« Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 3 | Home | Inspiration from the Pray the Psalms »
Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, August 25, 2007
If you’ve been following my blog in the past few days, you know I’ve been developing an analogy that helps to explain why we can have confidence in the oral traditions about Jesus. So far, here’s what I have:
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. When you start talking the these people, you discover that they have all been trained to remember oral communications. Strangely enough, they all come from a place that depended on oral tradition rather than writing or visual images. So even though you might forget pieces of the lecture, odds are that your fellow listeners will not.
There is still something missing, something crucial that helps to give us confidence in the oral traditions about Jesus. To what I’ve already written, you must add the following:
The lecturer, who had given his talk many times before, was familiar with situations in which the audience was unable to take notes and in which there would be no recordings. So rather than just lecture on in the normal way, he carefully presented his material so that his listeners would be more apt to remember what he said. He used dramatic imagery and verbal structures to promote memory. He wanted to be sure that what he said would be accuarately remembered and passed on to others.
For the most part, the teachings of Jesus were presented in the distinctive style of an oral culture. Some of the longer discourses in the Gospel of John are not in this mode, but most of the other teachings of Jesus are suitable for easy memorization. The same could be said for the stories about Jesus. They were told in commonplace oral forms that provided structure for accurate transmission.
So, here’s the analogy in its final form:
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. When you start talking the these people, you discover that they have all been trained to remember oral communications. Strangely enough, they all come from a place that depended on oral tradition rather than writing or visual images. So even though you might forget pieces of the lecture, odds are that your fellow listeners will not.
The lecturer, who had given his talk many times before, was familiar with situations in which the audience was unable to take notes and in which there would be no recordings. So rather than just lecture on in the normal way, he carefully presented his material so that his listeners would be more apt to remember what he said. He used dramatic imagery and verbal structures to promote memory. He wanted to be sure that what he said would be accuarately remembered and passed on to others.
What does this analogy demonstrate? The memorizing and accurate transmission of oral material is accentuated by:
1. The motivation of the hearers.
2. The fact that the hearing, remembering, and telling happened in the context of a motivated community of eyewitnesses.
3. The influence of oral culture upon those who passed on the tradition.
4. The effort of the speaker to use forms of speech that strengthen memory and transmission.
Admittedly, this analogy doesn’t prove that the early Christians perfectly transmitted everything Jesus did and said. But it does show why so many of the analogies used by skeptics fall short. Yes, I might forget a lot of things these days, but I wouldn’t be apt to forget something upon which my life (or afterlife) depended. And, yes, I might forget a lot of things these days, but I’m often helped by the memories of others. Indeed, I’m not the best at remembering oral material, but I do not live in an oral culture. I’ve learned to depend upon note taking and other kinds of memory aids. Finally, I may forget things like phone numbers, but when a good joke has a predictable structure, I can remember it quite accurately. If you don’t believe me, let me tell you the one about the minister, priest, and rabbi who walked into a bar . . . .
Topics: Can We Trust the Gospels? |
4 Responses to “Can We Trust the Accuracy of the Oral Traditions About Jesus? Part 4”
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.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hi Mark,
I read your posts from time to time and use Pray the Psalms often. I just couldn’t help but add a comment here on Oral Traditions of Jesus. First, this is a really helpful metaphor. Second, I think one of the reasons many Evangelical Christians may struggle with this is because of their view of how the Bible is inspired. If you take a literalist approach to the inspiration of Scripture—- for me, meaning that every word was “dictated” by God and/or the Biblical writer was simply a conduit for the revelation—the idea that the Gospels came about as part of the passing of oral tradition can be a stretch. If however, you see inspiration as more God inspiring the writer’s thoughts and allowing them the freedom to write in their time and place and audience, etc. there’s room for the influence of the oral tradtion. For example, I hold to the latter view and for me I believe that God inspired and was part of the passing down of Jesus’ teaching and the eyewitness stories, just as much as the penning of the Gospel accounts.
Thanks,
Jeff
August 26th, 2007 at 6:22 am
As an agnostic, I’d question so much here. I’ll just take one. Pastor Roberts pulls out “Motivation of the hearers” as one reason why people would remember something accurately. This seems to be one of his most puzzling points. Think about all the crazy, bizarre, foolish things that people on this planet believe. Even probably in your own neighborhood—from flying saucers to palm readers to ghosts and goblins…and worse. Pastor Roberts seems to be making an argument that the weirder your belief system, the more accurate it probably is.
We’re back to Chris Hitchens’s simple point: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think he’s right. Mark here seems to turn it on its head: That great claims require the least evidence.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Jacob and the Prodigal by Kenneth Bailey has a section on the oral tradition in Jewish culture and its presumed continuation in the early church. He attributes this as Luke’s source for much of his Gospel. Bailey taught in seminaries throughout the Middle East and is steeped in that culture.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi Dr Roberts,
Thanks for your posts on oral tradition. Although I mainly agree with your points, I’d like to quickly bring up one: the disciples did not seem for the most part (especially in Jesus’ early ministry) to understand the full implications of His teachings. They may have thought Jesus a good moral teacher, and even a soon to be earthly King - but perhaps not in terms of life and death as you described.
However, the arguement that because oral tradition was the prevalent form of instruction, most of what Jesus taught even in the early years are accurately captured still stand.
Blessings,
Keith