Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-26-2007, 02:45 AM

The story up to now:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Most people consider historical tradition to be it's own evidence. It isn't of course, but that bias has to be overcome

.

Why isn't the historical tradition evidence? Every other culture uses tradition, and much of it is accepted, although with reservation and many added qualifiers. When the tradition overlaps with facts, we generally assume there is some historical reliability in that tradition. That's done in anthropological circles worldwide.

The Jesus Mythicist needs to stop thinking in the 19th century, and move up to modern times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Can you give some examples of anthropologists who think that traditions are historically reliable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Please reread what I wrote and correctly identify what I said. In the meantime, I'll be preparing some citations

...

Here are some articles to get you started:

Sylvia Rodriguez, "Subaltern Historiography on the Rio Grande: On Gutiérrez's "When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away", a review of Ramón A. Gutiérrez When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in New Mexico, 1500-1846, American Ethnologist, Vol. 21, No. 4. (1994): 892-899.

Amsbury, Clifton, "On the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 22, No. 2. (1995): 412.

Ernest S. Burch, Jr. "More on the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 23, No. 1. (1996): 131.

Ruth Finnegan, "A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence", History and Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2. (1970): 195-201.

So Chris has supplied me with copies of these articles, and I don't find any support for the idea that researchers can find any historical evidence in traditions.

Sylvia Rodriguez remarks, in the context of a dispute between an anthropologist and some Pueblo Indians who object to his interpretations of their culture:

Quote:

The Pueblos have long claimed the exclusive right to transmit, represent, and evaluate authentic Pueblo culture, a kind of assertion most people in the world probably do not need to worry much about making. in one sense, their objection to Gutiérrez' tale is nothing new and entirely predictable. But, in today's context of postcolonial, postmodernist, and feminist debates about positionality, viewpoint, authority, power, and voice, the issue resonates more loudly than ever before . . .

. . . . As a historian rather than an ethnographer, he adamantly justifies his decision not to consult living informants regarding Pueblo society at the time of contact. His claim that accurate oral historical memory does not survive more than five or six generations comes as an ethnocentric and elitist affront to Pueblo critics."

Clifton Amsbury then writes in relation to the above claim:

Quote:

A few years ago I had occasion to compare notes with another participant in certain public events of the thirties, and with documentary and chronological records of those same events. While the records may themselves have had flaws, I am convinced as a result that truly reliable oral historical tradition does not necessarily survive the first generation.

Ernest S. Burch Jr. then comments, but just says the matter is complicated by various factors.

Ruth Finnegan, "A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence" goes into much more detail on oral history in Africa, but most of the article warns against relying on tradition for historical evidence. She states explicitly that historical stories are apt to be reworked in the light of current political and social issues.

E.g.:

Quote:

Prose literature can be discussed more briefly. It tends to less specialization than poetry in African oral literature. Unlike poets, the performer/composer of prose is seldom an expert, and often genres are not recognized. The outside analyst could list several main categories. First there are obviously fictional narratives concerned with people, imaginary beings, or animals. These clearly give little clue to the historian, though scholars still steeped in the idea that they date from the immemorial past purport to find traces of earlier ages and ideas in them. "Myths," or narrations about creation, deities, and so on, do not occur in the wide-ranging sense in which they appear among, say, the Polynesians or American Indians, but have nevertheless been spoken of by a number of writers. These narratives are admitted to be of little direct historical relevance: they tend to reflect present realities and preoccupations rather than those of earlier periods.5 If recorded at the time, however, they can be useful for a later historian by throwing light on local attitudes rather than as literal statements.

The narrations often termed "legends" or historical narratives again are unfortunately rather less promising as sources than they might seem at first mention. ...

So far, we have no evidence that scholars generally assume some historical reliability in traditions, and some evidence that scholars generally find traditions are not so reliable. It is the holders of those traditions who want to ascribe historical value to them.

mountainman · 07-26-2007, 03:47 AM

* the propaganda of architecture and buildings
* the propaganda of coins (gold, silver and others)
* epigraphic inscriptions on stone, metal, mosaic
* art, graffitti, etc
* sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, etc
* sarcophogii, burial relics, etc
* archeological relics
* carbon dating citations
* the literature (codexes, papyrii)
* papyrii fragments
* paleographic assessment
* authors (particularly historians).

Perhaps the "historical tradition" is simply the
sedimentary deposits of comments upon comments
of historians, and other commentators (authors)
on elements of the above types of evidence?

Cheerful Charlie · 07-26-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So far, we have no evidence that scholars generally assume some historical reliability in traditions, and some evidence that scholars generally find traditions are not so reliable. It is the holders of those traditions who want to ascribe historical value to them.

A good example are early Irish legends. They are so overlain with story telling and myth that its hard to say what, if anything, is historical in them.

CC

gstafleu · 07-26-2007, 08:23 AM

Interesting extracts, thanks Toto. I'm not a historian, but I would have thought that, given the telephone game principle, the default position would be that tradition is not reliable. Plus, for the longest time it was tradition that the universe revolves around the Earth.

It would be interesting to see examples of tradition that are thought to be historically reliable. Rodriguez mentions "postcolonial, postmodernist, and feminist debates about positionality, viewpoint, authority, power, and voice." I don't know much about that, but is it in those circles tradition to see personal/cultural expression as inviolable by definition?

Gerard Stafleu

Vorkosigan · 07-26-2007, 08:27 AM

Of course, never mind that there is no good evidence that the Gospels record oral traditions in the first place.

gstafleu · 07-26-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Of course, never mind that there is no good evidence that the Gospels record oral traditions in the first place.

Alan Dundes, in Holy Writ as Oral Lit, might disagree. He finds enough things in the gospels (repetition, duplication) to think that there is at least an oral component there.

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer · 07-26-2007, 09:53 AM

Hi Toto, let me reread the articles, and when I return I'll be able to give a better response. Let me just say this that you've badly taken their ideas and misapplied it to the Jesus Myth.

aa5874 · 07-26-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Of course, never mind that there is no good evidence that the Gospels record oral traditions in the first place.

That is also my view. I see no evidence of oral tradition with regards to Jesus, his teachings or his followers in the 1st century. I can find oral tradition for Greek Gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Roman Gods, and the God of Moses, i.e the God of the Jews, in the writings of historians of antiquity, but nothing from historians of the god called Jesus Christ.

Zeichman · 07-26-2007, 11:49 AM

Vork: I think your skepticism about oral tradition is largely derived from the genetic relationship between all (iirc) early Christian documents. Frankly, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion that Luke was dependent on Matthew, Thomas on Mark (or the synoptics), all of John on Mark (or the synoptics), and Mark on Paul. When one sees something like the prohibition of divorce being attested in Paul, Mark, Q (as I would contend against you) without accumulated tradition-histories from each other, I think it reinforces at least a bit of faith in the reliability of oral tradition. While hardly without their own tradition-histories, it bears witness to what is presumably earlier than each of the written versions.

Toto · 07-26-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Hi Toto, let me reread the articles, and when I return I'll be able to give a better response. Let me just say this that you've badly taken their ideas and misapplied it to the Jesus Myth.

I didn't mention the Jesus myth, except in my quote of your post that started this. This thread is only about your claim that tradition can be a source of historical evidence. :huh:

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

07-26-2007, 03:47 AM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	* the propaganda of architecture and buildings * the propaganda of coins (gold, silver and others) * epigraphic inscriptions on stone, metal, mosaic * art, graffitti, etc * sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, etc * sarcophogii, burial relics, etc * archeological relics * carbon dating citations * the literature (codexes, papyrii) * papyrii fragments * paleographic assessment * authors (particularly historians). Perhaps the "historical tradition" is simply the sedimentary deposits of comments upon comments of historians, and other commentators (authors) on elements of the above types of evidence?

07-26-2007, 08:23 AM	#4
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Interesting extracts, thanks Toto. I'm not a historian, but I would have thought that, given the telephone game principle, the default position would be that tradition is not reliable. Plus, for the longest time it was tradition that the universe revolves around the Earth. It would be interesting to see examples of tradition that are thought to be historically reliable. Rodriguez mentions "postcolonial, postmodernist, and feminist debates about positionality, viewpoint, authority, power, and voice." I don't know much about that, but is it in those circles tradition to see personal/cultural expression as inviolable by definition? Gerard Stafleu

07-26-2007, 08:27 AM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Of course, never mind that there is no good evidence that the Gospels record oral traditions in the first place.

07-26-2007, 09:53 AM	#7
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hi Toto, let me reread the articles, and when I return I'll be able to give a better response. Let me just say this that you've badly taken their ideas and misapplied it to the Jesus Myth.

07-26-2007, 11:49 AM	#9
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Vork: I think your skepticism about oral tradition is largely derived from the genetic relationship between all (iirc) early Christian documents. Frankly, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion that Luke was dependent on Matthew, Thomas on Mark (or the synoptics), all of John on Mark (or the synoptics), and Mark on Paul. When one sees something like the prohibition of divorce being attested in Paul, Mark, Q (as I would contend against you) without accumulated tradition-histories from each other, I think it reinforces at least a bit of faith in the reliability of oral tradition. While hardly without their own tradition-histories, it bears witness to what is presumably earlier than each of the written versions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.