Talk:Oral gospel traditions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why does this article exist?

I have doubts about this article - very, very short, and everything in it could/should be in other, longer, articles. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very, very short. However I do believe it is notable. I also believe it should be expanded. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it needs to exist. Yes the subject is notable, but in the context which fits inside other better maintained articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the subject of the article is notable, I'm just unconvinced that there's anything to say about it that isn't already in the relevant section of the article on the Gospels. That article itself, in my view, isn't as good as it could be. I'd suggest that you spend some time refining that section, and then, if you feel there's more to say, come back to this article. (Incidentally, what I feel is lacking or weak about the "oral traditions" section of Gospel is that it misses the central question: can oral traditions be retrieved in any credible form, and then, even if they can, how reliable were the traditions anyway? As I understand it, the answer to the first question is Not Really, and the second is Not Very). PiCo (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that the topic is notable. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83-93 and pp 98-101 explains that it is important because the "Oral Tradition" was the basis of all the gospels and is the key to understanding the historical Jesus. It is also a hot topic in Biblical circles with Dunn's Oral Gospel Tradition, to be released at this summer. I do agree that we keep an open mind and see where the reliable sources take us. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Ehrman does NOT say that the oral tradition was the basis of all the gospels. What he says is that the four gospels used a variety of sources, some written (Q, M, L, passion narrative, signs narrative) and some oral. Ehrman is a good source, but please pay attention to what he actually says. Perhaps this article should be about Sources of the gospels - that would make an interesting article. PiCo (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then Ehrman goes on to say that "most significant of all, each of these numerous Gospel texts is based on oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of J esus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus." - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus decision to reduce this article to a stub was made here. If you want to put this article up for an WP:AfD, then take your chances. However, it is not going to be railroaded by redirect. Ignocrates (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect would be a serious abuse of process! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the redirect per se; it is the decidedly non-consensus way these things have been done in the past. That is not going to happen again. Ignocrates (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"redirect would be a serious abuse of process" --- after the various persistent recreations of articles, process would be not recreating on wp what has been attempted and deleted many times before. As I said, exactly what was feared is happening. RetProf is bringing back the same old SYNTHESIS and POINTY material yet again. It's that that makes one think a merge to a better patrolled article would be a good idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You can file a proposal for deletion of the stub at WP:AFD#Creating an AFD and make your case for a merge in a public forum. Ignocrates (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jewish teacher of Palestine

Jesus was a Jew. Ehrman 2005 p 96 There is now a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. Voorst 2000. p 5 If we can agree that Jesus "was a Jewish teacher of Palestine" (Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012 p 86 then we can move on to the importance of Aramaic Ehrman 2012 p 87 and the Oral Law in the days of Jesus and his followers. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something; including this material should be completely straightforward. Maybe an outline of what you are proposing to do in this section would help to facilitate talk page discussion. Otherwise, I would interpret silence on the talk page as de facto permission to be bold and include it. Ignocrates (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am also missing why RetProf has repeatedly attempted to insert this sentence into various articles. Do some people think Jesus was Welsh or Malaysian? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Today, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew living in Jewish Palestine.

But the question is: what is this blindingly obvious statement doing in this article. Removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the short answer to your question is because the reliable sources such as Ehrman,Voorst, Casey etc raise it as an important issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And those sources do not relate it to this subject. Please try inserting them at the historical Jesus article instead. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

POV problems

I POV-tagged the article section on Form Criticism for the deletion of reliably sourced content, and the reliable sources themselves, without discussion diffdiff. Work out a compromise on the talk page, soon, or the next stop will be WP:DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Just to be clear, I'm going to try my best to take a neutral position on the content of this article. I will fix obvious problems like misspelled names and improperly formatted citations and references. I may add reliable sources I find to Further Reading. I am not going to interfere with article content, other than to encourage that the editorial process be open and fair. Therefore, I'm going to continue calling out TE behavior like blanking reliably sourced content without attempting to seek a consensus. I will also flag obvious cases of OR and improper use of source citations. I am not opposed to merging this stub with a redirect or deleting it entirely; however, those decisions should be made with community input using an AfD. Ignocrates (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the original passage was: "Today, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew living in Jewish Palestine. Indeed there is a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. ", and the second sentence was deleted. So far as I can see, the second sentence repeats the idea of the first, which I think is adequate reason to delete one of the other (I don't care which). The question still remains, however, why are we drawing attention to this fact, surely it can be taken for granted? The thread immediately aboce this one discusses this, and there RetProf says he wants to include it because Ehrman and others think it's important. Ok, but if it's important, we need to specify why it's important - which indeed Ehrman goes on to do (he talks about the theology of the very earliest Christ-followers, and, though he doesn't say so, this theology presumably formed an important part of the early oral tradition). PiCo (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You have raised some important points that need to be addressed. Ehrman,Voorst, Casey all believe that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. Indeed the problem for historians is that "Jesus was so firmly rooted in his own time and place as a first-century Palestinian Jew—with an ancient Jewish understanding of the world, God, and human existence—that he does not translate easily into a modern idiom." Then Ehrman moves on to the importance of Aramaic Ehrman 2012 p 87 and the Oral Law in the days of Jesus and his followers. Furthermore WP:NPOV it is not for individual WP editors to decide where respected mainstream scholars such as Bart Ehrman are "too obvious". What they need to do is find opposing views from scholars of equal standing and who state that the Jewishness of Jesus is too blindingly obvious to be mentioned. Finally, Wikipedia:No original research states the obvious may not need a source. ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish". However to say that the obvious ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish" must be deleted from Wikiedia seems to turn Wikipedia:No original research upside down. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo that the what (Jesus was a Jew) should be closely followed by the why (cultural context of Palestinian Judaism, etc.) as far as why this matters for oral gospel traditions. I still think a talk page outline for this section would help the discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I will put together a talk page outline for this section which will show how the Jewishness of Jesus forms the basis for understanding the oral tradition in Ehrman's work. I will post it later this week. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. If someone wants to make the point that Jesus was a Jew (as if someone thinks he was Welsh?) make it in the Jesus of Nazareth article. Here it is a blatant springboard to whatever OR is being reproduced next. This article is about Oral gospel traditions, which itself is already OR-prone enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, I suspect (only suspect) that you might be misunderstanding what your sources are saying, and also misunderstanding what is meant by key terms such as oral tradition and sitz im leben. When Ehrman refers to the Oral Law, he's talking about the Oral Torah of Judaism, which isn't at all what modern scholars mean by the term "oral tradition" as it applies to the New Testament. (The Oral Torah is a sort of interpretation and amplification of the Laws of Moses, supposedly delivered on Sinai at the same time as the Written Torah, while the oral tradition of Christianity is the hypothetical oral retellings of Jesus and his teachings passed down by his immediate followers; and sitz im leben means the specific situations in which those retellings were made, not the entire social set-up of 1st century Palestine). Also, I'm a little worried by your focus on the language of Jesus and his followers: yes, it was Aramaic, but the oral tradition isn't supposed to be entirely Aramaic, it includes the Greek and even, I guess, Syriac retellings, before they went into the written gospels. Ehrman says this quite explicitly: "Even though the Gospels were written in Greek, as were their sources, some of the surviving traditions were originally spoken in Aramaic..." (The link is the same you give above). I stress: the gospels were written in Greek (says Ehrman), and so were their sources (he means their written sources - they all had written sources, even Mark), and some (not all) of the oral traditions which lay behind the gospels and their written sources were originally in Aramaic. That passage from Ehrman is an excellent source, but please use it carefully. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed to Talk

Form criticism and biblical genres

Form criticism is the methodologies by which biblical scholars seek to discover the types ("forms") of literature contained in the bible. It begins by establishing the Sitz im Leben, "situation in life", which gave rise to a particular passage. When form critics discuss oral traditions about Jesus, they theorise about particular social situations in which different kinds of stories about Jesus were thought to be told. sfn|Ehrman|2012|p=84 sfn|Aune|2010|p=144 The Sitz im Leben for Jesus and his followers was Aramaic-speaking Palestine. sfn|Ehrman|2012|p=86-87 sfn|Aune|2010|p=144 This is important because the gospels show clearly both that they were based on oral traditions (as the Gospel of Luke indicates) and that these traditions had been around since Christianity first emerged in Palestine. Ehrman|2012|p=84-87

Okay, please can we give actual words not page numbers see some actual evidence from the sentences in Aune, Ehrman that this is (a) really relevant to this topic, (b) accurately presented in relation to "oral gospel traditions," and (c) not better in another article such as historical Jesus. Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this paragraph is indeed trying to say something important, but not saying it very well. The relevant passage from Ehrman is actually a much better place to start: Ehrman's section is headed The Oral Traditions About Jesus, and it says:

• "The further question that needs to be asked is where all these Gospel sources - Mark, Q, M, L, sayings source, passion narratives, proto-Thomas and so on - got their stories. This is a question that has occupied New Testament scholars for nearly a hundred years." (He then goes on to outline the development of form criticism in the early 20th century).

I'd suggest replacing the material above with something based much more closely on this passage from Ehrman. I suggest:

• For over a hundred years, scholars been investigating the question of the ultimate sources of the Gospel stories."

That would serve for an introduction to the study of oral tradition. PiCo (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, the point of placing a POV-tag was to facilitate talk page discussion about the content, not to delete the tag and all of the content and replace it with a merge tag. Delete this content again without discussion and you will find yourself at ANI explaining this deletion and 50 more just like it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates,

Please see WP:BRD. You cannot threaten to "take someone to ANI" for moving controversial content to Talk for discussion

(1) article before and after addition of OR. You have just edit-warred back in material removed to Talk for discussion accompanied by a threat.

Please back off.

As for "and 50 more just like it" for example? I don't think we've yet AfDed/merged this same old content from RetProf 50 times even though it feels like it. Personally I have had it up to here with this WP:OR constantly being re-added. Look at the edit history on this "article." It seems to me that since this article has no parallel on other wps and no clear reason for separation we are allowed to discuss a merge. Whether you like it or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant 50 more examples across your entire edit history, as your prior behavior is well documented. However, I apologize for saying so on an article talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

50 more examples of suggesting a merge? You're more than welcome to say so, but I doubt if I've ever suggested more than 10 merges in my years of editing. This has already been up for a merge remember. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, I was referring to blanking reliably-sourced article content without discussion, but I have already apologized once for bringing it up, so leave it alone. Ignocrates (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oral Tradition not written in stone

Most Biblical Scholarship is conjecture. We can say that the four Gospels were written in Greek, give an account of the life of Jesus and were thought to be reliable by the Early Church. However when we get into authorship, date of composition, place of composition, authenticity etc. we enter the realm of conjecture. Biblical Scholars cannot "prove" a single thing "historically". Ehrman 2012 p 38

All scholars can do is give enough evidence to convince "people (hopefully nearly everyone) about a certain historical claim." For example Ehrman p 87 presents evidence that "Talitha cumi” is from the Aramaic origins of the Oral Tradition. Is this a concrete example from Church history of an oral tradition? Probably not. Was this written in stone. No. Why is it important? Please see Ehrman Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83-93 and pp 98-101 @Ignocrates I have been following your work and enjoying it immensely! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Oral Tradition not written in stone". Indeed yes. PiCo (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate my sense of humor! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the Oral Tradition is important.

There is more to our topic than the theoretical musings of modern scholars! Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus, 2007. pp 326-33 quotes Papias who states that he regards oral tradition to be more reliable than written records because it is the first-hand testimony of eye-witnesses or their immediate followers: "For not in those who have much to say did I delight, as do the many, but in those who teach what is true, ... For I assumed that what is derived from books does not profit me so much as what is derived from a living and abiding voice." (Church History 3.39.3-4).

There is now agreement among all Biblical scholars that Jesus did not compose the Gospels, nor did he dictate his Gospel to his followers. His message was transmitted orally. Each of the numerous Gospel texts is based on the oral traditions about Jesus. Therefore it is important to scholars such as Dunn, Ehrman etc to ascertain the reliability of this oral transmission. If the Oral Gospel Tradition is reliable, then were have an accurate picture of Jesus and his message. If it is not reliable, then we do not! Indeed Jesus and his message may be little more than myth. The new scholarship of Ehrman, Casey etc tends to focus on three main points:

1. What were the components of oral tradition at the time of Jesus? Was it similar the oral tradition of native North Americans. Was it like German folk traditions? Did it bear any resemblance to the Oral Tradition of Second Temple Judaism?
2. What was the language of the Oral Tradition?
3. When did the Oral Gospel Tradition come to an end?

Since everything we know about Jesus was filtered though the Oral Gospel Traditions, a growing number of scholars now believe it to be an important topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article

Let us start at the beginning and work slowly together. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture

To illustrate this article I have chosen The Sermon on the Mount by Carl Bloch. However, it is important to keep an open mind to other possibilities. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

The WP:LEAD should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The stub gives a 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 will add a second shortly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Form criticism and biblical genres

I suggest that the title of the first section be Sitz im Leben for it is central to our topic and Ehrman 2012 p 84 raises it at the beginning of his section on the oral tradition. Also most scholarly works on the oral tradition have a section on the Sitz im Leben. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire Sitz im Leben section was deleted for being out of WP:SCOPE, as previously explained Talk:Oral_gospel_traditions#References. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with User:Huon, but you might want to understand his reasons before you proceed. Ignocrates (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect I probably was overzealous when I removed that section in its entirety, but much of what I removed (see this version) seemed to deal with stuff unrelated or only marginally related to the oral gospel traditions (Mary's religion is the extreme example, but what is believed about Mount Sinai is also rather irrelevant to gospel traditions). I have no objections to the article covering the Sitz im Leben, but it should draw a clear connection to the oral gospel traditions. Huon (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Please monitor the progress on this page. I want all interested editors to be satisfied that there is a clear connection between the Sitz im Leben material and oral gospel traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Huon: A special thanks for admitting that you may have been "overzealous when I removed that section in its entirety" and "I have no objections to the article covering the Sitz im Leben, but it should draw a clear connection to the oral gospel traditions." Your good will means a lot, especially when dealing with a difficult topic like this one. BTW I found your comments both enlightening and challenging. I spent many hours at the Seminary Library because of you ... which is a good thing! Also, I agree with both you, and Smeat75 that our focus must return to sources. Accordingly, I have added two references below that show the Sitz im Leben falls within the scope of our topic. Should you still have concerns, I will try to meet them or drop the Sitz im Leben from our article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• CONSENSUS: After much discussion (see sitz im leben above) it was agreed this entire section is about form criticism, of which the sitz im leben can be considered a subsection. Section name>>>> Form criticism and biblical genres

First Paragraph

Ehrman in his section on the Oral Tradition explains that one of the most important issues to 'form critics' studying the oral traditions about Jesus is the “situation in life" (German: Sitz im Leben) in which different kinds of stories about Jesus were told. Ehrman 2012 p 84 Form criticism argues that "each individual oral form arose within and was determined by a by a particular social situation, or Sitz im Leben, either a situation in the life of Jesus (if all or part of the tradition can be traced back to Jesus), or else to a situation in the life of the early church". ie (the oral tradition stemming from Jesus) "The first of these cultural-linguistic diachronic stages is the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church". David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. p 144 The Aramaic cultural-linguistic diachronic stage is very important to Ehrman.

The Sitz im Leben for Jesus and his followers was the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church, ie those who were part of the original circle of disciples and followers of Jesus as well as those who were attracted to their post-Easter message that Jesus was the Messiah. David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. p 144 Indeed Ehrman pp 86-87 writes that the oral traditions been around since Christianity first emerged as a religion in Palestine itself. The oral traditions "were originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine. These traditions date at least to the early years of the Christian movement, before it expanded into the Greek speaking lands". This is important because the gospels, "show clearly both that they were based on oral traditions (as Luke himself indicates) and that these traditions had been around for a very long time —in fact, that they had been around since Christianity first emerged as a religion in Palestine itself." Ehrman pp 86-87

Second Paragraph

I have reworked the second paragraph in accordance with the concerns raised above. Today, there is a consensus that Jesus must be understood as being Jewish in a Jewish environment. Voorst 2000. p 5 Indeed Jesus was so very firmly rooted in his own time and place as a first-century Palestinian Jew—with his ancient Jewish comprehension of the world, and God, — that he does not translate easily into a modern idiom. Ehrman 2012 p 13 Jesus was raised in a Jewish household in the Jewish hamlet of Nazareth. He was brought up in a Jewish culture, accepted Jewish ways and eventually became a Jewish teacher. Ehrman 2012 p 86 (See also p 12, p 171, p 92, p 268 etc.) and Jewish teachers debated the Law of Moses orally. Ehrman 2012 p 276

(See "Jewish Teacher" below) (See also Why the Oral Tradition is important above)

Why being a "Jewish Teacher" is important

The Oral Traditions at the time of Jesus were molded by the "Jewish Teachers" of the Second Temple period! Ehrman stresses that the Oral Tradition of Jesus was not only like the Jewish Oral tradition at the time of Jesus but that Jesus was a part of that tradition. When for example Jesus opposed Pharisaic interpretations of the Law— over what could and could not be done on the Sabbath— Jesus "was not opposing Judaism. He was simply opposing one interpretation of Judaism. Other Jews as well disagreed." Jesus was a Jewish teacher. Ehrman 2012 p 86 p 12, p 171, p 92, p 268 etc. and one of the things Jewish teachers were known for at that time was developing an extensive Oral Tradition regarding the Written Law of Moses. They debated the many details of the Law. Jewish teachers argued about such things. Their arguments were not meant to make life difficult. They were meant to help everyone know how to keep the Law. Keeping the Law was the main thing. These "interpretations of the Law that were intended to make sure that Jews followed what Moses commanded. These interpretations came to be known as the oral law". Brad Young supports Ehrman by explaining Jesus raised up twelve disciples and also had crowds of followers who listened to his words. "Instead of writing a book he established his teachings in the Jewish oral method of preserving tradition."

Now not all scholars would agree with Ehrman and Young that the "oral tradition" of Jesus was the oral tradition of the Jews. Yet most would agree that both these oral traditons were simular and more importantly were in Aramaic. It is important to understand the Aramaic form which Jesus’ teaching presumably took. Without such inquiry any assertions about earliest forms of the teaching tradition are bound to be suspect in some measure. All have noted that the tradition, even in its Greek state, bears several marks of oral transmission in Aramaic. This is all the stuff of oral tradition, and as noted above is essential to our article on the Oral Gospel traditions

Finally, for an in debth look at Jesus, as Jewish teacher or Rabbi and the Jewish oral traditions see Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Holding off on additional editing

If we can agree that Jesus was a Jewish Teacher per Ehrman on the Oral Tradition pp 87-90, I would suggest holding off on further editing until Oct 3 when Dunn's book will hit the bookstores. Reserve orders can be placed now! In any event I plan to focus on the Gospel of Matthew - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Blindingly Obvious

"Today, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew living in Jewish Palestine. Indeed there is a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. " was deleted from the article by In ictu oculi for the following reasons: "I am also missing why RetProf has repeatedly attempted to insert this sentence into various articles. Do some people think Jesus was Welsh or Malaysian? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)" AND "But the question is: what is this blindingly obvious statement doing in this article. Removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)" See above.

I disagree with the deletion of this referenced material on the following grounds:

1. The deletion goes against Wikipedia policy. Simply because something is obvious, is not grounds for deleting it. Wikipedia:No original research states the obvious may not need a source. ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish". It does not provide for deleting such statements.
2. That Jesus was Jewish is "blindingly obvious" to In ictu oculi but not everyone! Over the years I have met many people who believed Jesus was Christian. Simply stating an opinion without references is not acceptable ground for deletion material from reliable sources.
3. From the debate above it is clear that there are a number of editors who really, really, really do not like Bart Ehrman. That is fine. But since he is a reliable source, it is not acceptable to delete without a good reason! As Smeat75 explained, "Well in my opinion that is the very opposite of WP:NPOV. It is not for individual WP editors to decide where respected mainstream scholars such as Bart Ehrman are right and where they are wrong and censor the "wrong" views of respected scholars from WP. What they need to do is find opposing views from scholars of equal standing and quote those views as well as the "wrong" ones. This discussion as to where Ehrman's statements are RS and where they are not is ludicrous, that is not for WP editors to decide. His latest book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published by Oxford University Press, as mainstream as it is possible to get, he has had fifteen books published by OUP, others by Harper Collins,Harvard University Press, he is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship, a NYT bestselling author, on and on. Some editors don't like what he says, their opinions do not matter, only WP:RS and OUP and Harvard University Press are as WP:RS as it is possible to be.Smeat75 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)"
4. The reliable sources do not say that the Jewishness of Jesus is so very "blindingly obvious" that it should omitted regarding "Form Criticism". Quite the opposite. Casey explains in his section on form criticism that anti-Jewish bias has been a problem for scholars studying this topic. See Casey's section on Form Criticism 9-12 See Also Google Link , Casey 2010 p 11 & Casey 2010 p 11 The position that "Jesus was not a Jew" is based on spurious intellectual arguments. and because of this it has become important to scholars to stress the "Jewishness of Jesus" re form critism.

Finally, let me stress that I do not take offense at the challanges presented by In ictu oculi in this article. He is a fine editor, and I am sure if he did not raise these concerns others would. It is true that he makes an old man work but intellectual exercise at my age is a good thing! I look forward to his response to my position. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Let's see what others say. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And let me say you have won me over on a number of points. You were right about Hebrew Gospel hypothesis and the duplication of Hebrew Gospel material. I do respect all the good work you do. And let me say, I do believe Ehrman is a reliable source, but I am aware of his weaknesses. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed POV TAG

It seems that everyone is in agreement that Jesus was Jewish. Now we need to understand why Ehrman and others believe that this is so very important to our topic. Also, the importance of this topic has been questioned and we need to show why Ehrman, Dunn etc think the Oral Gospel traditions are important. If this is not acceptable we may need to consider WP:DRN. It is also important to clarify those areas in which we agree and those which we disagree.- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You probably should have asked if everyone was in agreement before you removed the POV-tag, but I concur that the dust has settled and it is time to move forward. Ignocrates (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Post-merge proposal

Now that we are done with merge proposals, it's time to resume expanding this stub into an article. I'm going to clean up the Sources section by moving the recently de-cited references to Further Reading (because the bright red error messages look really bad). I gently recommend holding off on additional editing until Dunn's new book comes out, as it will likely affect the article content in a major way. Ignocrates (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I added citations for Dunn 2003 as a source for the recently-merged synoptic oral-tradition material. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citations and I agree with your proposal. It was also great to see the good will in the merge debate! I also felt good about the CONSENSUS that emerged. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note how the content of this section was merged to this article, leaving the sources behind, and then it was tagged for removal as unsourced content. That is why I took pains to recover the sources. Ignocrates (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Goodnight and good luck

Had a go at a new para for the lead. That's all from me. Best of British to you all :) PiCo (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

PiCo

Nice work good man, but I think it's pointless. This article doesn't need to exist. No other wp has it (well not strictly true, es.wp just copied it, groan), the subject is covered in other more prominent articles. If Ret.Prof is going to add yet again the same old content that has been removed several times (lost count) before, then including it in a more visible article is a better solution than having it bleep on watchlist. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RetProf, you left this message on Ignocrates' Talk Page. "Since everyone agrees that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. therefore it must be removed from the article??" Please ask User:Dougweller, User:John Carter, User:History2007, User:Huon, User:StAnselm, where (in which article) the statement "There is now a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment" would be best placed and whether or not it is here. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The best place would seem to be Historical Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks StAnselm, hopefully User:Editor2020, User:JohnChrysostom, User:Esoglou and others will see this too. The more experienced editors' eyes the better. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, thanks for your heroic efforts in the face of adversity. Ignocrates (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried my best to be even-handed and mediate this mess. It's time to call in the cavalry. Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just contacted admin AGK about bringing some oversight to this article. AGK is currently serving on both the mediation and arbitration committees. I think his involvement will be helpful for putting an end to the religious crusade that is plaguing this category. Ignocrates (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, please "religious crusade," "burst into flames," "call in the cavalry," "long-running battle to control religious content"... is that necessary?

This article overlaps with some of WikiProject Christianity's core set of articles about the New Testament. I already posted a request on WikiProject Christianity's Talk page. Now let others come and work on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that every metaphor I used is true at heart and that outside intervention is necessary. This religious dispute - in various guises - is now over three years old with no end in site. Therefore, I'm going to recommend that we skip the preliminaries - as two admins are active participants - and take this right to arbitration. As far as the content portion of the dispute over this specific article, I think it should go to either informal or formal mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are probably correct but I was hoping to avoid arbitration until after Dunn's book was made available to the public. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration concerns only editor (mis)conduct; therefore, Dunn's publications are irrelevant for that purpose. Some of the deletors may find themselves being deleted. We shall see. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no clear evidence of the "religious dispute" mentionede above, actually. There may be some evidence that non-notable religious groups, or groups which express opinionbs which have little if any real academic support, but by wikipedia policies and guidelkines such disputes would not be "religious disputes", but probably rather violations of WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, WP:RS, and WP:POV, and individuals violating policies and guidelines, even if some of the reasoning behind doing so, very much are within the purview of the arbitration committee. At this point, personally, I am very much in support of bringing these concerns before arbitration, although, in all honesty, I have a very strong suspicion that some individuals are going to be very surprised by what independent arbitrators see as being the most fundamental problems here. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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. [41] [42] [43] Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was believed to be one of the earliest written and was circulated under the title the Gospel of the Hebrews. [44] [45] [46] [47]

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)

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)