Comments on: Resurrection – a non-conversation http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/ a few graffiti on the wall of life Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:45:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Metacatholic | Yet again, historiography and the virginal conception http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-2111 Metacatholic | Yet again, historiography and the virginal conception Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:26:59 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-2111 [...] should be coupled together simply because they are “miraculous”.The resurrection leaves historical footprints, which I think would be significantly different had it not happened. I can see no way in which [...] [...] should be coupled together simply because they are “miraculous”.The resurrection leaves historical footprints, which I think would be significantly different had it not happened. I can see no way in which [...]

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-480 doug Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:05:33 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-480 <p>I still have the feeling that people are talking past each other here. There is a strong historical discipline which works with a matrix of cause and effect. In that sense I mean, I think, exactly the same as James Crossley. The resurrection, theologically speaking, is about the ushering in of a new age, a new humanity, an eschatological future and an act of God. I prefer to call it an event in history rather than an historical event, since it has no historical cause (and hence is problematic for the historian), but leaves many historical footprints (and hence is relevant to the historian). I think that those who call it an historical event miss the lack of historical cause, and those who say it doesn't belong to history fail to take account of the historical effects.</p> <p>PS I don't have a doctorate (yet - I hope) so Doug will do fine on this blog.</p> I still have the feeling that people are talking past each other here. There is a strong historical discipline which works with a matrix of cause and effect. In that sense I mean, I think, exactly the same as James Crossley. The resurrection, theologically speaking, is about the ushering in of a new age, a new humanity, an eschatological future and an act of God. I prefer to call it an event in history rather than an historical event, since it has no historical cause (and hence is problematic for the historian), but leaves many historical footprints (and hence is relevant to the historian). I think that those who call it an historical event miss the lack of historical cause, and those who say it doesn’t belong to history fail to take account of the historical effects.

PS I don’t have a doctorate (yet - I hope) so Doug will do fine on this blog.

]]> By: JD Walters http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-477 JD Walters Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:43:24 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-477 Dr. Chaplin, Dr. DeConick misunderstood my point about the ultimate explanation of the universe. That relates to what one thinks is POSSIBLE, not what one thinks is historically likely. I was careful to separate possibility from historical likelihood, because as far as I am concerned they are separate questions or rather, admitting the possibility of something is at most a precondition for advancing to historical likelihood. I'm not sure what you mean about the 'canons of modern historiography'. I hear this vague appeal quite a bit (including in James Crossley's recent post on the Resurrection, in which he appeals to 'conventional historical methodology') but have no idea what it is supposed to mean, other than the slightly naive statement that historians qua historians cannot appeal to supernatural explanations. I'm sure that's not what you take it to mean, but I would appreciate a little more elucidation. Dr. Chaplin,

Dr. DeConick misunderstood my point about the ultimate explanation of the universe. That relates to what one thinks is POSSIBLE, not what one thinks is historically likely. I was careful to separate possibility from historical likelihood, because as far as I am concerned they are separate questions or rather, admitting the possibility of something is at most a precondition for advancing to historical likelihood.

I’m not sure what you mean about the ‘canons of modern historiography’. I hear this vague appeal quite a bit (including in James Crossley’s recent post on the Resurrection, in which he appeals to ‘conventional historical methodology’) but have no idea what it is supposed to mean, other than the slightly naive statement that historians qua historians cannot appeal to supernatural explanations. I’m sure that’s not what you take it to mean, but I would appreciate a little more elucidation.

]]> By: Jim Deardorff http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-476 Jim Deardorff Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:52:49 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/07/resurrection-a-non-conversation/#comment-476 I would agree with April DeConick against your "Historicity – did it actually happen – does indeed depend on one’s view of the universe." If you mean that the occurrence of an event can depend upon an interpretation of what that event was, and that interpretation can differ between persons, then I'll agree. But doesn't "historicity" refer to the actual facts, assuming that one's understanding of them is essentially valid? I would agree with April DeConick against your “Historicity – did it actually happen – does indeed depend on one’s view of the universe.” If you mean that the occurrence of an event can depend upon an interpretation of what that event was, and that interpretation can differ between persons, then I’ll agree. But doesn’t “historicity” refer to the actual facts, assuming that one’s understanding of them is essentially valid?

]]>