I'm currently reading James Crossley's Jesus and the Chaos of History and really enjoying it. Among other things, James has joined those of us who are skeptical of the criteria of authenticity. I want to highlight something he says, however, because I think he's understood the implications of this shift rightly. Here's the quotation:"Emerging from under the rubble of the criteria, we are left with an old-fashioned view of interpretation, argument, and the combining of arguments for collective weight to make a general case" (Jesus and the Chaos of History, 44-45).
I'll say more about this later, but note right now that this is precisely why criticisms of those employing memory theory in Jesus studies for having failed to produce an example of how social memory theory itself indicates the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of individual traditions have misunderstood the theory from the start. It's also why the charge that we're abandoning methodology altogether is equally misplaced. What it does indicate, as I've said elsewhere, is that it is not the job of theory to do the work of the theorist.
I welcome a post criteria view. But as a veteran of the 1967-1990 Poststructuralist war, I worry about the theory that might say that we don't need practical results to prove the usefulness of the theory. Or even that the point is, that there is no point.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymous. I'm not personally aware of anyone who would take a post-criteria view who would say that we don't need practical results or that there is no point. So there might not be need to worry. :)
DeleteWhilst I would agree that as of yet we're relatively short on "practical results" I would point out that it's really only been the last decade that has seen the final swan-song of the criteria, maybe even the last half-decade. I think we're still in the negative phase, wherein we're clearing out the detritus of the old edifice. I don't actually know if the new building will be founded on social memory theory, but at the very least the discussions around social memory theory have gotten the ball rolling, and that's the most important thing at this point.
DeleteThat's perhaps correct, Jonathan. But I have to say that we're not bereft of practical results. Anthony Le Donne and I have both put social memory theory to use in answering questions about the historical Jesus. The charge that this type of work has not been offered (you didn't make this, but others have) simply is not correct. One may or may not agree with our conclusions, but the effort has been made. Also, in my opinion, the foundation of future work in historical Jesus studies will perhaps not so much be built upon social memory theory itself but upon shifted epistemological and historiographical methods and goals, to which social memory theory gives expression, alongside other methodologies. In other words, social memory theory is not the only historiographical approach that is shifting in this direction away from historical positivism.
Delete"... this is precisely why criticisms of those employing memory theory in Jesus studies for having failed to produce an example of how social memory theory itself indicates the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of individual traditions have misunderstood the theory from the start." Um, what?
ReplyDelete(Jacob Wright, Emory)
Um, thanks, Jacob. One criticism of people who have argued for using social memory theory in historical Jesus research (a criticism made by, e.g., Paul Foster) is that they haven't demonstrated how the theory itself allows you to pronounce a given piece of tradition as historically accurate or inaccurate. But this is a misunderstanding. The theory itself speaks to the complex relationship between the past and the present in any given commemorative activity, whether accurate or inaccurate. In other words, the theory was never designed to "prove" historically accuracy one way or another. That is still up to the scholar to demonstrate via argumentation, as it always has been.
DeleteBy "commemorative activity" do you mean Easter, Christmas, Eucharist, Baptism and such? Or am I misunderstanding something here? Does social memory theory also apply to the gospel narrative details where they are not associated with commemorative activities?
DeleteI mean any instance in which the past is employed in the present, so any and all of the things you've mentioned would qualify as commemorative activity. I'm not sure that I would say there are any aspects of the Gospels that would not qualify as "commemorative."
DeleteThanks Chris. That helps. I just couldn't understand the sentence. I didn't mean to be understood as criticizing your point. Jacob
DeleteNo problem. I didn't take it as such. It was a poorly constructed sentence. Mrs. Schott, my seventh-grade English teacher, would have been particularly disappointed in me.
DeleteI find myself in agreement with what you say here, as well as with what Crossley says in a general way, although I'm not sure that I'd use the language of 'old-fashioned.' The sort of procedure that Crossley describes here sounds not unlike the general methods that came to prominence in the major works of the philosophy of history during the mid-twentieth century, not too chronologically distant from the emergence of the criteria.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, I'd be interested on hearing your thoughts on Beth Sheppard's 'The Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament.' Sheppard is very keen (and in my humble opinion, rightly so) on emphasizing the role of interpretation in history.
- Jordan Ryan
Thanks, Jordan. Just taking a guess, I think Crossley probably means "old-fashioned" in the sense of scholars doing what scholar have always done rather than chronology but I'll let him speak more directly to that. To my shame, I've not read Sheppard's volume yet. It's been on the to-read list for some time.
DeleteI don't mean much by it other than a slightly ironic argument that there really isn't any guaranteed way of "getting back" to earlier tradition; all we have is educated guesswork about what earlier perceptions and interpretations might have been present. It's as much a negative argument as anything.
DeleteJames
Plus, the sentences before and after both stress the importance of interpretation. I also spent a lot of time working on historiography over the past 15 years and not sure what you're attributing me is exactly my kinda thing...
DeletePoint taken, and thanks for the clarification. I haven't read the work myself, so I'm admittedly reading it out of context. Actually, I like the cut of your jib (as clarified in these comments).
Delete- J. Ryan
So in effect, memory theory does not intend to tell us what was physically or historically real, but only what ancient subjective minds constructed?
ReplyDeleteNot really. Social memory theory forces you ask something else: Do you think you can get to, or even conceptualize, what is "physically or historically real" apart from subjective experience?
DeleteThat's long been in effect a major topic in philosophy. Many different answers were advanced. Is there any particular philosophy you favor? Barkley comes to mind.
DeleteWhoops. Berkeley.
ReplyDelete