Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Oral Tradition vs Oral Performance

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    Professor Dunn, Back on the 27th I posted a question asking about the philosophical implications of the article under discussion, that to date has been missed
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Professor Dunn,

      Back on the 27th I posted a question asking about the philosophical
      implications of the article under discussion, that to date has been
      missed (or skipped?).

      The paper contains a fair amount of rhetorical language, such
      as "Unfortunately ..." (numerous), "... obvious ...," "ignored the
      most obvious," "once again eluded scholarship," "Regrettably then,
      once again, the potential significance of ... has been subverted by
      another agenda and lost to sight," etc. (and these are just those in
      the first 8 pages!)

      There is also a striking similarity between your suggestions and
      Papias' statement, himself quoting the verbal account of "the
      presbyter," that "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote
      down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in
      exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he
      neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I
      said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the
      necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a
      regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no
      mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one
      thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and
      not to put anything fictitious into the statements." [Eusebius,
      _H.E._ 3:39]

      You may not be claiming that the author of the second gospel was
      actually Mark, Peter's assistant, but you do seem to be asserting a
      very similar transmission process as described above. Is this
      coincidence, fortuitous, a vindication of tradition, or an
      explanation intended to set the minds of reasonable people at ease?
      To some of us who have a great deal of psychological resources
      invested in the historical method, this is a very important question.

      I thought the mention of Herder's almost offhand comment about oral
      saga explaining variations in the gospel accounts was more than
      coincidental. J. G. Herder had offered a solution to the conflict
      between scientific method and a metaphysical comprehansion of the
      world that permitted empirical investigation to live in harmony with
      a theological world view. However it is no accident, I think, that he
      is also considered the father of the Romanticist schools of history.

      Does oral traditioning (with regard to the gospels, at least) boil
      down to a desire to romantically emplot the historical record?

      Thanks again!

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.