Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-09-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no need to speculate, I have made my position clear, perhaps hundreds of times already.

You can say that again!

Wait... on second thought, please do not say it again.

Ben.

Only if you stop making baseless and unsupported claims about Jesus that cannot be SUPORTED.

T

Ben C Smith · 05-09-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You can say that again!

Wait... on second thought, please do not say it again.

Ben.

Only if you stop making baseless and unsupported claims about Jesus that cannot be SUPORTED.

Which claims of mine do you have in mind?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 05-09-2008, 10:30 AM

Hi Solo

I've got a little confused by this discussion but IIUC and IMO there may be a confusion here between works of history as a genre and historical accuracy.

Other Powers by Goldsmith may as you say be historically very unreliable, but it seems clearly to fall in the genre of works of history (bad works of history) rather than what I usually mean by historical fiction.

The question as to whether or not one can, on internal evidence, distinguish works of history from works of fiction is IMO different from that of distinguishing reliable historical works from unreliable ones.

As to the substance of the claim IMO:
i/ the problems of blurring of genre boundaries in modern literature is probably not directly relevant to the Ancient world.
ii/ the problem with say Mark depends on what other evidence than the narrowly internal we are supposed to have available. If we regard Mark as a work a/ written in the 1st century CE b/ for the benefit of those who were already in some sense followers of Jesus then it is easiest to regard Mark as historical in intention. If one rejects a/ or b/ the question becomes more ambiguous.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera · 05-09-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Dear Solo,

No need for divination, just context.

Text 2:
"Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Barbara Goldsmith.

By the way, Goldsmith is a journalist, not a professional historian, which is why her social histories are filled with these kinds of journalistic descriptions and mind reading ("she felt the beginning of exaltation"). As she says in her introduction, she's more interested in the psychology of the people (i.e., their interpretation of events) than in the events, which is why her primary sources ar diaries and letters and recorded conversations (all of which may totally misrepresent actual events!)

You identified the book, Gamera, which is good, but you are not telling us how Goldsmith's "mind reading" (which it plainly is) relates a) to her profession of a journalist, and b) to the historical worthiness of her account. You said previously you could tell from the text itself (not from the self-decription of the author) whether it was "history" or not, and hence whether it was trustworthy account.

Now obviously, I am not particularly insistent that Roxy Claflin (Emily Dunberry, in my tyranscript) was actually seeing a mud-spattered horse and went into ecstasy, or what she was wearing while in that state, I am more concerned with your ability to focus on relevant issues.
For example, was Lyman Beecher (Charles Boswell) charged with heresy by the Presbyterian Synod in 1835, or not ? Would that be in any way dependent on Goldsmith's description of him as a liberal ? The answer is evidently 'no'. One may very well be mistaken about the actual background an event (she wasn't) and still describe it correctly and historically accurately.

Goldsmith's book on the whole is hugely flawed historically in my reckoning, despite being advertized as "History" and despite a hefty bibliography she appends to her volume (over 400 titles). Spritualism did not play almost any role in either of the two women's suffrage groups. Except for Woodhull and some minor figures in the movement who were preoccupied with spirits there was no unseen driving force of "Spiritualism" animating the struggles. Goldsmith misreads events or manufactures meanings to them. The best example of her folly is her view of the letter Elizabeth Stanton to Woodhull asking her to deploy 'Demosthenes' and some prominent women (all dead at that time) in organizing the movement. This is vintage Stanton tongue-in-cheek, ridiculing an intelectual inferior ('Will you ask Demosthenes if there is any new argument not yet made on the 14th & 15th amendment that he will bring through some of us at the coming convention....?') . Goldsmith misread the sarcasm and thought (on this one letter alone) that Stanton was actually a Spiritualist herself. In reality, Stanton was a self-declared rationalist, who had no time for nonsense of the sort. She was hugely better equipped intellectually than Virginia Woodhull, who had no schooling and received only private tutoring hardly covering the rudiments. Stanton was amused by Virginia's naivete and used her for her purposes - e.g. in egging her to out Henry Ward Beecher as a seducer of Libby Tilton.

My point to you is that you could not read any of this from the first page of the book, nor the genre under which it advertizes itself.

Quote:

Text 1:

I don't have enough of Text 1 to offer an opinion. Generally, before reading a text, you know the context (or you wouldn't read it), like who purportedly wrote it, and when, and for what audience. The signifiers of genre may be as straighforward as how long is it, what's it called, where you would buy it; or as complex as the style of rhetoric used.

So your attempt to take a passage out of context only shows the strength of my position that normally, you can tell historical fiction from history or other genres in a page or two, since holding the volume in my hand, I would have the context.

Oh I see ...... well, I am sure that those who have followed this conversation will go back in the thread and see whether that is what you have represented.

BTW, TEXT 1 is from Emanie Sachs (Arling) first biography of Virginia Woodhull, "The Terrible Siren : Virginia Woodhull", a must read for everyone who wants to ubnderstand how the woman was perceived in her own age, and not through current theses on women's politics of 19th century USA.

Jiri

Well like I said, mind reading is a sure sign of a nonhistorical text, and Goldsmith isn't an historian but a journalist. Hence the journalistic style, which would tip off any educated reader that this isn't historiography per se.

I suspect the mind reading sections come from diaries and letters. But my point is diaries and letters aren't really about events (since diaries and letters tend to be tendentious), but really about people's impressions of events. Such an inquiry is a legitimate historical inquiry, but that should be made clear.

As to Text 1, like I say, give me the context and I'll give you the genre. Let the reader decide whether I ever said I could tell the genre from a decontextualized isolated passage. What I said was that if you give me the book, I can tell almost immediately what the genre is. I stand by that. Your examples seem to have fallen flat in that regard.

Gamera · 05-09-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Since I've totally rebutted your claim, you are reduced to straw men.

You've done nothing but attempt to distract from your ridiculous assertion and this is just more of the same. Straw men? Did you forget your claim or are you hoping no one would take the time to go back in the thread to retrieve it?

Your credibility keeps dropping like a stone.

Keep up the good work! :thumbs:

You haven't been paying attention. I have been consistently calling into question the assertion you made above despite your desperate efforts to change the subject.

I don't know what can be done to help someone with such blatantly ridiculous beliefs.

Quote:

I think your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you think historicity is some relationship between persons living and persons dead. It isn't. It's a relationship between readers and texts. Period

Pass the bong, amigo. Maybe you'll start to make sense.

You keep confirming the fact that you just don't understand what historicity means. You act as if it's a relationship to reality, as opposed to a relationship to a genre of texts.

But that's OK. Just keep making the same mistake. It's your modus operandi, and frankly I've never seen you edified by any post on this forum in years. You don't seem capable of complex thought.

Gamera · 05-09-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamera - didn't you mean, no need for divination, just Google?

And didn't you just move the goalposts?

We are talking about the gospels, and we don't know who wrote them or the context, or any of those other clues about what they were. We don't know the intended audience. But you were sure that you could tell whether they were history or fake history just by reading.

But, however much you diss her, if we had a journalistic account of a quality comparable to Barbara Goldsmith's for first century Palestine, historians would be way ahead of the game.

These are all legitimate questions about the gospel genre, which is why scholarship in the area is useful. The scholarship (which broadly includes paleography, archaeology, and comparisons with other texts) tends to place them in the context of Graeco-Roman biography (which has a highly episodic quality, unlike modern historiography - hence the distinctions we can discern between modern historiography and modern journalistic history writing). However it isn't clear cut.

The point is, it is in addressing these questions (as best we can) that the issue of the historicity of the gospels is supported or dismantled. I have concluded, that within the context of historiography in antiquity, the gospels appear to be intended as Graeco-Roman biographies of an actual person, and I have concluded that the mythicist position is a weaker case. And part of the weakness of the mythicist case are the silences alluded to in the OP.

As to google, I happen to own the book (my wife's has a book business on the side), but of course you're right, I could have googled it. But I don't think that's too relevant. If all we had was a passage or two from the gospels, and no context, they probably would mystify us. But we don't. We have four complete texts, with lots of copies.

Solo · 05-09-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

PS: I do not think Jiri is a mythicist, though I admit his psychological take on things makes him sound like one sometimes.

I am not a mythicist in the sense that I hold (or come close to holding) there was no historical figure behind Jesus of Nazareth of the gospels. And I am a mythicist in that I believe nearly everything in the NT has a mythical spin on it, and was shaped (possibly also out of authentic material) to fit Paul's revelations about the crucified and resurrected Jesus.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 05-09-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You keep confirming the fact that you just don't understand what historicity means. You act as if it's a relationship to reality, as opposed to a relationship to a genre of texts.

....

You don't seem capable of complex thought.

Perhaps I, too, am incapable of complex thought. When I say that figure X is historical, not mythical, I think I am intending a relationship to reality (if I am understanding you correctly). When I say that figure X is an historical figure, I mean that, if time travel were possible and I could go back to his or her time and place, I could video record figure X doing stuff. I mean that figure X really lived (but does not anymore) in the same sense that my grandmother really lived (but does not anymore).

But maybe I am utterly alone in meaning such things when I speak of historicity.

Ben.

badger3k · 05-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamera - didn't you mean, no need for divination, just Google?

And didn't you just move the goalposts?

We are talking about the gospels, and we don't know who wrote them or the context, or any of those other clues about what they were. We don't know the intended audience. But you were sure that you could tell whether they were history or fake history just by reading.

But, however much you diss her, if we had a journalistic account of a quality comparable to Barbara Goldsmith's for first century Palestine, historians would be way ahead of the game.

What was the first century CE equivalent of Google?

I always assumed that in the pre-common-literacy days that most people got by with what they heard, and had no way of searching, nor, from what I gather, any care to. Today most people who are Christians haven't read their own bible, nor do they really desire to - otherwise they would have. Why would an illiterate (or literate) individual in that 1st century be different?:huh:

Amaleq13 · 05-09-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You don't seem capable of complex thought.

:rolling:

Is that what you call the avoidance tactics and nonsense you've been babbling?

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

05-09-2008, 10:30 AM	#193
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Solo I've got a little confused by this discussion but IIUC and IMO there may be a confusion here between works of history as a genre and historical accuracy. Other Powers by Goldsmith may as you say be historically very unreliable, but it seems clearly to fall in the genre of works of history (bad works of history) rather than what I usually mean by historical fiction. The question as to whether or not one can, on internal evidence, distinguish works of history from works of fiction is IMO different from that of distinguishing reliable historical works from unreliable ones. As to the substance of the claim IMO: i/ the problems of blurring of genre boundaries in modern literature is probably not directly relevant to the Ancient world. ii/ the problem with say Mark depends on what other evidence than the narrowly internal we are supposed to have available. If we regard Mark as a work a/ written in the 1st century CE b/ for the benefit of those who were already in some sense followers of Jesus then it is easiest to regard Mark as historical in intention. If one rejects a/ or b/ the question becomes more ambiguous. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.