Amaleq13

No, it just means you'll have to find evidence of oral sources elsewhere because they are not readily apparent. The burden is on anyone claiming such sources to establish them.

Wallener

For sure, oral records are by definition hard to find, though there are some rather strong hints in the christian texts that the stories were being spread first and foremost by word of mouth.

As opposed to those hunting for "Q".

Amaleq13

While we wait for someone to post something more relevant to the OP, could you offer some specific examples?

yalla

When reading Christian scholars who refer to ''oral tradition'' as the alleged source for a particular incident in one of the gospels I have been struck by the convenience the hypothesis provides. It be cannot be disproven and allows them to explain discrepancies between gospellers [ they had different oral traditions] and to create the impression that there was some original event capable of being the wellspring for such stories.
I consider that there was no "oral tradition" at all prior to the gospel of "Mark".
Until the arrival of the first gospel there is that well known silence in the epistles of Paul and co. To my knowledge there is no reference to oral/trad until the fathers start their "it is said..." tricks in the mid second century.
If oral/trad had developed as presumed I find it odd, to say the least, that it has not a Hebrew/Aramaic context but is derived from the LXX.
The alleged oral/trad from Judea/Galillee has JC talking about the Greek version of Jewish writings. Surely this is strange assuming local Palestinians would have had to have been the dispersers of the stories?
Also strange are the paradoxical statements that reveal a non-Palestinian context for the stories.3 examples- there are more."Mark" uses Roman time in his "watches'' and is ignorant of the Jewish meaning of "blasphemy'' and their divorce laws.It is not relevant who "Mark" was and who was his intended audience. If he had received oral/trad stories then a Jewish/Palestinian context would be unavoidable. I would contend that his ignorance re "blasphemy'' renders that particular story as ludicrous and not a story that could have exited Palestine.Similar for other examples.
And the clincher for me is his clear and obvious regular use of standard Jewish motifs and direct borrowing of plot and script from the Tanakh.
In short, 'oral tadition', is, IMO, a furphy, a convenient apologetic device used to smokescreen the otherwise obvious fictional creativity and plagiarism of the story line.

freigeister

You guys believe that the writer of Mark, the same guy who dreamed up the greatest figure in all of literature, committed his story to paper in a graceless way, peppered it with all kinds of laughable credulities, managed to keep himself completely anonymous, peddled it all around the Mediterranean, and within 100 years had convinced everyone that he had told the truth. At the same time that you put this forward, you outright refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a radical rabbi was executed, that his followers started talking about him, and that eventually he was almost completely mythologized. Is that about it?

Julian

He didn't dream him up. Paul's letters and, undoubtedly, other writings existed at the time. He just wrote him into novel form.
He obviously had a political agenda.
He is anonymous to us. No reason to believe that he was anonymous in his own locale in that time.
What is he, a used car salesman? You didn't peddle manuscript in those days.
He didn't invent him.
Not at all, you are willfully misunderstanding the whole scenario to push your own agenda. Nobody has claimed any of the silliness you have just written.

Julian

freigeister

And what is my agenda? Could it be, oh, maybe, consideration of the other alternative I suggested?

Diogenes the Cynic

There is at least a completely reasonable, prima facie case for Q in that Matt and Luke seem to share a common written source that did not come from Mark. If Luke did not know Matthew (not proven, I know) then there was a "Q" in some form or another. Whether it was strictly a sayings gospel may be debated, I suppose, but the discovery of Thomas at least shows that such a genre existed. The case for Q may not be proven outright but it's still far more viable than any case for an oral source for Mark's narratives.

freigeister

But what is the source for Q? Could it be that the Gospels are occasional writings (Luke's Gospel was written for one person, Theophilus!), based on other occasional writings and going back to oral Gospels? Why is that so outlandish a notion?

Julian

Your alternative is being considered, lots of posts in this thread. You misrepresenting the facts as you did is not likely to be convincing.

Julian