Talk:Oral gospel traditions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 Wikipedia. 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)

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. [1] and [2]. 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

"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)

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 Wikipedia 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[weasel words] underlies the written gospels.[1]" 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)

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. [2]

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)