tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post1040573166711109813..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Orality and Literacy III: Secondary Orality and OngMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-79226551610291756142008-05-23T15:14:00.000-04:002008-05-23T15:14:00.000-04:00How about reality NT? Wherever the prophet apparen...How about reality NT? Wherever the prophet apparently conflates scriptures in reported speech, it seems unlikely that those words were spoken in reality. Either something else was said, or, the conflation is part of a larger creative section, such as that on the Signs of the End of the Age which includes Mk.13.24,25 - quotations based on Is.13.10 and Is.34.4.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-70099992841494303422008-05-20T12:34:00.000-04:002008-05-20T12:34:00.000-04:00So if the writer of Mark's source was reporting wh...So if the writer of Mark's source was reporting what the prophet spoke, is it most likely that he would have reported the quotation of one scripture in Mk.1.2,3 and one in Mk.11.17? Would the prophet speaking extemporarily have had the time and forethought to have conflated the three OT references of Mk.1.2,3 and the two OT references of Mk.11.17? I think the answer to the first question is yes. As for the conflations, I think these would be far too complicated to recall and construct impropmtu. May be orality is not such a pseudo science after all.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-59095526247072119392008-05-20T07:47:00.000-04:002008-05-20T07:47:00.000-04:00Similarly, in Mk.11.17, Mark is up to his tricks o...Similarly, in Mk.11.17, Mark is up to his tricks of conflating old testament scriptures. Was this a case of two for the price of one original (instead of three for the price of one original, as in Mk.1.2,3)? If one knew the original of Mk.11.17, one might be a step closer to understanding why Matthew, who knew Mark's source, omitted the phrase "for all nations" in Mt.21.13.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13953058602230038622008-05-18T07:00:00.000-04:002008-05-18T07:00:00.000-04:00I doubt that the human nature of the ancients was ...I doubt that the human nature of the ancients was much different from that of moderns. It was just that they probably found it much easier to lie, fabricate, conceal, commit any crime under the sun, and say what they liked. <BR/><BR/>We only have the ancient's texts, not spoken recordings. How can one tell if a written text is the product of so-called primary orality or simply the original reporting of an author? How do we know if it has been changed in oral transmission (so-called secondary transmission), or if it has been changed deliberately, for example with intent to dissemble? Given the reliability of human nature, I somehow think it best to ignore what appears to be the highly speculative psuedo science of orality, and try to understand the logical structures texts and the author's motivations for writing them. For example Mark, you have pointed out in your recent Oxford paper that Mk. 1:2,3 is a conflation of three Old Testament texts, but you made no attempt to explain why the writer should have combined them. Whether or not the writer was guided to do so orally is immaterial. Was Mk. 1:2,3 in fact, a secondary text composed with deliberation? Matthew didn't seem to be too happy with some of it, at least where it was in Mark.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-82007748569791851002008-05-16T10:04:00.000-04:002008-05-16T10:04:00.000-04:00Today, there's also "reality TV," which is not bas...Today, there's also "reality TV," which is not based on a written script. And, in the 40s and 50s, television often aired "live," which permitted improvisation.<BR/><BR/>I'm beginning to wonder how much interaction did Ong personally have with television and other forms of oral mass media. N.T. Wright is another one I wonder about.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com