied to history, which are always narratives and always constructed, not mere mirror images of some preexisting truth in history. Texts make history, through narrative.

You consistently confuse history and apologia. John F Kennedy's assasination is history regardless of the conspiracy theories. Martin Luther King's assasination is history even if the wrong person was charged for his murder.

On the other hand, Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all apologia, there are only internal inconsistent, contradictory and fictious based anecdotes. No external credible non-apologetic source can account for those characters.

So tell us what the Agricola is? Apologia or history? Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? Suetonius, The Life of Nero? Anything by Josephus.

The categories you have invented are meaningless in antiquity.

Ben C Smith · 03-05-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Whoosh! Right over your head, once again.

Over mine too, I think. I must admit I find the whole text-creates-author idea a bit mind-warping. But I am probably just too simple a creature to fully understand it.

Ben.

Toto · 03-05-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

...

Whoosh! Right over your head, once again.

Sorry. I just had to join these two comments. I couldn't help myself.

aa5874 · 03-05-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You consistently confuse history and apologia. John F Kennedy's assasination is history regardless of the conspiracy theories. Martin Luther King's assasination is history even if the wrong person was charged for his murder.

On the other hand, Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all apologia, there are only internal inconsistent, contradictory and fictious based anecdotes. No external credible non-apologetic source can account for those characters.

So tell us what the Agricola is? Apologia or history? Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? Suetonius, The Life of Nero? Anything by Josephus.

The categories you have invented are meaningless in antiquity.

Since when was external credible non-apologetic sources categorised as meaningless?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.