FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-21-2013, 09:49 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outhouse
Oral traditions was common in these illiterate societies.
But the question here becomes first. Were there any actual 'oral traditions' behind 'Mark'?
or was 'Mark' simply the writer of a Greek religious drama incorporating material drawn from the Hebrew texts and some familiarity with 1st century Israel? (quite possibly gleaned from the writings of Philo and Josephus)

And second, if there indeed were any such 'oral traditions', just -whose- 'oral traditions' are we getting in these writings, those of early first century Jews living in Palestine?

or those of late first/early second century Greek 'christians' living in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome?

I strongly suspect that the answer is the latter.

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.
outhouse is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:34 AM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
One of our modern myths is Ronald Reagan. He bares little resemblance to the conservative depiction. He was one of worse presidents for spending growth and size of govt.
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:41 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Would anyone care to comment on the ludicrous, though popular, notion that an oral tradition behind the gospels somehow getting one closer to a reality behind the gospel narrative? Religious studies people seem to think that by being to step out of text into an oral context is some sort of improvement. Any ideas how it is? Hmmm?
Oral traditions was common in these illiterate societies.


The oral tradition was there and in use.


The issues with trying to apply it to the gospels is that were not exactly certain how much was allegory or the unknown authors genre.

Add to that we have cross cultural oral tradition from traditional Jewish to Hellenistis Gnetiles and Jews.

Add to that time involved from a possible martyrdom for the tradition to grow.

Add to that the theological content steeped in mythology to parallel divinity between a Hellenistic saviour and the Emperor and Moses and many others using the OT as a foundation.
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.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 12:18 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Would anyone care to comment on the ludicrous, though popular, notion of an oral tradition behind the gospels somehow getting one closer to a reality behind the gospel narrative? Religious studies people seem to think that by being able to step out of text into an oral context is some sort of improvement. Any ideas how it is? Hmmm?
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 12:32 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Where are the Contradictions in the Oral Traditions?

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:
Quote:
28.11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place

28.12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers 28.13 and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 28.14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 28.15 So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.
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
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 03:05 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

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?
Adam is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 03:06 PM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
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:
Quote:
28.11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place

28.12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers 28.13 and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 28.14 And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 28.15 So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.
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
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 is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 03:18 PM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

Oral traditions was common in these illiterate societies.


The oral tradition was there and in use.


The issues with trying to apply it to the gospels is that were not exactly certain how much was allegory or the unknown authors genre.

Add to that we have cross cultural oral tradition from traditional Jewish to Hellenistis Gnetiles and Jews.

Add to that time involved from a possible martyrdom for the tradition to grow.

Add to that the theological content steeped in mythology to parallel divinity between a Hellenistic saviour and the Emperor and Moses and many others using the OT as a foundation.
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.
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 is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 03:21 PM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

Out of all choices, why Jews as a backdrop? Perhaps the writers were early gentile converts who only had peripheral contact with Jews.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 05-21-2013, 05:03 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
Out of all choices, why Jews as a backdrop? Perhaps the writers were early gentile converts who only had peripheral contact with Jews.
If you understood first century Judaism, these questions would become obvious.
outhouse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.