Julian

Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and Q, we do not know where Q came from. If you have evidence that show something else please present it.

I am not an expert in the Talmud so I cannot answer to that, but I do know that the gospels are very late. Mark would be the only gospel that could have been based on oral tradition but it seems doubtful since Mark leans heavily on OT quote mining. Why would he need to do that if there was such a good oral tradition?

Julian

andrewcriddle

Strictly speaking the Mishnah is a late second century early 3rd century writing based on oral tradition.

The Talmud (either Jerusalem or Babylon versions) is much later.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

What specific methodology and evidence lead you to this conclusion about the Gospels?

freigeister

The oral tradition was quote mining. I guess you didn't read the Hillel article. Here is a relevant quotation:

As you can see, Midrash was replete with fabulation about important people. The Gospels are a kind of Midrash.

freigeister

Strictly speaking, you are correct. However, the Mishnah is the core text of the Talmud. The other component of the Talmud, the Gemara, is commentary on the Mishnah.

freigeister

This is the mainstream scholarly understanding, that the Gospels have an origin that is comprehensible only in terms of comparison with the Talmud. In another thread, I have provided supporting quotations from scholars like Burridge and Crossan. If these are not addressed directly, and they haven't been, then I think we are dealing here not with healthy scepticism, but with a parti pris that negates scholarship.

Julian

I don't think that anybody would seriously doubt the very strong Jewish roots of christianity. But speculating that the gospels derive from oral traditions is just that, speculation. You would have to go back to Mark and Q. Mark does show very Jewish roots, no question, but I see no reason to not simply deem it a work of fiction. What di he base it on? We have no way of knowing this.

All this doesn't really address the original issue, which is that the gospels still don't say anything historical about Jesus in any way that we can prove with any degree of comfort. We can, however, prove that much of it is nonsense.

Julian

Amaleq13

I was asking about your claim that the Gospels are based on oral traditions. Though the specifically linked quotes are not relevant to my question, it is interesting that you mention Crossan since he has questioned this claim as well and been unsuccessful in establishing any reason to think there is an oral source for the passion narratives.

If there is no specific methodology and evidence that leads to the conclusion of oral tradition as a source for the Gospel stories, I think we are not dealing with sound conclusions from scholarship but wishful thinking intended to provide those stories with the appearance of historicity.

ETA:

"If the transition from historical Jesus to earliest Christianity depends primarily on memory, we need to indicate clearly what theory of memory we are using in our analysis and what practice of memory we are observing in our evidence. If we invoke oral tradition, we need to explain in detail how the Jesus materials became a tradition and what evidence we have for the controls that make a tradition more than gossip, rumor, hearsay, or even memory. If we speak of oral transmission and/or aural reception, we need to be precise about what the ear retained from hearing texts read or words spoken." (Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, p.85)

freigeister

Inquiry into the oral antecedents of the written Gospels is not wishful thinking or mere speculation. It is scholarly inquiry into an area that has been scandalously neglected. I have not yet had the opportunity to read James Dunn's new book, A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed, but this review certainly sounds like it covers important ground. Even a Google search of Talmud+Gospels+Oral brings up some useful nuggets.

If we acknowledge that Christianity has Jewish roots, then we should also acknowledge that Judaism up to the end of the second century was wholly oral.

Julian

Yet, we know that they had written sources for centuries before that. What are you not saying here?

Julian