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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Rules of evidence (was: the crucifixion)

Expand Messages
  • CFJacks
    I found your posting both interesting and helpful but it did leave me with a question: did you intend your comments to cover all sources studied by historians
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 16, 2002
      I found your posting both interesting and helpful but it did leave me with a
      question: did you intend your comments to cover all sources studied by
      historians whether "primary sources" or "secondary sources"?

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bede <bede@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:36 AM
      Subject: [XTalk] Re: Rules of evidence (was: the crucifixion)


      > I would like to add some context to the discussion between Brian,
      > Steve and others on how the Gospels are handled compared to secular
      > sources and secular history.
      >
      > First, let me make it absolutely clear that history today is
      > still "what it means" and not "what really happened". The later is
      > usually called antiquarianism and tends to be sneered at in history
      > departments while new students like me are warned of the perils of
      > spending all their time gathering proper facts instead of
      > interpreting them.
      >
      > And it tends to be the interpretations that go wrong rather than the
      > facts. There are a few exceptions (Lord MacCauley is actually
      > completely wrong on some occasions in his efforts to smear the
      > Quakers and the Duke of Marlborough), but usually even the most
      > biased historian will select, annotate and emphasise his facts
      > instead of actually inventing them.

      [the remainder has been removed]

      I conclude with a brief statement of approbation for your statement has
      clarity of both expression and content.

      Thanks,

      Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
      Professor of Religion, Emeritus
      Pikeville College,
      Pikeville, KY
      U.S.A.

      (but now happily retired to the metropolitan Atlanta area)
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/16/2 8:30:24 AM, Bede wrote: why so? Do we disconnect all the
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 17, 2002
        In a message dated 9/16/2 8:30:24 AM, Bede wrote:

        <<and try to disconnect
        links between events made by the evangelists.>>

        why so? Do we disconnect all the links between events in Cicero, the Plinys,
        Tacitus?
        We are dealing of course with cult literature, and I can see that a
        certain amount of this disconnecting links is warranted from the sources
        themselves. I would put some of the boating excursions as toss ups for pre
        or post send out. All the stuff in Luke between when he decides to go to
        Jerusalem and when he actually gets there - it's not that long of a trip;
        but to go from this to the assumption that all the sequences are worthless,
        that not one of them can be of any help - I don't see how you can assume that.

        Bill Foley
        Woburn
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.