Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-10-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Oral tradition: the problem is, gMatthew, gLuke and even gJohn are dependent upon gMark. This speaks to an oral tradition that never was, or was stamped out by the Romans.

this is wrong on so many levels.

yes they are dependant for part of their legend with a written GMark source

There is no debate at all that oral tradition was used more then literature

at 90%-95% illiteracy rate, oral tradition was king, even within the literate. It is a long standing knowledge that written legend was almost frowned upon and wasnt even held as important as oral tradition.

I suggest you read some of Carriers work on this topic, and or any other scholar for that matter.

leave these are chair mythers out of it, if you want real history.

Romans could not stamp out oral tradition in a poor group of oppressed illiterate people. its kind of a rediculous statement.

Quote:

Paul's version having taken hold: where oh where is the external evidence for that?

without paul spreading his version of the legend to the romans, there would be no christianity, or it would have been a short lived cult.

Quote:

As aa has clearly demonstrated

LOL

Toto · 05-10-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Oral tradition: the problem is, gMatthew, gLuke and even gJohn are dependent upon gMark. This speaks to an oral tradition that never was, or was stamped out by the Romans.

this is wrong on so many levels.

yes they are dependant for part of their legend with a written GMark source

There is no debate at all that oral tradition was used more then literature

There is a considerable debate about the so called oral tradition behind the gospels.

Quote:

at 90%-95% illiteracy rate, oral tradition was king, even within the literate. It is a long standing knowledge that written legend was almost frowned upon and wasnt even held as important as oral tradition.

I suggest you read some of Carriers work on this topic, and or any other scholar for that matter.

I suggest that you start providing some citations for your bald assertions. I have read a lot of Carrier, and I don't think he supports you. I don't think that anyone supports you.

Quote:

leave these are chair mythers out of it, if you want real history.

And what is a chair myther?

Quote:

Romans could not stamp out oral tradition in a poor group of oppressed illiterate people. its kind of a rediculous statement....

If there was an oral tradition, which has yet to be demonstrated.

Grog · 05-10-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

this is wrong on so many levels.

yes they are dependant for part of their legend with a written GMark source

There is no debate at all that oral tradition was used more then literature

You don't understand oral tradition. I have referred you to the literature. Oral Tradition and Written Authority were not independent of each other. You are having great difficulty understanding that point.

Quote:

at 90%-95% illiteracy rate, oral tradition was king, even within the literate. It is a long standing knowledge that written legend was almost frowned upon and wasnt even held as important as oral tradition.

Written Authority stood behind the oral tradition.

Quote:

I suggest you read some of Carriers work on this topic, and or any other scholar for that matter.

Could you cite something specific?

Quote:

leave these are chair mythers out of it, if you want real history.

Romans could not stamp out oral tradition in a poor group of oppressed illiterate people. its kind of a rediculous statement.

you wear your naivete on your sleeve.

Quote:

without paul spreading his version of the legend to the romans, there would be no christianity, or it would have been a short lived cult.

LOL

Ok.

outhouse · 05-10-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

this is wrong on so many levels.

yes they are dependant for part of their legend with a written GMark source

There is no debate at all that oral tradition was used more then literature

There is a considerable debate about the so called oral tradition behind the gospels.

I suggest that you start providing some citations for your bald assertions. I have read a lot of Carrier, and I don't think he supports you. I don't think that anyone supports you.

And what is a chair myther?

Quote:

Romans could not stamp out oral tradition in a poor group of oppressed illiterate people. its kind of a rediculous statement....

If there was an oral tradition, which has yet to be demonstrated.

sources please

there is no debate about oral tradition, jews have a long standing history, and the illiterate peasants in the first century were of no exception.

I suggest you read some Vasina as well.

outhouse · 05-10-2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Written Authority stood behind the oral tradition.

just the opposite

Quote:

Could you cite something specific?

For you, I will go and look for it.

I do enjoy our back and forth

outhouse · 05-10-2012, 10:22 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written

but never names any NT book--and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions.

Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true,

We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists

just read the whole article.

Toto · 05-10-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written

but never names any NT book--and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions.

Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true,

We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists

just read the whole article.

I read this article back when it was published. You have taken some phrases out of context.

This article is quite old now, and it was just an extended book report by Carrier based on the work of Bruce Metzger. There is nothing here than indicates that the gospels were rooted in an oral tradition - there were oral traditions before the gospels, but not the plot of the gospel stories.

maryhelena · 05-10-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Josephus is using two time periods in his Jesus ben Ananias story.

1. the 4 year period.
2. the 7 years and 5 months period.

Josephus infers that it is at the siege of Jerusalem that Jesus ben Ananias was killed i.e. 70 c.e. - which is 4 years before the war began.

If, as I suggested in that other post, Josephus is using an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9 - then he is running those 7 years from 66 c.e. (4 years prior to 70 c.e.) until 73 c.e. With the death of Jesus ben Ananias in 70 c.e., in the middle of the week, the middle of the 7 years.

This, of course, creates a problem re Jesus ben Ananias preaching 'Woe' for 7 years - in the Daniel scenario he is only preaching for 4 years before being killed. The Daniel 7 year interpretation runs on to 73 c.e. - where Josephus has placed Masada. (This dating has, I believe been questioned - can't remember by who - that its more probable that Masada was prior to Jerusalem.....Maybe Josephus, in his historical reconstructions - and interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 - needed a grand slam at the end of this 7 year period - hence moved Masada out of its historical time slot.....?)

However, all that said re an interpretation of Daniel - it is perhaps more interesting to run those 7 years backwards from 70 c.e. - back to around 62/63 c.e. That's the time period for the Roman procurator Albinus - and the Josephan story re the death of James. Thus 7 years between the death of James and the death of Jesus ben Ananias.

And the death of James - 100 years from the execution of the last king and high priest of the Jews, Antigonus - by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That's the Josephan story here - the history of Antigonus, mocked and flogged and killed by the Romans, in 37 b.c. Replayed by Josephus, using the madman Jesus ben Ananias at the 70 c.e. destruction of the Jewish temple. Philo did a similar thing re the madman Carabbas and Agrippa I. It's the mocking and flogging of a Jewish King that is the underlying issue in both Josephus and Philo's use of madmen (Rome would be the historical madman in Jewish eyes....) - and the gospel JC story. Irony as the medium of remembering Jewish/Hasmonean history - under the very eyes of Rome....

Good points, but does not address my point that gmark appears to be dependent on Wars 6.5.3

Perhaps my points suggest that you move in a direction you would rather not go?

gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony. How each writer, gMark and Josephus, choose to retell that history in their pseudo-history, is their choice. That 37 b.c. history, following the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great, is the focus of the 'oral telling', or oral tradition, that lies underneath both gMark and Josephus - and the madman story in Philo.

aa5874 · 05-10-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

maryhelena · 05-11-2012, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....gMark did not need to rely on War.6.5.3 for his story. All gMark needed was to be familiar with Jewish/Hasmonean history. The mocking and flogging of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c., by the Roman, Marc Antony....

How can you be so wrong??? gMark's Jesus story did NOT need "the mocking and flogging of Antigonus. The author used Hebrew Scripture.

Please See Psalms 22.

aa - interpreting scriptures is anyone's game...open season to let ones' imagination take full flight. That, however, while it may gain one momentary popularity and success - will only last until the next best thing comes along. People are fickle - look at christianity today. It has been well said, that christianity is the mother of heretics. Hundreds, thousands, of scriptural interpretations...

The gospel JC story had staying power - not because it is based upon mythology and OT interpretations - but because underlying all of that there was Jewish/Hasmonean history. That is the oral telling, the oral tradition, that had the staying power. People could find some reflection of history within the stories. Indeed, with time, that historical reflection faded away - and the JC story itself became viewed as 'history'. But for ahistoricists/mythicists to reject a historical core to the JC story is to fall into the self-same trap the JC historicsts are in - both positions fail to see past the historical reflection, they both fail to see through the pseudo-history to the history it reflects and rests upon.

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

05-10-2012, 10:22 PM	#76
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html showing that anonymous oral tradition was still king when the Didakhe was written but never names any NT book--and the allusions are of the sort that could merely reflect common oral traditions. Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true, We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists just read the whole article.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.