Joan of Bark

While I agree in general about the near impossibility of getting an exact copy of oral statements, I would argue that the ancients had far better memories than we do, precisely because they didn't have the many mechanical means to preserve words that we take for granted. They would have been forced to develop good memories simply to survive.

Littlejohn

A 'lapidary' judgment the one your. However, it is unfounded, as to compose the texts that today are called 'canonical gospels', were hired educated people (*), which had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, because this work of composition was made in the first half of the second century, between the years 140-150.

The numerous errors and contradictions that again today exist in the Gospels (and that, in their early versions, were certainly more numerous than the existing) result from the fact that the learned characters of which above, could not refer to texts already written, since before them there was nothing like that, with the exception of Gnostic works: surely written before those catholics!

The sources of these scholars, were simple recordings scattered here and there, and stories belonging to some oral tradition. Almost certainly, none of them had never been to Palestine, it given the gross topographical errors and inconsistencies narratives, that still occur in today's Gospel.


Greetings

___________________________________

Note:

(*) - A major criticism of skeptical scholars about the authorship of the Gospels, is exactly the opposite of what you affirm, because they do not you explains how it was possible that 'apostles' uncultured, uneducated, as is apparent by the contents of the Gospels, may have written these works, which are generally unobjectionable in terms of grammatical and syntactical correctness.


Littlejohn

.

dizzy

The ancients had different values, not better memories. The printing press did not give us degenerative brain disease. It made us anal-retentive about accuracy. It has been shown that when retelling a story people recall what they can, then fill out the gaps with constructions of their own. This is survival of the most memorable, the most culturally important, not of the most accurate.

Clivedurdle

GMark is an eyewitness account of Seneca's lost play. Matthew and Luke are riffs.

spamandham

I would argue they had far worse memories than we do, because we have much better childhood nutrition and medical care.

However, there are many illiterate societies even today, so it should be possible to test the idea that people in such societies have better memory.

spamandham

I think there is better support for the idea that the gospel story was originally a play than for any HJ speculation.

Here we have Paul essentially telling us that it was some kind of performance. I have never seen an HJer explain this in a sensible way:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

Further, the passion reads like a play. Could Christianity have been the Order of the Jedi of its day - a religion created by a performance?

spin

You shouldn't depend on an outmoded translation. Here's the verb you're relying on to mean "portray". It's about writing, something like "aforementioned" here.


spin

mountainman

Was not the play in those days just the equivalent of the modern theatre?
At least we know that the heretics ridiculed the canon in the theatres.
Eusebius reluctantly tells us this while praising the stage director.

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

“Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]


Here is the context:


Therefore spamandham while this is not substantial evidence that the Canonical christian religion was created by the scripts which were designed to accompany a performance, it may represent evidence that the heretical and nn canonical writings, the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, may have started out this reactive and subversive way in the 4th century as described above by thrice blessed Eusebius.

aa5874

Your theory that ancients had far better memory or had developed far better memories may be correct.

Once a person cannot read or write they MUST depend on their memory. Imagine giving directions or instructions to an illiterate person. Memory is their only means of storing data.

mountainman

It's reasonable. See for example the accounts in "The Lives of the Sophists" by Eunapius. Recall from memory was a highly regarded asset, and was possessed in varying degrees by many, but perhaps not by Eusebius's Papias.