Rules of Historical Reasoning

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:06 pm
BTW, my work uses a lot of multi sourced evidence, which are a lot more legitimate than the ones of Carrier.

So Mark Day's rules aren't so idealistic after all? You yourself apply them in your work?

It's beginning to sound like you have changed your mind about the rules since your first comment on them. Is that correct?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:10 pm

What, then, is the difference (if any) between Carrier's use of source criticism here and, say, Theissen's when he argues for a passion narrative dating to the 30's and a form of Q dating to before 70?
I have very problematic internet connection now which is likely to persist for some days. Look forward to responding though may be quite some delay. (Can only log on for very short bursts right now.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Secret Alias »

I mean, let's be honest - or as honest as each of can be. You get a sense of a person in today's world with social media and other 'non-academic' source material that wasn't true when von Campenhausen was active. Carrier has an agenda. If you can be 'evangelical' about mythicism he surely is an 'evangelical mythicist.' I mean it's hard to pretend that he's indifferent about the trajectory of his research. Not meaning to wade into the debate but a more 'indifferent' or detached case for mythicism might go down better.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:18 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:10 pmWhat, then, is the difference (if any) between Carrier's use of source criticism here and, say, Theissen's when he argues for a passion narrative dating to the 30's and a form of Q dating to before 70?
I have very problematic internet connection now which is likely to persist for some days. Look forward to responding though may be quite some delay. (Can only log on for very short bursts right now.)
Sure. Hope you can get it sorted out.

In the meantime, let me sharpen the focus on this question as best I can. You wrote earlier:
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:34 amCurrently biblical scholars do not treat the NT documents like any other ancient documents and they do not apply normal historical methods. Their historical arguments are in effect, and by the admission of some of them, circular. And since they do not have primary sources for Jesus, they find ways to create imaginary primary sources to work with by doing something no other historian would dare do with his sources -- get "behind" or "beneath" them with circular "criteria".
And now here we have Carrier doing source criticism in order to come up with a trial account behind the book of Acts which hints at a nonhistorical Jesus. I cannot imagine how he would even argue it to be a true primary text for Jesus' lifetime, since would such a text not presume events toward the end of Paul's putative life? So there is that matter (and, again, I cannot lay my hands on the book at the present time). But, more importantly for my question here, Carrier has "discovered" a source document behind Acts, one which he thinks contributes to his overall views.

So... how does this differ from what Theissen does in The Gospels in Context? You accurately point out upthread a bit that one does not have to agree with Carrier's source criticism itself; but he is still doing what historians do when he uses it. Honest question: would the same apply to Theissen (and other scholars who have dated the passion narrative to the thirties)? Unless I misunderstand what you mean by criteriology, neither Carrier (on behalf of his trial account) nor Theissen (on behalf of his passion narrative) uses the much maligned criteria (dissimilarity, embarrassment, and so on) in this particular connection. So how can we tell which of the two is doing source criticism in a way that "no other historian would dare"and which is doing things properly? Or are Theissen and his ilk (including Crossan on this particular topic, as well as Bauckham himself and a host of commentators on Mark) exceptions to your generalization that biblical scholars are cheating, so to speak, in their method of finding primary sources behind the secondary gospels?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Neil,
It's beginning to sound like you have changed your mind about the rules since your first comment on them. Is that correct?
I have used multi sources since I started my research. So nothing is new. Of course I followed standard good practices whenever possible, but in the case of finding the beginning of Christianity, because of the nature of the evidence, I could not be as strict than these professional historians who work with a lot of reliable data. Instead, I have to be innovative in some area, that is use tools tailored for this particular job.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:24 pm to Neil,
It's beginning to sound like you have changed your mind about the rules since your first comment on them. Is that correct?
I have used multi sources since I started my research. So nothing is new. Of course I followed standard good practices whenever possible, but in the case of finding the beginning Christianity, because of the nature of the evidence, I could not be as strict than these professional historians who work with a lot of reliable data. Instead, I have to be innovative in some area, that is use tools tailored for this particular job.

Cordially, Bernard
So the rules in the OP are not idealistic at all but very practical. We would expect professional historians to apply them in their research. You yourself work by the rules as far as possible given your limited resources, but obviously those with full access to sources should "keep the rules". Right?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:49 am Neil

The link I provided was here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3445&start=30#p74505

You quoted from that post in the immediately following post in this thread.

That I provided a link is irrelevant to what you posted, since you obviously didn't use it. Instead, you demonstrated your search skills and the care you take in questioning your sources.

You made a mistake, Neil. If that's all there was to it, and you had owned up to it, then it'd be no big deal, just par for the course. But you don't acknowledge that you and you alone are responsible for the accuracy and relevance of what you choose to publish, and that you and you alone visibly failed to question your source.

What is it you keep calling another poster? Time waster? Yeah, that's what you are. Thanks for articulating it for me.

You already rested your case. This discussion is over.
Paul, I have removed my offensive comment:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3445&p=74510#p74510
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Bernard Muller »

So the rules in the OP are not idealistic at all but very practical. We would expect professional historians to apply them in their research. You yourself work by the rules as far as possible given your limited resources, but obviously those with full access to sources should "keep the rules". Right?
The rules in the OP are not only idealistic but also necessary, as long as a historian works with a large amount of reliable multi-source data.
However, in my research, the rules of the OP certainly look idealistic, but not always applicable, because of the nature of the data available. Other methodological tools have to be used, but even so, are not enough to guarantee a reconstruction 100% certain.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:38 pm Other methodological tools have to be used
Such as?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Neil

That's a conciliatory gesture, and appreciated. As it happens, I have already said what I have to say.

I have not disputed that May's rules are well-regarded heuristics, nor have I recommended violating them. However, there are questions about the human past where they do not apply. It is an abuse of language, and an abuse of me, to characterize my "do something else when you can't do this" as denying May's "do this when you can."

According to life-long habit, I answered the question I was asked. Thus I produced one work because I was asked for exactly one, with emphasis on the quantity sought. The question did not demand that I produce someone who DISagreed with my actual views on the topic of the thread, nor someone who agreed with views falsely attributed to me. I believe that disposes of spin's question to me.

I see that Bernard has been raising similar issues to some of my concerns, as he has been doing all along. There is little point in repeating myself or echoing him. If something really new emerges in the conversation, then I may rejoin the thread, but otherwise, I am content to rest on what I have actually said.
Post Reply