Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LegionOnomaMoi · 02-26-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In looking over the articles in Oral Tradition magazine,

It's not a magazine. It's an academic journal. The majority of scholarship in any academic field, from physics to classics to clinical psychology, consists of papers sent to peer-reviewed journals.

Quote:

Their ideas were founded on a rigid distinction between pre-writing "oral" cultures and post writing cultures. Thus they alleged that they could distinguish certain formulaic patterns like the repeated epitaph of "Swift-footed Achilles" that signified oral composition in Homer in a pre-writing culture.

In the latest articles, this rigid distinction between pre-writing and post writing cultures seems to have been abolished, as well as the concept that there are any formulaic elements that apply universally to any oral culture.

The notion that any generic form of transmission applies to any culture has long since been abolished. Cultures which rely primarily on oral transmission, and even thouse which don't, still distinguish between the genres of oral "texts."

outhouse · 02-26-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I have Finnegan's Oral Literature in Africa, which is excellent.

GMark is not based on oral lit; that is wishful thinking. The writer of Mark followed the then-pattern of discovering Jesus' activities in the Old Testament.

Vorkosigan

You would need to account for all of Gmark and you cannot.

You also cannot discount the possibility of a traveling poor teacher/healer of judaism that the stoty in gmark centers around.

DCHindley · 02-26-2012, 08:59 PM

I located another book by Vansina in a 1986 version of the Annotated Bibliography (Oral Tradition. Vol 1, Number 3, Dec 1986):

Vansina, Jan. “Memory and Oral Tradition.” In Joseph C. Miller ed. The African Past Speaks: Essays on Oral Tradition and History.1980a:262-79.
Analyzes the impact of memory on oral traditional literature and claims that the repeated passage of a message through several memories compounds its effects. Summarizes relevant findings in psychology on memory and discusses the implications of these findings for personal reminiscences and for the oral tradition which stems from such reminiscences.

Saad A. Sowayan, "A Plea for an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Arab Oral Tradition" in Oral Tradition, Volume 18, Issue 1 (March, 2003), says of Vansina:
"Oral literature is, in a sense, like crude oil in that there are so many derivatives you can extract from it, but only if you have good refineries; in the present instances this means sound methodology and a sophisticated theoretical orientation. If you do not enjoy oral tradition as art, you can treat it, for example, as a linguistic corpus or, à la Jan Vansina (1965), as a historical document reflecting or refracting social facts."

DCH

Vorkosigan · 02-26-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You would need to account for all of Gmark and you cannot.

You also cannot discount the possibility of a traveling poor teacher/healer of judaism that the stoty in gmark centers around.

Out:

(1) Almost all of GMark can be accounted for using the OT and related sources, and Paul. The only things that can't are based on other myths.

(2) I don't have to "discount the possibility of a traveling teacher." It remains just a speculative assertion until someone who supports the idea supplies evidence for it. Otherwise, as I have noted, Paul and the OT are GMark.

Vorkosigan

outhouse · 02-26-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

(2) I don't have to "discount the possibility of a traveling teacher."

because you cant

Quote:

Paul and the OT are GMark.

unsupported imagination.

nothing of paul is in gmark

both used the OT because they were hellenizing judaism

Vorkosigan · 02-27-2012, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

(2) I don't have to "discount the possibility of a traveling teacher."

because you cant

Outhouse, that's exactly why. The idea that there is a kernel of a traveling teacher underlying the gospels is irrefutable. It can never be refuted, because it is held as a matter of faith, not evidence.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena · 02-27-2012, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

(2) I don't have to "discount the possibility of a traveling teacher."

because you cant

Outhouse, that's exactly why. The idea that there is a kernel of a traveling teacher underlying the gospels is irrefutable. It can never be refuted, because it is held as a matter of faith, not evidence.

Vorkosigan

To assume that a "kernel of a traveling teacher underlying the gospels" is based on faith and not evidence is to miss the point here. Sure, the gospel JC is ahistorical and, therefore, there is no underlying traveling teacher to discover. But what is that premise - "a traveling teacher underlying the gospels" endeavoring, even if inadequately, to uphold? Surely, it is that history matters. Without some historical relevance the NT story is nothing but a flight of pure imagination. That's one very hard sell - and is a position that is vulnerable to the next big thing, the latest 'fashion' in imagination.

As to the debate over oral traditions. Words are not the whole story here, whether oral words or written words. Memory also plays a part. Memory, not flights of intellectual sophistication. Yes, memory can play it's own tricks. However, it can also play fair. We remember the big happenings of our age: Kennedy's assassination; the twin towers; even Diana's death - and how many millions watched TV that Sunday afternoon when Mandela walked out of prison a free man? Some events are of such magnitude that they are, as it were, frozen in time. Embedded in our memory for re-call. Even if our ability to accurately recall the details is compromised by time - our memory of an event remains true. It happened.

So, the question is not whether there was a "kernel of a traveling teacher underlying the gospels" pseudo-historical story, but whether, in history, there were historical figures that lived lives that had impacted upon people who either knew them or knew about them. In other posts I proposed two such figures: Antigonus, bound to a stake/cross, scourged and crucified and beheaded in 37 b.c., and Philip the Tetrarch who lived and died during the relevant gospel time frame. Sure, anyone can suggest other historical figures - and no, assumed to be figures like a gospel JC minus his supernatural clothes just will not cut it here. One has to go big time here - not play around in the shadows.

LegionOnomaMoi · 02-27-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I am not sure how this thread has got to 75 or so posts without getting to specific theories and books on the subject.

I tried:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

But most of the research on oral tradition (after the early folklorists and then the oral-formulaic model of Perry & Lord) comes from Anthropological research. Ruth Finnegan, in her book Oral Poetry (Indiana University Press, 1992, revised edition) reports the work of Andrzejewski & Lewis on the creation and transmission of somali poetry, and quotes their study at some length. Here's an excerpt: "A poem passes from mouth to mouth. Between a young Somali who listens today to a poem composed fifty years ago, five hundred miles away, and its first audience there is a long chain of reciters who passed it one to another. It is only natural that some distortion occurs, but comparison of different versions of the same poem usually shows a high degree of fidelity to the original." And that's poetery. Finnegan also discusses the same fidelity in transmission for certain types of Hawaiin poetry, quoting Beckwith's study which demonstrated how "exact transmission" was "secured by group composition." J. Vasina's Oral Tradition as History is devoted to this very question (to what extent, and when, does oral tradtion compare in its rigidity to textual transmission, and how reliable can it be as a source of historical information?). He notes that, for example, dynastic history was preserved faithfully (at least in comparison with the independent versions of the same stories by two different countries) in Rwanda and Somalia. There's an open access peer-reviewed journal Oral Tradition available here: http://journal.oraltradition.org/issues
There are several articles on the oral Jesus tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The question then becomes what model of oral transmission would fit in 1st century Palestine? A lot of work on this has been done since Bultmann's adoption of German folklore models. It's well known that for teachers in the hellenistic era memorization was key. Parables and aphorisms are readily memorized. Bultmann's approach was clearly flawed. But that doesn't mean that the rigid, controlled model of Bauckham is any more accurate. Werner Kelber's adoption of an oral-formulaic model seems equally unlikely.

Interestingly enough, when Gerhardsson's Memory and Manuscript first came out, it faced a great deal of criticism, including that of scholar and rabbi Jacob Neusner. However, the re-release of this work (which includes Gerhardsson's next contribution to the debate) was due to Neusner himself, who realized that critiques (including himself) had written off Gerhardsson for points he never made.

It's not unlikely a priori that during a time and in a culture where oral testimony was considered superior to textual, memorizing was a key component of teaching, and teachers used aphorisms and other readily memorized oral "genres" that the Jesus tradition involved a similar processes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Perhaps not always, but we also have to look at the time period and culture in question. I think the relevant questions are
1) what methods were used in teaching (whether we're talking about Pythagoreans, the Jesus sect, the forerunners of the rabbi's, etc.)

2) How did historians gather data and did they prefer texts or firsthand accounts?

3) Can we see in that particular time/culture a distrust in written accounts versus oral accounts?

So, for example, we might look at greek and roman historians with respect to the second and third questions. Michael Grant, in his book Greek and Roman Historians (Routledge, 1995) notes not just that "ancient society was much more oral/aural than our own" nor that this was just a matter of limitation, but that for the members in these societies "there was a continuing, touching faith in the oral tradition...." As for historians: "Many were the historians who were proud to have heard something 'from the horses mouth'..." There were exceptions, of course, and historians did tend to at least distinguish written versus oral tradition, but even rumors were sometimes accepted uncritically by historians. Grant notes that "the practice of Tacitus in this respect is persistent and lamentable."

Aune, in his paper "Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World" from Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) uses Polybius as an example in his discussion of hellenistic historiography: "In discussing the best ways to gather data, Polybius emphasizes the function of the eyes and the ears..." Of the two (hearing another's account versus seeing it yourself) the latter was certainly preferred, but both were generally favored over written testimony. Aune also quotes the famous modern historian of ancient historiography A. Momigliano, who wrote that for ancient historians "an oral tradition is definitely preferred." The classicist L. Alexander wrote an entire paper which joins classical historiographical methods and early christian tradition in "The Living Voice: Skepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christian and Graeco-Roman Texts."

However, when it comes to the methods used to teach, we don't have much in the way of 1st century information. We can only apply earlier or later methods (and both involved teachers/rabbis/etc. requiring their followers to memorize material and repeating the same material over and over in a form which could be readily memorized). Whether or not that would apply to someone like Jesus is questionable. Additionally, even if true, that would only apply to his teachings. The events of his "ministry," if they ever became part of an oral tradition which was to some extent controlled, would have already seperated quite a bit from what happened.

Quote:

Bultmann 1957 (BI, CP)

The form-critics relied on models of transmission provided by then current theories among german folklorists. These theoris are no longer common among folklorists, and are certainly inappicable here.

Quote:

Gerhardsson 1961 (HB, BI)

Much more accurate than Bultmann or an oral-formulaic model. But the problem remains: even if one assumes that Jesus taught way similar to the rabbis (i.e., repeated his teachings often in forms which were easily memorized, etc.), and that his followers continued to ensure that new followers likewise learned these teachings, that would only ensure the generally reliable transmission of teachings. Miracle stories, excorcisms, etc., were events. If they became part of an oral tradition, even a controlled oral tradition, which would be only after considerable distortion. Bailey discusses how radically and quickly events could be altered in an oral society, and neiither his nor Gerhadsson's model really applies to more than teachings.

Quote:

Kelber 1983 (BI)

Kelber is too heavily influenced by the effects of the oral-formulaic model. That is, while he reject Bultmann and Gerhadsson along with the applicability (for the most part) of Parry and Lord, the notion that every recital of tradition is a recreation is simply not true. It is, again, a generalization of one type of transmission.

No Robots · 02-27-2012, 09:07 AM

In the last thirty years there have been significant developments in the application of orality studies to the Gospels. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the field through a survey of its leading proponents, including Werner Kelber, Joanna Dewey, Paul Achtemeier, Peter Botha, Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper, Kenneth Bailey, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham, David Rhoads and Whitney Shiner. The essay begins with a discussion of several foundational studies, before turning specifically to the reconception of orality and the implication of this research for the Gospels. The study concludes that, while an appreciation of orality has made inroads into certain segments of Gospels research, it remains a neglected and underexploited dimension of NT interpretation.--abstract for "Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research" / Kelly R. Iverson. In Currents in Biblical Research vol. 8 no. 1 (October 2009), 71-106.

DCHindley · 02-27-2012, 09:21 AM

Well,

I must have skimmed over the good parts. Thank you!

What scares me a little about the likes of Neusner, Gerhardsson and Kelber, is that they all seem to have a romantic notion about how oral tradition should have occurred (Neusner's concern is the transmission of the unwritten tradition codified in the Mishna and commented upon in the Talmud, while for the others it is Jesus' ethical teachings) and somehow it magically gets confirmed.

When I open each of their books, they all argue quite plausibly at first glance. But if I think about what they are saying, I can start to discern unstated assumptions that seem circular. Albert Kalthoff was correct that history is a cistern that we pour ourselves into (or in which we see our own reflection).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I am not sure how this thread has got to 75 or so posts without getting to specific theories and books on the subject.

I tried:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

But most of the research on oral tradition (after the early folklorists and then the oral-formulaic model of Perry & Lord) comes from Anthropological research. Ruth Finnegan, in her book Oral Poetry (Indiana University Press, 1992, revised edition) reports the work of Andrzejewski & Lewis on the creation and transmission of somali poetry, and quotes their study at some length. Here's an excerpt: "A poem passes from mouth to mouth. Between a young Somali who listens today to a poem composed fifty years ago, five hundred miles away, and its first audience there is a long chain of reciters who passed it one to another. It is only natural that some distortion occurs, but comparison of different versions of the same poem usually shows a high degree of fidelity to the original." And that's poetery. Finnegan also discusses the same fidelity in transmission for certain types of Hawaiin poetry, quoting Beckwith's study which demonstrated how "exact transmission" was "secured by group composition." J. Vasina's Oral Tradition as History is devoted to this very question (to what extent, and when, does oral tradtion compare in its rigidity to textual transmission, and how reliable can it be as a source of historical information?). He notes that, for example, dynastic history was preserved faithfully (at least in comparison with the independent versions of the same stories by two different countries) in Rwanda and Somalia. There's an open access peer-reviewed journal Oral Tradition available here: http://journal.oraltradition.org/issues
There are several articles on the oral Jesus tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The question then becomes what model of oral transmission would fit in 1st century Palestine? A lot of work on this has been done since Bultmann's adoption of German folklore models. It's well known that for teachers in the hellenistic era memorization was key. Parables and aphorisms are readily memorized. Bultmann's approach was clearly flawed. But that doesn't mean that the rigid, controlled model of Bauckham is any more accurate. Werner Kelber's adoption of an oral-formulaic model seems equally unlikely.

Interestingly enough, when Gerhardsson's Memory and Manuscript first came out, it faced a great deal of criticism, including that of scholar and rabbi Jacob Neusner. However, the re-release of this work (which includes Gerhardsson's next contribution to the debate) was due to Neusner himself, who realized that critiques (including himself) had written off Gerhardsson for points he never made.

It's not unlikely a priori that during a time and in a culture where oral testimony was considered superior to textual, memorizing was a key component of teaching, and teachers used aphorisms and other readily memorized oral "genres" that the Jesus tradition involved a similar processes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Perhaps not always, but we also have to look at the time period and culture in question. I think the relevant questions are
1) what methods were used in teaching (whether we're talking about Pythagoreans, the Jesus sect, the forerunners of the rabbi's, etc.)

2) How did historians gather data and did they prefer texts or firsthand accounts?

3) Can we see in that particular time/culture a distrust in written accounts versus oral accounts?

So, for example, we might look at greek and roman historians with respect to the second and third questions. Michael Grant, in his book Greek and Roman Historians (Routledge, 1995) notes not just that "ancient society was much more oral/aural than our own" nor that this was just a matter of limitation, but that for the members in these societies "there was a continuing, touching faith in the oral tradition...." As for historians: "Many were the historians who were proud to have heard something 'from the horses mouth'..." There were exceptions, of course, and historians did tend to at least distinguish written versus oral tradition, but even rumors were sometimes accepted uncritically by historians. Grant notes that "the practice of Tacitus in this respect is persistent and lamentable."

Aune, in his paper "Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World" from Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) uses Polybius as an example in his discussion of hellenistic historiography: "In discussing the best ways to gather data, Polybius emphasizes the function of the eyes and the ears..." Of the two (hearing another's account versus seeing it yourself) the latter was certainly preferred, but both were generally favored over written testimony. Aune also quotes the famous modern historian of ancient historiography A. Momigliano, who wrote that for ancient historians "an oral tradition is definitely preferred." The classicist L. Alexander wrote an entire paper which joins classical historiographical methods and early christian tradition in "The Living Voice: Skepticism Towards the Written Word in Early Christian and Graeco-Roman Texts."

However, when it comes to the methods used to teach, we don't have much in the way of 1st century information. We can only apply earlier or later methods (and both involved teachers/rabbis/etc. requiring their followers to memorize material and repeating the same material over and over in a form which could be readily memorized). Whether or not that would apply to someone like Jesus is questionable. Additionally, even if true, that would only apply to his teachings. The events of his "ministry," if they ever became part of an oral tradition which was to some extent controlled, would have already seperated quite a bit from what happened.

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

02-26-2012, 08:59 PM	#83
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	I located another book by Vansina in a 1986 version of the Annotated Bibliography (Oral Tradition. Vol 1, Number 3, Dec 1986): Vansina, Jan. “Memory and Oral Tradition.” In Joseph C. Miller ed. The African Past Speaks: Essays on Oral Tradition and History.1980a:262-79. Analyzes the impact of memory on oral traditional literature and claims that the repeated passage of a message through several memories compounds its effects. Summarizes relevant findings in psychology on memory and discusses the implications of these findings for personal reminiscences and for the oral tradition which stems from such reminiscences. Saad A. Sowayan, "A Plea for an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Arab Oral Tradition" in Oral Tradition, Volume 18, Issue 1 (March, 2003), says of Vansina: "Oral literature is, in a sense, like crude oil in that there are so many derivatives you can extract from it, but only if you have good refineries; in the present instances this means sound methodology and a sophisticated theoretical orientation. If you do not enjoy oral tradition as art, you can treat it, for example, as a linguistic corpus or, à la Jan Vansina (1965), as a historical document reflecting or refracting social facts." DCH

02-27-2012, 09:07 AM	#89
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	In the last thirty years there have been significant developments in the application of orality studies to the Gospels. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the field through a survey of its leading proponents, including Werner Kelber, Joanna Dewey, Paul Achtemeier, Peter Botha, Richard Horsley and Jonathan Draper, Kenneth Bailey, James Dunn, Richard Bauckham, David Rhoads and Whitney Shiner. The essay begins with a discussion of several foundational studies, before turning specifically to the reconception of orality and the implication of this research for the Gospels. The study concludes that, while an appreciation of orality has made inroads into certain segments of Gospels research, it remains a neglected and underexploited dimension of NT interpretation.--abstract for "Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research" / Kelly R. Iverson. In Currents in Biblical Research vol. 8 no. 1 (October 2009), 71-106.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.