User talk:Professorsagittarius

Oral Tradition Parallels: The Song of Roland and the Story of Jesus

�Oral tradition hands stories down through generations and across geography. Oral tradition of one story can make alterations, additions, and subtractions to a popular story because the tale is subject to memory faults and the spread of geography. The story of Roland had a large audience throughout France of the 9th century while the story of Jesus had an even larger audience, This discussion compares the oral tradition which gave rise to the romance, the upsurge of heroic poems in the Middle Ages, in particular the Chanson de Roland, the Song of Roland. Previous to this time, before the beginning of the first early renaissance in France, occurring from 1100 to 1300 A.D., literature as these peoples knew it was translations from Greek or Latin, where the Stoic and Platonic influences derived philosophy as the bread of reading and writing, and not writings involving the stories of common people. Just as the story of Roland arose spontaneously, so did that of Jesus. Each has no precedent in the content or style of the world at the time. � Part One. Oral tradition and the Song of Roland.

The Song of Roland whose oral vehicle was the song in rhyming couplets, tells of events begun in 800 AD in France surrounding the turning back of the Moors at Roncevalle in what is now Spain until the 12th century. The central character, named Roland, is one of the commanders of the army of Charlemagne (Carlos Magnus) who had just defeated the governor of Saragosa, Marsile. Charlemagne, after the victory, ascends the valleys from Spain and France. Messengers spot a vanguard of infidels chasing the rear guard and relay this to Charlemagne’s camp. There is a need for a phalanx of Franks to go back and defend the rear guard. Among those at the war council at Charlemagne’s headquarters are Ganelon, one of Charlemagne’s commanders, and Roland, his nephew. When Charlemagne calls for a volunteer to head a phalanx of men to protect the rear of the troops, Roland spontaneously volunteers his uncle, Ganelon. Roland’s sense of honor, his preux, demands that he speaks for his uncle, Ganelon, because Roland wants to prove his honor and faithfulness as a knight to Charlemagne. His uncle is uncomfortable about the praiseworthy words of Roland, but truthfully he is affronted. In revenge, his uncle does assign the all too ready Roland to the phalanx at the rear of the rear guard. Roland is given a horn to blow a horn, signaling that an attack is about to be engaged if he is attacked. However, Roland thus seals his fate through hubris. He does not sound the horn, to the horror of his friends and knights in battle, though they plead with him as they are annihilated. Roland’s life ends as he wished it, honorably in battle, with all the irony of tragedy. The phalanx could have had reinforcements if Roland had blown the horn, but Roland’s pride could not let him ask for help. To him the horn sounding would be an admission of weakness.

Previous to this time, before the beginning of the first early renaissance in France, occurring from 1100 to 1300 A.D., literature as these peoples knew it was translations from Greek or Latin, where the Stoic and Platonic influences derived philosophy as the bread of reading and writing, and not writings involving the stories of common people. This accounting is told, orally and written in a flowering of manuscripts in the 11th century, fully 200 years after the putative battle. The Chanson de Roland inspired two more Cycles, based on a different main character, thus creating a wide divergence of stories for the troubadours (jongleurs) with which to regale their audience. The time of the recounting and the first extant manuscript is two centuries.

The Chanson de Roland is a literary work in the sense that the events of the story are not as important as the purpose of the writings, that is, the education of the all the Franks within earshot about the divine right of the feudal system, i.e. that at every level of society, the rank of obedience is to God first, the Church next, and the feudal lord thirdly. The creation of such a Christian and chivalric hero, whose story was carried by troubadours traveling from town to town, chanting in rhyming couplets because rhyming helped the singers to remember the verses. The Gospel of Matthew was the written memorization of the story of Jesus.

Part Two. Oral tradition in the story of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.

In comparison to the Chanson de Roland, the recounting of Jesus’ story in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are also estimated at having a span of 100 years, referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark have complicated origins. Matthew has two manuscripts, one in Aramaic and one in Greek. It seems that Matthew Greek seems to depend on Matthew Aramaic, and that Mark depends on Matthew Greek. There is a Supplementary Collection of Logia in Matthew Aramaic, which was meant either to preserve matter in some different and more desirable form which that Gospel already contained. This Logia was omitted from Matthew Greek, which is narrative material which is found in Matthew, making it a true gospel, while this is missing in Mark. To these sources, Matthew Greek and Matthew Aramaic, also depends the Gospel of Luke. Luke, keeps both the supplementary material and inserts them in blocks to the material of Matthew Greekl. The Gospel of St. John, not part of this discussion, is the fourth Gospel, said to have been written in the second century. A complicated literary process, called “doublets”, i.e., the same saying or group of sayings, occurs twice in Matthew or in Luke because on each occasion they are quoting from the two different sources, Matthew Aramaic or the Collection of Logia, or Q source (q for quelle in German), that part of the written stories and cycles not incorporated into the testamentary parts of the Bible.

Biblical scholars have been faced with what has been named the Synoptic Problem in order to establish a solidarity of truth in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The three aspects presented by the problem are: 1) the mutual dependence of versions; the singular diversity of passages and wording, and the presence or lack of older writings presaging the story of the Messiah. A firm basis of mutual collaboration of the writers of the Gospel is essential to the arguments made here.  Thus, this part considers the first and second aspects of the Synoptic Problem as it applies to the Synoptic Gospels.

Word studies are important to verifying either mutual dependence or singular diversity. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke recount the same events, sometimes in identical and sometimes in different terms; that Matthew and Mark most frequently use the same expressions, Matthew seldom agreeing with Luke against Mark. The divergence in their use of the same expressions is in the number of a noun or the use of two different tenses of the same verb. The construction of sentences is at times identical and at others different. Looking first at the message of Matthew, transmitted in Aramaic, the language of the area of Jesus’ teachings, it was memorized and told, rather than read as told, to the new Christianized Jews. The source of the information in the Gospels, according to the Catholic Advent Encyclopedia “. . . is due to the oral teaching of the Apostles, which soon became stereotyped from constant repetition ”.

A look at St. Luke shows a different source. Luke, the name taken from Lucanas, was a Greek writing in Greek, either from eye witnesses or from the preachings of the Apostles. The long narratives of St. Luke not found in these two documents are, it is said, accounted for by his employment of what he knew to be other reliable sources, either oral or written. " The first two aspects of the Synoptic Gospels are sufficient to allow for the treatment of the three as mutually dependent, telling the same story in different ways, and singularly diverse in text but not in a manner to discredit the veracity of the events told.

�Part Three. Oral tradition: the sequel stories of Roland and Jesus compared.

Like the Chanson de Roland, there is no divergence of principle character in the Gospels. The focus is solely on the teachings of Jesus, through His story. However, the ensuing preaching by the apostles and their followers, in Acts of the Apostles, introduces new miracles and martyrdoms performed by the Apostles. Like the epic poem, there is a lapse of time between the events of the first written Gospel, Matthew and the death of Jesus. This amount of time has been debated. Most of the calculations are based on interrelationships within the Gospels. There is no confirmation of a universal point in time that can be confirmed by the extant Roman Calendar or the Chinese year, for example. The date is fixed as year One by the Roman Christians, who adapted their historical time line. It requires the faith that Matthew who writes is the Matthew who was the Apostle. As in typical oral tradition, the event recounted have been passed through eye-witness accounts handed down through other converts, possible decades later. The Gospel known as the Gospel of Matthew, as a translation of Aramaic into Greek, was, according to Biblical scholars, most likely first handed down by these first decades of oral tradition, first heard, and compiled later. In other words, like the Chanson de Roland, the first date of the source is identified through the first written manuscript. The historical origin of the oral teachings begins with the author of Matthew the Apostle, either an eye witness and companion to Jesus, in one consideration, or a group of writers who based their works on second- or third-hand eye witnessing. In oral tradition, the stories often spark sequels and spin-offs, meaning a change of main character and new events of the story. The Cycles of Roland, called cycles because the stories were written and told in spin-offs at the same time the original Roland story, are la Geste du Roi, Garin de Monglane, and Doon de Mayence. This is where is found, for example, the search for the Holy Grail by Lancelot’s son by Elaine, Galahad. This tale helps give a rationalization for the Crusaders’ search for the Holy Grail in the Holy Land. The parallel in the New Testament is found in the Acts of the Apostles, directly following the Gospel of St. John. The focus of the story, though Jesus’ miracles and martyrdom are the grounds upon which the Apostles teach, lands on the remaining and burgeoning group of apostles. Peter, Paul, Thomas, Simon, and Timothy, become messengers of Christ’s teachings, performing miracles, and converting Jews, Gentiles, and pagans. Peter becomes a martyr to the new faith.

Part Four. Historical Evidence.

Care was taken in the search for the source of the Poem of Roland to identify the oldest of the manuscripts, Digby 23 of the Oxford Bodliean Library. The recounting in the Chanson de Roland was compared to the Vita Karoli (The life of Charles) by Eginhard, and the Annales latines. The Vita Karoli reports than in the passage through the Pyranees the emperor knew of the Basque treachery and the document also says that in this battle were killed the Senechals Eggihard and Anselme, comte du palais, and Roland, duke of the army of the Brittany coalition of knights. Nowhere else is the name Roland found. From the arab perspective on this same battle, Charlemagne was called to come to Saragosa by Sulayman Ben Al-Arabi, a rebel governor. As Charlemagne enters the city, Al-Aribi has the gates closed. Charlemagne fights and battles out of this ambush, and flees to France by way of Roncevalles, territory of the Basques. It is the Basques who attack the troops traveling up the valley. Nonetheless, their defeat signals a key victory in the repulsion of the Musulman empire and the consolidation of the Holy Roman Empire.

The exact date of the attack of the Sarazens is easily made by the tombstone in Roncesvalles with the name of Iggehard. Historical texts attest to the fact that Iggehard was one of Charlemagne’s generals.

Having contrasted and compared the Synoptic Gospels and found that their mutual dependence, diversity in textual retelling, there remains the task of finding a historical reference to Jesus of Nazareth. This difficulty is similar to the difficulty in finding a knight named Roland in the historical chronicles surrounding Charlemagne’s army. The chronicles only provide the names of the generals and some underlings.

Biblical scholars base their evidence on two factors. Though there is no written record of Jesus, because there were no birth certificates for Jews in that era. Only the census taken by the Romans of the number of Jews residing in a city of Roman rule exists. However, the impact of the story of Jesus, whether an actual man named Jesus lived, is still influencing the Judeo-Christian teachings. Not to ignore that the in Muslim beliefs, in the Koran Jesus is considered a Prophet.

Part Five. Conclusion.

The mutual dependence, singular diversity, and historical evidence point to the doubtful existence of Roland. However, the historical evidence surely is in favor of the fact of the battle. Though the name of Roland is not found in the annals the roll call of Charlemagne’s soldiers, there surely might have been a knight at that time, or the desire of the people of France to name a hero of that battle presided over the liberation of the French people from the threat of Sarazen, or Muslim rule. One has only to visit Spain to see the enduring evidence of the Arab influence both in architecture and vocabulary.

The true existence of the person Roland aside, his story spawned an entire oral tradition, which in turn initiated manuscript upon manuscript, called codex, which became the first novels of the Modern Era. The word for novel is French is roman, a shortened version of the word romance, the label given to these epic troubadour poems turned to traveling manuscripts, read from castle to castle during the French Renaissance of 1000 to 1200. The Chanson de Roland is credited for being the inception of the modern novel in Europe.

Similarly, the mutual dependence, singular diversity, and historical evidence point to the existence of a man, whether by the name Jesus or other, proclaimed the coming of the New Era. This new era brought women into the formal worship of God, spreading the scope of the evangelizing of new converts to the new concept of worshipping God through “turning the other cheek” and the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount, whose name of the Golden Rule is taught to believers and agnostics alike as part of the culture of the world.

Finally, the discussion is one that provokes the contemplation of the truths of honor and faith for both Roland, the preux, and Jesus who becomes, through his own kind of hubris, the Christ of the Modern Era, for Roman Catholics, members of the Coptic worship, members of the Greek Orthodox worship, protestants of all kinds, such as the evangelical worship, among others.

Whatever conclusions as to the reality of the person of Jesus Christ, his person, like that of Roland, had a ripple effect throughout the world. Roland embodied the culture of chivalry, a culture based on Christian tenderness. Therefore, Roland's character was designed to teach the ideals of chivalry. Jesus, whether myth or real person, has taught the world new values, and has had a more wide-reaching effect that any other person who has walked with us.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cahill, Thomas (2006). Mysteries of the Middle Ages. New York: Nan A. Talese, Doubleday.

Helms, Randel McGraw. (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels? Altadena, California: Millenium Press.

Kibler, Wiliam W. (1984). An introduction to Old French. New York, Modern Language Association of America.

Lagarde, André, et Michard, Laurent (1985). Moyen Age: Les grands auteursfrançais du programme, Anthologie et histoire littéraire. Paris: Bordas.

The New Catholic Advent Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org.

Peake, Arthur S. (1909). "A Critical Introduction to the New Testament", Hard Press Publishing: London.

Strobel, Lee. (2007). The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Wikipedia. (2009). Notes on the Song of Roland., retrieved April 11, 2009. HYPERLINK "http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his101/Notes/Roland.html"http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his101/Notes/Roland.html

Zink, Michel (1992). Litérrature française du Moyen Age. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Helen Elizabeth Gant is an author under the pseudonym of H. Élise Gant, author of Bey Shah, the Love of a Horse for a Young Woman Set in the Sudan of the 18th Century, a Coming of Age story, dedicated to professional boxer Mohammad Ali, who as Cassius Clay, Jr., named himself for the Sultan of Sennar, one of the characters in the short story. Ms. Gant has a Ph.D. in French, with emphasis on French Linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. She worked with both the French Department, in close contact with the creator of Français interactif, Dr. Carl Blyth, and Dr. Liu Min of the School of Education. During her 10 years as a graduate student and Assistant Instructor she created a Creative Commons licensed javascript-driven free website,. She has an M.A. in French Literature from the University of North Texas at Denton, a B.A. in French from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Her teaching credential for secondary education was finished at the Sorbonne under the auspices of the University of California at Santa Barbara. The thrust of her professional work was proving that full caption subtitles were as effective in teaching authentic video as keywords to adult learners of French as a foreign language. Among her writings she has published in professional articles on historical French syntax.