Rules of Historical Reasoning

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
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: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:41 pmYou obviously cannot support your claim here that Carrier does not adhere to the basic principles of historiographical methods and you obviously have not read any works by historians that you are prepared to tell us about, period.
It has been quite a while since I read his book, but does he not in one chapter use the Pauline speeches in Acts to contribute to a view of Jesus as nonhistorical? If I am remembering that correctly, is that not an example of using the bits probably most likely to have been fabricated (speeches) from an especially novelistic secondary source (Acts) as evidence for the nonexistence of a Galilean peasant from circa 30?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:14 pm
Again the historian who wishes to explore persons in Galilee in the 20s is greatly disadvantaged since not only do we have no primary sources at all, but even the secondary sources all derive from a common ideological bucket. The first gospel written was in dialogue, it seems, with Paul, and the other three gospels were in dialogue with that first gospel. We do not have a "wide range of evidence".

.
False, we have different independent communities describing what was theologically important to them, starting less then 2 decades after said events.

We have 4 major independent groups writing within a lifetime of said events.


#1 Pauls communities.
#2 Pauline pseudepigrapha.
#3 Synoptic communities.
#4 Johannine community.

#3 and #4 evolved into their compilation dates from pre existing traditions placing their origins closer to Pauls time and or before Pauls writings.

Also because of their theological importance, the textual evidence remained closer to its original form then other forms of textual evidence.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:41 pmYou obviously cannot support your claim here that Carrier does not adhere to the basic principles of historiographical methods and you obviously have not read any works by historians that you are prepared to tell us about, period.
.
That is easily supported.

He was never trained in biblical historiographical methods, and more often then not, applies Roman historiographical methods he was trained in, which do not always apply. Many methods cross over, but not all.

I have never seen anyone take Paul out of context so poorly then Mr Carrier. Its why he never gained any traction with his hypothesis, his hypothesis failed hard, and carries NO credibility at all. That is all the evidence one needs.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Bernard Muller »

Here are examples on what Carrier consider as evidence (bolding mine):
If this passage were read like a pesher (Element 8), one could easily con­clude that God was saying he extracted semen from David and held it in reserve until the time he would make good this promise of David's progeny sitting on an eternal throne.
yet God can be read to say
It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank.
After all, God's power was absolute; and all sorts of things could be stored up in heaven (Element 38), even our own future bodies (2 Cor. 5.1-5). Later Jewish legend imagined demons running their own cosmic sperm bank, even stealing David's sperm for it, to beget his enemies with, so surely God could be imagined doing the same. When the prophecy of Nathan is read in conjunction with subsequent history, this would be the most plausible way to rescue God's prophecy
BTW, These Jewish legends are never identified and are dated to appear in medieval times.
"The notion of a cosmic sperm bank is so easily read out of this scripture, and is all but required by the outcome of subsequent history, that it is not an improbable assumption. And since scripture required the messiah to be Davidic, anyone who started with the cosmic doctrine inherent in minimal mythicism would have had to imagine something of this kind. That Jesus would be made 'from the sperm of David' is therefore all but entailed by minimal mythicism."
More details here: http://historical-jesus.info/70.html. Enjoy.

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 10:00 am Here are examples on what Carrier consider as evidence
We have some confusion about the argument, Bernard. You are supposed to be arguing that Carrier does not "keep the rules" of historical reasoning as per Mark Day's publication.

But your comment and examples demonstrate that Carrier does indeed adhere to rule #5:
(5) The historian is warned not to depend too much on a single document, but rather to utilize a wide range of evidence. This warning is to some extent implicit in the demand for source criticism, since it is obvious that no serious source criticism can proceed without employing knowledge gained from other sources.
You might recall that I did say earlier on that that is C's strength, whatever one may think of his other weaknesses. What you have done with your example is to demonstrate C's strength in relation to rule #5.

You are certainly free to disagree with his analysis of the evidence and I myself do shudder at his anachronistic terminology ("sperm bank"! -- I do understand his reasons but cannot agree with them here) but we cannot fault him for going way beyond biblical scholars in his utilization of "a wide range of evidence".

I take it that you don't like the way Carrier follows the rules of Mark Day, yes?

On the relevant Romans passage most biblical scholars dive into it without a thought for rules #2, #4 or #5.
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 8:57 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:41 pmYou obviously cannot support your claim here that Carrier does not adhere to the basic principles of historiographical methods and you obviously have not read any works by historians that you are prepared to tell us about, period.
It has been quite a while since I read his book, but does he not in one chapter use the Pauline speeches in Acts to contribute to a view of Jesus as nonhistorical? If I am remembering that correctly, is that not an example of using the bits probably most likely to have been fabricated (speeches) from an especially novelistic secondary source (Acts) as evidence for the nonexistence of a Galilean peasant from circa 30?
Is this the passage you have in mind?
One argument for this being the case is the remarkable disparity between
these trial accounts, and speeches and sermons that take place elsewhere.
If Luke were simply fabricating the whole thing, these accounts should be
consistent: the actors would say the same things when asked to pronounce
and defend the gospel, regardless of where they were. But strangely, they
are not. Everywhere else, the speeches and sermons i n Acts are conspicuously
historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist detai ls
are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are
suddenly completely absent. That is very strange; which means, very
improbable. The best explanation of this oddity is that Paul's trial accounts
were not wholesale Lukan fabrications but came from a different source
than the speeches and sermons Luke added i n elsewhere-a source that did
not know about a historical Jesus. (p. 376)
If so, then what we have here is an example of the rule(s) that demands the application of source criticism.

(Again, we may disagree with the criticism itself, but in that passage C is using and criticizing the source as a historian is expected to do.)

If that's not the passage you had in mind I would be interested to know.

Of course, I would be surprised in a work of 700 pages if anyone demonstrated perfection of play throughout. After all, Day introduced the rules with
Before describing the rules of historical reasoning in more detail, a brief note on my methodology. By examining what is recommended, praised and criticized, we can arrive at an approximation of the rules which govern the production of historical writing. For while one can’t infer a norm simply from observing what is and is not done - since people get things wrong ignorantly, negligently, and deliberately - the inference of a norm from others’ recommendations and responses to what is and is not done is more plausible. I have used ‘historiographical manuals’ - those books written for the student of history, and in particular postgraduate or PhD students of departments of history - to elucidate the method of source criticism. I have used peer review of professional historiographical monographs to investigate wider rules governing the practice.

From historiographical manuals we gain the appreciation that the historical practice has, at its heart, the Rankean method of source criticism. All historiographical claims should be based on the sources. . . . . What follows are five points concerning the use of sources, each of which is consistently emphasized by pedagogical material of the above kind. (p. 20)
So just picking up stray faults in Carrier's work would not belie Mark Day's point about the nature of historical research nor condemn C's entire work to a rampant violation of the "rules".
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:07 am

I take it that you don't like the way Carrier follows the rules of Mark Day, yes?

Perverting the evidence out of context using late mythology far removed from the original text as Mr Muller has pointed out is not following the rules.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

outhouse wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:27 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:07 am

I take it that you don't like the way Carrier follows the rules of Mark Day, yes?

Perverting the evidence out of context using late mythology far removed from the original text as Mr Muller has done is not following the rules.
Freudian slip, here. :-)

(I see you have since corrected it. Wheh!)
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 »

to Neil,
According to my quotes, about Carrier's imagining a sperm bank in heaven, he claimed to use several sources, but they are so bad, weak, foreign, far fetched, he had to appeal to peshering, imagination, interpretation, plausibility, very late medieval Jewish legends (not even referenced & quoted) & assumption.
And you call that the work of a professional historian?
And because of his sperm bank in heaven, Carrier used that to wipe out most of the evidence in the Pauline epistles about an earthly Jesus.
BTW, my work uses a lot of multi sourced evidence, which are a lot more legitimate than the ones of Carrier.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
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 11:26 amIs this the passage you have in mind?
One argument for this being the case is the remarkable disparity between
these trial accounts, and speeches and sermons that take place elsewhere.
If Luke were simply fabricating the whole thing, these accounts should be
consistent: the actors would say the same things when asked to pronounce
and defend the gospel, regardless of where they were. But strangely, they
are not. Everywhere else, the speeches and sermons i n Acts are conspicuously
historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist detai ls
are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are
suddenly completely absent. That is very strange; which means, very
improbable. The best explanation of this oddity is that Paul's trial accounts
were not wholesale Lukan fabrications but came from a different source
than the speeches and sermons Luke added i n elsewhere-a source that did
not know about a historical Jesus. (p. 376)
I think that is probably it. I cannot check a copy at present to be sure.
If so, then what we have here is an example of the rule(s) that demands the application of source criticism.

(Again, we may disagree with the criticism itself, but in that passage C is using and criticizing the source as a historian is expected to do.)
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?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply