Re: [XTalk] definition of history
- At 12:26 PM 12/23/00 , Bob Miller wrote:
>Bob Schacht wrote:Then one must conclude that *all* hstorical knowledge is relative to the
>>"First, Miller's definition of history bothers me because I feel nervous
>>about cutting ourselves loose from "what happened in the past" as the
>>ultimate standard of history. What I hear Miller clearly saying is that
>>things that happened that we cannot "know" about are not a part of history.
>>This seems a bit myopic to me. It seems to rule out, ex cathedra, some of
>>the things about Jesus that his contemporaries felt were most important.
>>We are close here to what I call the tyranny of the Normal."
>Bob, there's no philosophical agenda here, just a definition that insists
>that history is a form of human knowledge. So if something happened that
>no one knows about anymore, then it cannot be part of our historical
>knowledge. If in the future we discover evidence of that event, then it
>will be part of our history. The Dead Sea Scrolls existed since whenever
>they were written, but were not part of history until they were
>discovered in this century. Things that Jesus did that nobody
>remembered, and for which we have no evidence, are not part of our
>intellectual construct called the "historical Jesus."
standards of the day, and that like Marcus Borg and others have argued,
each generation must re-write the book on the historical Jesus for itself?
>I will be traveling for a few weeks and so drop out of this list for aThanks for your contributions to the conversation!
>while. Thanks to all for the stimulating conversation.