Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:59, 30 January 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oral gospel traditions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Christianity: Bible Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible.

This article was nominated for merging with Quest for the historical Jesus on 2013-05-13. The result of the discussion was NO MERGE.

James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013

Dunn's book is now out. It ties together much of the recent scholarship.

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. Rabbis or teachers in every generation were raised up and trained to deliver this Oral Tradition accurately. This Oral tradition consisted of two parts: the 1) JESUS-TRADITION (logia or sayings of Jesus) and 2) INSPIRED OPINION. The distinction is one of authority: where the earthly Jesus has spoken on a subject, that word is to be regarded as an instruction or command. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. The testimony of Papias records that the oral tradition continued into the Second Century even after the first written accounts. Dunn 2013 p 327.
5. The oral tradition was both important and reliable.

Because this material is controversial we should continue to go slowly. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ISBN

We have got different ISBN numbers for Dunn. Please double check. As always good work ( see my email) - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Found the problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote requested

Van Voorst wrote, "One of the most influential researchers in historical Jesus scholarship is the Jewish historian Geza Vermes, whose work has been important in shaping a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment." I hope this is what you wanted, Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Please add the quotation to the Van Voorst citation, or I can do it if you are uncertain about how to add it to the sfn format. Please leave the html link out of the quotation. Embedded links are not GA/FA compatible. Ignocrates (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have taken care of it. Ignocrates (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, the introductory paragraph you added on source and form criticism needs a citation. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the improvements. Because this topic is trending in the academic world (and with your skills) it is my hope we may end up with a featured article. I share your concern re the lead ie "Is scholar Delbert Burkett equivalent to 'modern scholarship'"? I also reviewed WP:LEAD. I agree that the lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Dunn gives a very good summary of the topic and would make an acceptable lead. Of course after the article is complete, it should be revised accordingly. I have added a needed citation and link from the introduction of Dunn's book. Please read pages 1-5 of James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. I hope this addresses the concerns that have been raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Gunkel

I could not find the requested citation for Gunkel, therefore I deleted the material. Feel free to restore it! - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Biblical scholars use a variety of critical methodologies. They apply source criticism to identify the written sources beneath the canonical gospels. Theologians generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialised in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.

I copied the unsourced paragraph to the talk page for now. I'll see what I can find out. Ignocrates (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a good idea. There really is nothing wrong with it except I cannot find the source! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Muilenburg, James (1969). "Form Criticism and beyond". Journal of Biblical Literature. 88 (1): 1–18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005 (I assume the missing title of this encyclopedic article is "Form criticism".)

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3815_3767.pdf Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003

I found three sources that could support this paragraph simply by checking the Misplaced Pages articles for Hermann Gunkel, Form criticism, and Biblical criticism. Maybe someone else has the time to check them out. Ignocrates (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I will go to the library. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no luck - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's ok. I'm going to use the Muilenburg (1969) critical review of form criticism for now. It is cited in the Sweeney and Ben Zvi (2003) book. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Second Temple Period

First default setting – The Jewish Jesus

James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013, wants to change the default setting for this topic. Not recognizing the importance of Second Temple Judaism has been a real stumbling block for Biblical scholars. If anything, more serious has been what might be called “institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship." The so called mainline or classic position of Ernest Renan, who wrote: "Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus" is mistaken and encapsulates "Christianity's historic denigration of Judaism."

Consensus: It seems we now have agreement that Second Temple Judaism is important to understanding our topic. Indeed the essence of form criticism is the identification the Sitz im Leben, "situation in life", which gave rise to a particular written passage. When form critics discuss oral traditions about Jesus, they theorise about the particular social situation in which different kinds of stories about Jesus were thought to be told. For New Testament scholars, this focus remains the Second Temple period.

James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. p 285

• NEW DEFAULT SETTING: We should look first of all for the Jewish Jesus.

Second default setting - Oral Tradition

It should always be remembered that Second Temple Judaism was predominantly an oral society. Dunn 2013. p 290 - 291 First, Jesus' teachings were given orally and second, the news about Jesus was initially passed around orally. It is necessary to alter the default setting of "our typically literary mind-set" in order to recognize that the early transmission of the Jesus tradition took place in an oral Sitz im Leben. Dunn 2013 p 58, p 291 & p 374

In the Oral Tradition, there is a clear distinction between the Jesus-tradition (napayyskia) and the Inspired Opinion (yvcbuq). To be sure, "opinion" is also inspired, but this makes the distinction between Jesus-tradition and Inspired Opinion all the more significant. The distinction is one of authority: where the earthly Jesus has spoken on a subject, that word is to be regarded as an instruction or command; but an opinion, even if formed immediately by the Spirit, cannot count as a 'command of the Lord', but only be offered as advice. In other words, there is a qualitative distinction between Jesus-tradition (Logia or Sayings of Jesus) and Inspired Opinion, and the one is not a substitute for the other. Dunn 2013 p 19 & p 20

• NEW DEFAULT SETTING: Second Temple Judaism was predominantly an oral society.

Discoveries

The discovery in 1947-1956, of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) has had a profound affect! Here for the first time scholars were granted access to Jewish texts in Hebrew and Aramaic from First Century Palestine. The community of Essenes who copied and composed them at Qumran overlapped with Jesus. The remains of Qumran Cave 7, including portions of Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, James, and 2 Peter have resulted in a major reassessment. Dunn 2003 p 1577 & Dunn 2013 pp 313-314.

It is not just Dunn, but scholars such as Maurice Casey, who recognize the importance of the DSS. Casey calls Qumran the most important single archaeological discovery in recent times. Furthermore Josephus provides us a massive quantity of detail about first-century Judaism. These sources give us important informatiom regarding the role of Scribes and the reliability of the Oral Tradition.

Secondary orality

There is no text without context. Cultural ignorance has had a devastating impact on modern scholarship. We must remember that even written documents like Paul's letters (and the Gospels) would have been 'read' by very few people. For the great majority of recipients, the letter would have been heard rather than read. Even a literate person such as Paul would have employed a scribe to assist with composition. The work of a scribe was far more than taking dictation or coping a text. Dunn 2013 pp 345-346. Indeed scribes could be likened to Presidential speech writers. And the public reading of the text would require further careful "preparation and practice" if it was to be heard meaningfully. Dunn 2013 p 53 This phenomenon is called second orality, that is, a written text known through oral performance of the text. Dunn 2013 p 54 The difficulty is that whenever modern scholars noticed a different writing style from a different scribe, they jumped to the conclusion that this meant the letter was forged. In reality Paul's writing style varied greatly depending on scribal input and the nature of the intended audience!

Reliability

Remember playing the Game of Telephone when you were a kid. One person starts with a word or a phrase and whispers it in the ear of the person next to them. The next person does the same thing and this continues around the circle until finally the last person shouts out loud what the phrase is. Usually, the phrase has changed into something not even close to the original phrase. This is how many view the Oral Tradition. However the Oral Gospel tradition was NOT like Telephone!

The Oral Tradition which is the basis for the New Testament was reliable. Indeed one of the most striking features to emerge from this study is the "amazing consistency of the history of the the tradition which gave birth to the NT". In consequence "the heart and fundamental thrust of the tradition and its various expressions were maintained through the process of transmission." There was a stable core within the ongoing tradition. In other words, "the traditioning process did not alter in essential character throughout the history of the NT tradition." Dunn 2013 p 359 & p 360 Indeed, prior to the printing press, written texts were generally regarded as less reliable than what the memory retained for itself. Dunn 2013. p 309

It is important to note that the accuracy of the Jesus Tradition (ie Teachings of Jesus or Logia) was insured by the community designating certain learned individuals to bear the main responsibility (on behalf of the oral community) to retain and recite the Gospel message of Jesus. Dunn 2013 pp 279- 280 The prominence of teachers in the earliest communities is best explained by the communities' reliance on them as repositories of Oral Tradition. (For example the Jerusalem leadership) Dunn 2013. p 55 & p 223 It should be noted that the time period between Jesus and the first written gospel (ie Mark) is somewhere between 10 years and 50 years. This short period of oral transmission bodes well in terms of accuracy and the reliability of the Oral Gospel Tradition.

Edit Warring

Why have Dunn and Ehrman caused such a violent reaction! ie insults, personal attacks, banning of users, wild accusations etc. The answer is simple: If the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then Jesus did exist and we have an historically accurate picture of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. (Ehrman 2013 p 117) Dunn, Casey and Ehrman seriously undermine the scholarly nonsense of: 'Jesus as mythical being', Jesus as "Aryan Christ", Jesus as Alien being, Jesus as Sun God and other dubious theories based on spurious intellectual arguments which write Judaism out of the teaching of Jesus.

-Dunn 2013 p 360

-Casey 2010 p 12

- Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21

Don't get me wrong. User:John Carter and others have the right to present the thesis: "The story of Jesus is not the biography of a historical Jewish Messiah" but they do not have the right to delete the work of serious scholars such as Dunn, Ehrman and Casey as ‘fringe”. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

First, Ehrman makes the point that the gospels aren't accurate historical documents, especially when you compare the details of their stories in a synopsis. And second, Ehrman does say that the transmission of the material of the gospels happened very much like the game of Telephone. If you search for him on YouTube, you may hear him making these points. So I don't understand how Ehrman's books could be used to affirm something which he totally rejects. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of Ehrman's course on the historical Jesus (see The Great Courses) is that the gospels cannot be taken at face value, and that historians have to discard their concoctions and embellishments in order to reach the few historical facts that can be known about Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you add the full quotation from Dunn 2013 to note 12 of your latest addition to the article (partial quotations are already in the body of the article). Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the full quotation from Dunn (2013), p.359 to the note. Thanks for providing it! Ignocrates (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the article going?

Mind if I ask, where is this going? Is this a prelude to inserting fringe material arguing a lost Hebrew Matthew again? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Dunn does address your concerns on pp 326 & 327 as well as on pp 225-228. There is also the distinct possibility of more new scholarship being released in 2014. My suggestion is that we focus on the Oral tradition, as in the long term it is probably more significant. I would not want to spoil your Christmas. (LOL) Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) PS Happy Holidays!

Per WP:AGF (all parties), please don't put words in other people's mouths and claim to be articulating their position. Nothing good can come from doing that. Please limit your comments (all parties) to improving the content of this specific article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I am referring to material that has previously had to be reverted from half a dozen articles over a three year period, and also the original form of RetProf's article here:

Papias stated "Matthew wrote down (synetaxato) the "logia" in the Hebrew language (Hebraidi dialekto), and each interpreted (hermeneusen) them as best he could. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was believed to be one of the earliest written and was circulated under the title the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Ret Prof, given that this substantial article on the Gospels is primarily your own work and developed in isolation from other WikiProject Christianity articles on the Gospels, and also given the previous contributions of User:Alan B25, User:Huon, User:Smeat75, User:PiCo and User:Dougweller, can you please indicate whether you do or do not intend to reintroduce the "Hebrew Gospel" material again? Or at the least an undertaking that if you do reintroduce it you will call all previous editors here for a discussion/RfC before doing so? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here. Mention of a Hebrew Matthew as the autograph of the canonical Gospel of Matthew has no place within the scope of this article. Nor does the conjecture that the Gospel of the Hebrews or Gospel of the Nazarenes is the "authentic" Gospel of Matthew. No modern scholars I am aware of cling to these archaic conjectures from 100 years ago. Ignocrates (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, please stop rearranging the article talk page. You are free to do that on your own talk page as you wish, but not on article or community talk pages. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you reverting my refactoring of the talk page. My refactoring could have been taken the wrong way! I did have some concern about your deleting my comment, "I agree! The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is a distraction." and "Where is the article going? I hope it is going to become a featured article. Dunn and Ehrman have shown that Jesus did exist and we have an accurate picture of his life and teachings!" Ehrman's book says Jesus did exist. Dunn goes further by showing why the oral tradition was reliable, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are accurate! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate being slapped upside the head. It shows you are being objective with all parties and is the best way to bring peace to this article!

I apologize for my inadvertent deletion of your comment. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to the main point, I think In ictu oculi is asking a reasonable question. It would probably ease everyone's mind that monitors this article if you could provide an outline on the talk page of how you propose to develop the content. Let's try to reach a consensus before we go too far down this path. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources Sources Sources

@Ignocrates: Here is the material you requested from James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013, pp 359 -360

Oral Gospel Tradition

P359

6. Conclusion

One of the most striking features to emerge from this study is the amazing consistency of the history of the NT tradition, the tradition which gave birth to the NT.

P359

In consequence the heart and fundamental thrust of the tradition and its various expressions were maintained through the process of transmission.

P360

And they appear, not least, in the continuing history of the NT tradition, where it is precisely the NT which encapsulates the stable, coherent and normative core within the ongoing tradition. In other words, the traditioning process did not alter in essential character throughout the history of the NT tradition.

Link to Dunn 2013 pp 359-360 If you have any other requests, feel free to ask! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: It is great to have your input. It is always possible that in my excitement for Ehrman's Did Jesus exist I went beyond what he said. When citing Ehrman please cite the year, date and page so we can verify your position. I hope the following will address your concerns! Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus exist 2012.

Chapter Three:The Gospels as historical sources

P 70

The Gospels, their sources, and the Oral Traditions that lie behind them, combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed.

P 74

The Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources no different from other historical sources infused with their authors biases, it starts to become clear why historians have almost universally agreed that whatever else one may say about him, Jesus of Nazareth lived in first century Palestine, and was crucified by the Prefect of Judea.

P 117

Based on oral traditions that he had heard, Jesus was a real man who lived in the past, a flesh and blood human being, a Jew from the line of Judah who was tempted like all other people, suffered in obedience to God, and was crucified, dying without any solace that God could have provided. Here again is an independent witness to the life and death of Jesus. Thus we have not only seven independent Gospel witnesses for...

Link to The Gospels as historical sources and Oral Traditions about Jesus

Although Chapter Three which explains why the Gospels must be viewed as historical sources is riveting, Ehrman goes further on pp 83-93 when he explains why the Oral Traditions about are important to historians. And this scholarship is from a non Christian Scholar!! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

C. On the other hand, these sources have obvious historical problems when compared with our historians’ wish list.

1. The sources are not disinterested accounts written by impartial observers near the time of the events they narrate. 2. None of these authors was an eyewitness. They spoke a different language from the eyewitnesses, lived in different countries from the eyewitnesses, and addressed different audiences with different needs and concerns. Their own beliefs would have affected their accounts. 3. Each of these authors, as two of them (Luke and John) actually tell us, inherited his stories from earlier written sources. Each of these sources has its own perspective, as well. 4. Before anyone bothered to write stories about Jesus, the stories had circulated by word of mouth for years and were changed to suit the purposes at hand. They were modified further when they were written down in such lost documents as Q and further still when rewritten by the authors of the Gospels. 5. This view is not based simply on scholarly imagination. We have evidence for it from the Gospels, as noted in earlier lectures.

IV. We can apply three specific criteria, developed over the past half-century by scholars, to the traditions about Jesus to learn what historically reliable information they contain.

C. If you do not like these criteria, you will need to come up with others of your own. Given the wide-ranging problems posed by our sources, we can’t simply take them uncritically as being historically accurate.

— Professor Bart D. Ehrman, The Historical Jesus. Part I, The Teaching Company, 2000, pp. 28-29

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to Renan's view, his great merit was treating Jesus like any other historical person, which was a new and shocking approach at that time. Of course, historians now consensually agree that Jesus existed and that he was throughly Jewish, so what you stated about Jesus being Jewish is not a controversial point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Paperback

@Tgeorgescu: Have you had a chance to read either Dunn 2013 or Ehrman 2012? The good news is that both James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013 and Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus exist 2012 are out in paperback! Happy holidays! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have an Epub of Ehrman's book, but I did not read it yet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct! WP states in such a conflict, the most up to date material takes priority! Therefore Ehrman 2012 takes precedence over Ehrman 2000. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You offered me a cup of tea, but don't push your luck. Ehrman did not change his mind about the basics of the historical Jesus scholarship. The argument that his books were superseded, as if he totally changed his mind is WP:CB. For many years Ehrman has been pretty constant that the gospels can only been filtered through the critical criteria, they are not to be taken at face value, since they contradict each other all over the place (this is a fact, not speculation). Check his debates upon YouTube and you will see him repeating this over and over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree. Although we should probably cite the 2012 book where Ehrman's views remain consistent, there is no reason to exclude the 2000 book either, particularly as a source for specific quotations. Ignocrates (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As the quote below makes it clear, even if Ehrman would have changed his mind, the consensus among historical Jesus scholars would still remain as following:

V. Now we should consider the implications of the fact that, as three of our earliest accounts attest, the stories in the Gospels were handed down by word of mouth and not written down until thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death.

A. To understand the New Testament, we must realize that the most important events during those years involved the spread of the Christian church. 1. Christianity started, immediately after Jesus’ death, with a handful of his followers, perhaps twenty or thirty people located in Jerusalem, if we go by the Acts of the Apostles. 2. Within forty or fifty years, this tiny band of disciples had multiplied many times over in major urban areas throughout the Mediterranean. Still, individual Christian communities were generally small. 3. In this age before mass media, Christians propagated the religion by word of mouth. They were trying to convert pagans by talking about Jesus’ life and teachings. 4. Given that the stories were told in different languages in different places over a huge geographical area, we are completely safe in saying that the stories were not told only by the original followers. B. I think we can assume that the stories got changed as they were told and retold by word of mouth, year after year. 1. Sometimes the changes would have been accidental as the stories were told for fifty years, in different countries, using different languages, among thousands of people. 2. Sometimes people telling the stories may have wanted to change them to make a point, to promote faith in Jesus. C. Some standard objections are raised to the idea that the stories about Jesus were changed as they circulated by word of mouth throughout the Empire. Many people—somewhat unreflectively—assume that stories couldn’t have been changed in such a relatively short amount of time, especially when eyewitnesses were around to verify the accounts. 1. Stories can change overnight, as anyone who has ever been in the news industry can readily attest. 2. Eyewitnesses often disagree among themselves about crucial points (cf., our own courts of law). 3. Almost no one who was telling these stories could have checked with eyewitnesses, even if they had wanted to, given the limited communications in the ancient world. 4. The idea that the stories were changed is not a bit of scholarly speculation; we have hard evidence for it. D. The most common objection to the notion that stories about Jesus were changed in the process of transmission is that people living in oral cultures had better memories than most of us. 1. Anthropological studies of the past twenty years have shown convincingly that this isn’t the case at all. In fact, the concern for verbal accuracy is found exclusively in written cultures, where accounts can be checked to see if they are consistent.

2. In oral cultures the natural assumption is that stories are to be changed, depending on the audience and the situation.

— Professor Bart D. Ehrman, The Historical Jesus. Part I, The Teaching Company, 2000, pp. 16-17

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean Ehrman is not the only historical Jesus scholar, there are many such scholars, and if he changed his mind it would not imply that they have all changed their mind. And in that course Ehrman was building upon lots of sources and those sources would remain unchanged even if he would change his mind. As an anecdote, Alan Dundes told in a video how he did research on ancient oral cultures: he bought books aiming to explain away contradictions in the Bible and used them as a research guide to the contradictions in the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman's bibliography (from his already published works) would not change even if he would have a change of mind, the basics of an established research field cannot change in a couple of years, there is a widely shared consensus that the NT gospels cannot be taken at face value, and wonder of all wonders I have to get this through to a (retired) professor who claims "My main area of expertise is Biblical Scholarship". I mean I am neither theologian nor historian but I got to know the basics of this field. Why do I have to hear/read attacks upon this very basic stuff, known to every student of this field and even to amateurs like me? Do other scholars live in a parallel universe wherein the oral tradition was rock-solid and completely accurate? And Ehrman repeatedly claimed that the oral tradition was precisely like the game of Telephone. See e.g. and . No evidence has been shown that he recanted this view. Instead, he claimed that this isn't speculation, but that there is hard evidence for it, and also mentioned twenty years of anthropological fieldwork with oral cultures. Hard evidence would remain hard evidence even if he changed his mind and twenty years of anthropological research cannot be obliterated because one historian would change his mind. This is why I find certain insights about editing this article as simply preposterous, according to WP:COMPETENCE. I do recognize that the professors of some fundamentalist divinity schools took formal oaths that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible, but they should be regarded as WP:FRINGE since they are unwilling or unable to regard the Bible with objectivity in mind (instead of apologetics). Their views are theologically notable, but are they history? Do they even come close to mainstream history, as taught in reputable secular universities? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

AS I WILL TRY to show momentarily, the Gospels, their sources, and the oral traditions that lie behind them combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed. It is not that one can simply accept everything found in the Gospels as historically accurate. Far from it. The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened. This is shown, for example, by the many discrepancies they contain in matters both great and small. If you have two contradictory accounts of the same event, both accounts cannot be accurate. And once you read the Gospels carefully, with keen attention to minute details, you will find such contradictions all over the map. Eventually these small details add up to big pictures, which also are sometimes at odds with one another.

— Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? ch. 3

This quote shows that Ehrman has reiterated his view that the Gospels cannot be taken at face value. But I guess that this is a point which Ret.Prof has already conceded. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have...but do not forget what Ehrman says next:

At the same time, there is historical information in the Gospels. This historical material needs to be teased out by careful, critical analysis...they can and must be considered historical sources of information.

— Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? ch. 3

However you have made a good point. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Outline 2014

I have reviewed the ongoing debate and clearly there are some strong opinions. I propose that the basis for this article be Dunn 2013 and Ehrman 2012.

• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins 2012. The central theme of this work is "Did Jesu exist?" Ehrman's argues the answer to this question is yes. Although the Oral Gospel tradition had a Christian bias, the Gospels, their sources, and "the Oral Traditions that lie behind them, combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed." P 70 Furthermore, "the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources no different from other historical sources". P 74 Finally, based on the Oral Gospel tradition we can say "Jesus was a real man who lived in the past, a flesh and blood human being, a Jew from the line of Judah who was tempted like all other people, suffered in obedience to God, and was crucified, dying without any solace that God could have provided." P 117

• James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. This book does not contradict anything that Ehrman says. However it goes further. Yes the Oral Gospel tradition was biased and flexible but it had a stable core. This core is what the Gospels were based upon. Therefore we have an accurate picture of Jesus of Nazareth.

Scope

I propose that this article remain focused, clear and be no more than three pages. The material on early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel should not be included as he was an OT scholar. Nor should the material on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be included. The Oral Gospel tradition should focus on the Oral Traditions that make up the Oral Gospel tradition. Don't get me wrong! I agree with Dunn! Papias was reliable. After all, it is precisely Papias who tells us about the origins of both Mark's and Matthew's Gospels. However what is of far greater significance than the comments on these two proto-Gospels is the fact that according to Papias the Oral Gospel tradition did not end with these early written accounts. Rather it continued!! There was considerable overlap. Furthermore, many considered the Oral traditions more reliable than written accounts. (pp 208-212 and pp 226-229) The following is my suggestion:

1) Title:Oral Gospel tradition

2) Lead

3) Critical methods: source and form criticism,

4) Oral traditions and the formation of the gospels

5) Notes

6) Bibliography

7) Further reading: Critical methods: source and form criticism

Finally, it is important to remember that we can disagree without being disagreeable. We are editing a difficult topic! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a good method for reaching consensus. It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, keeping discussion moving forward and help towards breaking deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. BE KIND! Some editors will see BOLD as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. Being bold is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages. ALL EDITORS are welcome to make a positive contribution. When in doubt, edit! Never just delete sourced content...the talk page is our friend. Moving slowly and carefully following the 1RR is helpful - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the outline. I would add another section on the agrapha, which I describe in part below. Ignocrates (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Re WP:SCOPE, we need to decide whether to include the oral traditions communicated by Papias, as I previously pointed out with a quotation here. This is an example of oral gospel tradition that was never incorporated into a written gospel, yet Eusebius thought it was important enough to mention with a direct quotation from Papias. Ignocrates (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fix Title

I have reviewed the sources and we have got the title wrong. Biblical scholarship talks of the oral traditions that make up the Oral Gospel Tradition. If nobody objects over the next seven days I fix this error. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made a minor change to the title of our article (ie dropped the s) to make it conform to scholarly norms and the reliable sources on this topic.

James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.

Henry Wansbrough, ed. Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.

By the way could somebody fix the edit history. As it now stand it looks like I coined the wrong title! Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See https://www.google.de/search?q=intitle:%22Gospel+Traditions%22&hl=en&gbv=1&tbm=bks&start=0&sa=N Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I found this book in your link particularly interesting. Looking at the testimonies of the Greek Fathers about Greek writings is a bit like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp. There is a corpus of literature in other languages (Coptic, Syriac) that has been all but ignored; however, that has changed for the better in the last 10 years. Ignocrates (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a pressing need to change the title. Ignocrates (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither do I. Moreover any move related to the NT text needs to go through WP:RM. I have undone a cut and paste move. But Ret Prof's cut and paste move has been followed by User:Ret.Prof creating a redundant extra Talk page at Talk:Oral Gospel tradition which now needs admin merge. What a mess. User:Ret.Prof, please find an admin to clean up. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. There is no consensus to change the title. Keep the new article page as a redirect to this article and have an admin merge the newly created talk page into this one. Have an RfC on the talk page before changing the title, such as this one. Ignocrates (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it happened, but the talk page of the redirect was apparently deleted rather than merged, resulting in a loss of some talk page content. I left a note at the help desk here. Ignocrates (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my spelling mistake. The talk page Talk:Oral Gospel tradition has been redirected here, and I have asked the help desk to merge the talk page content and delete it. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What a mess!

Wow, what a mess! Cut and past is not my forte. I hang my head in shame. Sorry. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to help clean it up, please work with the help desk to fix this. Just follow my link above and take over working with them. Ignocrates (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks to everyone for the good faith shown me. My "cut and paste" could have rightly been the subject of ridicule. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Welcome User:PiCo. As always your help is greatly appreciated. We have a big challenge with this article. After much debate we agreed that the stub should be expanded, slowly, carefully following Misplaced Pages policy. We also reached consensus that all material should be from reliable sources and that material from reliable sources should not be deleted without a good reason. Your edits caused concern on two counts.

First, a large amount of referenced material from the following reliable sources was deleted.

• Wansbrough, Henry (2004). Wansbrough, Henry, ed. Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Continuum International Publishing Group
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins.
• Dunn, James D. G. (2013). The Oral Gospel Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Secondly, much of your new material was not supported by reliable sources.

Therefore I reverted back to 17 December 2013‎ Ignocrates. Please be patient as there is much new scholarship in this area. Thanks for your help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed German

Do not get me wrong. I support many of the edits of User:PiCo. I have removed the German per User:PiCo - "Mündliche Überlieferung" wasn't included on p.9 of Wansborough, and doesn't seem necessary in any case. It needs to be supported by a reliable source. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting it back. Given that English sources have a wider range - from serious material to large amounts of enthusiastic nonsense, anchoring this article in a more reputable and stable academic tradition - the German one, is useful. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Dunn

@ User:PiCo: Have you had a chance to get a copy of Dunn, James D. G. (2013). The Oral Gospel Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company? His work has been well received in scholarly circles and Dunn is one of the foremost scholars in the world today. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition

Presently we are using the Jan Vansina definition which defines our topic as verbal testimony from one generation to the next. It is pretty standard stuff. However I am open to a better one if supported by a reliable source. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversions

Your complete reversion of PiCo's edits also needs to be discussed here, per WP:BRD, or else I'm going to restore his changes as improvements per WP:PRESERVE. Ignocrates (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I had was with the deletion of the definition. Presently we are using the Jan Vansina definition which defines our topic as verbal testimony from one generation to the next. It is pretty standard stuff. However I am open to a better one if supported by a reliable source. PiCo seems on board with scope issues. Cheers - Ret.Prof - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using that definition for now. Btw, this encyclopedic source would make an excellent reference for the lead as an introduction to NT scholarship which includes the oral tradition. I can't see who the contributing author is from this link, but Dunn is the contributing author of the article and an editor. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See p.952, section 2.3 on oral tradition, and p.959, section 3.1 on the early kerygmatic tradition. This encyclopedic source is perfect for the lead or an introduction to these concepts. Ignocrates (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Could you add that article to the bibliography for us? PiCo (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Can you check out the weasel words which are now in the lead sentence? It's hard to believe there is any serious debate about oral tradition preceding written sources. Ignocrates (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence is: "Oral gospel traditions (German mündliche Überlieferung) is that stage of Christian tradition which many scholars consider underlies the written gospels." Sourced to pages 952-55 and 959-60 of a book by Dunn. (I can hardly believe it takes 6 pages to source a single phrase). Not all these pages are available to me in google books, but those which are, don't support the sentence. The German phrase isn't mentioned, there's no definition of OGT, and no mention of what "many scholars" may or may not believe. PiCo (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the citation and moved the reference to FR. The German phrase and the weasel words should go if they are not supported with references. Ignocrates (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ignocrates (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My changes

I restored many of PiCo's conservative edits (with minor fixes), which I felt clarified and simplified the text. I left two major edits reverted (for now) because they largely rewrote the article. They should be discussed on the talk page per WP:BRD. I'm weakly opposed to PiCo's changes to the reference format, per WP:CITEVAR, unless he intends to be the primary content contributor on the article. I also left the Wansbrough 2004 citation in place for now pending further discussion. I believe PiCo is saying it doesn't support the article content as written. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wansbrough 2004 is listed as the first edition. I take that to mean it is a reprint of the 1991 first edition, so I have clarified the year of publication in the bibliography. Ignocrates (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I support your changes. Dunn incorporates much of Wansbrough's scholarship into his work. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we need a RFC re scope?

Do we need a WP:RFC to clarify the WP:SCOPE of the article? I feel like this article is morphing into Oral transmission (synoptic problem), which was merged into this article. Oral tradition not only preceded written gospels; it coexisted with written gospels until the 4th century. We need to keep in mind the original meaning of the gospel as a kerygma. This article seems to miss that point entirely now. Ignocrates (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunn says Ignocrates is correct. The oral tradition not only preceded written gospels; it coexisted with the written gospels. PiCo can you find a source that states that the oral tradition came to an end with the first written gospels?? I won't revert your edit for a few days to give you some time to find some support your position. I too, feel like this article is morphing. I explained my reasons for keeping focused above. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The scope of the article is whatever you wish it to be. When I made that edit to the definition I didn't have scope in mind, I was simply checking out the cited source. I found that Wansbrough doesn't have any explicit definition of the term OGT, but that one can be inferred. I changed the sentence so it tracks the words Wansbrough uses. If you feel this isn't what you want the scope to be, then drop Wansbrough and either find a new definition or just leave it blank - statements in Misplaced Pages only need to be sourced if they're likely to be challenged, and I certainly won't challenge a reasonable definition, even if it isn't sourced. PiCo (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Source criticism" vs "sources" as subject of para

I would also like to delete the Hermann Gunkel paragraph as he was an OT scholar and had nothing to do with the Oral Gospel tradition. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that Hermann Gunkel was instrumental in developing form-critical methods that are used to study the oral gospel tradition. That information can possibly be subordinated into a footnote without changing the flow of the main text. I will defer to PiCo to make that call. Ignocrates (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

True this OT scholar did inspire form critical methods and these methods were used by those studying the Oral Gospel tradition. A footnote would be an acceptable compromise re scope. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RetProf. The paragraph seems to me to slightly off what should be the subject. IMO, this para needs tomake the point that, traditionally, the gospels were attributed to the disciples (Matthew, John) or writers with access to disciples (Mark via Peter, not sure about Luke). Modern criticism has discounted this, and the gospels are now attributed to individuals writing in the period 70-100 CE who were not eyewitnesses and had no direct access to the disciples. The question then arises, on what did they base their gospels? Source theory supplied answers: Mark used a variety of written sources, Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q and L and M, John used other sources. This was feltto be only partly satisfactory as an explanation: those written sources were felt to have been based on prior oral sources, on a priori grounds, but the oral sources were felt to be irrecoverable. Form criticism claimed to be able to recover them (mention Gunkel in passing if necessary). Great. But later, doubts arose as to the reliability of form criticism, and the it came to be felt that the teachings of Jesus as given in the gospels represented the beliefs of a later generation, and were not genuine (i.e., not of Jesus). Dunn is proposing something new: that the oral tradition is in fact highly trustworthy, at least in broad outlines. These ideas are currently the subject of much debate. Can we fit all this into one paragraph? Maybe it takes two or three. PiCo (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Second para of lead

I have concerns over the second para of the lead:

It refers to cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth and has kept New Testament scholars and historians occupied for nearly a hundred years. Early Christians sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing his stories and his teachings orally. This tradition consisted of parables, miracle stories, pronouncement stories, controversy stories, and other sayings, that formed the Oral gospel Tradition. Scholars now believe this oral transmission was the basis of the Christian Gospels and possibly other New Testament books.

I'll take it sentence by sentence:

"It refers to cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth and has kept New Testament scholars and historians occupied for nearly a hundred years." I don't think this is accurate. Accurate for oral tradition, but not for the oral gospel tradition. The gospel tradition wasn't passed on from generation to generation, it was passed from person to person. Between the crucifixion and the first gospel was only 40 years, about one generation. It's not comparable.

"Early Christians sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing his stories and his teachings orally."

Several issues. First, this ignores the question of narrative - what marks the gospels from the Pauline letters is narrative. Also it's not true even for the stories and teachings - it's widely accepted, including by Dunn, that the early Christians didn't "sustain" Jesus' message, they changed it. Most scholars would say there's hardly anything from Jesus in the gospels - Dunn's argument is that there's quite a lot, but even he says it's only there in a general sense.

"This tradition consisted of parables, miracle stories, pronouncement stories, controversy stories, and other sayings, that formed the Oral gospel Tradition. " Again, ignores the narrative - the oral tradition was wider than this. But I'd like to see a RS discussion of what did constitute the contents of the tradition (it's not in the source cited at the end of the para).

"Scholars now believe this oral transmission was the basis of the Christian Gospels and possibly other New Testament books." Other books? What other books? Also, this sentence ignores the stages between the oral traditions and the written gospels - see Burkett, first para of the lead.

The real problem here is that the para isn't based on a source, despite citing Dunn at the end - I can't find any of this supported there.PiCo (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some good points. I will get citations from Dunn and Ehrman. Can you find a source that says that the oral tradition came to an end within one generation of the crucifixion? - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my wording was misleading. What I meant was that the period between crucifixion and first gospel was c.40years, which is one Biblical generation, and therefore the traditions weren't being passed from one generation to the next (it happened within a single generation). The last gospel was written about 100 AD, less than two generations. So it's misleading to say or imply that the traditions were passed down through generations. Nevertheless, Burkett is quite clear that the oral traditions didn't stop just because the gospels had been written.PiCo (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Working our way to Consensus

We are once again spinning our wheels. Let us downshift to first gear and see if we can get some traction. I like the idea (above) that we start at the beginning and work our way through the different issues building consensus based on the reliable sources. (I have no problem with the minor changes made by Ignocrates)

German

We just reverted In ictu oculi's edit without debating his concerns (see above). Therefore I have restored his edit until we reach consensus. His position is that Given that English sources have a wider range - from serious material to large amounts of enthusiastic nonsense, anchoring this article in a more reputable and stable academic tradition - the German one, is useful.

However, I disagree.

• It is true that in the 20thC the German was considered a more reputable and stable academic tradition. However, in the past few years there has been a a major shift in Christian Biblical scholarship. Leading Biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Casey, Edwards have now taken the position that Jesus was a Jew and that the historical roots of Christianity must be seen in a Jewish context. This scholarship has sparked debate for some still hold the position that Jesus was a Greek speaking Galilean whose teachings were anti-Jewish. Last year, one of the world's leading historians on Early Christianity released his latest work. James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. argues that the assumption that Jesus was not Jewish has been a real stumbling block for Biblical scholars. If anything, more serious has been what might be called “institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which for so long disfigured Christian theology, including NT scholarship." The so called mainline or classic position of Ernest Renan, who wrote: "Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus" is mistaken and encapsulates "Christianity's historic denigration of Judaism." The truth is Christianity has been anti Jewish and Christian scholarship has failed to be "Christian" in its treatment of Jews. This can be seen in the disparagement of the Hebrew Gospel which is viewed as little more than a Jewish Bastardwerk. The mainline position of 20th Century scholars bordered on antisemitism. The Deutsche Christen movement produced the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, still the standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament found in theological libraries and used by students all over the world as if it were nothing but a standard work of reference. Nor should it be imagined that such bias was isolated to scholars who fought for Nazi Germany for even Bultmann was tainted by the effect of working in a German environment in which Jewishness was so unwelcome. Google Link Nor should it be imagined that such anti-Jewish sentiment was isolated to scholars coming out of Germany. Google Link. The Jewish tradition has generally been viewed pejoratively and judged inferior by many other scholars instrumental in the formation theories regarding the Synoptic tradition. Google Link. One must take care to distinguish between Biblical Scholarship based on reliable historical evidence and “the age-long, inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred” of the West.

Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann

Volume 20 of Studies in Jewish History and Culture, BRILL, 2009. -

Susannah Heschel, 2008

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012.

James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel, 2009. pp 194 - 208

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010

• The German appears to be a mistranslation.
• No reliable source was provided.

If you cannot find a reliable source in the next litte while the the German will be deleted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The German was deleted because it is unsourced content. There was plenty of discussion (see above) that this addition requires a reliable source. Consensus doesn't require unanimity. Please supply the reference or self-revert your change. Ignocrates (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, self-revert is even better. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have given User:In ictu oculi a reasonable time to find a reliable source. Since he has not responded I have removed the German. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Generation to Generation

Presently I am at the Seminary library. All the sources seem to support the Jan Vansina definition which defines our topic as verbal testimony from one generation to the next. Sources on the Oral Gospel Tradition seem to support Vansina. I could not find a single source that says the Oral Tradition lasted only one generation. Your comment above seems to indicate that you are on board. Do we have consensus? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with this definition. For example, it would include oral testimony transmitted by next-generation disciples of the apostles, such as John the Elder and his followers. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The "gospel" of the Oral Tradition is, in its purest sense, the kerygma of Jesus Christ - that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, so that we may have eternal life. This is the sense of the gospel conveyed by Paul, Mark, and Ignatius of Antioch. Only later did the the definition come to be associated with a specific written form. Ignocrates (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Narrative

Several issues. First, this ignores the question of narrative - what marks the gospels from the Pauline letters is narrative. I am a little confused. Please explain further. We may have a major disagreement. I feel like this article is morphing into an article on the synoptic problem rather Oral Tradition? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Burkett

Stage i: Oral Traditions Before the Gospels were written, early Christians passed on traditions about Jesus by word of mouth. These oral traditions included various types of stories about Jesus: for example, stories about Jesus healing the sick or debating with his opponents. The traditions also included various types of sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects.

— Burkett 2002, page 124

I have no trouble with Burkett. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• Stub-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles