Comments on: Part II: Historiographical Methods and Biblical Christology: General Principles http://percaritatem.com/2007/10/05/part-ii-historiographical-methods-and-biblical-christology-general-principles/ Non intratur in veritatem nisi per caritatem. St. Augustine Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:27:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Tim Enloe http://percaritatem.com/2007/10/05/part-ii-historiographical-methods-and-biblical-christology-general-principles/comment-page-1/#comment-1445 Tim Enloe Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:17:38 +0000 http://percaritatem.com/2007/10/05/part-ii-historiographical-methods-and-biblical-christology-general-principles/#comment-1445 Micah, I guess I don't know enough about the Way of Ideas and the Correspondence Theory of Truth to evaluate your suggestion. Father Roch is here relying heavily on Ricouer (sp?), whom I also have not read, but whom I gather from other sources is not exactly a modernist. He quotes Ricouer several times in the section in question, particularly to say that the object of history is the human subject, not brute "facts." Micah, I guess I don’t know enough about the Way of Ideas and the Correspondence Theory of Truth to evaluate your suggestion. Father Roch is here relying heavily on Ricouer (sp?), whom I also have not read, but whom I gather from other sources is not exactly a modernist. He quotes Ricouer several times in the section in question, particularly to say that the object of history is the human subject, not brute “facts.”

]]> By: Micah Tillman http://percaritatem.com/2007/10/05/part-ii-historiographical-methods-and-biblical-christology-general-principles/comment-page-1/#comment-1439 Micah Tillman Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:55:23 +0000 http://percaritatem.com/2007/10/05/part-ii-historiographical-methods-and-biblical-christology-general-principles/#comment-1439 I am really enjoying this mini-series. Thank you! One question, re: "This does not necessarily render a given historical account false or distorted, but it does render all of them limited approximations." One uses the term "approximations" in mathematical/graphing contexts. We say that one function approximates another. Models approximate what they model, we could say. But is an account of an event something that can approximate the event it describes? I could see saying that an account necessarily only reveals one angle or side of an event. But "approximate" reminds me of the modernist's Way of Ideas and Correspondence Theory of Truth. Why am I talking? Read the first line again. That's what I'm actually trying to say. I am really enjoying this mini-series. Thank you!

One question, re: “This does not necessarily render a given historical account false or distorted, but it does render all of them limited approximations.”

One uses the term “approximations” in mathematical/graphing contexts. We say that one function approximates another. Models approximate what they model, we could say.

But is an account of an event something that can approximate the event it describes? I could see saying that an account necessarily only reveals one angle or side of an event. But “approximate” reminds me of the modernist’s Way of Ideas and Correspondence Theory of Truth.

Why am I talking? Read the first line again. That’s what I’m actually trying to say.

]]>