tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post516127398146658432..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal AgreementAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-19709255107334003352017-12-23T21:28:22.390-08:002017-12-23T21:28:22.390-08:00I don't (yet) have a copy of Dericos's boo...I don't (yet) have a copy of Dericos's book, but I do have a question in response to your review, Rafael: In talking about verbal similarities, does Derico look at lengths of strings and/or types of wording? I think that the only way that the 50-60 or so word strings of more or less verbatim correspondence between some Synoptic passages might be the result of oral rather than written transmission is if there was rote learning involved. There would need to have been a particular motivation for this to have happened since the evidence that I have seen suggests that oral traditions in general don't worry about rote learning (Jewish Scripture, however, being a significant exception). I think using written sources to produce this kind of correspondence would have been less complex than using rote-learned oral sources, although that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Shorter strings, especially with striking turns of phrase or containing accounts of surprising but not totally unbelievable events could, however, have come about through oral transmission because they are much more likely to be retained as packages in human memory. (This is an exact copy of my comment on your Facebook page, Rafael).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-65996965239128169942017-12-23T12:29:25.337-08:002017-12-23T12:29:25.337-08:00"I'm not a fan of Kenneth Bailey's th..."I'm not a fan of Kenneth Bailey's theory of "informal controlled oral tradition," and I'm particularly skeptical of the uses of that theory by gospels scholars (esp. James D. G. Dunn, but also N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham, as well as those influenced by these three). Bailey's theory has been subjected to repeated (and thorough) debunking, and I've commented elsewhere that the debunking itself has been problematic."<br /><br />This is worth another blog post.<br /><br />What then is the real problem with Bailey's theory if Weeden gets it wrong? And what is the "right" view (or at least your conjecture?)<br /><br />Oh, and help a guy out: where have you commented elsewhere on this?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12694035372140650221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-25657897930943521522017-12-23T10:51:12.617-08:002017-12-23T10:51:12.617-08:00Thank you Raphael Rodriguez for your very insightf...Thank you Raphael Rodriguez for your very insightful review of T. M. Delrico's Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement . . . As a student of "Christian origins", I continue to be amazed that so many biblical scholars whose training and scholarship is focused on the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth rely so heavily on the "canonical gospels" as the more authentic and reliable vehicles for determining what can and cannot be reliably known about the person and the work of Jesus of Nazareth . . . It does appear that more and more scholars formally trained in the area of Christian origins are more and more willing to consider the extra canonical or extra biblical gospel traditions, oral or written, pertaining to the person and the work of Jesus of Nazareth, even as Advent, this year, is poised to give way to the first day of Christmas, this year . . . Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13183993393333026866noreply@blogger.com