Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 06-13-2011, 09:21 PM

In the last thirty years there have been significant developments in the application of orality studies to the Gospels. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the field through a survey of its leading proponents, including Werner Kelber, Joanna Dewey, Paul Achtemeier, Peter Botha, Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper, Kenneth Bailey, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham, David Rhoads and Whitney Shiner. The essay begins with a discussion of several foundational studies, before turning specifically to the reconception of orality and the implication of this research for the Gospels. The study concludes that, while an appreciation of orality has made inroads into certain segments of Gospels research, it remains a neglected and underexploited dimension of NT interpretation.--abstract for "Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research" / Kelly R. Iverson. In Currents in Biblical Research (October 2009) vol. 8 no. 1, 71-106.

Toto · 06-13-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So you take the proposition that the gospels used oral traditions as the default assumption? And you assume that all writings from the period make use of oral traditions?

No and no. I make no 'default' assumptions.

Read closely. What you responded to was an analogy. Take 'fact' to mean any tidbit presented in the text.

Yes, I took it as an analogy

Quote:

What is the basis for this assumption? It is generally agreed that the gospels were written after 70 CE and were not written in Galilee. Why would there be anyone able to fact check this gospel, even if it were intended as factual?

I think that you have uncritically accepted the standard Christian narrative of early church history.

These objections become meaningless when you read my analogy as an analogy—as it was meant to be read.

I don't think so.

Quote:

I'll try again:

If you are trying to inform your audience about the 'real' secret life and deeds of George Washington, would your uncheckable information (that he suffered from a bad case of anal prolapse on account of his regularly receiving anal sex) be more or less believable if you claimed that he wasn't the first president of the United States?

When there are things that are 'factual' as far as your audience is concerned, you cannot counter those 'facts' without damaging your credibility.

Please avoid icky analogies.

Quote:

The same would be true of any of the gospel writers. If there were oral traditions held by their audience, then to maintain their credibility (which is necessary to convince the audience of whatever it is they want to convince the audience of) they may not present information counter to those traditions. That is, they can only bend and alter the traditions so much while still holding their audience's trust.

Imagine reading a newspaper that described Iraq as an island nation in the Pacific.

And I can go on. But must I?

Jon

I think I understood you the first time. You have made the assumption that the gospel writers were writing for an audience that had enough background information from their traditions, so that they could do some sort of fact checking. You say "If there were oral traditions held by their audience..." but I say there is no reason to assume any oral traditions regarding Jesus.

If this is not your point, please explain.

But assuming that is what you meant, I think your point is incorrect.

For instance, there are notable geographic errors in Mark. This means that either Mark was not writing for an audience that knew anything about the geography of Galilee and/or the audience knew that Mark was not even trying to give an accurate account of real events. In any case, there is no room for tradition.

JonA · 06-13-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You say "If there were oral traditions held by their audience..." but I say there is no reason to assume any oral traditions regarding Jesus.

I haven't assumed anything. This is why I said 'IF'.

Quote:

For instance, there are notable geographic errors in Mark. This means that either Mark was not writing for an audience that knew anything about the geography of Galilee and/or the audience knew that Mark was not even trying to give an accurate account of real events. In any case, there is no room for tradition.

There is plenty of room. The tradition doesn't have to be all-encompassing. Neither do the oral traditions have to go all the way back to some Jesus figure.

The issue is whether the writers of the gospels integrated any information that they had heard, or if they only used written sources.

Jon

Toto · 06-13-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

..

The issue is whether the writers of the gospels integrated any information that they had heard, or if they only used written sources.

Jon

OK, I give. What exactly makes you think that the gospel writers used any information outside of written sources?

JonA · 06-13-2011, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

..

The issue is whether the writers of the gospels integrated any information that they had heard, or if they only used written sources.

Jon

OK, I give. What exactly makes you think that the gospel writers used any information outside of written sources?

The lack of these written sources should be sufficient.

Feel free to produce them.

Jon

Toto · 06-13-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, I give. What exactly makes you think that the gospel writers used any information outside of written sources?

The lack of these written sources should be sufficient.

Feel free to produce them.

Jon

Have you read the Septuagint? Have you read any of the extensive scholarly literature tracing the gospel stories to themes in the Hebrew Scriptures? It sounds like you are missing out on a lot.

JonA · 06-13-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read the Septuagint?

Is there something crucial I need that can only be gotten from reading the Greek? What parts in particular do you think were the source material for the gospels?

Quote:

Have you read any of the extensive scholarly literature tracing the gospel stories to themes in the Hebrew Scriptures? It sounds like you are missing out on a lot.

Again, feel free to produce those written sources.

Jon

Steven Carr · 06-13-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It should be pointed out that none of the non-canonical Gospels are based on any oral traditions. Apparently, the authors of those works were all deaf and could not hear anybody talk.

Haha. I was just looking at Tom Thatcher's new edited volume on Amazon. I sure wish someone would take on the works outside the canon from an oral lit perspective.

Why would they do that?

No mainstream Biblical scholar even dreams of trying to show that the Gospel of Peter uses oral traditions.

They look at it - realise it is not in the New Testament, and say it is either invented or uses the Gospels as a literary source.

There is no need for them to wonder whether non-canonical Gospels use oral traditions, as they are not in the Bible.

Toto · 06-14-2011, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read the Septuagint?

Is there something crucial I need that can only be gotten from reading the Greek? What parts in particular do you think were the source material for the gospels?

Quote:

Have you read any of the extensive scholarly literature tracing the gospel stories to themes in the Hebrew Scriptures? It sounds like you are missing out on a lot.

Again, feel free to produce those written sources.

Jon

Feel free to do your own research. I've given you some links.

Why do you care, anyway?

Steven Carr · 06-14-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

The same would be true of any of the gospel writers. If there were oral traditions held by their audience, then to maintain their credibility (which is necessary to convince the audience of whatever it is they want to convince the audience of) they may not present information counter to those traditions. That is, they can only bend and alter the traditions so much while still holding their audience's trust.

I see.

So there was an oral tradition that Jesus had killed a child in his infancy, and the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had to maintain his credibility by including stories of the child Jesus killing children?

'And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness.'

The author could not claim Jesus smote people with blindness unless there were oral traditions in his community of the infant Jesus blinding people who annoyed him....

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

06-13-2011, 09:21 PM	#21
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	In the last thirty years there have been significant developments in the application of orality studies to the Gospels. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the field through a survey of its leading proponents, including Werner Kelber, Joanna Dewey, Paul Achtemeier, Peter Botha, Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper, Kenneth Bailey, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham, David Rhoads and Whitney Shiner. The essay begins with a discussion of several foundational studies, before turning specifically to the reconception of orality and the implication of this research for the Gospels. The study concludes that, while an appreciation of orality has made inroads into certain segments of Gospels research, it remains a neglected and underexploited dimension of NT interpretation.--abstract for "Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research" / Kelly R. Iverson. In Currents in Biblical Research (October 2009) vol. 8 no. 1, 71-106.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.