84359

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.atheism:54169 talk.religion.misc:84359 talk.origins:41165
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!ulysses!ulysses.att.com!mls
From: [e-mail] (Michael L. Siemon)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)
Summary: Use of historical sources ...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:37:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Cobb) writes:

>In <1ren9a$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Salem) 
>writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Cobb) writes:

>>>Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus.  I realize it is normally tossed
>>>out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons?

>> It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
>>unbiased and independant? 

Bruce hits the main point simply -- as Russell Turpin does in more detail
in his response.  *All* sources are, in modern historiography, to be used
critically, which is simply to say that any claims deriving from them are
subject to *specific* examination in the light of motives and other HUMAN
considerations (as well as the physical background).  The critical method
applies BOTH to the original document AND to the uses made of it by others
(most emphatically *including* the historical researchers themselves.)

>wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second 
>hand?  I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand.  I know, there is bias,
>and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best
>still apply?

But given the critical principle, what evidence is there that we have
ANYTHING at ALL from "firsthand" sources about Jesus?  Paul's letters are
indeed firsthand evidence ABOUT PAUL and his interactions.  They are, as
a result, the most historically solid books in the NT.  Paul's claims and
descriptions about his conflicts with Jerusalem may not be "wie es eigent-
lich gewesen" -- but they are most definitely the comments of a participant!
In other words, we'd evaluate Paul's statements more or less as we would
the testimony of a witness in court.

The gospels are another story altogether.  Luke is most assuredly NOT a
firsthand witness.  He *claims* to have gathered material that is closer
to the actual events -- but this is a conventional claim in ancient books
and Luke in fact NEVER NAMES a witness or points to any one thing in his
book(s) which derive from any source *we* can detect behind Luke.  John
has a concluding remark that it derives from the testimony of a beloved
disciple (who is NOT named.)  We are not bound to accept this claim (for
a long time, some scholars rejected it outright), but even if we do, it
makes the fourth gospel as we have it *at best* secondhand.  Neither Mark
nor Matthew make any claims to be firsthand.  Later (much later) Christian
tradition associates the first gosple with Matthew and a possible Aramaic
proto-gospel, and associates Mark with Peter as having something like the
same second-hand status of recounting Peter's preaching of the gospel.

Such traditional claims run into difficulties if we try to evaluate the
actual data before us.  Luke and Matthew both appear to use (differently!)
an anonymous and not otherwise attested collection of _logoi_ (words and
deeds) of Jesus, as well as to be dependent on Mark.  This makes their
testimony AT LEAST thirdhand.

All that said, historians DO attempt to glean whatever they can from the
NT sources, and they are overwhelmingly the obvious and best sources for
anything about the earliest Church.  They are also *extremely* important
for the light they cast (however refracted through Christian biases) on
the sectarian world of Judaism just before and around the time of the
destruction of the 2nd Temple.

The problem of "the historical Jesus" is tricky, however.  There is a
cycle of fashion on this (and we are now near a major "high" in people
thinking they *can* discern [with historico-critical plausibility] some-
thing about Jesus' life and opinions from the NT.  The difficulty here
(which dominated thinking 50 years ago, and will probably return to favor
in another generation :-)) was pointed out by Bultmann, after Schweitzer's
treatment at the end of the previous high-point on the cycle -- simply
BECAUSE all our sources have passed through AT LEAST one layer of quite
anonymous shaping WITHIN the early Church, we have no easy and reliable
way to distribute ANY part of the material between "real" history and the
inventions of the Church.  There are few "radical skeptics" who think we
have nothing of history in the gospels [though such a position can be
maintained], but neither have we any tools that can distinguish "shaping"
of real historical material by its communal use as opposed to "invention."
--
Michael L. Siemon		"Stand, stand at the window
[e-mail]		 	    As the tears scald and start.
[e-mail]	 	You shall love your crooked neighbor
-standard disclaimer- 	 	    With your crooked heart."