Rules of Historical Reasoning

[neilgodfrey]

Mr MacSon -- you asked for a response to this earlier post. I've provided one here:

A plan, or Plan A. . . as a suggestion for one approach to start an inquiry into the origins of the earliest Christian sources.

Among the earliest 'sources' are the canonical gospels. Let's take the Gospel of Mark as the earliest of these.

... concur with those who make 70 CE its earliest likely date.

I take Irenaeus's reference to the 4 canonical gospels as an indicator that the Gospel of Mark was known to him -- ca 170 CE as the latest possible date for its composition.

I have some problems with

• calling the canonical gospels 'sources' - they're really just narratives, or texts / literary texts (at this stage of investigation),
• taking Mark as the earliest gospel, and
• take Irenaeus's reference to the 4 canonical gospels as an indicator that the Gospel of Mark was known to him

Why do you have a problem with calling the gospels "sources"? What do you understand by the term "source"?

Taking Mark as the earliest gospel is simply an easy starting point because that's what most studies have concluded now. It is not an eternal fact. Scholarship may change its mind in the future, but it's a defensible position to start with.

I don't know why you object to the Irenaeus reference.

[neilgodfrey]

The Marcan narrative says on the surface that Jesus was crucified on the Day of Passover, but there are indications of a source behind the Marcan text in which Jesus was crucified on the Eve of Passover. This is Theissen's starting point. How is this not addressing the logic of the narrative?

That sounds quite kosher. But I thought we were talking about another specific example that you referenced, one in particular that was related to anonymous persons. I was not addressing every point by Theissen but the particular points I understood that you raised.

You are the one who raised Theissen's treatment of anonymity. Here is what I said: . . . .

I thought you were complaining that I was not addressing your earlier point and I replied that I thought I was addressing the point you made. If I had overlooked something then mea culpa. I did try to be careful with my words to allow for the possibility I was mistaken, you may have noticed. I really don't care to get into a tit for tat.

Currently 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".

Does this generalization of yours apply to Theissen's work in teasing out a pre-Marcan passion narrative? Or would you apply this only to his subsequent treatment of anonymous persons in that narrative? I first read you as suggesting that scholars' sussing out sources behind the extant texts was itself problematic, when perhaps you meant only that what they did with those texts is what was "cheating" (so to speak).

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

I have never said or implied that biblical scholars never at any time use a valid argument. But their reconstructions of Christian origins definitely are based on invalid arguments, on methods that find no place among other historians.

You know I have bookshelves of works by biblical scholars addressing a lot of points I find very valuable. I learn from them as you evidently know. I discuss them and the points I learn from them.

I have Theissen's books with me. He has wheat with his chaff -- as I have pointed out in the course of this discussion.

But the context I am addressing where their methods are shonky -- surely you did know this -- is the historical Jesus and Christian origins.

So I am surprised to see you implying I would say biblical scholars never offer valid arguments!

Theissen's discussion of anonymous persons, a particular example you raised and the one I was addressing, is not a source-critical question.

....

Well the anonymity question was a key point you raised as a basis for your criticism and the one I addressed. This is a new point, the one about timing of the crucifixion, now.

Again, to be clear, you are the one who raised Theissen's discussion of anonymous persons. I was referring to the same essay/chapter in which he does that, yes, but I was talking only about his source criticism.

I'm sorry I looked up a Theissen argument in the wrong book and was not aware you were thinking of an argument of his in another book.

Did Carrier do this? I have since been able to lay hands on his book again, and I cannot see where he discussed the genre of his putative source at all.

Yes, he did. Chapter 10 in particular.

Again, I believe you have lost the thread here. (Perhaps this is a consequence of debating several people at once; it happens.)

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.

Yet he mentions little details that have the potential to open up this question, but he glosses over them without a second thought in that direction. Example: he acknowledges the possibility, advanced by some scholars, that the youth fleeing naked was a symbolic detail. (How many historians, including ancient ones, mingle genuine history with symbolic narratives as if they are all of the one story?)

Really? I think that happened a lot in ancient histories. But this is a side question for our discussion, so I will not pursue it further here.

I'd be interested in an example where it did happen. It is important because it goes to the heart of my criticism of Theissen. Sure ancient histories included nonhistorical narratives, but symbolic ones?

Howell and Prevenier cite a source that is contemporary with Charlemagne. That is the difference between evidence for Charlemagne and the Buddha. We have nothing comparable, not even a hagiography, for the latter.

Yes, that is absolutely a huge difference. But I believe you are missing the point, which was: "But historians never have just what they want or need."

No, Ben, I did not miss that point. I addressed it. If we don't have what we need then we can't proceed with certain lines of inquiry -- apart from making some very general speculative notion in place of serious history. That's addressing the point you raise.

A simple look at the kinds of topics addressed by the ancient historian compared with the kinds of topics covered by a modern historian will demonstrate this truism.

I don't understand why you say I missed your point.

Of course there cannot be any certainty for the historicity of Gautama. How can there be? All the source material is very late in relation to his purported life. He may well have existed, though. There is simply no way of knowing.

It is indeed pointless to dive in to try to reconstruct his life IF one's interest is in serious historical research.

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 are Muslim scholars who write histories of Mohammad, too, and their histories are critiqued by a handful who identify flaws in their methods, too -- not unlike the flaws in the study of the historical Jesus in some cases.

I thought we are discussing historical rules. If you identify some areas where historians are not following those rules then that does not abrogated the rules unless they can present some compelling arguments to do so.

My point is this. I think you are quite mistaken if you imagine that historians of times and places outside of biblical studies would never indulge in these activities which you are calling pointless.

You are way overstating what I have said, Ben. I have never said no historians would even indulge.... I have said the very opposite, often.

It does not help to exaggerate to the point of misrepresentation what another party says if you want to keep a discussion cordial. You come across as very sensitive to any misrepresentation on my part about what was said earlier in the conversation and who introduced what. I would appreciate the same sensitivity towards not misrepresenting others.

But you have reminded me that there are other specialist areas such as Muslim and Buddhist histories which appear to fall into the same methodological errors.

Your approach to ancient history is skeptical and cautious, and that is great. But it is not the rule in biblical history, and it is not the rule outside of biblical history. I bet most fields have historians of your general persuasion, but they also have historians who "dive in" (as I have been terming it) and make the most of an admittedly sketchy situation. There are plenty of scholars willing to go on record as judging that it is more likely that Gautama existed and was born at a certain time than that he did not exist or was born at a different time, just as there are plenty of scholars willing to do the same about Jesus.

And I have posted before that such historians are more enthusiastic than professional, and they are subject to the censure of their peers who do indeed fault them for laziness or unprofessional standards.

As you surely know, I have always acknowledged that there are bad historians in other fields, too -- I have posted about them. But I am talking about the standards as Mark Day addressed them in his five rules:

MARK DAY:

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)

I have stated before that I wish biblical scholars were more forthcoming about the epistemological difficulties the nature of their sources puts in their way, and I have been trying to see if that is the main stumbling block for you or not: in other words, would you be happy if biblical scholars carried on as they already are, but simply expressed more clearly and/or honestly how little they really have to work with? Or are there, to the contrary, plenty of books and articles you feel should never have been penned, even with such disclaimers?

The problem is they do not acknowledge the fallacies in their methods. I am speaking generally, of course. But they believe their methods are sound, despite their limitations. They have written books arguing for the soundness of methods that are found nowhere else in mainstream historical works (at least as recognized as legitimate by peers, with the exception of some Indian and Muslim scholars addressing certain religious histories.)

It seems to me that you have made it sound at times as if biblical scholars were, by and large, the only historians guilty of doing these "pointless" things. As the example of Indian history surrounding the life and times of the Buddha shows, however, this is not the case. I think this means that you are either (A) underinformed about the state of historical studies outside of biblical studies or (B) guilty of a sort of "no true Scotsman" fallacy, whereby you are counting only those historians who agree with your more stringent methodology as historians.

Guilty as charged, though not knowing the details of the Indian scholars in question. I do know there are history wars in India that presumably involve ideology more than sound practice. And there are no doubt some Buddhist scholars who are very dedicated, too. (Though I do know some Buddhists don't give a damn if the Buddha was historical or not.)

Maybe in future I will have to say something like:

Biblical scholars use methods that are nowhere found in mainstream historical studies as approved norms, though there are some (even too many) who disregard those norms despite censure by their peers, and there are others in the mainstream of Indian scholarship who may also follow invalid methods when addressing religious history, and probably some Muslims, too.

But I presume I'm addressing an audience familiar with mainstream history as it is generally understood in the West.

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.

[MrMacSon]

Why do you have a problem with calling the gospels "sources"? What do you understand by the term "source"?

I understand a source to be something that is considered to be a good or reliable 'source of information' * [about something, usually an event or person, or group of people].

• Considered good or deemed reliable by via good inductive or good deductive argument, preferably by historians.

I don't think we have that for the gospels. We only have apologetic assertions, almost all of which are based on dubious methods.

The gospels are a good source of information about reified Christianity ie. reified Christian theology. But when they were finalised in 'the form/s we now know them' is not really known. I think things - especially their origins - are best rooted in a defined time period.

We know pericopes are common to some 2nd century texts, and much of the gospel of Luke seems to be common to Tertuallian [and perhaps Irenaeus's] reproduction of Marcion, but where the others fit is still being debated among scholars. Perhaps Irenaeus gives us a clue in Adv. Haers. III , Chaps 1 and 2.

The gospels are not primary sources for or about a real human Jesus.

Taking Mark as the earliest gospel is simply an easy starting point because that's what most studies have concluded now.

Sure, and, as you say, "It is not an eternal 'fact'." But it is increasingly a fading 'fact', so it is increasingly a dangerous propostion.

Scholarship may change 'its' mind in the future

Scholarship does not have 'a mind'.* Scholars do. And they are not likely to be a unified collective on this any time soon.

• (* to say scholarship has a mind is a reification fallacy)

[neilgodfrey]

Why do you have a problem with calling the gospels "sources"? What do you understand by the term "source"?

I understand a source to be something that is considered to be a good or reliable 'source of information' * [about something, usually an event or person, or group of people].

• Considered good or deemed reliable by via good inductive or good deductive argument, preferably by historians.

I don't think we have that for the gospels. We only have apologetic assertions, almost all of which are based on dubious methods.

Sources are anything at all that a historian can use to help her understand and learn something about the past. Official monuments are generally rank political propaganda, sometimes even telling lies, but they are useful sources nonetheless. They tell a historian about the ruling power, the governance of the time. Diaries are generally very biased accounts, but no historian would toss them away as worthless if they relate to a person being researched. Even fiction from a time in question can be useful if it throws light on beliefs or attitudes towards certain social occasions, types of persons, etc.

If all sources were reliable then there would be no need for source criticism.

Scholarship may change 'its' mind in the future

Scholarship does not have 'a mind'.* Scholars do. And they are not likely to be a unified collective on this any time soon.

• (* to say scholarship has a mind is a reification fallacy)

It is also a simple figure of speech, metonymy, I believe.

[MrMacSon]

A plan, or Plan A. . . as a suggestion for one approach to start an inquiry into the origins of the earliest Christian sources.

Among the earliest 'sources' are the canonical gospels. Let's take the Gospel of Mark as the earliest of these.

... concur with those who make 70 CE its earliest likely date.

I take Irenaeus's reference to the 4 canonical gospels as an indicator that the Gospel of Mark was known to him -- ca 170 CE as the latest possible date for its composition.

I have some problems with

• taking Irenaeus's reference to the 4 canonical gospels as an indicator that the Gospel of Mark was known to him

I don't know why you object to the Irenaeus reference.

Irenaeus knows of the four gospels: He tells us in Adv Haers. Bk III, chap. 1 -

Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple --- the one who lay on his lap --- also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor. (Against Heresies 3.1.1)

and, as said here -

Irenaeus follows the canonical sequence. He did not, however, suggest any literary relationship between these gospels. Note also that he did not explicitly mention the order of composition of the synoptics. While he claims John wrote "later," he lists Matthew, Mark & Luke with parallel grammatical conjunctions ("also...also...also").

The only thing in Irenaeus' statement that would lead someone to infer the chronological priority of Matthew is his attempt to link the canonical gospels with the activity of Peter & Paul. He claims that a Hebrew edition of this gospel was in circulation during the lifetime of the leading apostles, while Mark & Luke were composed "after their death." The source from which Irenaeus derived this dating is not clear. While he knew & valued the now lost commentaries of Papias, he does not credit this chronological data to that source. Nor do the excerpts from Papias cited by Eusebius support this sequence. http://virtualreligion.net/primer/irenaeus.html

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


Irenaeus does write halfway through Adversus Haereses:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground 1 Timothy 3:15 of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh." (3.11.8)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

and

"Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. ..... But Mark takes his beginning from the prophetic Spirit who comes on men from on high saying, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,' showing a winged image of the gospel. Therefore he made his message compendious and summary, for such is the prophetic character." (3.11.8)

According to the lists in Hoh¹, Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses, quotes 626 times from all 4 Gospels.²

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml

¹ Hoh, J. "Die Lehre des hl. Irenäus uber das Neue Testament". Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. vii. Munster i. W. 1919. pp. 189-197.

² We would need to consult Hoh, or someone who has reproduced his statistics, or someone else who has done such a count but, flicking though http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark.

.

[MrMacSon]

Why do you have a problem with calling the gospels "sources"? What do you understand by the term "source"?

I understand a source to be something that is considered to be a good or reliable 'source of information' * [about something, usually an event or person, or group of people].

• Considered good or deemed reliable by via good inductive or good deductive argument, preferably by historians.

I don't think we have that for the gospels. We only have apologetic assertions, almost all of which are based on dubious methods.

Sources are anything at all that a historian can use to help her understand and learn something about the past ...

Sure. But the word 'source' has special meaning in historical methodology. And the term 'source' is usually - and probably best - qualified by the descriptors 'primary' or 'secondary'.

I'd say anything else, especially in the study of a theology such as Christianity, particularly early Christianity, is best described otherwise.

Regards.
.

[neilgodfrey]

Irenaeus knows of the four gospels: He tells us in Adv Haers. Bk III, chap. 1 -

So we agree Irenaeus knew of the Gospel of Mark?

[neilgodfrey]

Sure. But the word 'source' has special meaning in historical methodology. And the term 'source' is usually - and probably best - qualified by the descriptors 'primary' or 'secondary'.

I'd say anything else, especially in the study of a theology such as Christianity, particularly early Christianity, is best described otherwise.

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.)

[MrMacSon]

Irenaeus knows of the four gospels: He tells us in Adv Haers. Bk III, chap. 1 -

So we agree Irenaeus knew of the Gospel of Mark?

Yep. And I will admit I hadn't remembered (or re-reviewed) to what extent he mentioned Mark or his gospel of both: I thought it was scant.

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 -

5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, "in the spirit and power of Elias", [Luke 1:17] "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God"; [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm

[MrMacSon]

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 about validity or veracity of a 'source'.