Category: Young 2011 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Authors Drawing on Sayings

7/21/2022

7/21/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Ten: Conclusions." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 278-284.

Young concludes based on his earlier chapters that it is probably that appeals to Jesus traditions in the Apostolic Fathers are primarily to materialls which were readily available in oral form (Young 2011, 278). Though some citations are likely of written sources, for the most part, the culture's emphasis on orality would make consultation of written sources largely unnecessary. This also suggests that the Q traditions may rightly be viewed as at least partially oral in nature (Young 2011, 280).

Young also concludes that, at least as used in the Apostolic Fathers, oral traditions tend to be conservative of information, stable in message but variable in wording, mnemonically sensitive, and targeted to ideas which are socially relevant (Young 2011, 281-282).

Young concludes with some questions which his research has brought up and which may serve to inspire further research (Young 2011, 283). These questions largely involve the usage of the canonical Gospels as compared to non-canonical traditions about Jesus. In oral cultures, a written text would still be used as oral/aural medium. We might wonder, then, to what extent the canonical writings were used and what distinguished their use from other sources of teaching. Young's work lays a foundatin and proposes some methods of study which could prove to be of lasting usefulness as we grapple with all these questions.

2 Clement and "Scripture"

7/20/2022

7/20/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Nine: 'Another Scripture says. . .': Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 239-277.

Young notes that 2 Clement has many more sayings ascribed to Jesus than do the other Apostolic Fathers, with either nine or eleven. There is a corresponding multiplication of introductory formulas and possible sources (Young 2011, 239). This makes analysis more challenging.

In 2 Clement 2.4 the saying, "I did not come to call the upright, but sinners" is introduced as "another Scripture." With very little variation, Young finds this in allthe Synoptic Gospels, in Barnabas, and in Justin's 1st Apology (Young 2011, 240). Considering the introduction it seems clear to young that the author derived it from a written source, probably a canonical Gospel, though it may have existed in other places as well (Young 2011, 241).

2 Clement 3.2 describes Jesus as saying, "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Fahter" (Young 2011, 242). There are close parallels in Matthew 10 and Luke 12, and a partial parallel in Revelation 3:5. Young observes the parallels show differences in wording but not in meaning. Young observes that the agreement is greater with Matthew at a point where many scholars think Matthew redacted a traditional saying, thus suggesting that 2 Clement has borrowed from Matthew rather than an underlying tradition (Young 2011, 243).

2 Clement 4.2, 5 speaks of the need to actually practice righteousness so as to avoid being cast away by the Lord. Young finds partial parallels in a number of locations (Young 2011, 245). The possible sources of the ideas are not contiguous in nature, which suggests that we don't have the actual source which connected the ideas. The ideas are near each other in Matthew 7, but with different explanatory comments between them. This suggests that Matthew and 2 Clement used the same source but in different ways (Young 2011, 246).

2 Clement 5.2-4 describes a discussion between Jesus and Peter, in which Jesus tells the disciples to be sheep among wolves. Pter is uncomfortable with the possibility of being torn apart. Jesus points out that once dead there is no fear of further harm except at the hand of God (Young 2011, 248-249). Parts of the material are present, in Matthew 10, Luke 12, and Justin's Apology 19. However, 2 Clement contains a substantial segment which does not appear in any of the possible sources Young locates (Young 2011, 250). Young takes the material to have been found together as 2 Clement portrays it, but not as a literary unit in any sources known to us (Young 2011, 251).

2 Clement 6.1-2 speaks of not serving both God and riches. Parallels are in Matthew 6, Luke 16, and the ospel of Thomas 47 (Young 2011, 251). There are additional partial parallels to the latter portion of the quotation. Young considers that the parallels in Matthew 6 and Luke 16 are compelling in nature as such a large portion is present. However, he is unable to identify a source which would have likely provided the wording for Luke or Matthew (Young 2011, 253). The conditional structure, found in Matthew but not in Luke, suggests that 2 Clement drew on Matthew (Young 2011, 254).

2 Clement 8.5 describes the Lord advising faithfulness in small matters so as to be trusted in greater matters (Young 2011, 255). This has a clear parallel in Luke 16:10-12 and a partial parallel in Matthew 25:21, 23. Young considers the statement to be proverbial in nature, and that the version in Luke does not show any particular signs of Luke's redaction, so he hesitates to consider 2 Clement dependent on Luke. The material could easily have been derived from a source common to both (Young 2011, 255).

In 2 Clement 9.11 Jesus is quoted as saying, 'My brothers are those who do the will of my Father" (Young 2011, 257). Young finds paralles in all the Synoptics, in the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of Thomas, and in Clement of Alexandria. Much scholarship finds evidence of redaction in Matthew and Luke, with the influence suggesting 2 Clement presupposes those texts. However, Young holds out the possibility of dependence on a common source (Young 2011, 258). While the Synoptics mention a mother, 2 Clement does not. There is also no coupling of hearing and doing in 2 Clcment, found in the Synoptics.

2 Clement 12.2, 6 depicts the Lord describing the time for his kingdom to come as a time when a number of paradoxes occur (Young 2011, 261). Statements of this nature are never found in canonical material. There are, however, some similar statements Young finds in Clement of Alexandria and the Gospel of Thomas. Young considers the similarities to be slight enough that a literarly relationship is very unlikely. However, they may indicate a common source (Young 2011, 263). Young finds what he describes as "affinities" but not strong parallels. Young adduces another, similarly cryptic, statement from the Gospel of Thomas which speaks of trampling garments and shame, both ideas found in the passage of Clement of Alexandria (Young 2011, 264). There is some reason to think the Gospel of the Egyptians was a common source, but we don't have that text at present.

Finally, Young reviews 2 Clement 13.4, where "God says, 'It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you'" (Young 2011, 266). Matthew and Luke provide close prallels to the command to "love your enemies." The wording in 2 Clement is more similar to that used in luke. Young entertains the possibility that a finished Gospel according ot Luke could be indicated, but Young does not think it conclusive (Young 2011, 268).

Overall, Young finds among the sayings he has analyzed, one shows no canonical parallel, while six do not compel Young to assume a canonical dependence (Young 2011, 270). The other statements are relatively proverbial and not likely to presuppose a written source (Young 2011, 272).

Young moves to a discussion of sources behind 2 Clement, having concluded that they are not necessarily canonical Gospels (Young 2011, 274). The introductory statement to 2.4 makes it clear that the source is written. The other references are not specific. However, Young notes that an introductory statement using the past tense εἶπεν frequently suggests oral tradition, while the present tense λέγει suggests something written (Young 2011, 275). The formulae in 2 Clement are not consistent in this way, whichleaves Young with an open question. It is possible that 2 Clement used oral sources for Jesus traditions, and it is possible that he did not (Young 2011, 276).

Where Did Jesus Say That?

7/19/2022

7/19/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Eight: Three Isolated Sayings from the Jesus Tradition." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 226-238.

In this chapter, Young reviews three isolated sayings attributed to Jesus, as opposed to his previous analysis of a cluster of statements or a chunk of liturgy. One significant challenge at this point is the fact that two of the sayings are rather proverbial. Young considers it unlikely that an author would consult a written source to deal wit ha proverb (Young 2011, 226).

Didache 9.5b is identical to Matthew 7:6. The first part of Didache 9.5 introduces it as something the Lord said. Young considers it more likely that both authors drew on an oral tradition than finding a literary relationship (Young 2011, 227).

Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrneans, 3.2a has Jesus telling his disciples to touch him and see that he is not a spirit. The same command in the same setting is recorded in Luke 24:39 (Young 2011, 229). Young notes that Jerome attributed Ignatius' source as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. However, Jerome made this assessment based on Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.36.11, which denies knowing where the saying originated (Young 2011, 230). Young finds little evidence that Ignatius used Luke. Further, the use of terms is not very similar. Young concludes it is likely tht Luke and Ignatius depended on a common source (Young 2011, 231).

Finally, Young considers Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 7.2c, where the Lord is cited as saying, "For the spirit is willing but theflesh is weak." There is verbatim agreement with Mark 14:38 and Matthew 26:41 (Young 2011, 232). The context of the statement differs in Polycarp, suggesting that the source would havebeen lacking in context. However, Polycarp does have part of the context, which suggests to Young that there may have been a collection of sayings which were grouped together somehow (Young 2011, 234). The periodic structure and the aorist εἶπεν suggest an oral source to Young (Young 2011, 236).

Which Came First?

7/18/2022

7/18/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Seven: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache: The Lord's Prayer in Did. 8.2" Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 201-225.

Young considers the Didache, though derived from a number of sources, to represent the redactional work of one person, whom he will call the Didachist, performed in a relatively short period of time (Young 2011, 201). Two passages are specifically ascribed to Jesus: the prayer in 8.2, and another sying in 9.5. This chapter evaluates the Lord's Prayer tradition.

As he has done in the past, Young presents the Greek text, followed by a catalog of parallel statements, this time all from the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 202-203). He then observes that the text is clearly much more similar to the version in Matthew than the one in Luke. It does not have the gaps found in Luke's version, and the language is more similar to Matthew's version (Young 2011, 203).

Young analyzes C.M. Tuckett's work, "The Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" as a definitive work of analysis (Young 2011, 204ff). Tuckett concluded that the type of redactional work he could identify in the similar passages in Matthew and the Didache point to the Didachist having access to Matthew in a finished state. He also concluded that the Didachist may well have had access to Luke (Young 2011, 205). However, Tuckett onsidered parts of Didache 16 to use traditions also used by Mark or Matthew, and not to have used Mark or Matthew themselves. He finds other passages which have parallels in all the Synoptic Gospels and which he takes to be derived from a version of Matthew's revisions of Mark. The picture of literary dependence is thus quite complicated (Young 2011, 208). Young provides a lengthy footnote detailing a growing body of thought which is open to the Didache influencing Matthew rather than Matthew influencing the Didache (Young 2011, 208-209).

The crux of the challenge is well summarized in this paragraph. "If one were to determine that the Didache antedates Matthew, this would necessitate rethinking several elements of Tuckett's argument. It would imply that the so-called 'Matthean redactional features' he identifies in the Didache originated not in MattR but in the editorial work or the sources of the Didachist. The presence of these features in Matthew might then be attributed either to Matthew's dependence on the Didache, or what is more likely, to Matthew's use of sources he held in common with the Didache, whether written or oral. One would also have to rethink how to account for the features in the Didache that in Tuckett's view show MattR of Mark (an important component of his argument). These could be viewed as examples of Matthew redacting Mark under the influence either of the Didache or of sources he held in common with the Didache, in which case the apparent objectivity provided by Tuckett's appeal to material in the Didache that originated in MattR of Mark would prove illusory" (Young 2011, 209). In short, then, Young finds the question of influence to remain open, and to be one which could have significant influence on the overall study of the Synoptics and the Apostolic Fathers.

Despite the apparent close relationship of the Didache and Matthew, Young does not consider the relationship to be one of literary dependence. There are no examples of passages in which the Didache seems to quote extensively from Matthew in ways distinctive to Matthew as opposed to other Synoptists (Young 2011, 210). There are clear similarities, however, Young explains that "the Didache and Matthew sound alike because they share a common idiom and a common tradition, as documents that arose out of a shared milieu" (Young 2011, 212). Young furthernotes that the shared material may well have been part of an oral tradition. He comments that the possibility of orality is not entertained by Tuckett or some ohters (Young 2011, 214).

young observes that the Lord's Prayer is introduced in Didache 8.2 "as the Lord commanded in his gospel" (Young 2011, 218). Opinion is divided whether to consider this "gospel" as the canonical written account or as a series of sayings about sin and salvation. In any case, Young recognizes that the prayer would likely have circulated orally and, based on the description in the Didache, likely took on a liturgical function (Young 2011, 230). An oral liturgical text which was widely known and used can easily explain the identity in ideas but the variation in exact wording between the versions of the prayer in Matthew and the Didache (Young 2011, 222). The textual variants other than the concluding doxology are very slight. Young's overall conclusion is that the prayer was a matter of known liturgy and was adopted independently by Matthew and the Didachist (Young 2011, 224).

Statements Together or Separately

7/15/2022

7/15/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Six: Seeking Consistency: Looking for Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.76-8." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 176-200.

In this chapter, Young applies his theory of orality and literacy which he used in earlier chapters to the text of 1 Clement 46.7b-8 (Young 2011, 176). He begins by reproducing the passage, where the Lord is cited as saying personal destruction is better than making someone stumble. Parallels to the parts of the statement are then given (Young 2011, 176-177).

The saying in 1 Clement is divided into two parts - that of woe and the statement about a millstone. Young finds both of these elements within each of the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 179). In Mark, the statements are separated by several chapters. The statement of woe is almost identical but the millstone statement is not. In Matthew, the statements are together, with the "woe" after the millstone, and the millstone statement is nearly identical to that of Mark, rather than 1 Clement (Young 2011, 180). Luke has a "woe" before the millstone saying, in close proximity. However, from a linguistic standpoint, the text in Luke is more similar to that in Matthew (Young 2011, 182).

Young continues by comparing the Synoptic parallels on a linguistic basis, presenting the Greek text and flagging verbal agreements (Young 2011, 183). He concludes that Matthew and Luke did not follow Mark in the "woe" saying. He further suggests the source contained a millstone saying, wince both Matthew and Luke used one there (Young 2011, 184). The identity of ideas and the variability in vocabulary used suggests an oral source to young (Young 2011, 186). Young extrapolates that the same oral tradition would have been used by Clement as by Matthew and Luke, and that the text of Matthew or Luke would not have been used in 1 Clement (Young 2011, 188-189).

Young's analysis next moves to consider whether evidence of redaction by the Synoptic authors can be found in 1 Clement 46.8. This could indicate a literary influence of the Gospels on Clement (Young 2011, 191). However, Young finds no compelling evidence for such redactional elements in the text.

Young concludes that the passage in 1 Clement 46.8, introduced by "remember the words of the Lord Jesus," represents a retelling of an oral tradition of a saying of Jesus (Young 2011, 196).

When an Author Says Jesus Said . . .

7/14/2022

7/14/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Five: The Explicit Appeal to Jesus Tradition in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 151-175.

Young has previously considered Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3 in brief, as it has some strong parallels to 1 Clement 13.2. Here, he presents the same sort of case, but with a focus only on the material in Polycarp. He begins with the passage in Greek (Young 2011, 151). There follows a series of cross-references to Synoptic source and non-canonical use of the ideas of each period (Young 2011, 152).

young considers the date of Polycarp's letter to be a critical issue, as dates around 117 and 135 have been suggested. Polycarp's letter Phil. 9.1-28 suggests Ignatius had been martyred very recently (Young 2011, 153). This favors the early date, while a theory of P.N. Harrison from 1936 suggests much of the letter was a later composition, closer to 135 (Young 2011, 154). Young considers Harrison's theory to rest on weak evidence. Young therefore proceeds with his analysis based on theletter belonging to the earlier time, around that of Ignatius' martyrdom, or approximately A.D. 107 (Young 2011, 158).

Young evaluates possible literary parallels to the text, observing that the parallels do not show convincing evidence for actual literary dependence (Young 2011, 159). While Young is fairly certain that Polycarp was familiar with 1 Clement, he is uncertain about actual dependence. Young is more convinced that Polycarp drew these statements from another source (Young 2011, 160). There are similarities to 1 Clement 13, but not a strong verbatim parallel (Young 2011, 161).

When the passage in Polycarp is compared to the canonical material, Young finds two of the statements with verbatim parallels, but one in Matthew 7:1 and the other in Luke 6:38. This suggests no conclusive influence of the Synoptic Gospels on Polycarp (Young 2011, 162). It makes more sense to assume, if Polycarp drew the material from somewhere, that it was not one of the written sources we have. The passage in Polycarp is artfully arranged in a memorable rhythm. Youngconsiders it fairly certain that there is a rhetorical mnemonic tactic in use (Young 2011, 166). He therefore considers it likely that Polycarp drew on an oral source, rather than a textual source. Young's conclusion is that the same oral source used in Luke 6 and 1 Clement 13 was used by Polycarp in Phil. 2.3 (Young 2011, 167). Young elaborates at length on the lack of a specific, verbatim source as he moves his case toward an oral traditional source. Yet in doing so, he tends to pull the reader firmly toward an oral tradition which depends on a verbatim quote of an otherwise undocumented oral tradition (Young 2011, 170).

Young sums up this chapter by reflecting that the method of composition probably used by Polycarp would use oral material, often selecting it rather than written material, and that use of sources would normally happen by memory (Young 2011, 173). The stable message would be drawn from somewhere, but there may be some level of verbal variation as the author re-works oral material. Young finds a focus on the main thrust of the message to be similar, whether in Matthew 5, Luke 6, or Polycarp Phil. 2 (Young 2011, 175).

Sayings of Jesus in 1 Clement

7/13/2022

7/13/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Four: Identifying Markers and Ways of Orality: The Explicit Appeal to Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c-2." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 107-150.

Young takes up 1 Clement 13.1c-2 as material to assess his theory of dependence. There is a strong parallel in Poly. Phil. 23, which he will evaluate in chaper five. He begins by evaluating evidence of the 1 Clement text's dependence on written sources, such as the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 107). Young begins with a Greek text of the passage from 1 Clement. The material is centered around seven statements, attributed to Jesus (Young 2011, 108-110). Young provides cross references to similar or identical statements in the Synoptic Gospels and elsewhere.

Because of the date of 1 Clement sometime between A.D. 70 and 100, it is very unlikely the parallels other than those in the Synoptic Gospels would have been available to Clement (Young 2011, 111). The Gospels, however, were written approximately at the same time as 1 Clement. Young therefore searches for signs of dependence (Young 2011, 112).

Young observes that the sayings in 1 Clement 13.2 do not have a direct, verbatim parallel in the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 113). The ideas do have parallels, but the cluster of ideas is not found in any proximity or in a similar order in a Synoptic Gospel.

Young goes on to look for suggestions that Clement was influenced by material which may ahve been used in the redactional process, presumably by Matthew or Luke, depending on Mark. Again, young cannot find even a hint of the texts being strongly parallel the closest he can come is to note the ideas were relatively common in Judean thought (Young 2011, 116).

Young continues by considering possible parallels for the passage and what scholarship has said of the possible sources of those parallels. In other words, if the Synoptic Gospels seem to have depended on a Q-source, Young would like to explore the nature of that dependence (Young 2011, 120). The statements present in Mark are rather far apart. Those contained in Matthew and Luke are in passages often considered to be Q material, and in Luke all the parallels are in Luke 6:31, 36-38 (Young 2011, 121). This suggests to Young that Luke was here not drawing on Q, as there is material unique to Luke, but that he was using a block of material, probably from an oral source (Young 2011, 122). Young continues by describing the markers which suggest this. Much of the argument is based on the thesis that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on th ePlain are the same event adapted by the authors from a Q narrative (Young 2011, 123-127). Regardless, while Luke seems to know the cluster of ideas as a cluster, Matthew does not seem to do so.

Young describes the oral structure of the passage in detail (Young 2011, 137-138). He notes the qualities of euphony and balance which are clearly present. Oddly absent from his argument is the fact that, on its face, the material is presented as part of a sermon, which would presuppose a carefully ordered oral structure.

Young next moves back to his oraiginal discussion of the similarity between Luke 6:36-38 and 1 Clement 13.2. While he does not find a compelling case for a liteary dependence, he does consider the material to be significantly simlar (Young 2011, 140). Yet Young observes that the material serves a different purpose in 1 Clement than in Luke. Clement's use of the passive responses suggests that Clement is instructing Christians in how to live so as to receive good treatment by God, while in Luke the goal is to receive good treatment from humans (Young 2011, 143-144).

Young concludes that, although evidence for linguistic identity is lacking, this is normally the case in oral studies. Speakers often work on the level of ideas, not workds. For this reason, he takes the influence on 1 Clement 13.2 to be an oral source which also likely influenced the passage in Luke 6 (Young 2011, 146).

Evaluating Oral Sources for Sayings

7/12/2022

7/12/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Three: Method: Orality and Oral Tradition." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 70-106.

In this chapter Young describes the method he will use to apply recent developments in study of orality to the Jesus traditions referenced in the Apostolic Fathers (Young 2011, 70). Prior to that methodological discussion, he considers the possibility of identifying oral materials with certainty, then oral markers which may be sought out.

Young notes a difference in discourse between those conceived orally and later transcribed and those composed and written during composition (Young 2011, 71). This suggests that characteristics of orality and of literacy will be preserved, at least to some extent, in a way which can be identified.

The ancient Mediterranean world as Young observes, functioned largely as an oral society. It may be a matter of debate to what extent some baseline literacy was present, but there is little doubt that the normal use of written materials was either to store information or to read aloud for an audience, thus making written records into oral messages. young takes literary rates in the first century to be low, at perhaps 10-15%, and even lower, more like 3% in Israel (Young 2011, 74-75). He does back his argument up with a lengthy, discursive footnote (Young 2011, 75-76), which fails to capture the nuances necessary in evaluating exactly what would be considered as functional literacy. However, his desire, as he states it, is to emphasize "the high rate of orality" (Young 2011, 77). He goes on to describe the positive use of orality, "In this environment those who had not acquired the ability to read and write should not be thought of as deficient in literacy but as proficient in orality, while those who did acquire the skills of literacy should not be imagined to have lost their proficiency in orality in the process" (Young 2011, 78). "Written" documents were typically dictated. Reading, even to oneself, was normally done aloud. This describes a significant role of orality.

Young follows the foundational work of Parry and Lord in evaluating the actual function of oral elements in ancient compositions (Young 2011, 81). The formulaic nature of compositional elements will serve for young as identification marks. Young continues by citing the classification of oral markers as outlined by Walter Ong in Orality and Literacy (Young 2011, 83ff).

Comparative study does have some inherent limitations, as Young concedes. Not all of "the oral" fits into broad philosophical categories Young recognizes "many different ways of being oral" (Young 2011, 97). The statements of Jesus do not necessarily appear oral in the same way as Homeric traditions. Young specifically observes that the traditions of Jesus as used in the Apostolic Fathers were relatively close to their source in time and culture. As opposed to Homer, the Apostolic Fathers are no more than a few generations from the events described (Young 2011, 98). Very little transition has occurred in passing on the stories. There may have been first generation eyewitnesses for much of the time involved. Further, Young notes that the care shown to forms and content of liturgical and doctrinal material in early Christianity would preserve specific narratives in an uncorrupted form (Young 2011, 100).

Finally, Young affirms his commitment to take scribal work seriously, along with orality (Young 2011, 102). There is certainly a possibility that the Apostolic Fathers drew on documentary evidence for sayings of Jesus. This may include, for example, paraphrase of portions of canonical writings. "It is fairly ceratin that oral traditions of Jesus' sayings continued to co-exist with the written Gospels or other written collections of Jesus tradition well into the second half of the second century" (Young 2011, 104). The boundary between oral and written communication, then, remains quite blurry.

Scholarly Approaches to Sayings of Jesus

7/11/2022

7/11/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Two: A Brief History of Scholarship on the Sources of Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 36-69.

In this chapter, Young surveys scholarly literature, mostly from the 20th century, related to Jesus traditions in the apostolic fathers. He primarily pursues what he considers "major works" (Young 2011, 37).

The pattern of scholarly inquiry shifted in 1905, "with the publication of The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, written by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology" (Young 2011, 39). This work suggested that the Apostolic Fathers used a corpus of traditional materials about the acts and sayings of Jesus, but did not use the canonical Gospels.

Works of Massaux and Koester in the 1950s continued to evaluate sources for sayings of Jesus (Young 2011, 42). Massaux preferred, when possible, to act with an assumption that the Fathers had drawn upon the canonical Gospels. He made assessments based on what he considered to be "literary contact," or a verbal concurrence (Young 2011, 44). In contrast to Massaux, Koester is generally approving of recognition of non-canoical sources (Young 2011, 45). He has a stronger tendency, according to Young, to assign sayings to oral tradition than did the Wxford Committee. Koester views the oral tradition as sufficiently forceful that no appeal to written sources was necessary in the patristic period (Young 2011, 46). Thus, Koester assumes the use of a written Gospel as what must be proven.

In 1985, Donald Hagner wrote an article further exploring the use of oral materials rather than the written Gospels (Young 2011, 48). In contrast to Koester, Hagner views the oral tradition as a relatively static and authoritative tradition, thus helpful in tracing what Jesus may have said (Young 2011, 51).

In 1987, Köhler, with knowledge of both Massaux and Koester, pursued a point of view which was accepting of redaction criticism as a positive tool but which recognized that a source could be put to use even without a specific citation or level of verbal similarity (Young 2011, 51). Young does note that Köhler does not go so far as to identify oral tradition as a source of sayings. This associates Köhler clearly with Massaux in terms of philosophy (Young 2011, 52).

Making refinemenets to Koester's method, Young reviews the work of C.M. Tuckett (1989) and Andrew Gregory (2003). While Tuckett accepted the influence of oral sources in principle, he recognized the caution needed in treating all sources fairly. It is possible that redaction and, even more so, oral influence may have invisible stages. Direction of influence is not always apparent, and it is plausible that multiple versions of a source document may have existed and have been used by different authors (Young 2011, 54). In general, Young observes while Tuckett uses Koester's methods, he ends up affirming Massaux's view that the Gospels were present and served as sourcedocuments for the apostolic fathers (Young 2011, 55).

In contrast to most scholarly work, Andrew Gregory asked whether Luke/Acts was an influence on other early Christian texts (Young 2011, 55). Gregory seeks a decisive way to identify whether a literary feature comes from a particular source and no other place. Young sees this as a very difficult standard to pursue (Young 2011, 56).

In 2005, Tuckett and Gregory edited a series of essays, The New Testament and the Apostolic Fahters, which serves as an homage to the Oxford Committee work of a hundred years earlier (Young 2011, 60). Young briefly surveys a number of articles which pertain directly to authors and topics he will discuss in later chapters.

Young concludes that if scholars have learned anything definitive, it is that the available sources for interaction of Apostolic Fathers and Jesus traditions are ambiguous by nature (Young 2011, 67). Clear evidence for concrete usage of specific texts is not forthcoming, though it seems clear that ideas and wording were shared at times among documents. Young can, however, conclude with some certainty that the canonical Mark and Luke do not seem to have been used directly by the Apostolic Fathers (Young 2011, 68).

Refining the Question - Study of Oral Statements

7/8/2022

7/8/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter One: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 1-35.

Young notes, and provides extensive bibliographical support for, patterns of scholarship pertaining to early Christianity, in which orality in and of itself, orality leading to literary form criticism, and a synthesis of orality and literary methods lead to the various writings we now possess (Young 2011, 1-3). At issue is the view, which Young would reject, that a literary mindset would serve as the default for authors in late antiquity. Rather, Young takes the best methods of interpretation to stem from a primarily oral mindset (Young 2011, 4).

A shift in New Testament interpretation based on our understanding of orality and literacy further warrants reconsideration of the mindset which preserved sayings of Jesus, as well as other matters of early Christian interest. Young continues with copious bibliographic footnotes pertaining to canonical and non-canonical literature (Young 2011, 6-8). Though much study has been done, Young considers there to be less work published relating to the sayings of Jesus as they appear in the Apostolic Fathers. He argues that, in the patristic works prior to 2 Clement, citations of Jesus tradition are based not on canonical sources but on sources common to both the canonical authors and the patristic authors (Young 2011, 9).

Though studies of orality as an influence on a work preserved in writing have necessary shortcomings, Young does consider that many of the challenges can be overcome when treated with care. One of the issues at hand is the method of inquiry. Oral tradition studies are nothing new. However, the decision to move away from oral studies leading to form criticism is a relatively recent idea (Young 2011, 11). Certain tenets of form criticism have been shown to be inconsistent with development of oral narratives. Young considers this to serve as a warning against too ready an acceptance of a form critical approach to oral material (Young 2011, 13). For his reason, Young seeks to develop a paradigm for study of Jesus traditions which interprets the oral process correctly (Young 2011, 14).

Youn describes in some detail the work of Gerhardsson, interpreting much of the early Christian development in terms of rabbinic practice (Young 2011, 15-16). While Gerhardsson raises some good points, Young finds his arguments weak in three areas. It is difficult to identify any hints at an apostolic body such as a collegium of rabbis who developed and guarded Christian teaching (Young 2011, 18-19). Second, though the Gospels are full of memorable actions and sayings, there is no evidence that, as Gerhardsson contends, Jesus made his disciples memorize his statements in detail (Young 2011, 19). Finally, Young considers the sophisticated nature of the material underlying the written texts to have required a greater level of verbal sophistication than Gerhardsson assigns to the disciples. The features of the narrative are, in Young's estimation, too literary in their structure to have been developed and preserved orally (Young 2011, 22).

Young's choice of parameters - the specific Jesus traditions and the limitation of the apostolic fathers - was made so as to reach into a time period when the New Testament writings were not necessarily recognized as the authoritative standard which would exclusively identify what Jesus said and did (Young 2011, 25). The materials he chooses are explicitly referred to by the Fathers as statements of Jesus.

Young finally specifies that his study is concerned with "oral Jesus tradition" (Young 2011, 3). He is careful to detail that the material comes from spoken communication with its soulrce in Jesus' words and deeds, and preserved through oral repetition.