Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-14-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

The same would be true of any of the gospel writers. If there were oral traditions held by their audience, then to maintain their credibility (which is necessary to convince the audience of whatever it is they want to convince the audience of) they may not present information counter to those traditions. That is, they can only bend and alter the traditions so much while still holding their audience's trust.

I see.

So there was an oral tradition that Jesus had killed a child in his infancy, and the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had to maintain his credibility by including stories of the child Jesus killing children?

'And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness.'

The author could not claim Jesus smote people with blindness unless there were oral traditions in his community of the infant Jesus blinding people who annoyed him....

Could be, I've been told Jesus was going to strike me down. One assumes that if modern Christian communities have an oral tradition of Jesus smiting smart ass unbelievers, then ancient Christian communities would do the same.

It is probable that the author of Infancy Gospel of Thomas had an audience that appreciated such tales otherwise the gospel would not have been written and preserved. If that is true then it is probable that said audience had some sort of oral tradition that conditioned the audience to respond positively to the Gospel.

Toto · 06-14-2011, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I see.

So there was an oral tradition that Jesus had killed a child in his infancy, and the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had to maintain his credibility by including stories of the child Jesus killing children?

'And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness.'

The author could not claim Jesus smote people with blindness unless there were oral traditions in his community of the infant Jesus blinding people who annoyed him....

Could be, I've been told Jesus was going to strike me down. One assumes that if modern Christian communities have an oral tradition of Jesus smiting smart ass unbelievers, then ancient Christian communities would do the same.

It is probable that the author of Infancy Gospel of Thomas had an audience that appreciated such tales otherwise the gospel would not have been written and preserved. If that is true then it is probable that said audience had some sort of oral tradition that conditioned the audience to respond positively to the Gospel.

Apparently Steven Carr's sarcasm went completely over your head.

JoeWallack · 06-14-2011, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can search this forum for the term "refracted memory" to see the knots that NT scholars have gotten themselves into trying to find those oral traditions.

I'm not looking for the oral traditions. I don't expect to find them since they are obviously long gone: oral traditions die with the people who fail to pass them on.
Jon

JW:
I feel like Obi-One-Kenobi here. These aren't the oral traditions you are looking for. Move the Gospel Jesus story along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX942zT6iLE

Look to Papias. Papias explicitly rejects written sources on the son of man (he knows they are largely fiction) and seeks oral tradition. Amazingly, Eusebius only provides evidence that what was in Papias was not in the Gospels.

This is evidence that there was oral tradition about Jesus but "Mark" chose to avoid it which is consistent with Paul and "Mark's" primary themes that historical witness did not understand Jesus.

So everyone wins here. Papias is indirect evidence for HJ and indirect evidence that the Gospels did not use oral tradition as a source (MJ). The related important conclusion is IF there was HJ but the Gospels tell us significantly more about MJ than HJ, than what exactly is the significance of claiming HJ? This HJ would be somewhere in between Heaven (MJ) and Earth (HJ) so to speak.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JonA · 06-14-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read the Septuagint?

Is there something crucial I need that can only be gotten from reading the Greek? What parts in particular do you think were the source material for the gospels?

Quote:

Have you read any of the extensive scholarly literature tracing the gospel stories to themes in the Hebrew Scriptures? It sounds like you are missing out on a lot.

Again, feel free to produce those written sources.

Jon

Feel free to do your own research. I've given you some links.

Okay. So you have nothing, then?

Good to know.

Jon

No Robots · 06-14-2011, 07:58 AM

Jonathan Draper next shows how the arrangement of key terms in vice catalogues in ancient Christian non-canonical texts can serve as mnemonic tools for oral tradition.--blurb for Jesus, the Voice and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Tom Thatcher, ed.

jgoodguy · 06-14-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I see.

So there was an oral tradition that Jesus had killed a child in his infancy, and the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas had to maintain his credibility by including stories of the child Jesus killing children?

'And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness.'

The author could not claim Jesus smote people with blindness unless there were oral traditions in his community of the infant Jesus blinding people who annoyed him....

Could be, I've been told Jesus was going to strike me down. One assumes that if modern Christian communities have an oral tradition of Jesus smiting smart ass unbelievers, then ancient Christian communities would do the same.

It is probable that the author of Infancy Gospel of Thomas had an audience that appreciated such tales otherwise the gospel would not have been written and preserved. If that is true then it is probable that said audience had some sort of oral tradition that conditioned the audience to respond positively to the Gospel.

Apparently Steven Carr's sarcasm went completely over your head.

Would not be the first time nor the last.

jgoodguy · 06-14-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can search this forum for the term "refracted memory" to see the knots that NT scholars have gotten themselves into trying to find those oral traditions.

I'm not looking for the oral traditions. I don't expect to find them since they are obviously long gone: oral traditions die with the people who fail to pass them on.
Jon

JW:
I feel like Obi-One-Kenobi here. These aren't the oral traditions you are looking for. Move the Gospel Jesus story along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX942zT6iLE

Look to Papias. Papias explicitly rejects written sources on the son of man (he knows they are largely fiction) and seeks oral tradition. Amazingly, Eusebius only provides evidence that what was in Papias was not in the Gospels.

This is evidence that there was oral tradition about Jesus but "Mark" chose to avoid it which is consistent with Paul and "Mark's" primary themes that historical witness did not understand Jesus.

So everyone wins here. Papias is indirect evidence for HJ and indirect evidence that the Gospels did not use oral tradition as a source (MJ). The related important conclusion is IF there was HJ but the Gospels tell us significantly more about MJ than HJ, than what exactly is the significance of claiming HJ? This HJ would be somewhere in between Heaven (MJ) and Earth (HJ) so to speak.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

In summary we have an HJ that existed but outside of that we have no reliable information and we have oral traditions that existed but we do not know what they were.

bacht · 06-14-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In summary we have an HJ that existed but outside of that we have no reliable information and we have oral traditions that existed but we do not know what they were.

...Which is logical if we accept that the early catholics adjusted the written records to reflect the 'true' gospel and disposed of conflicting material when they could

No Robots · 06-14-2011, 08:32 AM

These chief sayings of Christ (λογια κυριακα) which were first to be written down formed a nucleus around which elements of genuine tradition, along with additions, crystallized, forming what we now have as the New Testament, a whole branch of the Jewish literature in the time.--Constantin Brunner

Toto · 06-14-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Feel free to do your own research. I've given you some links.

Okay. So you have nothing, then?

Good to know.

Jon

That's a deliberate misstatement, is it not?

I don't see an interest in a real discussion on your part.

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

06-14-2011, 07:58 AM	#35
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Jonathan Draper next shows how the arrangement of key terms in vice catalogues in ancient Christian non-canonical texts can serve as mnemonic tools for oral tradition.--blurb for Jesus, the Voice and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) / Tom Thatcher, ed.

06-14-2011, 08:32 AM	#39
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	These chief sayings of Christ (λογια κυριακα) which were first to be written down formed a nucleus around which elements of genuine tradition, along with additions, crystallized, forming what we now have as the New Testament, a whole branch of the Jewish literature in the time.--Constantin Brunner

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.