W. M. Ramsay seems to have appreciated some similar ways of thinking.
https://archive.org/details/bearingofre ... 9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/bearingofre ... 9/mode/2up
HISTORICAL criticism is subject to great variety of judgment. With obviously equal honesty some critics will praise the trustworthiness of an authority whom others decry as prejudiced and utterly untrustworthy. Even in regard to an author who is so carefully and so dispassionately studied as Thucydides, the most contradictory opinions are maintained. Most scholars regard him as the greatest of historians and a model of impartial judgment and dispassionate statement, but a few go to the opposite extreme, and pronounce him a skilful perverter of historical truth.
It is therefore not to be wondered at that, in a sphere where the feelings of mankind are deeply engaged, where opposing emotions and tendencies are concerned, and where dispassionate consideration is hardly practicable as is the case in the domain of religion similar diversity of opinion should reign in an equal or greater degree. Hence the long dispute about the trustworthiness of the New Testament, and about the authenticity of the books contained in it. Did Luke write the Acts of the Apostles, and, if so, can what he says there be accepted as trustworthy ? Such is the character of the problem ; and many on both sides of the discussion seem to enter on it with their minds already made up on crucial questions and with their feelings deeply stirred.
As the variety of opinions In these typical cases proves, arguments regarding the trustworthiness of the ancient authors generally cannot be dissociated from a certain element of subjectivity, and made purely scientific. Human beings always have judged and will judge diversely in such matters, according to their varying idiosyncrasy, and will come to opposite conclusions on the same evidence. Even about contemporary history, where the facts In their superficial outlines are known and admitted, diametrically opposite judgments are pronounced by skilled and educated onlookers. Taking the verbatim report of a speech delivered on any question of public affairs, some will condemn it as trifling with truth and glossing over the facts, while others praise It as an Impartial and correct statement of the critical points In the case. People decide in accordance with their predilections and prejudices, and in general one could tell beforehand which of one's acquaintances would praise the speech and which would condemn it.
We must therefore frankly acknowledge that a thoroughly scientific character cannot be given to the present or to any similar argument regarding historical trustworthiness ; the same reasoning which convinces one, will fail to convince another ; each reader will estimate according to his own character, and every statement of the argument will vary according to the quality of the writer. On this account it seems better to give to these lectures a form that is In accordance with the elementary conditions of the case. The personal qualities of the author must influence his statement of the reasoning. Let us admit at the outset the subjective element in the present treatment of and others will judge for themselves; but it seems then necessary to premise a statement regarding his bent and attitude of mind, so that readers may be in a position to judge what allowance to make for his prejudices and proclivities and personal bias. The writer, of course, cannot describe his own personal quality ; and yet the readers, if any be found, ought to have in their hands some means of gauging and correcting the reasoning according to his tendencies.
While it would obviously be impossible for him to make any useful estimate of his own character and bias, it is possible to mention the stages in the growth of the plan which guides the writer's work, keeping the statement as objective as can be ; and this is attempted in the following chapter. Such an attempt must, from its nature, be personal, and may be condemned by some or by many as impertinent and egotistical. Those who so judge are begged to omit the rest of the introduction, and proceed to Part II, where the course of lectures begins. Some, who are likely to be in sympathy with the method that governs the book as a whole, will find that the introduction is an essential part of it.
It is therefore not to be wondered at that, in a sphere where the feelings of mankind are deeply engaged, where opposing emotions and tendencies are concerned, and where dispassionate consideration is hardly practicable as is the case in the domain of religion similar diversity of opinion should reign in an equal or greater degree. Hence the long dispute about the trustworthiness of the New Testament, and about the authenticity of the books contained in it. Did Luke write the Acts of the Apostles, and, if so, can what he says there be accepted as trustworthy ? Such is the character of the problem ; and many on both sides of the discussion seem to enter on it with their minds already made up on crucial questions and with their feelings deeply stirred.
As the variety of opinions In these typical cases proves, arguments regarding the trustworthiness of the ancient authors generally cannot be dissociated from a certain element of subjectivity, and made purely scientific. Human beings always have judged and will judge diversely in such matters, according to their varying idiosyncrasy, and will come to opposite conclusions on the same evidence. Even about contemporary history, where the facts In their superficial outlines are known and admitted, diametrically opposite judgments are pronounced by skilled and educated onlookers. Taking the verbatim report of a speech delivered on any question of public affairs, some will condemn it as trifling with truth and glossing over the facts, while others praise It as an Impartial and correct statement of the critical points In the case. People decide in accordance with their predilections and prejudices, and in general one could tell beforehand which of one's acquaintances would praise the speech and which would condemn it.
We must therefore frankly acknowledge that a thoroughly scientific character cannot be given to the present or to any similar argument regarding historical trustworthiness ; the same reasoning which convinces one, will fail to convince another ; each reader will estimate according to his own character, and every statement of the argument will vary according to the quality of the writer. On this account it seems better to give to these lectures a form that is In accordance with the elementary conditions of the case. The personal qualities of the author must influence his statement of the reasoning. Let us admit at the outset the subjective element in the present treatment of and others will judge for themselves; but it seems then necessary to premise a statement regarding his bent and attitude of mind, so that readers may be in a position to judge what allowance to make for his prejudices and proclivities and personal bias. The writer, of course, cannot describe his own personal quality ; and yet the readers, if any be found, ought to have in their hands some means of gauging and correcting the reasoning according to his tendencies.
While it would obviously be impossible for him to make any useful estimate of his own character and bias, it is possible to mention the stages in the growth of the plan which guides the writer's work, keeping the statement as objective as can be ; and this is attempted in the following chapter. Such an attempt must, from its nature, be personal, and may be condemned by some or by many as impertinent and egotistical. Those who so judge are begged to omit the rest of the introduction, and proceed to Part II, where the course of lectures begins. Some, who are likely to be in sympathy with the method that governs the book as a whole, will find that the introduction is an essential part of it.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu May 23, 2024 7:39 pm