Scriptural authority in ancient oral cultures

Christian Alexander
Christian Alexander Member Posts: 3,008 ✭✭✭
edited November 2024 in English Forum

I am looking at the origins of scriptural authority in ancient oral cultures. I am looking at the oral traditions in the Gospels. I know that around AD 65, Mark was probably the first to be penned, with oral assistance from Peter. The written Gospel of Mark then served as a source for the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Q. Moreover, Luke and Matthew had distinct oral sources of their own, referred to as L and M. (Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 45). It is believed that the source Q contains the majority of the oral tradition in general. The German term "quelle," which meaning "source," is abbreviated as Q. Where does this oral tradition begin and how does one map its reception? I know these points below are factual. Does the fact that there was a robust oral tradition in the first century CE imply that the people whose eyewitness evidence the tradition reflected did not record it? 

The earliest accounts of Jesus' life and ministry were oral. The early church was built on the oral gospels. The written Gospels were based on the oral gospels. The reason for many of the variations in the gospel accounts is that the oral gospels were frequently recited.I am aware that the focus placed now on texts and authorship has caused us to misinterpret the processes involved in the creation of the New Testament and the cultural factors that influenced the text that we have. Redaction, source, and form criticisms all place an emphasis on written texts and records. The majority of arguments in favor of Q, L, and M are predicated on certain beliefs on the significance of written texts. Modern formats for written compositions and compilations are also emphasized by fundamentalist ideas of inspiration. Because of the literary culture in which we are immersed, readers of scripture, whether confessional or skeptical, begin with expectations that were alien to the churches of the first and second centuries. What did the early church say about this topic? 

“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, we must answer]Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.”

Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 2 (A.D. 434).

Comments

Categories