Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 06-03-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Layman -- which postmodernist thinkers and writers are you familiar with, in the same way you might be familiar with EP Sanders or John Meier -- that is, in an intimate, critical, and reflective way?

Since I don't value postmodern approaches to history, I do not know any of them as intimately as I do E.P. Sanders or John Meier. I have been influenced, however, by In Defense of History, by Richard J. Evans--a professor of modern history at Cambridge. The book is basically devoted the the effect of postmodern historical scholarship and its consequences on the study of history.

Quote:

And postmodernists are very concerned with "what happened." Indeed, contesting "what happened" is one of their favorite pastimes. The structural resemblences between postmodernists and HJ studies, in their reification of ideology as scholarship, their blanket proclamations of the nature of reality, their impatience with sound method, their slanted presentations of evidence, and their attacks on science. Reading a discussion of miracles in HJ studies is like reading one of Stanley Aronowitz's articles on how multicultural science will revolutionize the content and conceptual foundations of science:

"How can metaphysical life theories and explanations taken seriously by millions be ignored or excluded by a small group of powerful people called 'scientists'?"

"Just as a historian must reject credulity, so a historian must reject an a priori affirmation that miracles do not or cannot happen. That is, strictly speaking, a philosophical or theological proposition, not a historical one."

One is from postmodern writer Andrew Ross, the other from Catholic Priest John Meier. Each expresses the same fear that their pet theological belief is going to be destroyed by the awesome power of science.

You can find agreements between groups, even very disparate groups, easily. That does not mean that they are, in essense, making the same arguments. Wright, Sanders, and Meier strive to establish an "objective" history about what happened in the past. This idea is antiethical to post-modernists. Regarding the post-modernists who arrived on the scene in the 1980s, Professor Evans states:

Quote:

History is widely argued to be only one discourse among many. The notion of scientific history, based on the rigorous investigation of primary sources, has been widely attacked. Increasing numbers of writers on the subject deny that there is any such thing as historical truth or objectivity.... The postmodernist view that langauge could not relate to anything except itself must, as another alarmed hisotrian observed, 'entail the dissolution of history' and 'necessarily jeopardises historical study as normally understood.'

In Defense of History, at 3.

This viewpoint is entirely different than that attempted by Sanders, Meier, and Wright. Wrong or right, their stated intent is to determine "historical truth."

Quote:

Of the three groups you name, that is quite true of the second two. But HJ discussions of historical methodology are few and far between. Perhaps, though, you could name a couple of HJ books where there is some discussion of how historical methodology actually works.

Actually, I have read many history books on many different topics and time periods, and most lack the discussion of methodlogy common in the works of Sanders, Meier, Wright, and Witherington. You may have your quarrels with their methodology, but they talk about it more than most other works of history.

Peter Kirby · 06-03-2003, 10:28 PM

I read half a dozen biographies of Thomas Jefferson for an essay in American history. None of them had any discussion of historical methodology at all in the sense of, "how do we figure out which stories are true?" I suspect that the reason is that we actually have pretty solid documentation on Tom. Enough to fill dozens of hardback volumes with his very own writing, in fact.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 06-03-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I read half a dozen biographies of Thomas Jefferson for an essay in American history. None of them had any discussion of historical methodology at all in the sense of, "how do we figure out which stories are true?" I suspect that the reason is that we actually have pretty solid documentation on Tom. Enough to fill dozens of hardback volumes with his very own writing, in fact.

best,
Peter Kirby

Not so sure if that is the case. I've read histories of the Arab peoples, the Jewish peoples, the Crusades, Medieval Civilization, World Wars I and II, the Civil War, the Korean War, Lewis & Clark, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, assorted European Histories, and many others while getting a minor in history that I have since forgotten. Few, if any, contained much discussion of methodology. And if they did, it was more incidental as problems were approached in the text, not set apart as its own section.

Peter Kirby · 06-03-2003, 11:08 PM

Layman, can you recommend any books that do present historical methodology? General discussions would be nice. (Richard Carrier mentioned a few in his review of Doherty.)

The most detailed that I've seen in HJ books are Meier's A Marginal Jew vol. 1 and Crossan's The Birth of Christianity. There are probably some good articles in the journals, but I don't subscribe to them except for The Journal of Higher Criticism.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 06-03-2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Not so sure if that is the case. I've read histories of the Arab peoples, the Jewish peoples, the Crusades, Medieval Civilization, World Wars I and II, the Civil War, the Korean War, Lewis & Clark, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, assorted European Histories, and many others while getting a minor in history that I have since forgotten. Few, if any, contained much discussion of methodology. And if they did, it was more incidental as problems were approached in the text, not set apart as its own section.

That's quite true and a very good point. However, methodology is a central and contested issue in HJ studies. So one would expect.....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 06-03-2003, 11:29 PM

You can find agreements between groups, even very disparate groups, easily.

That's the whole point, Layman. These groups only appear to be disparate. In fact they have the same goal -- fighting the epistemic authority of science to carve out a domain where they can preserve their pet project, whatever it is.

That does not mean that they are, in essense, making the same arguments.

What's the difference between them? Each is struggling against the epistemic authority of science. They have different tactics, but the same goal.

Wright, Sanders, and Meier strive to establish an "objective" history about what happened in the past.

This is incorrect, for in rejecting historical conclusions about miracles, Meier aligns himself with postmodernists who reject science for exactly the same reasons. Creationists, HJ scholars who piously intone that history cannot comment on the truthfulness of miracles, and postmodernists all speak with one voice (indeed, some creationists are already mining postmodern critiques of science for ideas). Whether miracles happen has been settled, already. They can't, and they don't. And in any case, even their possibility cannot be included in a piece of historical writing. So when Meier makes this move, he has stepped out of history and into apologetics.

This idea is antiethical to post-modernists. Regarding the post-modernists who arrived on the scene in the 1980s, Professor Evans states:

It's massively oversimplified. A good book on this that explores it from a sympathetic but ultimately rejectionist point of view is Appelby, Hunt and Jacob Telling the Truth about History. And telling the truth about history is not antiethical to postmodernists. Rather, a postmodernist would give you Pilate's answer: whose truth? we all have truths -- are mine the same as yours?

Vorkosigan

Paul Baxter · 06-04-2003, 03:43 AM

I had always thought that pretty much the whole of _The New Testament and the People of God_ was about historical methodology, at least in terms of how can we get meaning from ancient texts. I always have trouble recommending that one, just because there IS so much methodology there that people get bored. Do y'all disagree?

Paul Baxter · 06-04-2003, 04:49 AM

since I started this thread, I'll just mention this here. I'll be gone to Europe for a couple of weeks starting Friday. I might make a couple more posts before then, but then I'll be gone for a while. (leading bible studies for atheists as it turns out)

Steven Carr · 06-04-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Stephan,

Wright mentioned in the book that he is not convinced one way or the other either about Markan priority or the existence of Q, FWIW. I could try to look up page numbers if it's important to ya.

If you could summarise why he is fence-sitting on Markan priority... Any theologian worth his salt would have an opinion on it.

Quote:

On I Thess, in my opinion you are not quite being fair (to Wright). He interprets some of this language figuratively, on the premise that that is how Paul meant it to be taken. Referring to the 'literal' interpretation he says "The multiple apocalyptic resonances of the passage on the one hand, and the glorious mixed metaphors on the other, make this interpretation highly unlikely. Fortunately, the rest of the passage is reasonably clear . . ." (TROTSOG p215)

Here is the bit from 1 Thessalonians, note the we who are still
alive and are left till the coming of the Lord. Everybody that was addressed to is dead, aren't they? I'm reminded of the famous Jehovah's Witness book 'Millions now living will never die'.

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

I'm glad Wright finds the meaning of this passage reasonably clear.

What did the Christians in the first two centuries see happen, which would have made them think, 'Yes, that is what Paul meant by we who are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.'

This might be figurative , but what events was it figurative about?

What did the Christians in the first two centuries see happen, which would have made them think 'Yes that is what Paul meant when he wrote 'For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.'

This might be figurative , but what events was it figurative about?

I'm also curious about these European Bible studies for atheists. I'm in Europe, any chance of an invite?

Layman · 06-04-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
That's quite true and a very good point. However, methodology is a central and contested issue in HJ studies. So one would expect.....

Vorkosigan

Like I said, I've seen more discussion of methodology in historical Jesus studies than I have anywhere else.

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

06-03-2003, 10:28 PM	#82
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I read half a dozen biographies of Thomas Jefferson for an essay in American history. None of them had any discussion of historical methodology at all in the sense of, "how do we figure out which stories are true?" I suspect that the reason is that we actually have pretty solid documentation on Tom. Enough to fill dozens of hardback volumes with his very own writing, in fact. best, Peter Kirby

06-03-2003, 11:08 PM	#84
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman, can you recommend any books that do present historical methodology? General discussions would be nice. (Richard Carrier mentioned a few in his review of Doherty.) The most detailed that I've seen in HJ books are Meier's A Marginal Jew vol. 1 and Crossan's The Birth of Christianity. There are probably some good articles in the journals, but I don't subscribe to them except for The Journal of Higher Criticism. best, Peter Kirby

06-03-2003, 11:29 PM	#86
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	You can find agreements between groups, even very disparate groups, easily. That's the whole point, Layman. These groups only appear to be disparate. In fact they have the same goal -- fighting the epistemic authority of science to carve out a domain where they can preserve their pet project, whatever it is. That does not mean that they are, in essense, making the same arguments. What's the difference between them? Each is struggling against the epistemic authority of science. They have different tactics, but the same goal. Wright, Sanders, and Meier strive to establish an "objective" history about what happened in the past. This is incorrect, for in rejecting historical conclusions about miracles, Meier aligns himself with postmodernists who reject science for exactly the same reasons. Creationists, HJ scholars who piously intone that history cannot comment on the truthfulness of miracles, and postmodernists all speak with one voice (indeed, some creationists are already mining postmodern critiques of science for ideas). Whether miracles happen has been settled, already. They can't, and they don't. And in any case, even their possibility cannot be included in a piece of historical writing. So when Meier makes this move, he has stepped out of history and into apologetics. This idea is antiethical to post-modernists. Regarding the post-modernists who arrived on the scene in the 1980s, Professor Evans states: It's massively oversimplified. A good book on this that explores it from a sympathetic but ultimately rejectionist point of view is Appelby, Hunt and Jacob Telling the Truth about History. And telling the truth about history is not antiethical to postmodernists. Rather, a postmodernist would give you Pilate's answer: whose truth? we all have truths -- are mine the same as yours? Vorkosigan

06-04-2003, 03:43 AM	#87
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	I had always thought that pretty much the whole of _The New Testament and the People of God_ was about historical methodology, at least in terms of how can we get meaning from ancient texts. I always have trouble recommending that one, just because there IS so much methodology there that people get bored. Do y'all disagree?

06-04-2003, 04:49 AM	#88
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	since I started this thread, I'll just mention this here. I'll be gone to Europe for a couple of weeks starting Friday. I might make a couple more posts before then, but then I'll be gone for a while. (leading bible studies for atheists as it turns out)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.