(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “collective memory.” This is a kind of memory that a lot of people don’t seem to be aware of, but it has long been discussed by sociologists. Here is how I summarize the views of the famous scholar who first articulated an understanding of collective memory, Maurice Halbwachs.
***************************************************************
The term “collective memory” was coined by French philosopher and sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1877-1945). His most important and influential book appeared (in French) in 1925 and was called, simply, On Collective Memory. Halbwachs acknowledges the rather obvious point that it is individuals, not social groups, who remember the past (society does not have some kind of enormous hippocampus!). But in his view, individual memories have all be reconstructed based on our relation to society around us, especially our various social groups – for example, our families, friends, towns or cities, nations. It is impossible, in fact, for us to remember without having a social framework within which to place a memory. That is to say, in his rather radical claim, there is no such thing as a memory outside of a social context. If you remember something that happened to you, it is always in relation to the people you know, or the things you have learned and experienced from other people. It can never be in complete isolation to your social surroundings.
Halbwachs was notoriously suspicious of psychological research that tried to investigate memory as an individual phenomenon. In his view:
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! All moneys raised go to important charities!
Wasn’t there an episode of Seinfeld about Assmann?
Ha! I doubt it, but if so I’d like to know.
It’s in the 1995 Episode “The Fusilli Jerry.” But spelled with one ‘n’.
Ah! Thanks.
Very interesting comments!
Intriguing thoughts on memory that I hadn’t previously considered–I look forward to reading the book!
Off-topic question: I have a preterist apologist friend who argues for a 70 CE fulfillment of the entire Olivet Discourse, in part on the basis of Matthew’s use of the word “immediately” in Matthew 24:29:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
My friend maintains that if (as critical scholars hold) Matthew was written in the 80s CE, the author could not have been referring to literal cosmic events, since nothing of the sort happened “immediately” after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
What is the thinking of critical scholarship on this question? If the author of Matthew was writing in the 80s CE, why didn’t he drop the term “immediately” if more than a decade had intervented between the destruction of the temple and his day?
My hunch is that the Synoptic authors wanted their readers to be struck with the accuracy of Jesus’ “prophecy” regarding the Temple and thus be on guard for Jesus’ imminent (Matthew: “immediate” in a relative sense) return. It brings to mind Daniel’s accurate “prophecies” that would have encouraged readers who had seen the “fulfillments” and looked to yet future “fulfillments.”
Is this the mainstream critical view, or am I wildly off base? In the context, do you think it’s reasonable for “immediately” to refer to a period of over a decade?
I suppose most think that “immediately” refers to “the tribulation of those days,” not to the destruction of Jerusalem.
“Collective memory” is a new concept for me so I am interested in learning more about it.
The whole idea of what got transmitted after the death of Jesus until the Gospels were written is obviously very important and is fascinating to try to figure out. Moreover, using what we can learn about oral transmission from oral cultures today seems like a natural place to start. Obviously, something written 3 or 4 decades after the described event is probably not very reliable historically. I wonder why it took so long for a Gospel to have been written.
If the above material Is from your working copy of your book the following minor changes need to be done:
1. In the sixth line, change “be” to “been.”
2. Just prior to the Topography, 1941 notation, change “adapty” to “adapting.”
3. In summarizing the work of Halbwachs, change “is more radical positions” to “his more radical positions.”
Dr. Ehrman,
Conservative scholars often claim that the reliability of the canonical gospels is likely to be high because they are based on eyewitness accounts. In your new book, you seem to be confronting one aspect of this claim –showing that even accounts by eyewitnesses can be unreliable. I anticipate that one reaction you will get from conservative scholars is that ALL of history is based on eyewitness accounts, and what we know about ancient history is particularly dependent on less-than-ideal sources. If one is going to be skeptical about the historical accuracy of the “eyewitness accounts” handed down through the Gospels, consistency demands skepticism toward just about everything we think we know about ancient history. This points to the need to have some consistent, defensible, position with regard to the epistemological status of historical knowledge. Have you thought about this? I suggest you include some discussion of this in your book, to avoid the accusation that you’re selectively applying extreme skepticism to cast doubt on the historical basis for Christianity. (they’re likely to add, “in your continuing assault on Christianity.” – LOL)
I completely agree: we do indeed need to be skeptical of most historical reports that have come down to us from antiquity. That’s simply how ancient historians proceed!