Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 02-27-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

The evidence shows that in oral cultures where memory has been trained for generations, oral memory can accurately preserve and pass on large amounts of information.

Sorry, but there is no evidence that shows such nonsense to be true. All the evidence points to oral cultures having much shorter histories than literate cultures. Not because the people have existed for less time, but because oral transmission only reaches so far into the past. And with each transmission, the information changes to better suit the new audience and storyteller in some way or another.

The notion that people would remember verbatim the words of Jesus is not only ridiculous, but completely incompatible with any scholarly theory of an historical Jesus.

Jon

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

The evidence shows that in oral cultures where memory has been trained for generations, oral memory can accurately preserve and pass on large amounts of information.

Sorry, but there is no evidence that shows such nonsense to be true. All the evidence points to oral cultures having much shorter histories than literate cultures. Not because the people have existed for less time, but because oral transmission only reaches so far into the past. And with each transmission, the information changes to better suit the new audience and storyteller in some way or another.

The notion that people would remember verbatim the words of Jesus is not only ridiculous, but completely incompatible with any scholarly theory of an historical Jesus.

Jon

Oral culture can transmit material reasonably accurately for over fifty years. The real problems come with longer periods which may not be relevant for the historical Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well,

I must have skimmed over the good parts. Thank you!

What scares me a little about the likes of Neusner, Gerhardsson and Kelber, is that they all seem to have a romantic notion about how oral tradition should have occurred (Neusner's concern is the transmission of the unwritten tradition codified in the Mishna and commented upon in the Talmud, while for the others it is Jesus' ethical teachings) and somehow it magically gets confirmed.

There appears to have been a formal program of rote memorization of Mishnah tractates. If so, this is rather different from what we normally mean by oral tradition.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 02-27-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

If the allegations are true that people in this culture were capable of committing large amounts of information to memory and recalling it perfectly, how could such a simple discrepancy occur as does between Matthew and Luke's accounts of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on A Level Place?

Matthew says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit"

Luke says, "Blessed are you who are poor"

I don't know the Greek, but these appear to be different enough in meaning that it kind of makes me wonder how the oral traditionalists explain the differences while maintaining that memory was as good as the written word back then? Or are oral traditionalists saying there were several differing oral traditions that are each recalled verbatim by different groups?

This particular example possibly involves differing translations from Aramaic into Greek. In the original language poor could mean either literally poor or humble. Luke may be the more literal translation and Matthew more of a 'dynamic equivalent'.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots · 02-27-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There appears to have been a formal program of rote memorization of Mishnah tractates. If so, this is rather different from what we normally mean by oral tradition.

Indeed. Gerhardsson points out that, strictly speaking, the Judaic culture of Christ's time was not oral:

I cannot, as I said, see that the Israel of NT times can be characterized as an oral society. We can discuss what percentage of the population in Judaea or Galilee was literate, but this is only of interest to those who believe that the Jesus material comes broadly speaking from anonymous communities or from uneducated individuals. When it comes to the leading Jewish groups – sages, teachers, prophets, scribes, rabbis – we must reckon with a considerable scribal learning. And Jesus cannot have expressed many of the sayings in the gospels without himself having deep and large insights into ‘the Law and the Prophets’. Even when it comes to the young church, it is probable that it had within its ranks many men with scribal learning. We know now that none of the NT books is a vulgar text from an uneducated person. To assume that the leading representatives of the gospel tradition were illiterate is certainly to underestimate them. They were not children of an undeveloped, oral culture. And the most knowledgeable and cleverest traditionists certainly played a dominating role: that is what happens in human societies.--"The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition" / Birger Gerhardsson. In New Testament Studies (2005), 51: 1-18.

Birger argues for a complex interplay of text and orality in the origins of the Gospels. I don't entirely agree with him in all respects (there is abundant evidence of literary naivete in the gospel sources), but his main point is solid.

outhouse · 02-27-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

The evidence shows that in oral cultures where memory has been trained for generations, oral memory can accurately preserve and pass on large amounts of information.

Sorry, but there is no evidence that shows such nonsense to be true. All the evidence points to oral cultures having much shorter histories than literate cultures. Not because the people have existed for less time, but because oral transmission only reaches so far into the past. And with each transmission, the information changes to better suit the new audience and storyteller in some way or another.

The notion that people would remember verbatim the words of Jesus is not only ridiculous, but completely incompatible with any scholarly theory of an historical Jesus.

Jon

false again.

you do know they could recite the OT almost verbatim back then dont you???

arnoldo · 02-27-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Thanks for this list.

In looking over the articles in Oral Tradition magazine, what strikes me is the dialectical contradiction of the original ideas of Milman Parry and Albert Lord over the last couple of decades.

Their ideas were founded on a rigid distinction between pre-writing "oral" cultures and post writing cultures. Thus they alleged that they could distinguish certain formulaic patterns like the repeated epitaph of "Swift-footed Achilles" that signified oral composition in Homer in a pre-writing culture.

In the latest articles, this rigid distinction between pre-writing and post writing cultures seems to have been abolished, as well as the concept that there are any formulaic elements that apply universally to any oral culture.

This is doubtless a good thing as the repeated reference to "the Dynamic Duo," "the Amazing Spiderman," "The Dark Knight" or "The Man of Steel" would suggest that the 1930's was an age of oral composition in the United States.

The collapse of pre and post writing cultural distinctions is so complete in the field that even Bob Dylan, who composes by writing down every song in a society with 100% literacy, is referred to as a poet who carries on oral traditions and uses oral traditions in his composition.

The erasure of this distinction would suggest that there was never a time of non-writing transmission of Jesus material and never a time when the written material was not being orally transmitted and changed.

One might note in one of the few times that the Gospels suggest that a story is being told orally, the oral story is questioned and found untrue. This is in Matthew 28:

Quote:

Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14“And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” 15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

It is interesting that this story proposes that Jews paid Romans to lie and then the Jews spread false stories. It suggests that a community might spread an entirely false, made-up tradition that never happened rather than a true one. . .

Justin Martyr, in Dialogue With Trypho (108), repeats the gospel narrative account that the disciples stole Jesus body.

Quote:

And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said among you that He would give the sign of Jonah. . . yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God. Besides this, even when your city is captured, and your land ravaged, you do not repent, but dare to utter imprecations on Him and all who believe in Him.

Moreover, Justin alleges that after the destruction of Jerusalem some Jews continued to despise Jesus and those who believed in him. Could Justin be stating a negative oral tradition towards Christianity that some Jews held?

LegionOnomaMoi · 02-27-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Sorry, but there is no evidence that shows such nonsense to be true. All the evidence points to oral cultures having much shorter histories than literate cultures.

1) What's a literate culture? There were Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians in Jesus' day. Across the roman empire, illiteracy rates were extremely high and oral transmission was the main method used in everything from education to news. In fact, historians who wrote relied on it themselves, and many thought oral reports were more accurate than written
2) The written histories of Livy or Herodutus go just as far back as the oral. And they are just as worthless at that point, because the one relies on the other.
3) The issue isn't whether cultures which relied predominantly on oral transmission had "longer histories" but whether they were more likely to rely on memorized data (teachings, history, poetry, etc.) than people in predominantly literary cultures. And that certainly seems to be the case often enough.

Quote:

The notion that people would remember verbatim the words of Jesus is not only ridiculous, but completely incompatible with any scholarly theory of an historical Jesus.

How do you define "scholarly theory?" Because this is a theory published in academic works (including peer-reviewed journals) by scholars (Gerhardsson, Bauckham, Bailey, Dunn, and others). So unless you define "scholarly theory of an historical Jesus" as in some way including only scholars who don't accept this theory, then it is not only compativle with "scholarly theory" it is an integral part of many scholarly accounts of the historical Jesus. This doesn't make it true, of course. But to argue it is "incompatible with any scholarly theory" when it is accepted as a scholarly theory by historical Jesus scholars seems rather ridiculous.

DCHindley · 02-27-2012, 07:17 PM

Legion is my Name,

Excellent summaries.

Bultman and the form critics, when they postulated forms into which the details were fit, based them on how the material was used by Christian authors as if they were the porposes for which the materials in the forms were created.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Bultmann 1957 (BI, CP)

The form-critics relied on models of transmission provided by then current theories among german folklorists. These theoris are no longer common among folklorists, and are certainly inappicable here.

Quote:

Gerhardsson 1961 (HB, BI)

Much more accurate than Bultmann or an oral-formulaic model. But the problem remains: even if one assumes that Jesus taught way similar to the rabbis (i.e., repeated his teachings often in forms which were easily memorized, etc.), and that his followers continued to ensure that new followers likewise learned these teachings, that would only ensure the generally reliable transmission of teachings. Miracle stories, excorcisms, etc., were events. If they became part of an oral tradition, even a controlled oral tradition, which would be only after considerable distortion. Bailey discusses how radically and quickly events could be altered in an oral society, and neiither his nor Gerhadsson's model really applies to more than teachings.

Quote:

Kelber 1983 (BI)

Kelber is too heavily influenced by the effects of the oral-formulaic model. That is, while he reject Bultmann and Gerhadsson along with the applicability (for the most part) of Parry and Lord, the notion that every recital of tradition is a recreation is simply not true. It is, again, a generalization of one type of transmission.

DCHindley · 02-27-2012, 09:49 PM

Here is an analysis of Bailey's characterization of what Rena Hogg says about one popular legend about her father, Egyptian Missionary John Hogg (From Master Builder on the Nile, 1914), the "romantic" version she attributes to an "Old Patriarch," and the facts as she ascertained them from a sermon by one man who was there, written the morning after the events described, and her father's journals and diaries:

Bailey, Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels	An Old Patriarch's version as recounted by Rena Hogg	Rena Hogg's corrected version based on the sermon of Shenoodah and Hogg's diary/journal
4) Before the First World War John Hogg's daughter dipped into this same oral tradition and in her biography of him	Of one of the most popular [local tales about Dr Hogg's many hardships,] his own account [also] remains to show how fact and fancy mingle in such current lore. The story has many versions and we tell it as related by a fine old patriarch.	It seems heartless to destroy so romantic a tale, but the original story itself deserves preservation as recounted by the chief actors Dr. Hogg and Mr. Shenoodeh Hanna, his companion on the historic occasion. Their story runs as follows:
	At a village many miles distant from Assiut Dr. Hogg had been paying one of his periodic visits. The evening meeting was over and the missionary had sat late in conversation with his host and his friends, when to the amazement of all he rose to bid them adieu. In vain they urged him to spend the night with them, expatiating on the length of the way and the robbers that infested the district.	After a hasty breakfast on a hot Saturday in June, the two friends left the "Ibis" [their boat] at sunrise to walk to the village of Tahta two and a half miles distance from the river [Nile]. They were warmly received by the only Protestant in the place, … before starting out [that evening after dinner] with a suitable escort to ride [back] to the river [where their boat was].
	He would neither await the daylight nor accept an escort. His work necessitated his reaching Assiut by morning, and in the Lord's keeping he was as safe as with armed men.	A jolting donkey is no happy sequel to a hasty meal, and Dr. Hogg, finding his companion unable to ride and his escort restive under enforced delay, decided that they would complete their journey on foot and unaccompanied. The servants with some polite demur gladly availed themselves of the reprieve, and the two preachers started riverward alone. When they [Hogg & Shenoodeh Hanna] reached the water's edge the boat was not in sight, and whether the landing lay north or south they could not tell.
		Some men when accosted [i.e., they asked for directions] misled them, either by mistake or of set purpose, their lack of a lantern perhaps arousing suspicions, and the night wore on in fruitless and solitary wanderings.
told how he was waylaid at night by a band of robbers	He had not walked far in the dense darkness when he was accosted by a robber band	Suddenly they observed on the river bank a man, innocent of clothes and bearing a gun, who started towards them till arrested by the sight of their shouldered umbrellas, which in the starlight passed easily for firearms.
		[[Mr. Shenoodeh says [in a sermon he wrote the next morning using the trip as a lesson], "This made us certain that these men were highway robbers (a most natural inference as they were in a neighbourhood infested by them)]] [[Dr. Hogg states [in his diary] that the men were about to shoot them in self-defence, having received warning in their village an hour before that two suspicious characters were wandering along the bank, and having come for the express purpose of watching their melon crop against the marauders.]]
who demanded valuables. He quickly surrendered a gold watch and his money,	who demanded his gold watch and purse. These he surrendered without demur,	The younger man [Shenoodeh Hanna] was distracted with fear, and still more so when he heard the sound of swimmers in the river perhaps coming to join their naked friend in some bloody deed. [i.e., rob them by violence] The two wanderers walked on as if unheeding, but when a little distance was gained, turned inland, running rapidly to reach a point invisible from the beach.
but indicated that he had a treasure worth far more. They were curious.	surprising his marauders with the gratuitous information that he had with him still another treasure that he would gladly add to their store.	Avoiding Scylla, they came as it seemed upon Charybdis -- a group of smokers, three men and a boy, two of them [217] armed and with the usual vicious guard of watch-dogs. Dr. Hogg thought it best to throw himself frankly on their protection, and as the dogs sprang forward with a threatening welcome, "Call off your dogs," he cried, "and I shall tell you a story that will make you laugh." A discussion followed, and they were soon received within the smoking circle to spend the remainder of the night in this strange company. [[The younger man [Shenoodeh Hanna], during the colloquy [i.e., dialogue] that preceded the promise of a night's protection, spent the time in anxious prayer except when personally addressed.]]
He pulled a small book from his pocket and spent the entire night telling them of the treasures it contained.	To their chagrin all that he [Hogg] drew from his pocket was a small book, but his audience were soon so entranced by the magic of his tongue and of that priceless Word, that their greed speedily vanished, their consciences awoke, and they began to hunger for salvation.	As sleep was distant, it was proposed to pass the time in songs and tales, and Mr. Shenoodeh chose a Bible story that gave him the opportunity of dwelling on the sin of murder and the fearful punishment awaiting the guilty, a tale which brought from one of his listeners the confession that only his brother's intervention had prevented him from shooting at Mr. Shenoodeh on his first approach.
		Towards morning the air grew cold, and the missionary, made anxious by his young friend's cough, dug a deep hole for him in the sand and buried him to the neck, after which both secured some broken sleep.
By morning the band, convicted of the evil of their ways, sought to return his watch and money and pledged themselves to give up highway robbery.	Before morning dawned the whole band had been converted and were eager to return to him his stolen goods.
Hogg took the watch but insisted that they keep his money, and indeed then financed the gang personally [p.9] until they could establish themselves in legal employment.	But the purse he refused, and as one and all, Copts and Moslems alike, had decided to abandon their life of robbery, he supported them liberally from that time forward out of his own pocket until they had learned to earn an honest living and had become respected and God-fearing members of the Church!	At dawn one of their guard accompanied them to the boat, lying miles from the spot at which they had encamped, and received for the service a backsheesh that sent him away blessing their memory.

What we see is that the popular legend of the Old Patriarch has telescoped the events and embellished the actual story as told in the sermon by Hogg's companion, Shenoodeh Hanna, details which are corroberated and corrected by Hogg's own dairy/journal. Even Rena Hogg admitted that "The story has many versions" and that "It seems heartless to destroy so romantic a tale, but the original story itself deserves preservation as recounted by the chief actors Dr. Hogg and Mr. Shenoodeh Hanna, his companion on the historic occasion."

Now look at what follows, where Bailey gives the clever embellished popular versions of stories that Rena Hogg describes in the barest manner. Yet Bailey is absolutely sure that these stories are exactly the same as what really happened, down to the very words.

Bailey	Rena Hogg
	Heat was not the only discomfort connected with itineracy.
In the village of al-Muti'ah he anchored his houseboat on the river at the edge of the village. After some time village children began gathering and in turn composed a taunt song which they sang every time he came down from or returned to the houseboat. The taunt song was along the following lines: Mister John Hogg is too tall. Crack his head and see him fall. Hour after hour, day after day, this became tiresome. Hogg decided that something had to be done. So he purchased a large sack of hard candy and told the children that he really appreciated their song. Would they sing it for him? Delighted, the children then sang the song with gusto. He then expressed gratitude and passed out hard candy to the singers as a reward. This continued for a number of days until the sack of hard candy was finally finished. On the next occasion they sang the taunt song as usual. He offered his usual thanks and praise, but there was no candy. The children complained, 'Where is our candy?' He answered, 'I don't have any more candy.' They responded testily, 'Well, if you don't give us any candy we won't come here and sing your song for you!!' The candy was not forthcoming and so the children stomped off, never to return. The incident occurred about 1870. It was proudly reported to me in 1961 by the al-Muti'ah Evangelical community, complete with taunt song.	In many a village insults were heaped upon him.
In a trouble-maker's home in the village of Nazlet al-Milk Hogg was asked, 'Dr Hogg, do you seek to obey what is written in the Gospels?' 'I do,' answered Hogg. 'Very well then,' they said, 'in the Gospel it says that the evangelist is to eat what is set before him. Do you accept that?' 'Yes,' came the reply, whereupon they placed in front of him a dried cow manure patty of the type that village homes use for cooking fuel and said to him, 'Very well, then, eat this!' Hogg reflected momentarily and answered quietly, 'Da akl in-nar. Eddini akl al-bashar wa akulha' (This is food for a fire. Give me food for people and I will eat it). The present writer is fully confident that the above Arabic sentence is a record of Hogg's exact words spoken once over a hundred years ago and here recorded for the first time.	Not infrequently the filth of the streets was flung after him by the way,
	and words as filthy were called loudly in contempt and derision as he passed,
In the late fifties I encountered this same tradition. One village proudly told of how he was preaching in a village courtyard and the mayor, anxious to cause trouble, sent a village guard up onto the adjoining roof to urinate on him. Hogg stepped aside, took a handkerchief from his pocket, wiped his head and continued preaching without looking up. The mayor was so shamed and impressed that after inquiry and study he joined the infant church and became one of its leaders.	while on one occasion vile water was poured on his head through a gap in the ceiling of a room from which his audience had been forcibly ejected.

I am not impressed.

DCH

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.