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: Doug Jantz <dwjantz AT swbell.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Does True Historian = Objective Historian?
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:52:39 -0500

 

"David C. Hindley" wrote:

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?"

(rest snipped)

History as we know it seems to change constantly.  We do not know all of the history of Paul's time to ALWAYS determine exactly what he meant in every text.  As most of you have read by now explorer Robert Ballard has discovered what appears to be a home from a community 7000 years ago buried in the Black Sea 12 miles off the Turkish coast.  He believes it to be associated with the biblical flood story.  A quote from USA Today on 9/13/2000 caught my eye.  "Experts say the discovery will force scholars to rewrite the history of ancient civilizations."

As we have been discussing even history cannot be written in stone for we do not know what yet is to be discovered.  All of our interpretations of Paul or anyone else are tentative at best.  As David wrote of art in a part I snipped, yes, our preferences color interpretation.  Inclinations, culture, upbringing, etc., all contribute to how each of us sees things and texts of Paul and others.  Literalists have always maintained that things are the way they are.  Really?  What about things we have not yet seen?
 

--
Doug Jantz
Springfield, Missouri
SMSU Religious Studies Program

dwjantz AT swbell.net
<http://home.swbell.net/dwjantz>
 

begin:vcard 
n:Jantz;Douglas
tel;cell:417.353.2500
tel;fax:417.886.0450
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.swbell.net/dwjantz
org:D&M Enterprises
adr:;;1304 E. Republic Rd. #180;Springfield;Missouri;65804;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:dwjantz AT swbell.net
fn:Douglas Jantz
end:vcard



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page