tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post1870404096948151331..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Jesus before the Gospels: a serial review (pt. 4)Anthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-32208514806256118582016-06-27T20:59:52.624-07:002016-06-27T20:59:52.624-07:00Two of the biggest assumptions that many Christian...Two of the biggest assumptions that many Christians make regarding the truth claims of Christianity is that, one, eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. The problem is, however, that the majority of scholars today do not believe this is true. The second big assumption many Christians make is that it would have been impossible for whoever wrote these four books to have invented details in their books, especially in regards to the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances, due to the fact that eyewitnesses to these events would have still been alive when the gospels were written and distributed.<br /><br /> But consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus' death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60's, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.<br /><br /> How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy? <br /><br />I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.<br /><br /> If you can't list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole...or...the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades? Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-52334934146507113742016-05-06T13:33:06.320-07:002016-05-06T13:33:06.320-07:00Link to that part of Bauckham's speech:
http:...Link to that part of Bauckham's speech:<br /><br />http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Ehrman-vs-Bauckham-Part-2-Can-we-trust-eyewitness-testimony<br /><br />Starts about 10 minutes in.Old Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210106789630136704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-6082876478081987542016-05-06T11:06:06.491-07:002016-05-06T11:06:06.491-07:00Not at all, Anonymous. I mention Ehrman's disc...Not at all, Anonymous. I mention Ehrman's discussion of "[t]The only person with certain access to eyewitnesses" (viz., Paul), which implies that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.<br /><br />I don't think anyone claims the written texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John are eyewitnesses. They only claim that these texts bear some relationship to eyewitness testimony. I would not necessarily defend that thesis; I'm just pointing out that no one thinks we are "personally interviewing a live witness" when we read the Bible.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-43507598804360540552016-05-06T11:00:23.360-07:002016-05-06T11:00:23.360-07:00I am literally reviewing the book as I read it, so...I am literally reviewing the book as I read it, so I can only speak of the book up through the third chapter. At this point he hasn't made any clear distinction between autobiographical memory and rote memorization. The distinction he <i>has</i> made is between "episodic memory" and "semantic memory" (see Chapter 1), which is nearer the distinction between recalling events that one has directly experienced (episodic memory) and recalling facts (semantic memory).<br /><br />I think, John, that I would be careful—and you may be; I'm speaking only of my reaction to your comment—to avoid the assumption of a clean distinction between "memories of events" and the emotions, gaps, desires, mistakes, and influences of others that themselves constitute how we remember those events. For example, we cannot speak of my memory of my wedding apart or distinct from the joy and anxiety that comprised my experiences of that event. The joy and anxiety are themselves aspects of my experience of my wedding and my memories of it; they are not distortions of my memory.<br /><br />PS Your comment reminds me of Birger Gerhardsson's thesis. Ehrman does deal—superficially, IMHO—with <i>Memory and Manuscript</i> in a subsection entitled "Weren't the Traditions Memorized?" (pp. 66–71), but nowhere in this section does he deal with research on either memory or memorization.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-48115832085820810572016-05-05T17:36:12.556-07:002016-05-05T17:36:12.556-07:00Round 1 of the Ehrman/Bauckham debate, which is mo...Round 1 of the Ehrman/Bauckham debate, which is more about authorship:<br />https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1T5AEhk9E<br /><br />Round 2 of their debate, which is more about memory:<br />https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyk72y3UE4Juliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-26866016177971220012016-05-05T11:04:53.134-07:002016-05-05T11:04:53.134-07:00Author's Corrections: considerAuthor's Corrections: considerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-85296614078328525142016-05-05T10:33:06.043-07:002016-05-05T10:33:06.043-07:00Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Below are two pers...Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa.<br /><br />Below are two personal examples of eyewitness memory that others might find useful and interesting.<br /><br />1. A distant memory. Recently a sales manager for a windows company came to my home. As my wife and I filled out the paper work for our order, I noted the multiple pages and multiple contexts that required our signatures. I said to him: "Years ago we contracted for a new laundry and bath from a small business contractor, and I recall that the entire transaction was done on a half sheet of paper which listed the work and the costs and which he and I signed." <br /><br />Having memory studies in mind, I went back through my records and found the original paperwork. What I found was an original 6/96 three page proposal, including drawings, and a subsequent 4/97 five page list of work and costs, one of which was a half-page listing the total costs each of the bathroom and laundry, the amount of the down payment, and final check of payment in full. The half page was letterhead but there were no signatures, only a note marked paid. <br /><br />So what I actually recalled about 20 years late was a 'generally accurate' memory of the final half page. What was my personal investment: probably an idealized image of the hard-working small business man who makes the paperwork easy.<br /><br />2. A short-term memory. My wife and I are involved in delivering meals every other week for a local Meals on Wheels program. We have a certain route that we follow to and from our deliveries.<br /><br />I said to her, "You know when we're going down McKinley street to pick up our meals, and then we cross over main street and go down the side street,<br />the last time I saw..." She said, "We don't go that way to pick up the meals, we go by Washington street." I said, "What do you mean," and I began to argue, "You know I hate the traffic on Washington street." Well, we both dropped the subject. But the very next Meals on Wheels gig, she was right. I found myself driving down Washington street, and the route I had described was what we used to return the empty containers.<br /><br />So, did I just have an old man's (72) memory warp? Was I overly invested in hating Washington street traffic? Possibly both.<br /><br />In both of these cases there was some accuracy in my memory, but the full picture was left dissolved and distorted, and I had an emotional investment in each. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-28881479603265826822016-05-05T08:19:20.188-07:002016-05-05T08:19:20.188-07:00Two things: my question is not posed regarding the...Two things: my question is not posed regarding the Hebrew Bible and its oral traditions, only the far shorter time period between the ministry of Jesus and the writings of the NT; and it does not suggest that the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses, only that the authors are dependent upon oral traditions, many of which can be traced back to eyewitnesses. The questions of types of memory, then, would still be relevant for (some of) the traditions in the Gospels.Bible Junkieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741057277630747020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-84369295224767495042016-05-05T01:00:21.495-07:002016-05-05T01:00:21.495-07:00Your summary looks quite useful. Though I think y...Your summary looks quite useful. Though I think you might be neglecting the thesis that most biblical writings were not by eyewitnesses at all. <br /><br />Marcus Borg liked to note that when the Old Testament said "and Moses died," obviously Moses himself could not have written that. And if you look at the New Testament, you see dozens of similar things. That suggests strongly that no part of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.<br /><br />Indeed, considers this: when we read the Bible, we ourselves are reading a much-edited book. We are not personally interviewing a live witness, who claims to have seen something. <br /><br />In fact, no book is ever an eyewitness.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-38115277322294783062016-05-04T12:51:32.975-07:002016-05-04T12:51:32.975-07:00I have yet to read the book, which I am interested...I have yet to read the book, which I am interested to do, but is there any distinction in Ehrman's discussion between autobiographical memory and rote memorization? It seems to me that this is significant for distinguishing between memories of events that can easily be colored by emotion, forgetfulness, wishful-thinking, faulty-thinking, or influenced by the memories of others, etc., and teachings and stories of a teacher whose memorization is (or might be) more dependent upon techniques of learning common at the time in Judaism, and in many other parts of the Mediterranean world.Bible Junkieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741057277630747020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-52876025820073769982016-05-04T11:59:05.008-07:002016-05-04T11:59:05.008-07:00I need to listen to this debate. Thank you, Anonym...I need to listen to this debate. Thank you, Anonymous. (BTW, I'm honored to have hacktivists among my readers.)<br /><br />Whatever one thinks of either Bauckham's or Ehrman's work, the issue of <i>what</i> experimenters ask subjects to remember, <i>who</i> those subjects are, <i>why</i> subjects should try to remember (and, relatedly, <i>how hard</i> subjects should exert themselves to remember accurately), and <i>how</i> (i.e., the conditions in which) subjects experienced the event being remembered as well as were asked to recall that event are all factors that need to be addressed whenever anyone applies the results of memory experiments to the Gospels. This is especially the case if the primary question we're trying to answer is how <i>accurate</i> memory is (both Bauckham and Ehrman seem particularly focused on accuracy).Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-4920546131009232872016-05-04T11:51:39.996-07:002016-05-04T11:51:39.996-07:00Yes, indeed. But the Gospels' original anonymi...Yes, indeed. But the Gospels' original anonymity is still the majority position, and I don't fault Ehrman for adopting it. For my own part, I think the Gospels' ascriptions, though not original, are earlier than Ehrman argues.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-9228666102390325532016-05-04T06:17:02.013-07:002016-05-04T06:17:02.013-07:00In their debate on the radio show "Unbelievab...In their debate on the radio show "Unbelievable?", Bauckham pointed out the difference in the studies Erhman pointed to (mainly dealing with impartial observers), and the ones that Bauckham described as showing reliable memories (mainly involving personal investment in the situation). Ehrman did not seem to have a good response to that nuance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-67094491983517984922016-05-04T05:26:48.903-07:002016-05-04T05:26:48.903-07:00Martin Hengel managed a very provocative challenge...Martin Hengel managed a very provocative challenge to the anonymity of the Gospels in The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think it's worth careful consideration, at least to temper confidence about the commonplace assertion that the Gospels were anonymous.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441209597626674171noreply@blogger.com