corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:55:57 +0200
Eric:
> In science, only the data (here, the primary
> sources) are evidence (some of much higher quality than others), but no
> scholar's interpretation is evidence for anything.
I am puzzled. If no interpretation is evidence for anything then how can we
know that the data are evidence for anything to begin with? How do we know
that we are dealing with primary sources and to what they are primary? How do
we know that we can rely on Nestle-Aland? How do we decide that texts are to
be put into artificial families of texts and then be judged according to
their 'historical reliability' (to name but one textcritical principal of
interpretation). Especially with Acts, how do know which of the texts of Acts
is primary unless by means of many acts of interpretation?
And even if we were able to decide on what are primary sources of
Christbelieving Judaism without relying on processes of careful
determination and interpretation (which of course is impossible), how are
these data accessible at all unless they are assessed? But how do I assess
data without saying something about them? And how do I say something about
the data written in complicated foreign languages in English or Swedish or
whatever without engaging in interpretation someway or another? How would I
communicate my knowledge about the data to others without naming it (Paul's
letter to the Galatians, for instance), i.e. interpreting it?
In historical science at least, I don't think there is anything but
interpreted data. And this holds true just as much for coins, stones and
pottery as well as for texts. In other words, I have to accept that whatever
evidence I appeal to, even whatever convictions I am dedicating my efforts
to, I am likely to be laughed at a few years (decades if I'm lucky) down the
road. This was the fate of great 'scientists' like Adolf von Harnack, who was
stripped naked (so it seemed at least at the time) by Albert Schweitzer, who
then was stripped......
Dieter Mitternacht
Lund Univerisity
-
Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence
, (continued)
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, David Inglis, 08/27/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Eric Zuesse, 08/27/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Stephen C. Carlson, 08/28/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Eric Zuesse, 08/28/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Mark D. Nanos, 08/29/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Eric Zuesse, 08/29/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Steve Black, 08/29/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Mark D. Nanos, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Steve Black, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Eric Zuesse, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Dieter Mitternacht, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Eric Zuesse, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, David C. Hindley, 08/30/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, Dieter Mitternacht, 08/31/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, LeeEdgarTyler, 08/31/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, David C. Hindley, 08/31/2002
- Re: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, David Inglis, 08/31/2002
- RE: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence, David C. Hindley, 08/31/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.