Rules of Historical Reasoning

[neilgodfrey]

I thought primary and secondary covered the lot. I can't imagine what sort of sources they don't cover. (Everything I have ever said about sources is taken straight from explanations by historians themselves, usually from "manuals" for students about to undertake postgraduate studies in history.)

All the reading I have done says secondary sources are based on primary sources

• ie. without primary sources for a topic, one ought not call anything a 'secondary source'.

I think that is a key point to dispel any ambiguity about the meaning of the term source and thus any validity or veracity of a 'source'.

There are two definitions of primary and secondary sources, so in any conversation it is important to clarify which ones we are using.

Some historians define primary sources as those that derive from the actual time and place or person being researched. Monuments, coins, diaries, etc.

Others define primary sources as those that are closest available to the time/events in question.

The former definition derives ultimately from the "founder" of modern history, Leopold von Ranke. It is the definition Mark Day uses.

It follows that there are two definitions of secondary sources.

One definition has it that any source later in time from the events researched is a secondary source. (Ranke's definition, again.)

The other has it that any sources later than the earliest sources are secondary sources.

Sometimes a secondary source may address a historic event but not indicate any reliance upon any other earlier sources we have. So not all secondary sources are necessarily based on primary sources at hand.

These are simply rules of thumb. There are also extended discussions of sources that draw attention to exceptional cases that are not directly addressed by the "spirit" of these definitions. Example, a newspaper report about Kennedy's assassination -- is that a primary source for Kennedy's assassination if it is published the day it happened? The report may not be by an eyewitness at all but by reporters who are getting information second or third hand. Some would call that a secondary source. Others, a primary source.

But every secondary source for some event is also a primary source for the time in which it was produced. It tells us what someone believed or wanted to say to others at the time it was written, even if they are writing about an event generations old.

Definitions are nothing but guides to help keep arguments and discussions on track. We can use any definition we like so long as all parties understand what definition is being used in the discussion.

[MrMacSon]

All the reading I have done says secondary sources are based on primary sources

• ie. without primary sources for a topic, one ought not call anything a 'secondary source'.

I think that is a key point to dispel any ambiguity about the meaning of the term source and thus any validity or veracity of a 'source'.

There are two definitions of primary and secondary sources, so in any conversation it is important to clarify which ones we are using.

I agree. And there may be reasons or benefits for favouring one of those.

Some historians define primary sources as those that derive from the actual time and place or person being researched. Monuments, coins, diaries, etc.

• derives ultimately from the "founder" of modern history, Leopold von Ranke. It is the definition Mark Day uses.

Yep; 'contemporaneous'.

• As an aside, but somewhat interestingly, I think the only sources we have about Josephus are by Josephus, via various later pathways. Given suspected 'literary licence' by him, his writings may not always be a reliable primary source about himself.

Others define primary sources as those that are closest available to the time/events in question.

I think this allows for disingenuous use of the term, especially when there is the other definition.

I think, in the absence of good contemporaneous sources, such 'closest available' info should be called 'commentaries' -

eg. 'Commentary by X in time a'.

... there are two definitions of secondary sources.

One definition has it that any source later in time from the events researched is a secondary source. (Ranke's definition, again.)

The other has it that any sources later than the earliest sources are secondary sources.

Sometimes a 'secondary source' may address a historic event but not indicate any reliance upon any other earlier sources we have. So not all 'secondary sources' are necessarily based on primary sources at hand.

As I suggested previously, many of these should be called commentaries (by X or Y, at times a or b), or something similar (eg. narratives).

These are simply rules of thumb.

I disagree. I think these various definitions cause problems.

There are also extended discussions of sources that draw attention to exceptional cases that are not directly addressed by the "spirit" of these definitions. Example, a newspaper report about Kennedy's assassination -- is that a primary source for Kennedy's assassination if it is published the day it happened? The report may not be by an eyewitness at all but by reporters who are getting information second or third hand. Some would call that a secondary source. Others, a primary source.

There is profound primary source information for the Kennedy assassination, including film footage (and possibly as live TV). Sure, a newspaper report about it -that day or the next day- is likely to be a secondary source that includes information from various sources, primary and secondary (unless written immediately by a journalist who was an eyewitness standing on the grass knoll, in which case it would be a primary source)

But every secondary source for some event is also a primary source for the time in which it was produced.

I think that is disingenuous and adds unnecessary complexity to the issue of trying to suss out previous history; and particularly ancient history, such as early Christianity.

It tells us what someone believed or wanted to say to others at the time it was written, even if they are writing about an event generations old.

Sure, but such commentary ought to be put in context eg. via using other commentary and other information.

.

[neilgodfrey]

I think, in the absence of good contemporaneous sources, such 'closest available' info should be called 'commentaries' -

You are welcome to come up with your own terms and definitions etc but to communicate with the wider field it is appropriate to concur with the various usages as used and taught by the scholars in the field.

[Ben C. Smith]

I thought we were discussing historical methods but I am beginning to detect some sort of gotcha game here.

....

I thought we were discussing historical rules. It seems now I was led into a game of finding a way to attack me for my criticisms of the standards of biblical scholarship.

Not at all! I apologize if it came across that way. But the two issues were intertwined from the start on my end, at any rate. You seemed to be giving biblical scholarship in general as an example of breaking the rules, and you seemed to specify their finding of lost sources behind extant sources as an particularly egregious example of breaking the rules. I was seeking consistency in either how you were presenting things or how I was reading them. And lo, I think I have found it, for the most part, in your most recent post. So thank you for that. I agree with your metaphor of the wheat and the chaff, and have even myself used it of biblical scholarship in the past.

My question was regarding Carrier's treatment of the source he finds behind the Pauline trial narratives in Acts. You refer me to chapter 10, which is all about the gospels. Where does Carrier discuss the genre of the source he claims to have found behind the trial narrative?

Or maybe I meant to type Chapter 9. It's right next to the chapter on the Gospels.

Maybe, but I do not find a discussion of the genre of this alleged source in chapter 9, either. Honestly, I think Carrier simply failed to address that question.

And yet historians of ancient India have held entire conferences dedicated to pinning down the date of his birth and/or death. Pointless conferences, I suppose you, for one, would have to say.

I'd like you to be specific with names and papers/books.

There was a symposium in Germany in 1988, for example:

The reality is that there is not a unanimously accepted date for the historical Buddha’s life amongst scholars. In 1988 CE a symposium named “The Dating of the Historical Buddha” took place in Gottingen, Germany. The dates proposed by a group of experts who attended goes from 486 BCE to 261 BCE for the decease of the Buddha.

This symposium is mentioned in articles on the topic, including one freely available online by Awadh Kishore Narain. JSTOR has articles on the "historical Buddha" (such as this one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25183119?s ... b_contents). Popular Controversies in World History (2012) includes an entire chapter on the subject. Heinz Bechert edited a 1995 book about it. (There seems to be a whole contingent of German scholars who are particularly interested in dating the Buddha's life and death.)

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

the historian should prioritize primary sources, though should nonetheless be critical of these sources.

Primary sources are those which

transport the historian directly back to the past that the documents describe ...

(bolding mine)
So you think Carrier's appeal to a legend appearing many centuries later and his own imagined assumption are primary sources?
Do you think Carrier's own imagination and medieval legends directly transport back to the past that the documents describe?

(But you get worse: drawing a conclusion from silence is not a bloody rule for god's sake.

Exactly, it is not a rule according to Mark Day.

but sheesh, Sherlock Holmes even solved a case from the silence of the dogs, you remember. There really are times when silence is a valid argument. You are free to disagree, but please don't be a bigot about it and refuse even to listen or refuse point blank to seriously consider alternative views.)

Writers are not dogs. Dogs react fairly predictably to a variety of events but that's not the case of writers, whose mind is a lot more complexed and less predictable.
Imagining an ancient author should have written something additional and then taking the so-called silence as evidence for making a point is not a valid method in order to flesh out history.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Flicking though http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark.

By the times of Irenaeus, gMark was the least important gospels out of the four, and not even considered as the first one written. So relatively few mentions and quotes of/from gMark (as compared with the others) should not be surprising.

No abundance of evidence on a particular point is not a reason to doubt the available relevant evidence and/or worse, to declare that non-abundant evidence as useless for justifying the point (because non-abundant evidence is quasi-considered as absence of evidence).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I think, in the absence of good contemporaneous sources, such 'closest available' info should be called 'commentaries' -

You are welcome to come up with your own terms and definitions etc but to communicate with the wider field it is appropriate to concur with the various usages as used and taught by the scholars in the field.

I am concurring with usages taught by scholars in the field, in my references to and outlines of specific usage of 'primary sources' and 'secondary sources'.

I am trying to discourage 'various usages as used', particularly on this forum, at least. I am not a qualified historian per se so do not have the capacity to communicate authoritatively with the wider field (but I have had a career as a forensic investigator).

[MrMacSon]

Flicking though http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark.

Note I said "Flicking though [the books and chapters of] Adversus Haereses, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark".

eta: the only mention of Mark by Irenaeus (other than Adv Haers 3.1.1 and 3.11.8) might be Adv Haers. 3.10.5 -

By the times of Irenaeus, gMark was the least important gospels out of the four, and not even considered as the first one written. So relatively few mentions and quotes of/from gMark (as compared with the others) should not be surprising.

No abundance of evidence on a particular point is not a reason to doubt the available relevant evidence and/or worse, to declare that non-abundant evidence as useless for justifying the point (because non-abundant evidence is quasi-considered as absence of evidence).

I have replied to this in a new thread, rather than going off-topic or derailing this one

[Peter Kirby]

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?

Well, one difference is that Theissen's case is much more detailed and carefully thought out.

I suspect any relative grading has less to do with the source criticism itself than it has to do with the "background knowledge" accepted respectively by Theissen and by Carrier before said source criticism even really gets started. Each study takes place in a setting where the conclusion is already believed to be at least plausible in the first place. Perhaps there are some well-hidden assumptions made by both parties, which are concealed because they are so patently obvious to the researcher as to be invisible (or perhaps just because they're notoriously hard things to prove). In any case, the result is that one man's "plausible hypothesis, which is supported by various clues" is another one's balderdash.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Peter

Perhaps there are some well-hidden assumptions made by both parties, which are concealed because they are so patently obvious to the researcher as to be invisible

That is one thing about Carrier's embrace of Bayes: moving from warm and cuddly heuristics to formal methods may help to reveal hidden assumptions. There is no known method that completely prevents an aggressive player from hiding the ball. Formality can make it more difficult to get away with that, however.

Each study takes place in a setting where the conclusion is already believed to be at least plausible in the first place.

At least conceptually, the foundational step in uncertain reasoning is to formulate a set of plausible hypotheses. It is almost inevitable that when you have background information, you will need to trade off two incompatible traits: completeness (all seriously possible alternatives are taken into account as specific hypotheses) and neutrality (all alternatives which are taken into account are reasonably treated as equally likely before the evidence is applied to them).

In any case, the result is that one man's "plausible hypothesis, which is supported by various clues" is another one's balderdash.

Gasp. That smacks of the extreme-postmodernist thought crime of recognizing that history is educated opinion (as if there was anything wrong with that or surprising about it).