Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 05-28-2010, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Apologists insist that the oral tradition behind the gospels was reliable and didn't significantly garble the original words of Jesus.

Ok...then why did Christians eventually commit these things to written form?

How could this question be answered, without necessarily imparting some degree of insufficiency to the oral tradition?

Maybe the writings were a response to Marcion. What then? Oral tradition wasn't sufficient to combat heresy?

Thus the choice to convert oral tradition to writing, whatever the immediate cause (Marcion?), necessarily implies that the preservers of oral tradition came to discover that the written form of the faith was more stable than the oral form. Unfortunately for apologists, this can only mean that oral tradition is LESS accurate than written accounts, flying in the face of apologists who declare the exact opposite.

I thought this had an easy answer: Christians followed the tradition of the Jewish religion, which was committed to write things down.

Looks like no one else thinks so :huh:

Tigers! · 05-29-2010, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Luke "writes" for Theophilus in Luke 1:1-3. But if oral tradition was as reliable as apologists insist, why put it down in writing? Luke answers: so that Theophilus may know the "certainty" of the things concerning Jesus.

Which seems to indicate that what Theophilus learned by oral tradition, did not impart the kind of certitude that a written text would impart.

Or maybe Theophilius had no one that could pass on the oral tradition and thus he had to rely on a written account.

skepticdude · 05-29-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Apologists insist that the oral tradition behind the gospels was reliable and didn't significantly garble the original words of Jesus.

Ok...then why did Christians eventually commit these things to written form?

How could this question be answered, without necessarily imparting some degree of insufficiency to the oral tradition?

Maybe the writings were a response to Marcion. What then? Oral tradition wasn't sufficient to combat heresy?

Thus the choice to convert oral tradition to writing, whatever the immediate cause (Marcion?), necessarily implies that the preservers of oral tradition came to discover that the written form of the faith was more stable than the oral form. Unfortunately for apologists, this can only mean that oral tradition is LESS accurate than written accounts, flying in the face of apologists who declare the exact opposite.

I thought this had an easy answer: Christians followed the tradition of the Jewish religion, which was committed to write things down.

Looks like no one else thinks so :huh:

But the Jewish religion had oral and written traditions, so you just broke the sound barrier while spinning your wheels.

skepticdude · 05-29-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Or maybe Theophilius had no one that could pass on the oral tradition and thus he had to rely on a written account.

Quote:

Luke 1:1-4 NAS Luke 1
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4 so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Theophilus had already been taught, presumably by oral tradition. Therefore if Luke decided that Theo would still find a written account profitable to know the "exact" truth, it seems inescapable that Luke was admitting that oral tradition does not tell you the "exact" truth the way a written tradition would. Luke's very choice to write such an intro implies that he knew that oral tradition had great shortcomings, something no apologist today would happily admit.

Cege · 05-29-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

I thought this had an easy answer: Christians followed the tradition of the Jewish religion, which was committed to write things down.

Looks like no one else thinks so :huh:

But the Jewish religion had oral and written traditions, so you just broke the sound barrier while spinning your wheels.

The Christian religion developed oral and written traditions.

Oral traditions often become written traditions at some point in their existence.

vid · 05-31-2010, 05:47 AM

Toto: Wouldn't you say Papias attests to oral tradition?

I'd say that written sources could play a role for believers of Jewish mindset - what Ehrman called "religion of book".

Toto · 05-31-2010, 06:43 AM

Papias attests that some people spoke to him. But that's not the same thing as saying that the gospels are based on an existing oral tradition that goes back to Jesus.

Tigers! · 06-03-2010, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Or maybe Theophilius had no one that could pass on the oral tradition and thus he had to rely on a written account.

Quote:

Luke 1:1-4 NAS Luke 1
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4 so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Theophilus had already been taught, presumably by oral tradition. Therefore if Luke decided that Theo would still find a written account profitable to know the "exact" truth, it seems inescapable that Luke was admitting that oral tradition does not tell you the "exact" truth the way a written tradition would. Luke's very choice to write such an intro implies that he knew that oral tradition had great shortcomings, something no apologist today would happily admit.

In v1 it talks of compiled accounts - are they written or oral? Compiling would suggest, to me at least, that there were already written accounts available. We still do not know whether Theophilus had written or oral accounts. It could have been written. It is possible to learn from written accounts. If not then all those textbooks are a waste of money.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2010, 05:47 AM	#16
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Toto: Wouldn't you say Papias attests to oral tradition? I'd say that written sources could play a role for believers of Jewish mindset - what Ehrman called "religion of book".

05-31-2010, 06:43 AM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Papias attests that some people spoke to him. But that's not the same thing as saying that the gospels are based on an existing oral tradition that goes back to Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.