spin

Beside the fact that it is so marginally related to the o.p. and the fact that it is merely a means to reheat the Eusebius conspiracy theory nonsense, I guess I'm not sure either.

Sheshbazzar

Yet on a thousand other issues regarding religion and history they'll trot out something he wrote in a second if it supports their opinion on that issue, and defend whatever of his statements are useful to them, as though Eusebius is a paragon of honesty and reliability.
'...they choose to ignore/disregard Eusebius's version of Christian 'history'.
But wish to continue to keep him in their box, so they can pull him out and use him whenever it is in their favor to do so.
...I mean, if no one notices, or calls them out on this duplicity, this way they can continue to both have their cake and eat it too.'

They use Eusebius's testimony as being their reliable witness whenever doing so suits their arguments.
And dismiss the same Eusebius's testimony as being unreliable whenever his words disagree with their opinions and arguments.

steve_bnk

Addressing oral tradition regarding the gospels by analogy to modern figures we do know is a basic form of historical analysis. Spot on target.

The same human social dynamics that were in play circa the gospels has not changed in 2000 years.

The question of an oral tradition becomes a much more general one.

I see the gospels as an older form of what we now call the docu-drama.

A presentation based in varying degrees on actual events with literary license taken. Composite characters based on personal recollections and 2nd-3rd hand accounts without actual evidence. And so on.

A good example is the 90s movie Elizabeth. The difference is I can go to a wiki page and read which parts were outright fictional additions and which parts diverge from known history and which parts are anecdotal.

Forget all the religious and supernatural baggage, and what do you have?

You have an action adventure story in the literary form of the times. It is a tragedy, the hero dies. The Acts form part two of the story. Loose ends are tied up.

As to recall we know the brain from experiments will automatically ill in blanks, it is probably a survival mechanism.

Give a group of people a story missing some key words and details, and then question them on the story after a delay. People will naturally extrapolate to fill in details.

In an article on evolution vs creationism I picked up a new term. 'cultural osmosis'. The process by which anecdotal and wrong information over time gets formed into a cohesive story of the science of evolution as seen by creationists.

The mechanism o oral tradition is not a mystery, unless somebody makes it seem such.

The questions are how much is oral tradition and how much literary license.

Sheshbazzar

Just because a writer creates a riveting drama based upon hundreds of elements drawn from the past, and from currently popular themes, it is no evidence that the completed manuscript is the result of reporting any 'oral traditions', or in any way represents an accurate account of any actual historical conversations, scenes, and events.

'Mark' made up a 'religious historical drama'. It became wildly popular with a segment of Hellenic society. Other writers very quickly took up and expanded upon his successful theme.

These were the 'penny dreadfuls' of their day. A cult of followers, and discussion circles grew up around the texts, and began to hold conventions, which in time grew to international proportions.

Many sought ways in which to capitalize upon this lucrative social phenomena, hundreds of similar books were produced, but the official fan club soon reacted by excluding these crude and silly ripoffs that altered and adulterated the fan clubs cherished original scripts.

Attend a Star Wars Convention and try to sell a newly created version of a Star Wars themed comic, action figure, or costume, and see what kind of reception you will receive from the dedicated fans of the original dramatic series, and the purveyors of authentic Star Wars memorabilia. You might be allowed to sell, but your sales will be few, and much less received or profitable than anything original to, or faithful to the original productions.

That is the same reason that the 'Apocrypical' NT books were rejected and excluded from 'official club endorsement', or from the sponsorship of additional copies, by the clubs 'officials'.
They are still available, but few fans of the original series are interested, and those who are still making their living off of the original series, do not wish to so dilute or compromise the claims of the product they are peddling.

But the original religious historical drama was no less fictional or implausible.


.

steve_bnk

The best explanation I herd or the gospels was from a PBS show on Christianity.

The gospels were written as promotional literature for converts, certainly embellished. An advertisement of sorts. Never intended as a journalistic account in the first place.

spin

:horsecrap:

spin

Would anyone care to comment on the ludicrous, though popular, notion of an oral tradition behind the gospels somehow getting one closer to a reality behind the gospel narrative? Religious studies people seem to think that by being able to step out of text into an oral context is some sort of improvement. Any ideas how it is? Hmmm?

Sheshbazzar

Closely and critically examining the Gospel texts, it becomes apparent that they were all written by writers that were not part of the Jewish religion, or a part of the Jewish culture that they writing about. The viewpoint throughout all is one that is blatantly xeno (when the writers employ the phrase "....the Jews" it is an xenos 'not of us' -we are aliens to Jewish society' expression.)
Each of these authors make blunders about Jewish beliefs, customs, and legal procedures that no Jew living in and personally familiar with 1st century Judaism would have made.
Geographical references and relationships are often wonky, as being made up by someone with no actual familiarity at all with either the local terrain nor the locations of cities and bodies of water in relationship to each other.
In view of this, it is highly unlikely that these so called Gospel 'oral traditions' ever originated with Jewish believers, or in the vicinity of the Gospel story's setting.
I see Greeks plagiarizing Hebrew texts and religion to invent a syncretized Greek religious drama.

outhouse

Oral traditions was common in these illiterate societies.


The oral tradition was there and in use.


The issues with trying to apply it to the gospels is that were not exactly certain how much was allegory or the unknown authors genre.

Add to that we have cross cultural oral tradition from traditional Jewish to Hellenistis Gnetiles and Jews.

Add to that time involved from a possible martyrdom for the tradition to grow.

Add to that the theological content steeped in mythology to parallel divinity between a Hellenistic saviour and the Emperor and Moses and many others using the OT as a foundation.

Sheshbazzar

But the question here becomes first. Were there any actual 'oral traditions' behind 'Mark'?
or was 'Mark' simply the writer of a Greek religious drama incorporating material drawn from the Hebrew texts and some familiarity with 1st century Israel? (quite possibly gleaned from the writings of Philo and Josephus)

And second, if there indeed were any such 'oral traditions', just -whose- 'oral traditions' are we getting in these writings, those of early first century Jews living in Palestine?

or those of late first/early second century Greek 'christians' living in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome?

I strongly suspect that the answer is the latter.