Kata Markon

[Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>]

Title: The Anachronism of "History"

So much of this discussion misses the goal because we insist upon forcing Mark into categories that are foreign to him. Our modern idea of "history" is one such category. Mark had no interest in history as merely accurately recording events that occurred. He was much more intentional in shaping the narrative so as to record what he believed "what it all meant!"

That being said - I firmly believe the category of "fiction" is also anachronistic.

I'm not sure we have at our disposal modern categories that accurately capture Mark's approach. If you went into a bookstore in the 1st century CE Israel (speaking of anachronisms...) you would NOT find a "non-fiction" section, and a "fiction" section. My theory is that the current understanding has enormous difficulty grasping Mark's intent because these two polarities (fiction vs. non-fiction) had not been really separated in common thinking back then - certainly not with the precision with which we've separated them in our understanding!

It seems to me (to use modern categories) that ancient writers had no problem "imaginatively" interacting in their narrative construals of "history".

This means, from a modern "historic" point of view, both sides are probably wrong.

I suggest it is inaccurate to characterize Mark as writing "history" OR "fiction".

--
Steve Black
Diocese of New Westminster
Anglican Church of Canada

3049 West 14th Ave
Vancouver, BC
Canada
V6K 2X7