Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-27-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

1. A statement by a researcher that oral testimony is not valid after 5 or 6 generations is not proof that oral testimony is valid up to 5 or 6 generations. So it is a waste of your time to try to calculate the number of generations between Jesus and the earliest Christian writings.

Oh, and I suppose you have a better statement?

I missed the lane change here.

It was Chris' contention that oral tradition can survive for 5 or 6 generations. Given that fact, why should Toto have to come up with "a better statement"? Burden of proof is on Chris, not Toto.

As an interesting aside, here's an example of what happens to history and oral traditions. From an article I wrote on the failed prophecies concerning Bablyon:

Quote:

When dealing with ancient sources, it is not uncommon for the details of one person's life to become grafted onto a different person's life. Tales about real historical people who did great deeds are recycled and used elsewhere. These heroic legends often contain telltale echoes of the actual historical events. The factual details of those events are dimly remembered, of course; but that misses the point: the heroic tale is a morality play; not a biography. The life-lesson that the tale illustrates is the important thing.

The Norse poem The Lay of Atli provides an example from another culture. In that saga, we read about the great Germanic warrior Atli, as well as the deeds of other players such as Gunnar and Jormunrek. Woven throughout the whole tale, we see mythological heroes such as Sigmund and Sigurd, who perform impossible feats and win renown for themselves. We also observe the behind-the-scene machinations of the gods, working their will through the actions of the players, rewarding some, while punishing others. Surprisingly enough, The Lay of Atli has some basis in historical fact and actual historical figures. But is that enough to accept it as an ancient testimony to factual history?

Not at all. Just because a story starts with factual history, that is no guarantee that the story will conclude with all those facts fully intact. For example, the real Atli was actually not a Germanic warrior at all; the name is a corruption of Attila, the selfsame Hun who overran Europe. Gunnar, Gudrun's brother, is a corruption of Gundicar, king of the Burgundians. Another character in this Norse poem, Jormunrek, is actually Ermanaric, king of the Goths. Any interaction between Ermanaric and Attila is, of course, flatly impossible; we know Ermanaric died 59 years before Attila ever became king of the Huns. Other historical impossibilities also surface in The Lay of Atli. Sigurd's father is referred to as the king of the Franks; yet Sigurd himself is referred to as the king of the Huns. Gunnar's historical predecessor (Gundicar) was king of the Burgundians; yet Gunnar himself is impossibly referred to in this tale as king of the Goths. In spite of all these errors and transpositions of detail, the story stubbornly continues, oblivious to the twisted history it contains.

The parallels between the book of Daniel and The Lay of Atli are obvious. Both are great tales, recounted to bind a people together with a sense of common destiny. They both have a hazy connection to historical facts; but they are not reliable history. We cannot take the events in either one at face value. As always, the skeptical, critical approach is best.

Chris Weimer · 07-27-2007, 12:34 PM

Yes, it was a sarcastic reply to Toto's ever shifting goalposts. First he wanted a scholar not connected to Biblical Studies to affirm that history can be taken from oral tradition. When I showed him that, he said their testimony is not valid, even though it was his testimony which he first wanted. :wave:

Clivedurdle · 07-27-2007, 01:34 PM

But what is the alleged oral tradition attesting to? What if a brilliant Graeco-Roman playwright wrote a play about a Christ and a new heaven and earth complete with anti-references to Augustine and stage directions?

We are possibly one generation after Star Trek and Star Wars!

Toto · 07-27-2007, 04:42 PM

The goal posts are still there. I'm still looking for a scholar (I didn't specify non-Bibilical, you were the one who thought that anthropologists and others routinely used tradition as a source of history) who can derive history from tradition.

All of the sources that you have produced (and thanks for the effort) talk about history derived from tradition, but none describe taking that tradition directly from traditional tales, without some sort of corroboration, and all of them advise taking tradition very skeptically.

Curtin in particular says:

Quote:

ORAL tradition as a source for African history has been subject to a certain amount of controversy in recent decades. These discussions have clarified both the uses and the problems of oral data; they have raised important methodological issues, but they have also beclouded others. At the higher theoretical levels, the debate has involved the philosophy of history and the nature of historical knowledge. These issues are both interesting and important, but the discussion is not very helpful to the working historian. At another level, the debate has been more practical and far less helpful. We are told, on one hand, that oral sources are a brand new body of data, waiting in great volume to open vast areas of African history that were previously obscure. Other authorities have taken the opposite view. G. P. Murdock, in his general survey of African history, concluded that 'indigenous oral traditions are completely undependable much beyond the personal recollections of living informants'. He was so suspicious, indeed, that he specifically declared that he would set aside all evidence based on such tradition. .

. . .

Historians, on the other hand, are trained to be cynical about all evidence, perhaps because they often have so little of it. The dead answer no questions, and they rarely leave direct evidence for a clear answer to the historian's problem. The traditions of the historian's craft have therefore stressed the necessity of using every scrap of evidence that can be found, but taking nothing at face value. The standard manuals always point out the need to look beyond the written words of a document, to archaeology, diplomatics, epigraphy, or fictional literature. Far from rejecting oral tradition, or any other type of evidence, they point out that even the recognized forgery can sometimes be made to serve as indirect evidence. Oral tradition is therefore anything but a new source. Classicists have mined Homer for all manner of data, just as medievalists have used Beowulf or the Chanson de Roland-to say nothing of Froissart's Chronicles and much more.

The traditional canon of historical scholarship is clear and universally accepted in the profession: every relevant source must be taken into account, but no source is to be accepted uncritically. The core of the discipline is search and evaluation leading to generalization. In regard to any kind of evidence, the rule is: if it exists, it must be consulted. The operative word is 'consulted'. No source has to be used, but all must be examined to see whether they can yield evidence to help solve the problem at hand. The question whether or not oral tradition should be used is therefore not a real problem until relevant traditions have been found and examined, or else have been shown not to exist.

The bulk of this article describes methods for recording traditions, and the many pitfalls in getting non-literate people to reveal their legends and history to western researchers.

But there is no indication here of methods of separating out mythology from hard history, especially when the historian must take a "cynical" view of the sources. Presumably the sort of history that can be recovered from these traditions is "village histories, migration stories, and a whole range of information about past religion, trade patterns, or agricultural practices."

So I am not sure if this helps your case. Yes, traditions can be a source of historical information, but only after a hardened cynic has examined and analyzed them.

andrewcriddle · 07-28-2007, 03:31 AM

There is an interesting discussion of the problems of oral tradition
in the first chapter of Witches Druids and King Arthur (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Ronald Hutton.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 07-28-2007, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Of course, never mind that there is no good evidence that the Gospels record oral traditions in the first place.

Alan Dundes, in Holy Writ as Oral Lit, might disagree. He finds enough things in the gospels (repetition, duplication) to think that there is at least an oral component there.

Gerard Stafleu

Thanks for citing an actual authority on opral tradition (Dundes).

Selected books relevant to NT research on Oral tradition, from Lee Edgar Tyler, Juris Dilevko, and John Miles Foley, “Annotated Bibliography.” Oral Tradition, 1:767-808. 1986. (Takes Foley’s original bibliography to 1983, with annotations):

Bultmann 1957 (BI, CP)
Rudolf Bultmann. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Neue Folge, 12. Heft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957. Trans. by John Marsh as The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell and Harper.

*A methodologically pre-Parry study of oral tradition in Gospel materials. Interested in recovering the synoptic tradition that preceded and gave shape to the gospels, he describes a number of laws or tendencies of oral composition and transmission (espec. pp. 307-43, trans.) reminiscent of some of Olrik's laws of folk narrative. Conceives of tradition as the inevitable complication and growth of smaller to larger units. Sees no incongruity between oral and written media, and so postulates a smooth transition from oral tradition to written text.

Kelber 1980 (BI)
Werner H. Kelber. "Mark and Oral Tradition," Semeia, 16:7-55.

*Although fully acknowledging a pre-Markan synoptic oral tradition, he takes as his central thesis that "the gospel is to be perceived not as the natural outcome of oral developments, but as a critical alternative to the powers of orality" (46). Thus he disagrees with Bultmann's (1957) hypothesis of a smooth, organic transition from orality to writing and posits instead a shift from collectivity to individual authorship and a "crisis" of oral transmission brought on by the retreat of Jesus' oral presence into a necessarily textual history. Notes the oral traditional features of Mark's gospel (formulaic and thematic patterning, variants with other gospels, modulation in the order of events with relation to other sources) and the fact that Mark's chirographic enterprise went on in a milieu that included a contemporary synoptic oral tradition. An imaginative and stimulating article that takes account of current research on oral literature.

Kelber 1983 (BI)
Werner H. Kelber. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (or via: amazon.co.uk). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

*Continuing along paths blazed by Ong outside the field of Biblical studies, he aims to illustrate the importance of the oral roots of Biblical texts and to liberate those texts from the cultural bias toward the authority of print: "We treat words primarily as records in need of interpretation, neglecting all too often a rather different hermeneutic, deeply rooted in biblical language that proclaims words as an act inviting participation" (p. xvi). Chapter 1 ("The Pre-Canonical Synoptic Transmission," pp. 1-43) reviews the theories of Bultmann and Gerhardsson and seeks to integrate the contemporary oral literature research of Parry and Lord, Ong, and others; it is concerned with establishing the phenomenology of speaking. Further chapters treat the oral legacy and textuality of Mark and Paul. Argues that "the decisive break in the synoptic tradition did thus not come, as Bultmann thought, with Easter, but when the written medium took full control, transforming Jesus the speaker of kingdom parables into the parable of the kingdom of God" (p. 220). Contains a sizable bibliography of oral literature studies and apposite Biblical research (pp. 227-47).

Gerhardsson 1961 (HB, BI)
Birger Gerhardsson. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 22. Lund: C.K. Gleerup, 1961.

*Proposes the memorization of a fixed and consequent oral rote transmission by disciples in connection with the rabbinic schools and the New Testament. Describes memorization followed by interpretation as a major pedagogical principle throughout history. The process involved elements arranged associatively to facilitate remembering, an ancient method of ordering oral traditional materials. Written notes were sometimes used to aid in learning texts, as was the practice of recitation with a rhythmical melody.

Gerhardsson 1979 (BI)
Birger Gerhardsson. [Evangeliernas förhistoria] The Origins of the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

*Considers the problem of the origins and history of the tradition from the time of Jesus to the appearance of the written texts, with a discussion of the oral aspects of the Torah tradition.

Toto · 07-28-2007, 11:31 AM

There may very well be oral traditions in the gospels, but this does not allow us to extract history from them. Alan Dundes appeared in Brian Flemming's pro-mythicist documentary The God Movie.

aa5874 · 07-28-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, we should be critical about tradition. We should not accept it uncritically. I never said you should. If you think I think that the majority of the gospel material is historically accurate, then you're dead wrong. All I think is that we can extract history, and that Jesus was a person who was crucified by Pilate is one of them. The first is undeniable, the second is debateable, but I don't see any good evidence for the opposite view.

Everything about Jesus is undeniably debateable. And there is no eveidence from contemporary non-biblical historians that the Jesus of the NT ever lived or was crucified in the 1st century.

Roger Pearse · 07-28-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes, we should be critical about tradition. We should not accept it uncritically. I never said you should. If you think I think that the majority of the gospel material is historically accurate, then you're dead wrong. All I think is that we can extract history, and that Jesus was a person who was crucified by Pilate is one of them. The first is undeniable, the second is debateable, but I don't see any good evidence for the opposite view.

Everything about Jesus is undeniably debateable.

Not everyone agrees with such wishful thinking.

Quote:

And there is no eveidence from contemporary non-biblical historians that the Jesus of the NT ever lived or was crucified in the 1st century.

We can hardly reasonably demand for Jesus what does not exist for anyone. This mantra that you repeat is really only for the ill-educated.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist · 07-28-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

We can hardly reasonably demand for Jesus what does not exist for anyone.

On one hand christians claim that their Jesus was hailed by multitudes, killed by the most powerful nation on earth for crimes unspecified and then brought himself back from the dead.... but on the other hand hide behind the fact that no one seemed to notice any of this by saying, "well, what do you expect?"

We have non-biblical references to Pilate, Tiberius, Herod Antipas, John the Baptist, Lucius Vitellius, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, Herod the Great, his son Phillip, Phillip's wife, Herodias, and so on.

Yet we are asked to accept "on faith" that the star of the show merits not so much as a mention.

Be reasonable, sir. Look at it from our point of view.

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

07-27-2007, 12:34 PM	#22
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Yes, it was a sarcastic reply to Toto's ever shifting goalposts. First he wanted a scholar not connected to Biblical Studies to affirm that history can be taken from oral tradition. When I showed him that, he said their testimony is not valid, even though it was his testimony which he first wanted. :wave:

07-27-2007, 01:34 PM	#23
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But what is the alleged oral tradition attesting to? What if a brilliant Graeco-Roman playwright wrote a play about a Christ and a new heaven and earth complete with anti-references to Augustine and stage directions? We are possibly one generation after Star Trek and Star Wars!

07-28-2007, 03:31 AM	#25
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	There is an interesting discussion of the problems of oral tradition in the first chapter of Witches Druids and King Arthur (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Ronald Hutton. Andrew Criddle

07-28-2007, 11:31 AM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There may very well be oral traditions in the gospels, but this does not allow us to extract history from them. Alan Dundes appeared in Brian Flemming's pro-mythicist documentary The God Movie.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.