Roger Pearse

I was amused to discover that I couldn't post a comment there.

I think perhaps people haven't understood the problem with any other approach. You can't actually do history on the basis that every literary text is suspect. If you try, you actually end up with a set of texts you use, for which you have manufactured some excuses allowing you to use them; and the remaining texts you debunk. This is a classic way of imposing a prejudice on the data, and invariably gives duff results.

The only practical approach is to treat everything as being correct unless we have enough information to say otherwise. Most statements in ancient texts are unique, uncorroborated by any other source, because of our lack of information about antiquity.

It's useless to appeal to the obvious truth that this can't be so. At least some of what these people say must be mistaken or erroneous; unless, that is, human nature has changed radically! But this is not useful to us. In *practical* terms, we can't do history starting there. If we try, we instantly fall into a morass of subjectivity.

We've been here before. This has echoes of some 19th century scholarship to me, when a great deal of useful work was done clearing away clutter which had no real support other than a collection of stray sources which might or might not have something to do with each other. But the problem invariably was that the hyperscepticism of the time ended up simply debunking whatever the writer didn't want in favour of other ideas which he did, but to which he did not in fact apply the same techniques. Consequently quite a bit of that scholarship has not stood the test of time.

I repeat: this is not because we like this position. It's obviously not 100% right. But we go with it because any other position, if you work it out, is actually worse.

So treat all the ancient sources as data in the first instance, allowing for genre, let them speak, let them sift each other, and try try try not to let our own prejudices get in the way of this.

Of course there are problems with this too. We can't treat Greek novels as historical accounts - although they must contain much information about the time in which they arise. Folk-story can be pretty unreliable, including its sub-category of hagiography (which I myself loath and detest). But... we've got to avoid this habit of just debunking stuff. It's really just an excuse for prejudice, in practice.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DCHindley

Ben,

You have clearly not met my 16 y/o daughter and 9 y/o son!

DCH

DCHindley

Some while ago, I put together this outline from Research Concepts in Human Behavior (or via: amazon.co.uk), G. C. Helmstadter, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall Inc, 1970. I believe historical research was included in this book on account of the use of case studies in behavorial research.

3. The procedures of historical research.
...
3.1.2. Data.
3.1.2.1. Types of data.
3.1.2.1.1. Consciously transmitted information. [least trustworthy]
3.1.2.1.2. Relics. [considered most trustworthy]
3.1.2.1.3. Memorials. [somewhere in the middle]
3.1.2.2. Sources of data.
3.1.2.2.1. Primary sources. Materials by eyewitnesses. [considered more trustworthy]
3.1.2.2.2. Secondary materials. Hearsay materials. [considered less trustworthy]
3.2. Criticism of data.
3.2.1. Veracity of sources.
3.2.1.1. External aka Lower Criticism. Is the document under consideration a genuine one?
3.2.1.2. Internal aka Higher Criticism. Is the information contained in the document trustworthy (i.e., accurate, consistent, etc)?
3.2.1.2.1. Positive internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document was accurate, competent and acting in good faith (although keeping in mind that he may be speaking figuratively), and seek literal meaning of the statements of the document. [this looks like the approach favored by Roger Pearse]
3.2.1.2.2. Negative internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document is fallible, foolish or faking and seeks evidence that this is not so. [this looks like the approach used by many here, especially the JMers]
3.2.1.3. Interrelation of lower and higher criticism.
3.2.1.3.1. The trustworthiness of the document may help determine whether it is genuine.
3.2.1.3.2. To the degree that a document can be determined to be genuine may help determine whether the information in it is trustworthy.
...

Clear as mud? As with all knowledge, facts don't make sense to us unless we compare & contrast the facts asserted in or implied from the sources with what we have already internalized. Do the facts jive with our understanding of reality? This helps us sort out probable actual events from myths or legends. Do they jive with what other sources say (Corroberation or contradiction)? We still have to keep in mind that corroberation does not automatically confirm actuality of occurance, and contradiction does not automatically mean the fact in contention is untrue. The alternate sources used for comparison may be in error or biased.

DCH

Roger Pearse

Precisely: we have special issues about this subject, therefore we demand more proof (and more... and more... until we can sit back, smile and say, "well, there isn't enough proof"). The normal term for such an approach is 'bias', and this is precisely what we need to avoid by starting with non-controversial documents, establishing an approach, and then using the same methods for controversial ones.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

There is more than enough information about the God called Jesus to prove within reason that He did not exist or was a myth.

There are hundreds of books of antiquity that are still extant today about this God called Jesus.

And how does one decide what is non-controversial?

By believing it is not?

The Dagda

Personally I think a Jesus like figure existed, much like a Robin Hood like figure existed. It's the magic that goes along with it that seems a little unaccounted for.

aa5874

Robin Hood existed? You mean figuratively.

The Dagda

Robin hood like figure, Saxon bandits were common place at the time, it's not beyond belief that the myth got conflated from actual people and events.

The Arthurian myth is similar, Cunobelin for example has been suggested as one of the people that may have lead to the myth.

Roger Pearse

Introducing religion -- yours or mine -- into discussions of historical method is not likely to produce useful conclusions, IMHO.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Most normal people would take that view. After all, pretty much all ideological movements start with a man with a beard on a soapbox saying "follow me".

Note to potential messiahs, political leaders, and opinion formers; the beard seems to be compulsory. Indeed think of Karl Marx! Never was there a movement more certain to succeed than that founded by the Three Beards. L. Ron Hubbard was never likely to be successful in the end without this -- a mistake his rival Maharishi Mahesh Yogi did not make.

Since it's Christmas, now is perhaps the time to share with you a thought about the Three Bears which has just come to mind.

The Three Bears returned to their cottage. "Who's been sleeping in my bed?" said Father Bear. "Who's been sleeping in my bed?" said Mother Bear. And Baby Bear said, "Never mind the beds; who's nicked the video?"

All the best,

Roger Pearse