Friday, November 24, 2006

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - Part 5

Click here for the series outline.

Chapter 2. Papias on the Eyewitnesses continued

The final section of this chapter concerns an analysis of the difference between the scholarly understanding of ‘oral tradition’ and ‘oral history’. Part of the importance of the association of Papias’ statement with Luke’s Prologue is that ‘these informants - whether the Twelve or other disciples - were not only eyewitnesses but also prominent teachers in the early Christian movement’. However, the assumption in most scholarly discussion concerning the transmission of Jesus traditions orally is that this took place in collective groups, in the collective memories of anonymous communities, rather than with individual carriers of tradition, and thus ‘presupposes that the origins of the traditions were far removed, by many stages of transmission, from the form the traditions would have taken by the later first century’ [italics his]. Bauckham’s analysis of Papias’ statement is clear evidence against this assumption.

Furthermore, and building on the work of Jan Vansina, Bauckham’s exegesis of Papias stresses the difference between what may be called oral tradition and oral history. And later on, through an analysis of material in Josephus (C. Ap. 1.49-50 and Life 361) and the use of the word paradosis, Bauckham will point out that association of ‘oral tradition’ with cross-generational distance and orality to the exclusion of written records is an anachronism. Essentially, and citing Vansina, the difference may be understood as follows:
‘The sources of oral historians are reminiscences, hearsay, or eyewitness accounts about events and situations which are contemporary, that is, which occurred during the lifetime of the informants. This differs from oral tradition in that oral traditions are no longer contemporary’
While it is clear that Papias was collecting sayings at a time ‘oral history’ as defined above was becoming impossible, and thus dealt with traditions that were being transmitted beyond the lifetime of the original eyewitness, ‘we can certainly suppose that Papias, with his aspirations to best historical practice, would have valued particularly those traditions that the Elders had received directly from named disciples of Jesus’. Papias was concerned to hear what the elders said the disciples said/were saying, and not what surfaced in the collective memory of churches. While such community tradition certainly existed, this did not, and this is Bauckham’s argument in a nutshell, exclude or take the place of individual carriers of tradition.[Hence contra Dunn: J. D. G. Dunn, 'On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog,' JSNT 26 (2004) 483-484 and Jesus Remembered [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003] 198-199 n. 138] Indeed, the general scholarly presuppositions about oral transmission neglect the importance played by often very mobile individual leaders. [I refer the reader to the book edited by Bauckham in which it was argued that ‘the Gospels were written with the intention that they should circulate around all the churches’, and not simply for a specific church or group of churches such as the so-called Markan community, Johannine community etc (The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Bauckham [Edinburgh, T&T Clark: 1998], p. 1)].

Through a brief analysis of Irenaeus’ recollection of Polycarp, Bauckham can also claim that the model of tradition transmission pursued in his thesis – through named individuals – is one ‘with which later second-century Christian writers worked’, a model also shared with second-century Gnostic teachers. But of course the important question is whether the analysis of the handling of tradition by Papias is really applicable to the Gospels:
‘We might well ask why, if Gospel traditions were known as the traditions told by specific named eyewitnesses, they are not attached to such names in the Gospels themselves? Perhaps they are. Perhaps we need to look at the names in the Gospels more carefully and with fresh questions’.
In the following chapters Bauckham will address just such concerns.

Labels: ,

14 Comments:

At 11/26/2006 11:02 AM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

'While it is clear that Papias was collecting sayings at a time ‘oral history’ as defined above was becoming impossible, and thus dealt with traditions that were being transmitted beyond the lifetime of the original eyewitness, ‘we can certainly suppose that Papias, with his aspirations to best historical practice, would have valued particularly those traditions that the Elders had received directly from named disciples of Jesus’.'

CARR
So should we value particularly those traditions that Papias recorded in what is left to us of his writings?

'Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.'

This is the work of an early Christian committed to 'best historical practice'?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

'And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'

The Gospel of the Hebrews has now ben vindicated by Bauckham!

Apparently Papias , with his 'best historical practice' used one of the stories to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Rather curiously though, the surviving fragments don't seem to have much in the way of canonical stuff.

But loads of stuff which never made the New Testament.

'He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord.


The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature.'

After 1900 years, Papias has now been vindicated by Bauckham.

All those strange parables were produced by 'best historical practice'.

 
At 11/27/2006 2:56 AM, Anonymous Stephen said...

A quick note for those who have been waiting for Bauckham's book to be published:
I see that Michael Pahl purchased it at the Society of Biblical Literature conference: "the ink was still wet".

 
At 11/27/2006 3:48 AM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

Thank you for this helpful question, Steven, even if it was worded in typical Carr fashion! To reword it without the blah blah, I guess the point is:

If Papias was so concerned with “particularly those traditions that the Elders had received directly from named disciples of Jesus”, then why the possible apocryphal elements?

First, why couldn't you have put it like that along with the associated evidence?! Why did you need to express things in the tone you did? Don't you see how it makes you sound? I've tried to make that clear to you for it only makes you come across as an arrogant so and so, and I hope you aren't in real life. If you write in such a way as to imply Bauckham is an idiot, a scholar internationally recognised and respected by I think all other serious scholars (whatever their tendency), you only make yourself look silly, at least to those interested in dialogue, anyone who isn't a Fundie of atheist or religious preference.

Second, the comment ‘The Gospel of the Hebrews has now been vindicated by Bauckham!’ is not what Bauckham claims, nor is it the necessary logical correlation of his argument.

But now, third, and after my comments above, I want to say thanks for the core point, and it is well taken. One could also point out that the Gnostic writers evidenced some similarity to the importance of eyewitness tradition, as Bauckham details himself in chapter 2, yet they hardly worried about what they claimed. I suppose one could suggest that the evidence in Papias shows the expected practice, and this is of course the point Bauckham wants to make. It may also be that the traditions ascribed to Papias are rather those given to him by Eusebius. Let’s not forget that Eusebius wanted to make Papias look less than clever – and even claimed of Papias that he was "a man of small mental capacity" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13)! But Papias’ acquaintance with historiographical practice speaks against this. I will have to look up the referene to Judas in Eusebius to check the context, too late now. Anyway, these are some late night thoughts and I wanted to make it clear that I appreciated your thought – I will think on this longer, especially the association with the Gnostic texts, and would be glad to hear more from you on this.

 
At 11/27/2006 7:38 AM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

I saw a lot of personal abuse by Chris but no attempt to answer the question...

Bauckham wants Papias backing for the canonical Gospels, yet the only story mentioned by Papias which is explicitly linked to a Gospel is a story that Eusebius claims was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

So Bauckham's imprimatur is for the wrong documents....


Bauckham still cannot tell us what Papias sources told him that matches anything in the Gospels he wants to vindicate.

I wonder why the sources of Luke never use the magic word 'paradosis'...

Perhaps because those traditions weren't handed down.

Just as the birth narratives weren't handed down, but were invented.

 
At 11/27/2006 1:11 PM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

"I saw a lot of personal abuse by Chris but no attempt to answer the question..."

I'm sorry you saw my response as "personal abuse", and also that you feel I'm not trying to answer the question.

 
At 11/28/2006 7:54 PM, Blogger Stephen C. Carlson said...

Luke, however, uses paredosan in 1:3.

 
At 11/28/2006 9:02 PM, Anonymous Stephen said...

Although you critique Dunn for his emphasis on community tradition, bear in mind that he also emphasizes the importance of oral transmission. He sets out to make the case that scholars think too much in terms of successive recensions of documents, while paying lip service to the notion of an era of oral transmission of tradition.

It seems to me that Dunn's paradigm fits the evidence admirably well.

(1) All that we possess are documents, which have been through a period of development before taking the form in which we know them. It is reasonable to suppose that such development (successive recensions of a document) took place within a community.

(2) Oral tradition may also have been rehearsed and remembered in a community setting (as Dunn supposes). But arguably Bauckham is right, and some tradition was borne by Peter or one of the other original apostles. Either way, the oral tradition could have functioned as a check on the documentary tradition.

Personally, this is how I view the agreements between Matthew and Luke over against Mark. I believe there was a document, "Q", but I also believe Matthew and Luke had access to oral tradition that led them to make changes to Mark.

In other words, the process of transmission was complex. I don't know whether Bauckham adequately captures that complexity. I haven't read the book, but his emphasis on the Twelve implies a straightforward transmission of tradition that is belied by the evidence of the Gospels as we possess them.

 
At 11/29/2006 12:27 AM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

“Luke, however, uses paredosan in 1:3.”

Greetings, Stephen C.

Yes, indeed. But in 1:2.

 
At 11/29/2006 12:35 AM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

Hi Stephen (not C!),
Thanks for your comments.
"his emphasis on the Twelve implies a straightforward transmission of tradition that is belied by the evidence of the Gospels as we possess them"

Bauckham will spend considerable time in later chapters looking at the consequence of his thesis in relation to Dunn's model (among others), and his argument certainly isn't about a straightforward transmission - but more on that later.

 
At 11/30/2006 12:41 AM, Blogger Stephen C. Carlson said...

1:2, quite right. Too bad I cannot fix my typos in the comments.

 
At 12/04/2006 6:47 PM, Blogger Stephen C. Carlson said...

Concerning Barsabbas, the other witness to this statement of Papias, Philip of Side, states that he drank snake venom, which, as Kelhoffer pointed out, is not dangerous if (merely) ingested.

 
At 8/09/2007 7:30 PM, Anonymous J. Clark said...

I would appreciate like Chris if Carr would also state an issue without making absurd sweeping generalizations rooted in his opinions.
The amateur historian of today accounts history something like this: "Ah, yes, we mighty, victorious historians of the 21st century are more enlightened than anyone ever especially the wily, ignorant Papias. Can you believe he included apocrypha material in his 1st century account? Well, I would never do that. Now, as to real history, I am absolute certain the birth narrative are made up, no, of course I don't have any evidence but I once heard from an enlightened professor, like me, that it was true." Now, we have the pay off.

 
At 8/14/2007 1:44 AM, Blogger J. Clark said...

so what that I posted the previous post 9 months after all the previous posts, it still sounds aggravated.

 
At 8/14/2007 10:54 AM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

I would stil get annoyed were I to re-read some of his comments, I think!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home