Gospel behind the Gospels part 1
Skeptics of the New Testament usually assume a long gap exists between the events in the gospels and the recording of the events in writing. They further tend to assume that the first source of writing about these events was the gospel of Mark. Thus they assume events were exaggerated and miracles were made up and so on during this gap period. In this essay I am going to dispel this myth by demonstrating that there were written records of the gospel events that existed before the writing of Mark's gospel. I will further demonstrate that there were multiple sources transmitting the information. Mark's was not the first gospel written but merely the first of the canonical gospels to be written. None of the early works survive in MS form but we find traces of them in copies of latter works.Nor was Mark' the first teaching of the Resurrection.
I. Traces of Gospel Material in Gap
(1) Oral tradition
(2) saying source Material
(3) Non canonical Gospels
(4) traces of pre Markan redaction (PMR)
(canonical material that pre-date Mark, assumed the to be the first Gospel, also called Pre Mark Passion narrative PMPN).
B. Oral Tradition (in Two Major Sources)
Scholars have always recognized that the telling of the gospel stories began with the transmission of oral tradition. Of course the problem with oral tradition is that it's not written, Once written it becomes written tradition. Yet the form of the oral transmission can cling to the writing, It is possible to identify sources of oral tradition even when written down. We see oral tradition reflected in the New Testament in two major sources:
The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:
Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.[1]In my essay "Community as author" I will deal with the validity of oral tradition. At this point I give examples of the traces of oral tradition in Paul's writings: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has long been understood as a formula saying like a creedal statement.
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Two problems: (1) Doesn't conform to a canonical reading; (2) seems to contradict the order of appearances of the epiphanies (the post resurrection sightings in Gospels--in fact doesn't even mention the women, ). Nevertheless it is in general agreement with the resurrection story, and seems to indicate an oral tradition already in circulation by the AD 50s, and probably some time before that since it has had to be formed into a formulation statement. This is because Paul was writing in the 50s. These are clear references to events mentioned in the Gospels written decades latter ;thus Paul knows Gospel stories decades before the Gospels were written.
Second major source of oral tradition:
D.The nature of pericopes
Pericopes are little story units we find in the Gospels like the good Samaritan. The nature of the pericopes themselves shows us that the synoptic gospels are made up of units of oral tradition. Many skpetics seem to think that Mark invented the story in the Gospel and that's the first time they came to exist. But no, Mark wrote down stories that the church had told for decades. Each unit or story is called a "pericope" (per-ic-o-pee). This is "A term used in Latin by Jerome for sections of scripture and taken over by form Critics to designate a unit, or paragraph, of material, especially in the gospels, such as a single parable, or a single story of a miracle."[2] Terence C. Mournet tells us, "Dunn Suggests, during the course of his investigations, that the variation within the pericopes under examination is reflective of is reflective of their indebtedness to the oral transitioning process described by Bailey where traditions are changed (flexible) during their retelling but remain within the boundaries established by the communities." [3] There is room in oral form or a minor variations but along an agreed upon range, the rage is no doubt set by the first telling of the eye witnesses and what the community certain it originally heard. That range of agreement constitutes a control om the dissemination of information. On this basis Baultmann developed "form criticism" because the important aspect was the form the oral tradition too, weather parable, narration, or other oral form.
E. Saying Source Material
The saying source was the forerunner of the narrative Gospel. Church father Papias who studied with Apostle John said that Matthew first wrote his gospel as a list of Jesus' teachings in Hebrew,called The Loggia. There's hypothetical Q source, Gospel of Thomas,k Egerton 2 and others. Here I will focus just On Thomas, and deal with others in part II. We see traces of pre Mark redaction in all of those I just mentioned (except Loggia we don't have a copy)..
(1). Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas which was found in a Coptic version at Nag Hammadi, but also exists in another form in several Greek fragments, is a prime example of a saying source. The narratival elements are very minimal, amounting to things like "Jesus said" or "Mary asked him about this,and he said..." The Gospel is apt to be dismissed by conservatives and Evangelicals due to its Gnostic elements and lack of canonicity. While it is true that Thomas contains heavily Gnostic elements of the second century or latter, it also contains a core of sayings which are so close to Q sayings from the synoptics that some have proposed that it may be Q (see Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels).[4] There are 46 sayings that parallel Q sayings in Thomas. This is what I call the orthodox core of the book.[5]
Be that as it may, there is good evidence that the material in Thomas comes from an independent tradition,that it is not merely copied out of the synoptics but represents a PMR. Through Statistical Correlation Analysis of Thomas and the Synoptic, Steven Davies argues that the Gospel of Thomas is independent of the canonical gospels on account of differences in order of the sayings. [6] Lisa Haygood of Fullerton states "serious probability exists that Thomas preserves an older tradition of the historical Jesus than that of the synoptic Gospels." [7] Stephen J. Patterson compares the wording of each saying in Thomas to its synoptic counterpart with the conclusion that Thomas represents an autonomous stream of tradition:
If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.[8]There are several other non canonical Gospels perhaps the most important for apologetic is Gospel of Peter and I will deal with that and others in part II.
(2). evidence of saying source in Pauline references
Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q available to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem church and the proto "Orthodox" faith.
| Parable of Sower | 1 Corinthians 3:6 | Matt. |
| Stumbling Stone | Romans 9: 33 | Jer 8:14/Synoptics |
| Ruling against divorce | 1 cor 7:10 | Mark 10:11 |
| Support for Apostles | 1 Cor 9:14 | Q /Luke 10:7 |
| Institution of Lord's Supper | 1 Cor 11:23-26 | Mark 14 |
| command concerning prophets | 1Cor 14:37 | Synoptic |
| Apocalyptic saying | 1 Thes. 4:15 | 21 |
| Blessing of the Persecuted | Romans 12:14 | Q/Luke 6:27 |
| Not repaying evil with evil | Romans 12:17 and I Thes 5:15 | Mark 12:12-17 |
| Paying Taxes to authorities | Romans 13:7 | Mark 9:42 |
| No Stumbling Block | Romans 14:13 | Mark 9:42 |
| Nothing is unclean | Romans 14:14 | Mark 7:15 |
| Thief in the Night | 1 Thes 5:2 | Q/ Luke 12:39 |
| Peace among yourselves | 1 Thes | Mark 9:50 |
| Have peace with Everyone | Romans 12:18 | Mar 9:50 |
| Do not judge | Romans 13: 10 | Q /Luke 6:37 |
These passages indicate that Paul knew versions off Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only abouit about 18 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles
F, On The third Day
William Lane Craig makes this argument. The phrase as Used by Paul im 1 Cor. 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.Craig tells us:
As for the “third day” motif, it is more probable that this is tied to the empty tomb tradition than to the appearance traditions. The phrase appears in the third line of the formula, which is a summary of the empty tomb narrative (see comparative chart in The Son Rises, pp. 49-50). It seems to be a theologically loaded rendering of the phrase “the first day of the week,” which is used in the empty tomb narrative. Notice, too, that the third day is always associated with the event of Jesus’ rising from the dead, never with the appearances.[9]
Sources
[1] Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937
[2] "Pericope," Oxford Biblical Studies Online, Oxford University Press, 2016 online resource
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e1449 (accessed 10/14/16)
[3] Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q..Tubingen,Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 98.
Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, March 1, 1992.
[5] Mahlon H. Smith, "Gospel of Thomas," Synoptic Gospels Pro,er 1997, online resource
http://virtualreligion.net/primer/thomas.html (accessed 10/14/16)
[6] Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)
[7] Lisa Haygood, "The Battle To Authenticate 'The Gospel of Thomas'," LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/lux/vol3/iss1/6
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=lux (accessed 10'/12/16)
[8] Stephen J. Patterson ,The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p. 18
[9] William Lane Craig, "186 the Witness if The Pre Pauline Tradition ti The Empty Tomb" Reasonable Faith (Nov 8,2010)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-pre-pauline-tradition-to-the-empty-tomb/
Comments
Joe: traces of pre Markan redaction (PMR)
What do you mean by that? More specifically, in what sense is it a redaction?
Joe: The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:
His evidence for this process appears to be a single verse, I Cor. 11:23. "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," That is certainly a testament to the man's imagination.
Where does he get that this is a "tightly controlled process"? Certainly not there! That verse says no such thing.
Where does he get that "new converts were required to learn"? Certainly not there! That verse says no such thing.
I do not doubt there was an oral tradition, but the idea that this was tightly controlled is just a fiction Christians seem to have made up to justify their own faith-position.
Joe: The phrase as Used by Paul im 1 Cor. 15
I will just quote the one important verse - but emphasise the send half.
1 Cor 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Why did Paul think Jesus rose on the third day? Because that is what it said in scripture! He tells us right there in the text that this belief comes from the Old Testament.
Given Paul mentions the third day, this was an early belief, but that does not imply they believed Jesus was seen that day.
As I showed elsewhere, the most likely scenario is that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus in Galilee, and given the distances, it is likely this was weeks or even months later. Paul does not differentiate between the appearance to Peter and the appearance to himself, and of course he had political reasons to do that, but nevertheless he clearly believed the appearance of Jesus to himself as a blinding light years after Jesus was risen was comparable to what Peter experienced.
As for the “third day” motif, it is more probable that this is tied to the empty tomb tradition than to the appearance traditions.
Paul does not mention the empty tomb, but does mention the third day; hence, no connection at that early stage in the development of the story.
Joe: The phrase as Used by Paul im 1 Cor. 15
I will just quote the one important verse - but emphasise the send half.
1 Cor 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Why did Paul think Jesus rose on the third day? Because that is what it said in scripture! He tells us right there in the text that this belief comes from the Old Testament.
Given Paul mentions the third day, this was an early belief, but that does not imply they believed Jesus was seen that day.
Modern scholarship regards that phrase as formula. Just because he expositors the formula does not mean it was not a fromula (or liturgy)
As I showed elsewhere, the most likely scenario is that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus in Galilee, and given the distances, it is likely this was weeks or even months later. Paul does not differentiate between the appearance to Peter and the appearance to himself, and of course he had political reasons to do that, but nevertheless he clearly believed the appearance of Jesus to himself as a blinding light years after Jesus was risen was comparable to what Peter experienced.
that expatiation is just ideological spin doctoring.
As for the “third day” motif, it is more probable that this is tied to the empty tomb tradition than to the appearance traditions.
It puts the empty o in the early part of the tradition.
Paul does not mention the empty tomb, but does mention the third day; hence, no connection at that early stage in the development of the story.
Paul did not see the appearances so he didn't talk about them. the empty tomb early in the traition undermines your ideological senerio..
a lot of scholars support that based upon what we know about the Jew's oral tradition
Where does he get that "new converts were required to learn"? Certainly not there! That verse says no such thing.
I do not doubt there was an oral tradition, but the idea that this was tightly controlled is just a fiction Christians seem to have made up to justify their own faith-position.
oral traditions are always tightly controlled, they have studied the bardic tradition alot since the days of form criticism.
Of course it was a formula. It was a formula that explicitly states where the "third day" motif comes from - scripture.
Joe: that expatiation is just ideological spin doctoring.
So you cannot contrive any substantial objection? I guess not.
Joe: It puts the empty o in the early part of the tradition.
The fact that the empty tomb is absent from the formula proves it was not in the original tradition.
Joe: Paul did not see the appearances so he didn't talk about them.
Are we reading the same Bible? In mine, Paul mentions the appearance of Jesus to Peter, then to the twelve. He talks about those appearances as much as he does the appearance of Jesus to himself.
Joe: the empty tomb early in the traition undermines your ideological senerio..
Again, I wonder if we are reading different Bibles. I am using the NASB, and in that version the empty tomb is not mentioned in the formula in 1 Cor 15.
Joe: a lot of scholars support that based upon what we know about the Jew's oral tradition
So quote some. Or better still, explain why they believe it was tightly controlled.
There is a big difference between the Jewish oral tradition and stories about an event that happened a few years ago. At what point did the early Christians decide the stories were comparable to the oral tradition, and so should be tightly controlled? Who was it decided which stories were to be tightly controlled?
Are you suggesting each witness to the resurrected Jesus immediately thought; this is like the oral tradition, therefore I must preserve it exactly as the oral tradition is preserved? Were they all trained in preserving an oral tradition? Have a read of Acts and see if you can find any evidence in there that the disciples gave a hoot about tightly controlling what was said about Jesus.
The Jewish oral tradition was tightly controlled in part because it was in the hands of priests assigned to do that job and trained in tightly controlling an oral tradition. That was not the case for the early Christians.
The Jewish oral tradition could be tightly controlled because it was well defined - the priests knew exactly what was part of it and what was not. That was not the case for the early Christians.
As usual what you have is wishful thinking that superficially appears reasonable, but that falls apart when we actually think about the details. And I imagine the rest of this discussion will be about you doggedly avoiding considering those details.
Joe: oral traditions are always tightly controlled, they have studied the bardic tradition alot since the days of form criticism.
Again, bards, like the Jewish priests, were assigned to the role and trained to do it. Again, bards had a very specific tradition, they knew what was part of the tradition and what was not.
That is quite unlike the situation for the early Christians.
We only have to look at the differences between the synoptic gospels to see how a story that is written down could change at that time. That you imagine an orally transmitted story would be more tightly controlled is utterly ridiculous.
Joe: Paul does not have to mention the empty tomb, the use of the formula tells us he was qlludiing to it.
On the contrary, the absence of the empty tomb tells us he had never heard of it.
As usual, you are approaching this as a fundie. You have decided the empty tomb is real, and so twist the evidence to fit your faith-position.
Joe: Don't forget both Koester and Crosson date empty tomb to AD to AD 50 as part of PMR.
So it was invented around AD 50. That would account for it not being part of the formula, which is much earlier.
So you cannot contrive any substantial objection? I guess not.
I just did it's ideological spin doctoring.
Joe: It puts the empty tomb in the early part of the tradition.
The fact that the empty tomb is absent from the formula proves it was not in the original tradition.
that's irrational you cant guarantee that Paul used the entire liturgy.They could have had others with empty tomb, they did have resurrection therefore they had to have empty tomb, they may not have began using the empty tomb as symbol of the res at that point.
Joe: Paul did not see the appearances so he didn't talk about them.
Are we reading the same Bible? In mine, Paul mentions the appearance of Jesus to Peter, then to the twelve. He talks about those appearances as much as he does the appearance of Jesus to himself.
,mentions them doesn't talk about them.
Joe: the empty tomb early in the tradition undermines your ideological senerio..
Again, I wonder if we are reading different Bibles. I am using the NASB, and in that version the empty tomb is not mentioned in the formula in 1 Cor 15.
resurrection = empty tomn any time he rises form the dead the tomb is let empty.
Joe: a lot of scholars support that based upon what we know about the Jew's oral tradition
So quote some. Or better still, explain why they believe it was tightly controlled.
we know from asking Jews about their tradition and it's in the Talmud. We know they memorized their rabbis sayings and we knew they could memorize huge portions. Just like the bardic tradition where they memorize the whole Iliad
There is a big difference between the Jewish oral tradition and stories about an event that happened a few years ago. At what point did the early Christians decide the stories were comparable to the oral tradition, and so should be tightly controlled? Who was it decided which stories were to be tightly controlled?
Pericopes are thought to be units of memory work. That's why the Gospels are told in pericopes so a lot of the gospel is just writing down the lore of the community,
Are you suggesting each witness to the resurrected Jesus immediately thought; this is like the oral tradition, therefore I must preserve it exactly as the oral tradition is preserved? Were they all trained in preserving an oral tradition? Have a read of Acts and see if you can find any evidence in there that the disciples gave a hoot about tightly controlling what was said about Jesus.
read ACts. many times it says the Jerusalem church spent all their time studying the scriptures, other churches too the Berians for example. They were telling the stories of Jesus recruiting eye witness memories and comparing to OT prophesy
Yes we know more about oral clotures than we did when form criticism was invented. This is what scholars have been doing since WWII. this what they say it's not me it's really scholarship
The Jewish oral tradition could be tightly controlled because it was well defined - the priests knew exactly what was part of it and what was not. That was not the case for the early Christians.
the Jesus lore of the church became well defined that's what they did in their communities spent all time studying.Have you never heard Bultman talks about oral tradition? when and where and why do you think they had it?
As usual what you have is wishful thinking that superficially appears reasonable, but that falls apart when we actually think about the details. And I imagine the rest of this discussion will be about you doggedly avoiding considering those details.
I studied this in seminary you know nothing about it 20 years ago I had armistices could name the leading guys you don't know shit from lashing about this. You are angry because disproves your stupid little excuse,
read my essay community as author
Joe: oral traditions are always tightly controlled, they have studied the bardic tradition alot since the days of form criticism.
Again, bards, like the Jewish priests, were assigned to the role and trained to do it. Again, bards had a very specific tradition, they knew what was part of the tradition and what was not.
you made that up, Rabbis are not priests, Rabbis taught oral tradition. Where the Talmud came from. That is no reaosn why Christians could not have their own oral tradition
That is quite unlike the situation for the early Christians.
we know for a fact they had oral tradition,every major scholar since the nineteenth century has agreed with it.
We only have to look at the differences between the synoptic gospels to see how a story that is written down could change at that time. That you imagine an orally transmitted story would be more tightly controlled is utterly ridiculous.
wen they started writing they quite doing oral then it started changing, You can see guys like Papias talking about both and he says he prefers the oral/
"It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers."
L. Michael White, "The Importance of Oral Tradition," Frontline: Jesus to Christ. Originally an episode on a series on PBS, On line version published by PBS.org. oriignally puibloished 1998, online copywriter 2014.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html (accessed 11/10/18)
White is Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin
By bad, I thought you had some academic training. Calling something "ideological spin doctoring" has no substance, it is just an opinion. A comment with substance would say why you think it is wrong; you object because you find a flaw in the reasoning, you question the evidence supporting the claim, or can present evidence that argues otherwise.
Joe: that's irrational you cant guarantee that Paul used the entire liturgy.
Of course we cannot guarantee it. We can only look at what is most likely, and reject what seems particularly unlikely. Again, some idea of how history is done in academia would serve you well here.
Most scholars agree that Paul used a liturgy, and it is far more likely that he used it in its entirety rather than edits bits out.
Joe: They could have had others with empty tomb...
That is possible, but not very likely and entirely unsupported by any evidence.
Also, this completely destroys your claim that the oral tradition was tightly controlled. Have you now abandoned that? Or is another case of you adopting an argument just when it supports you, and arguing the reverse when that is convenient?
Joe: ... they did have resurrection therefore they had to have empty tomb, they may not have began using the empty tomb as symbol of the res at that point.
The resurrection does not imply an empty tomb. Paul is very clear that the resurrected body is a brand new one. The old body is left behind, discarded.
Joe: ,mentions them doesn't talk about them.
Which is all he does of his own experience. So what is your point?
Joe: resurrection = empty tomn any time he rises form the dead the tomb is let empty.
Oh I see. Your faith-position is that Jesus was resurrected in his original body, and you are forcing that opinion on the text.
Joe: we know from asking Jews about their tradition and it's in the Talmud.
You are so full of it! There is NOTHING in the Talmud about how early Christians tightly controlled their oral tradition. I am sure you know that as well as I did.
Joe: We know they memorized their rabbis sayings and we knew they could memorize huge portions. Just like the bardic tradition where they memorize the whole Iliad
Newsflash! We are talking about the early Christians, Joe!
Proving the Jewish priesthood could pass of an oral tradition does not prove the early Christians could or did.
I spent a lot of my last comment pointing out that the early Christians were NOT like the Jewish priesthood or like bards. I see you have just ignored that altogether. Why is that? Well, because it destroys your argument and you cannot deal with it.
Joe: Pericopes are thought to be units of memory work. That's why the Gospels are told in pericopes so a lot of the gospel is just writing down the lore of the community,
You claimed the oral tradition was "tightly controlled"; where is your evidence that the pericopes were tightly controlled? None here, that is for sure.
Joe: read ACts. many times it says the Jerusalem church spent all their time studying the scriptures, other churches too the Berians for example. They were telling the stories of Jesus recruiting eye witness memories and comparing to OT prophesy
So nothing about tightly controlling the oral tradition.
Joe: Yes we know more about oral clotures than we did when form criticism was invented. This is what scholars have been doing since WWII. this what they say it's not me it's really scholarship
Agreed. Now all you have to do is show that that applies to the early Christians. Why have you not done that?
Joe: the Jesus lore of the church became well defined that's what they did in their communities spent all time studying.Have you never heard Bultman talks about oral tradition? when and where and why do you think they had it?
So show the evidence. In what sense did they "study" the oral tradition? Who decided what was part of that tradition and what was not?
If the oral tradition was so tightly controlled, why were there two creeds, one with an empty tomb and one (that Paul used) that omitted it?
If the oral tradition was so tightly controlled, why are the gospels not all the same?
Joe: I studied this in seminary ...
And yet you think "ideological spin doctoring" has substance and that things are guaranteed in ancient history.
Joe: I studied this in seminary you know nothing about it 20 years ago I had armistices could name the leading guys you don't know shit from lashing about this. You are angry because disproves your stupid little excuse,
So back up your claims.
Joe: read my essay community as author
Most of the quotes on that page (Koester, White, Bauckham) undermine your position! The only one that supports you is Chilton and Evans; here is a snippet:
"the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23]"
This is hardly convincing. Creationists use the same terms as scientists, but they are surely not scientists! Just because the early Christians used the same terms as the priests, that does not imply they tightly controlled the oral tradition any more than it implies they were also Jewish priests!
I was considering the religious leaders at Jesus' time. The point is that priests were and rabbis are trained to do what they do. As you concede, they are taught oral tradition, and given the job of controlling and relaying it.
Early Christianity just did not have that infrastructure. As far as we know, there were none who were trained in the control and transmission of an oral tradition. And there is nothing to suggest the early Christians considered these things to be an oral tradition in the formal sense.
Joe: we know for a fact they had oral tradition,every major scholar since the nineteenth century has agreed with it.
Another inevitable strawman. We all agree they had an oral tradition of some sort. The issue here is the nature of that tradition.
You claimed it was "tightly controlled". You have spent several posts now carefully avoiding defending that claim.
Joe: wen they started writing they quite doing oral then it started changing, You can see guys like Papias talking about both and he says he prefers the oral/
Wow, you think the stories changed after they got written down!
Given the passion narrative was written down around AD 50, that gives 20 years until Mark for things like the empty tomb to be invented, I guess. We will see how long it takes you to change your mind on that one!
Koester said Passion narrative contained the empty tomb already. So it was already old whenit was written about in AD 50
that os bill shit. none of them do.mu position was shaped by Koester you clearly have not read those guys
"the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23]"
This is hardly convincing. Creationists use the same terms as scientists, but they are surely not scientists!
No where near the same thing, utter ignorance to think of the early church as you think of creationists,Paul was a rabbi there were other manor rabbis who followed Jesus.You are arguing from analogy that is a fallacy,.
Just because the early Christians used the same terms as the priests, that does not imply they tightly controlled the oral tradition any more than it implies they were also Jewish priests!
I did not say that proves tightly control oral tradition,that we can assume since they grew up in Judaism they knew how to tightly control oral tradition no reason to thinl they would not, we have every indication they did from church history
12/17/2019 06:16:00 AM
That is just bull shit you have no knowledge of this,i already quoted experts saying they did
"It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers."
L. Michael White, "The Importance of Oral Tradition,"
the basic concept of oral ration is that you do control it,it's not just made up bs. or wild rumors, it's told in a cretin way and memorized,
https://reasonsforjesus.com/why-oral-tradition-was-reliable-in-the-writing-of-the-gospels/
"That short sayings of Jesus were the only ones recorded; and, by implication, are the only ones that we may reasonably assess as having been passed down to us from Him with any accuracy; and,
That these short sayings circulated by word of mouth for some 20 years before being written down."
Why Oral Tradition Was Reliable In The Writing Of The Gospels
Why Oral Tradition Was Reliable In The Writing Of The Gospels
"The Jesus Seminar, in line with this statement, does not accept as genuine any words of Jesus that are not recorded as aphorisms or parables. Sermons and stories are therefore considered “out of bounds,” probably creations of the early church.
This is an arbitrary restriction; as one writer puts it “No sage in the history of the world is so limited in the forms of speech he or she could have employed…” [Wilk.JUF, 20]
2) These short sayings circulated by word of mouth for some 20 years before being written down.
This in itself is a supposition without evidence, used with the presuppositions of the Seminar that only sayings that they determine have originated in the so-called oral period (30-50) could possibly have come from Jesus [Funk.5Q, 24], and that oral transmission is so primitive that it cannot reliably transmit anything except short, memorable phrases.
This presumption ignores any possibility that sayings, stories and sermons were put in some kind of written form early on and it also ignores the considerable importance given to rote memorization in Jewish society of the time, which would have permitted reliable oral transmission even for longer material.
[Hena.OTr, 15], a supporter of Jesus Seminar thinking, for example, refers to the “very communal, anonymous and changeable nature” of oral transmission, which is far from an accurate description of the process under consideration. True that oral tradition was communal, but communities had leaders who exerted control over the tradition, and that is the way it usually works in an oral-based community."
Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The from critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 18th century. They assumed the process was like that of European folklore. [1]
We can see the Folkloric model is operative today. In his discussion of oral tradition in the origins of Christianity Michael White speaks of the centrality of
quote: "story telling."
Story telling was at the center of the beginnings of the Jesus movement. And I think we're right to call it the Jesus movement here because if we think of it as Christianity, that is, from the perspective of the kind of movement and institutional religion that it would become a few hundred years later, we will miss the flavor of those earliest years of the kind of crude and rough beginnings, the small enclaves trying to keep the memory alive, and more than that, trying to understand what this Jesus meant for them. That's really the function of the story telling...it's a way for them to articulate their understanding of Jesus. And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves. At that moment we have caught an authentic and maybe one of the most historically significant parts of the development of Christianity.[2]
Yet White does not discount historical basis of the stories, He asserts that those aspects of the history that revitalized the movement would have been passed on. "It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers."[3]
Koester argues, however, that the historical memories are latter tropes, the latter generations reach back for the earlier memories while the first things to be enshrined in oral traditions are doctrinal and related to the emotive aspects.
quote"Now what happens as an oral tradition arises about an historical event or an historical person is that, strangely enough, the first oral tradition is not an attempt to remember exactly what happened, but is rather a return into the symbols of the tradition that could explain an event. Therefore, one has to imagine that legend and myth and hymn and prayer are the vehicles in which oral traditions develop. The move into a formulated tradition that looks as if it was a description of the actual historical events is actually the end result of such a development. Only the later writer would bring a report about Jesus' suffering that has the semblance of the report of the actual events, one after another, that happened."[4]
... The form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[6]
The first notion about oral tradition that needs to be discarded is the idea that it's like playing "the telephone game." Oral tradition is not wild rumors or randomly spread. It;s not like the so called "telephone game" because that game requires whispers and there are no controls on what is said. There were most probably controls, because the Jews had a controlled version of oral tradition, through which the Torah was handed down.[7]
This notion is basically alluded to by White: quote"So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him."close[8] What I am proposing is more formalist. The communal aspects of the early church often get remarked upon, the commune phrase, the communist phase of the gospel. The book of acts comments upon how that period played out:"
Koester also said the passion narrative was a fluid document; it was subject to frequent change. We do not know when the empty tomb was added - and indeed plenty of scholars say it was not part of the passion narrative, you just choose two who agree with you and ignore the rest.
The simple fact is, however, that it was NOT part of the early creed in 1 Cor 15.
Joe: that os bill shit. none of them do.mu position was shaped by Koester you clearly have not read those guys
White implicitly admits the stories changed; there was a "development" of the tradition:
"And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves."
Koester likewise acknowledges a developmental process, but goes further, saying this was from original "legend and myth"
"Therefore, one has to imagine that legend and myth and hymn and prayer are the vehicles in which oral traditions develop."
Bauckham notes there is a big difference between the oral tradition of bards and what happened with the early Christians, which destroys your comparison between the two:
"And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period."
Also:
"And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general."
Joe: No where near the same thing, utter ignorance to think of the early church as you think of creationists,Paul was a rabbi there were other manor rabbis who followed Jesus.You are arguing from analogy that is a fallacy,.
The point is that the argument is based on the fact that they use the same terms. The reasoning is the same - and just as bad - in both these arguments:
The early Christians use the same terminology as the Jewish priesthood
The Jewish priesthood tightly controlled oral tradition
Therefore the early Christians tightly controlled oral tradition
Creationists use the same terminology as real scientists
Real scientists do real science
Therefore creationists do real science
We both agree the second is nonsense. You want the first to be true, so you ignore the bad reason in that instance.
Are you saying EVERY Jew in that era knew how to tightly control oral tradition? Any evidence of that?
Besides wishful thinking.
Joe: ... we have every indication they did from church history
So far the only indication you have managed to contrive is the dubious argument that they used the same terms as the priesthood.
Joe: That is just bull shit you have no knowledge of this,i already quoted experts saying they did
Even experts have their own agenda. Tell me why the experts say they did; otherwise I will assume it is just their faith position, as it is with you.
the basic concept of oral ration is that you do control it,it's not just made up bs. or wild rumors, it's told in a cretin way and memorized,
So you disagree with Bauckham when he says (as quoted on your other page): "And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general."
See this is why I challenge you when you say "i already quoted experts saying they did". I know how you cherry-pick what you want from them.
Joe: "That short sayings of Jesus were the only ones recorded; and, by implication, are the only ones that we may reasonably assess as having been passed down to us from Him with any accuracy; and,
That these short sayings circulated by word of mouth for some 20 years before being written down."
What that implies is that the passion narrative was NOT passed down to us with any accuracy.
If you want to claim that various saying were Jesus actual words, then that is fine. I do not particularly care. The issue I am interested in is what happened around that first Easter. And what you quoted here and in the subsequent comment you posted indicates that that was not part of the oral tradition.
And that seems perfectly plausible. The oral tradition started with what Jesus said. Whether Jesus said it determined if it was part of the oral tradition, a clear delineation; something that at least potentially could be controlled.
That is quite unlike the passion narrative, which would have potentially had any number of witnesses contributing to it, or alternatively none at all and was originally contrived from OT verses and guesswork, and later expanded to include other stories as they came to light (i.e., were made up).
Joe: This notion is basically alluded to by White: quote"So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him."close[8] ...
That is not a tightly controlled oral tradition, that is a breeding ground for rumour, exaggeration and embellishment.
Joe: ... What I am proposing is more formalist. The communal aspects of the early church often get remarked upon, the commune phrase, the communist phase of the gospel. The book of acts comments upon how that period played out:"
So you disagree with what the expert said, and propose an alternative based on... what?
Koester also said the passion narrative was a fluid document; it was subject to frequent change. We do not know when the empty tomb was added - and indeed plenty of scholars say it was not part of the passion narrative, you just choose two who agree with you and ignore the rest.
You are trying to parle an extra level of uncertainty the charcoals never supported. both say empty tomb was part of the doc in AD 50 or so,
The simple fact is, however, that it was NOT part of the early creed in 1 Cor 15.
yes it's implication is obvious.
Joe: that os bill shit. none of them do.mu position was shaped by Koester you clearly have not read those guys
White implicitly admits the stories changed; there was a "development" of the tradition:
"And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves."
that does not mean they make it up ut means they arrange the material to relfect their needs,
Koester likewise acknowledges a developmental process, but goes further, saying this was from original "legend and myth"
No he did not say that nay where in early Christi Gospels. You take that from an article from early 90s that was before Dankher and Diatesseron work. It really is necessary to know the harlotry of scholarship.
Bauckham notes there is a big difference between the oral tradition of bards and what happened with the early Christians, which destroys your comparison between the two:
"And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period."
No there are analogous aspects The bards show us one can memorize huge amounts of work and spit it back from memory.
Also:
"And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general."
Joe: No where near the same thing, utter ignorance to think of the early church as you think of creationists,Paul was a rabbi there were other manor rabbis who followed Jesus.You are arguing from analogy that is a fallacy,.
The point is that the argument is based on the fact that they use the same terms. The reasoning is the same - and just as bad - in both these arguments:
The early Christians use the same terminology as the Jewish priesthood
The Jewish priesthood tightly controlled oral tradition
Therefore the early Christians tightly controlled oral tradition
Creationists use the same terminology as real scientists
Real scientists do real science
Therefore creationists do real science
We both agree the second is nonsense. You want the first to be true, so you ignore the bad reason in that instance.
you are just arguing from analogy, in the case of the Christians and ews they understood the process there was no methodological problem as with creationism and evolution
12/17/2019 11:58:00 PM Delete
Joe: I did not say that proves tightly control oral tradition,that we can assume since they grew up in Judaism they knew how to tightly control oral tradition no reason to thinl they would not...
Are you saying EVERY Jew in that era knew how to tightly control oral tradition? Any evidence of that?
anyone who memorized the teachers words knew how to do it. they knew to spit it back before others who knew it for a control,
Besides wishful thinking.
Joe: ... we have every indication they did from church history
So far the only indication you have managed to contrive is the dubious argument that they used the same terms as the priesthood.
that was your argument dpe, my argument is that they knew because they were part of the processor,
Joe: That is just bull shit you have no knowledge of this,i already quoted experts saying they did
12/18/2019 12:03:00 AM Delete
your experts have their own agenda,the guy who told yoy Mark made up the empty tomb had his own agenda.
the basic concept of oral ration is that you do control it,it's not just made up bs. or wild rumors, it's told in a cretin way and memorized,
So you disagree with Bauckham when he says (as quoted on your other page): "And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general."
you are taking out of context,butchering the quote,go read the book,you have no ide what he says,
See this is why I challenge you when you say "i already quoted experts saying they did". I know how you cherry-pick what you want from them.
you have totally embarrassed your self, your arguments smell like Bigfoot
Joe: "That short sayings of Jesus were the only ones recorded; and, by implication, are the only ones that we may reasonably assess as having been passed down to us from Him with any accuracy; and,
That these short sayings circulated by word of mouth for some 20 years before being written down."
What that implies is that the passion narrative was NOT passed down to us with any accuracy.
you are dong the amateurish stunt like an undergraduate of tryig to base arguments upon the scholarly caution. when they go "we do;t know much about this: that just means he;s about to tell you what we do know, ,
bull shit U just established they dud have controls, you lost. The Jews assert the control and accrual of the Talmud because of their oral tradition/
If you want to claim that various saying were Jesus actual words, then that is fine. I do not particularly care. The issue I am interested in is what happened around that first Easter. And what you quoted here and in the subsequent comment you posted indicates that that was not part of the oral tradition.
And that seems perfectly plausible. The oral tradition started with what Jesus said. Whether Jesus said it determined if it was part of the oral tradition, a clear delineation; something that at least potentially could be controlled.
That is quite unlike the passion narrative, which would have potentially had any number of witnesses contributing to it, or alternatively none at all and was originally contrived from OT verses and guesswork, and later expanded to include other stories as they came to light (i.e., were made up).
Joe: This notion is basically alluded to by White: quote"So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him."close[8] ...
That is not a tightly controlled oral tradition, that is a breeding ground for rumour, exaggeration and embellishment.
Joe: ... What I am proposing is more formalist. The communal aspects of the early church often get remarked upon, the commune phrase, the communist phase of the gospel. The book of acts comments upon how that period played out:"
So you disagree with what the expert said, and propose an alternative based on... what?
wtf? make some sense out of tha tmeaingless drivel.
PixSo far the only indication you have managed to contrive is the dubious argument that they used the same terms as the priesthood.
you made the argent about terms, my argumet was that they had an oral tradition fron Judaism they knew how to use it,
Even experts have their own agenda. Tell me why the experts say they did; otherwise I will assume it is just their faith position, as it is with you.
the entire edifice from which your arguments spring is buttressed by experts, but your experts are law and ,mine are shit, that's the way you have it, if i quote an expert he's suspect, that is a sophomoric republican style of argument,
Which indicates it was not in the narrative from ca. AD 30 to AD 50. Why not? It had not been invented.
Joe: yes it's implication is obvious.
The obvious implication is that the empty tomb had not been invented.
Joe: that does not mean they make it up ut means they arrange the material to relfect their needs,
It means the oral tradition changed, which destroys your claim that it was "tightly controlled".
Joe: No he did not say that nay where in early Christi Gospels.
He says it in the text you quoted on you other page, and that I repeated in my comment. I assume you did not read either of them.
Joe: You take that from an article from early 90s that was before Dankher and Diatesseron work. It really is necessary to know the harlotry of scholarship.
I took it from your web page. Are the references on there out of date? Why do you cite Koester as an authority then quote him holding a position you know he no longer holds?
Joe: No there are analogous aspects The bards show us one can memorize huge amounts of work and spit it back from memory.
Interesting assertion, but quite contrary to what Bauckham says in the quote on your other page.
Joe: you are just arguing from analogy, in the case of the Christians and ews they understood the process there was no methodological problem as with creationism and evolution
It is not just an analogy; the arguments use the same reasoning. If the reasoning is wrong in one then it must necessarily be wrong in the other - which is not the case for a mere analogy.
Joe: anyone who memorized the teachers words knew how to do it. they knew to spit it back before others who knew it for a control,
You know that how? Wishful thinking?
Exactly what was it they considered the oral tradition? According to your references, this was exclusively Jesus' sayings, so gives no support to any claim about the passion.
Joe: that was your argument dpe, my argument is that they knew because they were part of the processor,
So you are saying the oral tradition was "tightly controlled" because "they knew because they were part of the processor"? That gives no assurance at all of tight control!
They are YOUR experts Joe.
Joe: you are taking out of context,butchering the quote,go read the book,you have no ide what he says,
So what is the context, and how does that change the meaning? You cannot say, can you?
The reality is that I am right, but you want to kid yourself Bauckham agrees with you, so you invent this context nonsense.
Joe: you are dong the amateurish stunt like an undergraduate of tryig to base arguments upon the scholarly caution. when they go "we do;t know much about this: that just means he;s about to tell you what we do know, ,
Then shall we both agree that we cannot tell if the oral tradition of the passion was passed down accurately or not?
Somehow, I doubt you will.
Joe: bull shit U just established they dud have controls, you lost. The Jews assert the control and accrual of the Talmud because of their oral tradition/
We have established that they considered the sayings of Jesus to be worthy of being treated as oral tradition.
We have not established that oral tradition was "tightly controlled".
It is clear the transmission of the Talmud is NOT analogous because its transmission is formalised, and involves persons trained in its transmission.
It is clear that the saying of Jesus are of quite a different nature to the passion narrative, and there is no indication the details of passion were considered in any sense part of the oral tradition.
Joe: you made the argent about terms, my argumet was that they had an oral tradition fron Judaism they knew how to use it,
You are assuming that because the priests knew how to transmit an oral tradition it must follow that all the Jews did. That is highly unlikely.
Joe: the entire edifice from which your arguments spring is buttressed by experts, but your experts are law and ,mine are shit, that's the way you have it, if i quote an expert he's suspect, that is a sophomoric republican style of argument,
ALL the experts are yours, Joe. I am only using quotes you have already supplied, and pointing out that they support me and not you.
Which indicates it was not in the narrative from ca. AD 30 to AD 50. Why not? It had not been invented.
so you can read that in and that proves it"? that's is Trump like.
Joe: yes it's implication is obvious.
The obvious implication is that the empty tomb had not been invented.
I showed several reason to think it was part of the earliest lore, you are not listening,
Joe: that does not mean they make it up ut means they arrange the material to relfect their needs,
It means the oral tradition changed, which destroys your claim that it was "tightly controlled".
can;t have resurrection without empty tomb.
(1) the presence in writing in 50 indicates it came out of oral tradition that means it was early.
(2)inky 18 years from the original event so plenty of witnesses around to confirm it,
He says it in the text you quoted on you other page, and that I repeated in my comment. I assume you did not read either of them.
Joe: You take that from an article from early 90s that was before Dankher and Diatesseron work. It really is necessary to know the harlotry of scholarship.
I took it from your web page. Are the references on there out of date? Why do you cite Koester as an authority then quote him holding a position you know he no longer holds?
I just explained the context go read the book
They are YOUR experts Joe.
you used a set of experts to fore your little senerio about Mark as the orin of everything. It's pathetic when you have to try to use expertise as a negative credential because you can't mount an effective factually based argument,a
Joe: you are taking out of context,but chering the quote,go read the book,you have no ide what he says,
So what is the context, and how does that change the meaning? You cannot say, can you?
The reality is that I am right, but you want to kid yourself Bauckham agrees with you, so you invent this context nonsense.
you are not making a coherent argument
Joe: you are dong the amateurish stunt like an undergraduate of tryig to base arguments upon the scholarly caution. when they go "we do;t know much about this: that just means he;s about to tell you what we do know, ,
Then shall we both agree that we cannot tell if the oral tradition of the passion was passed down accurately or not?
I have given reasons to think it goes all the way back as most scholars do you have no answer so you try to use expertise as a disproof, you can;t trust experts,
Somehow, I doubt you will.
Joe: bull shit U just established they dud have controls, you lost. The Jews assert the control and accrual of the Talmud because of their oral tradition/
We have established that they considered the sayings of Jesus to be worthy of being treated as oral tradition.
We have not established that oral tradition was "tightly controlled".
Yes I did bit I am bracketing that because it will be the major subject of Monday's work.
It is clear the transmission of the Talmud is NOT analogous because its transmission is formalised, and involves persons trained in its transmission.
Paul and other early christians were trained in it,read the history of the Talmud.
It is clear that the saying of Jesus are of quite a different nature to the passion narrative, and there is no indication the details of passion were considered in any sense part of the oral tradition.
I just quoted scholars who say the teachings of Jesus in the gospels read like oral tradition. The frommat the words are put into is that of oral tradition
first oral
then collected into written form
then put into narrative
"Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed,
in the maele above you claimed he said it was fluid and not fixed. you were mistaken it was the opposite, fixed not fluid, that means controlled.
"and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on" [1] reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.:
there he alludes to the Jew's oral tradition. i will more on the contol aspect on Monday
quote
unwritten but unaltered.[1] In such circles it would be entirely natural to treat the earliest account of Jesus' deeds and words in just this way. It is to this practice that Paul unmistakably refers, quoting from the Christian tradition our oldest account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, I Cor. 11:24, 25. It will be noted that he speaks of having previously passed this account on to the Corinthians. He speaks in a similar way in I Cor. 15:3-7 of the resurrection accounts which he had communicated to them: "I passed onto you as of first importance, the account I had received."
Acts similarly speaks of "remembering the words of the Lord Jesus," 20:35, and quotes words of Jesus that have never been found in any written gospel. Clement of Rome, in writing to the Corinthians about A.D.95, in two places—13:1 and 46:7, 8—quotes sayings of Jesus not quite like any in our gospels, admonishing his readers in both passages to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus." Polycarp of Smyrna in his letter to the Philippians, about A.D. 107-17, does the same, introducing the quotation with the words, "Remembering what the Lord said," Phil. 2:3. It seems clear that all four are quoting an Oral Gospel.[2]
This is internal evidence. Is there any external evidence,
[1] This attitude is clearly reflected in the story that Gamaliel the First, about A.D. 50, seeing a written copy of an Aramaic translation of Job, immediately had it destroyed. The Targum was not to be written but remembered; cf. Meyer Waxman, History of Jewish Literature (New York, 1930), II, p. 113.
[2] All these writers quote written documents in quite another way: I Cor 7:1; Gal. 3:13; Acts 1:20; I Clem. 47:1, 2; Pol. Phil. 3:2.
close quote
link
(2) Pauline references
Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q avaible to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem chruch and the proto "Orthodox" faith.
scroll to the bottom of this page for chart
Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q avaible to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem chruch and the proto "Orthodox" faith.
scroll to bottom for chart
It is what the evidence points to.
Joe: I showed several reason to think it was part of the earliest lore, you are not listening,
Not true. You have found a couple of scholars who say it was in the passion narrative, and that the passion narrative dates from AD 50, and have leaped to the dubious conclusion that the passion narrative included it in AD 50.
And AD 50 is two decades after the earliest lore!
Joe: can;t have resurrection without empty tomb.
Of course you can, if it is in a new body, and 1 Cor 15 is all about how it is a new body. James Tabor - a Christian who believes in the empty tomb - agree with me here about the earliest beliefs about the nature of the resuurection:
https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-confused-about-the-earliest-christian-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead/
Joe: (1) the presence in writing in 50 indicates it came out of oral tradition that means it was early.
No it does not. It is dubious it was even in the passion narrative at AD 50, but we have no reason to think it pre-dates that at all, and indeed the creed in 1 Cor 15 is good reason to think it does not.
Joe: (2)inky 18 years from the original event so plenty of witnesses around to confirm it,
To confirm what? The oldest empty tomb narrative we have is Mark 16 (and please do not embarrass yourself again by saying the passion narrative is older; Mark is the oldest that we have). It is quite clear that there were only three witnesses and they never told anyone.
If Mark is accurate, then no one in Judea other than the three women had the slightest inkling there was an empty tomb at the time. These "plenty of witnesses" were invented later - probably after AD 70, when the relevant people would be dead or scattered by the aftermath of the Jewish revolt.
Joe: I just explained the context ...
No you have not!
Joe: you used a set of experts to fore your little senerio about Mark as the orin of everything. It's pathetic when you have to try to use expertise as a negative credential because you can't mount an effective factually based argument,a
And now you are off into fantasy land again. Mark was not the origin of everything. I have never said that, this is just a straw man you trot out when you know you have lost.
Mark may be the origin of the empty tomb, but I am happy to suppose otherwise. He may well be the source of the three women finding the empty tomb, invented to link the empty tomb to the events in Galilee, he may not. He certainly is NOT the origin of the sightings in Galilee, which I would guess date from weeks to months after the crucifixion. He is certainly NOT the origin of the sightings in Jerusalem, the guard on the tomb, the spear in Jesus' side, etc. which date to after AD 70.
You have cited two scholars who say it the passion narrative goes back to AD 50 and that at some point the empty tomb was part of the passion narrative. You have then assumed the empty tomb was in the passion narrative from AD 50.
And that still leaves the best part of two decades between the event and it supposedly getting into the passion narrative.
Joe: Paul and other early christians were trained in it,read the history of the Talmud.
Paul was not a witness.
What other early Christians were trained in oral tradition? Of those who were actually there? Were the fishermen? Was the tax collector? Of course not!
Joe: I just quoted scholars who say the teachings of Jesus in the gospels read like oral tradition. The frommat the words are put into is that of oral tradition
They said the sayings were considered oral tradition. As you said "Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q avaible to him."
They did not say the passion narrative was considered oral tradition.
They did not say the early Christians were trained in the accurate transmission of oral tradition.
They did not say the oral tradition was "tightly controlled".
What we have is a bunch of amateurs trying to preserve what Jesus said, trying to do what the priesthood did, but without the training to do it properly, and even then, we have no reason to suppose the account of the first Easter was considered part of the oral tradition, that it was controlled in any way whatsoever.
It is what the evidence points to.
Joe: I showed several reason to think it was part of the earliest lore, you are not listening,
Not true. You have found a couple of scholars who say it was in the passion narrative, and that the passion narrative dates from AD 50, and have leaped to the dubious conclusion that the passion narrative included it in AD 50.
that is writing,since we know the church began with oral tradition we know the writing took from that tradition so they had already tallied about it before 50. The rule of thumb is to allow 10 years for travel time and 10 for copy time,that puts the begining.
And AD 50 is two decades after the earliest lore!
you are not accounting for the oral tradition
Joe: can;t have resurrection without empty tomb.
Of course you can, if it is in a new body, and 1 Cor 15 is all about how it is a new body. James Tabor - a Christian who believes in the empty tomb - agree with me here about the earliest beliefs about the nature of the resuurection:
https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-confused-about-the-earliest-christian-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead/
Tabor is actually an unbeliever,I know him I used to contract him a long time ago when I first started on intent apologetic. I have no idea what you are saying about a new body
Joe: (1) the presence in writing in 50 indicates it came out of oral tradition that means it was early.
No it does not. It is dubious it was even in the passion narrative at AD 50, but we have no reason to think it pre-dates that at all, and indeed the creed in 1 Cor 15 is good reason to think it does not.
That is quite ignorant,what I', saying is quite standard and almost everyone agrees
To confirm what? The oldest empty tomb narrative we have is Mark 16 (and please do not embarrass yourself again by saying the passion narrative is older; Mark is the oldest that we have). It is quite clear that there were only three witnesses and they never told anyone.
You I just got through talking about it as part of the passion narrative from AD50 Crosson and Koester date it to 50. That Bull shit about Mark is just internet atheist easygesius.
If Mark is accurate, then no one in Judea other than the three women had the slightest inkling there was an empty tomb at the time. These "plenty of witnesses" were invented later - probably after AD 70, when the relevant people would be dead or scattered by the aftermath of the Jewish revolt.
Paul says he rose writting in 50s. how did he do that without leaving an empty tomb?
Joe: I just explained the context ...
No you have not!
what do you know about it? you don;t know shit.that isthecontext,
Joe: you used a set of experts to fore your little senerio about Mark as the orin of everything. It's pathetic when you have to try to use expertise as a negative credential because you can't mount an effective factually based argument,a
And now you are off into fantasy land again. Mark was not the origin of everything. I have never said that, this is just a straw man you trot out when you know you have lost.
you just said it four lines up
to wit: "If Mark is accurate, then no one in Judea other than the three women had the slightest inkling there was an empty tomb at the time. These "plenty of witnesses" were invented later - probably after AD 70"
why do you think the call it Pre Mark redaction?,Pre Mark pre Mrk before mark
Mark may be the origin of the empty tomb, but I am happy to suppose otherwise. He may well be the source of the three women finding the empty tomb, invented to link the empty tomb to the events in Galilee, he may not.
I* quoteioester ver batium "TyePassion narrative in AD 60 endedwityteheptytoimb!" hesaysit poimt blan
Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![12]
Koester:p220
Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb
that is bull shit they grew up ,memorization. we can see they had trained people in their group.
They did not say the oral tradition was "tightly controlled".
I told you to bracket that because I;m doing a thing on Monday,
I have documented that several times now
What we have is a bunch of amateurs trying to preserve what Jesus said, trying to do what the priesthood did, but without the training to do it properly, and even then, we have no reason to suppose the account of the first Easter was considered part of the oral tradition, that it was controlled in any way whatsoever.
you make that up based upon your ignorance, try reading the bible because you make big produce ents abouit it.
(1)you have to prove that memorization rewires all this vast technical knowledge
(2) You must prove that only an elite had this knowledge and that the Christians did not have access
(3) Nichademus was Rabbi,Sanhedrin and follower of Jesus and a rabbi and Sanhedrin so he could have taught them
(4) Paul being a rabbi would have access
Joseph Hinman is a gonad, working so hard to defend the indefensible. He is defending superstitious garbage and needs to grow up some. Evolution refute your religion. YOu are just a couch potato who watches porn all day.
MY good cretin, get this through your thick skull:. first I can't walk I can't even get out of bed. So it's either this or watch re runs of I love Lucy all the time. Secondly,I am 64 I have had a full lief. I've had more jobs and better than you ever had and I was better at them than you. Finally,3, don't don't come back.