The Form Critical school of Biblical criticism holds that there were no eye witnesses to the Gospel events, it was made up.They also adhere to the Form critical ideology of oral tration as wild rumers. None of this is true. Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. The writers of the Gospels did not invent anything because that was totally opposed to what they were about.[1]
...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] 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 traditional 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions.
Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(25)[2]
The form critical movement was motivated by a worldview rooted firmly in the nineteenth century; a view based upon outmoded notions about folklore, history, and oral tradition. They assumed that oral tradition was preferred because their world was ending and it was replaced by written documents when the Churches eschatological expectations dried up.Qumran soured modern scholarship on that view because they had strong escatological expectations and they were prolific writers.[3]
N. T. Wright, critiquing the Jesus Seminar's view of oral tradition as uncontrolled and informal based on some irrelevant research done in modern Western non-oral societies writes:
"Against this whole line of thought we must set the serious study of genuinely oral traditions that has gone on in various quarters recently.[4] For example, see H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), referring to a large amount of earlier work; Bailey, "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition," 34-54. The following discussion depends on these and similar studies, and builds on Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 418-43; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133-37.)[5]both by Wright.
Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities. They sit around in long evenings telling and listening to stories--the same stories, over and over again. Such stories, especially when they are involved with memorable happenings that have determined in some way the existence and life of the particular group in question, acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology (in narrative as well as in recorded speech), extremely early in their life--often within a day or so of the original incident taking place. They retain that form, and phraseology, as long as they are told. Each village and community has its recognized storytellers, the accredited bearers of its traditions; but the whole community knows the stories by heart, and if the teller varies them even slightly they will let him know in no uncertain terms. This matters quite a lot in cultures where, to this day, the desire to avoid 'shame' is a powerful motivation. "Such cultures do also repeat, and hence transmit, proverbs, and pithy sayings. Indeed, they tend to know far more proverbs than the orally starved modern Western world. But the circulation of such individual sayings is only the tip of the iceberg; the rest is narrative, narrative with embedded dialogue, heard, repeated again and again within minutes, hours and days of the original incident, and fixed in memories the likes of which few in the modern Western world can imagine. The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told. "And the stories about Jesus were nothing if not important. Even the Jesus Seminar admits that Jesus was an itinerant wonder-worker. Very well. Supposing a woman in a village is suddenly healed after a lengthy illness. Even today, even in a non-oral culture, the story of such an event would quickly spread among friends, neighbors and relatives, acquiring a fixed form within the first two or three retellings and retaining it, other things being equal, thereafter. In a culture where storytelling was and is an art-form, a memorable event such as this, especially if it were also seen as a sign that Israel's God was now at last at work to do what he had always promised, would be told at once in specific ways, told so as to be not just a celebration of a healing but also a celebration of the Kingdom of God. Events and stories of this order are community-forming, and the stories which form communities do not get freely or loosely adapted. One does not disturb the foundations of the house in which one is living."[B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus [6]
Edward Goodspeed, one of the most renowned liberals of his day (20s-50s)argued that Christians were required to memorise certain texts and repeated them back in pubic.He aegued that this was the highly controled natre of oral traditim. It was not wild rumors or making things up.
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" 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.[7]
example:
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.
Oral tradition is a carefully controlled process. The Jews understood how to learn the words of their teachers and preserve them just as they were spoken. All oral cultures understand how to control the process."No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, [8] Neil adds in a fn: IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian Scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled 'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings' (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form critical method."[9]
N. T. Wright, critiquing the Jesus Seminar's view of oral tradition as uncontrolled and informal based on some irrelevant research done in modern Western non-oral societies writes:"Against this whole line of thought we must set the serious study of genuinely oral traditions that has gone on in various quarters recently. [10] Jerome Neyrey says,see also- Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh, - See also John Pilch, Jerome Neyrey, and David deSilva. [11]
A great review of oral transmission within the gospels can be found in James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered. is a useful review of the progress from the form critics to now, and from 210ff he makes some proposals about the synoptics and oral narratives.[12]
From Dunn from his essay "Altering the Default Setting...":
The literary mindset (‘default setting’) of modern Western culture prevents those trained in that culture from recognizing that oral cultures operate differently. The classic solution to the Synoptic problem, and the chief alternatives, have envisaged the relationships between the Gospel traditions in almost exclusively literary terms. But the earliest phase of transmission of the Jesus tradition was without doubt predominantly by word of mouth. And recent studies of oral cultures provide several characteristic features of oral tradition. Much of the Synoptic tradition, even in its present form, reflects in particular the combination of stability and flexibility so characteristic of the performances of oral tradition. Re-envisaging the early transmission of the Jesus tradition therefore requires us to recognize that the literary paradigm (including a clearly delineated Q document) is too restrictive in the range of possible explanations it offers for the diverse/divergent character of Synoptic parallels. Variation in detail may simply attest the character of oral performance rather than constituting evidence of literary redaction.[13]
Sources
[1] B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.) Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998,53-55.
[2] Ibid Chilton and Evens foot notes:
22. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer. 23. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess 24. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 298-311. 25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4 (1967) 431-55.
[3]Ibid
[4]N.T. Wright, "Five Gospels But No Gospel," Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,op cit 112-113.
[5]Ibid.
[6]B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans op cit 113-115.
[7]Goodspeed, Intorduction to New Testament, Chcago: University of Chicago press, 1937, 126.
[8] Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, 250.
[9] Ibid
[10] NT Wright, op cit, 112-113
He also sights
H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), referring to a large amount of earlier work; Bailey, "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition," 34-54. The following discussion depends on these and similar studies, and builds on Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 418-43; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133-37.
[11] Jerome Neyrey, "Group Orientation." Handbook of Biblical Social Values John Pilch and Bruce Malina. 2000, 94-97.
[12]James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Edition Unstated,July 29, 2003,192-210.
Personally, I find the work of Birger Gerhardsson quite well done and would recommend the relatively small book The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition for those interested in early Christian oral transmission. Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony is very interesting and has opened (or in other cases, reopened) discussions.
For anyone interested, I think journal articles are probably easier to obtain, some of which do not require database access: P.M. Head, “The Role of Eyewitnesses in the Formation of the Gospel Tradition”, Tyndale Bulletin vol. 52 no. 2, 2001, p. 275ff * Michael F. Bird, “The Purpose and Preservation of the Jesus Tradition”, B.B.R. 15.2, 2005, pp. 161-185.* , K.E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels”, Themelios, vol. 20 no. 2, 1995, pp. 4-11.* James .D.G. Dunn, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition”, New Testament Studies. vol. 49, 2003, pp. 139-175.
[13] D.G. Dunn, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition”, New Testament Studies . vol. 49, 2003, pp. 139-175. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/altering-the-default-setting-reenvisaging-the-early-transmission-of-the-jesus-tradition/839C40D71DB348907B809F1AF740AF33
15 comments:
There were a lot of other people that Rome crucified because they were leading movements that it found threatening. The way it worked was, someone started a movement, Rome executed them, the movement died with all its followers scattered. Not this one. Instead, the followers claimed their leader had risen from the dead. The thing was that they acted like they really thought this was true-- to the extent that their movement grew rather than dying out. Why was that? Maybe the eyewitnesses were believed because it really happened.
good point Kristen.
Joe: Oral tradition is a carefully controlled process. The Jews understood how to learn the words of their teachers and preserve them just as they were spoken. All oral cultures understand how to control the process."No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, [8] Neil adds in a fn: IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian Scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled 'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings' (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form critical method."[9]
What this describes is how Jesus' words were recorded. Jesus taught the disciples what to say, they practiced saying it, then went off to say it.
But that is quite different to the stories about what happened to Jesus. Clearly Jesus taught no one the words to say for the passion narrative. The disciples were obliged to make it up - even if what they said was true in each detail, they had to choose the words themselves.
Joe: 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;
Agreed - though how much was original is debatable, and some say only verses 3 to 5.
The important point to note there is how short it is. that is all they had originally. They knew Jesus was crucified, they knew Peter and then the other disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus. And according to the scriptures (Hosea 6:2), they believed Jesus rose on the third day.
Everything else we read in the gospels of the passion was added later.
Pix
Kristen: There were a lot of other people that Rome crucified because they were leading movements that it found threatening. The way it worked was, someone started a movement, Rome executed them, the movement died with all its followers scattered. Not this one. Instead, the followers claimed their leader had risen from the dead. The thing was that they acted like they really thought this was true-- to the extent that their movement grew rather than dying out. Why was that? Maybe the eyewitnesses were believed because it really happened.
Worth noting that John the Baptist still had a following many years after his execution (Acts 19:3-4). Of course, that did not last as long as Christianity...
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Oral tradition is a carefully controlled process. The Jews understood how to learn the words of their teachers and preserve them just as they were spoken. All oral cultures understand how to control the process."No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, [8] Neil adds in a fn: IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian Scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled 'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings' (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form critical method."[9]
What this describes is how Jesus' words were recorded. Jesus taught the disciples what to say, they practiced saying it, then went off to say it.
But that is quite different to the stories about what happened to Jesus. Clearly Jesus taught no one the words to say for the passion narrative. The disciples were obliged to make it up - even if what they said was true in each detail, they had to choose the words themselves.
You are dogmatically asserting that it excludes what your argument needs excluded. That is not evidence. Since we know the oral tradition included the narrative story of Jesus life we should assume it included the events in the Gospels.
Joe: 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;
Agreed - though how much was original is debatable, and some say only verses 3 to 5.
so they selectively excluded the things your argument needs to have excluded. No one is saying that only this passage was part of oral tradition The entire story we find in the Gospels was part of that tradition.
The important point to note there is how short it is. that is all they had originally. They knew Jesus was crucified, they knew Peter and then the other disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus. And according to the scriptures (Hosea 6:2), they believed Jesus rose on the third day.
That is nuts. you no basis for that assertion.
Everything else we read in the gospels of the passion was added later.
Bull shit! that would never work. you are in a group where you have to memorize a set story, and spirt back and witnesses repeat the story every night at dinner, one night they say here's this other thing we never heard of before from now on its part of the story. They value the knowledge of what happened so much they memories but they are willing to alter it at moment's notice?
11:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Kristen: There were a lot of other people that Rome crucified because they were leading movements that it found threatening. The way it worked was, someone started a movement, Rome executed them, the movement died with all its followers scattered. Not this one. Instead, the followers claimed their leader had risen from the dead. The thing was that they acted like they really thought this was true-- to the extent that their movement grew rather than dying out. Why was that? Maybe the eyewitnesses were believed because it really happened.
Worth noting that John the Baptist still had a following many years after his execution (Acts 19:3-4). Of course, that did not last as long as Christianity...
He was nit executed by Rome but by Herod. There is no evidence his followers were active as such by the time of Paul.
Anonymous said...
Joe: You are dogmatically asserting that it excludes what your argument needs excluded. That is not evidence. Since we know the oral tradition included the narrative story of Jesus life we should assume it included the events in the Gospels.
So are you claiming Jesus did NOT teach the disciples how to memories his words? Or that he taught them how to memories the passion narrative? Because if you are saying it was the same for both...
Hu? what post did you read? They were probably taught to memorize as children before they knew Jesus. They would have learned the details of his life from him, his brothers, and his mother. Remember James? His brother. The 12 supplied details of his ministry and the end of his life..
Joe: so they selectively excluded the things your argument needs to have excluded. No one is saying that only this passage was part of oral tradition The entire story we find in the Gospels was part of that tradition.
They excluded what they excluded. That my argument needs them to be excluded would seem to be evidence my argument is right.
That is the most bazar way to look at things. Obviously they would not just tailor the truth to suit you.
I agree that no one is saying that creed is the only part of the oral tradition. There was also all the sayings Jesus had them memorise.
the events of the narrative as well.
However, if we are talking just about the passion, then yes, that was likely all they had at first. As Koester says, p224:
One can assume the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Peter and the guys are just going to stand there going "da we dom't know what happened! Of course not.. He's wrong. He also says the PMR ends with the empty tomb.so he is not saying the empty is not part of the earliest strata.
Joe: That is nuts. you no basis for that assertion.
It is right there in the text; "according to scripture".
No you doing a bait and switch, Obviously the oral tradition included the empty tomb.
Joe: Bull shit! that would never work. you are in a group where you have to memorize a set story, and spit back and witnesses repeat the story every night at dinner, one night they say here's this other thing we never heard of before from now on its part of the story. They value the knowledge of what happened so much they memories but they are willing to alter it at moment's notice?
There would be different people moving between communities. The new guy comes to the community from another church, and he says there must have been an empty tomb. What happens?
That's more difficult to believe. New guy doesn't know our stories why would they accept it? why they believe some guy who does not have the backing of the apostles?
Again, read what Koester said.
(1)He can be wrung (2)He he's only talking about the passion proper mt the resurrection,
Joe: He was not executed by Rome but by Herod. There is no evidence his followers were active as such by the time of Paul.
They were still active; the Bible verses make that clear. You did see that I cited Bible verses, right?
Even so I'm not sure what that changes
Joe: Hu? what post did you read? They were probably taught to memorize as children before they knew Jesus. They would have learned the details of his life from him, his brothers, and his mother. Remember James? His brother. The 12 supplied details of his ministry and the end of his life..
To me the big issue here is that you are conflating Jesus words with the accounts of what he did. For example, when you said:
"Since we know the oral tradition included the narrative story of Jesus life we should assume it included the events in the Gospels."
Certainly in the gospels they are all mixed in there together, but we have no reason to think that that is how they were originally recorded, and indeed Q and the PMPN would suggest otherwise. Q was a book of sayings, not an account of what happened. The PMPN was an account of what happened, not sayings.
Think about the situation on the day Jesus was crucified. All his sayings were part of the oral tradition. The passion obviously was not, because it was still happening.
What you are doing is presenting a great case for why the oral tradition - the sayings Jesus taught his followers - was preserved. But then you assume the same must have applied to the account of his death, and I think there is no justification to support that assumption.
Joe: That is the most bazar way to look at things. Obviously they would not just tailor the truth to suit you.
Look at it from the other side. My theory fits because it is right.
Joe: the events of the narrative as well.
What is your basis for that? Clearly Jesus did not teach them to memorise the passion!
Joe: Peter and the guys are just going to stand there going "da we dom't know what happened! Of course not.. He's wrong. He also says the PMR ends with the empty tomb.so he is not saying the empty is not part of the earliest strata.
But what if the disciples fled Jerusalem (Mark 14:27), and really did not know what happened?
In a sense you are right. They are NOT going to stand there going "da we dom't know what happened!". Instead, they guessed what happened, based on what the OT indicated. Hence, Koester says:
One can assume the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Furthermore, the empty tomb is NOT in the earliest strata; it is missing from 1 Cor 15.
Joe: No you doing a bait and switch, Obviously the oral tradition included the empty tomb.
And yet it is missing from 1 Cor 15, believed to be the earliest creed.
Joe: That's more difficult to believe. New guy doesn't know our stories why would they accept it? why they believe some guy who does not have the backing of the apostles?
You are thinking about one community that kept itself to itself. I am seeing this as numerous comunities spread a long way apart, with people - like Paul - traveling between them. In fact Paul is a great example of someone who had authority in the early church, but never even met Jesus. I am not suggesting he made stuff up, but he shows how there were people travelling between distance communities who were regarded with respect.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: You are dogmatically asserting that it excludes what your argument needs excluded. That is not evidence. Since we know the oral tradition included the narrative story of Jesus life we should assume it included the events in the Gospels.
So are you claiming Jesus did NOT teach the disciples how to memorise his words? Or that he taught them how to memorise the passion narrative? Because if you are saying it was the same for both...
Joe: so they selectively excluded the things your argument needs to have excluded. No one is saying that only this passage was part of oral tradition The entire story we find in the Gospels was part of that tradition.
They excluded what they excluded. That my argument needs them to be excluded would seem to be evidence my argument is right.
They did not exclude it. the only thing you have tp suggest they did is that this is what you need excluded.
I agree that no one is saying that creed is the only part of the oral tradition. There was also all the meaningless sayings Jesus had them memorized.
And the narrative it would all be without that, we have examples that show they did. Paul says "on the night he was betrayed..." Obviously telling the narrative.
However, if we are talking just about the passion, then yes, that was likely all they had at first. As Koester says, p224:
One can assume the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of scripture.
You are altering the meaning of his statement. He is not saying the passion is all they have. He says all they know about the passion is the basic events of the passion, All they know about the passion NOT all they know Jesus.
Joe: That is nuts. you no basis for that assertion.
It is right there in the text; "according to scripture".
Joe: Bull shit! that would never work. you are in a group where you have to memorize a set story, and spirt back and witnesses repeat the story every night at dinner, one night they say here's this other thing we never heard of before from now on its part of the story. They value the knowledge of what happened so much they memories but they are willing to alter it at moment's notice?
There would be different people moving between communities. The new guy comes to the community from another church, and he says there must have been an empty tomb. What happens?
NONONo that is just what their system is designed to prevent, a new guy coming with new details would be ignored.
Again, read what Koester said.
Yes he said WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THE PASSION NOT WHAT THEY KNOW EN TOTO
Joe: He was not executed by Rome but by Herod. There is no evidence his followers were active as such by the time of Paul.
They were still active; the Bible verses make that clear. You did see that I cited Bible verses, right?
they did not say that. There are figures said to have been with John such as Pricilla and Aquilla but it never says John's disciples were still an inactive group by the time of Paul.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You are dogmatically asserting that it excludes what your argument needs excluded. That is not evidence. Since we know the oral tradition included the narrative story of Jesus life we should assume it included the events in the Gospels.
So are you claiming Jesus did NOT teach the disciples how to memorize his words? Or that he taught them how to memorize the passion narrative? Because if you are saying it was the same for both...
Jesus would not need to teach them how to memorize anymore than he would need to teach them how to write. That is somethig they learned as part of the culture.
Joe: so they selectively excluded the things your argument needs to have excluded. No one is saying that only this passage was part of oral tradition The entire story we find in the Gospels was part of that tradition.
They excluded what they excluded. That my argument needs them to be excluded would seem to be evidence my argument is right.
circular reasoning. The only evidence you have that they did exclude anything is that you need then to have done so.
I agree that no one is saying that creed is the only part of the oral tradition. There was also all the sayings Jesus had them memorise.
the events of the narrative
However, if we are talking just about the passion, then yes, that was likely all they had at first. As Koester says, p224:
One can assume the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of scripture.
That only applies to the passion itself.
Joe: That is nuts. you no basis for that assertion.
It is right there in the text; "according to scripture".
Joe: Bull shit! that would never work. you are in a group where you have to memorize a set story, and spirt back and witnesses repeat the story every night at dinner, one night they say here's this other thing we never heard of before from now on its part of the story. They value the knowledge of what happened so much they memories but they are willing to alter it at moment's notice?
There would be different people moving between communities. The new guy comes to the community from another church, and he says there must have been an empty tomb. What happens?
The resurrection has to be foundational or there is no reason to have a group. Where there is redirection there is an empty tomb.
Again, read what Koester said.
I've read the bool. Koester was a believer you are not in line with what Kester says. Also Koester can be wrong
Joe: He was not executed by Rome but by Herod. There is no evidence his followers were active as such by the time of Paul.
They were still active; the Bible verses make that clear. You did see that I cited Bible verses, right?
what verses? what difference does it make?
Joe: They did not exclude it. the only thing you have tp suggest they did is that this is what you need excluded.
And yet the empty tomb is excluded from the creed in 1 Cor 15.
Pix: I agree that no one is saying that creed is the only part of the oral tradition. There was also all the sayings Jesus had them memorise.
Joe, misquoting Pix: I agree that no one is saying that creed is the only part of the oral tradition. There was also all the meaningless sayings Jesus had them memorized.
What is going on here Joe? You seem to have inserted "meaningless" into my quote. That is not good.
Joe: And the narrative it would all be without that, we have examples that show they did. Paul says "on the night he was betrayed..." Obviously telling the narrative.
Not sure what your point is here. My position is that there was no continuous narrative like we have now in the gospels; instead there were isolated episodes of what happened, the PMPN being a typical example. What the gospel authors did - Mark especially as he was likely the first - was collate this into a single story.
Pix: However, if we are talking just about the passion, then yes, that was likely all they had at first. As Koester says, p224:
Koester: One can assume the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Joe: You are altering the meaning of his statement. He is not saying the passion is all they have. He says all they know about the passion is the basic events of the passion, All they know about the passion NOT all they know Jesus.
I introduced the passage by Koester with "if we are talking just about the passion", so you comment here is irrelevant.
Joe: NONONo that is just what their system is designed to prevent, a new guy coming with new details would be ignored.
How do you know that?
How do you then explain Paul's position of authority within the early church? He very much was the new guy, and he had new ideas that the original twelve disagreed with.
Joe: they did not say that. There are figures said to have been with John such as Pricilla and Aquilla but it never says John's disciples were still an inactive group by the time of Paul.
Here is the text:
Acts 19:3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
I think it is pretty clear the people Paul is talking to are followers of John the Baptist.
Pix
Joe: Jesus would not need to teach them how to memorize anymore than he would need to teach them how to write. That is somethig they learned as part of the culture.
You are telling me simple fishermen could just remember everything Jesus had said to them over the entire course of his ministry?
No, Joe. That is not how it works. Oral tradition needs to be established - someone needs to decide that a passage is to be oral tradition, the exact words need to be clear to all involved, and people just need to practice reciting it.
With Jesus' saying, Jesus controlled that process. With the accounts of what he did, there was no control.
Joe: circular reasoning. The only evidence you have that they did exclude anything is that you need then to have done so.
The evidence is all the things excluded from the creed in 1 Cor 15. And is supported by the passage I quoted from Koester that shows this is his position too.
Joe: That only applies to the passion itself.
When I said "if we are talking just about the passion", I meant that it applies only to the passion itself. Apologies for the confusion.
Joe: The resurrection has to be foundational or there is no reason to have a group. Where there is redirection there is an empty tomb.
I think your logic here shows how blinkered your thinking is. There would not be an empty tomb if:
* Jesus was buried in a tomb with other corpses
* Jesus was buried in a communal grave for criminals
* Jesus was just left on the cross
* Jesus was resurrected in a new body
Joe: I've read the bool. Koester was a believer you are not in line with what Kester says. Also Koester can be wrong
Of course he can be wrong, and yes I disagree with him on some bits, but the fact is that a very well respected Biblical author - one you cite routinely - agrees with me on this.
Pix
I introduced the passage by Koester with "if we are talking just about the passion", so you comment here is irrelevant.
Joe: NONONo that is just what their system is designed to prevent, a new guy coming with new details would be ignored.
How do you know that?
well why the hell would they go to the trouble to memorize if they didn't mean to keep it straight? why would they not take the same view they did with the OT which was: keep It the same.
How do you then explain Paul's position of authority within the early church? He very much was the new guy, and he had new ideas that the original twelve disagreed with.
That was only after he proved himself. WE are told in acts he met with the big names and got permission to go on missionary journey and to get that he presented to them his virion of the Gospel and they approved it, because it was what they knew not because he made up a good story,
Joe: they did not say that. There are figures said to have been with John such as Pricilla and Aquilla but it never says John's disciples were still an inactive group by the time of Paul.
Here is the text:
Acts 19:3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
that's what they got in the past when John was alive, it does not say they were still a group.
I think it is pretty clear the people Paul is talking to are followers of John the Baptist.
Absolutely nothing there pertains to present, he asks them past tense "what did you get?" It's all about a post thing.
Pix
11:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Joe: Jesus would not need to teach them how to memorize anymore than he would need to teach them how to write. That is somethig they learned as part of the culture.
You are telling me simple fishermen could just remember everything Jesus had said to them over the entire course of his ministry?
I said they were taught not that they just could remember. they would have been taught as children, I don't think that memory thing was just for elites. It's like reading we teach the children of lowlier occupations to read. Even chemists. They could read too.
No, Joe. That is not how it works. Oral tradition needs to be established - someone needs to decide that a passage is to be oral tradition, the exact words need to be clear to all involved, and people just need to practice reciting it.
They did pass on information orally, I can document that, they memorized what the teacher said. not good morning and stuff major teachings.
With Jesus' saying, Jesus controlled that process. With the accounts of what he did, there was no control.
go back and read the essay where Cullman says they controlled it, yet it was controlled they did by recitation. Goodspeed said "That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church.
Joe: circular reasoning. The only evidence you have that they did exclude anything is that you need then to have done so.
The evidence is all the things excluded from the creed in 1 Cor 15. And is supported by the passage I quoted from Koester that shows this is his position too.
Not being in the creed doesn't prove it didn't exist.
Joe: That only applies to the passion itself.
When I said "if we are talking just about the passion", I meant that it applies only to the passion itself. Apologies for the confusion.
No problem
Joe: The resurrection has to be foundational or there is no reason to have a group. Where there is redirection there is an empty tomb.
I think your logic here shows how blinkered your thinking is. There would not be an empty tomb if:
* Jesus was buried in a tomb with other corpses
* Jesus was buried in a communal grave for criminals
* Jesus was just left on the cross
* Jesus was resurrected in a new body
Yes and if Jesus had been transferred time a time travel ship and taken tote 30th century to join the legion of superheroes, That is nit what the accounts say. There is only one Jesus story, hundreds of accounts from AD33 to AD 500 none of them have any other scenario but buried in a tomb rose from dead bodily leaving empty tomb
Joe: I've read the bool. Koester was a believer you are not in line with what Kester says. Also Koester can be wrong
Of course he can be wrong, and yes I disagree with him on some bits, but the fact is that a very well respected Biblical author - one you cite routinely - agrees with me on this.
No he does nit--again--he says what you are quoting just of the passion itself not of all of Jesus' life. In my circumstances it is hard for me to get books, I had his book so I used it a lot.
11:51 PM
Post a Comment
In response to this: "And yet the empty tomb is excluded from the Creed in 1 Cor. 15."
There is a logical alternative to the idea that it's excluded because it didn't happen, and one that makes more sense given the culture, than the idea that they would make up a group of female witnesses. It's actually BECAUCSE witnesses of the empty tomb were women, and thus were considered unreliable witnesses. So when the young church develops a basic apologetic for the Resurrection, which is largely for giving proofs to outsiders, they leave out the part that is based on the testimony of women. But because of the appearance of Jesus to women, women become leaders and workers in the group in ways that Judaism didn't allow (see the last chapter of Romans: most of the leaders and workers Paul commends in that section are women). This is why Saul in Acts begins going into houses and arresting both men and women. When the Crucifixion occurred, the Romans and the Jewish leaders alike considered women negligible and ignored them, so it was safe for them to remain with Jesus as he died, and not to hide like the male disciples did. But by the time Saul began persecuting the church, women had become leaders and were deemed dangerous. Their testimony and work became respected by men who previously would have rejected it. But that doesn't mean the rest of the culture accepted women's testimony, so the creed in 1 Cor 15 leaves it out.
that's a good point Kristen.
Post a Comment