outhouse

I agree with the latter.

We cannot be sure how mauch may have originated from Palistine, there are hints with grammer, but that isnt alltogther credible either.


Gmark was a compilation, so now were looking at each supposed segment. They have a decent idea between written and oral sections, but its still not 100% certain by any means.

If there was a man martyred from Passover there could be many independant traditions within Palestine, Hellenistic Judaism and Hellenist.

aa5874

There is NO known oral tradition that Ronald Reagan was a Myth. People who voted for Reagan probably thought he was one of the best politician and President.

Tristan Scott

I agree with this^

I think there had to be some similarity in the Gospels to the oral tradition in order for it to be accepted at the time.

Trying to equate modern times to ancient times as some posters have done upthread is kind of .... The thing is there is really no comparison. 1st century Galillee was pretty much backwater-lots of poverty-writing of any kind would have been very rare and very expensive. Almost all information was passed on through oral tradition.

Also it was not uncommon for scripture to be modeled after earlier legends-look at the stories in Genesis, many of which were derived from Sumerian and Babylonian myths. The people these religions were directed at were comfortable with these stories-thats why they were used.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

Writing seems to be something done deliberately to influence large numbers of people. The author writes for hundreds or thousands of people, both in the present and future. The author may go through two, three or twenty drafts before he gets something she/he likes. The author may have editors who make changes to the work.

Oral telling suggests a more compact and simpler communication. It is only for a small group told by a single person. It suggests the possibility of an eyewitness truthfully telling a story they have witnessed.

The reporter arrives late on the scene and relies on eyewitnesses to give oral testimonies. With the invention of reporters and newspapers in the 17th century and 18th centuries, a new standard for truth was created - journalism. The belief in oral tradition tries to adjust the biblical tradition to that new journalistic standard.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

We would expect that oral traditions would lead to a multitude of contradictory stories. When somebody records folk legends they generally give various different stories they heard. The folk legend recordists, often gives the different versions of the stories that they have heard.

The only place in the gospels where we get this type of recording of different traditions is in Matthew:
Yet, even here, it is hard to believe that Roman soldiers would admit to falling asleep and allowing the followers of Jesus to steal his body. This seems like a later addition to the text and does not testify to their really being any oral traditions about Jesus in circulation before the written text.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Adam

As I have been saying, Form Criticism continues to sink lower and lower in usefulness. I'm glad others now agree with my low assessment of it 40 years ago. I have been looking bare-faced at the gospels without inerrancy assumptions on the one hand nor Form Criticism's blinders on the other. I broke free not just of Left and Right but also of the Consensus. Too many here on FRDB think we can still assume we can know nothing, based not just on the assumptions of Schmidt, Bultmann and Dibelius, but on the failure of their followers to reach any agreements. Take away the assumptions, and we realize that their (lack of) conclusions mean nothing. Why do so many here on FRDB want me to adopt their methodology that almost everyone agrees now has failed? Why keep mucking around in Oral Tradition when literary strata are so evident? Or at least account for the written documents before going into the (so far fruitless) attempt to understand Oral Tradition behind individual pericopes?

steve_bnk

The variation is the fact that the canonical gospels were one of many. There were many versions of Christianity. By the end of the first century Christians were at each other.

The mistake modern Christians make is blindly thinking the NT gospels are THE gospels without any justification.

Across the 4 gospels the image of JC changes to reflect the view of the writer. The angry anti Roman collusion JC in the temple to the serene passive in Sermon On The Mount.

The form of the gospels is that of hearsay remembrance.

steve_bnk

On the contrary....look at what we get in spite of modern communications and education and economic advances.

Recently two educated congressmen were hurling biblical quotes at each other. Believers.

Look at the birthers and the number of people who believe Obama is a closet Muslim.

9/11 and moon landing conspiricists. Crop circle believers eben when the original hoaxsters fessed up.

Us humans are essentially the same superstitious lot as 2000 years ago .It has only been 40 end to end 50 years life spans.


Assume 25 year spans and line up 80 people going back to the first century.

steve_bnk

Out of all choices, why Jews as a backdrop? Perhaps the writers were early gentile converts who only had peripheral contact with Jews.

outhouse

If you understood first century Judaism, these questions would become obvious.