Subtle Variations Through Oral Tellings

[Atticus Finch]

Catchy thread title, huh?

I'm not well educated on this so please excuse me if my thoughts are naive on this issue.

Jesus' life was remembered through the apostles and oral traditions. Since many of Jesus' parables and teachings could be changed by a simple sentence change, how can we know that these are the direct words of his?

Is Mark the earliest known Gospel in the canonical sense that we have? If so, why is it so short and absent of many embellishments that Matthew, Luke, and John contain?

[Canuckster1127]

Catchy thread title, huh?

I'm not well educated on this so please excuse me if my thoughts are naive on this issue.

Jesus' life was remembered through the apostles and oral traditions. Since many of Jesus' parables and teachings could be changed by a simple sentence change, how can we know that these are the direct words of his?

Is Mark the earliest known Gospel in the canonical sense that we have? If so, why is it so short and absent of many embellishments that Matthew, Luke, and John contain?

All4 gospels have eye witnesses as Authors, (Matthew and John) or people very close to apostles (Mark and Luke).

There is some argument over priority, but Mark is considered the most, specifically in part because it is the shortest. Matthew and Luke appear to have had access to Mark which they used in addition to their own material, some of which could have been oral tradition, their own eyewitness or other written material.

The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree remarkably well. John is a little different and probably the last written. It focuses more on the teaching of Christ than an historical narrative.

[Turgonian]

1) The Jews (and other cultures of the age) were trained in oral transmissions. Their memories were, compared to modern Western ones, incredible.

2) The point matters, not the sentence. It's quite possible that what's written in the Bible is not 100% exactly what Jesus said -- but people of that time really didn't care about specific wording like we do.
A parable is told to illustrate a certain point. The disciples would have remembered what the parable was about and what it meant. The precise words didn't matter. This is not a denial of biblical inerrancy, because people wouldn't have read those texts like we would be inclined to do.

[LowlyOne]

Oral Tradition is reliable. Think of how many songs a person has memorized, and can sing without them playing. Some people have several hundred lyrics of songs memorized, and it is not a suprising thing for other people to have about a thousand songs memorized. With this in mind, no one should be suprised, skeptical, or slow to belief that oral tradition can faithfully preserve Jesus' teachings and the gospel events, even if many years pass before writing them down.

[Kurieuo]

Considering the precise words Jesus spoke often differ from one synoptic gospel to the next, and few would advocate that Jesus regularly spoke Greek, then we do not have Jesus' exact words (ipsissima verba). Yet, I do not believe this presents any real issue since as long as the exact voice (ipsissima vox) was retained when recorded. For more insight I would recommend having a read of Grant Osborne's Historical Criticism And The Evangelical (esp. ch.V).

As for oral tradition, I think the early creed found in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is perhaps the most significant found in the Bible. Corinthians was written c.55 AD, and thus presents itself as powerful evidence against the claims the story of Jesus was a developed legend. Yet, this early creed itself is said to have been formed much earlier, bringing us to within only a few years after Jesus' death. It contains many claims about who Jesus was including Jesus being the Christ, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, dying for our sins, being buried, rising on the third day, and being seen by believers and non-believers.

Kurieuo

[LowlyOne]

Someone on another thread gave these reasons why oral tradition is not reliable.

1. Those passing on the oral tradition and "preaching" have an agenda, first and foremost, to spread the word and get followers.

2. Those passing on the oral tradition will tend to omit or change aspects of the story as it keeps getting told, especially when passed from person to person.

3. People even retelling events that they've seen themselves recollect events differently, or have a bias, or due to faulty observation tend to tell events differently from how they occured.

4. 40 years of this happening before it is even put into writing has a huge effect on the veracity of the telling of an event. Coupled with the fact that there is no way to verify the truth or falsity of this amazing event leads the Gospel accounts to be unreliable information.

How can Christians respond to this?

[August]

Those objections seem to be assertions rather than reasons, the objector should justify them before claiming their validity.

JP speaks about it here:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html

[Kurieuo]

LowlyOne,

I would respond by telling them to Google or research the early creed Paul uses found in found in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.

Kurieuo

[meforevidence]

I am not an expert on this but have put some efforts into this when having an online rebuttle toward Mr. Fank Zindler and his statements against the Gospels.

1. I believe Matthew is the oldest Gospel we have. This is supported by the Magdalen Papyri (see: http://dejnarde.ms11.net//magda.htm)

Matthew:
It was once thought that Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem until the Magdalene Jesus Papyri were found (also known as 17P64). It is a segment of Greek text of Matthew's Gospel, Matthew 26:23 and 31, which has been dated before A.D 66. In 1994, using a scanning laser microscope, Dr. Carsten Thiede compared this fragment with four other manuscripts and concluded that either this is an original of Matthew's Gospel, or an immediate copy written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses were still alive. This was a big shock to the skeptics who have always maintained that Matthew was written in the second century. Technology has disproved that opinion. Incidentally, the Matthew segment corresponds to Textus Receptus, the traditional source documents. see: http://dejnarde.ms11.net//magda.htm
and Dr. Chuck Missler, Learn the Bible in 24 Hours

Another support is the Jewish Talmud itself (see: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04 ... 6op041.htm

and

http://www.truthnet.net/php/viewtopic.php?t=19 )

As far as Mark, it seems that Mark was written later, after he travelled with Paul on his journeys. One example of this seems to be his message of marriage, divorce and re-marriage. For the Jews, this was accepted simply by a man writing a certificate of divorce. For the Gentiles, this could be done simply by either the man or women if they did not like each other. Mark shows an agreement with Paul's teachings as well as the teachings of Jesus in Mark 10 on this subject.

John:

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.

Other Great links can be found at: http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... um-19.html

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for the information meforevidence.

There is a significant, although minority, view that Matthew was the first Gospel written. One of my professors in undergrad school was a Matthean Prioritist and one of the most intelligent and articulate scholars in that regard I ever met.

One thing strikes me odd in the source and quote you provide from http://dejnarde.ms11.net//magda.htm and Dr. Chuck Missler and that is the assertion that this position supports the authority of the Textus Receptus in this area.

I haven't read all of this critically, but there are a few things with that and the quote that raise my eyebrows.

1. Marcan Priority does not require nor do the majority of Marcan priorists assert that Matthew is a second century document. The dates posited for Mark are the early 50's and Matthew sometime in the early 70's of the first century, so that argument strikes me as something of a strawman.

2. The appeal to the textus receptus in this regard is puzzling and I've rarely seen it except in the case of King James Only supporters who reject what they see as secular criticism and want to support the underpinnings of the KJV from the original manuscripts (textus receptus) verses the majority text commonly accepted today by Bible Scholars, (including a majority of evangelical scholars I would add.)

I think there may be better supports for Matthean Priority than what you're suggesting here.

[meforevidence]

Thanks Canuckster1127

I will have to be the first to admit that even though this was a quote from a man who's works I have enjoyed, I am not at all a scholar on the area of the Textus Receptus. Perhaps in the future I can study it more. If you are familiar with my works, then you know that I am certainly not a KJV only advocate. Most of my studies pertain to the Old Testament, History, and Archeology regarding the Bible.
I definitely appreciate your comments and research.

God bless

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Canuckster1127

I will have to be the first to admit that even though this was a quote from a man who's works I have enjoyed, I am not at all a scholar on the area of the Textus Receptus. Perhaps in the future I can study it more. If you are familiar with my works, then you know that I am certainly not a KJV only advocate. Most of my studies pertain to the Old Testament, History, and Archeology regarding the Bible.
I definitely appreciate your comments and research.

God bless

You're welcome and I was aware that these did not reflect your positions, so that is why I was a litte surprised at the comments.

As I said, I may be reading it wrong, but I don't see the point of asserting Textus Receptus authority in this context without another agenda at work.

[Judah]

That's an impressive website you've got there, meforevidence.

I haven't found too many folk that terribly impressed when I have mentioned how soon the gospels were written after the fact of Jesus' life on earth. Even if they were written within the timeframe of living memory such that people who were around could say "no, that's not what happened" or whatever, even a few years after an event, or even a few months after an event, the reports might tax the memory - so goes the counter argument. People will tell me how they have difficulty remembering details of events in far shorter time frames, like a week, so why get so excited about claiming something written, say, 60 years or so after it happened?

On the other hand, I have wondered if people might have had better memories back then, given that they didn't have recourse to pencil and paper or computer notebooks for jotting things down to remind themselves and therefore simply had to use their memories - and the more use given, the better they worked. Might that be so? Can we know if it was?

[Turgonian]

Absolutely! You shouldn't be asking a question like that, since it's something JP Holding frequently says. The ancients had trained memories and could remember things very well. They had to; they couldn't look them up. They didn't have the sieve memory of today's Westerners.

[Judah]

So Turgy, with what evidence do you back that up? Otherwise it is just your opinion - or my opinion - or J.P. Holding's opinion - or whoever's.
I'm looking for a good defence I can make.