Diogenes the Cynic

That's debatable...at least as a question of degree. Christianity is probably more pagan than Jewish.
You never heard of the Torah? Mosaic law wasn't written down?

There is little or no discernible oral tradition in the Mark. There may be a preexistent sayings tradition (which didn't necessarily come from any HJ) but the narratives are mostly derived from the OT. Oral traditions don't form as chiasms.

freigeister

Of course there was the written Torah. What I am saying is that all teaching and learning in Judaism was wholly oral. There were very few literate people at the time of Christ, certainly not in his entourage of common people. One study puts literacy in Israel at the time of Christ at 3%. Contact with actual text was limited to a very small group, and at that I would guess usually just for ceremonial purposes. Midrash, from which the written Gospels derive, are completely oral.

Oh, and Crossan does support the oral origin of the Gospels. Here is a quotation from Excavating Jesus : Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts:

Diogenes the Cynic

Both Q and Thomas are sayings gospels and I've already conceded the possibility of a common sayings tradition. My position is that there is no good evidence for a narrative oral tradition aside from whatever minimal framing narratives existed in the sayings pericopes. Mark's actual narratives - especially his Passion - are completely literary both in their structure and in their scriptural derivation.

Wallener

I don't think that is a supportable claim: much of what is now called "scripture" was in fact Midrashic haggadah. But I do agree the material was more likely to be shared orally rather than textually.

freigeister

Chiasmus most certainly is all about oral works. According to a this paper, Homer scholar Cedric Whitman stated that chiasmus in the Iliad and the Odyssey "helped the poet remember the order of the episodes."

freigeister

Yes, and Midrashic haggada was all originally oral, as attested here:

Wallener

*Everything* was "originally oral".

Your argument amounts to a claim that the only early Midrash recorded textually was that which ended up in Tanakh - which I have difficulty accepting since we have all kinds of written non-canonical material predating the end of the 2nd temple era - some of it predating by a considerable length of time.

freigeister

My point is this, that the Gospels originated in what was to all extents and purposes a wholly oral environment.

Amaleq13

Please read what I wrote more carefully because the above is an incomplete paraphrase of what I actually stated. You left out the most important part: the absence of a specific methodology and evidence.

Any inquiry into oral antecedents which lacks a specific methodology for differentiating between literary construction and a written record of oral tradition is, at best, mere speculation and, at worst, wishful thinking.

I see nothing in the review of Dunn's book that suggests he applied any established or proven methodology capable of making that differentiation. If you intend to read it, I would be very interested in knowing specifically how he accomplished that difficult task.

You continue to miss the point. I readily acknowledge that, given a historical Jesus, an oral tradition about him would have preceded any written accounts. What I have yet to see, however, is any credible argument based on an established methodology showing that any given portion of the Gospel stories can be reliably identified as having been derived from such a tradition. Do you understand what I am saying here?

Your quote does not actually support your assertion. Crossan is specifically talking about the sayings tradition and not the Gospel stories. I fully agree that it is only reasonable to assume that a written list of sayings began as an entirely oral tradition but, as my own quote from him shows, Crossan clearly recognizes that specifically identifying what parts, if any, can be reliably traced back to an authentic oral tradition from Jesus is extremely problematic and requires an established methodology to be accomplished.

You are entirely correct that this topic has been woefully neglected. Too many scholars are too quick to simply wave their hands and declare "oral tradition" as a source without doing the difficult work of trying to support that claim by testing it against an established methodology.

Amaleq13

Where do you believe these stories were written?