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

Don Denton Article uploaded

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    In the light of the discussion prompted by references here to Don Denton s work on historiography and HJ studies, I am pleased to announce that I have uploaded
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In the light of the discussion prompted by references here to Don
      Denton's work on historiography and HJ studies, I am pleased to announce
      that I have uploaded to our Articles for Review Page the recent paper on
      these matters that Don presented recently at the SBL .

      List Members may access it at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/Historian%2C%20the%20Past%2C%20and%20Narrative%20Intelligibility.html

      I hope it will provoke fruitful discussion.

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson

      P.S. Please note that the article is copyrighted to Don. Permission to
      quote it outside of the confines of XTalk must be secured from the
      author.
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Floor 1
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...
    • Bob Schacht
      ... A belated thanks to Don and Jeffrey for posting this. My response has been delayed by such things as death (of an uncle) and taxes, the eternal verities.
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:18 PM 4/1/2002 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
        >In the light of the discussion prompted by references here to Don
        >Denton's work on historiography and HJ studies, I am pleased to announce
        >that I have uploaded to our Articles for Review Page the recent paper on
        >these matters that Don presented recently at the SBL .
        >
        >List Members may access it at:
        >
        ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/Historian%2C%20the%20Past%2C%20and%20Narrative%20Intelligibility.html>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Articles%20for%20Review/Historian%2C%20the%20Past%2C%20and%20Narrative%20Intelligibility.html
        >
        >I hope it will provoke fruitful discussion.
        >
        >Yours,
        >
        >Jeffrey Gibson
        >
        >P.S. Please note that the article is copyrighted to Don. Permission to
        >quote it outside of the confines of XTalk must be secured from the
        >author.
        >--

        A belated thanks to Don and Jeffrey for posting this. My response has been
        delayed by such things as death (of an uncle) and taxes, the eternal
        verities. Now that I have had time to read Don's article, I strongly
        recommend it, and hope that he publishes it.
        The general theme is "objectivity" and what it means in light of our
        current state of awareness. For example, what can it mean to be "objective"
        about the historical Jesus? The answer is not as simple as we used to think.

        Don examines the work of Dom Crossan and Ben Meyer regarding this issue.
        Which brings me to my first question:
        Crossan's chosen method is "Interactivism," by which he means "The past
        and the present must interact with one another, each
        changing and challenging the other, and the ideal is an absolutely fair and
        equal reaction between one another."

        Interestingly, Meyer's Critical Realism also depends on interaction, but in
        his case Denton uses the word "reciprocal," and the reciprocity is between
        the historian and her data.

        I wonder if these two positions actually bear more similarity than is first
        apparent? For example, what on earth does Crossan mean by "The past and
        the present must interact with one another, each changing and challenging
        the other, and the ideal is an absolutely fair and equal reaction between
        one another"? One can easily see how the past affects the present, but it
        is not so readily apparent how the present affects the past, because of the
        unique directionality of time. Of course, what is left out of the one
        sentence quote is the role of the *historian:* it is the *historian* in the
        present who, interacting with the data of the past, re-shapes her (and then
        our) understanding of the past. Is this not what Crossan means?

        So aren't they really making the same point, or have I totally
        misunderstood the situation?

        Second question: I have a sense of deja vu in reading about these issues.
        Lurking(?) in the background is the myth that history is a purely inductive
        enterprise, and that as one collects the data, "The Greek Stones Speak," in
        the words of Paul McKendrick. But it is rather old news to point out that
        this is never done. In the words of systems theorists, a collection of data
        is just a "heap" (that's a technical word in system-speak) that does not by
        itself make any sense. In the language of the 1960s(?), the process of
        induction is inevitably accompanied by a parallel process of deduction,
        which imposes order on the "heap" by arranging the data according to
        current theoretical notions (or less sophisticated understandings). The
        mantra of the 1960s was that the only honest thing to do was to make
        explicit the theoretical notions you were using to organize your data,
        including the assumptions on which the theories were based. Of course it is
        the scientist or historian who decides *which* theoretical notions to use
        in organizing the data. And no one was really saying first you should do
        induction, and then when you're finished, do Deduction, or vice versa.
        There was widespread(?) recognition that the process was reciprocal
        ("Feedback" was the systems terminology usually applied to that process).

        I also suggest examination of Denton's use of the word "question," which
        plays an important role in his analysis. We all know how questions shape
        discourse. The classic example of "When did you stop beating your wife?"
        illustrates how assumptions and conclusions can be built into questions, so
        that the very act of asking a question is not a naive matter, but
        presupposes many things. Furthermore, most of us are aware that a *good*
        question is worth quite a few mediocre "answers." [BTW, this principle has
        been amply demonstrated on this list, and its HarperCollins predecessor,
        many times over. However, I suppose a better authority would be
        Socrates.] So one must also think about the nature of questioning. The
        1960s answer was that questions are drawn from theoretical understandings
        that may or may not be implicit. Which brings us again to the interaction
        between induction and deduction.

        So have we really made progress here, or have we just found new words to
        describe an already well-known phenomenon?

        I also found Denton's analysis of Carr and the important role of teleology
        in historical inquiry quite relevant and interesting. It was my impression
        that critical scholarship "frowned" on such things, but if Carr is right
        that teleology is unavoidable [i.e., that we cannot and perhaps should not
        "bracket" our beliefs when we work as scholars], then perhaps it must be
        dealt with differently. At first glance, it seems to me that Carr's
        teleology is a subspecies of the larger issue of deductive inquiry, but I
        could be wrong about that.

        In short, I sense that a parallel course has been taken in philosophy of
        science and philosophy of history that addresses many of the same issues,
        with in many ways similar results, but that these currents take place
        mostly in ignorance of each other, and that there are few people equally
        conversant with both who can also speak well to both streams of philosophy.
        There are important consequences for historical Jesus research.

        So thanks, Don, for a very interesting article.

        Bob


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.