Toto

You still have not found any indication that there were separate oral traditions, as opposed to separate imaginations at work.

Duvduv

That's true, but given the creative differences in the stories revolving around the same theme it seems to me that there were other sources involved, either written or oral. Is it hard to imagine that someone heard a story about how Jesus fed 5000 people but then embellished it as well, or came across a written text that described the story in a slightly different way from the other gospels?

Toto

Seems to you? People rewrite stories all the time, without separate sources.

Davka

I would think that the fact that the earliest fragments of any of the Gospels date well after the supposed events related therein suggests that some sort of oral tradition must have pre-dated the Gospels. These stories about a Messiah who died and rose from the dead didn't simply pop out of nowhere, full-blown onto parchment.

Also, there are extra-Biblical sources referencing the small religious sect of proto-Christians in the 2nd century CE, iirc. One would expect that these people had some sort of oral mythology(s) with which they identified.

Toto

Why not? The idea that the gospels had oral sources is based on the idea that they are history, and are trying to recount actual events. There is no basis in reality for the idea that the gospels are even trying to recount actual history.

Besides, we know one source for the gospels: the Septuagint, or Hebrew scriptures in general.

?? You mean the letter of Pliny about some underground Christians? The only thing we know from that is that they got up at dawn (to worship the sun?) and sang hymns to Christ as a god.

Duvduv

But Toto we see that they are not simply writing novels for popular entertainment. They are writing for what they considered to be a serious religious purpose. They aren't Hollywood script writers.

Davka

That's one idea. The other is the same as the oral history behind, say, the Genesis accounts. Nothing more than fictional stories passed down from person to person.

However the Jesus cult began, it seems reasonable to me that the cult preceded the writings. I suppose it's possible that something like a Book of Mormon/Koran fraud was perpetrated, but if that were the case I would expect the writings to claim some sort of divine origin.

Agreed.

???

For the supposed teachings of Jesus, sure. But for the whole story? I don't see it.

Yep. What do you suppose the words to those hymns were? What stories did they tell one-another about their "god"?

It's all speculative, but I don't see that there's enough evidence to rule out oral traditions (rumors, or stories, if you prefer) preceding the written Gospels. It's certainly one plausible explanation.

Toto

They were not historians. A religion is more likely to form around a Hollywood movie (think Star Wars) than a history book.

Duvduv

They don't have to be historians, simply religious people trying to reconstruct what they considered to be their religious tradition.

steve_bnk

From a PBS showon Christianity, the gospels represent the evolution in Christian thought at differnt times.

In one gospel JC is a feisty pun slinging antagonist.

In another a more serene spiritual image. More Greek perhaps.