This scholarly stance doesn't make sense

[sojourner]

I can give him a high five for you in March.

Tell him I'm a student of Brandon Scott's.

 

[Tristesse]

As much as I can gather, the scholars have a consensus that the gospels (four of them) interplay and use as a basis possibly Mark as a source. While there are different ideas surrounding this topic, my basic problem has to do with oral tradition.

I thought that part of the beauty to oral tradition is the skill in which stories are kept pure or true. A skill developed in spite of not having written abilities.

So, when we see exact word for word similarities between gospels, why is it we rush to say they must be copied from each other? I thought that was part of the uniqueness about strong oral traditions, so that accuracy could be maintained, even if exact at times.

Someone please explain... Thanks...

The problem with oral tradition is it's like playing a game of telephone, by the end you wind up with a pink unicorn monkey thimble. Oral stories become diluted over time, things are usually added to the original telling of the story, and certain things are probably omitted.

 

[sojourner]

The problem with oral tradition is it's like playing a game of telephone, by the end you wind up with a pink unicorn monkey thimble. Oral stories become diluted over time, things are usually added to the original telling of the story, and certain things are probably omitted.

But that's not necessarily a "problem." It's only a problem if one is concerned with picayune detail. The gospel narrators weren't that concerned with detail -- only the "jist." "Word-for-word" never entered their minds. We are a print culture, so we have made this a problem by insisting that the words of the narratives were intentionally "exact." The story's the thing -- not the grammar and syntax.