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

[neilgodfrey]

But if we read every text the way you do (replacing ...

What have I replaced? The woman, and only the woman, said she's a goddess. I evaluated her statement, I did not change it. Put the context back in. Pliny didn't vouch for the story, Pliny asked for an opinion. I'm not Sura, but I have an opinion to offer.

Let me put the Tacitus version in the record. . . .

I took the story out of its Pliny context to make the point and your explanation here seems to me to only reinforce my point: evaluation towards historical core or fiction is impossible without reference to a context that is by definition external to the text. You seem to acknowledge here that very point by transferring the story to your own world-view context and from that context making your evaluation.

If I understand you correctly then WW can also be simply an exaggeration of some normal person who did mundane things that helped change history -- as happens in real life -- and is therefore quite probably historical.

Since I didn't classify Wonder Woman as historically founded, then it's on you to show that I somehow must.

I did not say you did classify WW as historically founded; my point was that you surely don't. But why not? Why treat some texts differently from others? Why not seek to rationalise all stories to conform to our personal experiences?

[neilgodfrey]

When we do reach the problem, it often takes the form of separating facts from interpretations of the facts.

And separation is not difficult at all in the real world. Different perspectives and edited accounts of the bombing of Pearl Harbor do not undercut or confuse the fact that we know "for a historical fact" that Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, as I discussed earlier. Different interpretations and experiences of a Thai longtail boat going down a canal do not pose any problem for the objective fact that there really was a Thai longtail boat going down the canal.

you seem to have a strong opinion about what a ~proper~ history should ~look like~, so to speak.

Guilty as charged. I think my view is based on the statements by both modern and ancient historians about their craft -- and I confess does include criticisms of some postmodernist views. Those more extreme postmodernist views casting doubt on the very nature of the knowability of certain facts are answered in my Pearl Harbor/Thai boat examples above.

We each have our own personal experiences and perspectives of the experience of rain. Such necessarily subjective perceptions do not deny the objective fact that we really can know when it has rained.

[austendw]

We each have our own personal experiences and perspectives of the experience of rain. Such necessarily subjective perceptions do not deny the objective fact that we really can know when it has rained.

First can I say that I haven't been following this thread in all it's detail because, well, it's a bit exhausting. But I'd like to chip in here.

I think your comments about rain or a Thai longtail boat are a little off because "history" is about narrative, not the actuality of a single event. The issue for those "postmodernist" approaches is more to do with the following possible accounts:

The Thai longtail boat went down the canal because it rained.
The Thai longtail boat went down the canal rather than up the canal because it rained.
The Thai longtail boat went down the canal despite the fact it rained.
It rained because the Thai longtail boat went down the canal.
Had the Thai longtail boat gone up the canal rather than down it would have rained even harder.
The Thai longtail boat went down the canal (foreget about the rain, it isn't important).
It rained (forget about the Thai longtail boat, it isn't important).
The rain and the Thai longtail boat going down the canal were a coincidence, but the result was ....
It was no coincidence that it was raining when the Thai longtail boat went down the canal because....

History isn't about a fact or two facts, its the interplay of individual events, the narrative that links them; the causality that does or doesn't make sense of them; the judgement as to whether you include or exclude them as significant or irrelevant, central or peripheral; where emphasis is placed etc etc... I'm sure you get my drift. That's where competing versions come into play. Such narratives are less easily dismissed with a simple positivistic assertion that something did or didn't happen, period.

[neilgodfrey]

History isn't about a fact or two facts, its the interplay of individual events, the narrative that links them; the causality that does or doesn't make sense of them; the judgement as to whether you include or exclude them as significant or irrelevant, central or peripheral; where emphasis is placed etc etc... I'm sure you get my drift. That's where competing versions come into play. Such narratives are less easily dismissed with a simple positivistic assertion that something did or didn't happen, period.

Hi austendw, I love your comments because they go to the heart of what I would really love to talk about more. You are dead right about the nature of history being a narrative, and that narrative, you probably know as well as I do, is constructed by each historian.

Anyone with insomnia might also have noticed my hedging in a recent comment when it came to interpreting Assyrian chronicles as "history".

This is what frustrates me most about the discussion about "the historical Jesus". The exercise of determining whether or not there was "a historical Jesus" (and that concept needs definition before it can be answered) is not "history" in the sense of narrative history. It is a very narrow type of inquiry that, to my mind is not "history" so much as a type of forensic inquiry. But some history articles do tend to fall into that category, so, so be it.

My understanding of the primary question in the OP, however, is the problem of how we know if X was indeed a historical fact in ancient times, as much as whether a certain chain of events (or particular narrative) took place.

Biblical scholars investigating the question of the "historical Jesus" seem to be stuck on the forensic inquiry -- "is this an actual historical fact or not? / and if so, what "type" of fact is it?" -- type of history.

I am personally far more interested in what I consider the real "historical question" -- how do we account for the rise of Christianity?

Now in pursuing that question I don't think any a priori positions about some "figure of Jesus" (historical or otherwise) deserve any place at all. That question needs to rely solely on what we can glean and test in the documentary evidence and nothing more.

(I, too, find the discussion somewhat exhausting in its seemingly interminable length. I suspect uncertain Paul does, too.)

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

I took the story out of its Pliny context to make the point and your explanation here seems to me to only reinforce my point: evaluation towards historical core or fiction is impossible without reference to a context that is by definition external to the text.

We don't disagree about that. Apparently, as near as I can make out, we disagree whether you could even read the thing except that you already have some "context." The more, the better, but if you really had none, then you wouldn't understand what's being said at any level.

But why not?

If we agree that I haven't, and agree that I wouldn't, and you alone were the one who raised the possibility, then why does it fall to me to explain why not? At a minimum, I'd need some explanation of why you think that what I haven't and wouldn't do is a serious possibility for me to have done.

Say that three times fast, lol.

Why not seek to rationalise all stories to conform to our personal experiences?

You keep using the verb to rationalize (yes, it's spelled differently here). I'm still working on what one story have I rationalized, and now you're asking about all stories.

It is reasonable to ask about any story "Could this story have really happened, as told?" For Wonder Woman (relying on summaries I've read on the web), the answer, in my opinion, is no. For either version of Curtius Rufus, the answer (again IMO) is yes. Whether it really did happen is another, further question (and that the details differ complicates things).

Even if I asked the follow-up question of WW, "Separating ostensibly factual events from interpretations, could the factual portion have happened?" Still no, IMO.

I suppose we could keep drilling in hopes of finding some candidate for a realistic core, but the few summaries I've read suggest to me that our colleague outhouse is factually correct: the root of the story simply is not real life. There are obvious huge Greco-Roman mythological chunks, and at least some people discern (culturally?) Christian spin.

Such necessarily subjective perceptions do not deny the objective fact that we really can know when it has rained.

Unless there's a lawn sprinkler in the picture, in which case, I'd be "rationalizing" to consider that maybe its use explains why the sidewalk is dry when the lawn is soaked. That's a joke, Neil.

I suspect uncertain Paul does, too.

Certainly .

[Bernard Muller]

to whom it may concern, about drawing history from dubious evidence, as extract from my website:

"My approach, as a critical investigator, will appear radically new. The research was not based on studying extensively scholarly works; but instead by inquiring about contextual facts, scrutinizing primary sources, getting free from past indoctrination and, above all, doing a lot of thinking. Never interested in divergent learned opinions, lofty ("high context") intellectualism, slick or bullying rhetoric, agenda-driven "studies" or ill-validated theories, I applied myself to discover the bottom of things, the facts and the bare truth, as naive as it may sound.

"Hypotheses are established as valid when they are able to account for the bulk of the evidence." Malhon H.Smith
With its many components backed up by series of attestations & short arguments, this reconstruction (with its associated "deconstructions") is thoroughly documented and probably the most defensible among the many other ones. Furthermore,
- Contrary pieces of evidence & interpretations are flagged and addressed (which is usually not done in scholarly works!).
- Great care is taken about the dating, authorship & later alterations of crucial early Christian texts.
- Loose ends and miscellaneous critical issues are examined in the appendices." (http://historical-jesus.info/)


"More about my methodology:
a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).
c) Consider the (early) Christian texts as written by "flesh & blood "persons (and not necessarily scholars!) likely to have human motives (sometimes very obvious), and as addressed to contemporaries. Then research the circumstances surrounding their compositions.
d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.
e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works), because that provides another dimension, the most crucial one: many (preceding & following) points are considerably affected by the dating & sequencing.
f) Do not charge with some theory/concept (yours or borrowed) because it suits you (unfortunately, agenda-driven works are prevalent nowadays).
g) Sort out the evidence and check it in depth (accuracy, validity, context, correct translation, etc., for each bits), by way of critical analysis. Justify any rejection with good reasons, preferably many of them.
h) Do not ignore "down to earth", obvious, mundane or trivial details (usually considered unworthy of scholarly interest). Do not overlook contradictions and oddities (as you would for the work of a subordinate, as a detective would for a suspect, as a legal officer would for an eyewitness!). Pay attention to "against the grain" and embarrassing bits (they might be telling!).
i) Follow the evidence, stay close to it, allow it to "discipline" & direct you: avoid free intellectual extrapolations & speculations (we have enough of those!).
j) Practice reality checks along the way: avoid absurdities.
k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).
l) Accept what you discover, rather than decide first what to find & reject.
m) Be scrupulous: "fudging" & "ignoring" NOT allowed (why should I fool myself & my readers? And this website will not advance my career or make money for me!).
n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).
o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position.
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.
q) Go back over all the preceding points because later findings are bound to have implications on previous understandings (and vice versa. I never said it was an "auto-pilot" one-way process. Beware of simplistic methodologies!). Examine back everything, including the options you chose along the way (everything has to fit, but keep observing all the points!). Do it over & over, again & again ...

This is what I tried to abide by, but if any one of my readers objects on these points or thinks I do not adhere to them (or missed some other ones), please let me know (but be specific!). Contact me here.

And if, (despite) complying with all the aforementioned, overall & throughout COHERENCE of the reconstruction is achieved, then you succeeded.
If not, well, either it cannot be done (according to the available evidence) OR you went wrong someplace!

Furthermore, this kind of study should not be a vehicle for (or driven by) anti-Christian or pro-Christian propaganda (or bias)! Also, it should not be influenced by any author's peculiar fixation(s), source of income or/and "market" consideration. And beware of those works which use the "historical Jesus" in order to showcase a scholar/professor's field of expertise, such as old-fashioned theology, in low demand otherwise." (http://historical-jesus.info/author.html)

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Contrary pieces of evidence & interpretations are flagged and addressed (which is usually not done in scholarly works!).

I disagree with this. The listing and dismantling of contrary evidence and interpretations is a standard part of the scholarly monograph, including commentaries.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I disagree with this. The listing and dismantling of contrary evidence and interpretations is a standard part of the scholarly monograph, including commentaries.

In my experience, it is not often applied, more so among conservative & mythicist scholars/authors, and any ones who are pushing their own agenda.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Apparently, as near as I can make out, we disagree whether you could even read the thing except that you already have some "context." The more, the better, but if you really had none, then you wouldn't understand what's being said at any level.

True, but we are talking about removing it from the context of being relayed between parties as understood to be the report of a real experience.

It is reasonable to ask about any story "Could this story have really happened, as told?"

This returns us to plausibility. Whether X happened "in history" is a question of evidence, not whether one thinks the story is merely plausible. Lies are generally plausible or they would never be told. Much fiction itself succeeds best when it works within rules of verisimilitude -- plausibility.

The question we are asking, I suppose, is what makes a plausible writing "fiction" versus "history"?

[neilgodfrey]

"Hypotheses are established as valid when they are able to account for the bulk of the evidence." Malhon H.Smith

This is a common assumption in biblical studies but it is not how hypotheses are established in other fields.

What MS's statement amounts to is confirmation bias. I wanted to understand how flat-earthers' account for the evidence so read Christine Garwood's book about them. Their hypothesis really does account for the bulk of the evidence, too, when you read it.

Hypotheses are better "established" (though always tentatively so) when they meet tests to disprove them. One needs to ask what a particular hypothesis would lead us to expect in given circumstances, what does it predict, what would disprove it.

(My estimation of Mahlon Smith's integrity as a disinterested scholar diminished when he challenged me to know where I stood regarding the Christian faith. From that moment I saw him as little more than an apologist.)