tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post8352937098589942874..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Memory and the 'Car Accident' Example RevisitedAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-3347584804321549252017-01-25T17:39:46.785-08:002017-01-25T17:39:46.785-08:00Thanks for replying. I don't know Eazy or Shei...Thanks for replying. I don't know Eazy or Sheila, but since much of my family history is a mystery I am currently working on, who knows?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-88669206313228921762017-01-20T18:39:34.102-08:002017-01-20T18:39:34.102-08:00I would like to relate a personal experience that ...I would like to relate a personal experience that I think might give some insight.<br /><br /> I once testified in court as a witness to a car accident. The police officer had given his interpretation of the events, first. I knew that his narrative was wrong. I could have flat out contradicted him, had I chosen to do so. Instead, I simply stated what I saw, which left enough wiggle room for the magistrate to ignore the contradiction and wonder what was up. As I (and probably the officer) hoped, the magistrate focused on the common facts of our stories and came to the conclusion of who was at fault. <br /><br />I understood why the officer gave a semi-false story. The person at fault had told the officer that I was at fault for the accident, even though I had merely stopped after the accident to see if I could help and to be a witness. Meanwhile, the other car involved in the accident had driven off, even though they were not really at fault, it was a teenage driver who didn't want to get in trouble with his parents. When the officer saw that there was no damage to my car, he realized that the person at fault had been lying. He eventually tracked down the other driver (from an anonymous witness, I guess), and in order to protect him - and me - changed the narrative. <br /><br />But the person at fault stayed at fault, regardless of which narrative the magistrate accepted. It makes me wonder about some of the events in the Gospels, that seem to contradict each other. Perhaps we - just like the magistrate - should concentrate on the events that are told in common.Juliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-55938471962528237982017-01-19T15:15:18.650-08:002017-01-19T15:15:18.650-08:00I think that the analogy is a reasonable place to ...I think that the analogy is a reasonable place to start, because it starts with the concrete experiences of the people you're working with and Bruner's work in education theory says that this is a good place to start. The problem is when you say "and composing the gospels was exactly like that". Because it wasn't, but it started with a similar situation, in that something happened that was eyecatching for many people and changed the lives of some. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442255026435018746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-48208407221037435182017-01-18T16:34:09.407-08:002017-01-18T16:34:09.407-08:00Whatever process was at work in the first century,...Whatever process was at work in the first century, it was complex, interwoven, branching, converging, snowballing, retracting, progressing, and looping back.... and most important, most of the memories were lost down the river into to oblivion. On the other hand, that's how all social memory works. <br /><br />Glad you placed "contaminate" in scare quotes, unkleE (are you related to Eazy or Sheila?). Because "contaminate" assumes that there is something like "pure" reality, perception, or memory. There is not.<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-9624885849334438152017-01-17T18:07:09.367-08:002017-01-17T18:07:09.367-08:00This is a most interesting post, thanks, and your ...This is a most interesting post, thanks, and your police report example is very useful. You say: <i>"our social arrangements force us to concede authority to an external artifact that was composed by an authoritative collector of facts jointly perceived and reported."</i><br /><br />How do you think that statement applies to the four gospels? Obviously you and I today have no option but to go to the gospels because the eyewitnesses are long gone. But do you think that process happened during the first century? Does such a process "contaminate" some eyewitness evidence?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-28803013681602567152017-01-17T14:33:54.026-08:002017-01-17T14:33:54.026-08:00InterestingInterestingCanadianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320583233909625727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-14677295590259628562017-01-17T13:54:14.029-08:002017-01-17T13:54:14.029-08:00And the three layer 'witnesses' are not in...And the three layer 'witnesses' are not independent, but all are dependent on the first 'witness' account - and perhaps decades later. The analogy is basically a non-starter. And yet, people of a certain persuasion love it.Deane Galbraithnoreply@blogger.com