Have any scholars who claim that the Gospels' narratives originated as oral traditions studied oral traditions?

[ABuddhist]

I ask because comparing the gospels, which are alleged to have originated as oral traditions, with works which were definitely originally oral (and in some cases may still be oral, as with certain Buddhist and Hindu texts), one learns that the gospels are divergent in structure - and in language, if the translations which I have read can be trusted - from the originally oral works.

[ABuddhist]

All Buddhist Suttas and sutras open with the phrase in Pali "Evaṃ me sutaṃ" or in Sanskrit "Evaṃ mayā śrūtaṃ", which in English means "Thus have I heard"; traditionally, this is supposed to indicate that the narrative's events were being recited from memory by Shakyamuni Buddha's close disciple Ananda, and certainly the Pali Suttas often seem to be oral in terms of their structure and length.

No such claim to be derived from what is heard is found in GMark or Gmatthew.

[andrewcriddle]

I think you may possibly be confusing oral tradition in the sense of a memorized passage of relatively fixed form e.g.the Jewish Mishnah, and the much more general idea that the Gospel authors were writing down their version of what they had heard other people say about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

Many oral sayings were eventually written down.
There is quite a range of attribution methods.
More specific than "thus I have heard" are the attributions (isnad) in Hadith literature, such as “It has been related to me by A on the authority of B on the authority of C on the authority of D (usually a Companion of the Prophet) that Muhammad said.…”
I don't understand the basis of the above assertion that the sayings portions in gospels (whether canonical or not; whether accurate or not) are not claimed to have been originally spoken.
And to answer the subject line question: yes.

[GakuseiDon]

I ask because comparing the gospels, which are alleged to have originated as oral traditions, with works which were definitely originally oral (and in some cases may still be oral, as with certain Buddhist and Hindu texts), one learns that the gospels are divergent in structure - and in language, if the translations which I have read can be trusted - from the originally oral works.

Not sure, but usually Papias is cited as demonstrating about oral tradition:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth... For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
...
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
...
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

[ABuddhist]

I think you may possibly be confusing oral tradition in the sense of a memorized passage of relatively fixed form e.g.the Jewish Mishnah, and the much more general idea that the Gospel authors were writing down their version of what they had heard other people say about Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Why do you think that I was confused about that? Buddhist scriptures are both, but serve as an example of people writing down what they heard and hear that people were saying about the Buddha Shakyamuni.

[ABuddhist]

More specific than "thus I have heard" are the attributions (isnad) in Hadith literature, such as “It has been related to me by A on the authority of B on the authority of C on the authority of D (usually a Companion of the Prophet) that Muhammad said.…”

Isnads are indeed excellent examples of such attribution, but they are, as far as I am aware, absent from Christian literature excepting Papias - and Papias attributed to Jesus words about talking grapes which are apparently from a written Jewish text, making his reliability uncertain.

I don't understand the basis of the above assertion that the sayings portions in gospels (whether canonical or not; whether accurate or not) are not claimed to have been originally spoken.

Then quote for me a passage from GMark or GMatthew (because those are the gospels which I mentioned in connection with this claim) in which they claim to be written copies of what was originally spoken.

And to answer the subject line question: yes.

Then provide a citatation.

[ABuddhist]

I ask because comparing the gospels, which are alleged to have originated as oral traditions, with works which were definitely originally oral (and in some cases may still be oral, as with certain Buddhist and Hindu texts), one learns that the gospels are divergent in structure - and in language, if the translations which I have read can be trusted - from the originally oral works.

Not sure, but usually Papias is cited as demonstrating about oral tradition:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth... For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
...
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
...
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

But we have no proof that Papias was talking about our texts, only claims by later Christians, and his claims that Jesus talked about talking grapes, found in no other Christian text as far as I am aware, suggests that he was not.

[StephenGoranson]

a) "Jesus said" is an attribution.

b) one example:
Jesus and the oral gospel tradition
edited by Henry Wansbrough.
Sheffield : Sheffield Academic Press, 1991
Year: 1991
Description: 469 pages ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Series: Journal for the study of the New Testament supplement series ;; 64; Variation: Journal for the study of the New Testament.; Supplement series ;; 64.
Contents: Oral tradition / Oivind Andersen -- Prolegomena to the study of oral tradition in the Hellenistic world / David E. Aune -- Oral tradition in the Old Testament / Hans-Peter Ruger -- Oral tradition and written transmission, or the heard and seen word in Judaism of the Second Temple period / Shemaryahu Talmon -- Orality in pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism at the turn of the eras / Philip S. Alexander -- Jesus as preacher and teacher / Rainer Riesner -- Oral tradition and the aphorisms of Jesus / David E. Aune -- Illuminating the kingdom / Birger Gerhardsson -- The making of narratives in the synoptic gospels / E. Earle Ellis -- Oral tradition before, in, and outside the canonical passion narratives / Marion L. Soards -- John and the oral Gospel tradition / James D.G. Dunn -- Paul and the oral Gospel tradition / Traugott Holtz -- Does the Didache contain Jesus tradition independently of the synoptic gospels? / Willy Rordorf -- Some consequences of Birger Gerhardsson's account of the origins of the Gospel tradition / Ben F. Meyer.
Standard No: ISBN: 1850753296; 9781850753292;

[ABuddhist]

a) "Jesus said" is an attribution.

So is, to take an example from a text which indisputably had no orgin as an oral tradition but was a work which first existed as a written text, "Holmes said". I use Surelock Holmes not because I think that Jesus was fictional, but rather because narratives about Surelock Holmes, like narratives about Jesus, have become very popular and exist in many forms, but narratives in which Holmes is said to have saiid things in a form prefaced with "Holmes said" certainly first arose as written texts created by Doyle rather than as oral tradition.

Similarly, even if we accept that GMARK and GMatthew are accurate accounts about Jesus's preaching, the possibility remains that all attribution in the form, "Jesus said", althoughg accurate, was first formulated not as part of an oral tradition about Jesus but rather by the authors of GMark and GMatthew.

An attribution of the sort which I am asking about from GMark and Gmatthew would be along the lines of: "This is an account of what this text's author heard others say about Jesus's deeds and teachings". We have such claims from GLuke and GMatthew and, from outside the canon, GThomas.