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

Re: [XTalk] Oral Tradition

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    ... the ... and ... Rikk, you appear to be referring to James D. G. Dunn s statement in his footnote in _Jesus Remembered_ (207, n. 182), namely: Bailey s
    Message 1 of 78 , Apr 26, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob Schacht wrote on April 22:

      > > We have had a number of extensive sessions on oral tradition on XTalk;
      > > there was a special seminar with Jimmy Dunn, and Ted Weeden offered an
      > > extensive critique of Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral
      > > tradition. While Weeden's critique has exposed serious flaws in Bailey's
      > > argument in support of his theory, that doesn't necessarily mean that
      the
      > > idea of informal controlled oral tradition is not relevant to the First
      > > Century in general and especially to the period between the crucifixion
      and
      > > the composition of the Gospels.

      Rikk Watts wrote on Monday, April 26, 2004, in response to Bob Schacht:

      > Bob,
      >
      > You might want to check Dunn's assessment of Ted's criticisms in his JESUS
      > REMEMBERED. Not very impressed.

      Rikk, you appear to be referring to James D. G. Dunn's statement in his
      footnote in _Jesus Remembered_ (207, n. 182), namely: "Bailey's claims
      regarding the stability of the stories told about Hogg have been seriously
      challenged, particularly by T. Weeden in
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8301 and /8730. In
      personal correspondence Bailey has expressed his regret at some
      overstatement in regard to the Hogg tradition, but insists that his
      hypothesis is based primarily on his own experience of the haflat samar.
      Weeden's further critique of Bailey's anecdotes and their significance
      ["Bailey's Theory of Oral Tradition: a Flawed Theory, Part II"] misses much
      of Bailey's point, is unduly censorious, and weakens Bailey's case hardly at
      all."

      Let me provide a bit of background (for you and interested listers) to Jimmy
      Dunn's comment and the state of my critique of Bailey since the XTalk posts
      to which Dunn refers. Dunn presented a paper, "Jesus in Oral Memory: the
      Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition," on an on-line seminar (arranged as I
      recall by Jeffrey Gibson), J_D_G_DunnSeminar@yahoogroups.com, in which list
      members of XTalk and members of other lists participated during the latter
      part of April and the first of May, 2001. In his paper Dunn declared his
      advocacy of Kenneth Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral tradition as
      a model to explain how the Jesus oral tradition was preserved in its
      integrity and authenicity in the years following Easter and up to the time
      of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. Ken Olson in a response to Dunn
      raised questions about the reliability of Kenneth Bailey in accurately
      representing his only extant written source upon which he is heavily
      dependent for the validity of his theory. Olson's reservations led me to
      read Bailey's two articles ("Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the
      Synoptic Gospels, " _Asia Journal of Theology_, 5 [1991], 34-54; and "Middle
      Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," _The Expository Times_,
      106 [1994-95], 363-367), in which he sets forth his theory, and I read as
      well the extant source in question, Rena Hogg's _A Master-Builder on the
      Nile_, her biography of her father John Hogg. In reading both Bailey's
      articles I found Ken Olson's reservations concerning Bailey's accuracy in
      representing Rena Hogg's anecdotes about her father to be well grounded. I,
      then, set about to write two essays, to which Jimmy Dunn refers, in which I
      challenged Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral tradition as a theory
      that is seriously flawed.

      Dunn became aware of my XTalk challenge to Baileys' theory via Jeffrey
      Gibson, and Jeffrey then arranged for Jimmy Dunn and I to exchange posts
      privately, an exchange that I found beneficial. I have since revised by
      critique of Bailey and I think considerably strengthened it. Dunn has not
      seen the revision as yet, though I have offered to send it to him and he, in
      response, has indicated he would like to see it. Since Bob Schacht had
      engaged me on XTalk with respect to my initial critique of Bailey, and
      raised himself some questions about my critique, I recently sent him my
      revised critique off-list earlier this month and invited his critical
      feedback on the revision. His feedback and suggestions have been very
      helpful and I am making further revisions as a result of them. Bob will
      need to speak for himself, if he wishes to do so, with respect to my case
      against Bailey's evidentiary support for his theory.

      Rikk, I would be happy to send you (off-list --- and to anyone else who is
      interested), my current revision to determine for yourself, quite apart from
      Dunn, whether my challenge to the validity of Baileys' theory, as he has
      presented it in his two articles with his evidentiary support, is well
      founded. Rather than summarily dismissing my critique by stating that Dunn
      was not impressed by it, I think it is only fair that you explain to me, and
      XTalk list members with whom you have registered your judgment, why your
      cryptic, perjorative statement, citing Dunn as your authority, renders my
      critique of Bailey's theory without foundation and merit.

      Best regards,.

      Ted Weeden
      Theodore J Weeden, Sr.
      Ph.D. (Claremont), retired
      Appleton, WI
    • Ted Weeden
      ... the ... and ... Rikk, you appear to be referring to James D. G. Dunn s statement in his footnote in _Jesus Remembered_ (207, n. 182), namely: Bailey s
      Message 78 of 78 , Apr 26, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob Schacht wrote on April 22:

        > > We have had a number of extensive sessions on oral tradition on XTalk;
        > > there was a special seminar with Jimmy Dunn, and Ted Weeden offered an
        > > extensive critique of Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral
        > > tradition. While Weeden's critique has exposed serious flaws in Bailey's
        > > argument in support of his theory, that doesn't necessarily mean that
        the
        > > idea of informal controlled oral tradition is not relevant to the First
        > > Century in general and especially to the period between the crucifixion
        and
        > > the composition of the Gospels.

        Rikk Watts wrote on Monday, April 26, 2004, in response to Bob Schacht:

        > Bob,
        >
        > You might want to check Dunn's assessment of Ted's criticisms in his JESUS
        > REMEMBERED. Not very impressed.

        Rikk, you appear to be referring to James D. G. Dunn's statement in his
        footnote in _Jesus Remembered_ (207, n. 182), namely: "Bailey's claims
        regarding the stability of the stories told about Hogg have been seriously
        challenged, particularly by T. Weeden in
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8301 and /8730. In
        personal correspondence Bailey has expressed his regret at some
        overstatement in regard to the Hogg tradition, but insists that his
        hypothesis is based primarily on his own experience of the haflat samar.
        Weeden's further critique of Bailey's anecdotes and their significance
        ["Bailey's Theory of Oral Tradition: a Flawed Theory, Part II"] misses much
        of Bailey's point, is unduly censorious, and weakens Bailey's case hardly at
        all."

        Let me provide a bit of background (for you and interested listers) to Jimmy
        Dunn's comment and the state of my critique of Bailey since the XTalk posts
        to which Dunn refers. Dunn presented a paper, "Jesus in Oral Memory: the
        Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition," on an on-line seminar (arranged as I
        recall by Jeffrey Gibson), J_D_G_DunnSeminar@yahoogroups.com, in which list
        members of XTalk and members of other lists participated during the latter
        part of April and the first of May, 2001. In his paper Dunn declared his
        advocacy of Kenneth Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral tradition as
        a model to explain how the Jesus oral tradition was preserved in its
        integrity and authenicity in the years following Easter and up to the time
        of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. Ken Olson in a response to Dunn
        raised questions about the reliability of Kenneth Bailey in accurately
        representing his only extant written source upon which he is heavily
        dependent for the validity of his theory. Olson's reservations led me to
        read Bailey's two articles ("Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the
        Synoptic Gospels, " _Asia Journal of Theology_, 5 [1991], 34-54; and "Middle
        Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," _The Expository Times_,
        106 [1994-95], 363-367), in which he sets forth his theory, and I read as
        well the extant source in question, Rena Hogg's _A Master-Builder on the
        Nile_, her biography of her father John Hogg. In reading both Bailey's
        articles I found Ken Olson's reservations concerning Bailey's accuracy in
        representing Rena Hogg's anecdotes about her father to be well grounded. I,
        then, set about to write two essays, to which Jimmy Dunn refers, in which I
        challenged Bailey's theory of informal controlled oral tradition as a theory
        that is seriously flawed.

        Dunn became aware of my XTalk challenge to Baileys' theory via Jeffrey
        Gibson, and Jeffrey then arranged for Jimmy Dunn and I to exchange posts
        privately, an exchange that I found beneficial. I have since revised by
        critique of Bailey and I think considerably strengthened it. Dunn has not
        seen the revision as yet, though I have offered to send it to him and he, in
        response, has indicated he would like to see it. Since Bob Schacht had
        engaged me on XTalk with respect to my initial critique of Bailey, and
        raised himself some questions about my critique, I recently sent him my
        revised critique off-list earlier this month and invited his critical
        feedback on the revision. His feedback and suggestions have been very
        helpful and I am making further revisions as a result of them. Bob will
        need to speak for himself, if he wishes to do so, with respect to my case
        against Bailey's evidentiary support for his theory.

        Rikk, I would be happy to send you (off-list --- and to anyone else who is
        interested), my current revision to determine for yourself, quite apart from
        Dunn, whether my challenge to the validity of Baileys' theory, as he has
        presented it in his two articles with his evidentiary support, is well
        founded. Rather than summarily dismissing my critique by stating that Dunn
        was not impressed by it, I think it is only fair that you explain to me, and
        XTalk list members with whom you have registered your judgment, why your
        cryptic, perjorative statement, citing Dunn as your authority, renders my
        critique of Bailey's theory without foundation and merit.

        Best regards,.

        Ted Weeden
        Theodore J Weeden, Sr.
        Ph.D. (Claremont), retired
        Appleton, WI
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.