The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Series provides fantastic form critical analyses of the old testament books. Does anybody know of a New Testament commentary series written from a similar form critical perspective?
Not that I know of - but I hope someone will be able to fix that. [:)]
Not that I know of - but I hope someone will be able to fix that.
I do hope someone does. I found myself writing a NT paper this past semester and a form critical series would've been incredibly helpful. Thanks, MJ!
Was just perusing this in my library. This is sort of the punchline...the final sentence may interest you.
What I take from this is that the whole "ancient man, stupid as he was, had a better memory for oral stories" notion is bunk. The problem with the "oral source" idea, whether OT (as discussed in this resource) or NT (Q, I'm pointing at you, buddy) is that it is woefully inept at accounting for prophetic congruence and overlap. The common notion that the Bible is "gathered materials" is humorous, because even if it is, the process was superintended in such a way that virtually everything follows the blueprint according to Code. "Random" and "haphazard" simply cannot breathe is this rarefied air.
Earlier cultures did indeed remember prodigious amounts of material (mostly correctly). If you understand Kirkpatrick to be saying that they didn't, either you misunderstand him or he is simply incorrect (Sorry, I haven't read him). What he apparently is saying is that the tradition was in a constant state of evolution. The tradition was changed as it was handed down, not erroneously, but quite deliberately. When a change was made it was made for a purpose. This is why, when examining a text, it is important to segment out the various layers of tradition to be able to determine what the original intent of the story may have been and how it has arrived at its current state (and how that may have developed the meaning).
Good gracious, George. We're all so thrilled Milford's back, 'Earlier cultures did indeed remember prodigious amounts of material (mostly correctly)' doesn't sound like 'George'. Is that you??
Where in heaven's name did you get that? It's even hard to demonstrate today in non-literate groups. The Navajos (no writing a century ago) that live up north of us, confidently assure the accuracy of their myths. But none of them agree with each other today. Or a century ago either. And the Catholic missionaries are the only source of a century ago.
Now, not agreeing with David either.
Good gracious, George. We're all so thrilled Milford's back, 'Earlier cultures did indeed remember prodigious amounts of material (mostly correctly)' doesn't sound like 'George'. Is that you?? Where in heaven's name did you get that? It's even hard to demonstrate today in non-literate groups. The Navajos (no writing a century ago) that live up north of us, confidently assure the accuracy of their myths. But none of them agree with each other today. Or a century ago either. And the Catholic missionaries are the only source of a century ago. Now, not agreeing with David either.
I think there's been a degradation in memory capacity in modern times. I recall reading in Plato's Phaedrus the story of the man who invented writing and went to the god Theuth excited to tell the god the news of the aid to memory which he had discovered. The god replies
And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.
While writing is indeed of considerable worth, it has had a negative effect upon the memory. Cultural transference accounts for the appearance of this characteristic in non-literate societies.
I should probably add that it is the keepers of the tradition, the tellers of tales, who have the prodigious memory, not the average person.
'Earlier cultures did indeed remember prodigious amounts of material (mostly correctly)'
A traditionally educated Sanskritist at the University of British Columbia in the 1970's and 80's not only had the texts memorized but also their commentaries. But memory capability and evidence of accuracy - historically some is incredibly faithful to the original, some is very fluid around key elements or attributes - is not the purpose of this thread. Most form criticism today is very close to genre criticism with some differences in emphasis. And when we speak of oral tradition in the NT, it is normally in relationship to the Gospels. The question remains: Call it form criticism or genre criticsm is there anything published with the level of detail offered by FOTL?
I get the feeling you both aren't familiar with the immense stack of evidence of verbal memory in the both the Iron I and Iron II ages. Certainly the Late Bronze, though the evidence thins out in the Middle Bronze.
Or as MJ loves to ask ... do you have a hint of evidence available?
Should I bring the overly minor issue of 'verbal' ... not recorded?
Earlier cultures did indeed remember prodigious amounts of material (mostly correctly).
This statement makes sense to me, or rather it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. Especially within the last 30 years since the digital revolution, the perceived need to memorize anything, even phone numbers, has dissipated tremendously. There was a time not that long ago when memorization was a fundamental trait of learning and instruction.
Nevertheless, there are virtually zero means of proofing the accuracy of any oral memory practices, pretty much by definition. I think is part of what Denise is saying above.
there are virtually zero means of proofing the accuracy of any oral memory practices, pretty much by definition.
Good thing you added "virtually" - there is Turkic material passed orally for several hundred years that can be compared to steles in what is now China.
