One of the main arguments I am struggling to find any sources for or against is whether the Gospels were written via a scribe (Amanuensis). I remember Bart referencing some sources at one point (I think in one of his YouTube videos, but I can’t locate it) about how studies of first century amanuensis don’t show examples of anything beyond writing something like a letter (I.e. Paul’s writings via a scribe), but entire anthologies such as gospels we don’t see any examples from the first century, so it is not likely the gospels were written via Amanuensis.
Does anyone know of any sources related to Amanuensis in the first century, or even better, related to whether the gospels may or may not have been written via a scribe? How rare would it have been to find a scribe that could understand Aramaic, then translate that into highly literate, written greek? Do we have any examples of scribes that wrote longer anthologies on behalf of others in the first century? etc.
Thanks so much, I am having trouble finding anything via google on this (maybe my search terms are just not well worded).
If you are not limiting yourself to the NT, and I do not see why you should so limit yourself, the concept of a scribe probably goes back to the very beginning of writing words. It was a very necessary function when most people, even the wealthy, could not read or write. Surely at some point, perhaps not long after they stopped having to press figures into clay tablets, being somewhat literate presumably became something of a status symbol for the wealthy, who may have learned that they could not always trust their scribes.
rkeefover said
One of the main arguments I am struggling to find any sources for or against is whether the Gospels were written via a scribe (Amanuensis). I remember Bart referencing some sources at one point (I think in one of his YouTube videos, but I can’t locate it) about how studies of first century amanuensis don’t show examples of anything beyond writing something like a letter (I.e. Paul’s writings via a scribe), but entire anthologies such as gospels we don’t see any examples from the first century, so it is not likely the gospels were written via Amanuensis.Does anyone know of any sources related to Amanuensis in the first century, or even better, related to whether the gospels may or may not have been written via a scribe? How rare would it have been to find a scribe that could understand Aramaic, then translate that into highly literate, written greek? Do we have any examples of scribes that wrote longer anthologies on behalf of others in the first century? etc.
Thanks so much, I am having trouble finding anything via google on this (maybe my search terms are just not well worded).
Hey, rkeefover. I’m not sure any of that matters.
The notion that illiterate commoners created sophisticated novellas like the gospels in a foreign language simply by using scribes just doesn’t really work.
Those texts would be the work of the scribes far more than the illiterates musing to those scribes about hanging out with Jesus.
Thanks everyone for the replies and recommendations!
I also finally tracked down where I had heard Bart reference something like this.
It was in his webinar “Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” from June 12th, 2022 where he said:
“I did a full study of Secretaries in antiquity and I talk about it in my book Forged. More fully, in my book Forgery and Counterforgery, where I show that we have no instance, no known instance, of a secretary taking dictation in one language and then translating it into another. Or, being told what to write in terms of like a large essay, or a lengthy narrative and then composing it himself (I believe Bart meant composing it on behalf of the one narrating). There is no example of that, no analogy to it in the ancient world that I know of.”
I imagine that Bart probably means this within some early time period (though he does not say first century or second century) as I am sure at some point in the last 2000 years we do have an example of this, but rather his point is that we don’t have any early examples from antiquity where this has occurred.
I will check out both of those books, thanks everyone!
There seems to be some misunderstanding that being able to read and write is necessary to be verbally skilled and able to create a compelling speech or story.
Perhaps but the gospels are fundamentally literary works and I get less and less convinced by the concept of oral tradition as I go along. Oral tradition becomes a strategic method for maintaining some contact with the earliest Christians. On that note isn’t it funny how Papias is considered a goofball when he writes about Judas but becomes a trusted historical source when he writes about Mark and Matthew?
And what basis do we really have for evaluating the question of an oral tradition? Pretty much by definition, we have the oral tradition until it is written down, so we do not have a convenient case study for reference. The Illiad and Beowulf (with some controversy about Beowulf) presumably betray their oral tradition in part as songs/poetry, which is not the case for the NT. But are theses necessarily the models against which to make judgements? The claim of oral tradition can be made, and it can be dismissed, but in the absence of evidence, both positions are necessarily in the service of conclusions already made.
There seems to be some misunderstanding that being able to read and write is necessary to be verbally skilled and able to create a compelling speech or story.
Perhaps but the gospels are fundamentally literary works and I get less and less convinced by the concept of oral tradition as I go along. Oral tradition becomes a strategic method for maintaining some contact with the earliest Christians. On that note isn’t it funny how Papias is considered a goofball when he writes about Judas but becomes a trusted historical source when he writes about Mark and Matthew?
Absolutely! Not to mention that in the instance of Mark at least, we aren’t even hearing this from Papias himself, but rather from Eusebius, who says that Papias, who says that John the Elder, who says that John Mark (Mark), wrote down what Peter says to him.
So it literally breaks down like this:
- Eusebius (fourth century) tells us that
- Papias (first–second century) said that
- John the Elder told Papias that
- John Mark wrote this gospel based on
- The Apostle Peter’s reminiscences
JAS said
And what basis do we really have for evaluating the question of an oral tradition? Pretty much by definition, we have the oral tradition until it is written down, so we do not have a convenient case study for reference. The Illiad and Beowulf (with some controversy about Beowulf) presumably betray their oral tradition in part as songs/poetry, which is not the case for the NT. But are theses necessarily the models against which to make judgements? The claim of oral tradition can be made, and it can be dismissed, but in the absence of evidence, both positions are necessarily in the service of conclusions already made.
Well one strategy is to examine how contemporary or near contemporary oral cultures treat their traditions and try to extrapolate to the NT tradition. One interesting factor that would seem relevant to the NT tradition is that in oral culture there is no official version of a story, only various versions that depend on context. It is expected of the storyteller that he will shape the story to fit the situation. What happens when the stories are written down is that at first you have various versions but at some point one version becomes the official version. So having one story that everyone agrees on is a development of written culture.
The example of Homer is a good one because the material does demonstrate evidence of a prior oral mode. (Repetition is a good sign since it makes stuff easier to remember although it’s pretty boring for a reader.) But I fully agree. I’m not sure we are in this same situation with the New Testament. I’m not sure you can make the argument that Mark was relying on primarily oral sources for his gospel.
Stephen said
. . . What happens when the stories are written down is that at first you have various versions but at some point one version becomes the official version. So having one story that everyone agrees on is a development of written culture.
And what we have is not one story; just a core of one story, with differences, exactly what we might expect for something that relies on at least some element of oral tradition. (The direct quotations ares what suggest copying from written sources, and perhaps even later modification to “improve” some sense of agreement.)
Stephen said
. . . I’m not sure you can make the argument that Mark was relying on primarily oral sources for his gospel.
The question is not necessarily if the author of Mark relied primarily on an oral source, but if he relied on a source that traced back through oral sources.
JAS said
There seems to be some misunderstanding that being able to read and write is necessary to be verbally skilled and able to create a compelling speech or story.
Compelling stories or speeches are not complex novellas with sophisticated literary devices.
Such simply do not arise from an uneducated commoner dictating to a scribe.
That’s simply unrealistic.
Could an author jot down such stories or use writings that memorialized such and woven them into his narrative?
Of course.
And what we have is not one story; just a core of one story, with differences, exactly what we might expect for something that relies on at least some element of oral tradition. (The direct quotations ares what suggest copying from written sources, and perhaps even later modification to “improve” some sense of agreement.)
Matthew and Luke knew Mark. It’s likely that John at least knew Mark. Some scholars detect a Pauline influence on Mark. Paul quotes creeds and liturgies that possess literary structure. Even the “Q” sayings material possesses literary structure.
The question is not necessarily if the author of Mark relied primarily on an oral source, but if he relied on a source that traced back through oral sources.
Well some scenarios have Mark (or some source available to him) going around and collecting oral stories and writing them down. Given what survives how can we ever confidently make that determination?
Robert said
Welcome to the Readers Forum, rkeefover. Bart talked about the ancient use of secretaries on the blog ** you do not have permission to see this link **, but this is in reference to the letters of Paul. He goes into much more detail in his critique of the secretary hypothesis in his book Forgery & Counterforgery, but again only with respect to the forged letters of Paul. You may be able to find some good references there. With respect to gospels, Papias thought Mark was a kind of secretary for Peter and there’s a tradition that Papias himself was a secretary to John (anti-Marcionite prologue to John). Bart surely does not accept these traditions so possibly he talks about it in those contexts?
The anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospel of John is an extremely important document. Forgotten and therefore untouched by later amendments. The very beginning indicates who dealt the cards in this entire project.
[..] Iohannes apostolus, quem dominus Iesus amavit plurimum, novissimus omnium scripsit hoc evangelium postulantibus Asiae episcopis adversus Cerinthum aliosque hereticos [..]
John, the apostle, whom the Lord loved greatly, was the last of all to write this gospel because the bishops of Asia urged him to act against Cerinth and other heretics,
Robert said
Stephen said
… It’s likely that John at least knew Mark. Some scholars detect a Pauline influence on Mark. …
A convert!
Well I haven’t scheduled my baptism quite yet. Goodacre threatens us with a book. I would like to see the evidence laid out. What has made me rethink it is reading Mark actually, and extrapolating from Mark to John.
Sounds terrific. I’ll leave it to the scholars to argue the particulars. I find myself focusing on the implications. What I find intriguing is the idea that we don’t have several independent traditions that led to several independent literary productions (i.e., the gospels) but a more or less single literary tradition that existed alongside oral traditions that vanished because they produced no literary offspring. For our peace of mind we must assume that the synoptic gospels preserve authentic traditions. But it seems to me that once you grant that John was willing to change an important part of the narrative, the day of Jesus’ death, to make a theological point, all bets are off. Why would we assume that Mark was unwilling to change his traditions to make a theological point?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)