Toto

I have not read all of your sources, but I have never seen any evidence, and I can't imagine what evidence there would be that a written work from 2000 years ago was based on oral tradition, much less that those oral traditions can be used as proof of the existence of Jesus (the real question here, is it not?)

There is the assumption that since the gospels were not written until some time after people believe that Jesus lived, that there must have been oral traditions, as here from Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University:

Surely... we know that.

Then there is form criticism, but this also seems to be based on the assumption that there is an oral basis to the gospels. And I doubt that the idea that the sayings or parables attributed to Jesus were originally oral is very controversial. But is there any way to trace these reputed oral traditions back to a historical Jesus? I don't think that there is evidence of that.

No Robots

This seems a strange assertion. Whatever else would the written Gospels be based on if not earlier oral Gospels, at least as far as Stanton is concerned? I haven't read the book, but it isn't hard to find passages that refer to the oral foundations of the written Gospels. For example (p. 15):

Matthew opens the first of his five carefully constructed presentations of the teaching of Jesus with the Beatitudes. In fact, I think it very probable that the evangelist Matthew extended the echoes of Isaiah 61 already present in the tradition which came to him.

TerryTryon

I think that I have already indicated that I feel that Spin's casting doubt on its authenticity has the ring of critical thinking. I would not, however, accept this as being more than speculation, although speculation that is based on what seems to be a thorough understanding of Tacitus. I do not have such an understanding as I freely admit, so I must decide on the basis of who brings the best authority to bear on the matter. Your counter arguments, on the other hand, have the ring of someone trying to salvage whatever one can of a debate long since grown unsupportable.

Amaleq13

It is a reasonable general assumption but making specific identifications remains a speculative endeavor as far as I know.

I am specifically following Crossan, from The Birth of Christianity, where he acknowledges the absence of an established, reliable methodology for the claim and tried but failed to make such an identification for the Gospels. He took known written examples of oral tradition (Irish funeral poems, IIRC) and identified what he considered to be evidence of the process but found nothing even vaguely similar in the Gospels.

ynquirer

Coming from someone that does not have a thorough understanding of Tacitus - as you freely admit - while does entertain an unbiased stance on the topic - as you obviously do - your feeling of what seems to be such thorough understanding is useful feedback. Thank you very much.

spamandham

I've had the same distress. It's a shame so many brilliant people can gather together and contribute fabulous work, and yet nothing be accomplished toward answering the OP. I can't seem to ask anything without someone trying to make a debate win rather than simply answering. Debating is fun and all, but it's rarely productive for any purpose but boosting one's ego. My guess is there aren't many people here who really need their egos inflated more.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Santa Claus is a similarly mythicized person, yet there seems to have been a historical figure deeply intertwined with the myth (even though much of the myth predates him) {please, let's not get into whether or not the Catholic church invented him in this thread}.

In my mind, Jesus is either pure myth, or he is a historical figure whom people wrapped up into pre-existing myths and legends and then grew them from there. Outside Christian "scholars", I don't think anyone seriously considers a magic god-man named Jesus may have walked the earth.

In my mind, this discussion is about an ordinary man and why there is a scholarly concensus that he not only existed, but was an itinerate preacher in the first century.

No Robots

Crossan doesn't deny an oral foundation for the Gospels, acknowledging that "the culture of Jesus was between 95 and 97 percent illiterate" (p. 68). He neglects, however, to make the obvious comparison of the Gospels to the Talmud. Perhaps he doesn't relish the idea of dissolving the NT into ammé haaretz midrash.

spamandham

The more I read your posts, the more I'm beginning to think you know what you're talking about. Do you have a consolidated write up of your thoughts on Paul somewhere?

Amaleq13

I didn't say he did and neither have I. I've denied that you can reliably identify it in the stories of the Gospels and, in that, I am following Crossan.

Vorkosigan

The methodological basis for their claims is not sound, and IMHO appears to be driven largely by the a priori need for a tradition older than the gospels.

But why not push this discussion forward? What argument based on sound evidence derived from a generally accepted methodology for oral tradition in the Gospels is the strongest? Can you offer us an example from any of the gospels of either an argument you consider strong (someone has convinced you that passage X in Gospel Y was derived from an oral source), or one that is generally considered strong (the field is convinced that passage X in Gospel Y is derived from an oral source)?

Michael