did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

So, the gospels contain some material taken from various oral traditions among other things.

its not just that, we knew that and argued over it.

it was stated to me that religious orally trasmitted storys do loose much as there passed down.

I have found this to be incorrect and as I originaly stated, because of the religious movement the storys were twisted even more. There was plenty of motive at hand

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you for your reply

It was argued earlier that oral transmission was accepted as accurate, I understand that you pick through the fiction to find the facts based on facts.

For me im just understanding that the gray area regarding oral transmission just got a little more gray.

Remember that we're talking about transmission and not authorship or creation.

Oral transmission is effective means of transmitting information, but the information itself may contain fiction (and etc).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

its not just that, we knew that and argued over it.

it was stated to me that religious orally trasmitted storys do loose much as there passed down.

I have found this to be incorrect and as I originaly stated, because of the religious movement the storys were twisted even more. There was plenty of motive at hand

In my reading it is precisely the opposite: more and more gets added to the tradition as time goes by.

 

[outhouse]

Ok understood

 

[dogsgod]

its not just that, we knew that and argued over it.

it was stated to me that religious orally trasmitted storys do loose much as there passed down.

I have found this to be incorrect and as I originaly stated, because of the religious movement the storys were twisted even more. There was plenty of motive at hand

They don't necessarily lose anything, they just transform into something else. That's why the gospels are not to be viewed as anything other than a story consisting of material gathered from various oral traditions. A lot of stories are written that way.

 

[Oberon]

There are a couple of things which are important to point out here. First, as Bauckham notes (based on the work and definitions of J. Vansina) to speak of the oral Jesus transmission of the gospels as "tradition" may be inaccurate. Typically, oral tradition was passed on orally for a much longer period of time, whereas at least large parts of the Jesus tradition were committed to writing while eyewitnesses were still alive.

Second, it is not necessarily true that oral transmission necessarily develops in particular ways (e.g. by growth or addition). Culture, oral genre, and other factors all matter. K. Bailey, in his work in various illiterate middle eastern villages, found that much oral tradition was made possible by truncation. He would, for example, recite a sermon and then someone of the village would repeat it, shortening it to highlight the more important points and rework it into a memorable form. On the other hand, as the form critics noted, studies of folklore revealed stories were changed and altered at every telling. With the Jesus tradition, we probably see both truncation/loss in tradition and addition.

 

[waitasec]

With the Jesus tradition, we probably see both truncation/loss in tradition and addition.

guided by the holy spirit no less

 

[atanu]

What does the word 'Gospel' mean? What does the word 'revelation' mean?

 

[Oberon]

guided by the holy spirit no less

What do you mean?

 

[outhouse]

What do you mean?

im sure its along the lines of the tribal elders [followers] had plenty of motive for change.

Thanks for the history lesson, I read a littel [very little] of vansina and he stated they "can" vary but your explanation was better

 

[outhouse]

What does the word 'Gospel' mean? What does the word 'revelation' mean?

google is your friend

 

[waitasec]

What do you mean?

from my understanding, thats how believers approach the way the bible was put together; from the oral tradition, to the council of nicea and finally to it's canonization.

 

[Oberon]

from my understanding, thats how believers approach the way the bible was put together; from the oral tradition, to the council of nicea and finally to it's canonization.

Not typically. Tradition holds that Matthew and John were written by two disciples who were there. This would make them eyewitness accounts, not oral tradition. Likewise, Mark supposedly just recorded what Peter said. Oral tradition isn't typically an aspect of the believer's approach to the gospels.

 

[waitasec]

Not typically. Tradition holds that Matthew and John were written by two disciples who were there. This would make them eyewitness accounts, not oral tradition. Likewise, Mark supposedly just recorded what Peter said. Oral tradition isn't typically an aspect of the believer's approach to the gospels.

you know, you're right...
thanks for setting me straight

 

[outhouse]

Not typically. Tradition holds that Matthew and John were written by two disciples who were there. This would make them eyewitness accounts, not oral tradition. Likewise, Mark supposedly just recorded what Peter said. Oral tradition isn't typically an aspect of the believer's approach to the gospels.

in this context would

Q fits in as another witness??

 

[Oberon]

in this context would

Q fits in as another witness??

Q isn't a part of the traditional (i.e. religious) conception of gospel authorship. Q is a hypothetical theory to explain the origins within gospel scholarship (one I happen to believe).

 

[outhouse]

Q isn't a part of the traditional (i.e. religious) conception of gospel authorship. Q is a hypothetical theory to explain the origins within gospel scholarship (one I happen to believe).

so where would it fit in, in the timeline you suggested?

 

[outhouse]

I thought johns work was up for questions regarding validity anyway

 

[outhouse]

I see I took the whole thing out of context

believer's approach to the gospels.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought johns work was up for questions regarding validity anyway

That's because of the advanced theology of John - dated in the 90s and on. The traditional answer is that John was a teenager and lived to a ripe old age.

For reasons I care not to explain, I think that John is a compilation of texts written at different times and completed as late as 110 or even later.

The oral transmission theory doesn't work here because there was not an eye-witness who passed on traditions associated with Jesus or any other original teacher. Everything in John is encased in advanced theology that comes from years of reflection.