1. Isn't "tradition" (the oral transmission of Gospel material) a *form* of social or collective memory? What's the crucial distinction here?The short answer to number one is that "tradition" is the default way to think about what we might call cultural memory. But this default position is a concept that is far too rigid to communicate how cultural memory functions within a society (or as it intersects with autobiographical memories). At the risk of oversimplifying, tradition (how biblical scholars use this concept) is a calcified and surface-level aspect of cultural memory. Tradition might not render explicit the standard ways of interpreting a culturally defining episode, for example. The concept of cultural memory allows much more fluidity and creativity into the discussion. Werner Kelber has suggested that we should just stop using the word "tradition" when it comes to the Gospels. I'd like to keep it around a while longer, but point out the differences between tradition and cultural memory... as I kind of just did.
2. I agree that eyewitnesses are rarely perfect, and thus hardly proof of accuracy, but do you agree or disagree that first hand memory is generally more accurate than second or third hand information?
3. Same question as 2, but I want to say, "first hand journalism" instead of memory. Just for hypothetical grins.
On Bill's second point, firsthand memory is very valuable and can have an authoritative affect within the sphere of communicative memory (Aleida Assmann suggests that communicative memory is one to three generations of "living" memory). But firsthand memory is not always better than secondhand memory. Sometimes, a secondhand interpreter can have a more compelling and more plausible understanding of a figure/event. For example, Sherlock Holmes. Holmes knows what to select from an eyewitness testimony and interpret it "better". Yes, fictional... but totally awesome. If you'd like real examples, one might point to reinterpretations of black soldiery in the civil war. It took generations for historians to do a passable job with this data. Within the Gospels, Matthew sometimes renders an event more plausibly than Mark because he understands contemporary Jewish categories better (e.g. Jesus' procession into Jerusalem). Just a few examples.