Did AD 30-70 churches orally teach and pass down Jesus-biography in an adeptly preservation-oriented way?

“Yes, after all…
  • Parallel Gospel stories are same but different

      In Matthew, Mark, and Luke especially, it is easy to compare stories which are double or triply narrated between them, and when we do we find those same stories have an interesting mix of being the same (even at the verbal level) and yet in other ways different (in presentation). [A page full of examples is forthcoming.] This is relevant given many synoptic differences are best explained by authors ultimately depending on flexibly-deliverable teachings (oral performances) to churches which are thereby rehearsed and passed down with control.1

      1. James Dunn: “Matthew and Luke knew Mark as such and were able to draw on his version of the tradition at a literary level and often did so… At the same time, however, it would be improper to ignore the fact that in a good number of cases, illustrated above, the more natural explanation for the evidence is not Matthew's or Luke's literary dependence on Mark, but rather their own knowledge of oral retellings of the same stories (or, alternatively, their own oral retelling of the Markan stories).” [Jesus Remembered, 222.]
        Craig Blomberg: “[As James Dunn suggests], until the amount of verbal parallelism becomes large enough to suggest knowledge of written sources or demonstrates theologically or stylistically motivated changes from earlier documents, we should assume that the differences among the Synoptics stem from the natural freedom of oral storytellers to vary minor details in their accounts that do not affect the overall meaning of their stories. [The Historical Reliability of the Gospels 2nd ed. (IVP, 2007), 60.]
  • Churches cooperatively rehearsed-guarded story accuracy

      Early Christian churches cooperatively guarded the stories of Jesus through regular group-rehearsals (when they gathered on Sundays), and zealously worked to preserve the accuracy throughout the various tellings of their treasured stories.
      Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd: “A most significant expression of this historical awareness is that it is frequently the case in predominantly oral settings that, within the context of the performance arena, the audience shares in the responsibility of accurately preserving the essential historical remembrances. That is, if an oral performer misrepresents the tradition—sometimes in even relatively minor ways-the audience frequently corrects him in the midst of the performance.84 Hence, while the performer is entrusted with expressing and creatively adapting traditional oral material to each new setting, the collective memory of the community stands as a counterbalancing authority over each specific performance and over each individual tradent.” [The Jesus Legend (Baker, 2007), 147.]
      • E.g. Bailey knew of this phenomenon 1st hand, living 40 years with Middle-Eastern oral communities)1
      • Much more forthcoming.
      This is relevant because this sort of communal protection of history represents a very high-level of quality control; it was very well situated to faithfully preserve stories across decades and longer.

      1. The following are excerpts from Kenneth Bailey’s, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Asia Journal of Theology 5:1 (1991), and the version in Themelios 20.2 (1995).
        Kenneth Bailey: “It has been my personal privilege to have spent most of my childhood and all of my adult life here in the Middle East. Across the last forty years, I have lived and worked as a New Testament specialist in Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine. […] I have been able to observe and analyse how middle-eastern peoples orally preserve and pass on the information...”
        Kenneth Bailey: “[The] seated community exercises control over the recitation of the tradition.”
        [Regarding more formal content] • Kenneth Bailey: “If the reciter makes a mistake, he subjects himself to public correction, and thereby to public humiliation. […] If the reciter quotes a proverb with so much as one word out of place, he will be corrected by a chorus of voices.” [Regarding less formal, but neverthelss important historical content] • Kenneth Bailey: “[Bailey shares an example and concludes:] “To change the basic story-line while telling that account in the village of Dayr Abu Hennis is unthinkable. If you persisted, I think you would be run out of the village. They have told it the same way for centuries.”
  • “Teachers” oft taught churches & checked Jesus-bio

      Knowledgeable Jesus-bio teachers regularly taught Jesus-bio to others with some measure of formality (as rabbis did to students). A forthcoming page analyzes 10 evidences:
      • “Teachers” oft checked/relayed Jesus-bio.
      • Didache 11, 13: “teachers teach what you already know”.
      • E.g. Apostles oft started, taught, & visited churches.
      • “Delivered” & “received” indicated teachings from a teacher • Papias: “Jesus-witnesses xyz are still pop-teachers (in AD 80)”.
      • Christians felt Jesus-bio teachers deserve honor.
      • Christians used/employed only qualified tradents.
      • Christians strove to match reliable tradents on Jesus-bio.
      • Jesus constructed memorable teachings.
      • Lk says “the witnesses were the teachers”.
      This is relevant because the Student-Teacher method tended to be a fairly well controlled one with generally reliable results (especially considering ancient memory).

      But no…
      • Apostles weren’t trained in memorizing.
      • The Gospels are full of minor differences.

  • SHOW/HIDE MENU