tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post8636700186249232156..comments2023-10-16T04:58:53.689-04:00Comments on Verily Verily: on imagining new worldsRafaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-30890046521599684762011-01-14T10:34:52.207-05:002011-01-14T10:34:52.207-05:00This isn't a reply to Rich so much as an examp...This isn't a reply to Rich so much as an example of what I was talking about in my previous comment. In his essay, "Performance Events in Early Christianity: New Testament Writings in an Oral Context" (<i>Interface</i>, 166–93), David Rhoads issues the following complaint: "Everyone agrees that the writings would have been heard rather than read silently. However, only recently has work begun on the oral features of the texts, the nature of their performances, and their oral impact on audiences" (167).<br /><br />I'm not at all sure that <i>everyone</i> agrees that texts were read aloud, but I do. But when Rhoads talks about "the oral features of the texts," I have to confess that I'm not sure what he means. And even if he could name specific features that he thinks are "oral"—like repetition, alliteration, formulaic structuring, etc.—I have no idea what it means to call these features of <i>written texts</i> "oral."<br /><br />I'd like to see NT scholars get beyond looking for "oral tradition" "in" the NT texts. Or if not, to explain what it means to say that "oral tradition" can ever be "in" any written text. This, I think, is one reason why so many NT scholars are so skeptical about the value of media-critical approaches to the NT and Christian origins. I can't say I blame them, even if I don't share their skepticism.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-84543264327101782022011-01-13T16:42:41.099-05:002011-01-13T16:42:41.099-05:00Dear Rafael,
I understand your answer completely,...Dear Rafael,<br /><br />I understand your answer completely, and I appreciate your time. I have followed your blog via my RSS reader for some time now. I am interested in the history of Christianity. While I am a naturalist, and I get from your prior posts that you are a supernaturalist, I have found that you have a good level headed approach to your topic, and you write on items and in a way that they interest me, and that I get value from. So, I thought that I would ask your thoughts on the question, and as I said, I do understand and appreciate your answer and your time.<br /><br />I have in the last few years moved to include more than my original study of the historical Jesus, and the gospel and pauline material, and am now enjoying the later period often called Patristics. I am finding that writings and those that write on Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, etc... are helping me clarrify even more my understanding of the origins and initial growth of Christianity.<br /><br />I will continue to read, and expect t enjoy your posts into the future.<br /><br />Cheers! RichGriese.NETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-5071565268786778872011-01-12T16:19:15.869-05:002011-01-12T16:19:15.869-05:00Rich,
I've been trying to figure out how to a...Rich,<br /><br />I've been trying to figure out how to answer your question. Certainly a number of scholars seem to be trying to find "oral tradition" <i>in</i> the gospel, whether Mark or otherwise. But this, I think, is a bit ridiculous. What can "oral tradition" <i>in</i> a written text mean, except that perhaps we're thinking of "oral tradition" as a source, like Q or <i>Ur-Markus</i>, whose contribution to the written text is detectable, isolatable, and analyzable.<br /><br />A number of us (esp. Kelber and Horsley, though I have significant differences from these two) have learned a great deal from John Miles Foley, who speaks of "oral-derived texts" to describe written texts that stand in some organic relation, of whatever quality, to a living, vibrant (oral) tradition.<br /><br />So in my work, "oral tradition" is a sociohistorical hypothesis rather than a literary or source-critical one. It's influenced by a number of factors, including the rather different social functions <i>literacy</i> (the ability to read) played, the disjunction of <i>reading</i> and <i>writing</i> as skill sets (the ability to do the former did not result in the latter), the apparently different perception of written texts in a broad cross-section of Judean culture in antiquity (inc. the DSS, the NT, apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts, and rabbinic documents, among others).<br /><br />So "oral tradition" as a sociohistorical hypothesis has consequences for how we read written texts. I'm not looking for "oral tradition" <i>in</i> a gospel so much as for how an author and his audience, as participants in a living, vibrant oral tradition, perceived the written expressions of that tradition.<br /><br />Does that make sense?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-47902715207755009232011-01-12T13:31:18.217-05:002011-01-12T13:31:18.217-05:00Dear Rafael,
Do you see any evidence of an "...Dear Rafael,<br /><br />Do you see any evidence of an "oral tradition" that you can point me to?<br /><br />Cheers! RichGriese.NETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com