Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Interesting, will check that out.

Speaking of social memory, what about the social memory of recent well documented events, such as WW2, among Brits, United States, Central and South Americans, Canadians, Free French, Vichy French, Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe & Poland, Japanese, Chinese, Indo-China, etc.?

These events have been described so differently in each culture that one might despair of ever discovering the "truth" about them. Yet we have a great treasure trove of more or less accurate statistical data (numbers of troops, volumes of production of various consumables, etc.), original documentation and diaries, against which we can check the various local stories.

The trick is to resist the powerful urge to make too much of the "color" commentary that the original documentation already contains, and to just as stridently resist the even more powerful urge to add ones own "color" commentary to convert the data into moral lessons.

Edit: The point is, social memories (expressed as historical narratives) can be compared to raw primary data to see if the stories tend to take on different characteristics (spin) in certain circumstances, but perhaps this kind of research is - or has already been - done and we are too myopic to see it in plain sight.

DCH

ericbwonder wrote:I don't see how theories of memory are 'methods' that are useful for historical reconstruction. They can be higher order analytical categories, but they don't seem to tell us what is and is not historical.

Hi Eric, I don't think Allison proposes memory theory as a "method." It's part of the tissue of assumptions on which he operates. His method, as far as I can tell, is to presume that themes we find in abundance are part of the "big picture" and then to catalog and analyze passages that attest those themes. So he starts with a long list of passages that bespeak an apocalyptic urgency: the Kingdom is coming, and soon! Another dominant theme is combat with Satan (pp. 17-20). From these quantitatively dominant themes, Allison posits properties of Jesus' message, and the underlying concerns of the man. His argument for this method is a kind of reductio ad absurdum. He says, "[o]ur choice is not between an apocalyptic Jesus and some other Jesus; it is between an apocalyptic Jesus and no Jesus at all ... The pertinent material is sufficiently abundant that removing it all should leave one thoroughly skeptical about the mnemonic competence of the tradition" (46-47). The inference, based on thematic testimonia, that the theme should be assigned to the HJ is what Allison calls the "argument from presumptive continuity," which he thinks is "circumstantially compelling," although not "logically absolute" (p. 55).

Of course, what I'm calling Allison's reductio is not a sound deductive argument. Its conclusion does not contradict a premise known to be true. Instead, it is really a petitio principii. Allison's result of denying an apocalyptic Jesus - i.e. that we have no HJ at all - only contradicts the very thesis that must be demonstrated - i.e. that there is an HJ. But as Allison admits on p. 23, "I can think of no line of reasoning that is not, in the end, strictly circular." Perhaps it's best to say that Allison assumes that there is/was an HJ, and then proceeds to use his methods to sketch out what the HJ is likely to have been like.

DCHindley wrote:Speaking of social memory, what about the social memory of recent well documented events, such as WW2, among Brits, United States, Central and South Americans, Canadians, Free French, Vichy French, Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe & Poland, Japanese, Chinese, Indo-China, etc.?

These events have been described so differently in each culture that one might despair of ever discovering the "truth" about them. Yet we have a great treasure trove of more or less accurate statistical data (numbers of troops, volumes of production of various consumables, etc.), original documentation and diaries, against which we can check the various local stories.

The trick is to resist the powerful urge to make too much of the "color" commentary that the original documentation already contains, and to just as stridently resist the even more powerful urge to add ones own "color" commentary to convert the data into moral lessons.

DCH

Good points....

For my part - memory theory has nothing to offer as some sort of aid for establishing historicity for the gospel Jesus figure. However, I do think it has a part to play in getting the wider social/political framework of that gospel story into focus. People remember things all the time - even if they add their own 'colour' to that memory. That 'colour' does not cancel out the memory that is being remembered. It's the big social/political events that surround the gospel story that would have contributed to that story's creation. i.e. the gospel story could well be the 'colour' that the gospel writers have added to their fundamental memory of real historical events.

Yes, today, we have the medium of television to keep memories alive. And yet, stories of, for example WW2, also play their part in preserving the memory of the tragedy of that war. ('Atonement' being both book and movie.) People remember where they were when Kennedy was shot; where they were when Diana died in that car crash; where they were when the twin towers happened. Even without television, the news of great social/political tragedies will be passed on and passed down to future generations. Events and people are remembered. Nelson Mandela walking out of prison - that's something that will be remembered as much as the end of Apartheid.

Methinks, it would be unwise to seek to negate the use of memory by the gospel writers in the creation of their story. Yes, they 'coloured' their memories - that 'colour' is the gospel story. It's the black and white historical realities that contributed to their memories that needs to be identified.

The gospels were unlikely written from memory per se: theology and changing doctrine were likely to have been significant influences.

MrMacSon wrote:The gospels were unlikely written from memory per se: theology and changing doctrine were likely to have been significant influences.

I'm not talking about memory of the assumed historical gospel Jesus....

I'm suggesting that memory of historical events and historical people has been 'coloured' by the gospel story. A story that has used theology and OT interpretations as colouring material. It's the images, the memories, that have been so coloured that are relevant - not the pretty colours. It's the black and white memories not the technicolor gospel overlay that is important.

MrMacSon wrote:The gospels were unlikely written from memory per se: theology and changing doctrine were likely to have been significant influences.

Theology and doctrine were more then significant influences, it Is the foundation the history was written on and around. We know it rhetorically shaped the history but that does nothing either way to the plausibility of a historical core.

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:The gospels were unlikely written from memory per se: theology and changing doctrine were likely to have been significant influences.

Theology and doctrine were more then significant influences, it Is the foundation the history was written on and around. We know it rhetorically shaped the history but that does nothing either way to the plausibility of a historical core.

Plausible does not mean probable. You have not eliminated the possibility that Mark wrote an allegory. Given the nature of the evidence, you need to separately establish each positive assertion that you base on evidence found in the Gospels. That is my point in the weighing thread to Bernard. If you state, well, Jesus did not miraculously feed 5000 people, but they all really were there, you still have to establish separately that they all really were there.

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:The gospels were unlikely written from memory per se: theology and changing doctrine were likely to have been significant influences.

Theology and doctrine were more then significant influences, it Is the foundation the history was written on and around. We know it rhetorically shaped the history but that does nothing either way to the plausibility of a historical core.

Depends on what history you're referring to. The development of early Christianity has a history that may or may not include a historical Jesus; and if it does, he may have actually been a wandering preacher contemporary of Paul and the other 'disciples' - preaching about a Christ-savior.

MrMacSon wrote: Depends on what history you're referring to

.

We see in many places the authors changing the history they believed in rhetorically, building a character using pseudo history in many places.

The development of early Christianity has a history that may or may not include a historical Jesus

That does not matter when looking at the theological motives and influence of the authors.

and if it does, he may have actually been a wandering preacher contemporary of Paul and the other 'disciples' - preaching about a Christ-savior.

Had that been the case, there would be no reason to use a Galilean baptized by John, living in an Aramaic community. This would need to be explained with credibility before we could give your sentence any weight what so ever.