tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post4436942721247060485..comments2023-09-13T10:53:12.598-05:00Comments on Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]: Commentary on Bart Ehrman's NPR InterviewAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-60262560435223940632014-04-10T09:08:07.188-05:002014-04-10T09:08:07.188-05:00Casey the Commie,
Welcome!
First, regarding th...Casey the Commie,<br /><br />Welcome! <br /><br /> First, regarding the definition of history...<br />There seem to me to be two prominent notions of "history." There is what you say as the "chronicle of human change" (though that seems a bit restrictive insofar as it leaves out the chronicling of what's remained the same). Call this notion of history, "recorded history." When we read history or take a history class we read recorded history (unless of course it's not history but propaganda).<br />But that's not the only notion of history. When I say that Crimea's history is known by few historians, or when I say that we only know a small fraction of Russia's history, or when I say that I've forgotten most of my own personal history, I'm invoking a different sense of "history." And this sense, though perhaps not identical with "x's past," IS close to having the same extension as "x's past." This sense (like the past) is hard to define, nonetheless, it seems to me to be the paradigm instance of "history," for that is the history that (sincere) historians are trying to (re)discover and record when they write their "histories." <br /><br />Ehrman appears to rule out by definition that the history of the world might contain miraculous events to be (re)discovered. Not only that, it rules out that there is a segment of the world's history period (miracles or not) which might not ever be recalled--for the only history there is (according to him) is what we can show to be true about the past. That definition leaves no room for discovering bits of history which we can't now show to be true or even forming reasonable beliefs about history which nonetheless can't be shown to be true.<br /><br />But I don't want to get hung up arguing about what is really a secondary point when my main point is that Ehrman appears to arbitrarily rule out recording or claiming that miracles have occurred in the past as outside the discipline of history. Now, maybe he's just making a boring de facto claim: historians just don't do that sort of thing today. As a matter of fact it's just not done in the discipline. But he doesn't sound to me to be making a claim about the current state of affairs; rather, he's making a de jure claim. There is something wrong or problematic or unseemly about a historian claiming that a miracle occurred in the past. The nature of history doesn't allow for it. But why think that? Is it because miracles are unlikely and thus we couldn't be certain of their occurrence? But why think miracles are unlikely? And even if they are, that Jones wins the lottery is extremely unlikely, but there are historical records of lottery winners. Or suppose I'm a historian writing my own autobiography. Suppose further that an angel appeared to me last year when I was in a completely lucid state. What is wrong with recording that an angel appeared to me? Wouldn't I be leaving out a very significant event if I didn't record it as happening? What's the problem with that? Is it just that I could be wrong--I could be mis-remembering? Or that I'm interpreting my experience as one of being appeared-to-angelically rather than as an hallucination? But historians interpret things all the time and could be wrong about all sorts of claims. Why are non-natural claims picked out for special abuse? <br /><br />Again, my suspicion is that Ehrman's agnosticism is at play in ruling out the very possibility of recorded history saying anything at all about the occurrence of miracles. He thinks there just can't be good evidence for miracles, so good historians shouldn't report that there have been any. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-5746289773222947992014-04-09T18:29:28.966-05:002014-04-09T18:29:28.966-05:00Too clever by half, friend. Ehrman's definiti...Too clever by half, friend. Ehrman's definition of history, insofar as the philosophy of the discipline is concerned, is spot-on. I'll concede that his language is inartful, so let me add my own clarification, with the caveat that I do not purport to put words in his mouth: "history," per se, is the chronicle of human change; that is, it is the narrative assembled as a function of archaeological and documentary evidence. We interpret the evidence and advance those interpretations as possible explanations for human behavior. Admittedly, those interpretations are virtually never definitive, which yields the field of historiography, and gives the discipline ongoing rigor. But it is NOT the "past." The contrast is therefore apt: while Ehrman's grandfather's 1956 brunch remains a part of the PAST, it is a part of the undocumented past, which denies historians the access they require to make that meal a part of the historical record—it is cannot therefore be history. We can speculate as to what he ate, or even THAT he ate (what if unknown circumstances forced him to skip meals that day?), I suppose, but then we begin to interpret beyond our available evidence, and the entire historical enterprise becomes precarious and tentative.<br /><br />Miraculous works are no different in this regard than what we define as prehistory. We know that human civilization existed prior to our capacity to document its activities, and we yearn to understand that era to the best of our ability, but there's little we can do in the realm of history absent the evidence necessary to advance an interpretation. But that does not mean that historians reject the notion that prehistorical change occurred. Miraculous works, in my view, can fall into this same space, and it is this space that Ehrman describes. Historians of faith may well acknowledge that undocumented miracles occurred in the past, but absent evidence, we cannot responsibly integrate them into the historical record according to the standards and practices of the professionalized discipline (i.e., von Ranke forward).Casey the Communist Usurpernoreply@blogger.com