The gospel of John..

[ippy]

ippy, the majority of inhabitants of 1st century would not have been able to write much beyond their names: their culture was largely oral rather than literary.  The problems that faced the police after Hillsborough - who had been brought up in a highly literary tradition - would therefore not have applied in 1st Century Palestine.  The oral tradition had a whole host of mechanisms that allowed individuals to learn, remember and recount stories word for word over time that we have largely lost in our literary culture.  One small, but good example where the oral works well, even today, is when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child.

"when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child".

Hope, is this an admission at last, get em while they're young? Well at least a part of the method?

Even more seriously, I notice Vlad has picked up your habit of misrepresentation, the snippet of my post you were responding to was accompanied by this lot as follows:

"All of our police carry notebooks with numbered pages and they are encouraged to take and keep notes at the earliest opportunity on each occasion, even so the available evidence for the happenings on the day at Hillsborough still managed to be a mess of information".

ippy

P S Like the example of the child being read to above.

[Hope]

"when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child".

Hope, is this an admission at last, get em while they're young? Well at least a part of the method?

No, its a well-known child-development process.

Even more seriously, I notice Vlad has picked up your habit of misrepresentation, the snippet of my post you were responding to was accompanied by this lot as follows:

"All of our police carry notebooks with numbered pages and they are encouraged to take and keep notes at the earliest opportunity on each occasion, even so the available evidence for the happenings on the day at Hillsborough still managed to be a mess of information".

Lest you misread my post, I did make reference to this comment in it.  I've reproduced what I wrote for you

The problems that faced the police after Hillsborough - who had been brought up in a highly literary tradition - would therefore not have applied in 1st Century Palestine.

[jeremyp]

Studies of modern oral communities have indicated that those risks are moderated by the fact that the communities' stories are told in very strict formats and patterns, that people learn and retain

What's this got to do with the gospels?

[Sassy]

...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?

I believe that if we take the knowledge of the full bible in context we can see why people would know the living Christ and be able to write about him.
You have no evidence that John did not write this gospel.
Christianity, it is more than a mere belief or a set of tenets. It is about a living relationship with the living God, the same way as Christ had with God.

The book of John relates to the things Christ said rather than the things Christ did.
What makes Christianity different is the Spirit now being in man and man knowing God through the Spirit.

As all original scripture was given to man from God by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have to see that as Christians... we accept the knowledge that Christ is alive and that
the Holy Spirit can impart any knowledge to any man.

Where you going to go now? Will you remain with your own train of thoughts or explore that which has been revealed to you?

[floo]

As all original scripture was given to man from God by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have to see that as Christians... we accept the knowledge that Christ is alive and that
the Holy Spirit can impart any knowledge to any man.


That statement has absolutely no evidence to back it up!

[Dicky Underpants]

As has been pointed to before, your assertion that the early Christians reliably communicated their oral histories to each other is wholly without foundation and what evidence we do have shows that they were quite happy to play fast and loose with their sources in order to make a point.
And these are the least of the problems that the gospels exhibit.

However, there is the important criterion of embarrassment: if something gets recorded that puts Jesus in an unfavourable light, when the evangelists could have uniformly kept praising him to the skies, then there is a possibility that those texts reflect accurate reportage.

[Hope]

What's this got to do with the gospels?

Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries. 

Obviously, for most such communities those stories were and are unique to a given community, so there has been no need for additional cultural explanation (until recently, perhaps).  The difference for the Christian story is that it was and is for far more than a single community or culture, and therefore some form of additional background information has been written into the different versions (hence the 3 synoptic Gospels), depending on the audience they were written for.

[Outrider]

Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries.

And as those same people have pointed out, those anthropologists have well documented the shifts and changes that occur in those oral traditions, how some fundamental themes are retained but others are changed with changing social mores, and detail is rarely reliably preserved. 

Obviously, for most such communities those stories were and are unique to a given community, so there has been no need for additional cultural explanation (until recently, perhaps).  The difference for the Christian story is that it was and is for far more than a single community or culture, and therefore some form of additional background information has been written into the different versions (hence the 3 synoptic Gospels), depending on the audience they were written for.

You can tell it was for a broader, more modern audience because of the bronze aged attitude towards misogyny and magic that runs through it...

O.

[Spud]

...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?

[floo]

"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

Your opinion, NOT a fact!

[Outrider]

"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

His outright rejection of the 'Q source' puts him at odds with the bulk of scholarly work on the Gospels, and his assertion that the Apostles wrote their own gospels is not supported by any evidence.

"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

Any good author will evoke that idea, that's the point of being a good author. If that's as much evidence as he can muster I can see why he's more highly regarded as a philosopher than as an historian.

O.

[Red Giant]

Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries. 

So all we need now is the evidence that the first followers composed an epic poem about Jesus to enable them to memorise it for 40 years before they wrote it down.  Plus the explanation of why Paul didn't know the poem, and why they didn't write down the poem.

And why, if oral transmission is so brilliant, Matthew and Luke couldn't even agree on the Lord's Prayer, and Mark didn't include it at all.  Surely if anything was transmitted orally, that was, and it's not that hard to memorise if you say it every week.

[BashfulAnthony]

Your opinion, NOT a fact!

Floo, you wouldn't recognise a fact from a vision of a monk, or something!