Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-16-2012, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I'm not sure what mechanisms you are saying hegemony requires.

That varies depending on the theoretical model, but broadly speaking it requires an ability to exercise control over discourse and manipulate the public. Socio-cultural hegemony (as opposed to a political hegemony) requires a particular type of discourse between the elite and the "lower class" (usually sanctioned to some extent by the lower class) constantly maintained through pervasive dissemination of propaganda or similar forms of reinforcement. In other words, if the reason the historical Jesus is so widely accepted among experts is due to hegemony, we would expect to see a far more cohesive group ensuring their view is adopted by the public through a persistent engagement via various media with the public. Moreover, we would expect that either new generations would overthrow older, or that new mechanisms and paradigms be adopted and reinforced. Hegemony is about control. It's difficult to attain even in a particular region over a long period of time, let alone across continents over 200 years. Even Kuhn would have a difficult time explaining this one, because we have no consistent paradigm. A commonality among incredibly diverse views coming from a wide variety of specialists over decades and decades of research doesn't fit well into any explanation of an academic theory/belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary. The only realistic way to explain such unanimity over one part of a cross-disciplinary investigation lasting so long which doesn't involve them simply being right is that the general approach to ancient history no matter what the subject of inquiry is or the specialist is flawed. And, in fact, when we apply the approach used by mythicists to ancient history in general, we are left with a vacuum. If the philosophy of history and historiography implicitly adopted by mythicists (through their analyses of texts, scholarship, etc.) is the correct one (or more correct), then all we can say for most of ancient history is...not much of anything.

Hi LegionOnomaMoi

I have been following with great interest your arguments about hegemony and the Historical Jesus and I largely agree with you.

However, there may be a prima facie plausible argument that scholars working in the field of ancient history are biased towards the belief that it is possible to do ancient history as normally understood, and tend to give too little weight to arguments that ancient history as normally understood cannot genuinely be done.

Andrew Criddle

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-16-2012, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

That varies depending on the theoretical model, but broadly speaking it requires an ability to exercise control over discourse and manipulate the public. Socio-cultural hegemony (as opposed to a political hegemony) requires a particular type of discourse between the elite and the "lower class" (usually sanctioned to some extent by the lower class) constantly maintained through pervasive dissemination of propaganda or similar forms of reinforcement. In other words, if the reason the historical Jesus is so widely accepted among experts is due to hegemony, we would expect to see a far more cohesive group ensuring their view is adopted by the public through a persistent engagement via various media with the public. Moreover, we would expect that either new generations would overthrow older, or that new mechanisms and paradigms be adopted and reinforced. Hegemony is about control. It's difficult to attain even in a particular region over a long period of time, let alone across continents over 200 years. Even Kuhn would have a difficult time explaining this one, because we have no consistent paradigm. A commonality among incredibly diverse views coming from a wide variety of specialists over decades and decades of research doesn't fit well into any explanation of an academic theory/belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary. The only realistic way to explain such unanimity over one part of a cross-disciplinary investigation lasting so long which doesn't involve them simply being right is that the general approach to ancient history no matter what the subject of inquiry is or the specialist is flawed. And, in fact, when we apply the approach used by mythicists to ancient history in general, we are left with a vacuum. If the philosophy of history and historiography implicitly adopted by mythicists (through their analyses of texts, scholarship, etc.) is the correct one (or more correct), then all we can say for most of ancient history is...not much of anything.

Hi LegionOnomaMoi

I have been following with great interest your arguments about hegemony and the Historical Jesus and I largely agree with you.

However, there may be a prima facie plausible argument that scholars working in the field of ancient history are biased towards the belief that it is possible to do ancient history as normally understood, and tend to give too little weight to arguments that ancient history as normally understood cannot genuinely be done.

Andrew Criddle

That's quite possible. Historians wish to know what happened, whether in ancient times or no. However, the farther back in the past one goes, the more difficulty there is in reconstruction. The desire to know may very well create a tendency to give credence to arguments which lack validity.

Toto · 06-16-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The experts are the scholars with PhD's in New Testament studies

Do you have any idea how many scholars have in some way dealt with the historical Jesus and who do not have PhD's in NT studies? Or biblical studies?

No - can you list them? :Cheeky:

Of course, the self selected group of pseudo-experts in Historical Jesus studies use the lack of a PhD in NT studies to reject conclusions that they don't like from GA Wells or Earl Doherty or Richard Carrier.

aa5874 · 06-16-2012, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

........ Historians wish to know what happened, whether in ancient times or no. However, the farther back in the past one goes, the more difficulty there is in reconstruction. The desire to know may very well create a tendency to give credence to arguments which lack validity.

The HJ argument is a prime example of an argument that lacks validity in any direction.

If we go all the way back to gMatthew we "SEE" Jesus up in a mountain in Galilee After he was dead giving INSTRUCTIONS to preach the Jesus story to the whole world.

Apparently the disciples CARRIED out the Instructions of the DEAD.

Matthew 26:32 KJV

Quote:

But after I am risen again , I will go before you into Galilee.

Matthew 28

Quote:

16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted ...

I can go back BEFORE the resurrection.

The HJ argument is extremely problematic in ANY direction.

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-17-2012, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Of course, the self selected group of pseudo-experts in Historical Jesus studies use the lack of a PhD in NT studies to reject conclusions that they don't like from GA Wells or Earl Doherty or Richard Carrier.

Who uses this "lack"? Steve Mason is a professor in history whose expertise is in Josephus, and who has dealt with the historical Jesus through this. Has he used his expertise in the way you describe? Atkenson has a PhD in history, and his criticisms are directed at the NT scholars, yet he (as you know) devoted an entire book to the historical Jesus. Loveday Alexander is a classicist, but has indirectly dealt with the historical Jesus through her monographs and articles on NT genre and the relationship between the NT and Greco-roman literature. Géza Vermes has, I believe, two doctorates (D.Litt and D.Theol.) not counting the honorary ones, but also has a Licentiate in history. Michael Grant is a classicist (he's the one Doherty criticizes for his dismissal of mythicist theories). Sean Freyne has a degree in classics and is a specialist in Near Eastern studies. William Arnal's doctorate is in religious studies. Gary R. Habermas (I was suprised to lear, as after reading his The Historical Jesus I was sure that his background must be in theology or something) has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Religion from Michigan State. William Lane Craig's first doctorate is in philosophy (which is not suprising, given that the only decent work he's done is in logic and similar domains). Louis H. Feldman has both a master's and doctorate in classics. Paul L. Maier was a professor of history. Marcus J. Borg has a D.Phil. Neusner's background is in Jewish studies (no suprise, he's a Rabbi). One really odd one is Rodney Stark, whose doctorate is in sociology. However, apart from the "big names" (and a few more minor ones) I don't know the background of those who have written about the historical Jesus. There's an entire journal devoted to the topic, quite apart from JBL, NTS, and the like. Most of those who write in have only published a few papers on some aspect of the historical Jesus. I'm willing to bet that most have degrees in religion, NT studies, Jewish studies, or biblical studies, but that a fair amount have degress in history, classics, near eastern studies, or history.

J-D · 06-17-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Thanks for that description of the historical Jesus industry. ...

So which is the group of experts, what are the basic assumptions they don't challenge, and what are their unsound methods?

The experts are the scholars with PhD's in New Testament studies, their basic assumption that they do not challenge is that there was a historical Jesus bearing some resemblance to the gospel Jesus, and the unsound methods are the criteria that they use to extract historical bits from the gospels.

Some degree of sharing of assumptions and methods is to be expected in any field of research (and not in itself necessarily a bad thing), and any degree of sharing of assumptions and methods by a group (any group) naturally makes it easier (although not automatically guaranteed) for members of the group to cling to a shared position, through mutual reinforcement. But whatever sharing of assumptions and methods there may be among scholars with PhDs in New Testament studies, that doesn't explain any clinging to conclusions by people who fall outside that description.

Vorkosigan · 06-17-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

That varies depending on the theoretical model, but broadly speaking it requires an ability to exercise control over discourse and manipulate the public. Socio-cultural hegemony (as opposed to a political hegemony) requires a particular type of discourse between the elite and the "lower class" (usually sanctioned to some extent by the lower class) constantly maintained through pervasive dissemination of propaganda or similar forms of reinforcement. In other words, if the reason the historical Jesus is so widely accepted among experts is due to hegemony, we would expect to see a far more cohesive group ensuring their view is adopted by the public through a persistent engagement via various media with the public. Moreover, we would expect that either new generations would overthrow older, or that new mechanisms and paradigms be adopted and reinforced. Hegemony is about control. It's difficult to attain even in a particular region over a long period of time, let alone across continents over 200 years.

This is a deliberate misunderstanding of the issues and problems disguised as an intellectual discussion.

Vorkosigan

J-D · 06-17-2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

That varies depending on the theoretical model, but broadly speaking it requires an ability to exercise control over discourse and manipulate the public. Socio-cultural hegemony (as opposed to a political hegemony) requires a particular type of discourse between the elite and the "lower class" (usually sanctioned to some extent by the lower class) constantly maintained through pervasive dissemination of propaganda or similar forms of reinforcement. In other words, if the reason the historical Jesus is so widely accepted among experts is due to hegemony, we would expect to see a far more cohesive group ensuring their view is adopted by the public through a persistent engagement via various media with the public. Moreover, we would expect that either new generations would overthrow older, or that new mechanisms and paradigms be adopted and reinforced. Hegemony is about control. It's difficult to attain even in a particular region over a long period of time, let alone across continents over 200 years.

This is a deliberate misunderstanding of the issues and problems disguised as an intellectual discussion.

Vorkosigan

If you consider that a misunderstanding of the issues and problems, what would you consider a more accurate statement of the issues and problems?

Vorkosigan · 06-17-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

This is a deliberate misunderstanding of the issues and problems disguised as an intellectual discussion.

Vorkosigan

If you consider that a misunderstanding of the issues and problems, what would you consider a more accurate statement of the issues and problems?

My statement earlier in the thread, terminating with the quote from Avalos.

Vorkosigan

thief of fire · 06-17-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

That varies depending on the theoretical model, but broadly speaking it requires an ability to exercise control over discourse and manipulate the public. Socio-cultural hegemony (as opposed to a political hegemony) requires a particular type of discourse between the elite and the "lower class" (usually sanctioned to some extent by the lower class) constantly maintained through pervasive dissemination of propaganda or similar forms of reinforcement. In other words, if the reason the historical Jesus is so widely accepted among experts is due to hegemony, we would expect to see a far more cohesive group ensuring their view is adopted by the public through a persistent engagement via various media with the public. Moreover, we would expect that either new generations would overthrow older, or that new mechanisms and paradigms be adopted and reinforced. Hegemony is about control. It's difficult to attain even in a particular region over a long period of time, let alone across continents over 200 years.

This is a deliberate misunderstanding of the issues and problems disguised as an intellectual discussion.

Vorkosigan

He was answering the question of what mechanisms a hegemony required.
Do you consider the "the issues and problems" (of an historical jesus I presume) are related to a hegemony?

Quote:

Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological theory, by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, which proposes that a culturally diverse society can be dominated (ruled) by one social class, whose dominance is achieved by manipulating the societal culture (beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, mores) so that its ruling-class worldview (Weltanschauung) is imposed as the societal norm, which every social class then perceives as a universally valid ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo — as natural, inevitable, and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.