Rafael Rodríguez, PhD rrodriguez@jbc.

edu Johnson Bible College (Knoxville, TN)

Speaking of Jesus: “Oral Tradition” beyond the Form Critics SECSOR (March 2011) Louisville, KY

[1] SPEAKING OF JESUS: “ORAL TRADITION” BEYOND THE FORM CRITICS 1. INTRODUCTION: THE REVOLUTION AROUND US In 1983 Werner Kelber published his seminal volume, [2] The Oral and the Written Gospel, which sought—perhaps for the first time among
NT

critics—to think about the adjective oral as

rather larger than simply a medium of communication. He recognized that [2a] oral tradition encompassed much more than simply another source lurking behind our extant written texts and had the potential to call into question the processes by which we read and understand the written texts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.1 This idea might not have been new in 1983, but it was revolutionary. We can find recognitions of orally expressed tradition before, behind, or between written gospels from the very beginning of critical gospels scholarship. Though there are historical antecedents that predate
NT

form criticism, the form critics first highlighted the earliest Jesus tradition prior to its expression in written gospels. [3] Martin Dibelius sought to show “with what objective the first churches recounted stories about Jesus, passed them from mouth to mouth as independent narratives, or copied them from papyrus to papyrus” (1935:v; my emphasis). Rudolf Bultmann also admitted oral tradition in the history of the synoptic tradition, though the admission did him no good.2 [4] Therefore, when Kelber launched his quest for “the oral gospel,” he was heir to an impressive scholarly legacy. But whereas previous scholarship envisioned the pre-gospel oral tradition as an extension (or perhaps a pre-tension) of the written tradition, Kelber began with a fundamental disjunction between oral and written traditions. As the earliest written gospel, Mark,
1 2

This, I think, represents the greatest strength of Kelber’s work, despite serious weaknesses at other places. In his discussion of “the materials and the task” of form criticism (1963:1–7), Bultmann explains his indifference to the question of media: “[I]t is at this point a matter of indifference whether the tradition were oral or written, because on account of the unliterary character of the material one of the chief differences between oral and written traditions is lacking” (6). He does not, however, explain in this context which “chief differences” he has in mind, and especially which is lacking “on account of the unliterary character” of the written gospels.

Rodríguez 2 in Kelber’s view, stands over and against the oral gospel; that is, he “force[d] the polarity of orality versus textuality” (1997:xxi). Unlike his predecessors, [4a] Kelber’s conceptualization of “orality” asserted itself in his reading of written texts, and this was his major innovation. In light of the explosion of the influence of media-critical scholarship since 1983, we may be justified in speaking of a “Kelber Revolution” in biblical studies.3 [5] This paper proposes that contemporary media-critical biblical scholarship foster an abrupt rupture with its form-critical heritage.4 [6] My plan is a simple one. [6a] After a brief examination of form-critical influence even over Kelber’s work, I will propose [6b] three areas of distinction where, despite apparent and superficial similarities, the old form critics and the new media critics actually engage very different research agenda: [6c] (i) the conception of oral tradition in form- and media-critical perspective; [6d] (ii) the use of evolutionary trajectories to recover oral tradition; and [6e] (iii) the interface of oral and written expressions of tradition. [7] 2. FORM-CRITICAL INFLUENCES ON CONTEMPORARY INQUIRY By the close of the twentieth century gospels scholarship had largely moved beyond form-critical methods and concerns. Even so, form criticism continues to exert influence over contemporary
NT

scholarship. Due to the nature of this paper I provide only one example here. [8] Chris Keith

and Tom Thatcher frame Kelber’s thesis that Mark created the genre, “passion narrative,” as “a

To name only a few examples, see (i) the output of the SBL section, Bible in Ancient and Modern Media, including two Semeia volumes (Silberman 1987; Dewey 1995), and (ii) the re-evaluation of memory and oral tradition among Jesus historians (e.g., Dunn 2003; Bauckham 2006; Allison 2010). In addition, two unrelated volumes celebrate Kelber’s work (Horsley, Draper, et al. 2006; Thatcher 2008), and he has been an important voice in celebrating the work of other media critics (e.g., Birger Gerhardsson [see Kelber 2009] and Antoinette Clark Wire [see Kelber 2010]). Similar work rages among Hebrew Biblical and Judaic scholarship. 4 Ironically, one of the few voices calling for NT scholarship to forsake its form-critical heritage is Walter Schmithals (1997), though he rejects full-stop the notion of an oral Jesus tradition. I certainly do not share Schmithals’s motivation for abandoning form criticism’s methods and results.

3

Rodríguez 3 rebellion against earlier form-critical models” (2008:198).5 [8a] Keith and Thatcher note two objections to the form critics: [8b] (i) the equiprimordiality of every utterance of the Jesus tradition, and [8c] (ii) the lack of evidence for the performance of connected narratives among the earliest Christians (2008:200). [8d] This first objection opposes head-on the form-critical model of early Christian traditioning.6 [8e] Kelber’s second objection, however, actually depends upon and extends a formcritical perspective. In a move reminiscent of Bultmann himself (1963:2), Kelber suggests that [9] “Mark imposed his writing authority upon an unorganized oral lore” (1983:79; my emphasis). He assumes the Jesus tradition existed as independent, disconnected units prior to the writing of Mark’s gospel; [10] “they are anything but fragmented pieces in need of integration. . . . All are autonomous stories, and none are designed to build up a project of Markan proportions.” To be sure, Kelber argues from his media-critical perspective of the “natural state of oral affairs” rather than from NT scholarship’s form-critical heritage. Even so, when he describes Mark’s written gospel as a [11] “lining up of single stories and sayings” (1983:79), the reader could be forgiven for thinking of Mark as a string of pearls.7

For this reason, Keith and Thatcher provide a brief summary of the origins of the passion narrative in form-critical perspective (see 2008:198–200). 6 E. P. Sanders effectively demolished any confidence we might put in developmental laws of the tradition: “There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposition directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both more and less Semitic. Even the tendency to use direct discourse for indirect, which was uniform in the post-canonical material which we studied, was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves. For this reason, dogmatic statements that a certain characteristic proves a certain passage to be earlier than another are never justified” (1969:272; original italics). 7 The difference between Kelber’s and Schmidt’s strings of pearls, of course, is that Kelber attributes transformative significance to the act of stringing together (cf. Schmidt 1919:281). There is some irony here; Richard Horsley lauds Kelber as “a pioneer . . . one of the first to explore the Gospel of Mark as a plotted narrative, not a mere ‘string of beads’” (2006:viii). Kelber may in fact endorse a narrative reading of Mark, but this endorsement masks agreement with the form critics that the pre-gospel Jesus tradition consisted of discrete, autonomous units (pericopae) lacking interconnectivity.

5

Rodríguez 4 [12] 3. THREE NEW-ISH IDEAS IN CONTEMPORARY BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP The abiding influence of form-critical conceptions of the Jesus tradition and Christian origins even in Kelber’s iconoclastic application of media criticism to Mark, Q, and Paul attests the gravity of such figures as Bultmann and Dibelius over subsequent scholarship. For the remainder of this paper I want to focus on three specific points of contrast between twentieth-century formcritical gospels scholarship and twenty-first-century media-critical research into Christian origins. [13] 3.1. Conceiving “Oral Tradition” Gospels scholars of the early- and mid-twentieth century conceptualized oral tradition primarily as a source behind various sayings or narratives in our written texts. For example, B. H. Streeter accepted that the appeal to oral tradition best accounted for “those cases where the degree of verbal resemblance between the parallel passages is small” (1924:184). Streeter also allowed that scholars could account for certain traditional forms, for example proverbs, as oral tradition even if they “occur[red] in almost identically the same form in two Gospels” (1924:185). Though the transmission of these two types of oral tradition—fluid, malleable tradition, on the one hand, and stable, proverbial tradition, on the other—differed greatly, scholars conceived them similarly: as singular points of origin that, eventually, led to our written texts. [14] The form critics also understood oral tradition and its transmission to the evangelists in rather singular terms (see Taylor 1933:29). In fact, such a singular conception of oral tradition is a sine qua non of form-critical inquiry. At its heart, form criticism conceives oral tradition as “square one,” as the originating point that eventually leads to the form of the traditions recorded in our gospels. [14a] The form critics supposed that the gospel stories slowly and steadily progressed through “different stages on the stream of Gospel tradition” (Taylor 1933:125).

Rodríguez 5 Form criticism still occupied a strong position within
NT

scholarship when this way of

conceiving oral tradition passed into obsolescence. [15] In 1960 Albert Lord published his seminal work, The Singer of Tales, which engaged a comparative analysis of the oral composition of Yugoslavian oral epic and the written remains of Homeric epic tradition.8 Lord saw more clearly than the form critics that the question of oral tradition required opening up the possibility that oral verbal art operated in strikingly different terms than its written counterpart. [15a] Whereas the singer thinks of his song in terms of a flexible plan of themes, some of which are essential and some of which are not, we think of it as a given text which undergoes change from one singing to another. . . . [16] His idea of stability, to which he is deeply devoted, does not include the wording, which to him has never been fixed, nor the unessential parts of the story. He builds his performance, or song in our sense, on the stable skeleton of narrative, which is the song in his sense. (1960:99; my emphasis) This kind of tradition presents us with problems, largely because, [17] “unlike the oral poet, we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of fluidity. We find it difficult to grasp something that is multiform” (Lord 1960:100). The form critics thought of oral tradition in disconnected, episodic, autonomous terms. Differences between stories represented “different stages on the stream of Gospel tradition” (Taylor 1933:125; cited above). Oral tradition, then, exhibited a certain instability because it changed in the process of transmission until, eventually, it took on the stability afforded by the written medium. Lord, however, conceived of oral tradition not as unstable but as fluid, as multiform. [18] The tradition is neither precarious nor tenuous by virtue of varying

Lord focused almost myopically on the phenomenon of spontaneous composition (“composition-inperformance”) of lengthy epic tradition, and especially on the morphological utility of formulaic phrases for the composition of metrical epic poetry by illiterate traditional singers. The Singer of Tales opened up a new field for analyzing traditions spanning centuries and encircling the globe. (See Finnegan 1990, as well as the extensive annotated bibliography in Foley 1985, which is available and updated at http://www.oraltradition.org/hrop/bibliography.) Unfortunately, his emphasis on (i) composition, and (ii) formulaic language has been misapplied to the gospel tradition (see, e.g., Lord 1978; Hurtado 1997 is especially critical of Kelber 1983 in this regard).

8

Rodríguez 6 across multiple performances; rather than an aberration, the tradition’s variability is itself a hallmark of oral tradition!9 [19] The form critics thought of oral tradition as a source lying behind the written synoptic gospels, akin to Q or Ur-Markus.10 In contemporary scholarship, however, “oral tradition” no longer refers to content but rather to the social conventions, rhetorical structures, and traditional patterns that enabled and constrained people as they spoke about the world, God/the gods, the past, or whatever. [19a] “Oral poetry is not a ‘thing’ but a process, not a set of discrete items but an interactive way of speaking” (Foley 2002:127). Consequently, we should study oral tradition grammatically, by pursuing the patterns and rules according to which people construct meaningful statements, rather than (or in addition to) lexically, by examining the contents of such meaningful statements. [19b] This is the import of Kelber’s insight that tradition in oral expression is equiprimordial.11 [19c] Because the tradition has not yet crystallized into canonical form, each performance results in an original form, related to previous as well as subsequent performances by virtue of embodying the tradition itself rather than by linear, evolutionary development. As a consequence—and here’s the point to be pressed—[20] contemporary media critics pursue fundamentally different phenomena than did the form critics. Both refer to oral tradition, but the similarities end there. [21] 3.2. Plotting Christian Tradition Already in 1983 Werner Kelber objected vociferously to the linear, evolutionary concept of the tradition’s development from an original form into the synoptic tradition, especially as that
Gregory Nagy (1996:107) updates Lord’s insight: “Multiformity, as conveyed by poludeukḗs ‘patterning in many different ways’, the variant epithet describing the sound of the nightingale in Odyssey 19.521, is a key concept in understanding poetry as performance in ancient Greece.” John Miles Foley identifies oral tradition’s multiformity as “the root perception underlying” late-twentieth-century oral-traditional research (1995a:2) and “the lifeblood of oral tradition” (1995a:75). 10 For a similar conception of oral tradition in a recent media-critical analysis, see Zimmermann 2010. 11 See Kelber 1995:151; 2005:237; 2010:75–82.
9

Rodríguez 7 model informed Bultmann’s form-critical analysis and Gerhardsson’s reaction against it (1983:1–43). Nevertheless, the evolutionary model of the development of the tradition along trajectories continues to exert influence over NT scholarship. As recently as 2009, [21a] Anthony Le Donne proposed a revision to historiographical approaches to Jesus research that takes nuanced and sophisticated account of social memory research. [21b] At the heart of Le Donne’s proposal lies the insight that “memory is distortion” (2009:51), though Le Donne prefers the term “memory refraction” to refer to the ways that memory takes up and expresses the past. In my view, the most helpful and insightful aspects of Le Donne’s work are his synchronic analyses of any given moment of early Christian tradition.12 [22] However, Le Donne moves from his synchronic analyses of specific moments of tradition to develop a diachronic model of historiography. [22a] Le Donne “allows a charting of memory trajectories that can be measured and triangulated. In this way my ultimate purpose is to postulate the plausible perception that gave rise to a particular memory (or memories)” (2009:70).13 In this regard Le Donne highlights memory’s continuity: “In order for successive memory refractions to be thought of as a ‘trajectory,’ there is little room for dramatic refractions” (2009:72). While I agree that memory exhibits, under normal circumstances, striking continuity through time,14 Le Donne’s model does not make provision for the unpredictability of the ways in which memory adapts and refracts previous memories. [23] I propose a different model, one consonant with the grammatical analysis of oral tradition mentioned above, for which I turn to Tom Thatcher’s brief discussion of [23a] temporal

Similarly helpful is Zimmermann’s discussion of “the tradition-giving function” (2010:133–34). To be fair, Le Donne is not claiming (or attempting) to recover wie es eigentlich gewesen; “the aim is not to postulate what an unrefracted memory probably looked like, but to postulate what an early refracted memory probably looked like” (2009:70). 14 See Schwartz 1991 for a discussion of the recognizability of images of George Washington across periods of significant social change.
13

12

Rodríguez 8 versus spatial understandings of plot (1997). The former “involves the linear organization of events in narrative time,” while the latter, which “also involves organization, [is] not linear. In this vein one might speak of a ‘plot’ of ground, where ‘plot’ represents the space inside a twodimensional matrix of points on a grid” (1997:401). The former model enabled historians of Christian origins to simply continue their straight lines connecting extant written texts further back behind our earliest written source and to imagine that, by so doing, they have arrived at “an earlier stage of the tradition than appears in our sources” (Bultmann 1963:6; cited above). [23b] Oral traditional multiforms (or, for
NT

scholars, oral-derived texts; see the next section), how-

ever, refuse the sequential ordering and diachronic analysis at the heart of linear, evolutionary models of development.15 A grammatical analysis of the extant written texts, however, does not aim to recover how an idea evolved from earlier to later texts (and so to reconstruct how that same idea developed before its earlier textual expression). Instead, a grammatical analysis of oral traditional multiforms sets those multiforms alongside one another in order to throw into sharper relief how a performance of the tradition actualized specific potentials and possibilities enabled by the social conventions, rhetorical structures, and traditional patterns that made speaking about the past possible in the first place. [24] In Structuring Early Christian Memory, I appealed to Ferdinand de Saussure’s differentiation between la langue (an abstract system of linguistic features constrain-

See Kelber 1995:148: “When Jesus pronounced a saying at one place, and subsequently chose to deliver it elsewhere, neither he nor his hearers could have perceived this other rendition as a secondhand version of the first one. Each saying was an autonomous speech act. And when the second rendition, delivered before a different audience, was at variance with the first one, neither the speaker nor his hearers would have construed a difference between the literal, original wording and its derivative (Lord 1960:101, 152). No one saying was elevated to the privileged position of ipsissima verba at the expense of any other saying. Without a trajectory to invite comparative thought, each saying constituted an original act and an authentic intention.”

15

Rodríguez 9 ing and enabling individual utterances) and les paroles (individual utterances).16 [24a] “A linguistic system does not exist apart from its actualizations in concrete, individual utterances, but that system transcends and contextualizes individual utterances. So it is with the Jesus tradition and its actualization in performance” (Rodríguez 2010:86). Over fifteen years ago Kelber encouraged precisely this kind of thinking about “tradition,” though without the Sassurean metaphor: “[W]e must learn to think of a large part of tradition as an extratextual phenomenon” (1995:159; my emphasis). [25] Instead of a source informing the contents of first-century Christian textual remains, [25a] “tradition” in media-critical perspective refers to the context informing the texts’ composition as well as their performance and reception. Here the term context refers to the diachronic experience of the tradition itself. [26] In a brilliant if awkward metaphor, Kelber describes tradition as [26a] “a circumambient contextuality or biosphere in which speaker and hearers live. It includes texts and experiences transmitted through or derived from texts. But it is anything but reducible to intertextuality” (1995:159). Foley approves of and expands Kelber’s metaphor, warning of the consequences when we neglect the omnipresence of tradition and proceed instead along reconstructed trajectories: [27] Within this biosphere, in other words, no event—no matter how singular it may appear at the time—ever really occurs out of context; each work of verbal art is nourished by an ever-impinging set of unspoken but implicitly articulated assumptions shared among the discourse community. To remove the event from the biosphere of tradition is therefore [28] to sap its cognitive lifeblood, to deprive it of very obvious potential for conveying meaning, to silence the echoes that reverberate through it (and its fellow performances or works) under the aegis of its immanent context. (Foley 1995b:171) [29] Both metaphors—tradition-as-biosphere and tradition-as-langue—obviate any attempt to set side-by-side two or more individual instances of the tradition in an attempt to reconstruct historical trajectories that both explain the extant data and enable us to reconstruct forms of the tradi-

To be clear, I am importing the ideas of la langue and les paroles analogically; neither Saussurean linguistics nor structuralist theory in general inform my analytical perspective.

16

Rodríguez 10 tion predating our data. Whereas the form critics brought multiple expressions of a particular tradition together to reconstruct developmental trajectories, [30] contemporary media critics see in the tradition’s multiforms an indication of the flexibility and variability of a vibrant and living tradition, whether that tradition finds expression in oral or written media. This leads us directly into our third and final point. [31] 3.3. Writing Voices, Speaking Signs Contemporary media critics have broadened their focus beyond source-critical issues to consider how the ongoing oral Jesus tradition throughout the first century CE (and beyond) interacted with the written gospel tradition. [32] John Miles Foley addresses “the rhetorical persistence of traditional forms” in “oral-derived texts, that is, the text with roots in oral tradition” (1995a:60).17 For our purposes, Foley’s most significant insight pertains to a “continuity of reception” that bridges “the supposed gulf between oral traditional performance and manuscript record” (1995a:75). Inasmuch as the written texts functioned within communities with robust experience of and appreciation for the oral performance of Jesus tradition,18 those communities do not appear to have apprehended the tradition entextualized in manuscript form as fossilizations or fixations of the tradition.

See Foley 1995a:60–98. Foley acknowledges two fundamental kinds of oral-derived texts, “texts that are known to be direct transcriptions of oral performances and texts composed in writing but employing a traditional oral register” (1995a:60, n. 1). While the precise relation between our written gospels and first-century oral Jesus tradition will probably always elude us, I approach them as somewhere between these two categories, significantly closer to texts-composed-in-writing than to transcriptions. See Rodríguez 2010:102–4. 18 See Luke 1.1–4, which speaks of many who have “compiled accounts” [ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν], which activity seems to contextualize the Luke’s program of “writing” [γράψαι]. We cannot press the image of “setting one’s hand” [ἐπιχειρέω] to restrict the evangelist’s meaning to “compiled written accounts”; see Acts 19.13, where some Jews “set their hand to name the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits” [ἐπεχείρησαν . . . ὀναµάζειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔχοντας τὰ πνεύµατα τὰ πονηρὰ τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ]. Of course, the most famous reference to the early Christians’ appreciation for the tradition in oral performance comes from a fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1; see Alexander 1990; Holmes 2007:723; 734).

17

Rodríguez 11 [33] Foley proposes a fourfold typology of oral-derived texts that reminds us to expand our focus beyond the composition of written texts to consider also how those texts were accessed (“performance”) and received by actual people (see Table 1). composition: Oral Performance: Voiced Texts: Voices from the Past: Written Oral Poems: oral written oral/written written performance: oral oral oral/written written reception: aural aural aural/written written

Table 1: Foley's Typology of Oral and Written Traditional Verbal Art19

For various reasons I would identify the written gospels as [34] “Voices from the Past,”20 which has a number of consequences. First, the evangelists’ written texts record traditions that they and other oral tradents embodied in numerous and probably regular performances of the tradition. Again, we shouldn’t expect to find records (or transcripts) of the oral Jesus tradition in our written texts, but it seems comparatively less likely that any of the gospels or their sources radically subverted the tradition they expressed (pace Kelber 1983). Second, the written texts continued to facilitate the oral expression of the tradition. At the very least, the gospels were usually if not always read aloud.21 In addition, without denying that the actual written texts were read aloud before communal gatherings, I do find it likely that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John were also performed orally, without being read (at least, without being read as we understand “reading”).22 As a consequence, oral tradition is not simply that part of our reconstructed evolutionary trajectories that precede our written evidence or their hypothetical textual sources. Still less is oral tradition, as the form critics imagined, the individual, disconnected units (pericopae) of the

See Foley 2002:38–53; 2006:137. See Rodríguez 2010:104–5; see also Foley 2006:137–38. 21 See Shiner 2003; the classic study is Achtemeier 1990. 22 See my discussion of Luke’s presentation of the image of Jesus reading an Isaiah scroll in Luke 4.16–21 (Rodríguez 2010:152–65).
20

19

Rodríguez 12 Jesus tradition. Instead, [35] contemporary media-critical biblical scholarship begins with the premise that oral tradition fundamentally transforms the way we apprehend the written remains of early Christianity. [36] 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS Contemporary
NT

scholarship is recently enamored with issues of memory and oral tradition.

Time will tell whether this infatuation will fade like other scholarly fads or yield substantive and lasting insights into Christian origins. But one thing is clear: [36a] If the current interest in media criticism is to bear any significant and lasting fruit, it must unshackle itself from its form-critical legacy, and this for at least three reasons: [36b] First, the form critics meant something fundamentally different in their references to oral tradition than do contemporary media critics. Formerly a source-critical concept, oral tradition now refers to the discursive context framing our texts—their composition, performance, and reception—in a word, their biosphere. [36c] Second, the form critics approached oral tradition via a fundamentally different analytical route than do contemporary media critics. Whereas form critics assumed evolutionary dynamics, media critics bring multiforms of the tradition in line with one another in order to get a sense of the plot-as-space bounded by the social conventions, rhetorical structures, and traditional patterns that constrained and enabled meaningful expressions of the stories about Jesus. [36d] Third, the form critics accorded very little, if any, significance to the act of writing the gospels. In contrast, contemporary media critics pay particularly close attention to “the interface of orality and writing,”23 being especially sensitive to the ways that oraltraditional dynamics framed the written texts as well as to the ways that writing affected orally expressed tradition.24 The apparent similarities between form-critical research and media-critical scholarship are only apparent; they rest on such divergent and disparate conceptual frameworks that any weight exerted by the former on the latter can only dull the sharp edge of inquiry. [37]

See the studies in Weissenrieder and Coote 2010. See, e.g., Thatcher 2006; Zimmermann 2010; this aspect of contemporary media-criticism is perhaps the most difficult to sustain, primarily because of the ever-present danger of lapsing into conceiving oral and written expressions of the tradition as fundamentally different things (the so-called Great Divide theory of media dynamics).
24

23

Rodríguez 13 WORKS CITED Achtemeier, Paul J. 1990 “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.” JBL 109/1: 3–27. Alexander, Loveday 1990 “The Living Voice: Scepticism towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts.” In The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield. JSOTSup 87. Edited by D. Clines, S. Fowl, and S. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 221–47. Allison, Dale C., Jr. 2010 Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bauckham, Richard 2006 Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans. Bultmann, Rudolf 1963 History of the Synoptic Tradition. Trans. by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 2000 Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. WUNT 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dewey, Joanna (ed.) 1995 Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature. Semeia, 65. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Dibelius, Martin 1935 From Tradition to Gospel. Trans. by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Dunn, James D. G. 2003 Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making, 1. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans. Finnegan, Ruth 1990 “What is Orality—if Anything?” BMGS 14: 130–49. Foley, John Miles 1985 Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland. 1995a The Singer of Tales in Performance. Voices in Performance and Text. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Rodríguez 14 1995b “Words in Tradition, Words in Text: A Response.” In Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature. Semeia 65. Edited by J. Dewey. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 169–80. 2002 How to Read an Oral Poem. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 2006 “The Riddle of Q: Oral Ancestor, Textual Precedent, or Ideological Creation?” In Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by R. A. Horsley. Atlanta: SBL, 123–40. Holmes, Michael W. 2007 The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Third edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Horsley, Richard A. 2006 “Introduction.” In Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Edited by R. Horsley, J. Draper, and J. M. Foley. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, vii–xvi. Horsley, Richard A., Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley (eds.) 2006 Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Essays Dedicated to Werner Kelber. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Hurtado, Larry W 1997 “Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber’s The Oral and the Written Gospel.” IBR 7: 91–106. Keith, Chris and Tom Thatcher 2008 “The Scar of the Cross: The Violence Ratio and the Earliest Christian Memories of Jesus.” In Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel. Edited by T. Thatcher. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 197–214. Kelber, Werner H. 1983 The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Republished with a new introduction in the series, Voices in Performance and Text. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press [1997]. 1995 “Jesus and Tradition: Words in Time, Words in Space.” In Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature. Semeia 65. Edited by J. Dewey. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 139–67. 1997 “Introduction.” In The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, xix–xxxi. 2005 “The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory—A Response.” In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Semeia Studies 52. Edited by A. Kirk and T. Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 221–48. 2009 “Conclusion: The Work of Birger Gerhardsson in Perspective.” In Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives. Edited by W. Kelber and S. Byrskog. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 173–206.

Rodríguez 15 2010 “The History of the Closure of Biblical Texts.” In The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. WUNT 260. Edited by A. Weissenrieder and R. Coote. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 71–99.

Le Donne, Anthony 2009 The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Lord, Albert B. 1960 The Singer of Tales. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press. 1978 “The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature.” In The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by W. O. Walker. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 33–91. Nagy, Gregory 1996 Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Rodríguez, Rafael 2010 Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text. European Studies on Christian Origins. LNTS 407. London and New York: T&T Clark. Sanders, E. P. 1969 The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig 1919 Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Berlin: Trowitzsch. Schmithals, Walter 1997 “Vom Ursprung der synoptischen Tradition.” ZTK 94: 288–316. Schwartz, Barry 1991 “Social Change and Collective Memory: The Democratization of George Washington.” ASR 56/2: 221–36. Shiner, Whitney 2003 Proclaiming the Gospel: First Century Performance of Mark. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International. Silberman, Lou H. (ed.) 1987 Orality, Aurality, and Biblical Narrative. Semeia, 39. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press. Streeter, Burnett H. 1924 The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan and Co.

Rodríguez 16 Taylor, Vincent 1933 The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan and Co. Thatcher, Tom 1997 “The Plot of Gal 3:1–18.” JETS 40/3: 401–10. 2006 Why John WROTE a Gospel: Jesus, Memory, History. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox. 2008 Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press. Weissenrieder, Annette and Robert B. Coote (eds.) 2010 The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. WUNT 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zimmermann, Ruben 2010 “Memory and Form Criticism: The Typicality of Memory as a Bridge between Orality and Literality in the Early Christian Remembering Process.” In The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. WUNT 260. Edited by A. Weissenrieder and R. Coote. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 130–43.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful