Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 02-24-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

It strikes me as funny that OP who knows nothing at all about ancient oral tadition tries to tear it down with a poor example of modern oral tradion with people not practiced in the art.

Its ignorance, nothing more.

OP you do realize much of the OT can be recited line for line with incredible accuracy, dont you????

This is a common mistake regarding oral tradition analogies. Note well here that you are citing a case that has as its basis a literary authority. Memorizing a text that can also be checked later for accuracy is FAR different, not even the same thing at all, as an "oral tradtion" based on the remembrances of something someone, in this case Jesus, said. That there is any degree of correspondence at all between the versions in the Gospels does not point to "accuracy," it points to this being a literary tradition from the beginning. A story that someone wrote down.

Quote:

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. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 reveals to us how important oral instruction and memory of divine teaching was stressed in Jewish culture. It is a well-known fact that the rabbis had the O.T. and much of the oral law committed to memory. The Jews placed a high value on memorizing whatever wri ting reflected inspired Scripture and the wisdom of God. I studied under a Greek professor who had the Gospels memorized word perfect. In a culture where this was practiced, memorization skills were far advanced compared to ours today. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock states that the Jewish culture was "a culture of memory."

Note again: Memorized "whatever writing reflected inspired Scripture..."

emphasis on "writing"

EDIT: This reminds me of the story of Syd Barrett visiting the recording session of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here. Everybody has a different take on what Syd actually said or did. Even if he was there one day or two days. If he offered to help or didn't say anything at all. I read the Rolling Stone article about this and it caused me to reflect on how in the world we could expect any of the NT to be the result of oral tradition passed down for several generations prior to it coming into written form. The distortion would begin immediately. If there were different sources retelling the same story, we would expect entirely different wording, substitutions, nuances in meaning. Hardly any aspect could possibly be preserved under the conditions that are assumed to have existed: impromptu sermons or even brief exchanges with disciples. It does not make much sense at all, actually.

Here is an interesting essay by David Carr: Torah on the Heart

Grog · 02-24-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Some people in another tread are seriously bringing up the absurd and irrational notion that Jesus' words were preserved in oral transmission.

When spoken in Aramaic (as has been used by Aramaic speaking churches) some people think some words in the gospels appear to be in verse, or poetry. This may mean they could be more easily remembered.

Tow-wi-hon leh-Mes-ki-na beh-Rokh deh-Dil-hon hi mal-koo-tha deh-Shma-ya

Blessed are they who are poor in spirit because theirs is the kingdom of
Heaven

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ah-wi-la deh-Hen-on neth-bi-ah-on

Blessed are they who are mourning because they will be comforted

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ma-ki-kha deh-Hen-on nar-ton leh-Ar-eh-ah

Blessed are they who are meek because they will inherit the earth

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ail-in deh-Khaph-nin oo-Tse-hin leh-Khan-o-tha deh-Hen-on nes-beh-on

Blessed are they {those} who hunger and thirst for righteousness because they will be satisfied

Tow-wi-hon leh-Mer-akh-ma-nah deh-Eh-li-hon ne-hoo-own rakh-ma

Blessed are they who are merciful because upon them will be mercies

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ail-in deh-De-khin beh-Leb-hon deh-Hen-on nekh-zon leh-A-la-ha

Blessed are they {those} who are pure in their hearts because they will see God

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ew-di shla-ma deh-Bi-noh-ee deh-A-la-ha neth-qron

Blessed are they who make peace because the sons of God they will be called

Tow-wi-hon leh-Ail-in deh-Ath-ridth-eph-oh me-tul ka-no-tha deh-Dil-hon hi mal-koo-tha deh-Shma-ya

Blessed are they {those} who are persecuted because of righteousness because theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Tow-wi-kon a-ma-ti deh-Meh-khas-din lu-khon oo-Radth-pin lu-khon oo-Am-rin el-i-kon kul me-la bi-sha me-tul-thi beh-Dtha-ga-lo-tha

Blessed are you whenever they curse you and they persecute you and they say every evil word about you falsely

Hi-din khidth-ah-oh oo-Ro-zo deh-Aj-ruh-khon sa-gi beh-Shma-ya ha-kha-na gir ruh-dtha-pho leh-Nah-bi-ya deh-Men quh-dtham-i-kon

Then rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven for likewise they persecuted the prophets before you

Establishing that these words ever existed in Aramaic at all is a tall order, I think.

outhouse · 02-24-2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

This is a common mistake regarding oral tradition analogies. Note well here that you are citing a case that has as its basis a literary authority. Memorizing a text that can also be checked later for accuracy is FAR different, not even the same thing at all, as an "oral tradtion" based on the remembrances of something someone, in this case Jesus, said. That there is any degree of correspondence at all between the versions in the Gospels does not point to "accuracy," it points to this being a literary tradition from the beginning. A story that someone wrote down.

except accuracy isnt my point.

we know the legends were redcated heavily.

Its the fact that they can transmit information oraly to a decent degree of reliability.

because some can learn whole books verbatim doesnt mean everything from jesus era was transmited accurately.

Im sure since we dont have a strict jewish version of jesus first that we could say would ressemble jesus, were only left with versions that have a roman foundation with matthew being close but still no cigar

Asha Vahishta · 02-24-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

2 kings 22-23 relates the discovery of a 'book of the law' during king josiahs reign (640-609 bce) the multitude of reforms he carried out - purging the temple of heathen altars , eliminating child sacrifices, destroying the pagan house of male prostitutes , and so on - bears witness that even the most basic fundamentals of the law had been WIPED CLEAN FROM ISraelite conciousness.

WHERE were the LAW ABIDING jews HIDING? THese heathen practices outnumbered the torah law abiding jews? were they hiding in a cave?

about jesus' deciples,

does it look like that mark wanted to portray the deciples with awesome memories?

The same type of thing is said to have occured near 400 bce durning the time of Ezra. Books were "found" and read to the people. According to the story, the people were susprised at the content of the books. It appears that the Hebrews were not that good at remembering what was written, why should we trust their memory for oral traditions?

Grog · 02-24-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It could have happened, but is there any reason to think this did happen?

Yes, there is some reason. Convincing enough? That's another matter. We know that in the hellenistic area oral transmission was trusted over and against textual sources. We know that Greek, Roman, and Rabbinic teachers required students to memorize their teachings. We know that a lot of the the "oral Jesus tradition" as reflected in the early christian sources are consistent with readily memorized teachings. But we don't know if the early "church" ensured that these teachings were reliably transmitted, they were readily added to, or transmitted without control.

This, too, is often said, that oral trumped written. I am not so sure that was the case. Written was often the authority behind the oral word. At any rate, here is an interesting comment by Tayla Fishman:

"While it is true that Jews touted the mere existence of an oral tradition as a sign of theological preeminence when they were assessing their status in teh context of interfaith polemics, the rabbis' initial decision to distinguish Oral Torah from Written Torah by enforcing disparate modes of transmission did not portray oral transmission as superior to writing."

Here's the link: Guiding Oral Transmission

I'm linking these articles, because they are easy to link and, I think, illuminating.

outhouse · 02-24-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, there is some reason. Convincing enough? That's another matter. We know that in the hellenistic area oral transmission was trusted over and against textual sources. We know that Greek, Roman, and Rabbinic teachers required students to memorize their teachings. We know that a lot of the the "oral Jesus tradition" as reflected in the early christian sources are consistent with readily memorized teachings. But we don't know if the early "church" ensured that these teachings were reliably transmitted, they were readily added to, or transmitted without control.

This, too, is often said, that oral trumped written. I am not so sure that was the case. Written was often the authority behind the oral word. At any rate, here is an interesting comment by Tayla Fishman:

"While it is true that Jews touted the mere existence of an oral tradition as a sign of theological preeminence when they were assessing their status in teh context of interfaith polemics, the rabbis' initial decision to distinguish Oral Torah from Written Torah by enforcing disparate modes of transmission did not portray oral transmission as superior to writing."

Here's the link: Guiding Oral Transmission

I'm linking these articles, because they are easy to link and, I think, illuminating.

Your talking about a standing existing tradition

and then comparing oral tradition used to that and a newly emerging set of different traditions going in all directions.

apples and oranges

Kapyong · 02-24-2012, 02:25 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Who cares?
I can understand an inerrantist might, but why do you care?
Are you afraid you might have to become a christian if they have some point or other?
Thats what it seems like

Wow - way to avoid the subject.
It's not about whether we/I CARE - it's about whether Jesus' words were recorded by this alleged Oral Tradition.

The point is that we do NOT know what his last words were, because we have different versions - which shows clearly that there was NO Oral Tradition that carefully recorded Jesus' words.

The last words of Jesus would have ben some of the most important things Jesus ever said - but they were NOT recorded accurately at all.

Like I said - this Oral Tradition is a fantasy.

K.

Kapyong · 02-24-2012, 02:28 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Its my opinion romans were jesus enemy, and what we are left with is jeuss enemies version of his teachings, its amazing we have any glimpse of the man himself

It's opinion that Jesus was a myth who never existed, and what we have left is various differing stories and legends of a man who never existed at all.

K.

Kapyong · 02-24-2012, 02:44 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

There is no question of how well ancient cultures used oral tradition.

So, what went wrong with this alleged oral tradition in the case of Jesus?

Why did it fail dismally to record Jesus' last words?

Why did it fail dismally to record the Lord's Prayer?

Why did it fail dismally in the many other examples I cited?
The many examples which keep getting ignored?

I keep seeing repeated claims about how well this alleged oral tradition worked, while the many obvious examples of how it failed in the case of Jesus just keep being ignored.

If this oral tradition was so good, why did it fail so badly in so many examples of the Jesus stories?

K.

mountainman · 02-24-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

...that she doesn't know who stole jesus' body and where they had laid him.

C'mon. Jesus never got laid. Everyone knows that.

Epiphanius, quoting from the "Greater Questions of Mary", describes Jesus getting laid by a woman he pulled out of his rib. Mary passed out at the sight. The "Gospel of Philip" goes close, and declares Jesus kissed Mary often on the XXXX, but precisely where Jesus kissed Mary often cannot be determined because the manuscript is damaged.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.