Speeches of Jesus (2)

Doug Chaplin over at Clayboy has responded to my previoius post on Speeches of Jesus, adding two cautions. My response to his response is also too long to go in the comments.  He says:

First, in the canonical gospels there are incidents which are quite differently narrated, such as the story of the woman who anoints Jesus. It is hard to tell whether this represents more than one similar incident or variations of one incident, although most scholars incline (as I do) to the latter view. The difference between variations of an incident – less likely to have happened on more than occasion – is a warning about assuming variations of a saying are simply owing to its having been uttered on more than occasion. A lot of variation is it would seem creative work in either the memory or the narration, and it may still be right to try an essay a judgement about which variant is most likely historical.

I, too, am inclined to believe that incidents like the story of the woman who annoints Jesus are variations on the same incident, rather than different ones. It seems highly unlikely that women made a habit of annointing Jesus with expensive perfume. 🙂

I would suggest that there is a third possibility for variations of this kind, though, and that is in the passing on of stories. Allport and Postman in The Psychology of Rumor (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1947) provide some fascinating examples of what happens when a story is retold in what they termed “rumour chain”. They had one person look at a picture and describe it to someone else who could not see the picture. This person described it to a third and so on. The most famous of their scenarios was a picture of an African-American man in a suit and an Anglo-American man in overalls and carrying a half-open cut-throat razor. They are both standing in a subway carriage. In most cases, by the sixth retelling it is the African-American who is holding the razor and in some cases he is threatening the Anglo-American with it. In the same way that in proof-reading our own writing we tend to read what we expect to read, people tend to hear what they expect to hear.

It is possible that any two or all three of these sources of variation might have come into play to produce the variations in question.

I’d also like to draw more clearly the distinction between variations between the canonical gospels with respect to narratives and variations between the synoptics and Thomas with respect to how parallel sayings are grouped. When parallel sayings are grouped differently, I would tend to look first at the possibility that they were heard that way because Jesus used them on different occasions. In looking at variations in narrative and variations in detail, I would be more inclined to look at memory and transmission issues. I am also rather inclined to suggest that some of the variation that has been ascribed to redaction may be more likely to reflect the way in which particular events and sayings were remembered in the communities from which the texts came than to be an attempt of a redactor to influence the belief of the community.

Doug continues:

The second caution is that (and this is one of the points made early on in Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism which is not always given due attention) sayings are very hard to evaluate historically. When they are removed from narrative contexts as in Thomas, questions of historicity become almost impossible. Judging the historicity of any of Thomas’ variants depends, I think, on some prior judgments being made about the core of historical teaching material especially in the synoptics, and those judgements in turn depend in part on ones made about the contexts provided from events and narratives. Making historical judgments about Thomas is, I think, a necessarily derivative activity.

I agree. The whole issue of historicity is a really difficult one. I want to say that anything that is not obviously anachronistic or antithetical to Jesus’ known teaching should not be ruled out as ‘authentic Jesus tradition’* simply on the basis that we have no other record that Jesus said it. That is, I think that it is possible that GosThom contains more authentic Jesus tradition than is found in the canon. The problem with this, of course, is that working out what is not antithetical to Jesus’ known teaching involves assuming that teaching in the canon is authentic Jesus tradition, which means that we are, to some extent at least, bringing faith claims into the historical enterprise. This about as convincing as trying to use sections of the Bible to prove the existence of God – they are only convincing if you are prepared to believe that the Bible is an authoritative text, which requires a prior belief in the existence of God.

*I think we have no chance of reliably recovering Jesus’ actual words unless and until someone develops a functional time machine.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Speeches of Jesus (2)

  1. Thanks, Judy. I don’t disagree with the broad thrust of this. I do however wonder at your rumour chain example. Not least it doesn’t take account of Luke (and I think John) having Mark “open” when shaping their own versions.

  2. Doug, I was offering the rumour chain example as another possible explanation of texts that seem more likely to present variations of one incident than accounts of similar events, rather than as an explanation of the specific example of the woman annointing Jesus.

    Matthew (I assume you mean Mt 26:6, not Luke) and Mark are clearly familiar with the same version of the story. I don’t think you could say with any certainty at all whether the changes were due to an editorial decision to word things differently to the a physical copy in front of him/her or whether s/he was recalling a version from memory and not getting it quite right (with or without conscious editorial changes). A comparison of the Greek text might make this clearer, but there need to be quite long verbatim strings to make a definitive “diagnosis” of copying (McIver and Carroll suggest 15 words in normal prose.)

    John’s version is a different matter, I think. If John had access to Mark or Matt’s version, he clearly thought that there were significant errors that needed correcting, because he could have got his anti-Judas dig in quite happily without a change of venue and introducing new dramatis personae. I could see memory, rumour chain and editorial changes all potentially playing a part in this particular transformation.

  3. I am enjoying the exchange, Judy and Doug. I think the Anointing story is a good example of a story directly derived from the literary precursor in Mark, including the Johannine version, which has elements from the Lucan version too (discussion at http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/dating-game-iv-what-about-john.html).

    I am not persuaded that we should use the 15 or 16 word string criterion of McIver and Carroll. This is something derived from experiments on contemporary students that included some flawed methods and dubious inferences (some comments on McIver and Carroll are included in a post on DeConick’s similar experiments, http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/contemporary-memory-experiments-and.html).

  4. Thanks, Mark.

    I have some comments I’d like to make on this, but I have to catch a plane to Sydney this afternoon and I have no idea what my internet access will be over the next couple of days. I will have time to kill at the airport this afternoon and maybe also tomorrow morning, but I just don’t know how much time (and I won’t have access to my library).

    Briefly, re the word string criterion: the originality software that is used by my university seems to use about 8 words as a flag that something might be copied from elsewhere (and it can be amusingly wrong). McIver and Carroll are saying that they would want to see 15-16 words in order to say that it almost definitely is. I can’t get your link to work but I am also very aware that 21st century undergrad memories have been trained differently to those of the population around the Mediterranean in the 1st century.

  5. Have any of you looked at the research done by Yirmeyahu ben David at http://www.netzarim.co.il? The story of Ribi Yehoshua ben Yoseph, you know, the one whose bones were found in Talpiot, Jerusalem has meaning beyond employing academics. He taught Torah was mandatory for all Israel and he didn’t change his name to Jzeus but, “21st century undergrad memories have been trained differently to those of the population around the Mediterranean in the 1st century.” I think you could include 99% of academia in that phrase, heck most of the world for that matter, but academia will be more responsible for their continued Jzeus mantra.

  6. Yes, Eliyahu, I agree that modern, literate memories have been trained differently, but the research in question was done on 21st century undergraduates. 🙂 They are the convenience sample on which a huge amount of psychological research is based.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s