outhouse

access? oral tradition was different in different communities, while many had the same legends, some had different spins for different audiences.

They didnt need papyrus literature to have access to, accept or refuse the stories in place.

outhouse

correct

outhouse

another mistake made is to think these gospels were not heavily redacted from their original form, for content for the intended audience

Duvduv

So you mean to say that none of the gospels used another of them? Even Luke and Matthew?

aa5874

Again, you are just a story-teller. You imagine and invent stories that are COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.

Please, this is NOT Sunday School. Please support your stories with sources of antiquity not with your imaginative skills.

outhouse

Its possible GLukes author had Marks literature.

But he also used Q and posssible L as source material possible from oral tradition. Mark could have been cited word for word in oral tradition as well, we dont know.

We know it was a source, thats it.


If I had to throw a guess out there i'd say Luke was written like this

M= scipt
Q= oral
L= oral



You may not understand that with a 90% illiteracy rate, ALL of this information was all in wide circulation from mouth to mouth.

Toto

Mr. o:

What is your source for your claims about oral tradition in the gospels?

The idea that there is oral tradition behind the different gospels is Christian speculation, meant to provide some way for the events of 30 CE to be written up in gospels obviously written after 70 CE. But there is no evidence for this oral tradition, and the exact words in the different gospels look more like direct copying of text. There have been studies of oral tradition, and oral tradition leads to more variation in language and facts.

Duvduv

Just like I asked you how you know that Marcion had his own set of letters I'll ask you why an oral tradition had to go all the way back to the first century.

outhouse

There is so much evidence of oral tradition its not funny.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Material unique to Luke is said to derive from the L source, which is thought to derive from the oral tradition


now from Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html


This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on. At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus,

even have the analytical and palaeographical skills now employed to derive a reliable manuscript archetype from a scientific collation of numerous exemplars. In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege


The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D. (M 40), and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches (M 187-8). This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture--he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times (M 41-3). On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source. But his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition.


Despite the difficulties, it seems plausible that the Gospels had been written by this date, although it is remotely possible that Ignatius is simply quoting oral traditions which eventually became recorded in writing

Like Clement, Ignatius and other Christians probably regarded these texts as wise counsel or useful collections of their oral traditions, and not as "scripture" per se.

this last one is key

where Papias says "I did not think that information from books would help me so much as the utterances of a living and surviving voice" (M 52). Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition.

Toto

D'uh - if the oral tradition didn't go back to the first century, it would be useless for apologetic purposes.