Gospel of Thomas and Q: The Theory of Oral Transmission
Ray & Sandy Briggs errancy@infidels.org
Sun, 2 May 1999 19:51:26 -0700 (PDT) (00925717886, v01530500b3512c9d894b@[209.132.124.180])
>CARTER
>Ed, first of all, though Q is a *possibility*, the material that is
>supposed to compose Q may be explained by oral tradition present in the
>Jewish community of the first century. Word for word memorization of
>teachings and stories was very common, considering that over 90% of the
>population could not read. Many scholars argue that "Q" can be better
>explained by this than a hypothetical document for which we have no hard
>evidence.
Ed
I'm familiar with this argument, because it's one of the few aspects of
the topic that's actually in my field. The objections to this theory are
these:
1. There's absolutely no evidence that a tradition of rote memorization of
oral teachings existed among the Judean peasantry in the first century;
there was an analogous tradition of memorization among the rabbinical
class, but this was memorization of written texts, not of oral compositions.
2. The theory violates the principle of "genre dependence" in that it makes
no distinction among the various types of word art such as narrative
pericopes, proverbs, parables, or prayers and hymns, but assumes that
genres would have been transmitted through the same mechanism of memorization.
3. The texts of the gospels themselves do not support the theory. Much
material does not show signs of verbatim memorization, but exists in
multiform. Examples are significant: The Beatitudes, the words of the
Last Supper, accounts of the trial before Pilate, etc. It does not make
sense that these important passages would not have been memorized verbatim
if other passages were.
Unless the theory of oral memorization can first provide some evidence that
the 1st C. Judean peasants had a tradition of rote memorization of oral
teachings, and also account for the multiformity of these important
passages, it cannot account for the word-for-word correspondences between
Matthew and Luke.
Ray
I listed this again because unless one sees how simple and clear a
refutation of Carter's claim it is, my comments are not clear.
______________________
>>>Ray
>>>Unless I missed it, Carter never answered this post from Ed. Is this yet
>>>another instance of Carter disappearing when in trouble?
>
>CARTER
>No, it's an instance of I'm terribly busy, and Ed's comments are very much
>appreciated. While I am somewhat familiar with the arguments to both sides,
>I don't have enough material to engage in a full fledged debate (concerning
>the Synoptic Problem at least). Sometimes I ask questions to learn rather
>than debate.
Ray
So you appreciate Ed's comments and you said "Word for word memorization of
teachings and stories was very common, considering that over 90% of the
population could not read." not because you had any evidence it was so, but
just so Ed could teach you something. Very interesting.
>
>>>RAY
>>>It is very clear
>>>from the above that Carter's position was indefensible.
>
>CARTER
>What? LOL! Ray, please, as soon as you endeavour to do some more research,
>then you may comment on this subject. I'm sure that though Ed does not
>accept the arguments for the oral transmission of Q, he is nevertheless
>intelligent enough to know that they are still alive and kicking, and that
>the Synoptic problem is much more complex that his or my letters.
Ray
If I understand you correctly, you will allow me to comment only after I
have "endeavoured" to do some more research. I should have more humility
than to question my superior such as you, who are aparently a respected
scholar in this area, even though pressed for time (aren't we all?). I
haven't seen any comment yet by Ed on this last post of yours but I will be
interested to see if he does reply, what he thinks of how "alive" any
scholarly effort to justify an "oral Q" is.
>
>>RAY
>>In a way it was an
>>>unfair fight as we had a lightweight against a heavyweight. Carter mostly
>>>copies apologists and this subject is Ed's specialty. Those are the breaks
>>>however if you want to debate here.
>
>CARTER
>Calling on Ray! Calling on Ray! Step into reality! I know it's fun to
>wander around your prideful little mind, and dance a jolly jig in your
>imaginative world of "I am always right", but you need to come down to
>earth now. Sheesh...
Ray
Now I know it's Carter because it didn't take long for the ad hominem. I
apparently have a "prideful little mind". I was not dancing a jog in my
mind, Jason, I was correctly pointing out that you had nothing upon which
to stand.
>>Ed
>>
>>In about a month, Carter or somebody'll come out of the woodwork and say
>>that I shut up on the subject because I was taking a licking. Oh, well....
>
>CARTER
>No, not I :)
>
>Hey Ed, if you could ever check it out for me, I would like your opinion of
>the book called _The Jesus Crisis_. It's a Christian book concerning the
>inroads of historical criticism to the Bible, and I would be interested on
>how good/poor you find it.
Ray
So Carter was too busy and now wants to relegate the issue to at least a
grand "synoptic problem", which is more than he wants to debate. But this
was a very simple question. Can the many instances of almost verbatim
stories in Matthew and Luke be explained by rote memorization? Ed very
simply and with few words destroyed the idea that they could. He did it by
pointing out that there was no evidence at all of such rote memorization in
the history of the Hebrews of the 1st century, whereas there was a history
of memorizing written material. Of course rabbis memorized passages from
their sacred literature. I learned (memorized) the lord's prayer as a young
child. I probably couldn't read then, but the prayer came to me from
written material by way of a someone who could read. He then destroyed the
basis for the idea by pointing out that the things that are verbatim are
not the kinds of things that would be memorized and the things that would
be expected to be memorized are not verbatim.
It was a very simple and forceful argument and acting as if it is only a
part of a larger issue that there is scholarly differences of opinion about
is just a smoke screen. What non fundamentalist scholar thinks the verbatim
stories could have been the result of memorization? Are there any? If there
are, you should be able to name some. This doesn't take any great study on
your part because you have said that although you don't have enough
material to carry on a full fledged debate "concerning the Synoptic
problem", you (and Ed) are fully aware that the question of oral
transmission is still "alive and kicking". I just want you to mention a few
critical scholars that believe the verbatim stories in Matthew and Luke
could have been the result of memorization and oral tradition.
But it doesn't take great scholars to see the truth of Ed's position. Take
the story of the centurian in Matthew 8:5-10 and Luke 7:1-9. There are many
sentences in these two stories that are literally verbatim. For example (in
the NRSV), Matthew 8:9 has 39 words that are identical to 39 of the 40
words in Luke 7:8. The one word difference is Luke says "set under" where
Matthew just says "under". The two stories are almost identical as well
although there is a conflict in that Matthew has the centurian himself meet
Jesus while Luke has the centurian send some Jewish elders to see him. I
don't know the reason for the contradiction (yes another one), but it is
completely possible that there was a doctrinal reason for that difference
(jesus talks to a centurian or to Jews representing the centurian), or
maybe the two sources (Q's) were a little different. There is no doubt that
the identical nature of the words show that they were copying the same
material (even if it had been memorized). To believe this was from
memorization, however, we have to believe that this rather mundane part
about what the centurian said was considered so sacred it was memorized
verbatim and with no errors but many of Jesus' words (including his dying
words) were not! It doesn't take a great scholar to see that is ridiculous.
My conclusion is that Carter does not want to enter this because he knows
it is hopeless and would rather hide out behind the idea that the question
is still "alive and kicking".
Regards, Ray