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

[maryhelena]

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?

Perhaps many Jews..... Herodian Jews.... we're glad to see the end of the Hasmoneans. Perhaps Hasmonean Jews thought otherwise. However, all we have is history plus the gospel story. We can link the gospel story to Hasmonean history.... and thereby make assumptions. Without proposing a linkage between history and story we have no grounds upon which to make wild assumptions of what Jews 2000 years ago found important in their history.

In his book Reading the First Century, Daniel Schwartz speaks about rubbing sources together.

Among Texts: Rubbing Sources Together

...... so too even when the sources are distinct to
begin with: when you rub two texts together sparks may fly in all sorts of
directions.

So, rubbing the gospel story up against Hasmonean history - and indeed, sparks may fly...

Viewing the gospel story as an historical story, in and off itself, is a dead-end for research into early christian history - that route is where blind, wild, assumptions line the roadway. And as for Josephus - that way lies detour after detour.....Historical evidence, as far as it can be ascertained, is fundamental for NT research. It might be meager but without it we are all blowing in the wind....

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena,
am I correct, that you dismiss accounts by Josephus and Plutarch that the last Hasmonean was beheaded, yet find reliable the account by Cassius Dio that he was crucified?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena,
am I correct, that you dismiss accounts by Josephus and Plutarch that the last Hasmonean was beheaded, yet find reliable the account by Cassius Dio that he was crucified?

I don't know where you got that idea from.....

Yes, I find Cassius Dio's account interesting - whether it's factual or Dio put two and two together re the gospel story is, at the end of the day, secondary to the fact that Antigonus was executed by the Roman Marc Antony.

Daniel Schwartz indicates that there could have been some time between Herod's capture of Jerusalem and the execution of Antigonus in Antioch.

In fact, if one
takes the statement in the scholarly locus classicus on Herodian chronology
(SVM I, p. 326, n. 165) that
Josephus states that he reigned 37 years from the date of his appointment (40 B.C.), 34
years from his conquest of Jerusalem, 37 B.C . Cf. Ant. xvii 8, 1 (191); B7 i 33, 8 (665)
and checks the references, he will find that Josephus in fact counts the thirtyfour years
from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was
executed in Andoch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.
15.9),"^ and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late
autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in
September—October 37."' Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage
of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only
willing to count the new king's regnal years after Antigonus was completely
removed.""

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity.

Consequently, Antigonus might well have been a Roman prisoner for some time - allowing for both a hanging on a stake for humanilation purposes and a later beheading via Marc Antony. That a man can be taken down from a stake/cross and later to die - we have the Josephan story of his friend after the war of 70 c.e.

So no, Stephan, I don't reject the Josephan account or Plutarch - a beheading does not rule out a prior humiliation on a stake/cross. And of course, from a Josephan, Jewish, point of view - being hung on a stake/cross is dishonorable/accursed - more reason why a Jewish source would be affronted by it - and all the more reason for the Romans to resort to it.

[StephenGoranson]

hi maryhelena, Stephen here.
You wrote above, in part:
"I don't know where you got that idea [of dismissing Josephus] from....."
Well, earlier today, you wrote:
"And as for Josephus - that way lies detour after detour....."

[maryhelena]

hi maryhelena, Stephen here.
You wrote above, in part:
"I don't know where you got that idea [of dismissing Josephus] from....."
Well, earlier today, you wrote:
"And as for Josephus - that way lies detour after detour....."

Come now...... If Josephus makes reference to historical events..... Antigonus was executed by the Romans - all well and good. If Josephus makes mention of figures that cannot be historically evidenced...... then one needs to be cautious about such Josephan figures. Otherwise one could become waylaid in searching for early Christian origins. History, Stephan. without history we fall prey to unwarranted assumptions - in this case unwarranted assumptions regarding early Christian origins.

[StephenGoranson]

Vague, concerning assumptions.
For clarity purposes here--no offense--I'm Stephen not Stephan.

[maryhelena]

Vague, concerning assumptions.
For clarity purposes here--no offense--I'm Stephen not Stephan.

Correction noted.......

[Irish1975]

It is well to keep in mind that the third evangelist explicitly announces to his readers that "those who, from the beginning, were witnesses and servants of the word" have passed their information along to himself (the evangelist). Different readings are possible, but on a plain reading he does seem to be laying claim to an oral tradition about Jesus (="the word" as something to be witnessed). It isn't implied that oral tradition is the only basis for his account, but important enough to be worth mentioning.

Thus oral tradition is a theme internal to the Gospels themselves (cf. John 21:24-25).

Fairly put, but, just to spell it out, such are the ambiguities of the Lukan preface that there is another 'plain reading' which denies any place to oral tradition. If the "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" are not differentiated from those who have previously written, but, as is grammatically coherent, are the same people, then it is a claim that previous gospels were written by eyewitnesses who became evangelists. We reflexively interpret παραδοσις as 'oral tradition', forgetting that the παρεδοσαν ημιν/"delivered to us" of the preface can refer to the transmission of written documents; indeed, Josephus (Against Apion 10) describes his narrative of the war as a παραδοσις.

This is essentially a prototype of the Eusebian model of gospel composition. Eusebius did not entirely rule out the validity of oral tradition. In retailing the story of John and the robber, he quotes Clement of Alexandria verbatim : ου μυθον αλλα οντα λογον περι Ιωαννου του αποστολου παραδεδομενον και μνημη πεφυλαγμενον/"not a myth but a true story of John the apostle preserved in memory" (H.E.3.23). But the gospels are another matter. As is well known, several times he asserts that Mark, a follower of Peter, composed his gospel from Peter's words ( H.E. 2.15, 6.14.5ff; and 3.39.15, the Papias reference to Mark not recording matters in the right order). Of Luke : "..the accurate account of things of which he had himself firmly learnt the truth from his profitable intercourse and life with Paul and his conversation with the other apostles [!]" (H.E.3.24.15). The canonical gospels are written by apostles or their entourage. They are the written documents of credible eyewitnesses, there is no space for an oral tradition.

In this light, the accent of Luke's preface falls on the words αναταξασθαι and καθεξης, a claim to have put events in the correct order/ταξις/εξης in a definitive way.

That 'order' was considered a priority for understanding 'what really happened' can be illustrated from Dio Chrysostom's (rather wonderful) Oration 11. The argument is that, largely from internal evidence in Homer's work, in the true history of the Trojan war, Helen was never abducted, Troy was not sacked, and so on. It is a jeu d'esprit, but informed by considerable knowledge of Homeric criticism. 'Order' is a key part of his early attack :

"For when Homer undertook [επιχειρησας] to describe the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans, he did not start at the very beginning, but at haphazard [οθεν ετυχεν]; and this is the regular way with practically all who distort the truth; they entangle the story and make it involved and refuse to tell anything in sequence [εφεξης], thus escaping detection more readily. Otherwise they are convicted by the very subject matter. This is just what may be seen happening in courts of justice and in the case of others who lie skilfully; whereas those who wish to present each fact as it really occurred do so by reporting the first thing first, the second next, and so on in like order [εφεξης]. This is one reason why Homer did not begin his poem in the natural way. Another is that he planned especially to do away with its beginning and its end as far as possible and to create the very opposite impression concerning them. That is why he did not dare to tell either the beginning or the end in a straightforward way and did not bind himself to say anything about them, but if he does make mention of them anywhere, it is incidental and brief, and he is evidently trying to confuse. For he was ill at ease with respect to these parts and unable to speak freely. The following device, too, is usually employed by those who wish to deceive : they mention some parts of the story and dwell upon them, but what they are particularly anxious to conceal they do not bring out clearly or when their auditor is paying attention, nor do they put it in its proper place, but where it may best escape notice...." ( ch.25-26, LCL tr.)

At ch.37 ff, Dio confirms his alternative, accurate history by producing superior evidence from Egyptian temple archives : "Menelaus had come to visit them and described everything just as it had occurred." In other words, a written eyewitness account.

Very interesting post, mbuckley3.

I agree with Tom Dykstra's remark cited above by MrMacSon--

Christians have had some conception of “oral tradition” since the earliest centuries, but modern scholars invented an entirely new meaning for the term.

I.e., the now bankrupt agenda of form criticism.

I think you are right, and it is hardly debatable, that the Gospels of the Canonical Edition, even if they suggest an idea of oral tradition, are much more overt in laying claim to (a) eyewitness testimony from the apostles themselves, and (b) in the case of "Luke" a complete, thorough, systematic comprehension of "all that has been fulfilled" that bears comparison with Dio Chrysostom's ideas.

Horace's Ars Poetica famously describes Homer's beginning "in medias res" (in the middle of the story, ie, with the dispute of Achilles and Agammenon). Although an extremely common practice in the history of storytelling, its legitimacy appears to be rejected by both Dio and Luke, who lay claim to a superior perspective. Luke is specifically displacing (and thus rejecting) Marcion's way of introducing the savior, ie, abruptly and with no prophetic anticipation.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Sorry, Andrew, I did bypass your original point.

Is not your suggestion rather complicating the story, though? Is it not simpler to take the gospels as originating in the later period because that's when the stories were first imagined?

I have been spending a lot of time translating Bruno Bauer's commentaries on the gospels and a regular refrain in his argument is that specific sayings in the gospel narratives could only have been created for the first time by a mature church that had had time to reflect on its place in the world.

[neilgodfrey]

...................................................
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

That is not entirely true, though, is it. Ancient historians don't cite their sources in the way moderns do, but they do give enough away to win the confidence of their audience. The three ancient historians Veyne cites in fact demonstrate this point:

Thucydides explained that he was an eyewitness;
Polybius stressed his practice of always making first hand inquiries to test the various accounts that had come to him;
Pausanias is always telling readers what he heard, what so and so said, etc.

But to be fair to Veyne, he does explain further on the same page that he is speaking comparatively even when he says "not at all":

Most often Pausanias is content to say, 'I learned that . . .', or 'According to my informants . . . '

By contrast the gospels read as freely composed fiction.

I'm sure I've come across at least one or two ancient historians who don't give any hint that they used sources but I cannot recall them now. Any ideas?