One way of thinking about this is presented by Anthony Le Donne (Historical Jesus, p. 87):
I'm not a big proponent of the 'memory' language, and I think the author of John knew Mark. There's still an interesting point expressed there.
It also could be developed further, especially in understanding the "I will destroy" bit.
“Each branch represents a pattern of memory refraction. Mark remembers Jesus differently than John. These differences in memory can be analyzed to determine certain editorial tendencies. In this case, we have a similar saying remembered along two diverging patterns. By determining the most likely single cause that best explains both branches, the historian can make a historical claim with confidence.
Please do not miss the beautiful irony here: It is when the editors of these stories disagree the most that we can most confidently postulate historical memory! The fact that the memories of Jesus were refracted (bent in different directions) is the very fact that allows the historian to postulate the historical event. Like a telescope lens which bends light so that an invisible object can be approximately seen, refracted memories of Jesus allow us to tell the story of the historical Jesus.”
Please do not miss the beautiful irony here: It is when the editors of these stories disagree the most that we can most confidently postulate historical memory! The fact that the memories of Jesus were refracted (bent in different directions) is the very fact that allows the historian to postulate the historical event. Like a telescope lens which bends light so that an invisible object can be approximately seen, refracted memories of Jesus allow us to tell the story of the historical Jesus.”
I'm not a big proponent of the 'memory' language, and I think the author of John knew Mark. There's still an interesting point expressed there.
It also could be developed further, especially in understanding the "I will destroy" bit.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:16 am