Have any scholars who claim that the Gospels' narratives originated as oral traditions studied oral traditions?

[neilgodfrey]

I should reply to this question I was asked earlier.

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

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.

Well, I can say that I've read Thomas Brodie before he was cool. I have a copy of his The Quest for the Origins of John's Gospel that I picked up at a time when I was interested in the literary relationship and dependence / non-dependence of John on the synoptics. It did not disappoint. It made a strong argument against oral tradition for the link between the synoptics and John and in favor of John being a literary retelling.

My impressions are also colored by my focus on the few. I will not claim that they are many, as they are not, but it seems that I have sought them out. And even fewer are as pure in eliminating oral tradition as Thomas Brodie is. Some are even enthusiastic HJ spelunkers at the same time as they're (at least partially) closing up the entrance to that cave with their gospel research. Oh well.

These four books may be taken as treating each gospel in, more or less, this fashion:

Thomas Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel

M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew

M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm

Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

These books were also an influence on me, even if they are oriented more towards a popular audience:

Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions

John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes

I also may consider that some don't explore the question of sources of the gospels at all, considering all such hypotheses either unknowable or uninteresting. They wouldn't show up in this short list because they're not talking about sources (and because I have most likely missed stuff).

My question was unintentionally obscure, sorry. Yes, I have also had the good fortune of having read those works, but when I was asking about studies by scholars of the gospel lit with respect to assumptions of oral traditions, I was thinking of "mainstream" -- the dominant view. Spong, of course, discounts the lot -- but even those names, with the exception of Brodie (maybe Helms, I can't recall) do posit some form of oral tradition behind the crucifixion, I believe. Yes?

Spong is considered and outsider, as also is much of Goulder's work on his arguments for gospel sources (from OT for liturgical functions). At least that's the impression I've picked up.

By and large, the field of gospel studies as a whole, embraces oral tradition as the source for gospel narratives or at least certain core ones -- such as Jesus having twelve disciples, Jesus being a preacher and a healer (cum miracle worker), and being crucified and appearing alive after his death.

[neilgodfrey]

I think one can make an argument for oral tradition without assuming that Jesus existed IF one accepts broadly traditional dates for the Gospels. (Several on this forum clearly would reject such dating.)

On the traditional dating the Gospels were written in say the late 1st century CE, while it is around the mid 2nd century that the Gospel texts achieve the central role in Christian debate literature etc that they have held ever since. (There is IMO evidence of knowledge of the Gospels well before the mid 2nd century but they do not play the central role which they do later. ) The standard understanding of this is that we have a period in which Christian writer know of the existence of Gospel texts but also have access to oral tradition and may (like Papias) prefer it. If oral tradition (of some sort) does not precede the Gospels then this explanation appears to break down. In fact there does seem a tendency for the two positions; late (2nd century) dates for the first Gospel and denial of oral tradition to be held by the same people. I'm not sure if one can build a plausible reception history of the Gospels which both denies a background context of oral tradition and dates the Gospels in the 1st century.

Andrew Criddle

I am open to the possibility that the gospels were written in the first century but still don't think one can assume oral tradition as a necessary explanation for their contents. (Papias comes to us from a fourth century source and the information attributed to him raises many questions, as we know, so I don't think it is unreasonable to set him aside for this question.)

There are very few ancient biographies or histories -- I'll be shot down in flames now with loads of contrary examples, and I welcome that -- that fail to give some indication of their sources or the reliability of the author. The gospels simply don't -- they are written without any indication of the identities of the author or the sources for their information. (Luke's prologue is not an exception here -- it is anonymous and as vague as the hazy blue sky beyond the hills.) When we can identify a source for any particular saying or anecdote it turns out to be, in most cases, a saying or episode in the O.T.

The episodes that have parallels across the gospels are for most part so contradictory in detail that one has to seriously question how such a story could have been sustained through oral tradition. Stories with contradictions like that would soon die as a result of their uncertainties. The differences across the gospels are best explained as motivated by doctrinal or ideological differences of some kind. In other words, there is one source (Mark) and there are various revisions of that ultimate source.

The stories in the gospels are also riddled with such improbabilities and unrealistic or non-existent motivations that it is very difficult to imagine such structures being orally preserved for any time at all.

But most telling, I think, is that the Gospel of Mark is so surely a depiction of a theological metaphor, a parable, about an ideal figure who represents an "ideal Israel", --- it makes little to no sense as a real biography or history, certainly not in its details. But I speak in summary headings -- all of these points of course need fuller expansion -- but I trust the basic idea nonetheless stands as a starter.

In other words, the gospels are presented as stories with theological functions and explicable without any need to appeal to a historical event being the source of their stories. --- Unless it is the historical event of the destruction of the Jewish "nation" and some kind of resurrection in a "new Israel" aka the church.

We have no independent witness to justify an assumption that the story of Jesus as presented in the gospels was sourced from analagous events in the real world.

That the gospels are treated as if they were derived from analagous historical events is to treat them with a privilege that historians assign to no other ancient text. -- There -- I know that sentence will be provocative to some and I offer it here in hopes for rebuttal. This is a question close to my heart and I welcome critical feedback.

[maryhelena]

Perhaps the idea that oral traditions are behind the gospel narratives is a misnomer. The gospel narratives are stories that could be viewed as having their source in the OT i.e. which could indicate that, for the gospel writers, history is not their source material. The stories are what they are - literary compositions. Consequently, oral tradition behind the gospel stories is a flawed approach to the stories.

However, the writers of these stories did not live in a social and political vacuum. The question becomes did their environment contribute to their stories ? i.e. not oral tradition behind the gospel stories but oral tradition as a social and political context in which, and from which, the stories were written.

Yes, memory is fallible - but fallible does not rule out the actuality of historical events. In the UK we have just had a coronation of a son of a Queen who had a coronation 70 years ago. There are people alive who have memories of that earlier coronation, in fact there are people alive who attended that earlier coronation. Memories might have faded re the details - but the earlier coronation event is part of history. Yes, we have a crucifixion story set in the time of Pilate and Tiberius - a story that can be viewed as reflecting, remembering, historical events of earlier years - of 70 years prior. Possible of course, that many of those alive during the time of Pilate and Tiberius were old in years - and yet some of them, like those who have witnessed two coronations in their life time, could have memories of the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, of the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. The time of Pilate and Tiberius could be viewed as a time of remembrance, or a literary re-enactment, of the tragedy of 70 years earlier.

My point is simple - looking for oral traditions behind the gospel narratives is misleading. What we should be looking for are the oral traditions, the memories, of earlier history, history prior to the time of Pilate and Tiberius. At least that would be a starting point from which to move forward beyond the time of Pilate and Tiberius. Sometimes it's necessary to go back, to know where one has come from before one can step forward with confidence.

[andrewcriddle]

I think one can make an argument for oral tradition without assuming that Jesus existed IF one accepts broadly traditional dates for the Gospels. (Several on this forum clearly would reject such dating.)

On the traditional dating the Gospels were written in say the late 1st century CE, while it is around the mid 2nd century that the Gospel texts achieve the central role in Christian debate literature etc that they have held ever since. (There is IMO evidence of knowledge of the Gospels well before the mid 2nd century but they do not play the central role which they do later. ) The standard understanding of this is that we have a period in which Christian writer know of the existence of Gospel texts but also have access to oral tradition and may (like Papias) prefer it. If oral tradition (of some sort) does not precede the Gospels then this explanation appears to break down. In fact there does seem a tendency for the two positions; late (2nd century) dates for the first Gospel and denial of oral tradition to be held by the same people. I'm not sure if one can build a plausible reception history of the Gospels which both denies a background context of oral tradition and dates the Gospels in the 1st century.

Andrew Criddle

I am open to the possibility that the gospels were written in the first century but still don't think one can assume oral tradition as a necessary explanation for their contents. (Papias comes to us from a fourth century source and the information attributed to him raises many questions, as we know, so I don't think it is unreasonable to set him aside for this question.)

Hi Neil.

I don't think you are really responding to my specific argument. Assuming FTSOA that the Gospels are 1st century, is there a problem with their slow (on this dating) reception, if there was no non-written source of stories about Jesus as an alternative to written sources ?

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena --Mon May 08, 2023 12:00 am, above-- apparently recommends oral tradition when it remembered the last Hasmonean 70 years later but not (or less so?) when it remembered someone from the time of Pilate.

After the civil war between the sons of Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean dynasty had seen better, or at least more united and influential, days. The dynasty end, observed (?) 70 years later may not have been a big occasion for generating a story, whether considered historical or fictional.

[maryhelena]

maryhelena --Mon May 08, 2023 12:00 am, above-- apparently recommends oral tradition when it remembered the last Hasmonean 70 years later but not (or less so?) when it remembered someone from the time of Pilate.

After the civil war between the sons of Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean dynasty had seen better, or at least more united and influential, days. The dynasty end, observed (?) 70 years later may not have been a big occasion for generating a story, whether considered historical or fictional.

Historical dates are what they are - and 70 years from the Roman execution of the last Hasmonean King and High Priests falls with the time of Pilate and Tiberius. That you assume that a 70 year anniversary/remembrance of this event 'may not have been a big occasion', worth 'generating a story' is beyond rational understanding of how humans remember their past history. Perhaps you should consider Irish history under the British occupation.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse—
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Easter, 1916. W. B. Yeats

Proclamation of the Irish Republic read at 1916 Rising commemoration

Stephan, how many years is it now from 1916 - and that Proclamation is still being read...

I've never written anything about the time of Pilate and Tiberius being of no consequence - to suggest that is what I hold is without merit. I have always said that history is relevant to the writers of the gospel story - that is all history under Pilate and Tiberius - and onward.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena,
To take your own examples from the Irish Republic, the great W.B. Yeats, and the coronation of Elizabeth II,
am I alone in thinking that all of those are more consequential and memorable
than the death of the last Hasmonean?

[andrewcriddle]

...................................................
There are very few ancient biographies or histories -- I'll be shot down in flames now with loads of contrary examples, and I welcome that -- that fail to give some indication of their sources or the reliability of the author. The gospels simply don't -- they are written without any indication of the identities of the author or the sources for their information. (Luke's prologue is not an exception here -- it is anonymous and as vague as the hazy blue sky beyond the hills.) When we can identify a source for any particular saying or anecdote it turns out to be, in most cases, a saying or episode in the O.T.

Contra to this claim about ancient histories See Veyne

A historian of this period [The Ancient World] does not cite his sources or, rather, he does so rarely, irregularly, and not at all for the same reasons as we do.

Andrew Criddle

[maryhelena]

maryhelena,
To take your own examples from the Irish Republic, the great W.B. Yeats, and the coronation of Elizabeth II,
am I alone in thinking that all of those are more consequential and memorable
than the death of the last Hasmonean?

Context, Stephan. Each to their own as to what they find to be important elements of their respective history. My point was - it is not our place to assume what Jewish people of 2000 years ago found to be important elements of their history under Roman occupation. What we do have is the end of Hasmonean rule via the Roman execution of their last King and High Priest. We also have, 70 years later, a gospel story about a crucifion of a figure for whom the story writers used the term, King of the Jews.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena, above, in part:
"...it is not our place to assume what Jewish people of 2000 years ago found to be important elements of their history under Roman occupation."
But aren't you doing that?