tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post5021825578927753597..comments2023-05-02T23:19:12.706+10:00Comments on Armarium Magnum: Why History isn't Scientific (And Why It Can Still Tell Us About the Past) Tim O'Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-87954902569348149102014-11-12T11:19:48.694+11:002014-11-12T11:19:48.694+11:00@JRP
Are these methods (the criteria) analogous t...@JRP<br /><br /><i>Are these methods (the criteria) analogous to the methods used by ancient historians in general?</i><br /><br />Those criteria are the result of a particular issue in New Testament studies. Some of the reported sayings of Jesus seem things added later and other seem authentic. So those criteria developed as ways of trying to work out which were which. They are also sometimesTim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-77005344498243320482014-11-11T16:58:34.812+11:002014-11-11T16:58:34.812+11:00@JRP
Are these methods (the criteria) analogous t...@JRP<br /><br /><i>Are these methods (the criteria) analogous to the methods used by ancient historians in general?</i><br /><br />Those criteria are the result of a particular issue in New Testament studies. Some of the reported sayings of Jesus seem things added later and other seem authentic. So those criteria developed as ways of trying to work out which were which. They are also sometimesTim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-16926303606379216032014-11-11T10:29:10.104+11:002014-11-11T10:29:10.104+11:00Thanks. On a related note, I've noticed that h...Thanks. On a related note, I've noticed that historical Jesus scholars make heavy use of the so-called criteria of authenticity. Are these methods (the criteria) analogous to the methods used by ancient historians in general? Or, rather than being the same or at least an outgrowth of the primary method, are they distinctive to Jesus studies (with the implication that Jesus scholars are JRPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08633544270796487585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-30429268319457024872014-10-17T05:53:28.203+11:002014-10-17T05:53:28.203+11:00He has claimed repeatedly that in ancient historic...<i>He has claimed repeatedly that in ancient historical studies in general, one needs some sort of "external controls" before a discussion of historicity can take place.</i><br /><br />This sounds like another case of Mythers trying to impose science-like requirements and criteria on ancient history. What exactly would an "external control" look like? How ancient history Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-10126259888296003972014-10-17T03:41:53.259+11:002014-10-17T03:41:53.259+11:00Good post, Tim. Concerning the atheist Jesus-mythe...Good post, Tim. Concerning the atheist Jesus-mythers, I've got a question stemming from one of the more notorious ones. He has claimed repeatedly that in ancient historical studies in general, one needs some sort of "external controls" before a discussion of historicity can take place. I don't know if he has posted this particular quote, but it conveys his point well: "The JRPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08633544270796487585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-73272061159540389302014-06-17T15:14:43.406+10:002014-06-17T15:14:43.406+10:00there is a passage in Philippians that refers to J...<i>there is a passage in Philippians that refers to Jesus as being "in every nature God"</i><br /><br />In English translations there is. But in the Greek the word he uses is <i>morphe</i>, which doesn't mean "nature", but "shape". What does he mean by "being in <i>shape</i> God"? That's hard to determine exactly, but it certainly doesn't Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-19446666670529267242014-06-17T12:09:42.642+10:002014-06-17T12:09:42.642+10:00Tim -
I disagree with one point you made: that Pa...Tim -<br /><br />I disagree with one point you made: that Paul didn't regard Jesus as God. I don't think most scholars dispute his authorship of Philippians, and there is a passage in Philippians that refers to Jesus as being "in every nature God" and refers to Jesus as "Lord" in this passage and others. Perhaps Jesus's deity was something that Paul didn't haveTheCommonStandardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02779458044756999941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-84072422899166559782014-04-22T09:18:55.537+10:002014-04-22T09:18:55.537+10:00"His case is weak and shows little historical...<i>"His case is weak and shows little historical understanding (I am a trained historian, with a Ph.D., so I can say this)."</i><br /><br />Let me guess - you're also a Christian.Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-35755159106140672892014-04-22T08:42:11.689+10:002014-04-22T08:42:11.689+10:00Tim O'Neill: I love this post in general; a cl...Tim O'Neill: I love this post in general; a clear statement of what I have always found wrong with atheist arguments. I'm all the more surprised then, that you are relying on Bart Ehrman for anything relating to history. His expertise is in textual criticism. He is not a trained historian, much less a trained theologian, so his qualifications for discussing the history of Christology are Lori Pieperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08836493342490901953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-16611540359149783172014-04-22T05:42:43.232+10:002014-04-22T05:42:43.232+10:00Tim,
I'm not familiar with Fredricksen work, ...Tim,<br /><br />I'm not familiar with Fredricksen work, but I certainly wouldn't recommend Ehrman's "Apocalyptic" work. I found Ehrman's book to be an extended exercise in confirmation bias. I found his work to be very limited to a very American Protestant hermeneutic. Many of the "problems" that his theses solve only exist within that hermeneutic. His Wine in the Waterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16142633311407145793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-13476333863638802312014-04-22T00:35:29.840+10:002014-04-22T00:35:29.840+10:00"even though they should be just as sceptical..."even though they should be just as sceptical about being able to know about a car accident yesterday as they are about knowing about a revolution 400 years ago."<br /><br />An interesting idea I recently came across in Catholic circles is the "myth line". Like most historical method theories, it is rather nebulous and non-exact, but basically the idea is sometime between Theodore M. Seeberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315945417122366201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-33027225689630525572014-01-14T06:39:37.781+11:002014-01-14T06:39:37.781+11:00Another anonymouse squeaked:
"The author nee...Another anonymouse squeaked:<br /><br /><i>"The author need to go back and learn about SOFT (social) science which history is actually part of. "</i><br /><br />No, the author is quite aware that history is a humanities discipline and so nothing like the so-called "social sciences" and their pretentious to be theories of everything. So the author doesn't have to go back Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-56824571341960749392014-01-14T03:06:40.352+11:002014-01-14T03:06:40.352+11:00The author need to go back and learn about SOFT (s...The author need to go back and learn about SOFT (social) science which history is actually part of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-61030052771608845012014-01-08T10:20:31.770+11:002014-01-08T10:20:31.770+11:00As a follower of Jesus, a physicist, and a lover o...As a follower of Jesus, a physicist, and a lover of history (something I did not come to appreciate until High school, and all the more once I began following Jesus, reading the bible, etc...), I want to thank you for this article on history's value, and difference from hard science. Too many atheists that I talk with embarrass the hades out of themselves by refusing to even read historical Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-19808848902546161092013-12-10T00:19:51.539+11:002013-12-10T00:19:51.539+11:00@rationalityofaith I know it's fun to scoff at...@rationalityofaith I know it's fun to scoff at Americans but I would think you would know better than to generalize and direct your comment to all Americans. It's not very intelligent to stereotype a whole continent of over 315,000,000 people.Apex Predatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07946396933347023389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-5479667132957511192013-11-30T13:49:20.468+11:002013-11-30T13:49:20.468+11:00I know this is but tangentially related to your po...I know this is but tangentially related to your post, but I'm wondering if you could do a post maybe on how the "rationalism" of Continental Europe versus the "empiricism" of the Anglophone world leads to this ambiguity as to the "scientific" status of many subjects which some consider to be the "humanities" like history, anthropology, the social Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-45563990089517380142013-11-13T15:11:19.786+11:002013-11-13T15:11:19.786+11:00"The modern Christ myther can point to the Jo..."The modern Christ myther can point to the John Frum cargo cult as prime example in how in as short as 17 years all oral evidence of a actually founder has been obliterated."<br /><br />Good thing Jesus has more going for him than oral evidence (see Tacitus).<br /><br />Of course, you can go ahead and go into conspiracy theorist mode and/or attack Tacitus's competence as an Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-9553032435641782282013-11-12T07:08:26.839+11:002013-11-12T07:08:26.839+11:00Sadly this article makes the classice mistake of i...Sadly this article makes the classice mistake of ignoring SOCIAL sciences which history is a part of (along with historical anthropology which is THE field what should really be addressing the whole Jesus issue)<br /><br />The modern Christ myther can point to the John Frum cargo cult as prime example in how in as short as 17 years all oral evidence of a actually founder has been obliterated.Bruce L Grubbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04775075883293638653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-14989789769489409552013-11-12T07:06:20.522+11:002013-11-12T07:06:20.522+11:00I actually don't see a radical difference betw...I actually don't see a radical difference between physics and history. It's just that history is much, much harder to research and analyze. I hope that that someday we might have monster computers with such analytic models that will enable us to run at least simple simulations and really test historical situations.<br /><br />I don't really see how we could have serious academic stockholm slenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16909107517362691387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-15196597043875286032013-11-11T17:23:35.692+11:002013-11-11T17:23:35.692+11:00@Matthew:
Paula Fredricksen's From Jesus to C...@Matthew:<br /><br />Paula Fredricksen's <a rel="nofollow">From Jesus to Christ</a> and Bart Ehrman's <a rel="nofollow">Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium</a> should be what you're looking for.Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-88390232861487573382013-11-10T15:15:20.654+11:002013-11-10T15:15:20.654+11:00Tim,
You wrote "Only the most conservative s...Tim,<br /><br />You wrote "Only the most conservative scholars suppose that the first Jesus sect worshipped Jesus “as the incarnation of YHWH”. It’s strange that Jesus Mythers work from such naïve, Sunday school understandings of the evidence rather than actually reading the scholarship. What we see in the evidence is a sect that acknowledged Jesus as Yahweh’s anointed one and believed that MatthewGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15254081285980009609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-47494132958785574942013-11-10T00:22:52.409+11:002013-11-10T00:22:52.409+11:00At the risk of spiralling off the cusp of this top...At the risk of spiralling off the cusp of this topic, I find Tim's comments to be insightful and valuable additions to age-old questions.<br />I, too, am an atheist. I know what I mean by that without having to condescend to others' semantic definitions. Simply, I don't believe in gods. Nor can I prove they do not exist. Neither am I "anti gods" or "anti religion".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-90038032752270656802013-11-08T15:06:02.512+11:002013-11-08T15:06:02.512+11:00@Lucius
First of all, I won’t take offence at goo...@Lucius<br /><br />First of all, I won’t take offence at good comment that raises some interesting issues. The post you’ve commented on was written as a guest post on another blog and one aimed at a particular audience. If I was writing it specifically for <i>Armarium Magnum</i> and its audience the post would probably be much longer, much more detailed and more nuanced on several points.<br />Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-4749047963211490812013-11-07T20:11:29.503+11:002013-11-07T20:11:29.503+11:00Long time reader, first time commenter.
I have a ...Long time reader, first time commenter.<br /><br />I have a very big problem with your introduction into this post. "History is not a science." Maybe it is due to my European bias, as you imply, but I cannot, for the life of me, see why the historical method is unfit to be classified as science.<br /><br />The basic outline of scientific method is: hypothesis -> experiment -> Luciusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6774463840913796679.post-29049347084603502682013-11-07T05:41:58.568+11:002013-11-07T05:41:58.568+11:00An Anonymouse squeaked:
I have a small problem wi...An Anonymouse squeaked:<br /><br /><i>I have a small problem with your definition of Atheism.</i><br /><br />I don't give a definition of atheism in my post, so I have no idea what you're talking about.<br /><br /><i> I tend to believe Atheism is simply non belief in gods, ala Sam Harris.</i><br /><br />That would be what I mean by the word as well. So, again, I have no idea what you'Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.com