Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-20-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mr. o:

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

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

A statement in wikipedia that Luke's sources are thought to be oral tradition is not very good evidence, if it is even evidence at all.

Quote:

now from Carrier

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

<snip material not related to oral tradition>

The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, .... 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.

A statement from Carrier summarizing Metzger that some of Clement's quotes from Jesus might be from oral tradition . . .

Still not exactly overwhelming evidence.

Quote:

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.

Remotely possible oral traditions ...

Quote:

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.

So it comes down to Papias, who Eusebius slandered as stupid and unreliable.

I don't have time now, but check some past discussions on Papias.

No, this is not strong evidence that the Christian message survived by oral tradition. This is just an attempt to cobble together a possible route for transmission of the Jesus story.

outhouse · 02-20-2012, 01:07 PM

Ancient hebrews have a long herritage of oral tradition.

Duvduv · 02-20-2012, 01:24 PM

Sometimes the best you can hope for is approximation where there is no satisfactory or unequivocal evidence. What is Justin Martyr? A book. It's history is based on the statements of ancient church propagandists, and the Apology and Dialogue have many problems. So one can infer certain things but to be absolutely sure is impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The issue of evidence is accompanied by the issue of research, analysis, observation and interpretation. Is a discussion of the validity of something taboo on this Board, aa5874?...

So please explain why Justin Martyr's works are NOT evidence? Why are you comparing gJohn and gMark? Are they evidence?

Evidence is NOT subjective.

Any statement, written or oral, can be used as EVIDENCE in the resolution of any matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Besides, the best that could be hoped for is approximation of what was going on based on the above, and that can be a subject of debate.

Your claim is NOT at all logical if you have NO idea of the truth and truthful evidence. Speculation and imagination resolves NOTHING.

Speculation and imagination are the very worse way to determine history.

You MUST use the written statements, the written evidence, the sources of antiquity to RESOLVE and determine the past.

Duvduv · 02-20-2012, 01:25 PM

That's true, but if we aren't talking about apologetics then it is possible that some oral traditions existed therafter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Duvduv · 02-20-2012, 01:27 PM

It is possible that ideas appearing the texts were based on stories heard from previous generations, and some material could have been copied from third written sources as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Toto · 02-20-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Ancient hebrews have a long herritage of oral tradition.

The are a people of the book. They have a heritage of reciting their scripture, with the written scripture a true record.

That's not the same thing as oral tradition. Historical Jesus advocates think that there were stories told about Jesus by his followers, that were embellished over a few decades before they were finally written down, but that they were written down before the real memory was lost. This is quite problematic, and even these advocates are now talking about "refracted memories" of Jesus.

Duvduv · 02-20-2012, 01:42 PM

Why? The American Indians had oral traditions that went back a while but were their fables transmitted orally. If the gospels reflected some traditions of orally transmitted stories and aphorisms, what's so hard to understand about that?

outhouse · 02-20-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Ancient hebrews have a long herritage of oral tradition.

The are a people of the book. They have a heritage of reciting their scripture, with the written scripture a true record.

That's not the same thing as oral tradition. Historical Jesus advocates think that there were stories told about Jesus by his followers, that were embellished over a few decades before they were finally written down, but that they were written down before the real memory was lost. This is quite problematic, and even these advocates are now talking about "refracted memories" of Jesus.

yes but the book was written from collections based on oral tradition for much of it.

Noahs flood originated from a real flood in 2900 BC in which many recorded. Israelis got it through oral tradition and molded the story for their needs.

doesnt mean a flood never happened

Adam · 02-20-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Obviously, he had to have gotten the basic outline of the story from somewhere, and if his was the last to be written, then that outline would have been common knowledge in whatever Christian community John belonged to. For a long time, though, I've been intrigued by the possibility that John's gospel might have been the first one written. I'm a long way from making up my mind about it, but I've yet to see a killer argument against it.

That's basically what I argue in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses, with four early writers John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, and John the Apostle. See particularly my early posts #1, #18, #38, and #144.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

Doug Shaver · 02-21-2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Obviously, he had to have gotten the basic outline of the story from somewhere, and if his was the last to be written, then that outline would have been common knowledge in whatever Christian community John belonged to. For a long time, though, I've been intrigued by the possibility that John's gospel might have been the first one written. I'm a long way from making up my mind about it, but I've yet to see a killer argument against it.

That's basically what I argue in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses, with four early writers John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, and John the Apostle. See particularly my early posts #1, #18, #38, and #144.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

Are you trying to suggest that I'm corroborating you?

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

02-20-2012, 01:07 PM	#72
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Ancient hebrews have a long herritage of oral tradition.

02-20-2012, 01:42 PM	#77
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Why? The American Indians had oral traditions that went back a while but were their fables transmitted orally. If the gospels reflected some traditions of orally transmitted stories and aphorisms, what's so hard to understand about that?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.