Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ANE-2] Re: [OT?] Survey: Usage of "historicity"

Expand Messages
  • Lee Edgar Tyler
    ... From a morphological standpoint, it seems more appropriate than historicity, because it points to whether an item is historical rather than historic.
    Message 1 of 10 , May 23, 2006
      Jack Kilmon wrote:

      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: "funhistory" <yahoo-ane-2@...>
      >To: <ANE-2@yahoogroups.com>
      >Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 AM
      >Subject: [ANE-2] Re: [OT?] Survey: Usage of "historicity"
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >>>Q1.a: If "historicity" is a scientific term, what is its definition?
      >>>Ariel L. Szczupak
      >>>
      >>>
      >>I perceive it as a contraction of "historical veracity". That's the
      >>term Andrew Vaughn used in his dissertation on Chronicles ("Theology,
      >>History, & Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah"
      >>[Scholars Press, 1999]; the first "scientific publication" focusing
      >>on a specific historical controversy that pops into my mind).
      >>
      >>
      >
      >The Oxford English Dictionary states:
      >
      >historicity (hIst@"rIsItI).
      >[f. L. historic-us, historic + -ity.]
      >Historic quality or character (opposed to legendary or fictitious: see
      >historic 1).
      >1880 J. Fenton Early Hebrew Life 9 These stories are of doubtful
      >historicity.
      >1884 Farrar in Contemp. Rev. Mar. 446 Turning from the question of the
      >genuineness of the gospel to its historicity.
      >
      >But, to my way of usage there is nothing wrong with "historicalness."
      >
      >Jack Kilmon
      >San Marcos, Texas
      >
      >
      From a morphological standpoint, it seems more appropriate than
      "historicity," because it points to whether an item is "historical"
      rather than "historic." I guess the problem is that it does not flow
      trippingly off the tongue.

      Ed Tyler
    • Bea Hopkinson
      While toxic-ity seems to work for clarity of meaning, my own feeling is that historic-ity to the lay reader is more anomolous compared to veracity or
      Message 2 of 10 , May 23, 2006
        While toxic-ity seems to work for clarity of meaning, my own
        feeling is that historic-ity to the lay reader is more anomolous
        compared to 'veracity' or 'historic-al' choices you present below.

        Verbiage, the manner in which something is expressed in words, conveys
        many nuances of meaning - Clarity of meaning should be the name of the
        game. 'Historicity' just doesn't do that.

        It was once my job to get three different disciplines to work together to
        accomplish a specific goal for a Space project. The problem was that
        terminology within each discipline was not clear to the others.

        Beatrice Hopkinson


        yahoo-ane-2@...

        >> Q1.a: If "historicity" is a scientific term, what is its definition?
        >> Ariel L. Szczupak
        >
        >I perceive it as a contraction of "historical veracity". That's the
        >term Andrew Vaughn used in his dissertation on Chronicles ("Theology,
        >History, & Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah"
        >[Scholars Press, 1999]; the first "scientific publication" focusing
        >on a specific historical controversy that pops into my mind).
        >Therein he also uses:
        >
        >"historical data"
        >"historical value"
        >"historical reliability"
        >"historical understanding"
        >"historically accurate tradition (or source)"
        >
        >They almost seem synonymous. He's also pointed out elsewhere that
        >archeological data can only "raise varying degrees of probability".
        >
        >So I would define "historicity" as:
        >
        >"The quality/value of data derived from present traditions or
        >tangible artifacts of the past that raises/lowers degrees of
        >probability towards an accurate account of what happened in the past."
        >
        >The actual quality/value should not be thought of as true/false,
        >but "in flux" getting closer to or further from the truth since we
        >will never have all the data of contemporary eyewitnesses.
        >Archeology is ever ongoing. Historians can agree unanimously today,
        >but when a new datum makes headlines tomorrow, history textbooks must
        >change to accommodate it. What's the percentage of scientific
        >publications written a mere 50 years ago that have not already been
        >superseded on one or more points? "Datum/data" seems like the best
        >terminology to me because of its complete neutrality. Words
        >like "evidence" & "facts" (suggested by Szczupak in his Q3) carry too
        >much baggage for an objective definition.
        >
        >I think of History as an interpretation, & Historicity as a quality
        >test (what I've done for a living the past 2 decades) or state of the
        >interpretation, sort of like a thermometer measuring the degree of
        >probability towards certainty. Szczupak used "toxicity" as an
        >example of the word formation, & that's a good analogy since it's a
        >testimony as to how toxic something is. Since science, by
        >definition, must be testable, "historicity" is a scientific term.
        >
        >George Michael Grena, II
        >Redondo Beach, CA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.