Abstract
The importance of an awareness of the wider social context of any movement or individual is widely acknowledged, and does not need arguing. It constitutes a necessary criterion of the adequacy of any historical account. Yet there does not seem to have been any significant development in our critical appraisal of it among other criteria, and we still fail to produce agreed results. As a check on how things stand with other historians we may take, as a typical current survey, C. Behan McCullagh,Justifying Historical Descriptions. McCullagh makes a distinction that I have myself made before, but he makes it rather more elegantly. It lies in a contrast between the explanatory ‘scope’ and the ‘power’ of an historical account. An historical reconstruction may have a very wide scope, appearing to include all the data that is conventionally allowed to be relevant, and thus seem very persuasive. But the question remains to be asked, what power has it to exclude competing explanations?
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Religious studies,History
Reference43 articles.
1. Dio , Discourse 32 14. See n. 22 below.
2. Jesus and the Theatre
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Sepphoris, Archaeology of;Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology;2020
2. Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus;Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus;2006
3. Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis;The Journal of Religion;1994-10
4. Jesus' Death in Q;New Testament Studies;1992-04
5. Der lehrende Jesus. Neutestamentliche Erwägungen;Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche;1992