Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[theomise]

Nuance around proper-Context /end-rant

Wha...?

[MrMacSon]

'primary sources' has a defined meaning; it is often used incorrectly.

Best it is used correctly, or another term such as 'earliest mention', or 'first mention' is used if the information is not contemporaneous

[theomise]

'primary sources' has a defined meaning (bolding added - tm); it is often used incorrectly.

Best it is used correctly, or another term such as 'earliest mention', or 'first mention' is used if the information is not contemporaneous

OK, so what, exactly, would that 'correct' defined meaning be?

And who, exactly, informed you of this one and only divinely-provided definition?

BTW, since we're on the subject of arbitrary conventions, did YAHWEH tell you the exact length-width-height standard dimensions of a breadbox? I mean, just so we're all on the same page when estimating volumes? (My girlfriend is big on traditional kitchenware.)



But really, what would you regard as the "primary sources" with respect to Zoroastrianism, or Greek Mythology, or Mithraism, or Buddhism, or Taoism, etc.?

And if by your own stringent standards, "primary sources" don't exist prior to 1500AD, how about we invent a term to cover the earliest literature within a given genre/period? Let's call it "Angus".

As in: "The Pauline Letters are Angus as fuck!"

[neilgodfrey]

The Gospels are indeed primary sources (using the formal historiographical understanding of the term) for the earliest teachings and understandings of Christianity. Primary sources in historical studies are those that can be dated without difficulty to the time under study.

Form critical scholars recognize the gospels as primary sources for those Christians responsible for the earliest written documents about Jesus. So do scholars who apply "memory theory" to the gospels. These scholars are studying the views and influences affecting the authors and audiences of the gospels.

The gospels are however secondary sources for the life of Jesus itself -- unless you follow Maurice Casey and James Crossley and believe at least one or two of them were written by disciples within ten years of the crucifixion.

In the field of New Testament studies I have questioned some of those who have used the expression "primary sources" in relation to the early Christian literature and all in my experience have explained what they mean is the earliest available sources. Several times in their books I have read this same explanation. Refdesk websites sponsored by a university library addressing general principles do not over-ride specific language conventions within separate disciplines. (It is a simple fact of life that different disciplines have different languages nonetheless -- learning the language of each discipline is part of learning the discipline. That's just a fact of the way things are.)

But what happens if one day we all discover that Casey and Crossley were right after all and, say, the Gospel of Matthew really was written by the disciple Matthew (or copied from his wax tablet notes that he jotted down as he walked around with Jesus) some time in the 30s CE?

Then we can call the Gospel of Matthew as a primary source for Jesus.

Now that use of 'primary source' may be considered perfectly correct according to the "father of modern history" (von Ranke, who stressed the significance of the difference between primary and secondary sources) but at the same time it can be very misleading. It can create a false impression that the Gospel of Matthew is solid evidence for the person of Jesus, his sayings and deeds as a real person.

Example: what if, just if, the Gospel of Matthew is like the Book of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi? This book is a primary source for the real life of Pinocchio. Only trouble is that "real life" is a fictional life.

So what is more important is an analysis of the document to understand exactly what it is.

As for NT scholars calling their gospels "primary sources", they are correct technically according to formal von Rankean definitions if by that they mean they are the primary source material for the church in the later part of the first century.

But they are not correct (technically von Ranke style etc) if they mean they are primary sources for the life of Jesus. But if they decide to date the gospels to the life-time of Jesus and believe they were written by an eyewitness etc, then they will be correct -- BUT ONLY IF THEY ALSO CONSIDER THE GOSPELS TO BE HISTORICAL/BIOGRAPHICAL documents.

[MrMacSon]

The Gospels are indeed primary sources (using the formal historiographical understanding of the term) for the earliest teachings and understandings of Christianity. Primary sources in historical studies are those that can be dated without difficulty to the time under study.

I agree, but it raises the question of when the gospels are dated to; and whether there is evidence they have also been redacted from say the 2nd c to the 4th C.

eg. The NT has been redacted from the 4th C Codices Vaticanus & Sinaiticus to later versions.

Form critical scholars recognize the gospels as primary sources for those Christians responsible for the earliest written documents about Jesus. So do scholars who apply "memory theory" to the gospels. These scholars are studying the views and influences affecting the authors and audiences of the gospels.

This is more grey - the implication here is the narratives about the gospel-character Jesus is about a real person: something that is not proven b/c there are no primary sources about the alleged-Jesus.

The gospels are however secondary sources for the life of Jesus itself ...

This is quite wrong: there are no primary sources for the life of Jesus. By definition, as given in the links I gave in a post above [and also given in the next post below], secondary sources are sources based on primary sources.

Without primary sources about someone or something, there can not be secondary sources about them or that thing - they are merely characters or events in a narrative.

In the field of New Testament studies I have questioned some of those who have used the expression "primary sources" in relation to the early Christian literature and all in my experience have explained what they mean is the earliest available sources. Several times in their books I have read this same explanation.

Which is the point I am trying to make.

But what happens if one day we all discover that Casey and Crossley were right after all and, say, the Gospel of Matthew really was written by the disciple Matthew (or copied from his wax tablet notes that he jotted down as he walked around with Jesus) some time in the 30s CE?

Then we can call the Gospel of Matthew as a primary source for Jesus.

Yes; then we can.

Now that use of 'primary source' may be considered perfectly correct according to the "father of modern history" (von Ranke, who stressed the significance of the difference between primary and secondary sources) but at the same time it can be very misleading. It can create a false impression that the Gospel of Matthew is solid evidence for the person of Jesus, his sayings and deeds as a real person.

This seems reasonable, which makes me wonder why you have contradicted this previously in the very post I am replying to.

As for NT scholars calling their gospels "primary sources", they are correct technically according to formal von Rankean definitions if by that they mean they are the primary source material for the church in the later part of the first century.

Yes, the gospels are primary sources for the church, but maybe not for the later part of the 1st century as the jury seems to be still out on that.

[MrMacSon]

'primary sources' has a defined meaning; it is often used incorrectly.

Best it is used correctly, or another term such as 'earliest mention', or 'first mention' is best used if the information is not contemporaneous

OK, so what, exactly, would that 'correct' defined meaning be?

And who, exactly, informed you of this one and only divinely-provided definition?

See this post on the previous page.

Which has these links to These authorities

* Princeton University
* Yale University
* Library and Archives Canada
* among others

[The Crow]

Good blog article Neil. I like the way you presented the primary and secondary source examples. One question though. Can you supply links to the books you recommend at the end of that?

[theomise]

'primary sources' has a defined meaning; it is often used incorrectly.

Best it is used correctly, or another term such as 'earliest mention', or 'first mention' is best used if the information is not contemporaneous

OK, so what, exactly, would that 'correct' defined meaning be?

And who, exactly, informed you of this one and only divinely-provided definition?

See this post on the previous page.

Which has these links to These authorities

* Princeton University
* Yale University
* Library and Archives Canada
* among others

Seriously?

[neilgodfrey]

Good blog article Neil. I like the way you presented the primary and secondary source examples. One question though. Can you supply links to the books you recommend at the end of that?

Those books don't discuss "primary" and "secondary" sources as such but they do help with an overview of the sorts of things historians think they are doing:

Amazon and others probably have any of these:

On 'What Is History?': From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White by Keith Jenkins -- covers the following two in addition to postmodernism in history

What is History? by E.H. Carr

The Practice of History by G.R. Elton (who hates Carr's views)

But for a discussion of the function of primary and secondary sources in relation to biblical studies see the first chapter(s) of Niels Peter Lemche The Israelites in History and Tradition.

He discusses Leopold von Ranke's point that was a major plank in laying down the foundations of the modern practice of history. (I don't have von Ranke's book with me at the moment so unable to give you references to his works right now.)

[theomise]

.
These authorities

• Princeton University
• Yale University
• Library and Archives Canada
• among others

It matters, as you said,

• * "so we are understood and communicate with a common understanding"
  * " to the extent that we are understood by different audiences [or different people]on different occasions"

We should avoid equivocation; we should avoid ambiguity; & we should avoid special-pleading.

I contend that biblical scholars & early-Christian scholars using 'primary source' has unduly influenced the field, as a bias.

On that note, here's irrefutable proof that my particular Beef Wellington recipe (with chateau potato, kale, celeriac & parsnip mash, red wine gravy) is the One True Wellington:

http://www.exeter.ox.ac.uk/sites/exeter ... ndWine.pdf

Also, those of you with higher education degrees who have yet never experienced the wonders of Exeter College ... so sorry you won't be enjoying our 700th anniversary with us this fall.