Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:57 am 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.

I think you're making good contributions, but they are getting buried and obscured under your prose. Something that doesn't read like a 19th century polemic would make for a better discussion.

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.

Your comments are well-taken. Yet I would suggest there are several different stances that people take, with respect to the historicity of Jesus, with respect to oral tradition behind the gospels, and with respect to the alleged connection between them. Overall, I would suggest that the oral tradition ideas first developed outside of the nexus of the historicity of Jesus debate, and then only later did some people attempt to pick it up as an argument for the historicity of Jesus.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, let these refer to the stances commonly taken:

A - Jesus existed, with no historical argument for it [the most common, I would guess]
B - Jesus existed, with historical argument for it
C - no claim that Jesus existed

Regarding oral tradition behind gospels, likewise (I'm not sure which is most common):

P - Oral tradition behind gospels existed, with no historical argument for it
Q - Oral tradition behind gospels existed, with historical argument for it
R - no claim that oral tradition behind gospels existed

The subset of people who can make this circular argument here exist only in the intersection of B and Q.

And yet the subset is narrower still, because if they make a different historical argument that Jesus existed (of whatever quality, good or bad), then circularity is broken. And what is the most common argument for the existence of Jesus that is offered? If I can hazard a guess from my own reading, it's Josephus and/or Paul. Neither of these arguments are about oral tradition behind the gospels.

I suppose it might also be possible to argue for oral tradition behind the gospels without using the assumption that Jesus existed, as difficult as that does seem at first glance.

There are some people who are making this circular argument, but it seems like a minority of those talking about oral tradition as though it existed behind the gospels (in P or Q). It's not great that there are so many in A and in P, of course.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 10:43 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:57 am 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.

I think you're making good contributions, but they are getting buried and obscured under your prose. Something that doesn't read like a 19th century polemic would make for a better discussion.

I’ll try harder then

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 3:02 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 10:43 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 9:57 am 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.

I think you're making good contributions, but they are getting buried and obscured under your prose. Something that doesn't read like a 19th century polemic would make for a better discussion.

I’ll try harder then

To be clear, I'm interested in your ideas and want to see them for what they are. That's why I commented.

For example, in this post, I learned so much better what you were trying to say, than when you were writing in parody:

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:04 pm Anyhow, to explain myself, I was light-heartedly poking fun at your tangential comment on a 1st century Paul. I think the supposed references in the Pauline Corpus to a temple are as superficial as those in Hebrews, 1 Clement, etc. Scribes of the 2nd century would, of course, have wanted to write as though from the vantage point of the pre-70 world. It is their chronology! And to do so would have been anything but difficult for them, in light of everything that is written in the NT. All to say, I cannot stomach any such "evidence" for dating the Pauline Corpus to the 1st century. The conventional portrait is always ultimately predicated on the validity of Acts, whether our historians want to admit it or not.

It was appreciated. "Don't let the bastards get you down," so to speak (you can take that as a reference to whatever you like). To my mind, you're clearly at your best when you're writing in the voice of explaining to a basic person like me, instead of joking with cognoscenti.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:49 pm

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.

Your comments are well-taken. Yet I would suggest there are several different stances that people take, with respect to the historicity of Jesus, with respect to oral tradition behind the gospels, and with respect to the alleged connection between them. Overall, I would suggest that the oral tradition ideas first developed outside of the nexus of the historicity of Jesus debate, and then only later did some people attempt to pick it up as an argument for the historicity of Jesus.

I was not thinking of the historicity of Jesus question but only of those studies that make reference to gospel sources.

The only sorts of works I can think of off the top of my head that do not acknowledge oral traditions as gospel sources are those of more radical scholars who claim everything in the gospels is myth -- except for the crucifixion. But surely they concede that the crucifixion is also only included because of oral tradition.

Do you know of gospel studies that deny or have no need to posit oral traditions?

I don't equate gospel fictions with Jesus mythicism, by the way. The gospels, I suspect, were latecomers. Belief in Jesus predated them.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:07 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:49 pm

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.

Your comments are well-taken. Yet I would suggest there are several different stances that people take, with respect to the historicity of Jesus, with respect to oral tradition behind the gospels, and with respect to the alleged connection between them. Overall, I would suggest that the oral tradition ideas first developed outside of the nexus of the historicity of Jesus debate, and then only later did some people attempt to pick it up as an argument for the historicity of Jesus.

I was not thinking of the historicity of Jesus question but only of those studies that make reference to gospel sources.

The only sorts of works I can think of off the top of my head that do not acknowledge oral traditions as gospel sources are those of more radical scholars who claim everything in the gospels is myth -- except for the crucifixion. But surely they concede that the crucifixion is also only included because of oral tradition.

Do you know of gospel studies that deny or have no need to posit oral traditions?

I don't equate gospel fictions with Jesus mythicism, by the way. The gospels, I suspect, were latecomers. Belief in Jesus predated them.

Oral tradition has a pretty broad definition. Stripped of all jargon, it just means that someone had spoken about a life of Jesus in some way or another. It seems impossible to disprove, and I don't know of anyone who has set out to disprove it entirely. Surely some ignore it, either as unknowable or uninteresting.

And, yes, it seems completely rational to me (as you imply above I think) to acknowledge that "if Jesus existed, people said things about him"' is true. And it's common to argue that way, with reference to establishing an argument for oral tradition.

Most seem either not to argue that Jesus existed, or not to start with the gospels for the argument that Jesus existed. They tend to start with non-gospel sources, if they make any explicit argument for historicity.

Maybe a few quote the prologue of Luke or Papias? It's not a strategy I have seen pro-historicity arguments take as often.

Maybe this is partly because the historicity of Jesus debate is still not well developed, especially from the pro-historicity side of it.

Edited to add: I'm seeing the statement above that this isn't about the historicity of Jesus question. But I suppose, when it comes to either no oral tradition or some oral tradition as competing ideas, the historicity of Jesus question is relevant.

Since I did refer to Brodie I can understand why the question of Jesus' historicity was associated with my response but I also quote Ehrman and Allison and co on specific points without meaning to promote their broader theses. (As some forum readers will know, I do prefer to shun with a shudder any discussion of the question of the historicity of Jesus here. I have made my view clear and have nothing further to add.)

I take the title of the thread to be a question about "gospel narratives" and I don't recall many scholars who address the question of gospel sources who happen to ignore oral tradition, however broadly or narrowly defined.

Oral tradition postulated as a source for a narrative, even partly, is simply a hypothesis, an assumption, a default explanation -- a given -- is it not? If we can find satisfactory explanations for the origins of gospel narratives without it then so much the better.

Some scholars have attempted to take the question further -- and D.C. Hindley posted a list of relevant sources discussed by the New Testament scholars -- and attempted to detect little tells in the texts that might point to oral antecedents (e.g. "the rule of three"). But as Brodie pointed out, such arguments are little more than question-begging.

I don't think I have ever read any evidence or grounds for oral tradition behind any of the gospel narratives that does not simply rest on assumption, circularity. I'd welcome being alerted to anything I've missed.

(I have not addressed Papias or the Lukan prologue here, I know, but for other reasons that I think take us far afield.)

I think there needs to be some care about what counts as an "oral tradition." If all we mean by that term is "not based on a plain reading of a written text," then it does not follow that "word of mouth" is the only contributor to the "tradition." There is also lived experience.

We see clearly in Paul that lived experience contributes to the content and maintenance of tradition. Whether or not he relies exclusively for information on visions and his own ideas prompted by Jewish scriptural passages (the borderline between "written" and "non-written" sourcing), these things contribute to his and his first readers' concept of Jesus.

As to historicity, Paul and hundreds of others (he says) saw a revenant. It is heuristically reasonable, but not rigorously logical, to infer the existence of a real person who actually lived from the sincere belief that one has seen that person's ghost. What's more, there are suggestions ("signs of an apostle") fleshed out in gospel stories and Acts that ritual reference to Jesus is effective in accomplishing exorcism and healing. If the historicity of Solomon benefits from his name's supposed efficacy in managing demons (as it apparently seems to some), then presumably it served as pseudo-evidence for Jesus, too.

Even in our day, faith healing is routinely offered as pseudo-evidence of the continuing existence of Jesus and other religio-historical questions (Is so-and-so a saint according to the largest extant denomination of Chrsitianity? Brigid was a real person who actually lived?).

What I get from the OP is a picture of preserving sayings, maybe the very words of the master, without writing them down until much later, with the gap from master to later scribe being bridged by disciplined memory and oral transmission. I think it is a fair generalization that Christian gospels and Acts come from a culture where it was OK for serious investigators of the human past (historians in a pre-modern and non-academic sense) to invent speeches for their characters.

To the extent that that view is accepted, pre-gospel oral tradition isn't necessarily being asked to transmit much information and not for a very long time. So, even such a leaky low capacity channel could in principle impart useful historical reliability to the gospels (and usefully reliable dogma, too, for those who care about that type of information).

Fine. Could doesn't mean that it actually did, and away we go.

I am thinking of Robyn Walsh’s book. IIUC she debunks and altogether rejects the hypothesis of a foundation for the Gospels in oral tradition. She understands this conceit of modern NT studies as having been invented in the context of the late 18th century German romantic idea of ‘folk traditions’ being heard and channeled by an essentially passive scribbler. I would have to go back and look at her argument again. At any rate, she follows Brodie (but does not mention him) in seeing the Gospels as 100% authored literature.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:26 pm Oral tradition has a pretty broad definition. Stripped of all jargon, it just means that someone had spoken about a life of Jesus in some way or another. It seems impossible to disprove, and I don't know of anyone who has set out to disprove it entirely. Surely some ignore it, either as unknowable or uninteresting.

I think the idea of oral tradition is supposed to be much more specific than that. For example, one could assert the same thing of a historical Moses or a historical David, without any implication that the Biblical accounts of those men were based on personal remembrances.

Form criticism — and isn’t this what Brodie is talking about? — invoked oral tradition in order to explain both the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the HJ’s words and deeds (to whatever extent they are accurate), and also the early church’s progressive distortion of their memories of him in favor of themes from their Sitz im Leben.