In the study of history there are no objective facts, only interpreted data. There is no objective Jesus, no artefact (‘the historical Jesus’) at the bottom of the literary tell to be uncovered by clearing away all the layers of tradition. All we have is the remembered Jesus, Jesus seen through the eyes of those who followed him, Jesus enshrined in the memories they shared and the stories they told and retold among themselves.
Jesus Remembered, Eerdmans, 672-73
Comments
I don’t agree with Dunn’s view of history.
Your reasons?
On Tuesday 12th October 2011 around 12.00 noon (GMT), David Cameron addressed the British House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions.
An objective historical event took place.
But if 2000 years later the only record of that event was three or four biographies of Cameron written 30 years later by his died-in-the-wool Tories, historians might be a bit more doubtful about its objectivity than if they had just heard the event on Radio 5 Live.
No doubt.
But Dunn’s point is broader than that, denying any objective basis to history at all (before he then appies that view to the gospels).
It is his philosophy of history that I am challenging.
It depends what you mean by “denying any objective basis to history”. I think what he is saying primarily is that all history is memory and interpreted memory at that. Interestingly, he makes the point in the context of a discussion of miracles and of how Jesus’ reputation as a “doer of extraordinary deeds” (Josephus) was established, and he goes on to say, “What the witnesses saw was a miracle, not an ‘ordinary’ event which they interpreted subsequently as a miracle.”
If that is what Dunn means, then language means nothing. How else are we to understand his statement that “In the study of history there are no objective facts.”
Facts precede memory.
Whatever can James Dunn have been saying on the previous 672 pages? Perhaps he was discussing the philosophical meaning of “objective facts”.
I don’t see anything very controversial in what Dunn is saying. An archaeologist can dig down through layers of dirt and come up with a solid object, a clay pot, a bronze face mask, an artefact—though it still needs to be interpreted. With Jesus, as with any historical figure, all we have are recorded memories, the unclear impression that he left.
Why should it be controversial? I just wonder what the thesis of his book is, and how it took 672 pages to come to this conclusion (if it is a conclusion). The extract does raise the question of whether knowledge of Jesus can be more than that obtained or transmitted through normal historical processes, and how crucial those normal historical processes are in preserving and transmitting that knowledge.
From the back cover of the book:
“He emphasises that the Synoptic Evangelists do not falsify the memory of Jesus, but, instead, preserve and present it so that it can lead to an encounter even today” – Peter Stuhlmacher, University of Tübingen
Seems to have addressed the core of my question.
Dunn appears to be suggesting a hermeneutic rather than a categorical description of history. It is similar to the critical realist view that history can be seen as viewed via the Tradition of those who were with him. To view history as totally objective is an untenable position. An example `a light is turned on`. To know that is not necessarilly an objective answer. Bernard Lonergan in his work `Method in Theology` outlines the critical phases that are gone through. In this example you have to know what a light is you have to recognise through senes the light. you have to know what the name for that sensation is , you have to have been taught that the word for that sensation is the word `light`, and finally that the light is effective a judgement. Dunn `s position highlights this framework we only come to know who the person Jesus through the sensory account of others their recognition of what that sensory account recognised identified and judged it to be. The Catholic Church in its its Document on Revelation De Verbum acknowledges this as the source of both Scripture and Tradition. I hope this is helpful.
Very helpful, thanks.
Exactly. Not “objective” does not mean that Jesus did not exist. It means that his existence is mediated through more complicated layers of interpretation and transmission than the bronze face-mask in the cabinet in the museum—though perhaps not as much more as we might think.
A question this raises for me is about the changing hierachy of types of Knowledge in different epochs, cultures, and disciplines, and therefore the amount of authority they are percieved as holding. Equally it makes me think about the symbolic meanings we attach to each type of knowledge.
That there are different types of knowledge is a no brainer, my question would be whether Dunn is implying a value judgment on the hierachy of knowledge, and if so, on what basis?
Its been a while since i read it but I seem to remember Malina’s book ‘The New Testament world’, dealing with how the 1st century mediteranian person would have viewed questions about truth, authority,authenticity etc in terms of Honour/shame, maybe i’ll go back and read it. :)
I think Dunn is really only talking about how we manage our perception of truth/objectivity within the frame of modern/postmodern critical scholarship—though I guess, since we are reliant upon ancient memories, the cultural factors that you mention have to be taken into account. Almost certainly there is an implicit value judgment entailed in Dunn’s comment—he is looking for an optimal epistemology for the task of historical reconstruction. He would say, presumably, that it is better to discount pure objectivity than to preserve the illusion that we have access to the historical Jesus qua artefact.
This comment isn’t entirely relevant to Dunn’s statement, but it isn’t entirely irrelevant either. I just throw it in to muddy the waters. Dunn’s book looks excellent, and the quotation seems to illustrate a thoughtful engagement with contemporary views of knowledge.