| Revision as of 15:18, 29 September 2012 editRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits →From Logia to written Gospel← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:41, 18 January 2013 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,211 edits #REDIRECT Oral gospel traditions - this is a duplicate article - & the reasons given for turning the original into a stub still holdNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ] | |||
| The '''oral tradition''' refers to cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth and it has kept New Testament scholars occupied for nearly a hundred years. Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Tradition consisted of several distinct components. Parables and aphorisms were the "bedrock of the tradition." Along with other sayings or ] they formed the ''Christian Oral Tradition'' which most scholars believe was the basis of the Christian Gospels. | |||
| == Sitz im Leben == | |||
| {{see also|Dead Sea Scrolls}} | |||
| To understand the ''Oral Tradition'', scholars study the cultural background or Sitz im Leben (German for “situation in life") in which the material about Jesus was transmitted. Modern scholars agree that Jesus and his family were Jewish and Judaism was the religion they practiced throughout their lives. Jesus' teachings focused on the Jewish issues of his day — how to interpret the written ''Law of Moses'', when the ] would appear, and how to behave righteously. The Sitz im Leben for the disciples of Jesus was pretty much the same. Like Jesus himself, his ] were Jewish and Torah-observant. They thought of Jesus as a Rabbi and possibly a Messiah figure. After the Crucifixion of Jesus, James the brother of Jesus, became their leader in Jerusalem.<ref> Maurice Casey, ''Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching'', Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 141-143</ref> | |||
| Although the Jewish/Christian Community at the time of Jesus had a system of writing, there had also developed an extensive ''Oral Tradition'' which remained an important aspect of Pharisaic/Christian scholarship during Second Temple period. This ''Oral Law'' is often misunderstood as having been given, in its totality, on Mount Sinai along with the ''Written Law''. Sometimes it is even pictured as a kind of secret lore that was passed on, person to person, whispered to select individuals throughout history from Moses on down to the present day. In fact, the ''Oral Law'' of the Jews is analogous to judicial precedent: the ever-growing body of interpretation of the Law, with its cases, judgments and precedents. This tradition of debating, interpreting, agreeing upon, or continuing to disagree about the meaning of the fixed text was the "Oral Tradition" of the Jews at the time of Jesus. It was in this cultural context or ] that the ''Oral Tradition'' evolved in Christianity, as Jesus and later Christian rabbis, in true rabbinic style, offered their interpretation of the Torah forming a distinct Christian logia.<ref>Barrie Wilson, ''How Jesus Became Christian'', Random House, 2009. pp 35-38</ref> | |||
| ==From Logia to written Gospel== | |||
| A rich ''Oral Tradition'' had developed, alongside the written one during the Second Temple period. This ''Oral Tradition'' was not simply hearsay. It represented the Divine will — an all-encompassing Torah that would be dramatically changed in 70 A.D. In that year, the ], and the Hebrew community of Jerusalem was scattered throughout the nations of the Roman Empire in what is called the ]. The changes brought about by these events greatly affected the ''Oral Traditions'' of Jews and Christians alike. <ref>H. Patrick Glenn, ''Legal traditions of the world: sustainable diversity in law'', Oxford University Press, 2007. pp 94 - 97</ref> | |||
| The Church Fathers agreed. Matthew was said to have been part of the scattered i.e. (the ] or ''Tefutzot'' תפוצות, "to scatter"). More importantly, the Church Fathers record that when he was about to leave, he reduced the ''Oral Tradition'' to written form. 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 '']'' was believed by the Early Church to be 'the first' Gospel to be composed. Also, most scholars now agree that the ''Hebrew Gospel'' was very different from our Canonical Gospel of Matthew.<ref>Maurice Casey, ''Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching'', Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-87</ref> | |||
| However, the priority of Matthew's ''Hebrew Gospel'' has been contested. According the Church Fathers, when Peter (one of the ]) left Jerusalem, he preached the Gospel orally to the ] in ] and eventually went to ].<ref> Gregg Gardner & Kevin Lee Osterloh, ''Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World'', Publisher Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Vol 123 p 199</ref> Papias stated that Peter's ] ] reduced the Oral Tradition of Peter to written form. Although this early testimony does not state who "first" reduced the logia into a Gospel, Papias does refer to Mark first, then Matthew second. Today, most modern scholars agree the oldest and most reliable of the Gospels is the Gospel of Mark. It was composed by an unknown Christian called Marcus in the early years of the Christian Church. Although Marcus was not present during the historic ministry of Jesus, he did hear Peter teach and preach orally. <ref>Maurice Casey, ''Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching'', Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 97</ref> | |||
| Critical scholars accept the view that the texts of the first written accounts of Jesus Christ were based upon the ''Oral Tradition''. However some scholars believe these early writings were based "directly" upon the ''Oral Tradition'', while others argue that the Christian logia grew into pericopes, which were in turn collected into still larger accounts or proto-Gospels. Then the Gospel authors further developed these proto-Gospels into the final Gospels we have in our Canon.<ref> David Barrett Peabody, ''One Gospel from two'', Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002. pp 11-12</ref> | |||
| ==Form criticism== | |||
| {{see also|Jesus in the Talmud}} | |||
| Form criticism (''Formgeschichte'') was developed primarily by the German scholars Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann to study the oral teachings that lay behind the written Gospels. The oral model developed by the form critics drew heavily on contemporary theory of Jewish folkloric transmission of oral material, and as a result of this form criticism one can trace the development of the ''Christian Oral Tradition''. However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's ''Synoptic Tradition'' must be considered suspect."<ref>Bart D. Ehrman, ''Did Jesus Exist?'', HarperCollins, 2012. p 83 - 91</ref> | |||
| A number of other models have been proposed which posit greater control over the tradition, to varying degrees. For example, largely in response to form critical scholarship, Professor ] examined oral transmission in early rabbinic circles, and proposed that a more controlled and formal model of orality would more accurately reflect the transmission of the Jesus tradition in early Christian circles. Therefore, the oral tradition presented in the gospels has been fairly reliably and faithfully transmitted. It is now generally agreed that even though the Gospels were written in Greek, much of the Christian Oral Tradition was originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine. These traditions date to the early years of the Christian movement, before it expanded into the Greek-speaking areas in the Mediterranean.<ref>Bart D. Ehrman, ''Did Jesus Exist?'', HarperCollins, 2012. p 86-87</ref> | |||
| ==Reliability== | |||
| The Oral Tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad conditions" or six "particular conditions", as follows:<ref>Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: 1946. pp 261–262)</ref><ref>J. Vansina, ''De la tradition orale. Essai de méthode historique'', in translation as '']'', K. E. Bailey, "Informed Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels", ''Asia Journal of Theology'' 1991. pp 34–54</ref> | |||
| # ''Broad conditions of Reliability''. | |||
| ## The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing. | |||
| ## There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question. | |||
| # ''Particular conditions formulated''. | |||
| ## The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons. | |||
| ## The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time. | |||
| ## During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it. | |||
| ## The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. | |||
| ## The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand. | |||
| ## Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition — had they considered it false — must have made no such challenge. | |||
| # ''Newest condition of Reliability''. | |||
| ## Aramaic permeated all levels of Jewish life in Palestine. It was both the spoken and written medium of communication in Jewish Palestinian life. Today, scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the use of Aramaic as a condition of reliability has only become important since the discovery of the Aramaic ''Dead Sea Scrolls''. These scrolls have allowed this present generation of scholars to make massive progress. Scholars further agree that the portions of the gospels that show an Aramaic root have a greater degree of historical plausibility.<ref>James R. Edwards, ''The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition,'' Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 162</ref> | |||
| == References == | |||
| {{Reflist}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Oral Tradition And The Historical Jesus}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 06:41, 18 January 2013
Redirect to: