tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post5437353914098781081..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Choosing your methodApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-57872149537853624972009-10-03T11:53:58.489-07:002009-10-03T11:53:58.489-07:00Among the many inaccuracies here, #4 is quite wron...Among the many inaccuracies here, #4 is quite wrong and quite a big assumption. To say that the text is reporting theology is scholarly theology. This is the scholarly way for scholars to impose their own voice on the texts and erase any possibility of discovering history. This is not historical-critical method. This is theology in the service of suppressing evidentiary questions. It is quite a tragedy that scholars get to do this and call themselves historians.<br /><br />Leon ZitzerLeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-51739912790758581572009-09-30T02:01:42.239-07:002009-09-30T02:01:42.239-07:00"I see my generation of scholars in a precari..."I see my generation of scholars in a precarious situation in terms of method because so many have left the hard work of historical criticism to pursue the post-modern literary trends that are of interest to so many in the academy, especially those scholars who are confessional or interested in contemporary theological interests. Literary criticism can provide the means to disengage with history while still leaving the impression that what has been done is a historical investigation."<br /><br />Er, well yes. But never mind about post-modern literary trends. The typical academic approach is that of Mark Goodacre. http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/thomas-and-q-again.html His recent blogs about Q, Thomas, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John go around in ever decreaing circles. So what makes him think that he could ever discover the origins of the earliest 'christianity' by considering documents that were created after it was conceived? Why torture himself with such bizzare methods? How does he hope to get at the history, unless he considers the lead-up to it, what happened before? He and others have their heads in the sand.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-67196178135407369672009-09-22T20:49:35.690-07:002009-09-22T20:49:35.690-07:00Geoff, sorry about that. Half-baked metaphor and ...Geoff, sorry about that. Half-baked metaphor and sloppy writing on my part. You made a good comment about ancient history and its records as more deliberate and contrived than we might think. In some ways, we stand upon the shoulders of the ancients (Archimedes, Euclid, bunch of others) by building progressively on their knowledge through science, and in other ways, anti-science attitudes today would have us shoulder and live under ancient confusions (your language about “contrived”) by re-inventing many of the ancient paradoxes. Nothing fancy. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />JimJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-35088139631483583852009-09-22T07:48:15.553-07:002009-09-22T07:48:15.553-07:00Jim, I don't understand what you are saying.Jim, I don't understand what you are saying.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-72185741656931877912009-09-22T07:32:57.524-07:002009-09-22T07:32:57.524-07:00Geoff (2009 6:14 AM) - “... [ancient] things were ...Geoff (2009 6:14 AM) - “... [ancient] things were much more deliberate, much more contrived ...”<br /><br />So are we standing on their shoulders or shouldering their understanding? <br /><br />I wonder why so much theological criticism mimics post-modern re-inventions of Xeno's Paradox with arrows of meaning flying toward targets of intended audiences and never arriving because of failures of meaning to traverse half the remaining distance. Since it all makes perfect apodictic sense. Okay, credit that one theologically inclined showed that a certain infinite series “more deliberate, much more contrived” converges to finite limits.<br /><br />Mirabile dictu.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />JimJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-74153270702194235832009-09-22T06:14:18.566-07:002009-09-22T06:14:18.566-07:00The one thing I am convinced about is that things ...The one thing I am convinced about is that things were much more deliberate, much more contrived, than ever we could imagine.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-57871215265208385572009-09-21T16:24:16.084-07:002009-09-21T16:24:16.084-07:00The most important question is: how far is one wil...The most important question is: how far is one willing to go in one's research?<br /><br />If there are questions you will not ask because they make you uncomfortable or you fear they might challenge your assumptions, then is not the integrity of your research somewhat compromised? If you are unwilling or unable to follow the evidence wherever it leads, how can your answers be trusted? <br /><br />IMHO, April is right on with her list in this post. When I studied Critical Theory in grad school, I was impressed with the idea that all written and oral communications have a point, have a winner and a loser (from the perspective of power) if an idea is accepted. There are no innocent communications. Not even with the Bible.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13226634366709293918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-59696718914900184422009-09-21T15:48:06.394-07:002009-09-21T15:48:06.394-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-52339114555936003242009-09-21T14:35:24.797-07:002009-09-21T14:35:24.797-07:00There's some irony here. As Susanne Scholz su...There's some irony here. As Susanne Scholz suggests,<br /><br />"The pressure to promote and protect the dominance of historical criticism is strong today because, for the most part, Western biblical scholars do not see the need to engage systematically theological, political, and international issues of our day. This detachment often [and here's the irony] serves conservative theological and cultural-religious purposes, and so, unsurprisingly, the field of biblical studies is largely dominated by a conservative agenda--religious, political, and academic."<br /><br />--"'Tandoori Reindeer' and the Limitations of Historical Criticism", <i>Her Master's Tools?: Feminist And Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse</i>, pp 47-70, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (June 30, 2005).J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-85915755459375756132009-09-21T13:23:24.490-07:002009-09-21T13:23:24.490-07:00Very interesting, and a lot to think about. Bit ho...Very interesting, and a lot to think about. Bit how concretely do you read against the grain? Do you have to find bits and pieces that were originally used for another purpose, or try to see where the author protests too much, or what? I always read the books of Samuel and Kings against the grain, but is that me, because of a different morality, or are the alternateDavid Hillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15624091496617889083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-7539776089403741142009-09-21T12:49:16.106-07:002009-09-21T12:49:16.106-07:00April,
It is good to see these points plotted out...April,<br /><br />It is good to see these points plotted out with greater clarity. Your previous two posts seemed to oversimplify and create a bit of a false dilemma (either confessional OR critical--there are more options after all). However, I still think you are undervaluing the value literary studies can have for historical research. Above all, it seems to me that literary studies can teach us more about the nature of the texts we have and can limit some of the positivism that pervades historical Jesus research. I do, however, agree with much that you say in this post. <br /><br />Chris SkinnerChristopher W. Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962045745879885164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-73256253023095215712009-09-21T12:11:41.953-07:002009-09-21T12:11:41.953-07:00Yes, I realized you had said that by the time I pu...Yes, I realized you had said that by the time I published the post. I would just additionally say that just as literary methods do not replace historical methods, neither is historical criticism a replacement for attending to the literary characteristics of the text, etc. At the same time, the the histories of the development of these methodologies are highly intertwined. Historical criticism has much of its genesis in literary criticism, literary criticism is always looking over at what anthropology is doing and vice versa. And every so often they find inspiration in the sciences!Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-90526751362134172412009-09-21T11:18:19.026-07:002009-09-21T11:18:19.026-07:00There is a glaring difference between how you say ...There is a glaring difference between how you say history should be interpreted, and how the writings attributed to Josephus are interpreted. For example, a recent book, Rome and Jerusalem by Martin Goodman interprets and quotes the writings literally. Barbara Levick with her book Vespasian does the same. Barbara Levick, for example admits to "a particularly thick overlay of propaganda that obscures the truth about the Jewish War, the year of the Four Emperors, and the entire reign" (of Vespasian). Then she goes her own sweet way with her literalistic interpretations, citing other literalistic authors, repeating their sins. Goodman does the same, and to some extent Eisenman does the something similar. When is it going to be realised that winners get to write history?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-32761776600660593902009-09-21T09:46:17.843-07:002009-09-21T09:46:17.843-07:00This may surprise all and sundry but I agree with ...This may surprise all and sundry but I agree with most of what April has said. In fact I would suggest that for a preacher or a theologian this work must be done before writing a sermon or a theological tome. If the preacher or the theologian does not do this hard work how can she be sure that she knows (to the extent possible) what the final editor of the text means to say? And if she does not know what that final editor means how can she then interpret that passage in a modern context?Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-58257998358592092912009-09-21T09:20:44.578-07:002009-09-21T09:20:44.578-07:00James,
Thanks for your response. And I know the ...James,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. And I know the point you are making. But I maintain my sentence for just this purpose. Our texts are not reporting history. They are reporting refracted memories at best that needs to be carefully sorted out. So we might be able to reconstruct history from the text and its interpreted memories (or we might not). But this is a process of reconstruction. That is what our job as rigorous historians is all about.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-149093312336990292009-09-21T09:14:00.141-07:002009-09-21T09:14:00.141-07:00Jared,
RE: #1. Yes, confessional scholarship can ...Jared,<br /><br />RE: #1. Yes, confessional scholarship can (and does) 'hijack' other methods too. <br /><br />RE: #2. Agreed. I wrote in my post: "I have nothing against literary criticism. In fact, various literary methods inform my research. But as I have argued in my publications and on this blog, literary methods alone are not a replacement for historical criticism, because they do not operate by the same assumptions and they do not seek to answer the same questions. I have discovered that the best methodological approach seeks to bring three fields together : historical criticism, literary criticism, and social-scientific criticism."April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-29828113983325525992009-09-21T09:13:21.608-07:002009-09-21T09:13:21.608-07:00Hi April! I've enjoyed your posts on this subj...Hi April! I've enjoyed your posts on this subject, but it seems to me that #4 is too sweeping as it is currently worded: "The text is not reporting history, it is reporting theology and it is using story to do so." Would it not be fairer to say that any given text <i>may</i> not be reporting history, and even when doing so, it may be interpreting and even rewriting history in pursuit of a theological point? To suggest we can assume that there is never anything we could call "history" reported in texts would seem to eliminate the possibility of historical-critical reconstruction of history using ancient texts!James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-6176440956892358812009-09-21T08:31:26.037-07:002009-09-21T08:31:26.037-07:00I have I think two responses:
1. You can be an a...I have I think two responses:<br /><br />1. You can be an acute literary scholar without confessional stances--look at Classics or the study of Shakespeare, for example. While people may hijack literary methods for confessional purposes, they do the same thing with any other method. Whether one approaches the text with literary tools or historical tools, they can do this rigorously. They are different questions, but one method is not better than the other. They are simply interested in different things. I do not think the dividing line is between historians and those doing confessional work. I think the dividing line is those who take a rigorous methodology--whether it be a historical one, a literary one, an anthropological one, etc.--and those who use those methodologies for theological purposes. <br /><br />2. I don't think one can be a good historian without a sound grounding in literary criticism--that's how you find the grain your reading against to begin with, and literary critics are as good as anyone at reading against the grain. I do not think one can be a good literary critic without a sound grounding in historical method. Even if you are just speaking to literary technique and qualities, etc., contextual interrelationships should always be in one's mind. One's publications may not employ the other method fully, but one's perspective should be shaped by the other. The best approach, in my opinion, is the eclectic one. This is probably why I like "new historicism" so much.Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.com