History by Connecting Dots

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

History by Connecting Dots

Post by neilgodfrey »

If one does a search on "connecting the dots" or "connect the dots" in the top right hand Search Box here one finds a lengthy history on the forum of the idea that history can be found by, well, "connecting the dots". That is, by seeing patterns, conceptual links, overlaps of words or concepts in disparate source data.

Some scholars do do historical reconstruction that way and the most prominent example known here might be Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. Every time I think of that work I cannot avoid recalling Robert Price's critical analogy of his method with spinning plates: Eisenman has to keep an ever increasing number of plates spinning to sustain his argument. The tension -- and excitement -- builds the more plates he keeps spinning before any of them collapses.

I would be interested to know how many histories are written that way in the non-biblical sphere. Comparable works that come to my mind are not flattering to Eisenman's status so I will leave it for others to offer examples.

Does anyone else see the following flaw in the "connecting the dots" type of historical method?

It is a free-for-all deductive approach; one is looking for ways and places to plant one's hypothesis and preconceptions in the evidence.

That is, it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias.

There is no way to test or falsify any positive connections because each connection alone makes the case and the more connections one finds the more confidence one has in one's starting hypothesis.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: History by Connecting Dots

Post by Jax »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:19 pm If one does a search on "connecting the dots" or "connect the dots" in the top right hand Search Box here one finds a lengthy history on the forum of the idea that history can be found by, well, "connecting the dots". That is, by seeing patterns, conceptual links, overlaps of words or concepts in disparate source data.

Some scholars do do historical reconstruction that way and the most prominent example known here might be Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. Every time I think of that work I cannot avoid recalling Robert Price's critical analogy of his method with spinning plates: Eisenman has to keep an ever increasing number of plates spinning to sustain his argument. The tension -- and excitement -- builds the more plates he keeps spinning before any of them collapses.

I would be interested to know how many histories are written that way in the non-biblical sphere. Comparable works that come to my mind are not flattering to Eisenman's status so I will leave it for others to offer examples.

Does anyone else see the following flaw in the "connecting the dots" type of historical method?

It is a free-for-all deductive approach; one is looking for ways and places to plant one's hypothesis and preconceptions in the evidence.

That is, it becomes an exercise in confirmation bias.

There is no way to test or falsify any positive connections because each connection alone makes the case and the more connections one finds the more confidence one has in one's starting hypothesis.
Absolutely. And Eisenman and Atwill are great examples of why this is poor historical reconstruction.

The desire to tie everything together into a pretty knot is hard to resist when making a case for a pet theory. To present only that which is conductive to your case and ignore or downplay evidence that doesn't quite work is irresistible and frankly hard to avoid. Especially if you have a dog in the fight.

I have a pet theory on Paul being in the 1st century BCE for example that I would love to prove, but can't, so I have to be very careful when I present my evidence (pitiful that it is) that I don't lead the reader into making it seem that it has more validity than it does.

"Just the facts, mam" is my watchword.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: History by Connecting Dots

Post by neilgodfrey »

I have also drawn the parallel with reading detective novels or watching murder mysteries and trying to "connect the dots" or little bits of data to work out who the culprit is before the end of the book/movie.

It's a fun exercise; it gives a real adrenaline shot when certain connections produce an exciting result lending further "support" to our hypothesis; but it is not historical research.

It is a method perfectly suited to the field of biblical studies that relies upon the maintenance of certain ideological foundations. But I don't know of commendable examples of it being found in other scholarly history departments.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: History by Connecting Dots

Post by Charles Wilson »

Alfred North Whitehead, "Nature Alive":

"For example, the observation of insects on flowers dimly suggests some congruity between the natures of insects and of flowers, and thus leads to a wealth of observation from which whole branches of science have developed. But a consistent positivist should be content with the observed facts, namely insects visiting flowers. It is a fact of charming simplicity. There is nothing further to be said upon the matter, according to the doctrine of a positivist...."

As someone who wrote a Thesis on A. J. Ayer, I duly sympathize with the (Logical) Positivists. Hume was drearily irrefutable and that led to the disastrous Subjectivism of Kant - "I cannot transcend the categories and must be locked inside that box that I create without my conscious Will...".

Hegel is worse though more complete. "If I cannot get to "das Noumena" then all I have left is Phenomena". Contradictions are in things,not sentences.

And so on...It's not that connecting the dots is "Wrong", it's which dots get connected that matters and that goes beyond a Solipsistic Self. Or, as found in "The Devil came from Kansas" (Procol Harum):

The Devil came from Kansas. Where he went to I can't say
If you really are my brother then you'd better start to pray
For the sins of those departed and the ones about to go
There's a dark cloud just above us, don't tell me 'cause I know

What if my Certainty in Belief is built on a lie? More importantly, what of the Certainty of Belief of others? What if it is False? "What is Truth?", asks Pilate. Well...Yeah...

What about those insects on flowers?

CW
Post Reply