Have been a good girl today - done lots of reading and note taking.  Not quite sure how to weave it into my essay but never mind, it's all grist to the mill in the end.

Murray A Rae, History and Hermeneutics, London, T&T Clark, 2005 is a nice read, the sort I like - in normal English (well most of the time) and basically talks common sense.  Whilst it is really about Bibilcal hermeneutics (~interpretation) and has to keep coming down to a faith position that God speaks somehow through scripture, it is of some use as I try to get my head around the kind of history writing that might be more helpful for theological reflection, and how concepts of tradition and testimony might (or might not) be useful.

In a chapter on testimony and its relationship to knowledge is this lovely citation from Karl Popper which is the best kind of common sense you can get in regard to reserach or knowledge...

It is a very simple and a decisive point, but nevertheless one that is often not sufficiently realized by rationalists - that we cannot start afresh; that we must make use of what people before us have done in science.  If we start afresh, then, when we die, we shall be about as far as Adam and Eve were when they died (or, if you prefer, as far as Neanderthal man).  In science we want to make progress, and this means that we must stand on the shoulders of our predecessors.  We must carry on a certain tradition.

Karl Popper 'Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition' in Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge, London, Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, 129 (cited in Rae, above, p 124)

What Rae is addressing is the claim of some that you can only know what you have experienced, and therefore that people who read the Bible cannot know about Jesus' life.  Whilst what we know is mediated through testimony, something Rae equates to what happens in law courts, it is still knowledge.

What struck me most was the simple reality of human limitation - it is only by accepting testimony, albeit with appropriate testing, that we are able to discover new knowledge and extend the 'frontiers' of what is known and understood.  As I said at the start, not actually what I'm studying, but somehow reassuring!

Today I have been reading some essays on history. Among them was a set of "Theses on the Philosophy of History" by Walter Benjamin, a German Jew (1892-1940) who offered some 'deep' stuff which I'm not entirely sure I understand, but made me think...  The two I cite below I chose because of their theological threads... 

A

Historicism contents itself with establishing a causal connection between various moments in history.  But no fact that is a cause is for that very reason historical.  It became historical posthumously, as it were, through events that may be separated from it by thousands of years.  A historian who takes this as his point of departure stops telling the sequence of events like the beads of a rosary.  Instead, he grasps the constellation which his own era has formed with a definite earlier one.  Thus he establishes a conception of the present as the 'time of the now' which is shot through with chips of Messianic time.

B

The soothsayers who found from time what it had in store certainly did not experience time as either homgenous or empty.  Anyone who keeps this in mind will perhaps get an idea of how past times were experienced in remembrance - namely in the same way.  We know that the Jews were prohibited from investigating the future.  The Torah and the prayers instruct them in remembrance, however.  This stripped the future of its magic, to which all those succomb who turn to soothsayers for enlightenment.  This does not imply, however, that for the Jews the future turned into homogeneous, empty time.  For every second of time was the strait gate through which Messiah might enter.

(from Tamsin Spargo (ed) Reading the Past, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2000 p 126)

Benjamin took his life in 1940, so we can never know how he might have revised his ideas in later life.

I am struck by a kind of now-and-not-yet running through these two theses.  The 'chips of Messianic time' running through the whole of history (now) and the future possibility of Messiah entering (not yet).  The commentator suggests a view of history which eschews theological comfort, and maybe there is a deep irony in these two extracts that has gone way over my head.  But I wonder if I can read them more positively as affirming the divine both within and outwith time/history?

Watched the film The History Boys last night.  In amongst all the other stuff a couple of interesting, pertinent quotations - but probably not the sort one can quote in a nice polite theology essay!

As the boys rehearse for their Oxbridge interviews, the female history teacher, Mrs Lintott, poses the question 'what is history?'

Her own response is "history is women following behind with a bucket'

The character Rudge observes "one [expletive deleted] thing after another"

One of the characters comes up with the idea of 'subjunctive history' based on the favourite verbal mood/voice (I never fully get to grips with grammar, not something late 1970's/early 1980's comprehensive education went in for) of the teacher known as Hector.  History as a story of possibilities - might have, could have, would have.... the 'what if' questions... the diffenrence that arose (or arises) from seemingly insignificant or random events.  I have a suspicion that there is a lot of mileage in this idea, if anyone wanted to pursue it.

I quite enjoyed the film - though did the early 1980's really look that old fashioned?!  Thankfully in my compehensive school it was achievement enough to make it to university - 'Loughbrough in a bad year' would have been judged worthwhile.  The film as an exploration of history in its own right - now there's an exercise for the reader!

(Having now read a couple of reviews of the film and the play, it appears the theme Bennett is exploring is that of novelty in education - and its logical consequences if allowed to run unchecked.  But being a good Post Modern person, I'd argue that once you set it free to real 'readers' thay make of it what they will, and, in the words of the recycling advertisement, at least in theory, 'the possiblities are endless')

Christmas is a time when we can demonstrate to our ministers just how much they mean to us.  It is also a time when ministers can discover just how much they need to grow in grace.

I have thought long and hard whether or not it was too ungrateful and unkind to tell the world of these three gifts I received this year.  But in the end I decided the amusement it would bring to others probably outweighted the embarassment it could cause if this post was discovered by the perpetrators of these opportunities for me to grow in grace....

No gold, frankincense or myrrh, I received...

• A Christmas decoration that would have been tacky when it was bought several years ago, but the big giveaway was the faded box demonstrating it had long been hidden away.  At least it was unused!
• A box of biscuits 8 months past their use by date.  Yummy!  Well the garden birds thought so.
• A secondhand tea towel!!!!!  Though to be fair this was in a parcel with two new (kitchen related) items.

I am sure that each gift was well intentioned... I'm just glad these people weren't among the mages of old!

I don't know, I sit down to watch some junk TV and end up with stuff relating to my research work!

In the Christmas Day edition, we had a character who claimed to be an expert in earth customs explaining what Christmas was about, and using lots of mildly amusing cliches along the way - such as Santa being married to Mary.  Well I found it amusing and mildly thought provoking, others may not have done.

Then I read an essay entitled 'Emperor Kennedy Legend: A New Anthropological Debate' by Lesek Kolakowski in Tamsin Spargo (ed) Reading the Past, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2000.  This short essay is equally humourous, and presents a mythical debate between three scholars some 600 years into the future, into the story of John F Kennedy.  With only limited extant documents, interpolation, extrapolation and surmise are employed, with reuslts that are funny for 21st century English speaking readers but could, conceivably occur in several centuries time.

The essayist offers no commentary and on comment, like a parable, whoever has ears to hear is left to deduce what the story says.

So here's the interesting bit for me - what is the difference between Kolakowski's scholarly contribution and Hyacinth Bucket's husband (I can't recall the name of the actor or his character!) as a phony expert in Dr Who?

And, which is the message in each case, unless you were there, what can you REALLY know about the past?