Perhaps ... <drumroll> ... it was my own color commentary.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:22 pmI can't recall my use of "revilers" of White but I do know my memory too often lies to me.
DCH
Perhaps ... <drumroll> ... it was my own color commentary.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:22 pmI can't recall my use of "revilers" of White but I do know my memory too often lies to me.
I think I might have already done this before, but probably a good time ago. I do remember responding to a charge that White's approach opened the door to Holocaust denier nonsense. Now I was motivated by that one, simply because, as a child, I saw a stack of original photos of corpses, apparently at a death camp. They were very similar to the ones that can be seen on documentaries and newsreels and such.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:22 pm But [have] you have no response to the Evans' passage in which he indicates that White himself in at least one instance retreated from the position that was the primary point of your OP?)
"Fiction" versus "History"DCHindley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:34 am Over on the "This may be interesting" thread, MichaelBG had stated that there *must* be a way to tell from characteristics in the text. To this I replied "Both use the same techniques."
So, I'd like to hear from members what authorities they would propose to support distinction between fiction and historical explanation.
Through the middle ages and early modern period, "history" was considered an art form and taught along with rhetoric. It was Leopold Von Ranke who sought to make it a scientific discipline based on objectivity.
This POV had prevailed for a century or so until postmodernist critics popped its bubble by declaring all narrative based on past facts as interpretations of past events based on the critics' own present understanding of things.
"What thinkest thou, Simon?"
Gotta run ...
DCH
It appears according to Evans that White retreated from his thesis as a universal rule in the light of the Holocaust history. I would suspect (or argue, really) that the evidence for the Holocaust is no different in kind/authenticity from a good number of other historical events, and if so, . . . . ?
I quoted the same not long ago: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3077&p=72563#p72563iskander wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:39 am
"Fiction" versus "History"
in defence of history page 100, Richard J, Evans
" For Hayden White , researching and writing a history book is much the same as researching and writing a novel. Both are made up of elements of real human experience. Both have to meet the demands of correspondence to that experience and coherence in the way they present it. Both use language as the means of representing reality. Just like novelists, says White, prefigure their field of enquire by selecting and evaluating the evidence with the very linguistic and imaginative tools that will be used in the construction of the resulting narrative.
There is something to be said for White's observation that the great nineteen-century historians whose work he analysed in his first major book Metahistory ---Michelet, Ranke, Tocqueville, Burckhardt --had a great deal in common with their contemporaries among the novelists, like Balzac, though given the dominance of literary realism in the novel of the first half of the nineteen-century, this was hardly surprising. But White goes on to argue that the literary and linguistic forms by which historians and novelists construct their work are equally valid ways of representing the past
There is in consequence no single correct view or any event or process, he argues, but many correct views...
Thus White not only denies the possibility of objective knowledge about the past, he also claims that it is pointless to argue about it, since each version forms a close system of thought which is as valid as any other as a form of historical representation. "
Of the four canonical Gospels, only Luke came close to that with his preface where he more-or-less stated "Look at all the work that I did". Then he acted as if he had never written that preface.Ancient historical works at their beginning (or somewhere else within the body of the narrative) are often prefaced with statements from the author about the period they will be investigating, the methodology they will be using, and the types of sources they will be discussing.
There is none of that in the Gospels.Here, Suetonius acknowledges that there is a contradiction, but as a historical author he instead engages in a rigorous analysis of the various forms of evidence, ranging from the works of previous historians, to inscriptions, to personal letters, to public records, in order to get to the bottom of the discrepancy. He discusses his sources and methods to give context to the conclusions that he has reached.
Some theologian attributed the canonical Gospels to a certain Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and that attribution stuck, despite those documents stating nothing about their authors except Luke's "Look at all the work that I did" preface.Notice in the two examples above how both Dionysius and Suetonius have active roles in the narrative, as historians who are interjecting their own voice, in order to discuss their sources and relation to events. We learn details of how Dionysius traveled to Rome and learned Latin, and how Suetonius was acquainted with Augustus’ own letters. The Gospel authors are silent about their identities and give context about their relation neither to their sources nor to the events they contain. The Gospel narratives instead read like novelistic literature, told from a camera-like perspective, which omnisciently follows around the characters with minimal methodological analysis. This third person style of narration further casts doubt on whether the Gospels’ authors are relating eyewitness experiences.
5. Hagiography versus Biography... historical writing was very exclusive in antiquity. In order to fully evaluate and appreciate historical prose, one had to be educated, literate, trained in oratory, and skilled at critical thinking. Authors writing to such an audience had to demonstrate their research ability, credentials, and methodology.
...
The Gospels, in contrast, are written for a far less educated and critical audience. Far from the refined prose of Greek historical writing, the Gospels are written in a low language register in the Koine dialect.
Some people argue that the Gospels are not hagiographies because some of Jesus Christ's disciples do not come off very well in them, but that was likely done for literary effect, to make JC seem more noble.Rather than read as the unmitigated praise of a saint who can do no wrong, ancient historical works and historical biographies were far more critical of their subjects, whom they analyzed less one-dimensionally and more as complete persons.
...
The Gospels, in contrast, are not historical biographies but can be more aptly described as “hagiographies,” written in unquestioning praise of their messianic subject. Although the genre of Christian Lives of Saints developed after the Gospels, they can still be regarded as hagiographical in that they function as laudatory biographies, praising the subject, rather than as critical biographies.
Like saying "It seems to me that..." or "He spoke words like this..." or indirect speech: "He said that he wanted to go."Even when they dutifully followed the sources available, ancient historians frequently did not know the exact words spoken by individuals in famous speeches or the exact order in which things had taken place in past events. In order to provide elegant rhetorical prose, however, creative liberties had to be taken on the part of the author to retell these dialogues as they plausibly could have taken place. This does not entail direct lying on the part of the author, since the speeches were written to represent plausible versions of the original and historians would often signal that the words were approximate.
The Gospels go much farther than that.When I discuss how ancient historians and historical biographers are far more prone to cite their sources, note contradictions between traditions, interject authorial judgements, and signpost speculation, one impression that I do not wish to create is that they still did not take a great amount of creative liberties in fashioning their narratives. The standards for what constituted historical writing in antiquity were very different from those that are used today in professional historiography. Ancient historians like Tacitus, for example, frequently imagined the speeches given at key sections of the narrative, and likewise characterized their historical subjects in ways that are highly dramatic and conjectural.
Isaac Asimov in the New Testament part of his Guide to the Bible mentioned the theory that John is like Plato's Dialogues. Thus, the author(s) of John put words in Jesus Christ's mouth the way that Plato put words into the mouths of Socrates. In the Nag Hammadi texts there is supposedly a gospel whose composition was caught in the act: creating a copy of another document where that document's sayings are said by Jesus Christ.This is especially true in John, where Jesus engages in long discourses, distinct from the short, formulaic sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, which critical scholars have long recognized are probably not authentic words spoken by Jesus.
They also sometimes used shared sources.The same is not true for ancient historical works. Consider just the four most extensive sources that we have for the life of the emperor Tiberius: Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. All four authors obtain their material from a much broader range of sources, rather than simply copy from each other, they write in a far more diverse range of styles, and yet they independently corroborate each other’s claims.
...
For the life of Tiberius we have a wide array of independent sources corroborating each other, whereas for Jesus we have sources that are all copying and redacting one another, not providing as much independent information or research, but instead repeating and adding to growing legends.
One proviso that should be noted is that ancient historians do not always corroborate each other on every claim, and there are likewise occasionally contradictions between their narratives.
10. Important Characters and Events Do Not Disappear from the NarrativeAnother thing that should be noted is that, while ancient historians occasionally report miracles, they often use specific grammatical constructions that distance themselves from affirming the stories and make clear that they are only reporting claims. ... The Gospels, in contrast, just throw out miracle after miracle, asking us to believe every single one of them, in a manner that presumes far less critical thinking on the part of the reader.
The main point to take away from my analysis of the criteria above is that the Gospels certainly do not measure up to the high historiography and historical biographies of antiquity. Many of my Classics professors who specialize in such texts, when they read the Gospels, comment on how much more rudimentary and story-like their narratives are compared to the researched and analytical characteristics of historical writing. Even Luke only has a few brief lines at the beginning that mimic historical prose, before jumping into pure hagiography like the other Gospels.
Sorry. I did not read your post. Did you really choose to quote the same ?neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:12 amI quoted the same not long ago: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3077&p=72563#p72563iskander wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:39 am
"Fiction" versus "History"
in defence of history page 100, Richard J, Evans
" For Hayden White , researching and writing a history book is much the same as researching and writing a novel. Both are made up of elements of real human experience. Both have to meet the demands of correspondence to that experience and coherence in the way they present it. Both use language as the means of representing reality. Just like novelists, says White, prefigure their field of enquire by selecting and evaluating the evidence with the very linguistic and imaginative tools that will be used in the construction of the resulting narrative.
There is something to be said for White's observation that the great nineteen-century historians whose work he analysed in his first major book Metahistory ---Michelet, Ranke, Tocqueville, Burckhardt --had a great deal in common with their contemporaries among the novelists, like Balzac, though given the dominance of literary realism in the novel of the first half of the nineteen-century, this was hardly surprising. But White goes on to argue that the literary and linguistic forms by which historians and novelists construct their work are equally valid ways of representing the past
There is in consequence no single correct view or any event or process, he argues, but many correct views...
Thus White not only denies the possibility of objective knowledge about the past, he also claims that it is pointless to argue about it, since each version forms a close system of thought which is as valid as any other as a form of historical representation. "
Yes. You can still read it there.
Yet Evans is arguing that history is not merely "educated opinion". That's the point of his discussion of examples of those who had said it was -- read on to see how he addresses these arguments. His book is entitled "in DEFENCE of history" because he believes it is not simply "educated opinion" -- he is arguing against that viewpoint.iskander wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:35 am RJE page 29
One senior American historian , Clarence Atwood, confessed after the war that he had always conformed ' to the canons of my science...walked along the straight and narrow of the approved scholarship.. learned to babble the words of von Ranke...' But now he said,... ' the meaning we historians had read into events was false, cruelly false '.
History is an educated opinion.