What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

[neilgodfrey]

I foresee real difficulty applying this idea to gospels, a case of some interest hereabouts. Mark "discusses" the matter (that is, dramatizes the issue, with the author speaking in his own voice while alluding to third-party statements, commenting on what is formally portrayed as past action).

Hi Paul,

I will address the other aspects of your reply later, but this paragraph stood out on my first perusal and I will remark on it now....

We cannot say that the author of Mark "uses his own voice". He writes as an omniscient, impersonal narrator. He hides his own presence from the audience. We have no idea what the author thought of what he was writing. He hides his "personal voice" and his presence from his audience.

Nor does he "allude" to third party statements. He never says that he learned any detail from such and such a source. He is writing as the all-knowing, omniscient story teller who can tell us what all characters at all places were doing, planning, thinking, etc. That is not history writing.

Nor does he comment on past actions. (The sole exception might be an explanatory note saying that Jesus declared all foods clean with a particular saying.)

[Ben C. Smith]

We cannot say that the author of Mark "uses his own voice". He writes as an omniscient, impersonal narrator. He hides his own presence from the audience. We have no idea what the author thought of what he was writing. He hides his "personal voice" and his presence from his audience.

Nor does he "allude" to third party statements. He never says that he learned any detail from such and such a source. He is writing as the all-knowing, omniscient story teller who can tell us what all characters at all places were doing, planning, thinking, etc. That is not history writing.

Nor does he comment on past actions. (The sole exception might be an explanatory note saying that Jesus declared all foods clean with a particular saying.)

Mark 13.14 ("let the reader understand") may be another example of the author speaking directly to the reader about the narrative. (You know my feelings on Mark and historical genres, but this one sentence does stick out in a way similar to how Mark 7.19 may stick out.)

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

We cannot say that the author of Mark "uses his own voice". He writes as an omniscient, impersonal narrator.

That's his voice, as opposed to his version of Jesus' voice, his version of the synagogue goers' collective voice, and his version of a typical "scribe's" voice.

We have no idea what the author thought of what he was writing.

That's a different issue, but as it happens, we agree.

Nor does he "allude" to third party statements

Just in the passage we're discussing, Mark 1:21-28 (World English Bible, my part-attribution in italics):

Narrator:
21 They went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. 22 They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit,

Explicit third party statement:
and he cried out, 24 saying, “Ha! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, you Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!”

Narrator continues, quoting his subject in passing:
25 Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” 26 The unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying,

Explicit third party statement:
“What is this? A new teaching? For with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!”

Narrator explaining that knowledge diffused widely:
28 The report of him went out immediately everywhere into all the region of Galilee and its surrounding area.

And the real would-be-genre bender, at 15:21 wherein the narrator ominsciently identifies two of Simon of Cyrene's children, and leaves us to ponder "Did the author just suggest that an eyewitness account of the Passion has been passed down within a specific family whose contemporary members he can identify?" Well, did(n't) he suggest that?

He never says that he learned any detail from such and such a source.

Definitely. In fact, in light of 1:21-28, I'd conjecture he thought about it, and consciously decided that the better audience experience could be provided by refraining from that device. We, as audience, are clearly not expected to react to 1:22, "What do you mean? Why would somebody positioning himself as an authority in a short performance improve audience experience?"

(In our earlier discussion, I mentioned length as a factor in decision-making. Mark is an 11,000-ish word treatment of about 100 characters' reactions to a charismatic vagabond and his young sidekicks; a different length might have gotten a different approach, as might a different focus).

Although, 15:21 suggests Mark's not above playing with the device. At a minumum, 15:21 shows us that he is aware that using the device was available to him (whether he's fact-claiming or fabulating, all the same either way).

That is not history writing.

That's what's uncertain.

[neilgodfrey]

We cannot say that the author of Mark "uses his own voice". He writes as an omniscient, impersonal narrator. He hides his own presence from the audience. We have no idea what the author thought of what he was writing. He hides his "personal voice" and his presence from his audience.

Nor does he "allude" to third party statements. He never says that he learned any detail from such and such a source. He is writing as the all-knowing, omniscient story teller who can tell us what all characters at all places were doing, planning, thinking, etc. That is not history writing.

Nor does he comment on past actions. (The sole exception might be an explanatory note saying that Jesus declared all foods clean with a particular saying.)

Mark 13.14 ("let the reader understand") may be another example of the author speaking directly to the reader about the narrative. (You know my feelings on Mark and historical genres, but this one sentence does stick out in a way similar to how Mark 7.19 may stick out.)

Yes, I recalled that passage as well after I wrote my comment. And you are right: the two comments do "stick out" from the narrative.

[neilgodfrey]

Neil

We cannot say that the author of Mark "uses his own voice". He writes as an omniscient, impersonal narrator.

That's his voice, as opposed to his version of Jesus' voice, his version of the synagogue goers' collective voice, and his version of a typical "scribe's" voice.

Perhaps we have different understandings of what is meant by "voice" in this context. Author's invariably adopt a certain voice that they deem appropriate to serve the intended function of their writing.

Nor does he "allude" to third party statements

Just in the passage we're discussing, Mark 1:21-28 (World English Bible, my part-attribution in italics):

Narrator:
21 They went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. 22 They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit,

Explicit third party statement:
and he cried out, 24 saying, “Ha! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, you Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!”

Narrator continues, quoting his subject in passing:
25 Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” 26 The unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying,

Explicit third party statement:
“What is this? A new teaching? For with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!”

Narrator explaining that knowledge diffused widely:
28 The report of him went out immediately everywhere into all the region of Galilee and its surrounding area.

In none of the quoted section does the author inform his readers of any third party source for his narrative. He is simply narrating a story about what different characters said and did. The author hides his presence from the reader and at no times hints that he learned or heard the story from X or Y.

And the real would-be-genre bender, at 15:21 wherein the narrator ominsciently identifies two of Simon of Cyrene's children, and leaves us to ponder "Did the author just suggest that an eyewitness account of the Passion has been passed down within a specific family whose contemporary members he can identify?" Well, did(n't) he suggest that?

The text itself gives not a single hint of any interest in "eyewitness reporting" nor any hint that these names relate to his source for the story. Nothing. To suggest they "might" is entirely speculative and without any means of testing.

He never says that he learned any detail from such and such a source.

Definitely. In fact, in light of 1:21-28, I'd conjecture he thought about it, and consciously decided that the better audience experience could be provided by refraining from that device. We, as audience, are clearly not expected to react to 1:22, "What do you mean? Why would somebody positioning himself as an authority in a short performance improve audience experience?"

Again, this is entirely speculative without any means of testing. We cannot read the mind of an author we do not know.

That is not history writing.

That's what's uncertain.

I don't know of any historical writing (recognized as such outside the field of biblical studies -- biblical studies is the exception so often!) comparable to the narrator-absence and absence of third party rhetorical references that characterize Mark.

[neilgodfrey]

Neil

- We agree what we're discussing (the device of mentioning that the speaker learned something from one or more third parties, that is, from neither the speaker nor listener, whether or not this third party is identified by name or described by their qualifications to provide information).

- We agree that the device is available and actually used in many forms of expression, including but not limited to both history and fiction.

Yes.

- We seem to agree that having additional information besides the text is often helpful and sometimes needed to understand correctly how and why the device was used in a specific work.

I'm not so sure on this one. A piece of writing usually contains a number of devices to enable us to know if we are reading a fantasy story or an official document or a philosophical treatise or a historical inquiry.

External references are needed when we want to test the reliability of the information in the literature.

As I understood the original issue, from the first sentence of the OP after the title question:

Over on the "This may be interesting" thread, MichaelBG had stated that there *must* be a way to tell from characteristics in the text.

It seems to me that you and I agree on enough to publish a joint dissent from the statement attributed to MichaelBG. Characteristics in the text do not necessarily allow audience members to distinguish fact-claiming from fiction.

Can I have an amen?

A qualified "amen" as per above

But on your last point -- there are two different things we are considering, I think. You write:

It seems to me that you and I agree on enough to publish a joint dissent from the statement attributed to MichaelBG. Characteristics in the text do not necessarily allow audience members to distinguish fact-claiming from fiction.

There is a difference between on the one hand an author and reader understanding that they are engaged with historical reporting or commentary, and on the other whether or not the details in that reporting or commentary are in fact true. There is good and bad history, reliable and unreliable, etc.

If yes, then I am disinclined to argue over names, like "the rhetoric of history." If that's what you want to call the device, and it's clear in context that history's relationship to the device isn't exclusive or strongly diagnostic, then swell.

It is important for establishing the particular understanding between author and audience that is necessary for a proper comprehension of the work. We know from the various devices, most times, if we are reading a novel or a biography etc. That's the value of the devices.

We know we are reading what an author is presenting as history or biography by means of such techniques. When we read of "historical" techniques in a novel (we know it's a novel from other techniques) we can say, "cool, this is sure a "realistic" story -- I'm going to love it, it is so real..." -- Okay, I'm taking an extreme example to make the point: the "rhetoric of history or real-world narrative" is understood by authors of authors of fiction -- it's how they dress their fiction in verisimilitude. But that doesn't in any way rob the techniques of their value as indicators of historical writing.

Legal statements for courtroom evidence are not in the "historical or biographical genre" but they do rely upon statements that verify historical events and so use the techniques of historical inquiry. And so on.

I foresee real difficulty applying this idea to gospels, a case of some interest hereabouts. Mark "discusses" the matter (that is, dramatizes the issue, with the author speaking in his own voice while alluding to third-party statements, commenting on what is formally portrayed as past action).

The initial reaction to Jesus' teaching in the synagogue is favorable, because he speaks like someone with authority. His style is specifically contrasted with that of the "scribes" (who, I understand, were fond of the "rhetoric of history").

What we are reading in Mark here is nothing more than pure story-telling narrative. The author has created word images of dramatic exchanges between literary figures. The author does not intrude and talk directly to his audience and say, "I learned this story from ...."

This line of inference is fraught:

- An author teaches that superior audience experience entails avoiding the rhetoric of history when speaking truly.

- The author avoids the rhetoric of history (mostly).

- Q: Is the author speaking untruly, or is he (mostly) taking his own advice about how to achieve superior audience experience when speaking truly?

I am not clear on what is meant by "superior audience experience". There is good writing and bad writing, etc. The function of the techniques I am attempting to address is to inform readers of the type of work he/she is reading so he/she knows how to interpret or comprehend the work. Is it an epic poem? a legal document? a novella? a philosophical treatise? a biography?....

[neilgodfrey]

Mark 13.14 ("let the reader understand") may be another example of the author speaking directly to the reader about the narrative. (You know my feelings on Mark and historical genres, but this one sentence does stick out in a way similar to how Mark 7.19 may stick out.)

Yes, I recalled that passage as well after I wrote my comment. And you are right: the two comments do "stick out" from the narrative.

Reflecting on how they "stick out" . . . . I at first thought this was something of a digression from the main topic but, no, it's not.

The two comments really do jar the flow of the narrative. The reason, I think, is that they are disembodied from any known speaker. They drop in as commentary but not as the commentary of any person, certainly not the author who remains unknown. The author hides his identity even when adding comments like these. Accordingly we have no way of knowing what the author really thinks, why he added those comments -- readers are left with no choice but to accept those comments, not as opinions of a particular person, but as omniscient edicts just like the rest of the narrative which is entirely omniscient and anonymous.

[outhouse]

We have no idea what the author thought of what he was writing.

Disagree.

They used rhetoric to sell theology, we are far from blind here to what was important to the community that produced the text.


The sales method used to sell this theology shows exactly what he thought of text. They built authority in the text for A reason, and we know what that was.

Factually this was Judaism light for Gentiles of the Diaspora who were explained customs and rituals of monotheism they had never known.

[outhouse]

What we are reading in Mark here is nothing more than pure story-telling narrative.
...

No.

let me fix this for you


What we are reading in Mark here is nothing more than theology in which they placed more value then life itself. They wrote in the "form" of their geographic location, place and time that was written in rhetorical prose to build authority and persuade others that this was the ultimate theology you had to join while you still had a choice.

This was something to live by, it was not for entertainment of any kind like a story or as a Homeric epic was read.

[iskander]

What we are reading in Mark here is nothing more than pure story-telling narrative.
...

No.

let me fix this for you


What we are reading in Mark here is nothing more than theology in which they placed more value then life itself. They wrote in the "form" of their geographic location, place and time that was written in rhetorical prose to build authority and persuade others that this was the ultimate theology you had to join while you still had a choice.

This was something to live by, it was not for entertainment of any kind like a story or as a Homeric epic was read.

The Gospel of Mark is like the book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
http://www.historynet.com/uncle-toms-cabin