Ben C Smith

Here it is:

Δεινον γαρ που, ω Φαιδρε, τουτ εχει γραφη, και ως αληθως ομοιον ζωγραφια. και γαρ τα εκεινης εκγονα εστηκε μεν ως ζωντα, εαν δ ανερη τι, σεμνως πανυ σιγα. ταυτον δε και οι λογοι· δοξαις μεν αν ως τι φρονουντας αυτους λεγειν, εαν δε τι ερη των λεγομενων βουλομενος μαθειν, εν τι σημαινει μονον ταυτον αει. οταν δε απαξ γραφη, κυλινδειται μεν πανταχου πας λογος ομοιως παρα τοις επαιουσιν, ως δ αυτως παρ οις ουδεν προσηκει, και ουκ επισταται λεγειν οις δει γε και μη. πλημμελουμενος δε και ουκ εν δικη λοιδορηθεις του πατρος αει δειται βοηθου, αυτος γαρ ουτ αμυνασθαι ουτε βοηθησαι δυνατος αυτω.

For writing, O Phaedrus, has this terrible thing somehow, and is truly very similar to painting. For the things that are born from it stand as if living, but, if one should ask anything, they are solemnly and utterly silent. And words are also like this. You might think that they spoke as if sentient. But, if you ask them anything, wishing to learn of what they are saying, they always repeat for you the very same thing. And each word, when once it is written, is rolled about everywhere, similarly among those in the know as likewise among those for whom it amounts to nothing, and it does not know to whom it must indeed speak and to whom not. And when it is missounded and unjustly abused it always has need of its father to help it, for it is able neither to defend nor to help itself.

This coheres nicely with what Roger said about Papias. It is not oral tradition in general; it is the voice of the originator (the father above) that matters.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Interesting -- thank you. I for one would be interested to see some more of these quotes.

There may also be an issue at that date with reliability of the texts. Cicero comments in one of his letters on the wretched quality of texts available from booksellers in Rome in his time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Sorry, of course. Not sure how I left it out. :frown:

neilgodfrey

Stromata Bk 1 Ch 1 is a lengthy discussion re the pros and cons of written and oral transmission.

Marcion did not think it strange that "churchmen would just add words" to Paul's letters or a gospel. Was anyone thrown out of the church for writing epistles in Peter's name? Of for writing letters addressed to Timothy in Paul's name?

-- the texts themselves appearing to be in dialogue with one another. One might even argue the same for the gospels: e.g. Matthew in dialogue with Mark re role of disciples and Peter and the law.

the point is we know it happened.


Sorry, I am not up with the abbrev "OP". I see it all the time but am only guessing what it means. The Opening Post?

I'm not disputing certain texts were held in high regard in certain circles. The opening post (op?) was addressing a more general question than that. Even today an article or note in print is held in much higher esteem in many contexts than the mere spoken word. Among those whose livelihood is to create and debate through such texts there is less esteem. I don't know how different it was in the past except in scale.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Amaleq13

Yes.

Roger Pearse

Is the reference right? The ANF editor gave this chapter the heading "The utility of written compositions", and the beginning is lost, and the text wanders rather, and the translation is plainly elderly, but as far as I can see it doesn't really seem to address this issue.

Any help would be appreciated. I'd post what there is, but it's long and wordy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

One important passage in book one chapter one of the Stromateis is Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey

Another on topic reference is in Irenaeus AH 3.2.1 where Irenaeus complains that the gnostic types relegated the written word subordinate to the oral tradition:

It then looks like Irenaeus is beginning to give the game away in AH 3.3.1 by implying that the "orthodox" types don't have any such tradition -- and since the orthodox don't know it, it must never have existed, naturally. . .

Wonder if we can trace the reverence for the written word in the church to the victory of the 'orthodox' in this second/third century battle between christianities. Recall that the antiquity of religion was a sign of its authenticity, so the 'proto-orthodox' Christians hijacked the antique Jewish scriptures as their own, complete with allegoral interpretations that in effect disinherited the original Jewish possessors. Looks like it was a battle between the authorities of the "living voices" against the "written words"?

Ironic that today the RC church claims church 'tradition' as an equal authority with the holy writ -- I seem to recall reading that in an RC ed course years back, but happy to be told i'm mistaken.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com