John Warren (1 Viewer)

[shelley]

hey classic chick, guess what...ur in my ancient course..lol..i remeber that lecture very well indeed!

shes right btw historapher is a term coined by ppl, but guess what u cant become one, lol, theres no such thing, your still considered a historian even if you work in the field of epigraphy and historiography! But look id desperate quote warren, but yes try and use others!

 

[Caratacus]

>>>it's not in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary- it would be if it existed

You're having a laugh, aren't you? The Shorter Oxford Dictionary is considered to be "popular" & light-weight - hardly an arbiter of the existence of academic words. Whether a word is in it or not is no test whatsoever of whether that word exists.

Any competent academic will use the 13 volume OED - the Oxford English Dictionary. Any academic who does not use it as a major source of authority for lexicographical issues jeopardises their own bona fides.

The OED most certainly does have entries for "historiographer", recording that the word derives from historia "inquiries", "history" + graphos, "writing" and was first used in English by Fabyan in 1494. The OED gives numerous examples of its use since. The word has been used in various ways, and includes the official post "Historiographer Royal", the historical equivalent of Poet Laureat. Laurence Gardner is the current Historiographer Royal. "Historiographer" also specifically refers to those who specialise in studying the methods and issues of history-writing, historical research etc, which is the sense in which History Extension students normally use the term.

>>>As all good historians are historiographers anyway, the term's redundant

All good physicists are mathematicians too, but that doesn't make the term "mathematician" redundant.

I say again: the word "historiographer" most certainly does exist. I now add that it is a correct, academic, real and official word. To say otherwise is muddle-headed nonsense.

PS It's considered bad netiquette to change a post after someone has replied to it. The correct procedure is to post a new answer.

 

[Caratacus]

I see that DR Noel Weeks also seems to have signed a petition which states inter alia

Every student... should look to Jesus Christ as one of the great figures of history. His claims to be the Son of God bear up under the closest scrutiny.

http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/commo...?path=/articles/2002/11/15/1037080914152.html

Claims to be the Son of God bear up to the closest scrutiny? Hmmmm.... that's rather a big claim. Rather difficult to prove, I would have thought. Such a claim as a matter of belief - ie religion - that I can easily accept. But capable of evidential proof under "the closest scrutiny"?

 

[classics_chic]

1. I've been at home the last couple of days, and haven't had a chance to look up the full OED. I have the Shorter at home, so that's what I used. Anyway, the terms that the Shorter OED doesn't have in it are usually not in common use. And please don't tell me what things mean in Ancient Greek, I know more about the language than you do. For example, the word you quote as "historia" is actually "istoria", because there's no "h" in the Greek language, ancient or modern.

1a. You telling me I'm wrong about the OED is attacking a straw person. I said it was in the Shorter OED, which it's not, and you said that I'm wrong, because it's in the OED. That's not what I said.

2. I'm not an academic. I'm a first year university student.

3. I made sure it was clear that I had edited the post- it takes up more memory to add posts than to edit them, and surely it's worse nettiquette to make a site less accessible to people with slow internet connections (this is why I don't have a picture or a tag).

4. Titles don't necessarily make things any more real. Surely there's no real "Governer" of the Anglican Church- it's a ceremonial title with very little meaning.

5. All historians are historiographers in the sense that you have named above, and you can't be a historiographer unless you're a historian. Which again makes the term redundant, where "mathematician" is not.

6. As a historian that specialises in the Ancient Near East (including Israel, where the evidence points to Christ coming from- me being a Christian has nothing to do with this), Dr Weeks' signing of that petition is related to the evidence rather than the political issues involved. If you look at the evidence of the time period concerned, there is massive amounts of evidence available to suggest that Christ lived. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And the evidence does not contradict the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God- that's what a historian should subscribe to, and he does.

6a. You're dirtying the name of a respectable academic without him having a chance to reply to it. I hardly think that's reasonable.

7. Anyway, this argument is tu quoque. It does not follow that just because Dr. Weeks said something about the existence of Jesus Christ (even if it is wrong, which I contest), that his statement about the unreliability of the internet is wrong. That's basic logic.

NOTE: edited immediately after initial submission

 

[Caratacus]

1. There is an "h" in the Ancient Greek language. It's represented by a reverse apostrophe mark (aspirate) representing an initial "breathing" or aspiration. It is tranliterated into English - as I did - as "h". It gives us words like Historia, Herodotus and Hellas. I do have the OED at home - I work with it all the time.

1.a. You said:

it's not in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary- it would be if it existed

My point was that the SOD is no guide to such matters. And that the word clearly exists.

2. It doesn't matter whether you are an academic or not. We are talking about the use of the word in an academic context.

3. I maintain my point here. It's generally accepted that you can not have a valid discussion if people back-edit their posts after others have replied.

4. You said there is no such thing as a historiographer. That is incorrect. There is even an official title for a person of that desription. I even named him - Laurence Gardner.

5. There are a number of senses, not just one, of the word "historiographer", as the OED said, and as I said. One includes the sense of "student of the history, methodology and philosophy of historical research". I notice for example that Dr Marnie Hughes-Warrington describes herself as "by training a historiographer, a person who is interested in the questions 'What is history?', and 'What is history for?'" on the Macquarie University website:

http://online.mq.edu.au/pub/HIST359/staff.htm

6, 6a, and 7. My second post was not an argument but an amusing item that I came across while looking up Dr Weeks' context. It struck me the assertion that Jesus's claim to be the son of God - literally, the son of God - was capable of some kind proof (which is what the words "bear up under the closest scrutiny" imply) was rather amusing. How on earth do you demonstrate such a thing? I draw no conclusion from it as to Dr Weeks' general capabilities or character. I was certainly not "dirtying" anyone's name.

For me, the bottom line is that, as I said from the start, there quite evidently and clearly is a word "historiographer". That's all.

Peace!

 

[Caratacus]

Here's another one:

Lorenzo Veracini, a lecturer at the School of Humanities, Griffith University, Brisbane, writes:

As a comparative historiographer, I want to draw attention to a debate that presents some notable similarities, to highlight the risks involved in relying on a strategy of the reaffirmation of historical practice and protocol.

Here is the site (worth a look by History Extension students):

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-September-2002/veracini.html

Yes, a website: but written by an academic in an academic context; like the Hughes-Warrington example, clearly meaning "a person who is interested in the questions 'What is history?', and 'What is history for?'"

Here's another from Dr Levan Gigineishvili of Harvard University:

Historiographers, linguists and ethnographers from both sides have been engaging in virtual battle over the way the history in this region is understood.

http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~t656_web...evan_ConflictingNarrativesAbkhaziaGeorgia.htm

Historiographers Live! ;-)

 

[classics_chic]

Too freaking lazy to keep going... I have assignments for all my ancient history subjects... but historiography is an art, but historiographers are all historians, and therefore the term is redundant by itself. Pointing out that you're also a historiographer is all well and good, but you can't be one without the other.

And I bet you found that quote from the web, didn't you? I make my point about the net again (but too lazy to write it down).

Anyway, good to have a rigourous argument every now and again... thanks!

 

[Caratacus]

>>>Anyway, good to have a rigourous argument every now and again... thanks!

Agreed, classics_chic - thanks for the workout!

I will happily agree that historiographers may be historians too.

I've heard Dr Hughes-Warrington (in lectures and seminars) use the word "historiographer" in the sense I have been defending - but that's hard to prove in an internet discussion. So net quotes are better.

Cheers!

 

[Jezapbo]

*groans*. You're out of my league. But that may just be because you write so damn much that i can't be bothered analysing everything you say Thats to both of you.