Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:04:47 -0400


Doug Jantz said, in part:

>>Is there such a thing as real objectivity? Maybe, maybe not. All
of us are influenced by and conditioned by our environment and
culture. As Ron says, we should be able to distinguish between
between the author's world and ours, but I am not convinced we can
derive black and white conclusions about the texts we study from this
alone.<<

You've touched upon one of the biggest issues currently under debate
by philosophers of history. The historical method was initially based
upon strict empirical assumptions that prompted historians to think of
their explanations of facts as objective reconstructions of past
events. This was later questioned by philosophers employing linguistic
theories, particularly the post structuralist movement called
deconstructionism, who stressed the relative nature of knowledge
itself and in the process came to many of the same conclusions that
you did. History does not have to devolve into a quivering mass of
relativity. Most deconstructionists are happy merely to have
historians stress the relative nature of our modern perceptions of
past events, and even appreciate the instructional value of those
differences. They do not say "Give up history! What's the point?"

To those committed exclusively to a psychologically oriented theology
(that is, their theology need only deal with their
social-psychological needs), history plays only a peripheral issue.
They may even *want* to throw up their hands and disavow history, as
it has questioned a good many assumptions about Christian origins and
theology, and thus created psychological dissonance for them. Others
do not have this problem, feeling history is what history is. To them,
theology has to come to terms with history, and many schools of
thought have evolved to do just that. If there is a problem with
history, it has to do with how theological interpretation makes use of
it.

To me, history is like an impressionistic painting. Up close it
consists of individual daubs of paint. We can count and position the
daubs, analyze the pigments and their mixtures in each daub, their
textures, and relate the various daubs together based upon these
characteristics, yet it may still seem to be a chaotic mess up close.
But step back a couple feet and an image appears. It is not going to
be a real person or object, just a representation of it, and we
interpret that representation based upon our own experiences. The more
we know about the painter, the period in which he/she lived, and the
persons or situations being represented, the better we can appreciate
the painting. But never think that an experienced art critic's
appreciation of a painting is not influenced by the colors and
textures of the pigments, binding agents and techniques for their
application, or of the canvas used, etc.! It all makes a difference.

It is no wonder that many techniques used in modern biblical
interpretation have a basis in art criticism! A very nice, short, book
that I have been exposed to is _Art and Reality_ by the writer Joyce
Cary. I would recommend it (if it is still in print) as it puts many
analytical and interpretive issues relevant to biblical criticism into
perspective.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page