tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post375523099539379374..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: A call to dialogue between postmodernists and historical criticsApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-11420640308396701892010-01-06T15:33:14.680-08:002010-01-06T15:33:14.680-08:00The historical method isn't perfect, no, but i...The historical method isn't perfect, no, but it is also better than the pomo technique of deciding what is what by what FEELS better. I'll take an imperfect grappling with evidence and troublesome squabbling with criteria over a pomo "this theory FEELS good to me" approach any day of the week. <br /><br />Funny to me how so many non-historians allege to know so thoroughly all the ins and outs of professional scholarship as to so roundly dismiss it as "naive," "misguided," or my personal favorite, "orthodox-conservative."sparkwidgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14774579637739732636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-48430874522471785492010-01-06T12:15:14.845-08:002010-01-06T12:15:14.845-08:00@Hamblin
The problem with putting history as an e...@Hamblin<br /><br />The problem with putting history as an entity on to itself is discussed at length by Hayden White (<i>Metahistory</i>, and, well, pretty well everything else he's ever written).<br /><br />The issue is that the historian claims the advantages of both, but dodges the criticisms by claiming to be neither. Historical inquiry is too empirical to be criticized as an art, and too artistic to be criticized as a science. And so we are left free to pull whatever techniques we like, without being subjected to the caveats the artist or the scientist endure.<br /><br />We can't dodge the pomo critic by claiming disciplinary immunity, because, at its basest level, that claim is precisely what is being disputed in most post-modernist criticism of historiography. You're just repeating the claim that's at issue.Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-57189065224616727432010-01-06T11:37:09.714-08:002010-01-06T11:37:09.714-08:00Thank you so much April! Some friends and I have b...Thank you so much April! Some friends and I have been discussing these issues at length for a few months now. Thanks for pointing me towards the Seters article!sparkwidgethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14774579637739732636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-79376595277373683552010-01-04T07:48:37.190-08:002010-01-04T07:48:37.190-08:00I am not by any stretch a pomo, but it seems to me...I am not by any stretch a pomo, but it seems to me that the study of history cannot be empirical in the technical sense of the term because we cannot directly observe the past. All we can observe is the textual, artifactual and artistic remains of the past, but those remains must not be confused with the past itself. To cloak history in terms such as "empirical" and "scientific" only confuses the matter. History is epistemologically its own unique discipline, and should not be conflated with either literature or science.Hamblin of Jerusalemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073528213816480958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-12759093300454738552010-01-03T02:44:06.152-08:002010-01-03T02:44:06.152-08:00Bob, you are an ever-caring pastor.Bob, you are an ever-caring pastor.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-47767022809085415332010-01-02T20:50:56.184-08:002010-01-02T20:50:56.184-08:00Geoff
I wasn't thinking of you at all. I was...Geoff<br /><br />I wasn't thinking of you at all. I was thinking of an example of a presuppostion about the nature of history that I would say is false and chose and extreme example.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-81782146450586057802010-01-02T13:32:43.254-08:002010-01-02T13:32:43.254-08:00My article here contains some evidence:
http://ge...My article here contains some evidence:<br /><br />http://geoffhudsononmasada.blogspot.com/geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-23764952184747512612010-01-02T06:50:31.975-08:002010-01-02T06:50:31.975-08:00Its nice to know I am like the Nazis, Bob. At leas...Its nice to know I am like the Nazis, Bob. At least I am not a holocaust denier. But I do deny that Vespasian ever won a victory in Judea, unless you consider his ordering the burning of the temple after the five years of peace, as a victory. <br /><br />I would like to know what Chris thinks is evidence. You could hardly have better evidence of Flavian propaganda on an extraordinary scale, than the so-called Jewish war as portrayed in the writings attributed to Josephus. The number of scholars who cite those writings as literally true just astonishes me.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-61045969958174856802010-01-01T09:03:37.876-08:002010-01-01T09:03:37.876-08:00Much obliged, pascal...
Happy 2010 to everyone!Much obliged, pascal...<br /><br />Happy 2010 to everyone!pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15057606016308146895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-40003708828149995752009-12-31T20:02:55.596-08:002009-12-31T20:02:55.596-08:00Geoff
Re: ruling out
Actually I was thinking of ...Geoff<br /><br />Re: ruling out<br /><br />Actually I was thinking of the Nazis when I wrote that.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-3544375527220949392009-12-31T16:58:33.507-08:002009-12-31T16:58:33.507-08:00Pearl,
Sadly the mince pies did not survive the r...Pearl,<br /><br />Sadly the mince pies did not survive the rigorous testing procedures designed to ensure that they really were mince pies and not, say, things which merely believed themselves to be mince pies.<br /><br />But I have added you to the list of persons prepared to devote themselves to the pursuit of evidence-based refreshment strategies for Yuletide 2010...pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163257887071459639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-67353253124237338352009-12-31T15:19:59.909-08:002009-12-31T15:19:59.909-08:00No, Geoff, theology deals with what you "feel...No, Geoff, theology deals with what you "feel" - or self help books. Either way without evidence your beliefs are just that - merely belief.Chris Weimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09446829700005046139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-1153322458075189562009-12-31T14:13:04.710-08:002009-12-31T14:13:04.710-08:00I can't help feeling that in the writings attr...I can't help feeling that in the writings attributed to Josephus, and the New Testament, I am being lied to. Now what kind of philosophy can handle that? A dose of old-fashioned realism, probably?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-79071012896017421452009-12-31T12:01:38.200-08:002009-12-31T12:01:38.200-08:00Very possibly the same, Chris. The nonexistent pe...Very possibly the same, Chris. The nonexistent peer review. A belief that such a peer review existed might require ‘transformative hermeneutics’ based on a ‘quantum’ leap of faith ‘transgressing the boundaries’ of evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Then again, I wouldn’t mind initiating a peer review for that mince pie.pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15057606016308146895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-49853016602715381442009-12-31T10:53:40.649-08:002009-12-31T10:53:40.649-08:00Pearl,
Would that be the same peer review that ap...Pearl,<br /><br />Would that be the same peer review that approved Alan Sokal's machine-created paper?<br /><br />ChrisChris Weimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09446829700005046139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-87268711904000991512009-12-31T09:37:23.425-08:002009-12-31T09:37:23.425-08:00Dear Pascal,
Yes, April predictably does behave w...Dear Pascal,<br /><br />Yes, April predictably does behave with impeccable dignity and self-restraint.<br /><br />I’m quite a fan of the numinous qualities of rationality. To be sure, those particular, dignified mystical letters you share support self-restraint in matters nonsensical.<br /><br />Also, I’d love to participate in the peer review of that mince pie, should there be any samples left to referee.pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15057606016308146895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-91952403539485795902009-12-31T04:44:54.327-08:002009-12-31T04:44:54.327-08:00Pearl,
I agree with your observations, and think...Pearl, <br /><br />I agree with your observations, and think that April is behaving with impeccable dignity and self-restraint.<br /><br />In her shoes I would simply have typed the five mystical letters:<br /><br />S<br />o<br />k<br />a<br />l<br /><br />and eaten another mince pie.pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163257887071459639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-35277280567485620102009-12-30T13:13:48.436-08:002009-12-30T13:13:48.436-08:00Hi Bob,
The citation of White wasn't so much ...Hi Bob,<br /><br />The citation of White wasn't so much to indicate my agreement with it as it was to show that the implications of Roland--that historical critics are falling prey to something that "real" historians don't--is misguided. Using White as something of a paradigm, we can see this easily enough, just by punching his name into JSTOR. The criticisms he levels against "real" historians are the same criticisms issued to distinguish the historical critic from the "real" historian.<br /><br />"Post-modern" historiographies abound in historical theory, but are exceptionally rare in historical inquiry.<br /><br /><i>This is not to say that all methods or presuppositions are equal. Some have to be ruled out as unacceptable from the start.</i><br /><br />How do we set the line for what presuppositions we can eliminate <i>a priori</i>? As near as I can see, there is no objective line, and if we're going to be consistent in our epistemology, it has to be all or nothing. Anything else is arbitrary.<br /><br />Either all prejudice is acceptable, and all we can claim is that it is more plausible to me personally, or no prejudice is acceptable, and we follow down the path of relativism to the merry conclusion that history is lost beyond a simple catalog of facts, with no interpretation.<br /><br />Post-structuralism seems, at least to me, to force in to almost a sort of historical nihilism, of one flavour or another. And surely that's wrong. Even though I can't objectively demonstrate that either.Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-21407452117711918622009-12-30T09:27:00.570-08:002009-12-30T09:27:00.570-08:00Bob would rule me out. We are dealing with two gar...Bob would rule me out. We are dealing with two garbled stories. One is the New Testament, and the other is the writings attributed to Josephus. The latter has been formed from the original writings of Josephus which have been edited and fabricated to support not only the Flavian view of Roman history, but, clumsily, the New Testament also. And the former is derived from original prophetic writings that have been edited, expanded, and fabricated, probably by the same Flavian writers.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-80742808531865310532009-12-29T13:19:25.822-08:002009-12-29T13:19:25.822-08:00Rick
A couple thoughts:
1. I don't think one...Rick<br /><br />A couple thoughts:<br /><br />1. I don't think one can say that all those who seek to your a historical critical method are neccesasrrily historicists. <br /><br />2. Method as motive and presuppositions as a basis for method I think are an important discussion. One can trace how world view and philosophical movements from Reimarus on down have allowed philosophy or world view to affect their conclusions. <br /><br />I don't come to this conclusion out of any postmodern thought. I learned it from Dutch Calvinists back in the 1970s. One of the great tasks in historical criticism, I think, is to put our presuppositions out there and allow those who disagree with them say whether they share conclusions or not based on a different method.<br /><br />This is not to say that all methods or presuppositions are equal. Some have to be ruled out as unacceptable from the start.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-54589801061797164152009-12-28T21:26:02.533-08:002009-12-28T21:26:02.533-08:00@Roland
Let me try rewording this, deleted the la...@Roland<br /><br />Let me try rewording this, deleted the last comment because it came out all wrong.<br /><br /><i>The historian shapes his materials, if not in accordance with what Popper calls (and criticizes as) a "framework of preconceived ideas," then in response to the imperatives of narrative discourse in general. These imperatives are rhetorical in nature. In what follows I shall seek to show that in the very language that the historian uses to describe his object of study, prior to any effort he may make formally to explain or interpret it, he subjects that object of study to the kind of distortion that "historicists" impose upon their materials in a more explicit and formal way.</i><br /><br />Hayden V. White, <i>Historicism, History, and the Figurative Imagination</i>, <b>History and Theory</b>, Vol. 14, No. 4, Beiheft 14: Essays on Historicism (Dec., 1975), pp. 48-67<br /><br />Post-modernist criticisms are sent out against historians (though, most particularly, the literary critics--"historical criticism" as we like to call it in our little niche of the Humanities).<br /><br />Then people decide that these criticisms apply to Biblical historical-crit, and nowhere else. So suddenly it's different from other history. "Real" historians don't do that sort of thing. Except, well, they do. And receive the same criticisms for it. So if it's wrong (and I can't objectively show that it is or not. . .does acknowledging that make me pomo?), we're in good company.<br /><br />While I would grant that other branches of historical inquiry have gotten better at hiding things, I see no reason to view them as fundamentally different. Oftentimes they just reword their conclusions such that it appears their historiography has matured. Once you venture out of <i>History and Theory</i>, the criticisms haven't made much impact in how the Historian--Biblical or otherwise--gets the job done.<br /><br />But all branches of history fall prey to exactly the same criticisms. They just stand out more here.Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-49182681240430827552009-12-28T20:52:36.588-08:002009-12-28T20:52:36.588-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-9900925250540283132009-12-22T14:13:34.503-08:002009-12-22T14:13:34.503-08:00Biblical history, at least the period from about 2...Biblical history, at least the period from about 200 BC to 75 AD needs to be re-written, and with it a whole load of secular history. I question the work of biblical historians. Their interpretation of the main source of primary information, the writings attributed to Josephus, is suspect.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-65622670577246431922009-12-21T20:54:14.778-08:002009-12-21T20:54:14.778-08:00Dr DeConick's post and especially Chris Weimer...<em>Dr DeConick's post and especially Chris Weimer's comments are symptomatic of average first year humanities term papers, where one "critiques" Derrida because, duh, of course there is something outside the text.</em><br /><br />"Outside the text"? Oh! All this time I interpreted Derrida as saying there was no Horse Text. <br /><br />I can accept the absence of Horse Texts, but nothing outside the text is just ridiculous. What about The Event? No Horse Text is absurd. What about Mr Ed? And Black Beauty? Postmodernist nonsense!!N T Wronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13128282430404746717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-37531490908627866142009-12-21T07:55:42.027-08:002009-12-21T07:55:42.027-08:00Dr. DeConick, thank you very much for this post. ...Dr. DeConick, thank you very much for this post. I found John Van Seters’s response to Aichelle, Miscall, and Walsh's request for dialogue between historical critics and postmodernists to be very ‘enlightening’.pearlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15057606016308146895noreply@blogger.com