C
CatherineofA
Guest
Lumen Gentium:
I personally do not write off the works of any academics or historians based on their theological views. I suppose I don’t because I had so many history courses in college and came to a personal realization that all who write about any historical topic have to use primary references to back up their conclusions. Much of this is referenced in footnoting and allows the reader to track the information as to why he came to his conclusions. Just because a person writes a book does not mean that the information is credible. Many pop or amateur books or articles are written that do not have the support of the general community of historians. This is based on its lack of being able to be verfied or its total disregard for the evidence that is available. This is how you get your conspiracy theories, new information twists, and prejudiced views. I do a lot of reading on some early Tudor England issues and not all books that are sold in the bookstore have credible information to back up its conclusions. They can and do get bebunked or questioned by people who are well known for their expertise in that subject area.
You are correct that I did agree with Steve that no one should accept a bias from an historian without examining why and what he used to come to his conclusions. However, no matter what the person states, their statements have to agree with what is known about the era. You are examining their commentary and comparing it to the facts. They cannot express or claim to have information that is not upheld by the community of historians. Historians cannot claim to have facts unless the facts are there. There is nothing to argue there. Just because an historian happens to be Orthodox does not mean that he does not present evidence or present evidence that is recognized by the academic community. The same can be said for a secular historian as well as a Catholic historian. You use the evidence to determine how much he slants or leans towards his point of view. If he slants too far, his peers WILL challenge him.
I mentioned the Orthodox historian in a sense to pose a question. (I would be glad to mention some of his books and writings. I have just started reading him.) I mentioned him because I was wondering what people’s opinions were of historians who are not Catholic and yet are recognized as experts in their field of early church history. They obviously use sources generally recognized or they would not have their positions in the community.
The reason why I ask about people’s research outside of Catholic authored books on history or theology is because I took some broad based courses on the time period that included the early Christian era. In my experience, professors nor writers ever claim that there is evidence to demonstrate that the catholic Church was THE catholic Church of today in the years following Christ. The idea is not debunked or challenged. They just don’t often mention Catholicism when referring to the Christians in this time period. They are described by their beliefs, geography, and structual connections.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on what we want to include in our study.
I personally do not write off the works of any academics or historians based on their theological views. I suppose I don’t because I had so many history courses in college and came to a personal realization that all who write about any historical topic have to use primary references to back up their conclusions. Much of this is referenced in footnoting and allows the reader to track the information as to why he came to his conclusions. Just because a person writes a book does not mean that the information is credible. Many pop or amateur books or articles are written that do not have the support of the general community of historians. This is based on its lack of being able to be verfied or its total disregard for the evidence that is available. This is how you get your conspiracy theories, new information twists, and prejudiced views. I do a lot of reading on some early Tudor England issues and not all books that are sold in the bookstore have credible information to back up its conclusions. They can and do get bebunked or questioned by people who are well known for their expertise in that subject area.You are correct that I did agree with Steve that no one should accept a bias from an historian without examining why and what he used to come to his conclusions. However, no matter what the person states, their statements have to agree with what is known about the era. You are examining their commentary and comparing it to the facts. They cannot express or claim to have information that is not upheld by the community of historians. Historians cannot claim to have facts unless the facts are there. There is nothing to argue there. Just because an historian happens to be Orthodox does not mean that he does not present evidence or present evidence that is recognized by the academic community. The same can be said for a secular historian as well as a Catholic historian. You use the evidence to determine how much he slants or leans towards his point of view. If he slants too far, his peers WILL challenge him.
I mentioned the Orthodox historian in a sense to pose a question. (I would be glad to mention some of his books and writings. I have just started reading him.) I mentioned him because I was wondering what people’s opinions were of historians who are not Catholic and yet are recognized as experts in their field of early church history. They obviously use sources generally recognized or they would not have their positions in the community.
The reason why I ask about people’s research outside of Catholic authored books on history or theology is because I took some broad based courses on the time period that included the early Christian era. In my experience, professors nor writers ever claim that there is evidence to demonstrate that the catholic Church was THE catholic Church of today in the years following Christ. The idea is not debunked or challenged. They just don’t often mention Catholicism when referring to the Christians in this time period. They are described by their beliefs, geography, and structual connections.
