Is this interesting?

[Peter Kirby]

... personal knowledge or ignorance ...

Was this phrase unclear? Maybe so. Nobody (including me) has tried to unpack it. Well, let's give some examples of the difference.

I don't know whether evolution is true.
We don't know whether evolution is true.

I don't know where Atlantis is.
We don't know where Atlantis is.

I don't know what John meant.
We don't know what John meant.

The effect of the choice is clear. Saying "I don't know" has a different effect than saying "we don't know." People frequently change their speech to the plural here specifically to avoid the implication of mere personal, subjective ignorance. (For convenience, for now I am just going to avoid going down the rabbit hole of whether this was true in ancient Greek -- ugh, real work -- and just say it's possible, makes sense, and maybe someone can go ahead and truly prove it, or disprove it...)

And, if we accept that, we can see how a writer might pick up on this fact about speech and put this kind of speech on the lips of someone in his story.

(I've assumed throughout that this was well-understood, but the persistent hostility to this interpretation makes me begin to doubt it, as did a couple earlier comments that were wildly off base about what I was saying.)

[TedM]

I meant to send this earlier but see that I didn't click on 'submit':

The visit of other women to the tomb flies in the face of the narrative of GJohn. There's also nothing in there about Mary running to tell the other women. Your view has big, gaping oddness in terms of what the text says.

Agree

As in, it is practically impossible for this to be the story of GJohn, if the author thought those things were also in the story.

Disagree.

My view involves only the subjective ignorance of the disciples regarding what the women were up to. This is clearly implied IN THE STORY. The disciples were not on the scene. They were ignorant of what was going on. Geez, I've explained this enough times now. I'm going to end up repeating myself again. By using the word "we," the author is saying that Mary is saying something to the disciples that informs them of the state of knowledge on the matter, in the story. You've claimed to understand this. But since you find it so fantastically odd, I'm not so sure.

This just doesn't work for me. The story does NOT imply that anybody other than Mary knew of the tomb being empty or why it was empty. The use of WE implies ignorance that is not SUPPORTED by the story at all. The state of knowledge of the women other than Mary is not supported: Of course NOBODY in the story knew where Jesus was at this point, but the author didn't tell us that the women were aware that there even was an empty tomb to be ignorant about. The text simply doesn't support the usage of we no matter how you are trying to find it there. This wasn't about the disciples being ignorant about 'what the women were up to' and Mary needing to explaining what all of the women were 'up to' to the disciples. How do you come up with this stuff? The text was about Mary telling the disciples that the tomb was empty and she and others didn't know what happened. Others? no basis for that mention in the story if it was referring to the other women - which you and I at least do agree on.

Either way. Your claims about weird stuff in a story making more sense because the author thought "it really happened" make exactly zero sense.
In fact the story is not weird, and in fact it being thought to have happened can't make it any less weird. Anything crying out for an explanation, does so either way.

It being thought to have happened doesn't make the story less weird in the sense that "we" is unsupported either way, but it makes the story less weird in the sense that if 'it really happened" there is a better explanation for why "we" slipped there than if it had not really happened.

That's the best I can do at explaining my position on this. Sorry if it isn't clear still.

[TedM]

I do find it coherent and plausible to consider the author to be a "bungler" (my word) who made an "subconscious" (your word) mistake, but you haven't committed to this idea. Maybe that's because other people jumped on the same idea, but it makes just as much sense under the so-called "fiction" view.

To beat a dead horse (poor thing), I don't agree that a subconscious slip makes as much sense as a fictional account that intentionally inserts something that has no basis. It is possible that a fiction writer originally had more than Mary at the tomb, changed the idea, and then forgot -ie a subconscious slip to have Mary only reference herself. I just think that is not as likely as a subconscious slip of a 'real' memory.

I'm ready to drop this too.

[Peter Kirby]

How do you come up with this stuff?

1. Read the text.
2. Consider how the author could have intended to write this way.
3. Consider whether that interpretation is consistent with what the author wrote and with the ordinary range of human expression.
4. Consider it a plausible option for the interpretation of the text, if so.

If it sounds complicated, it's only because I feel like I've had to elaborate the explanation far beyond its basic, simple, and straightforward nature, to make it more explicit, because you have to this point maintained that it is implausible.

This wasn't about the disciples being ignorant...

I can see how you arrive at this conclusion, but I submit that you come from a certain perspective -- and you aren't asking critically enough whether it is a perspective shared by the author of the Gospel of John and used to craft his narrative. In this perspective, the reader is paramount, and it is the reader's vantage point that guides what we expect to see from the conversation. Further, this reader is potentially an intertextual reader, or potentially one with access to synoptic tradition, or one that would at least have access to some alternative way into the story beside the story itself, to supply facts that are missing (i.e., what the other women did); alternatively, the writer slipped up or didn't care about the reader so much on that point, but he himself had this extra access into the story, beyond and excluded from the story as written. In any event, the story is more than meets the eye, in terms of the plot and what happens.

From this perspective, an "I don't know" from Mary necessarily and logically would imply (to the reader, of course...) that no one of them knows, as well, since the reader has access to the omniscient narrative of the author of the Gospel of John, which informs the reader that Mary went alone to the tomb and that nobody else was possibly in a position to know (unless, of course, there's hidden extra story parts, which in this perspective there are, so...). Likewise, the "we don't know" from Mary points to this hidden aspect of the story, where the other women did somehow get to know that the tomb was empty, before Mary spoke. From this perspective, your conclusion is the only logical one.

On the other hand, if the perspective of the author is that the dialogue is crafted at all times based on a sympathy for the subjective state of the characters, then the concerns of the author are precisely about what the disciples would be thinking and feeling and what that woman, Mary, would be thinking and feeling. And then you can get a secondary level of how Mary would think about what the disciples would think about what she has to say - i.e., what could the disciples interpret "I don't know" to mean, as opposed to "we don't know"? If this question is allowed, as something that the author could be considering when writing his story and the dialogue for Mary, then my conclusion is a logical one. And storytellers do this kind of thing all the time. It could be called, simply, getting in the heads of the characters.

On this perspective, the story is a little bit more than meets they eye... but only in terms of the characters and their motivations. No special access to material outside of the story (practically contradicting the story) is required for this interpretation to be accessible to the audience. The audience can (not to say, will) discover this on their own, much as they later try to infer how Mary felt in the conversation of the gardener, from the story itself.

And, no, an author doesn't write a dissertation on how they came to what they thought about the characters, or anything like that. Most of the time, you just get the product of the dialogue itself, and any of that must be inferred. That's part of what makes a story, a story. Interpretation. Ambiguity. Action, not necessarily analysis, even if someone reading might be nonplussed.

I'm ready to drop this too.

Sure thing.

[TedM]

On the other hand, if the perspective of the author is that the dialogue is crafted at all times based on a sympathy for the subjective state of the characters, then the concerns of the author are precisely about what the disciples would be thinking and feeling and what that woman, Mary, would be thinking and feeling. And then you can get a secondary level of how Mary would think about what the disciples would think about what she has to say - i.e., what could the disciples interpret "I don't know" to mean, as opposed to "we don't know"? If this question is allowed, as something that the author could be considering when writing his story and the dialogue for Mary, then my conclusion is a logical one. And storytellers do this kind of thing all the time. It could be called, simply, getting in the heads of the characters.

On this perspective, the story is a little bit more than meets they eye... but only in terms of the characters and their motivations. No special access to material outside of the story (practically contradicting the story) is required for this interpretation to be accessible to the audience. The audience can (not to say, will) discover this on their own, much as they later try to infer how Mary felt in the conversation of the gardener, from the story itself.

I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.

[Peter Kirby]

I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.

If it's part of a larger story, the boy has two brothers, and his sister is missing after being seen near the sinkhole, and this boy is talking to the parents after all the children separated from them, and if the story is otherwise constructed in a way that it is more or less some kind of a mirror image of John's... well, then it almost actually just makes sense, as a story... doesn't it? (Feel free to disagree, but come on... it's just not that weird.)

[TedM]

I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.

If it's part of a larger story, the boy has two brothers, and his sister is missing after being seen near the sinkhole, and this boy is talking to the parents after all the children separated from them, and if the story is otherwise constructed in a way that it is more or less some kind of a mirror image of John's... well, then it almost actually just makes sense, as a story... doesn't it? (Feel free to disagree, but come on... it's just not that weird.)

But that wouldn't be a mirror image of John. The mirror image of John would be if the boy had two brothers and a sister and they all had some toys in the backyard, the wakes up early and goes out by himself to play with his toys and to his horror discovers that the yard has collapsed and all of his toys and his siblings toys are gone and then he goes in and wakes up his parents and says "there's a big hole in the backyard. All of the toys are gone and we don't know where they are".

[Peter Kirby]

I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.

If it's part of a larger story, the boy has two brothers, and his sister is missing after being seen near the sinkhole, and this boy is talking to the parents after all the children separated from them, and if the story is otherwise constructed in a way that it is more or less some kind of a mirror image of John's... well, then it almost actually just makes sense, as a story... doesn't it? (Feel free to disagree, but come on... it's just not that weird.)

But that wouldn't be a mirror image of John. The mirror image of John would be if the boy had two brothers and a sister and they all had some toys in the backyard, the wakes up early and goes out by himself to play with his toys and to his horror discovers that the yard has collapsed and all of his toys and his siblings toys are gone and then he goes in and wakes up his parents and says "there's a big hole in the backyard. All of the toys are gone and we don't know where they are".

Honestly, I don't even know what your point is here. Like, completely no idea.

No clue at all what you think is so important and distinctive about your edition, or what is wrong (according to you) about what I said.

Don't know why you felt motivated to change the story from what I suggested. Did you think it made some sense, and so this other one was constructed because you think it makes less sense... or is this just some kind of pedantry, trying to show (somehow, I don't know how) that I've misunderstood the story of GJohn and failed in the technical details of making a similar yarn?

[TedM]

I refer you back to my story about the boy discovering the back yard sinkhole, goes inside and wakes up his parents and says "there's a sinkhole and we don't know what happened". While I"m sure there is some out there, I've never read a piece of fiction that reads like that. This account in John is much the same in the way it is presented.

If it's part of a larger story, the boy has two brothers, and his sister is missing after being seen near the sinkhole, and this boy is talking to the parents after all the children separated from them, and if the story is otherwise constructed in a way that it is more or less some kind of a mirror image of John's... well, then it almost actually just makes sense, as a story... doesn't it? (Feel free to disagree, but come on... it's just not that weird.)

But that wouldn't be a mirror image of John. The mirror image of John would be if the boy had two brothers and a sister and they all had some toys in the backyard, the wakes up early and goes out by himself to play with his toys and to his horror discovers that the yard has collapsed and all of his toys and his siblings toys are gone and then he goes in and wakes up his parents and says "there's a big hole in the backyard. All of the toys are gone and we don't know where they are".

Honestly, I don't even know what your point is here. Like, completely no idea.

No clue at all what you think is so important and distinctive about your edition, or what is wrong (according to you) about what I said.

Don't know why you felt motivated to change the story from what I suggested. Did you think it made some sense, and so this other one was constructed because you think it makes less sense... or is this just some kind of pedantry, trying to show (somehow, I don't know how) that I've misunderstood the story of GJohn and failed in the technical details of making a similar yarn?

Wow, we are on different wavelengths for sure. You gave a story that you said was a mirror image of John. I thought your point was that with the background you provided, a comment by the boy of "we don't know what happened" would have made sense in the story. I would agree that it could have made sense, but I don't see how it applies here because I don't agree that it was a mirror image of John, or nearly one. Your version has the boy simply talking to the parents. John's version (and mine) has the boy revealing something extra-ordinary to the parents, and if I were to I apply your hypothesis then the boy would immediately voice his parent's response right back to them "we don't know what happened" before the parents have even displayed a reaction in the story. That just doesn't sound like like any fiction I would find very compelling because it is illogical with regard to how people talk, so I don't think a fiction writer would do that typically.

So, I provided my expanded version of my original story which I think WOULD be much closer to being a mirror image of John. In that version, "we don't know...." still doesn't make sense. Would you agree that my version is much more analagous to John's story than yours?

[DCHindley]

It is interesting that this discussion now seems to be focusing on what is "typical" of fiction as opposed to "history" as a way of painting the entire NT Gospel/Acts story line as somehow false, made up, and thus safe to ignore.

All our questions would be answered if we could determine what is typical of fiction verses history. Seems like a fairly important focus to me. NO need to get bogged down on my possible motivation since the answers - if they are possible to determine - should lead to the truth.

The fact is, White and many other literary critics point out that historical explanation and fiction are both forms of narrative, and all narratives use EXACTLY THE SAME elements to make their points! This fact is now widely recognized among secular students of literature. Emplotment, argumentative strategy, tropes, etc, even inclusion of ideological implications, are common to both. Detecting plot elements like tragedy or irony do not alone determine whether a narrative is "fiction" or "explanation".

I strongly believe this is wrong. Every human action that has different starting motivations will be subject to different application. People will slip and make mistakes, but in different ways. The better they are at their craft the less obvious and more difficult it will be to interpret, but I think it is simply wrong to conclude that because they have the same kinds of elements that they are ALL the same and with no variation. IOW the above paragraph is a simplification that only serves as a deterrant and an obstacle for determining the Truth. Peter valiantly tried to test my hypothesis on the other thread. That's the kind of thing that should be done. If someone can do so successfully, then they will have refuted my arguments here. I'll be surprised if it can done.

Would it be wrong because it should be wrong? I think it will be harder for you to identify "typical" fiction (made-up stuff with a little verisimilitude thrown in to make it seem realistic or at least possible), or even "typical" historical explanation of the evidence, than you might think.

However, to illustrate the complexity of a historical narrative, here is a summary of White's elements of historical representation, at least as it occurs since the Enlightenment:

DEEP LEVEL	SURFACE LEVELS	[/b]	[/b]
TROPE: Figures of speech that deploy words in such a way as to turn or translate meaning. Operates at the deep level of human thought in the sense of 1) creating meaning through binary opposition (Saussure) or 2) otherness, or difference in any historical period (Foucault). As used by White, becomes a means to distinguish the dominant modes of historical imagination (in 19th century Europe in his case). By extrapolation to the cultural level, identifies the figurative structure that underpins the surface tiers that are employed to describe its historical imagination. Can be extended to include creation of large-scale metaphors (such as the base-superstructure metaphor of Marx) that rely upon the basic relationships of part-whole/whole-part that serve that in turn as models used as the basis of a total explanation of historical change.	EMPLOTMENT: Story line or plot structure that imparts meaning to a historical narrative. A technique that relates a sequence of events with their contextual or colligatory connections. Turns a sequence of events into a story of some kind. Either employed to discover the meaning, or imposing a meaning, on that sequence of events. White conceives this tier as the historian's vehicle(s) of historical explanation.	ARGUMENT: A set of premises and the conclusion drawn or inferred from them. An argument is "valid" (although not necessarily true) if the conclusion follows either inductively of deductively from the premises.	IDEOLOGICAL IMPLICATION: Ideology is a coherent set of socially produced ideas that lend or create a group consciousness. Time and place specific, ideology represents the dominant mode of explanation and rationalism that saturates a society, transmitted through various social and institutional mechanisms such as media, church, education and law. Some commentators find ideology imbedded in all social artifacts such as narrative structures (like written history), codes of behavior and patterns of belief. Can be viewed as a means employed by the dominant class to maintain its dominant position by obscuring the reality of its economic exploitation of other classes.
	Archetypical plot structures are:	Theories of truth:	Suggests to readers the import of their studies of the past for the comprehension of the present:
METAPHOR: Word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. Represents the similarities between objects. Representational.	ROMANCE: Imagines the power of the historical agent/hero or protagonist as ultimately superior to his/its environment. Unfolds as a quest where the final success, redemption or transcendence is assured.	FORMIST: Identifies the unique atomistic or dispersive character of events, people and actions in the past. Permits historians to graphically represent vivid individual events from which it is possible to make significant generalizations.	ANARCHISM: Demands rapid, perhaps even cataclysmic, social change in order to establish a new society.
METONYMY: Use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute of, or of which it is associated. Reduces an object to a part or parts. Reductionist.	TRAGEDY: Imagines the agent/hero or protagonist as engaged in a quest where final success is eventually thwarted by fate or by a personality flaw.	MECHANIST: Identifies events, people and actions in the past as subject to deterministic extra-historical laws, usually cast in the form of equivalent part-part relationships. Tends to be reductive rather than synthetic.	RADICALISM: Welcomes imminent social change, but are more aware of the effects of inherited institutions, and are thus more exorcised by the means to effect change than are anarchists.
SYNECDOCHE: A part is put for the whole, or the whole for a part. Integrates objects by stressing their similarities or essences. Integrative.	COMEDY: Imagines an agent/hero or protagonist as moving from obstruction to reconstruction, achieving at least a temporary victory over circumstances through the process of reconciliation. Often ends with rejoicing over the coherence or consensus a heroic figure achieves between groups of men, women, races, nations or classes.	ORGANIC: Identifies past events, people and actions as components of a synthetic process in a microcosmic-macrocosmic relationship whereby a single element or individual is just one element among many. Tends to be integrative.	CONSERVATISM: Oppose rapid change by supporting the evolutionary elaboration of existing social institutions. Are most suspicious of change than the other ideologies.
IRONY: Negates literal meaning. Negational.	SATIRE: Imagines the agent/hero or protagonist as inferior, a captive of their world, and destines for a life of obstacles and negation.	CONTEXTUAL: Identifies events, people or actions in the past by their presumed connections to others in webs of colligatory relationships within an era, or with a complex process of interconnected change. Tends to be moderately integrative.	LIBERALISM: Prefers the fine tuning of social institutions to secure moderately paced social change.

White grouped them (the rows) by their general associations, but these can be mixed any which way that the author wants to make their point, and elements can even be nested.

Can you think of ANY historical explanation that does not employ these elements (except perhaps Annals)?

DCH