Toto

They didn't talk about Jesus of Nazareth.

Have you just argued yourself into a corner? You insist that there were oral traditions and that Mark must have used them, but you don't know if any of this tradition actually survived in the copies of the gospels that we have?

It's the incredible vanishing oral traditions!

JonA

Well, yeah, that is sort of how oral traditions work. Once folk stop telling the story and start reading it, the 'oral tradition' is effectively eradicated: it vanishes, being consumed by the written record.

There are several reasons to suppose that the gospel writers got their information about Jesus from oral sources:

• The gospel writers did not write in a vacuum. They were writing within a community; these communities would already have known many of the things written in the gospels, minus the details. This is where the gospel writers took most of their liberties—in the details.
• People talked. The gospel writers would have heard people talking. It is very difficult to imagine that the gospel writers didn't include anything in their stories that they had heard, especially given the preference of ancient writers for oral sources over written ones.
• If Jesus' followers were all peasants like himself, as the gospels indicate, then they couldn't have written down their accounts first hand, but would have only been able to pass them off verbally. Thus, at the least, if the source of Jesus' life originates with his followers (which it may or may not), then the first sources were certainly oral.

There are also reasons to suppose that some of the gospel writers' material came from written sources:

• Certain verbatim agreements in wording between different gospels make it unlikely that those sections come from oral traditions.
• The structure in some areas (e.g., Jn 14—18; Jn 20—21) make it unlikely that these sections come from oral traditions, given their cut 'n' paste format.
• Luke, for example, indicates his knowledge of other sources which he describes in terms consistent with written sources (1:1).

And there are reasons to think that some of the material was, indeed, invented wholesale by the gospel writers:

• All of the gospels are redaction gospels; the authors took a known story and inserted information specific to their purpose, some of that information being extremely well suited to that purpose.
• Where we can identify the written sources, some of the alterations to those sources are too ridiculous to have been anything other than fiction (e.g., the entry into Jerusalem in Matthew compared to in Mark or Luke).

Through textual analysis, of course, we can filter out which information likely comes from which type of sources. Some of our assignments are more certain; some less so; some are, admittedly, pure guesses. For sure, though, the gospel writers made use of all three of these sourcing techniques in the writing of their gospels; assuming that they made use of only one or two of them would be to set the gospels off as being truly unique ancient documents, which we have no reason to believe them to be.

But that is enough to say on that for now. The issue of sources is probably best left for another thread.

Jon

aa5874

Well, your statement is MOST laughable. You are claiming that the source of the Gospel stories is ORAL tradition yet you claim, "The issue of sources is probably best left for another thread".

Your post in this THREAD is just ALL SPECULATION and is not based on ANY CREDIBLE SOURCES of antiquity.

You have MERELY PRESUMED your sources for the Gospels.

We don't need another thread to EXPOSE your unsubstantiated claims about the source for the Gospels.

jgoodguy

I argued that oral traditions existed and you argued they did not.

If oral traditions existed, the Christian oral traditions likely existed unless you wish to argue that Christians did not have oral traditions.

Do you wish to assert that oral traditions did not exist or that Christians did not have oral traditions? I think you realized the implications of arguing either or both.

While I cannot provide explicit evidence I can use implicit reasoning. Can I prove that early Christians defecated? I have no such primary, tangible or credible secondary evidence of that. However as all live human beings have biological processes that result in defecation. All early Christians were human then they must have defecated.

Likewise if humans have oral traditions and let me assure you my family has oral traditions that have never been written down as do most families, then if early Christians were human they likewise had oral traditions.

What those oral traditions consist of is beyond the scope of did early Christians have oral traditions. It follows that oral traditions could end up being written down. How strong is the 'could' is this case? It is the difference between having no contact with oral tradition and making stuff up and being influenced by the oral traditions of the society you are in. At that point it becomes simple probability.

Now how about that primary, tangible and credible evidence of specific interpolations you assure me exists.

jgoodguy

Without primary, tangible or credible secondary evidence; it is all speculation. We all know that. The question is how informed is the speculation.

aa5874

But, when did ORAL tradition about Jesus begin? How did the Jesus cult of Christians start?

Did it start like like Momonism where a person INVENTED a story?

Did it start like the Islamic religion in the 6th century.

Did it start like Marcionism in the 2nd century?

We know that Systems of Belief were INVENTED in antiquity so it cannot be assumed that all religious beliefs were based on oral tradition.

We have oral traditions of John the Baptist, Jesus son of Ananus, and Carabbas because they are merely mentioned by Philo and Josephus but there is not even a rumor about Jesus in any of those books.

The Jesus story appears to be a TOTAL INVENTION in the 2nd century since we don't find any legendary fables about the Jesus character in any 1st century non-apologetic writings.

aa5874

What utter nonsense!! Speculation is by definition an UNINFORMED unsubstantiated claim.

Now, We have ACTUAL written TANGIBLE sources from antiquity.

Toto

To be precise, I state that there is no evidence of any oral traditions regarding Jesus that were used by the gospel writers.

There is no real evidence that there were identifiable Christians in the first century. From what evidence we do have about early second century Christians, it appears that they derived their knowledge of Jesus Christ from reading the Septuagint or from spiritual revelation, or both. Papias talks about hearing sayings of the Lord's disciples, but not sayings of the Lord Himself, or or any events in Jesus' life. Justin Martyr was converted to Christianity after studying Greek philosophy, being impressed with Christians that he met, and studying the Hebrew Scriptures.

The idea that the gospels were based on oral traditions passed on from eyewitnesses is a modern construct, from people who felt a need to show that the gospels could be used as a source for the actual history of a historical Jesus.

The question is whether they had oral traditions of a historical Jesus that were a source for the gospels. When you leave out key words, you can argue anything.

You are confused. I have not argued for interpolations in Mark. I have argued that Mark was based on literary sources from start to finish.

Michael Turton (Vorkosigan here) spend some time compiling these. You can read about it at his Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.

I am sorry if I am not always clear. You are new to this board, and this discussion has been going on for over a decade. I sometimes make a brief reference to an issue that was debated here years ago without fully explaining every aspect.

Toto

This is quite circular. If Jesus was as described in the gospels, then his peasant followers would have preserved oral stories about him, so therefore the gospels are based on oral sources . . .

Just note that Jesus is not described as a peasant in the gospels. Neo-Marxist post-colonial theologians would like to see him as a revolutionary peasant, but the gospels describe a literate Hellenistic wisdom teacher with rich followers

It's not "for sure." It is highly debatable. Textual criticism can identify possible literary sources for everything in Mark.

And I challenge the ideas that every ancient document was based on oral traditions, or that the gospels are not truly unique.

jgoodguy

You are adding stuff, moving the goal posts and all that.

Lets be simple here.

Oral traditions existed in human communities.
The oral traditions may or may not be historical factual.
Early Christians lived in human communities.
Therefore early Christians had oral traditions that may or may not be historical factual.

Early Christians had oral traditions.
Gospel writers were early Christians.
Therefore Gospel writers had access to oral traditions.

Oral traditions may or may not be historical factual.
Some oral traditions are not historical factual.
Oral traditions that are not historical factual do not need actual eye witnesses.
Therefore any given oral tradition is independent of actual eye witnesses.

Gospel writers had access to oral traditions.
It is more probable that a writer modifies existing material than creates new unique material.
Oral traditions are existing material for a gospel writer to use.
Therefore it is probable that gospel writers used oral traditions.

It is probable that gospel writers used oral traditions.
Oral traditions are independent of actual witnesses.
Therefore any oral traditions used by Gospel writers do not necessary contain eye witness accounts.

Gospel writers had access to oral traditions.
It is more probable that a writer modifies existing material than creates new material.
Oral traditions are existing material for a gospel writer to use.
Writers to not rote copy existing material but add unique material
Therefore it is probable that gospel writers did not exclusively use oral traditions, but added material independently.grammar