tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post1085784660283813897..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: human memory is THE factorApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-62675455599043655802008-12-09T09:37:00.000-08:002008-12-09T09:37:00.000-08:00On other comment: I think one needs to work with p...On other comment: I think one needs to work with people who do not come out of a tradition that uses Scripture memory. These folks might have perfect memory of an assigned passage, although I suspect it would be in the King James Version.<BR/><BR/>I had to memorize Scripture when younger and my memorized passages are all in the Revised Standard except for a few in the King James. It drives me crazy to read a passage in worship in the New International Versionthat I have memorized because it just doesn't sound right.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-80090935148807198642008-12-09T09:31:00.000-08:002008-12-09T09:31:00.000-08:00Another factor in memory: it is my experience that...Another factor in memory: it is my experience that no matter how many times people hear the Lukan Christmas narrative they are convinced that Mary rode a donkey, that Joseph and Mary spoke with the Innkeeper, that the manger was in a shed of some sort and that there were animals at the scene of birth. <BR/><BR/>Memory of the text has been corrupted by other sources of information like Sunday School classes and Christmas pageants. <BR/><BR/>Which, of course might suggest a similar corruption (although in different ways) in the early Church's memory.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-2087379284155319192008-12-09T08:44:00.000-08:002008-12-09T08:44:00.000-08:00It was good to hear the preliminary results of thi...It was good to hear the preliminary results of this study, which prompt a few questions and comments. In the SR group, was the participant supposed to not consult the source except at spots where memory failed? I.e., it was not quite the same as transcribing, I presume? <BR/><BR/>Another question: Were any of the participants not already well aware of the Mustard-seed parable in Mark (or Matthew) that was involved, before you initiated the test, as opposed to the others? If so, one would need to separate the results into those two groups at least before further analysis.<BR/><BR/>A complication: By my understanding, a similar study needs to be contemplated in which the written source, in WW, is in a different language than the write-down language (i.e. W’W), as translation adds much variability. Since the external evidence is of Matthew being first and in the Hebrew tongue with the other texts being written in Greek and based on this Matthew, and since the Aramaisms and Hebraisms within Matthew cannot be denied and would have carried over into Mark and Luke also, and since Mark could even more easily have been an abbreviation rather than Matthew an expansion, this needs consideration. Parallel texts already exist, however, for which W’W can be studied, leading me to conclude that the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek utilized Mark and Luke, and purposely replicated lengthy strings of words.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-87199536661256095212008-12-09T07:44:00.000-08:002008-12-09T07:44:00.000-08:00I think one thing that it would be fascinating to ...I think one thing that it would be fascinating to study, but it might be extremely difficult to arrange an experiment in our society, is the extent of similarity between the following two scenarios: (1) a story is read repeatedly, word for word, from a Gospel or other such source, over the course of several years, and then another person is asked to retell it or write it down; (2) a story is repeatedly told without there being a written version with set wording, and then another person is asked to retell it or write it down.<BR/><BR/>I wonder whether the sort of repetition that is possible only over long periods of time, and the precise repeated wording possible only when one has an authoritative text that is read aloud to a congregation regularly, make a difference in the long run. I suspect that the results might well be the same as in your experiments (which I assume were shorter-term, but I may be wrong about that), but I also think that there might be key words or phrases that might get stuck in the mind through repetition, that would not in purely oral transmission because that phraseology might never be used a second time.<BR/><BR/>As I write this, I am starting to wonder whether the conclusion that we need to draw is that there are so many different possible modes of interconnectedness between texts and their oral environment, that we cannot in most cases figure out precisely the relationship. And that uncertainty might be more revolutionary for NT studies than any firmer conclusion could have been!James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-53392510668559487832008-12-09T02:23:00.000-08:002008-12-09T02:23:00.000-08:00Bob,Keep in mind that we are not comparing literat...Bob,<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that we are not comparing literates with illiterates when we attempt to generalize to the early Christian world on the basis of modern experiments. We can not study orality of early Christians, because we are not there to record what they are saying or hearing. All we can do is study their texts. Matthew was literate, Thomas was literate.<BR/><BR/>Still, it remains very difficult to generalize to early Christians, because what they are attempting to do is so incredibly different from what we require from our modern subjects. <BR/><BR/>Also, compositional procedures were very different and so was the memory framework that affected the encoding and retrieval from memory. That is, how a person processes a new text depends to a large extent on what is already in memory. For example, if as person already has a very good memory of septuagintal texts this will affect how the person processes a new story. It may remind the person of the older texts (memory is associative) and this could have several different kinds of effects on the memorization and on the composition of a new text.Richard Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07240798559888896927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-8509844599004353452008-12-09T00:14:00.000-08:002008-12-09T00:14:00.000-08:00I still wonder if doing the same tests in non lite...I still wonder if doing the same tests in non literate countries would produce different results or not. <BR/><BR/>I also wonder in literacy and non literacy are hard wired in the sense that if someone has never learned to read puts the information in different parts of the brain and if that affects memory. <BR/><BR/>I know that body to brain and brain to body information affects not only information stored but also brain chemistry. So do events in life. Depression is affected by life experience as is life affected by depression.<BR/><BR/>And rerouting of information because of trauma changes brain patterns too.<BR/><BR/>In other words I think sampling those only who can read may produce skewed results. Those who rely on hearing memory instead of sight and reading may use different brain tracks and may retain memories better, worse, or in a different way than those who rely on sight and reading.<BR/><BR/>I think if may be a bigger subject because of current brain research than we have any idea.<BR/><BR/>And yes, as you have pointed out, Dr. Deconick, it affects form criticism and possibly other areas as well.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.com