Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Le Donne: A Diachronic Approach to Perception and Memory or Why a Synchronic Jesus should be a Topic of Historical Criticism

(Le Donne was mentioned favorably by April DeConick here.)

The first paragraph misuses the term "disinterested." Then there are gems such as "As preconceived thought-categories evolve to accommodate the novum, they are also projected upon the novum to render it meaningful," or "What is new in my work is the idea that literary typology mimics the phenomenon of mnemonic refraction common to human perception."

Is there any real meaning here?

He says:

Quote:

So I take as a presupposition that the first interpreters of Jesus were not the evangelists, but his very first perceivers: his family, his adversaries, his followers, and his uncommitted audiences. These first contemporaries of Jesus set mnemonic patterns in motion that guided how later interpreters would bend these memories.

This has to be a "presupposition" because there's no evidence for any of it.

Then he goes on to assert that historians are not interested in what happened, but in people's memories of what happened. However, his PhD is in Theology and Religion, so it's not clear why he thinks he can speak for historians.

In footnote 7, he admits that he invented the term "refracted memory" because it sounds so much better than "distorted memory."

Have any of these social memory theorists interacted with the psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus who have demonstrated how easy it is to plant false memories? Or have they considered the work of the urban legend chroniclers, who show how widespread false rumors are?

Steven Carr · 11-12-2009, 12:47 PM

'It is because Mark and John “distorted” this saying that makes it more plausibly “authentic.”

Translation : If 2 people lie, then they are telling the truth.

Clivedurdle · 11-12-2009, 01:19 PM

A post modern theologian? Can't be!

Rick Sumner · 11-12-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

A post modern theologian? Can't be!

This would have been so much more fun to watch if you hadn't given away the answer.

arnoldo · 11-12-2009, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . .
Have any of these social memory theorists interacted with the psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus who have demonstrated how easy it is to plant false memories? Or have they considered the work of the urban legend chroniclers, who show how widespread false rumors are?

Skeptics seems to have gone from believing in a Historical Jesus (HJ) in the first century (although doubting his divinity) towards believing in a Spiritual Jesus (SJ) in the second century and finally a mythical Jesus (MJ) in the third century onwards. Thus we have the following skeptical belief of Jesus from HJ>SJ>MJ. Social memory theorists such as Loftus' concepts explain why people would initially believe in a HJ; perhaps bolstered by eye witness as well as written accounts.

Toto · 11-12-2009, 08:32 PM

Loftus is not a social memory theorist. She is an experimental psychologist who has gotten people to "remember" seeing Bugs Bunny at Disneyland.

The social memory theorists are trying to explain why the gospels can serve as evidence of a historical Jesus, in spite of the fact that they are obviously mythologized.

arnoldo · 11-12-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Loftus is not a social memory theorist. She is an experimental psychologist who has gotten people to "remember" seeing Bugs Bunny at Disneyland.

The social memory theorists are trying to explain why the gospels can serve as evidence of a historical Jesus, in spite of the fact that they are obviously mythologized.

The gospels aren't mythologized, they are spiritualized as we move from gMark> gJohn.

Quote:

Mark’s trial narrative attributes a saying to Jesus via the accusing words of “false” witnesses:

For many were giving false testimony against him, but their testimony was not consistent. Some stood up and began to give false testimony against him, saying, "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. '” Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. (Mark 14:56-9)

Compare this with a similar saying on the lips of Jesus immediately following his temple demonstration in the Fourth Gospel:

The Jews then said to him, "What sign do you show us as your authority for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body. (John 2:18-21)

There is perhaps no greater disparity of two interpretations of a saying in the Jesus tradition.12 In the first, Mark seems quite embarrassed by this saying, so much so that the evangelist commemorates this saying antagonistically. Notice, however, that Mark does not omit this saying, rather he reframes it. The Second Evangelist is constrained by sayings such as Mk 11:23 and 13:1-2).

On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel spiritualized this saying.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ledonne357912.shtml

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2009, 06:26 AM

Fun on BCH? Isn't there a rule against that?

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Le Donne: A Diachronic Approach to Perception and Memory or Why a Synchronic Jesus should be a Topic of Historical Criticism

(Le Donne was mentioned favorably by April DeConick here.)

The first paragraph misuses the term "disinterested." Then there are gems such as "As preconceived thought-categories evolve to accommodate the novum, they are also projected upon the novum to render it meaningful," or "What is new in my work is the idea that literary typology mimics the phenomenon of mnemonic refraction common to human perception."

Is there any real meaning here?

He says:

Quote:

So I take as a presupposition that the first interpreters of Jesus were not the evangelists, but his very first perceivers: his family, his adversaries, his followers, and his uncommitted audiences. These first contemporaries of Jesus set mnemonic patterns in motion that guided how later interpreters would bend these memories.

This has to be a "presupposition" because there's no evidence for any of it.

Then he goes on to assert that historians are not interested in what happened, but in people's memories of what happened. However, his PhD is in Theology and Religion, so it's not clear why he thinks he can speak for historians.

In footnote 7, he admits that he invented the term "refracted memory" because it sounds so much better than "distorted memory."

Have any of these social memory theorists interacted with the psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus who have demonstrated how easy it is to plant false memories? Or have they considered the work of the urban legend chroniclers, who show how widespread false rumors are?

My anti-DeConick sense is tingling...

Toto · 11-13-2009, 09:07 AM

I like DeConick. I think she does the best that can be done with the material, and all this floundering around to create some space where a historical Jesus might have existed is eventually going to lead to the success of mythicism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2009, 12:47 PM	#2
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	'It is because Mark and John “distorted” this saying that makes it more plausibly “authentic.” Translation : If 2 people lie, then they are telling the truth.

11-12-2009, 01:19 PM	#3
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	A post modern theologian? Can't be!

11-12-2009, 08:32 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Loftus is not a social memory theorist. She is an experimental psychologist who has gotten people to "remember" seeing Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The social memory theorists are trying to explain why the gospels can serve as evidence of a historical Jesus, in spite of the fact that they are obviously mythologized.

11-13-2009, 06:26 AM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Fun on BCH? Isn't there a rule against that?

11-13-2009, 09:07 AM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I like DeConick. I think she does the best that can be done with the material, and all this floundering around to create some space where a historical Jesus might have existed is eventually going to lead to the success of mythicism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.