Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 01-04-2009, 03:21 PM

Since I am not sure exactly what this has to do with the OP, I won't be playing, thank you.

If you ant to open a new thread about the truth value of narrative, I'd be open to that.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I thought I was simply asking Stephen why he used the word "redaction" and "made up" in the same sentence.

Of course fiction, the specific plot of which is made up, is not the same as a historical narrative, but historical narratives vary in type and in details. As Stephen knows, even eyewitness accounts of the same events invariably vary for a rather wide range of reasons. The narratives of a Japanese infantryman and a US marine concerning the same battle for Iwo Jima in WW2 will be two very different stories. When the narrative is written down, even by eyewitnesses, additional considerations affect the truth value of the document.

The differences in narratives would not alter the fact there was a battle for Iwo Jima in WW2. The two different stories would still be chronologically sound, that is, they both will claim there was a battle at a certain time.

Now, what "eyewitness account" with respect to Jesus or Paul is chronologically sound?

aa5874 · 01-04-2009, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Since I am not sure exactly what this has to do with the OP, I won't be playing, thank you.

If you ant to open a new thread about the truth value of narrative, I'd be open to that.

You are the one who made a statement in post #81 which I queried in post #88, it appears to be erroneous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...Fiction writers, even when they base their story on actual historical events and people, are never said to redact historical sources..

I am serious when I see erroneous statements, I don't play. I will respond and point out the errors.

Toto · 01-04-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who made a statement in post #81 which I queried in post #88, it appears to be erroneous.

Your assertion in post 88 appears to misunderstand the point, and is irrelevant to the issues here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

There is also no hint in a definition like this that there is any conscious effort made to make things up. Fiction writers, even when they base the story on actual historical events and people, are never said to redact the historical sources.

It is not possible for a fictional account to be an actual historical account. That is a complete contradiction.

Once a work has been declared fictional by the author, all similarities to actual historical events, people and places must be deemed co-incidental.

We are not dealing with a work that the author has declared to be fictional. But, even if it were, there are many works that an author claims to be fictional which may contain historical elements, or be based on historical elements. Please look up "historical novel" and "roman a clef."

A historian could not rely on a fictional novel for actual facts, but historians have used novels as information on social elements reflected in the novel.

But this has nothing to do with whether Christians are insane, so please do not pursue it here.

aa5874 · 01-04-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who made a statement in post #81 which I queried in post #88, it appears to be erroneous.

Your assertion in post 88 appears to misunderstand the point, and is irrelevant to the issues here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not possible for a fictional account to be an actual historical account. That is a complete contradiction.

Once a work has been declared fictional by the author, all similarities to actual historical events, people and places must be deemed co-incidental.

We are not dealing with a work that the author has declared to be fictional. But, even if it were, there are many works that an author claims to be fictional which may contain historical elements, or be based on historical elements. Please look up "historical novel" and "roman a clef."

A historian could not rely on a fictional novel for actual facts, but historians have used novels as information on social elements reflected in the novel.

But this has nothing to do with whether Christians are insane, so please do not pursue it here.

Please, I was responding to erroneous information in post #81.

And, now it should be noted that information in a fiction novel is unreliable and are not intended to be used by historians.

In fact, it is the complete opposite, fiction novel writers rely on actual historical events, people and places to make their stories seem more realistic.

I have a fiction novel infront of me and it states

Quote:

All persons and events in this book are entirely imaginary. Nothing in it derives from anything which ever happened

I don't think a sane historian or sane Christian, for that matter, can rely on such a fiction novel.

S.C.Carlson · 01-05-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Isn't getting information by talking to a (supposed) eyewitness a kind of oral tradition?

Testimony.

Bauckham, Eyewitnesses to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) proposes just such a distinction between testimony and tradition as his way to obviating form criticism. I'm not sure I buy it however, because I'm not so sure that there's anything inherent in being an eyewitness that necessarily makes the person more reliable. It is true that there's only one link in the chain, but the strength of the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, even if it's just one link.

Stephen

Roger Pearse · 01-05-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Testimony.

Bauckham, Eyewitnesses to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) proposes just such a distinction between testimony and tradition as his way to obviating form criticism. I'm not sure I buy it however, because I'm not so sure that there's anything inherent in being an eyewitness that necessarily makes the person more reliable. It is true that there's only one link in the chain, but the strength of the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, even if it's just one link.

One problem with contemporary testimony to historical events is that we can too easily presume that being around at the time means being better informed than those who come later. But it is not necessarily so. Here in the UK every Christmas we get information released from the Cabinet papers of 30 years ago, and these throw a sometimes ghastly light on what was *really* going on in government at that time, and that we who made up the general public of the day were not told.

Other things being equal, tho, those closest to events will be best informed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson · 01-05-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think "tradition" refers to stories that may theoretically be based on eyewitness testimony, but most likely are highly embellished, if there is any basis at all to them.

Agreed on the first part; on the second, I think that the potential for embellishment is always there, but it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

NT scholars seem to be unique in assuming that oral tradition can be used as a basis for historical claims. I had a long discussion with Chris Weimer on this, but he never produced any other discipline that treated oral tradition, or folklore, as a source of historical facts.

When one is trying to do history on a group of marginalized and largely illiterate group of people, one is pretty much stuck in dealing with oral tradition.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 01-05-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC information obtained from talking to a supposed eyewitness is referred to as "oral history" and distinguished from "oral tradition" where the relation of the informant to the original event is less direct.

That is a helpful distinction, but doesn't "oral history" present more or less directly the testimony of the informant? I don't remember that even Bauckham's suggestion of the use of eyewitness testimony in Mark and John is quite as direct as it would be with oral history.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 01-05-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Editors may also make changes to a narrative to make the account more "readable," such as juxtaposing events or leaving out "unimportant" (to the editor) details, or adding commentary or explanations or "color" to jazz it up, or change the plot or details of the story to push a private agenda. That is why I asked Stephen about "hearsay" (probably not the best term for me to have used) and whether redaction necessarily means "making things up."

The way I understand it (and I could always be idiosyncratic) is that "redaction" owes its origin to the writer and "tradition" owes it origin to the writer's sources. Perhaps "making things up" was a somewhat unfair way for me to characterize redaction (or its analog among oral tradents), but sorting between tradition and redaction at every stage of communication has be to done in historical analysis.

Stephen

Toto · 01-05-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think "tradition" refers to stories that may theoretically be based on eyewitness testimony, but most likely are highly embellished, if there is any basis at all to them.

Agreed on the first part; on the second, I think that the potential for embellishment is always there, but it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

NT scholars seem to be unique in assuming that oral tradition can be used as a basis for historical claims. I had a long discussion with Chris Weimer on this, but he never produced any other discipline that treated oral tradition, or folklore, as a source of historical facts.

When one is trying to do history on a group of marginalized and largely illiterate group of people, one is pretty much stuck in dealing with oral tradition.

Stephen

The people who wrote the gospels were not illiterate, so I'm not sure what this refers to.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.