Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 03-11-2003, 07:47 PM

That's a claim put forward by some apologists, who ask if we believe the accounts of Julius Caesar, who do we also not believe the accounts of Jesus Christ.

But, in fact, historians of events outside of the Bible often use plenty of critical sense. And I have discovered a very interesting example of that:

Plague in the Ancient World: A Study from Thucydides to Justinian, by Christine A. Smith

In particular, Ms. Smith discusses the curious case of the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea (~550 CE). He had modeled his history writing very closely on Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (~400 BCE). In particular, some have charged that his history-writing is inaccurate because of his efforts to imitate Thucydides.

Ms. Smith, however, decides that Procopius did not completely imitate Thucydides, pointing out the differences in symptoms between a plague that Procopius described (Constantinople, 542 CE) and the one that Thucydides described (Athens, 430-26 BCE).

Thucydides himself had suffered from that plague, and he very carefully described its symptoms. However, it has been very difficult to diagnose that disease, and a recent favorite theory is that it was Ebola-virus hemorrhagic fever.

Procopius, however, had described symptoms that closely fit the bubonic plague -- and not Ebola virus. So it's clear that Procopius had not copied that part off of Thucydides.

I note in passing that Procopius had imitated Thucydides in another way; neither gentleman had posited the involvement of any deity in these plagues.

Vinnie · 03-11-2003, 08:18 PM

Holding used this twice in responses to me regarding his article on the infancy narratives which I critiqued. There seems to be some misinformed ad hominem view that historians specially plead when it comes to the Gospels. In reality, all historians must carefully consider their sources. Source and method are piviotal elements in the reconstruction of ancient events.

I wish I catalogued all the times I've seen scholars dispute things that Josephus writes. I have no clue where evangelicals get this view from. But all texts are certainly not equal and the existence of a canon should prove this to Christians. Canon = "these texts are better than those" doesn't it???

I haven't read Blomberg but I see him often quoted that the ancient text should be given the benefit of the doubt until demonstrated otherwise. If i understan him correctly he is writing nonsense and Richard Carrier summed up why nicely during his review of Doherty:

Quote:

Evangelical apologist Craig Blomberg argues that one should approach all texts with complete trust unless you have a specific reason to doubt what they say (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, pp. 240-54). No real historian is so naive (see Bibliography ). I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. See for example my discussion of the Rubicon-Resurrection contrast in Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole (Part 4b of my Review of In Defense of Miracles ). Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

Vinnie

Family Man · 03-11-2003, 09:24 PM

Even relatively modern sources are viewed with suspicion. I recently read a biography of Gen. Sherman of Civil War fame where the author questions some what Sherman wrote in his autobiography, on the grounds that what he wrote was self-serving.

Godless Dave · 03-12-2003, 07:42 AM

What they are really objecting to is that historians hold the Bible to the same standards as other historical texts.

Sarpedon · 03-12-2003, 12:15 PM

Thucydides has to be one of my favorite historians. Even though his history, especially the speaches, was probably more of his invention than reality, he has such an excellent style, and an amusing way of dismissing the claims of the superstitious. An excellent work

Vorkosigan · 03-12-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
What they are really objecting to is that historians hold the Bible to the same standards as other historical texts.

Hammer. Nail. Head. More and more, as I read the NT history constructions, I see them as heavily influenced by the previous 20 centuries of faith commitments, and thus essentially apologetic constructions even when the author is attempting to disentangle himself from the thicket of those assumptions. NT studies is a hothouse designed to encouraged the growth of Jesus. Take that plant out into the cold of real historical studies, and it will die instantly.

malookiemaloo · 03-13-2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Hammer. Nail. Head. More and more, as I read the NT history constructions, I see them as heavily influenced by the previous 20 centuries of faith commitments, and thus essentially apologetic constructions even when the author is attempting to disentangle himself from the thicket of those assumptions. NT studies is a hothouse designed to encouraged the growth of Jesus. Take that plant out into the cold of real historical studies, and it will die instantly.

Do you know of an NT translation which is free of the 20 centuries of faith commitments to which you refer?

m

Vorkosigan · 03-13-2003, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malookiemaloo
Do you know of an NT translation which is free of the 20 centuries of faith commitments to which you refer?

m

The whole NT? No. Lattimore's translation of Mark, perhaps, although I have only heard of, but not read it. He tried to capture Mark's rough-hewn Greek. His translation of The Odyssey is excellent, although I still prefer Fitzgerald's.

Why do you want to know?

Vorkosigan

malookiemaloo · 03-13-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
The whole NT? No. Lattimore's translation of Mark, perhaps, although I have only heard of, but not read it. He tried to capture Mark's rough-hewn Greek. His translation of The Odyssey is excellent, although I still prefer Fitzgerald's.

Why do you want to know?

Vorkosigan

I would like to compare it with, say, the NIV just to see what the differences actually are.

Do you not think, though, that single translations can be over idiosyncratic?

m

Writer@Large · 03-13-2003, 06:54 AM

A bit of off topic comment, sorry ....

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
His translation of The Odyssey is excellent, although I still prefer Fitzgerald's.

I've always found Fitzgerald's translation of Homer a bit thick. Lattimore is more readable, by far, especially in a classroom.

--W@L

03-11-2003, 07:47 PM	#1
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Are Historians Really Uncritical Outside of the Bible? That's a claim put forward by some apologists, who ask if we believe the accounts of Julius Caesar, who do we also not believe the accounts of Jesus Christ. But, in fact, historians of events outside of the Bible often use plenty of critical sense. And I have discovered a very interesting example of that: Plague in the Ancient World: A Study from Thucydides to Justinian, by Christine A. Smith In particular, Ms. Smith discusses the curious case of the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea (~550 CE). He had modeled his history writing very closely on Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (~400 BCE). In particular, some have charged that his history-writing is inaccurate because of his efforts to imitate Thucydides. Ms. Smith, however, decides that Procopius did not completely imitate Thucydides, pointing out the differences in symptoms between a plague that Procopius described (Constantinople, 542 CE) and the one that Thucydides described (Athens, 430-26 BCE). Thucydides himself had suffered from that plague, and he very carefully described its symptoms. However, it has been very difficult to diagnose that disease, and a recent favorite theory is that it was Ebola-virus hemorrhagic fever. Procopius, however, had described symptoms that closely fit the bubonic plague -- and not Ebola virus. So it's clear that Procopius had not copied that part off of Thucydides. I note in passing that Procopius had imitated Thucydides in another way; neither gentleman had posited the involvement of any deity in these plagues.

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

03-11-2003, 09:24 PM	#3
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Even relatively modern sources are viewed with suspicion. I recently read a biography of Gen. Sherman of Civil War fame where the author questions some what Sherman wrote in his autobiography, on the grounds that what he wrote was self-serving.

03-12-2003, 07:42 AM	#4
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	What they are really objecting to is that historians hold the Bible to the same standards as other historical texts.

03-12-2003, 12:15 PM	#5
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Thucydides has to be one of my favorite historians. Even though his history, especially the speaches, was probably more of his invention than reality, he has such an excellent style, and an amusing way of dismissing the claims of the superstitious. An excellent work

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.