Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[technomage]

Ah, I misunderstood that. But isn't Apocalypse a genre for whole books, not specific sections of a book?

Depending upon your view of the first few chapters of Revelation (where the author is writing letters to the seven churches), we have no examples of apocalyptic literature that encompasses the entire book. Some reviewers exclude those chapters. Now, I think this is a rather silly exclusion on their part, but they didn't ask my opinion.

But we have several examples, both within and outside of Scriptural cannon, of apocalyptic passages in otherwise non-apocalyptic books. Daniel is the classic example: the first half of the book (ch 1-6) deals with theology and morals (as in, describing normative moral standards), the last half (ch 7-12) is apocalyptic.

Even if R&R aren't universal to oral traditions, they're the type that would most probably have been used by the Gospel authors.

The biggest tip-off to the use of R&R? Poetic meter. Not all elements in oral tradition use it, and Hebrew poetry has no discernible meter or rhythm. If you ever get a chance, listen to a reading in Hebrew of some of the Psalms--there is no rhythm for it. Repetition? Of course repetition is part of the process ... but saying rhythm and repetition are the "main elements" of an oral tradition is just as much a mis-identification of the core as your question of whether or not "Let the reader understand" was my main argument.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that R&R is central to an oral tradition. Do you have a reference for the concept?

How does this challenge what I said? As many oral tales as you wish could have been corrupted beyond recognition, that doesn't prove anything.

You asserted that oral traditions cannot change as quickly as the time span between the crucifixion and the writing of Mark. I demonstrated that as little as a decade can completely transform an oral tradition. What's not to understand?

Since Christianity was more or less born into persecution and had eyewitnesses and their affiliates to correct that which went wrong, this is only analogous in some respects.

Those eyewitnesses could not be everywhere, in all the churches, protecting the oral process.

In addition, many of the things written about in the Gospels could not have been the product of eyewitnesses. The secret discussions of the Sanhedrin? Their discussions with Pilate? No disciples, not even Jesus, witnessed these events ... but it is a common element of both oral traditions in general, and of the literary tradition of the time, to insert words into the mouths of the people in the stories that justify the point of the story.

It's not always negative speeches that are inserted into the mouths of the "bad guys" in the stories: look at Caesar's Gallic Wars--Caesar places long, involved speeches in the mouths of his opponents to show why they had to be conquered, or even to show how valiant his opponents were.

Also, the GW story isn't a valid example because people weren't expected to memorize his whole life (with critiques!) and retell it again and again.

People weren't expected to memorize Jesus' life. That's why they had leaders who preached on a weekly basis.

[GioD]

Depending upon your view of the first few chapters of Revelation (where the author is writing letters to the seven churches), we have no examples of apocalyptic literature that encompasses the entire book. Some reviewers exclude those chapters. Now, I think this is a rather silly exclusion on their part, but they didn't ask my opinion.

But we have several examples, both within and outside of Scriptural cannon, of apocalyptic passages in otherwise non-apocalyptic books. Daniel is the classic example: the first half of the book (ch 1-6) deals with theology and morals (as in, describing normative moral standards), the last half (ch 7-12) is apocalyptic.

Interesting. Your point is taken then, though I'd like to see what others have to say on it... I'll be following this in its own thread.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that R&R is central to an oral tradition. Do you have a reference for the concept?

"Central" was too strong... my own misinterpretation. Rather elements that were used in many cases to memorize the aspects of oral tradition reliably. Besides, there is evidence for poetic styles and repetition in the text, and repetition as a means to memorize it was found in the context.

You asserted that oral traditions cannot change as quickly as the time span between the crucifixion and the writing of Mark. I demonstrated that as little as a decade can completely transform an oral tradition. What's not to understand?

Ah yes. So it would answer my claim, but doesn't take into account the difference in scenario, as I mentioned.

Those eyewitnesses could not be everywhere, in all the churches, protecting the oral process.

There was a lot of news transmitted through the Church to its center (Jerusalem). Eyewitnesses and their immediate associates would not have difficulty finding out about major changes.

In addition, many of the things written about in the Gospels could not have been the product of eyewitnesses.

All they needed was the general idea or gist of what happened. What was actually said was unimportant to them (as I'm sure you know) and is unimportant to the analysis of the general reliability of the tradition.

People weren't expected to memorize Jesus' life. That's why they had leaders who preached on a weekly basis.

I know. And the general congregation also was not responsible for continuing the oral tradition.

[Juice]

There was a lot of news transmitted through the Church to its center (Jerusalem). Eyewitnesses and their immediate associates would not have difficulty finding out about major changes.

Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that the apostles had some type of controls in place and did find out about changes and problems. They were informed when inaccurate teaching or issues emerged in the churches. They then took measures to correct it. Indeed, much of Paul’s letters deal with heresy and other problems in the church. A sampling...

”You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” (Galatians 3:1)

”My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”” (1 Corinthians 1:11-12)

”It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.” (1 Cor 5:1)

[technomage]

"Central" was too strong... my own misinterpretation. Rather elements that were used in many cases to memorize the aspects of oral tradition reliably. Besides, there is evidence for poetic styles and repetition in the text, and repetition as a means to memorize it was found in the context.

I think where the actual error comes in is interpreting R&R as a necessary part of an oral tradition. Don't get me wrong--they help, and they help immensely--but not all components of an oral tradition rely on R&R, and there are some oral communities that don't rely on them at all.

Ah yes. So it would answer my claim, but doesn't take into account the difference in scenario, as I mentioned.

Eh ... there is a difference in positing a difference in scenario, and in proving that the specific scenario you are speaking of actually has that difference. You've done the first. What shall you do to establish the second--that the early Church had something that no other oral community has had?

And that is actually what you are saying: you are arguing "Oral traditions are mutable, and can change rapidly, but my particular preferred oral tradition was the exception to the rule."

You cite the role of the early eyewitnesses who acted as guardians of the oral tradition--do you not think that other oral traditions had people to act as guardians of that tradition? You cite the use of rhythm and repetition to preserve your tradition--do you not think that other traditions use rhythm and repetition?

Why is the oral tradition of the first decades of Christianity any diffeent from any other oral tradition out there?

There was a lot of news transmitted through the Church to its center (Jerusalem).

Ever play "Telephone?"

All they needed was the general idea or gist of what happened. What was actually said was unimportant to them (as I'm sure you know) and is unimportant to the analysis of the general reliability of the tradition.

Giod, that is precisely the way that oral traditions change.

The teller-of-tales comes, and gives just the general idea ... the "gist" o the tale, as you say. But the people want more ... so the teller extrapolates, staying (he hopes) true to the spirit of the tradition, but adding the details. Someone else hears this, and they relay it to the next town ... relaying not only the gist, but the additional details.

Additionally, as much as I hate to say it, even in the most sincere of movements there are those who look first to their own motives, their own desires--their own wants. Juice gives a splendid example from Galatians, but does not look at the root cause--or at the long-term effect. People interject their own beliefs or interpretations into the oral traditions.

GioD, Christianity was not of a piece, even in its earliest days, and the apostles did not have complete control over the situation, even when they were present in town. If Paul had been in Galatians and told off the person sleeping with his father's wife ... well, look at what happens in modern churches. That person leaves that particular church, then starts meting in their house, or in a different building, starts their own church ... voila, schism.

In the early Church, you did not have one homogenous group: you had multiple groups, all vying for their particular point of view to take precedence. It's the same situation that was well-documented in later centuries--each group considered themselves orthodox, and debated "those heretics who meet down the street." This also contributes to the change in an oral tradition, because you have to keep arguing with the "heretics."

And the general congregation also was not responsible for continuing the oral tradition.

They mot certainly were. That's one of the beauties (or problems, if you choose to look at it that way) of an evangelical organization--each individual goes out and tries to get more individuals to join. It's why the Church developed the role of official priests, then training of those priests, then punishment of the priests who strayed from the "orthodox" point of view.

[Tassman]

I was never disputing that Judaism was Hellenized in some respects, simply not with their views on resurrection.

I think one can argue with some certainly that Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized, as was the entire Roman Empire, including "views on resurrection".

Damascus can at best (for you) be interpreted both ways equally. Second nowhere in that passage (according to the NIV) is the term "flesh and blood" used. He is saying he didn't receive it from mortal men, interpreting it to mean no physical man and ergo Jesus being a spirit is forced.

There is simply no indication that Paul’s conversion experience of Jesus involved a physical appearance; the only description we have is of a bright light. Paul stresses that his entire revelation is from the post-mortem Jesus, and “no man”. There is no unambiguous comment anywhere in Paul of the resurrected Jesus being of the flesh and blood variety - i.e. of the sort emphasized in the gospels by the second generation of Christians.

If one does not view the early epistles through the lens of the gospels one would not assume that Paul was referring to the post-mortem Jesus as a fleshly being. One would take for granted that Paul’s understanding was similar to that of his contemporary Hellenized Jews (e.g. Josephus and Philo), namely that that the resurrection was one in which the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life.

Argument from silence. By the way a case can be made for John being by John.

An argument from silence that is not credible given Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection! The more probable explanation for his silence is that Paul knew nothing of the post mortem flesh and bone Jesus that is so vividly described in the gospels.

Re John, I know of no convincing argument (including Bauckhman's) of eyewitness reportage in the gospels sufficient to overturn the prevailing assumption of the accounts of Jesus being circulated and embellished as anonymous community traditions before being transcribed.

1) It's honestly just stupid to expect Paul to write about all this

What is stupid is that he doesn’t “write about all this”, given that Paul’s message concentrated on Christ crucified and risen from the dead. One would expect him to write about it.

2) Attributing the physicality of Jesus in the Gospels to oral embellishments is letting the conclusion drive the "evidence"

Well no. The conclusions are based on the evidence of an evolving Jesus tradition - starting from a simple resurrection of a spiritual body in Paul, to its development into an implied physical body in Mark and thence to an overtly flesh and bone body in the remaining three gospels with the narrative getting ever more fantastic the later the gospel. The most probable explanation is the very human tendency to embellish a story as it’s passed from person to person - not with the intention to deceive, but to convince.

3) Focus on the "fundamental [they weren't so fundamental!] details" was not relevant at the time (besides, most or all of it can be reconciled).

It is not the case that the “details” were “not relevant” to Paul. They were highly relevant to his message. As well, none of the harmonizations of the contradictory post resurrection appearances are satisfactory – especially within the gospel accounts. None can be fully reconciled.

Another assertion.

Josephus describes the spiritual body resurrection as his own view in: Jewish War 2.163 and 3.372-75, Against Apion 2.218 (cf. Life 12 and Jewish Antiquities 18.14).

Carrier has shown himself largely non-credible in my eyes, and this further proves it. First of all, soma psychikos is used to describe the pre-Resurrection body! How does that make sense? Are both immaterial, but in different senses? Second, adjectives ending in -ikos describe functions, supporting my interpretation!

You misunderstand. ‘Soma psychikos’ describes the physical or natural body and ‘pneumatikos soma’ refers to the spiritual body. But I don’t think either of us is sufficiently versed in Koine Greek to pursue an argument best left to experts. And while Dr Richard Carrier is fluent in Koine Greek - having obtained his Ph.D. in Greco-Roman intellectual history; your source, namely Mr. JP Holding, has no relevant qualifications at all. Thus, Carrier is the more credible.

Carrier as usual provides no details of the appearance of anastasis. I'm not trusting him here. Also Holding was appealing to anastasis' use in the early Christian community, not necessarily the whole Mediterranean.

And what evidence does Holding provide for this assertion given that Carrier has proven his case that there was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity?

The fact is, we do. The stories were memorized based around repetition and elements to aid memorizing. There are several points of textual evidence that suggests the stories were told containing these elements. Jesus himself sets a precedent for this. These elements also indicate that the stories were memorized, and in oral traditions memorized storys = less embellishment.

Technomage has shown the variations in the way oral tradition was transmitted. How else would you account for the discrepancies and contradictions in the different gospel accounts?

So? There are also numerous examples of an oral tradition remaining completely sound. You're using an argument from weak analogy here.

There is very little agreement among scholars re the soundness of the texts.

Why would we expect Paul to write that? The community would have known about it and paper was scarce.

One would expect Paul to write about it because it would support his central message re Jesus' resurrection. The fact that he doesn't is highly significant and can hardly be attributed to a paper shortage.

[GioD]

Eh ... there is a difference in positing a difference in scenario, and in proving that the specific scenario you are speaking of actually has that difference. You've done the first. What shall you do to establish the second--that the early Church had something that no other oral community has had?

The early Church was not in a time of sudden social change, unlike those who you cited as having their oral tradition change in less than a decade.

And that is actually what you are saying: you are arguing "Oral traditions are mutable, and can change rapidly, but my particular preferred oral tradition was the exception to the rule."

I'm saying some oral traditions are mutable. By no means is it meant to be a general rule (nor is its opposite)

You cite the role of the early eyewitnesses who acted as guardians of the oral tradition--do you not think that other oral traditions had people to act as guardians of that tradition? You cite the use of rhythm and repetition to preserve your tradition--do you not think that other traditions use rhythm and repetition?

Exactly. That's precisely why some other oral traditions are reliable.

Why is the oral tradition of the first decades of Christianity any diffeent from any other oral tradition out there?

It's not different from "any other oral tradition". You're operating on a strawman. It is different from the ones you cited because it did not have a point in sudden social change.

Ever play "Telephone?"

As somebody with primary experience with oral traditions you should know "telephone" is a butchered comparison to most oral societies.

The teller-of-tales comes, and gives just the general idea ... the "gist" o the tale, as you say. But the people want more ... so the teller extrapolates, staying (he hopes) true to the spirit of the tradition, but adding the details. Someone else hears this, and they relay it to the next town ... relaying not only the gist, but the additional details.

First of all how would this cause major change? He's adding details, not a whole part. Second of all oral traditions were not continued by the general people but by a select few who memorized the story (and key details). If the general person tried to continue the change, it would die out.

Additionally, as much as I hate to say it, even in the most sincere of movements there are those who look first to their own motives, their own desires--their own wants. Juice gives a splendid example from Galatians, but does not look at the root cause--or at the long-term effect. People interject their own beliefs or interpretations into the oral traditions.

This is exactly why eyewitnesses corrected major issues.

GioD, Christianity was not of a piece, even in its earliest days, and the apostles did not have complete control over the situation, even when they were present in town. If Paul had been in Galatians and told off the person sleeping with his father's wife ... well, look at what happens in modern churches. That person leaves that particular church, then starts meting in their house, or in a different building, starts their own church ... voila, schism.

If the separated from the Church their oral traditions would be null and void anyway. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying they separated from the Church to preserve their deviant oral tradition but that their deviant oral tradition still had a direct influence on the Church's view of Jesus.

This also contributes to the change in an oral tradition, because you have to keep arguing with the "heretics."

Why couldn't they just have appealed to historical events with an anti-heretic interpretation? Going from "this event has an anti-heretic interpretation" to "this event is ahistorical" is a non-sequitur.

They mot certainly were.

No, they weren't. Those who were expected to continue the oral tradition had it memorized completely. They were never people who heard it once and BS'ed the rest.

[technomage]

There are also numerous examples of an oral tradition remaining completely sound.

Are there? Please cite what you know of them.

[GioD]

Are there? Please cite what you know of them.

Jewish Rabbinical teachings (more arguing by quotes, sorry!):

http://christianthinktank.com/stil09.html

In the last 20-30 years or so, several schools of scholarly thought have arisen, all of which have argued persuasively for the 'fixedness' and 'stability' of the oral transmission process in 1st century Palestine. Beginning with the Scandinavian School of Riesenfeld (1959) and Gerhardsson (1961), and continuing on in the German theses of Rainer Riesner (1981), Boman (1967), Muller (1982), Zimmermann (1984) there has been a considerable emphasis on the accuracy of the transmission process in both rabbinic circles and in the other teaching circles in/around 1st century Palestine.

© source where applicable

Also, "completely sound" was hyperbole. I meant the general story and key details, not necessarily everything.

[technomage]

The early Church was not in a time of sudden social change, unlike those who you cited as having their oral tradition change in less than a decade.

I fear, my friend, that you have just spoken a complete and utter falsehood, most likely produced by ignorance or denial.

Not only was Judaea (and, indeed, all of the Roman Empire) most certainly in a time of "sudden social change," the early Church was one (but far from the only) source of that change. In Jerusalem itself, tumult was the watchword, disruption a way of life. Pompey besieged the city and entered the temple (circa 63 bce), and Judaea became a province, then a client kingdom, then a province again in 6 BCE. Crushing taxation, frequent attempts at small rebellions and assassination (remember the Zealots), Roman soldiers not only ready to crush any dissent, but once the dissent was crushed, the people of Judaea who were not Roman citizens had no recourse.

This type of scenario was not restricted to Judaea--it was the standard for life for non-citizens living in the Empire. And that is just on the political side of things. There were also cultural disruptions, the odd famine, the occasional earthquake ... no, GioD, to say that the early Church did not live in a time of social disruption is to be grossly, blatantly incorrect.

I'm saying some oral traditions are mutable. By no means is it meant to be a general rule (nor is its opposite)

I'm saying they have all proven mutable, and have provided multiple examples. Have you any examples of an oral tradition that did not change?

As somebody with primary experience with oral traditions you should know "telephone" is a butchered comparison to most oral societies.

I'm not using telephone to compare oral traditions--I'm comparing the receiving and relaying of messages. Telephone is, indeed, a poor example, having more to do with the accuracy of hearing under adverse conditions, but it demonstrates a part of the problem. I would not call it a "butchered comparison," but it is certainly not a complete picture.

First of all how would this cause major change? He's adding details, not a whole part.

And if the expansion of details involves "Jesus said thus...."?

Details tend to expand, GioD. We see this expansion continue into the second century, with such books as the Apocryphon of James, the various Infancy Gospels, Valentinus, Marcion, and others.

Despite the claims of Christians, we most certainly can trace some of those expansions. You've already rejected my list of three examples of doctrines that changed in the early decades--but your rejection does not make those changes go away.

This is exactly why eyewitnesses corrected major issues.

You assert this, but provide no evidence for your assertion. Where is your evidence?

If the separated from the Church their oral traditions would be null and void anyway. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying they separated from the Church to preserve their deviant oral tradition but that their deviant oral tradition still had a direct influence on the Church's view of Jesus.

Actually, we have examples--Bible manuscripts used in (and preserved by) the mainstream church that have Marcionite chapter headings, and may have Marcionite translations from Greek to Latin.

Why couldn't they just have appealed to historical events with an anti-heretic interpretation? Going from "this event has an anti-heretic interpretation" to "this event is ahistorical" is a non-sequitur.

In itself, as an argument that this is what happened (especially if we had no evidence that it had occurred), it probably would be. However, I am not trying to assert something happened--I am trying to explain the changes that did occur, and that we have evidence for (including the three I have already cited, and that you have rejected).

No, they weren't. Those who were expected to continue the oral tradition had it memorized completely. They were never people who heard it once and BS'ed the rest.

Assertion without evidence.

Come now, Giod--present me with your citations of oral traditions that did not change.

[technomage]

Jewish Rabbinical teachings (more arguing by quotes, sorry!):

Jewish Rabbinical traditions were not oral--they were a mixture of oral and written teaching.

Secondly, we have multiple examples of both changes and dissent in the oral tradition. So much for stability--forget "general story and key details," we have examples of additions, omissions, and dissents. (Examples include Counting of the Omer, arguments over the parchment scrolls in the Teffilim, and the like). If you ever get a chance and want to really dive into the deep end of the scholarly pool on this issue, try reading the Gemara--it details many of these arguments. It's not just the little details that get argued about--sometimes it's the "general story and key details" as well.

[GioD]

This type of scenario was not restricted to Judaea--it was the standard for life for non-citizens living in the Empire. And that is just on the political side of things. There were also cultural disruptions, the odd famine, the occasional earthquake ... no, GioD, to say that the early Church did not live in a time of social disruption is to be grossly, blatantly incorrect.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was not that there was no social change, but that the Church adapted to the social change in such a way as to avoid any doctrinal corruption. Besides, Rabbinical traditions also went through this change and were equally or less prepared for it, but their knowledge of the stories was kept.

I'm saying they have all proven mutable, and have provided multiple examples. Have you any examples of an oral tradition that did not change?

In form? No. In general content and key details? Yes, see above.

And if the expansion of details involves "Jesus said thus...."?

Do they?

Details tend to expand, GioD. We see this expansion continue into the second century, with such books as the Apocryphon of James, the various Infancy Gospels, Valentinus, Marcion, and others.

In order to appeal to these books you have to demonstrate that they were the product of the same oral tradition that produced the Canon gospels.

Despite the claims of Christians, we most certainly can trace some of those expansions. You've already rejected my list of three examples of doctrines that changed in the early decades--but your rejection does not make those changes go away.

One didn't make sense, one split into a separate debate, and one I conceded to. None of them, however, were demonstrably the result of oral tradition (and even if they were, there's no reason to attribute it to memorization errors).

You assert this, but provide no evidence for your assertion. Where is your evidence?

Early Christian correspondance, and we see the Apostles and their followers visiting Churches (from the center in Jerusalem) as they are established in Acts (eg 8:14).

Actually, we have examples--Bible manuscripts used in (and preserved by) the mainstream church that have Marcionite chapter headings, and may have Marcionite translations from Greek to Latin.

Marcionite chapter headings and translations wouldn't be the result of oral traditions. You give nowhere near enough information for a comparison to see if this would apply to oral traditions too.

In itself, as an argument that this is what happened (especially if we had no evidence that it had occurred), it probably would be. However, I am not trying to assert something happened--I am trying to explain the changes that did occur, and that we have evidence for (including the three I have already cited, and that you have rejected).

Only one of the three you cited could have something to do with answering heresies, and even that's a stretch.

Assertion without evidence.

This is the standard of oral traditions in the time and place! - the Rabbi (Jesus) imparted his sayings to followers who memorized it (Apostles et al.) and spread it via preaching. If necessary, those followers continued the tradition by ensuring others memorized it - it was not left up to the community, and certainly not on the grounds that they simply heard it preached!

[GioD]

Jewish Rabbinical traditions were not oral--they were a mixture of oral and written teaching.

This is true, but doesn't help the case against the Gospels. As my source above points out, if Jesus were a rabbi and if rabbinical teachings had a kind of note-taking system, there is good reason to believe then that there may be written sources behind his sayings and deeds.

Secondly, we have multiple examples of both changes and dissent in the oral tradition. So much for stability--forget "general story and key details," we have examples of additions, omissions, and dissents. (Examples include Counting of the Omer, arguments over the parchment scrolls in the Teffilim, and the like). If you ever get a chance and want to really dive into the deep end of the scholarly pool on this issue, try reading the Gemara--it details many of these arguments. It's not just the little details that get argued about--sometimes it's the "general story and key details" as well.

This seems to be due to deliberate change, not errors in memory. If I am incorrect please expand.

[technomage]

My point was not that there was no social change, but that the Church adapted to the social change in such a way as to avoid any doctrinal corruption.

Again, that's the assertion--where's the evidence?

Besides, Rabbinical traditions also went through this change and were equally or less prepared for it, but their oral traditions are more or less sound in content.

And again, Rabbinical traditions were a mixture of oral and written. (This can be compared to sutras from various Indian belief systems--the sutra provides the outline of the oral teaching, but even then the oral teaching frequently changes in minor or major ways).

Do they?

I pointed out one example--the Olivet Discourse.

In order to appeal to these books you have to demonstrate that they were the product of the same oral tradition that produced the Canon gospels.

You know as well as I do that the proto-orthodox church was in a common community with the proto-heretical churches. You know as well as I do that the standard pattern was:

1. Dissent in doctrine (from someone within the ecclesia)
2. Attempts to correct the doctrine (frequently in the form of debates)
3. Warnings of expulsion
4. Expulsion.

You also know that this process could take years, in which the "heresiarch" is teaching their personal beliefs. How long was it that Arion taught before he was excommunicated? How long before Marcion was expelled?

One didn't make sense, one split into a separate debate, and one I conceded to. None of them, however, were demonstrably the result of oral tradition.

The demonstration of changes in the oral tradition is that the written tradition takes "snapshots" of the oral tradition while it is in transition.

(taking the one that split into a separate debate)
* If Paul (circa 50-60 CE) and GoMark (circa 70 CE) speak of a low Christology,
* GoMatthew (circa 80 CE) and GoLuke (circa 80 CE) to a transition between low and high, and
* GoJohn (circa 90 CE) to a high Christology, and
* if that is the date order of their writing (as the majority scholarly position states), and
* If, as you assert (and mainstream scholars agree) that there was an underlying oral tradition, then
* the obvious conclusion is that these are snapshots in time to the process of change in the oral tradition.

Now, there are other possible conclusions: one argument is that the differing points of view are the results of the differing, possibly even competing, strains of belief within the nascent Christian church. There does seem to be some elements of that as well, but parsing the entire argument would take many books, not the limited amount of text available in a TWeb post.

Early Christian correspondance, and we see the Apostles and their followers visiting Churches (from the center in Jerusalem) as they are established in Acts (eg 8:14).

Exactly--yet on the other hand, we also have continuing proof that these early attempts at correction did not always settle the issues.

Multiple letters to the Corinthians--more than that, the visit to Corinth by Peter and Apollos actually divided the Corinthians, causing them to squabble because of whose teachings they followed. Multiple letters to the Colossians, of which our present book may be a compilation or summary. And because we have no accounts from the communities themselves, we have no idea whether or not these letters were effective in sealing the breaches, or making them worse.

Marcionite chapter headings and translations wouldn't be the result of oral traditions. You give nowhere near enough information for a comparison to see if this would apply to oral traditions too.

My point is that at the time of this compilation, Marcionite Christian and Mainstream Christians were part of the same community.

This is the standard of oral traditions in the time and place!

And as we have seen, it was no more immutable than any other oral tradition.

[technomage]

This is true, but doesn't help the case against the Gospels.

I'm not saying it does--I'm saying you're comparing apples to coconuts, and we're still waiting for a citation of an oral tradition that did not mutate--"numerous examples of an oral tradition remaining completely sound."

We await the citations, my friend.

[GioD]

We await the citations, my friend.

I'll continue to cite the Rabbinical literature. As I tried to make clear above appealing to textual/oral mixtures opens a powerful possibility for Jesus' sayings themselves being written down early. Besides, my point still stands that the Rabbinical oral traditions demonstrate soundness of memory, even if doctrine is in fact changed.