Articles
 Translation Breakdown
 Translation Consequences
 Translation Limitations
 A Translation Mandate
 A Translation Issue
 Vulnerability Defined
 A Vulnerability
 So what does that mean?
 The Consequent Difference of John
 So What is John?

Series [All]
 Administration
 Confessions of a Jewish Skeptic (4)
 Exploring Translation Theories (25)
 Leaving the Jewish Fold (3)
 Memory and Identity
 Religion and Cultural Memory (51)
 The Creative Word (19)
 The Cross-Cultural Process (7)
 The Oral Gospel Tradition (4)
 We the People (8)

Archive
 

Wednesday, 1 June 2016
Oral-Preference Perspective

Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,
Tom Thatcher ed., SBL, 2014, page 167

Prof Keith picks up the story of Mark's transition from oral to written text:

In light of the predominantly oral/illiterate nature of early Christianity, Kelber is entirely correct that the writing of Mark demands an explanation, even though his own original explanation does not enjoy wide acceptance. I suggest here, however, that Kelber's original proposal has proven unpersuasive partly because it ignored almost entirely the textual and artifactual dynamics of Mark's act.

Kelber, Keith suggests, had been thinking entirely about orality and the way that - even now as a text - Mark's gospel continues to reveal its oral heritage. Kelber's book had almost no discussion about the 'book culture into which Mark moved the tradition'. Kelber didn't do textuality. Keith comments:

This wide-angle perspective rooted in orality led Kelber to fail to consider at least two important matters: what a manuscript contributes to the transmission process; and the explosion of 'Gospel' literature that came in the wake of Mark's Gospel.

Keith is going on to speak about the first in more detail.

Posted By Jonathan, 8:11am Comment Comments: 0