Eyewitnesses as Guarantors of the Accuracy of the Gospel Traditions in the Light of Psychological Research
Robert K. McIver, 529–546
I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing McIver's book (on the same topic) for Catholic Biblical Quarterly. I will not relay the entire review here, but here are a couple paragraphs:
It has become commonplace in Gospels/Jesus studies to
point to the 30-60 year interval between the oral transmission of the
tradition(s) and its calcification in writing.
Many emphasize this interval in support of the fortuitous eye-witness
testimonies influential in the calcification process (e.g. Richard
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006]); others emphasize this interval to
demonstrate the frailty of human memory (e.g. Judith C. S. Redman, “How Accurate
Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of
Psychological Research,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 1
[2010]: 177-97). While much has
been done in recent decades to contextualize this process within oral/aural
culture and media studies more generally, Robert K. McIver’s monograph is the
most comprehensive treatment to date on the cognitive psychology of memory and
how this relates to the Synoptic Gospels.
....
While many readers will demur from M.’s
optimistic conclusions regarding the “authenticity” of the Synoptics, the
brilliance of his study is found in the first four chapters. Indeed, the first third of this book outmodes
most previous appeals to the interval of memory between the crucifixion and the
writing of Mark. Henceforth, any work on
the Gospels that repeats the words “reliability,” “accuracy,” “credibility” or
“eye-witnesses,” but does not cite this book must be considered deficient.
-anthony
Would you feel comfortable emailing me a pdf of your review of McIvor's book? gregmonette@yahoo.com.
ReplyDeleteI would.
ReplyDeleteWin of lose, it will be a good read.
ReplyDelete