DCHindley

I am not sure I am understqanding you aright when you say "redaction (no sources)" and redaction probably does not occur in eyewitness testimony unless the eyewitness is "making things up."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language has:

re·dac·tion (r-dkshn) n.
1. The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing; preparation for publication.
2. An edited work; a new edition or revision.

Usually it would be understood that the work being edited or revised is written literature. Or were you referring to oral sources?

There is also no hint in a definition like this that there is any conscious effort made to make things up. Fiction writers, even when they base the story on actual historical events and people, are never said to redact the historical sources.

I agree with you, though, that "handed down" does imply an oral tradition. Is this more a discussion about the probative value of "hearsay" evidence, as this term might in some definitions include eyewitness testimony?

DCH

Solo

Welcome to the club ! :wave:

I have paraphrased a psychiatrist.

I put the quotation mark around the healthy brain. The brain chemistry is itself a mystery. A psychosis (which the modern neuropsychology nearly always assumes reflects an underlying electro-chemical process in the brain) need not have pathogenic origins such that they always warrant a prognosis of a lasting debilitating disorder. Some psychoses have organic origins. Some are easily induced in a "defect-free" brain by psychoactive substances, sensory deprivation or meditation techniques. Some are brought about by specific psychological sensitivities, like proneness to anxiety, that are often hereditary. Some are crises which resolve themselves only to be repeated because their root cause persists.

Under normal "chemical" regime the brain assesses dangers, including dangers from specific actions or lack of them. It will not conjure apocalyptic scenarios as there is no point in exaggerating dangers. For the apocalypse, different "informing sources" will be required. If you read e.g. Luke's "sensing the end" (Luke is not Paul, but falls into the literary genre of the Jesus psychodrama) you can see a couple of interesting embellishments he put (in ch 21) into the apocalypse account by Mark. Luke's Jesus adds to Mark's directions how to deliver testimony of him before kings and governors. Mark's J. admonishes not to be "anxious" about what to say, promising that the message will be supplied by the Holy Spirit. Luke makes it more personal - Jesus will supply the words and the wisdom such that no-one will be able to "withstand or contradict". Did Luke have an informing source different from Mark ? I would say, yes, Luke's Jesus unlike Mark's points at anxiety obliquely, not as a scary thaumaturg but a detached debating stoic. But the Markan description of pressure of speech that manics know, as a gift of Holy Spirit and a testimony of Jesus, stands as Luke understands all too well Mark's metaphor. Removing the visceral frenzy from Jesus, Luke adds a gem of a revelation in the apocalypse by disclosing men fainting with fear and foreboding of what is coming on the world (21:26)

Pretty scarry stuff ? The question of course is: to whom.

Jiri

Toto

I think "tradition" refers to stories that may theoretically be based on eyewitness testimony, but most likely are highly embellished, if there is any basis at all to them.

NT scholars seem to be unique in assuming that oral tradition can be used as a basis for historical claims. I had a long discussion with Chris Weimer on this, but he never produced any other discipline that treated oral tradition, or folklore, as a source of historical facts.

Analyst

Generally the opposite - more of the Headless Horseman chasing Ichabod Crane variety than any actual history.

Doug Shaver

Testimony.

Doug Shaver

I don't know enough psychiatry to even paraphrase anything, let alone offer an informed critique.

I do have a nodding acquaintance with history, though, and it informs me that one of the most dangerous memes ever propagated is the notion that only crazy people can believe X, when there happen to be lots of people who believe X.

Back when there was a Soviet Union, they used to lock political dissidents up in psychiatric hospitals. It was the logical thing to do, given an understanding that no one in his right mind could doubt the truth of Communist doctrine.

andrewcriddle

IIUC information obtained from talking to a supposed eyewitness is referred to as "oral history" and distinguished from "oral tradition" where the relation of the informant to the original event is less direct.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is not possible for a fictional account to be an actual historical account. That is a complete contradiction.

Once a work has been declared fictional by the author, all similarities to actual historical events, people and places must be deemed co-incidental.

DCHindley

I thought I was simply asking Stephen why he used the word "redaction" and "made up" in the same sentence.

Of course fiction, the specific plot of which is made up, is not the same as a historical narrative, but historical narratives vary in type and in details. As Stephen knows, even eyewitness accounts of the same events invariably vary for a rather wide range of reasons. The narratives of a Japanese infantryman and a US marine concerning the same battle for Iwo Jima in WW2 will be two very different stories. When the narrative is written down, even by eyewitnesses, additional considerations affect the truth value of the document.

Editors may also make changes to a narrative to make the account more "readable," such as juxtaposing events or leaving out "unimportant" (to the editor) details, or adding commentary or explanations or "color" to jazz it up, or change the plot or details of the story to push a private agenda. That is why I asked Stephen about "hearsay" (probably not the best term for me to have used) and whether redaction necessarily means "making things up."

DCH

aa5874

The differences in narratives would not alter the fact there was a battle for Iwo Jima in WW2. The two different stories would still be chronologically sound, that is, they both will claim there was a battle at a certain time.

Now, what "eyewitness account" with respect to Jesus or Paul is chronologically sound?