gurugeorge

Who cares what it's called? What's really interesting is the substance of what's happening in academia and how that affects the search for truth.

LegionOnomaMoi

Those interested in communication. If I called historical Jesus scholarship a rigorous science, and someone objected, would you respond with I doubt it.

Yes that's interesting, and important. But understanding this "substance" isn't furthered by throwing out terms used incorrectly along with invalid inferences.

mountainman

It is the closing remark after the remark that Biblical Historians are being treated by Momigliano as the insiders. With this remark Momigliano states that there are no problems that the insiders face which are not problems in the wider field of ancient history.

You have yet to explain why Momigliano alludes to the Biblical Historians as insiders and the ancient historians as outsiders.



All this does not address the citation.



Oh I see. Momigliano never intended to call the Biblical Historians the insiders and the Ancient Historians the outsiders. You've done alot of handwaving recently LM.

gurugeorge

I'd be more interested in whether or not it is a rigorous science than in whether or not "rigorous science" is or is not the correct term to apply to the extant state of affairs in historical Jesus scholarship.

So: whether or not "hegemony" is the correct term to apply to the situation, or which version of "hegemony" is appropriate, these are interesting questions in their own right, no doubt, but less interesting - on this board - than questions of (for example) whether the scholarship is shoddy, whether the concern for a cosy stipend is trumping concern for truth, whether there's a certain sleepy acceptance of the "historical Jesus" amongst academics generally (because experts naturally assume that biblical scholar experts have done their homework on the matter - but what if they haven't?) etc., etc., etc. The causes and conditions of the state of affairs are also interesting - the history, the sociology, etc., and that's where a term like "hegemony" might (or might not) be appropriate. But the substance is what really matters.

Once again: to me and a few others here, none of the current wave of mythical Jesus thinking (at its high end) is so obviously dimwitted and stupid that it requires the weird kind of dismissal it gets. The lady doth protest too much.

Why is that? Well, that would be the topic of the thread.

Not what to correctly call the situation that obtains.

LegionOnomaMoi

Now you're simply lying. The "insider" line is his opening line. It's in his first paragraph. In his next paragraph, is state what he thinks, as a classical scholar, he can contribute. After this, he begins his third paragraph with what you call a "closing remark". It is nothing of the sort. It's an opening line of a paragraph and a transition from the introduction of his topic.

This is you're problem: you keep acting as if Momigliano said that biblical scholars were insiders, and every other historian or specialist were the outsiders. Only he never said this.. His comment on insiders/outsiders did not contrast biblical studies and everyone else, but stated that for any field, "common sense" tells us that the people who aren't in that field, aren't in a position to tell those in the field what to do. And in the case he is discussing, biblical scholars are the "insiders", and he (as a classical scholar) is an outsider.

If he was discussing near eastern history, he would be an "outsider". If he was discussing indo-european linguistics, he would be an "outsider".



He never does. He never says "ancient historians are outsiders" but that he (a classical scholar) is an "outsider" when it comes to biblical studies. If you actually read the sections you quoted, you'll notice that he constrasts (see, e.g., his third item in his three item list) biblical scholars and classical scholars, not biblical scholars and ancient historians. That's because he contrasting his field (classical studies), where he is the insider, with another field where he is the outsider.

Again, because you clearly had no idea of the context of his original articlce (because you thought it was a chapter in a book), you missed the fact that his entire point concerned how classical studies and biblical studies could collaborate.




It does. You have completely missed his point (mostly because of the fact that you lacked the context of the article). You took the "insider/outsider" remark to mean "biblical scholars are the insiders, and ancient historians are the outsiders". Only that wasn't the point at all. Momigliano would be just as much of an outsider if he was talking about ancient celtic history. Or ancient egyptian history. Or ancient sumerian history. When it comes to classical studies (which concerns ancient greece and rome), Momigliano is the "insider". When it comes to other fields, whether biblical studies or Indo-European studies or whatever, he's an outsider.

You've set up this imagined contrast between biblical scholars and historians, completely missing the point. He not only specifically contrasts only his own field (classics) with biblical studies, when he talks about history in general, he never uses that insider/outsider distinction, but instead talks about the similarities that all historians face.


Where does he say "ancient historians"?

.

That's the contrast. Not biblical scholars and "ancient historians." Again, Momigliano would be just as much an outsider if he were writing about some field of ancient history which was neither biblical studies nor classics.

J-D

What would be some examples of the 'weird kind of dismissal' you refer to?

Grog

There are systems of control and manipulation at work. You draw out my expample of the obligatory Christian statements that nearly all US politicians must make in order to be viable...you say, "it is because the masses" want it. The media feed the masses what they want. To some extent, that is true, but the media also create that which the masses want and reinforce it. It works both ways.

mountainman

OK point taken in that we are dealing here with AM's comparison between biblical scholars and classical scholars. I was generalising this comparsion to biblical historians and classical (ancient) historians. The reason that I was generalising is found in the concluding statement of the citation I provided:

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

Sacred history is studied by biblical scholars and biblical historians; profane history is studied by classical scholars and ancient historians.

When AM labels the biblical scholars as insiders, he means that they are inside the field of "sacred history", and that he is outside of this field. However the above statement indicates that to AM, there are no problems in the inside field (sacred history) that cannot be addressed by outsiders (profane history).


Momigliano's appeal to miracles

In Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D the same author (AM) describes the Christian victory as a "miracle", not once but twice.

We have just seen that he counterpoints sacred and profane history, and we know he is an ancient historian. Why do you think AM uses the term "miracle" (twice)?

LegionOnomaMoi

Because "miracle" in common parlance often means "really, really, unlikely." Search through COCA and you'll see (non-registered users get something like 10 free searches, and I'm pretty sure that for first level registration you don't need any academic credentials).

Again, try to seperate the fact that you read this in a book of his work, and put it back into the context in which it appeared and for which it was written: a particular issue of a biblical studies journal which had four main articles asking people in related fields to talk about biblical studies.

So Momigliano politely (if not entirely truthfully) states that as an outsider, he's not one to tell biblical scholars how to do their work, and then continues on to see that despite this both disciplines share pretty much the same issues and questions. He starts by listing his three items, then stating that he doesn't see a difference between the issues in the texts biblical scholars work with compared to the works he's used to (in fact, he's read both and compares them), and goes on to point out other commonalities between both disciplines (which, he states later, are pretty much common to all historical research as well). After a page or so of talking about how he doesn't see much difference between the questions/problems he faces vs. biblical scholars, he does get into some criticism and also an area in which he believes classical scholars can be useful to biblical scholars. He ends the article with an area in which classical scholars have gained from collaborating with biblical scholars. The entire article is about collaboration and interdisciplinary activity. Which is why it appeared in a journal issue on that topic.

J-D

Did you pick up on the point I've highlighted above?