spin

As I've seen a lot of threads that seem to assume an answer to this question, it might be good to bring those assumptions out into the light. The options I've supplied as answers may be inadequate for the task. If you find them so, vote for "None of the above" and take the opportunity to discuss your view of the subject. A simple vote is also a helpful indicator.

The issue is how forum members see the beginning of the writing of the earliest gospel materials.

The traditional christian view is that eye witnesses were consulted, while those people who think the gospels were fictional view it as a literary invention. A non-christian can view the beginning as based on eye witness accounts as well, with a little embellishment.

If you think that speculation breeds speculation, you might choose "the developing oral traditions", which doesn't necessarily rule out there being some real information in the earliest accounts, but there is little hope for the person passing on the tradition knowing any reality in the tradition.

The HJ position would fundamentally reflect the eye-witness approach.

(Carthago delenda est.)


spin

stephan huller

I think it was a prediction of what was to come veiled as a story of something that happened in the past.

dog-on

Mark took Paul at his word and found the hidden mystery in the Scriptures.

aa5874

The Jesus story appears to be the product of an apocalyptic character who believed that the Fall of the Temple signified the end of time or that the day of judgement was at hand based on Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint and the writings of Josephus.

When the Jesus stories are examined it would be realized that they would have had no real significance or "truth" value before the Fall of the Temple since the predictions made by Jesus in the stories would have been false.

His third day resurrection prediction would have been known to be False within 72 hours of his death and his disciples would have RAN AWAY, some hiding and the "ROCK of the Church" Peter had denied even knowing or associating Jesus.

The Jesus story only makes sense AFTER the Temple fell and Jerusalem destroyed which was an event KNOWN throughout the entire Roman Empire.

Andykiwi

I believe it has several roots. It clearly grew and was embellished in various ways over time...

Mark's Gospel was the first of the Bible Gospels to be written. Originally it didn't have the resurrection story and it doesn't have a birth story.

Zaphod

I am very skeptical that oral tradition or even eye witness accounts could faithfully render an accurate record of events or produce anything resembling what we see in the Bible. Unless human beings two to three thousand years ago had much larger brains and perfectly eidetic memory, which does not seem likely to say the least.

I can understand how myths might be preserved this way, or chants, songs - but contemporary history? No frackin' way.

Here is $100 which says that you can not go to the Gospel of Thomas, read five representative lines aloud - once - to the person you know with the best memory. Now wait a day, or two, or seven. Do you really think a fully functional modern adult - let alone an ancient goatherder - could possibly remember anything but a general outline of what was read to them?


I'll bet most people get it 50% wrong within five minutes.

Imagine being an illiterate eye witness to the entire exchange in Thomas, as Thomas claims to recorded. Could you recite one single line - any single line,excepting perhaps the final line - accurately? The idea is completely preposterous.


That almost all of the Bible is not a literary creation beggars belief.

Do historians - other than Biblical "historians" - truly believe that accurate accountings of events and speech are captured this way? Or is the reliance on "oral tradition" primarily rampant in Biblical Studies?

judge

Not exactly or only partly true.. You are confusing traditional christian thinking with critical scholarship. Traditionally, for example Matthew was seen to be written by a disciple of Jesus. The same can be said of John's gospel.
So traditionally these works were seen to be the writings of men who not merely consulted eye witnesses but were eye witnesses.

Of course these views have been overturned by critical scholarship.

Not necessarily.
It is possible that there might be those who think Jesus to have been some person, but who dont see much in the way of eye witness input.

youngalexander

dunno - seeking further information

aa5874

There is really NO external historical evidence that gMark was the first Bible gospel. No Church writer claimed gMark was the first and no other source outside the Church writings can account for gMark. Even the story about the origin of gMark appears to be non-historical.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" was mentioned by Justin Martyr BEFORE Irenaeus even mentioned gMark but he placed gMark AFTER gMatthew. Irenaeus does not appear to be credible. The claims in "Against Heresies" about the four gospels are likely to be fiction or invented just for the "history of the Church".

It would appear the gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn were some of the many versions of gospels that were available during the 4th century when the NT Canon was compiled.

spin

Note, Zaphod, I wasn't asking how the gospels ended up as they are, but how the christian written tradition got going. What came before the first materials in the Jesus narrative hit papyrus?

Oral tradition is what gets passed (for example) from one generation to the next, especially in illiterate and semi-literate societies. Often there is no way of knowing the veracity of the information that is passed on: you just trust the source. Interestingly, the passing on of information often is elaborated on with each new telling, clarifications get absorbed into the telling, preferred expressions of a teller get absorbed into the telling. Stories thus can start off as one narrative and diverge with the various tellings until you have versions so different that they could be taken as different stories. The story of the patriarch going to a strange realm and pretending that his wife is his sister causing the local ruler to get interested in the "sister" gets told three times in Genesis (Abraham and Sarah 1) in Egypt, 2) in Gerar, and 3) Isaac and Rebekah in Gerar). How can you reasonably account for that without the divergence of an oral tradition?

If you don't have an oral tradition, then you have to have to explain the creation of narratives some other way. I suggested two other ways in the options, 1) the collection of eye-witness material, and 2) the creation of narrative material, ie writing the traditions from scratch or copying from other religious beliefs. There are certainly more.

How would you account for the collection of sayings in the gospel of Thomas? Did someone make them up on the spot? Was it the collected sayings of a Jesus believing community?


spin