Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:31 am . one learns that the gospels are divergent in structure - and in language... - from the originally oral works.

What 'originally oral works' ?

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:34 am An attribution of the sort which I am asking about from GMark and Gmatthew would be along the lines of: "This is an account of what this text's author heard others say about Jesus's deeds and teachings". We have such claims from GLuke and GMatthew and, from outside the canon, GThomas.

Thomas has the direct attestation:

0. These ones are the words which are hiding, the living IS has said them, and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:49 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:31 am . one learns that the gospels are divergent in structure - and in language... - from the originally oral works.

What 'originally oral works' ?

Buddhist suttas and Homeric poems are what I was thinking of.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:51 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:50 am I think you may possibly be confusing oral tradition in the sense of a memorized passage of relatively fixed form e.g.the Jewish Mishnah, and the much more general idea that the Gospel authors were writing down their version of what they had heard other people say about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Why do you think that I was confused about that? Buddhist scriptures are both, but serve as an example of people writing down what they heard and hear that people were saying about the Buddha Shakyamuni.

The Buddhist examples you gave seem to be some sort of formalized convention. There is a wikipedia article about the formula and its meaning at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_have_I_heard. When scholars refer to oral tradition underlying Mark or other Gospels, they may not mean something formal like this.

(Some do mean something formal. See Oral Tradition for a discussion of various possible types of oral transmission. However formally controlled oral transmission of material about Jesus is a rather controversial type of proposed oral tradition that most scholars would question. )

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 6:36 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:51 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 4:50 am I think you may possibly be confusing oral tradition in the sense of a memorized passage of relatively fixed form e.g.the Jewish Mishnah, and the much more general idea that the Gospel authors were writing down their version of what they had heard other people say about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Why do you think that I was confused about that? Buddhist scriptures are both, but serve as an example of people writing down what they heard and hear that people were saying about the Buddha Shakyamuni.

The Buddhist examples you gave seem to be some sort of formalized convention. There is a wikipedia article about the formula and its meaning at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_have_I_heard. When scholars refer to oral tradition underlying Mark or other Gospels, they may not mean something formal like this.

(Some do mean something formal. See Oral Tradition for a discussion of various possible types of oral transmission. However formally controlled oral transmission of material about Jesus is a rather controversial type of proposed oral tradition that most scholars would question. )

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, but evidence of formalized conventional memorization and transmission of oral traditions is evidence which we find within early Buddhist scriptures. In contrast, we lack evidence within GMark and Gmathhew that they represented oral traditions being written down; similarly, the letters from Paul, when they explicitly provide sources for the things which they say about Jesus, cite revelation and not oral traditions.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:45 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 6:36 am
The Buddhist examples you gave seem to be some sort of formalized convention. There is a wikipedia article about the formula and its meaning at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_have_I_heard. When scholars refer to oral tradition underlying Mark or other Gospels, they may not mean something formal like this.

(Some do mean something formal. See Oral Tradition for a discussion of various possible types of oral transmission. However formally controlled oral transmission of material about Jesus is a rather controversial type of proposed oral tradition that most scholars would question. )

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, but evidence of formalized conventional memorization and transmission of oral traditions is evidence which we find within early Buddhist scriptures. In contrast, we lack evidence within GMark and Gmathhew that they represented oral traditions being written down; similarly, the letters from Paul, when they explicitly provide sources for the things which they say about Jesus, cite revelation and not oral traditions.

There is a debate among scholars as to whether or not terms in Paul such as received paradosis are technical language for oral tradition. For the claim that they do see for example Jewish Traditions

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:12 am

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:45 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 6:36 am
The Buddhist examples you gave seem to be some sort of formalized convention. There is a wikipedia article about the formula and its meaning at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_have_I_heard. When scholars refer to oral tradition underlying Mark or other Gospels, they may not mean something formal like this.

(Some do mean something formal. See Oral Tradition for a discussion of various possible types of oral transmission. However formally controlled oral transmission of material about Jesus is a rather controversial type of proposed oral tradition that most scholars would question. )

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, but evidence of formalized conventional memorization and transmission of oral traditions is evidence which we find within early Buddhist scriptures. In contrast, we lack evidence within GMark and Gmathhew that they represented oral traditions being written down; similarly, the letters from Paul, when they explicitly provide sources for the things which they say about Jesus, cite revelation and not oral traditions.

There is a debate among scholars as to whether or not terms in Paul such as received paradosis are technical language for oral tradition. For the claim that they do see for example Jewish Traditions

Andrew Criddle

Well, if Paul had been explicit in referring to oral tradition, the subject would not be debated.

Thomas Brodie had quite a bit to say about how oral tradition was applied in New Testament studies. Synopses here:

Oral Tradition Behind Gospels and OT: Unfounded, Unworkable and Unnecessary

Oral Tradition is Unfounded: from Kelber to Koester

Oral Tradition in NT Studies is Unworkable

Oral Tradition Is Unnecessary to Explain the Gospels

Brodie points out that various features that are used to identify oral sources (such as the "rule of three", onomatopeia and alliteration, etc) are equally at home in written creations.

I also used to try to engage with the works and online discussions by some NT scholars who had firm views about oral tradition behind the gospels but learned that several of them actually misquoted or ripped out of context various "proof-text" passages by serious specialists in oral history (African, European).

The only reason I can see for assuming oral tradition to be behind the gospels is the presumption that the gospel authors "had" to have got their information from "oral sources" that originated with the actual events narrated. In other words, the reasoning is circular -- it begins with the assumption that the narratives are grounded in history and then satisfies itself that they are grounded in history because the information had to come from oral sources that began with eyewitnesses to that history.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 4:31 am Thomas Brodie had quite a bit to say about how oral tradition was applied in New Testament studies. Synopses here:

Oral Tradition Behind Gospels and OT: Unfounded, Unworkable and Unnecessary

Oral Tradition is Unfounded: from Kelber to Koester

Oral Tradition in NT Studies is Unworkable

Oral Tradition Is Unnecessary to Explain the Gospels

Brodie points out that various features that are used to identify oral sources (such as the "rule of three", onomatopeia and alliteration, etc) are equally at home in written creations.

I also used to try to engage with the works and online discussions by some NT scholars who had firm views about oral tradition behind the gospels but learned that several of them actually misquoted or ripped out of context various "proof-text" passages by serious specialists in oral history (African, European).

The only reason I can see for assuming oral tradition to be behind the gospels is the presumption that the gospel authors "had" to have got their information from "oral sources" that originated with the actual events narrated. In other words, the reasoning is circular -- it begins with the assumption that the narratives are grounded in history and then satisfies itself that they are grounded in history because the information had to come from oral sources that began with eyewitnesses to that history.

Precisely. The only reason that the emergency brake of oral tradition got pulled in(to) Christianity is because the date for the earliest Christian gospels started slowly shifting from 1st to 2nd CE, and to fill the gap between the alleged 30 CE / make up for the attested lack of eye witnesses

Biblical academic really is science inverted: a thesis gets formulated that cannot be proven to be wrong, so then the parameters themselves get tweaked

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 4:31 am The only reason I can see for assuming oral tradition to be behind the gospels is the presumption that the gospel authors "had" to have got their information from "oral sources" that originated with the actual events narrated. In other words, the reasoning is circular -- it begins with the assumption that the narratives are grounded in history and then satisfies itself that they are grounded in history because the information had to come from oral sources that began with eyewitnesses to that history.

Modern Gospel Gnosis tells of how the Word was passed, in the silentium of three epochs—

1. The epoch from the time of a Historical Jesus until the time of composition of the 4 Gospels : the year 30 until the period 70—130 (40—100 years).

Oral Tradition, invented by 20th century Formgeschichte (form criticism) and sustained by 21st century Memory Studies, explains this silentium.

2. The epoch from the time the Gospels were composed until their attestation by Irenaeus : the period 70—130 until about the year 180 (50—110 years).

The notorious modesty and discretion of 2nd century Christians, evident in their literature, explain this silentium.

3. For the special problematic case of a 2nd century “Gospel” attributed to one Marcion, the epoch from the year of composition of the Ur-Gospel on which Marcion’s So-Called Gospel Must Have Been Constructed (70?—130?) until the principate of Antoninus Pius (138—161), when “Marcion’s Gospel” became a thing (a short or long time, hard to tell).

Modern gnosis of Marcion and Marcionism explain this silentium.