Can We Trust the Gospels?

Recent Posts


Past Posts Archived by Date


Search this site


Topics


Search this site


Syndication

« Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? | Home | Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 3 »

Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 2

By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, August 23, 2007

In my last post I began to explain why we can trust the accuracy of the oral traditions about Jesus, using the following analogy:

You are diagnosed with terminal cancer. But your doctor gives you a ray of hope. If you can go and hear a lecture by a famed cancer researcher, you will receive information that will lead to your healing. So you go to hear the lecture. As it turns out, you’re the only one at the lecture. And you forgot to bring your notebook. When you ask if recordings or transcripts of the lecture will be made available, you’re informed that no recordings are permitted. So your task is to listen to the lecture and remember as much as you can. It’s your only hope.

If you were to believe that what the lecturer said could save your life, you’d be inclined to listen carefully and remember accurately. Similarly, the earliest Christians, who believed that Jesus was the Savior of the world and that His words brought eternal life, had strong motivation to recall and pass along correctly the sayings of Jesus.

But the sayings of Jesus were not given to a solitary individual sitting in a lecture. Jesus’s ministry was a public affair, for the most part. Yes, He taught His disciples privately at times. And surely He had one-on-one conversations with people. But the bulk of His teaching, as it’s captured in the New Testament Gospels, was presented in public settings, including synagogues, homes, open fields, and the temple courtyards. Many of those who heard Jesus believed in Him, thus regarding His words as extraordinarly important.

Therefore, my lecture analogy needs to be reframed in this way:

You are diagnosed with terminal cancer. But your doctor gives you a ray of hope. If you can go and hear a lecture by a famed cancer researcher, you will receive information that will lead to your healing. So you go to hear the lecture. When you arrive at the lecture, the room is filled with others who are in exactly the same predicament as you. They have the same cancer, and have come to learn how to be cured. As it turns out, they didn’t bring any means to take notes either, and there will be no recordings of the lecture. So your task, and the task of those sitting with you, is to listen to the lecture and remember as much as you can. It’s your only hope.

Now you’re not alone, but there are many other ears to hear and minds to remember. After the lecture is over, you get together with the others to reconstruct what the lecturer said.

So, how well do you think you and the others would do? My guess is that you’d be able to reconstruct with great accuracy the content of the lecture, even getting certain memorable parts verbatim. Not only would each individual listen carefully, but now the group would provide memory support and accountability. If you thought the lecturer said “Take ten aspirin tablets each morning” but the others heard him say “Take two aspirin tablets each evening,” you’d be inclined to go with the majority.

So far my analogy explains how strong motivation plus supportive community can help people remember, thus providing a rationale for why we can trust the oral traditions about Jesus. The early Christian oral tradition was passed on publicly, in sermons and teachings. Many of those who listened had themselves heard and seen Jesus. Thus there were strong checks and balances in the system.

But, even with this first round of tweaking, my analogy can still be stronger. I’ll explain why in my next post.

If you find this discussion helpful, you’ll probably like my newest book, Can We Trust the Gospels? You can order a copy by clicking here. Happy reading!

Topics: Can We Trust the Gospels? |

4 Responses to “Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 2”

  1. real live preacher Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    I’m tracking with you all the way, man. These are observations that work well with a moderate audience. But it must be tougher on our fundamentalist, “verbally inspired” brothers and sisters. I guess in their case, there was no oral tradition, right? Just God’s words straight to Paul’s quill.

  2. David Dawson Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Regarding the dependability of oral tradition, I would suggest the work of Dr. Kenneth Bailey who spent more than 40 years teaching New Testament in the Middle East and is fluent in Arabic. You can view a bibliography at www.shenango.org

  3. ChrisK Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    A question from the local agnostic. How do the first and second century non-Christ following Jews fit in here? It’s as though you have people that went to the cancer talk with the doc, and a very smart, educated, interested, and involved group walked away very unimpressed with your famed cancer researcher. Why are they wrong?

  4. Constantine Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    I have a feeling that the good Dr. is setting us up! His example is far too sterile and he ascribes good motives to all who hear the lecture. But Dr. Roberts knows the Bible too well. Just as Jesus rebuked the hypocritical Pharisees with “it is written” (Mark 7) after they had twisted their oral tradition to contradict the written law, and with “haven’t you read…? in Matthew 19, me thinks Dr. Roberts will have to follow suit! So, stay tuned!

Comments

Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.

You must be logged in to post a comment.