![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1932792600\")
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008) provides both an appreciative and critical retrospective on the contribution of Werner Kelber to our understanding of orality and the Gospels, as well as explorations of methods and perspectives both old and new on this and related topics.\nThe idea of \u201cequiprimordiality\u201d, of every performance being utterly original and unrelated to prior and subsequent performances, is, to my thinking, the most problematic of Kelber\u2019s assertions. I suspect it is based on an excessive reliance on the Parry-Lord school\u2019s work on epic folksongs. But even in this very different genre, it is not at all obvious that the style and even the content of a great performer cannot influence the subsequent performances of his or her students, if not others. But for one to even speak of each performance as a unique original, there must be a traditional story or song that is so deeply rooted in social memory that one can draw on it without any consciousness of dependence on tradition \u2013 the story or song is simply there in one\u2019s memory and comes effortlessly to the lips and instrument without a conscious need to dig into one\u2019s memory. The question whether this depth and extent of social memory could have been achieved in the period between the public activity of Jesus and the time of the writing of the Gospels requires further investigation. At any rate, the notion that every performance is utterly disconnected from all others that went before may be useful hyperbole to startle readers shaped by modern textuality into imagining a different framework, but taken literally it is not clear that such language is meaningful, much less an accurate description of the realities of oral tradition.<\/p>\n Chapter two offers an interview of Kelber by Thatcher, and it includes one of the most crucial questions in this field, one asked all too infrequently: when we envisage a Gospel author writing his Gospel, what do we imagine the details of the process and procedure to have been (p.37). Unfortunately, there isn\u2019t much in the way of answer at this particular juncture, but it is refreshing to see the question asked so explicitly. Indeed, Kelber himself says slightly later that an exploration of the modes and processes of composition is \u201cone of the most urgent tasks toward getting a better grip on early Christian tradition\u201d (p.39). In chapter three, Richard Horsley seeks to take into account the ways in which oral and written traditions flowed side by side, culminating in an examination of Mark\u2019s Gospel as a whole considered in light of Kelber\u2019s work. Horsley notes, among other things, that the assumption that the oldest layer of the Jesus tradition is in aphorisms is questionable, since \u201cno one\u2026can communicate in \u201cone liners\u201d or isolated sayings\u201d (p.59).<\/p>\n Joanna Dewey continues the interaction with Kelber\u2019s work on Mark\u2019s Gospel, agreeing with many key conclusions of Kelber\u2019s while also challenging his view of Mark as a radical break for the prior oral Jesus material, one that aimed to discredit oral authorities of that early period such as the inner circle of disciples and the family of Jesus (pp.72, 74-77). It is emphasized not only that Mark works well in oral performance (p.79), but actually performing the Gospel can be helpful in evaluating interpretations of it (p.74).<\/p>\n Holly Hearon\u2019s chapter seeks to provide a broader context for our understanding of early Christian storytelling, examing both examples of storytelling and discussions of stories and storytelling in Greco-Roman literature. Also present in this chapter is important evidence about authors\u2019 procedures, in particular the testing of drafts of written works in oral performance. Key concepts and possible categories for early Christian tradition are considered, such as \u201cstory\u201d, \u201cmyth\u201d and \u201crumor\u201d (see p.93).<\/p>\n Jonathan Draper\u2019s chapter considers the two ways tradition and catalogues of vices as found in the Didache and parallels. Draper focuses much attention on the crucial topic of memory, with a discussion that ranges from the work of John Miles Foley to the \u201cmemory boards\u201d used by the Luba people of the Congo. The pegs<\/em> on these boards are used to mark, and thus remind, of key elements to be remembered, and Draper suggests that keywords which turn up in similar places and orders in various vice catalogues show that words could serve as memory \u201cpegs\u201d in a similar way.<\/p>\n One of the chapters I found most interesting was April DeConick\u2019s, which represents one of the few attempts to engage in psychological research to quantify human memory capacity in ways directly relevant to the study of the Jesus tradition. DeConick has for years been telling students a modern-day parable involving a lottery ticket, and surprising them later with a request that they each individually reproduce it. Never once have they replicated it exactly, although the gist is regularly retained (pp.135-136). Building on the work of McIver and Carroll in this area, as well as earlier studies in memory by Frederic C. Bartlett, DeConick undertook experiments to assess the ability of student volunteers to retain an extracanonical saying, parable and miracle story in four different situations: oral to oral, oral to written, written to oral, and written to written. Much of the data from her results is shared in tabulated form. It is impossible to reproduce all her significant finding here, but among them are the relative stability of the opening and closing sections of material, and of the words of Jesus in comparison to other material passed on with it. Also worth mentioning is that the proverb, while most stable of all the genres, was still only reproduced verbatim in cases in which either only short term memory was required or in which the written source was retained. While the situations created in classrooms with students obviously do not precisely parallel what was involved in early Christian transmission, this work nevertheless marks a significant advance over scholars\u2019 tendency to speak about orality, memory and writing without an attempt to ground conclusions in actual practical studies of human memory. As a result of her work on memory, DeConick is able to point out how the same alterations to a story or saying could appear in different Gospels and \u201chave absolutely nothing to do with the conscious editorial policy of a redactor or reliance upon the same source\u201d (p.178).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The recent volume edited by Tom Thatcher, Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond The Oral and the Written Gospel (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008) provides both an appreciative and critical retrospective on the contribution of Werner Kelber to our understanding of orality and the Gospels, as well as explorations of methods and perspectives both […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.baylor.edu\/baylorpress\/cover\/168-cover.jpg\")
<\/a>The first three chapters focus specifically on the work of Werner Kelber and in particular his groundbreaking book The Oral and the Written Gospel<\/em><\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0800606892\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-2307331520599609385?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")