Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mountainman;7197364[b
Momigliano's appeal to miracles[/b]
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)? |
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). |
How should we therefore interpret his comment that the Christian victory under Constantine was "really, really, unlikely." ?
Quote:
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.
|
I am not sure I agree with this. AM is first and foremost an ancient historian and all of his articles, lectures, journal contribitions, etc are capable of being viewed as his opinion of this field.
AFAIK he is seen as someone who has followed in the steps of Edward Gibbon and as such his comments are often overlayed with a heavy irony. What you write above may appear to be the case from the perspective of someone examining AM's comments from an inter-disciplinary viewpoint. However I think that it is quite valid to examine AM's comments from the view that we have here a foremost ancient historian summarising the inter-relationship of bilical studies and classicial studies - specifically biblical history and ancient (profane) history, and arriving at a conclusion that the former are some sort of insiders, or who think that they are insiders.
You must admit that many biblical scholars and historians think that they have the inside story on the historical jesus and the history of the early universal christian church.
06-22-2012, 08:08 PM
