Loading...Question:
I was making my case against the resurrection and Jesus’ divinity tonight to a Christian and we ended up discussing oral tradition. His assertion was that there was enough of a check on what was being transmitted orally that we can be assured the information is reliable. For example, in the context of the story in Mark of the two women discovering the empty tomb, he said that this is probably true because, if it wasn’t, people that knew the disciples, who knew the two women, would have heard about it and put a stop to the story. I thought this was naive to the extreme but I’m not expert on oral traditions so I wanted to take it to you and see what you’d say about it.
Response:
I suppose I made your friend’s argument back when I was an evangelical Christian, but for the life of me I can’t see how any intelligent person with any experience of the world at all can make it. (I think I was intelligent at the time, but I certainly wasn’t experienced.) The reality is – as so many of us (most of us?) have experienced – you simply can’t stop people saying anything they want about you or about anything else. You simply can’t.
Suppose your friend read your comment here and called you up and corrected you: “No, that’s not what I said!” But now that you’ve put it out there, I’m repeating it. I don’t know your friend, and he has no way of contacting me to correct me. Or if he does send me an email to correct me, it’s too late – thousands of people have already seen it and may pass it along themselves. Is he going to contact all of them, along with the people they’ve told?
You could say it was different in the ancient world because there were no means of mass communication like today. But that only makes the problem worse. Because in that situation there is no way to know who is saying what and certainly no way to make for a massive appeal to retract what they’re saying. 2000 years ago someone could not publish a retraction on the Internet (not that even doing *that* does any good today).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong, YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING!!
Yes Bart, but as been instilled in so many, The “Holy Spirit” had watch over these “letters” and those that copied them so your premise falls to the ground. As I’ve had said to me, “if I can’t believe the NT or the whole bible what can I believe”. Even tho a person can show inconsistencies throughout.
Sounds like you’ve been reading too much William Lane Craig. 😉
Actually, no. 🙂
Your story about your scholar friend lying about you is a contemporary event…and even with that thousands of people are going to possibly believe a lie.
When we are dealing with the questioner’s example, the events are 2000+ years old, told and re-told in different languages, details getting mixed and confused, mistakes being made in copies of copies of copies of documents, even outright fraud…and this is what we base our faith on? Lies?
Your job is to look into these matters…to find the truth in it all…not even to find theological truth but just basic simple historical truth ( for example, either Jesus’ family went to Egypt or returned to Nazareth) (or both stories are false).
When I mentioned this problem of finding the truth in the documents to a fundamentalist friend, she said genuinely that the Holy Spirit will guide me…but that’s probably a lie too.
I am coming to the opinion that we can never know the truth (rationally) so what is the truth in scripture that we are willing to die for?
Not a damn thing?
Do you know how to find this truth? I once thought I did, but I don’t now.
You may want to ask if “truth” is some kind of objective entity out there that can be “found” — as a start to a new way of looking at things.
Since the late 1990’s I have been practicing a simple form of Buddhist meditation and philosophy. In this context of finding truth, truth comes from within each of us and is not an objective entity to be found “out there.” It is discovered through a simple mental and physical practice (not a self-help program). In my experience with this, it is quite fulfilling. Thank you for your comment on this. I think that is where I need to look…within myself.
There are still plenty of Christians (I was one of them) who honestly think that the Gospels were written sometime during Jesus’ lifetime, and most apologists still use that “written by eyewitnesses” BS, so those two examples should show you that people have a tendency to spread misinformation.
Off-topic question: Do you think that the Gnostic Christians arose partly because of Jesus’ apocalypse failing to materialize? Their theology seems like they were people who were fed up with waiting for Yahweh to fix everything and decided that he was a false god because he allowed so much suffering.
Yes, that’s one of the old views of the origins of Gnosticism, that it came from some kind of failed apocalypticism. I’ve always been somewhat inclined that way, that this is one of the main factors….
I’m starting to get the feeling the Gnostics were the original Christians, who changed Jesus’ message after the prophecies in Mark, Matthew and Luke failed. I can definitely see how their thoughts could’ve developed–they got told about this guy who was going to fix all the world’s problems with a physical kingdom, it didn’t work out, they decided that the Earthly world sucked so much because of the idiot who created it, and they can escape it by revelation.
I was fascinated when I discovered that the Cathars in twelfth and thirteenth century France held remarkably similar views – i.e. the physical realm is evil, created by an evil god and to be shunned. This idea pops up frequently among “heretics” right up to the time of the Reformation (and beyond?) It makes perfect sense that some people who experience suffering in this world conclude that it is entirely corrupt and irredeemable. So much of religious thought throughout geography and history is focused on the question of suffering that is just may be a universal.
Amazing insight and very helpful in thinking about what must have gone on within the first generation of the Church.
A couple of years ago I saw a video of a debate between you and Craig Evans. I am a huge fan of Dr. Evans’ work, but I was taken aback by his comments that the apostles would have corrected the mistakes and people would have been able to verify the stories. This did not make sense, so I investigated a bit and came across two great books that address similar issues: “The New Testament World” by Bruce Malina and “The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels” by Bruce Malina, Gerd Theißen, et al. They point out that society in the first century was very hierarchical and respect towards people higher up was very important. The wife of a merchant, for example, would never dream of questioning the story of the rich business from Ephesus, but would simply take his word (or his story) at face value. So even if they could have send email back and forth, most simply would not have done it.
I studied Buddhism for 15 years, they have an oral tradition of 200 years or more. Makes me wonder.
Excellent answer.
It seems clear to me that for whatever reason, his disciples certainly believed he was resurrected. Otherwise , why would they have risked their lives to proclaim it? And the Chirtian movement would never have gotten started.
Yes, but if the resurrection is a fabrication, how much more has been fabricated. After all the entire Christian movement is based on resurrection. I have found some of Yeshua’s teachings to be similar to the teachings of Confucius who lived some 600 years earlier in China. I would say that there is nothing really new here.
When I was growing up in catholic school, they (the nuns and clergy) new then that there were errors in the bible do to oral traditions. We were all but forbidden to read it. The true faith was what we were being taught. Now that may have been OK for people who thought clergy and nuns walked on water. I’m from Missouri, (not literally) “show me the carfax. You know, they were right when they taught “the truth will set you free”.
Francis Dunn
Prof. Ehrman,
This is exactly what I had in mind when I communicated the following.
Prof. Ehrman,
I heard a program on NPR tonight and thought of your writings immediately. It is about memory and could be an explanation … well I’ll let you decide. The program is on Radiolab and this is their website where you can listen.
http://www.radiolab.org/2007/jun/07/
The program points to research that indicates that the act of remembering alters the memory. It also points to research that shows how easy it is to “remember” things that didn’t happen.
H.S.
Thanks so much. I have heard this idea that the disciples would have corrected any inaccuracies over and over again. I knew this did not make much sense, but could not fully explain why. Your explanation makes it quite clear in a very straight forward way. Thanks.
Would this line of argument also undermine the popular apologetics claim that Paul’s testimony about Peter & the Twelve is accurate, on the ground that Peter and the Twelve could not easily correct Paul, if the testimony were inaccurate? Or is this claim robust to limitations of oral traditions because 1 Cor 15:3 specifies a recital type of oral tradition used to ensure accuracy? Does 15:3 cover all of the clauses in 15:4-7 or just 15:4-5?
Well, with Paul at least we have an idea where he got his views from. An idea. My hunch is that it is only 15:4-5.
Wow, that certainly takes the wind out of a lot of apologists sails. What evidence do you back up this hunch with? What would Dan Wallace maybe say back to that?
Sorry — I’m not sure which part of the thread you’re referring to.
The hunch I was referring to was your mention that only 15:4-5 is included in the creed Paul recites. You said it was a hunch and I said “wow that takes the wind out of a lot of apologists sails” and then wondered if you discussed this hunch with anyone of the opposing view and asked what the reasoning supporting this hunch was.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you so much for responding so quickly and so enthusiastically to my question about the early disciples serving, as you phrase it, as “guarantors of the truth”. I felt very honored to see that I had brought up an issue you felt was worth writing a blurb about and I’m very glad you did, as it’s something that I find comes up a lot when dealing with apologetics.
Ironically, as you suggested, I have not fully communicated my friends position. Not only does he argue that the disciples, not to exclude other early church leaders and members, would serve as guarantors of the truth, which you so greatly addressed, but a primary thrust of his argument seems to be that the nature of oral tradition, at the time, was itself a reliable enough mode of transmission for us to be sure that the stories are probably historical. He references a paper by Kenneth E Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels”, which argues that communities in the Middle East have, for thousands of years, had fantastic methods of crystallizing historical events, which are important to the community, into catchy, very reliable, oral traditions, which are, more or less, controlled by members of the community, and preserved for great periods of time, at least long enough for the Gospels to be reliable. Bailey recounts various stories of his own time in the ME, including examples of recent community stories which were very easily, and effortlessly, well preserved by the communities around him, for long periods of time, and gives some various historical examples to support his conclusions that the populaces at the time of Jesus probably similarly preserved reliable traditions about Jesus with similar informal controlled oral traditions.
I do, however, have some large doubts about the veracity of this view of the reliability of oral tradition, which I fear strikes me as, again, seemingly naive. My immediate concerns are; first, to concede, sure, the gospel stories could have been maintained in this way, but second, to question, were they? What’s the evidence that suggests that informal controlled vs informal uncontrolled was more prevalent, throughout the ME, around the transmission of the gospel’s stories?
To allow my friend to semi-speak for himself about the eyewitnesses serving as guarantuars of the truth, he had this to say “The Jerusalem church wasn’t simply the authorative hub of eyewitness and doctrinal knowledge, it was unanimously considered to be such by the daughter churches. It took an active role in supervising its daughter churches by sending apostles/representatives to check up on them and teach. Similarly, because of its status, the Jerusalem church regularly received representatives from daughter churches, who were sent to Jerusalem regularly to confirm their conformation. E.g., in the case of Antioch, we see Peter being sent from Jerusalem to check up on them, and just afterwards “some men James had sent” (Gal 2). In the other direction, we see Antioch sending folks (including Paul) to Jerusalem to get questions answered (from which Jerusalem would subsequently send prominent represenatives to Antioch to give the official answer). They were well networked. Of course, there didn’t even need to be special trips; many members from all the churches would’ve regularly visited Jerusalem because that’s where Jews pilgrimaged during their routine festivals. There was a steady stream of communication between the churches, and everyone worked to ensure compliance with the authoritative teachings. ” I could offer plenty of my own doubts about this last little tidbit from the apologetical side of things, but I’m certain that this has all been well more than enough for now.
I’d really appreciate anything you have to say on this. I’m thinking maybe a part 2, to this original post? I am sooo interested to hear what you could have to say about this, as my friends comment stands in direct conflict with a comments you, yourself, made, on your blog about eyewitnesses and the gospels. ( “My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up.”)
The whole concept behind their arguments seems to be an attempt to circumvent the Synoptic problems, and the problems posed by Forged, and appeal straight to the reportedly reliable veracity of ancient Middle Eastern oral tradition. Also, on a side note, can you please suggest a little extracurricular reading on this topic?
Sorry for the length of this post, btw, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, I am very engaged in dialogue with the more enthusiastic members of the local Reasonable Faith chapter as I consider this matter, the whole truth of God, Christianity, atheism, thing, the most important thing in life to get figured out and am very dedicated to it.
There is a large literature on how oral cultures work. It’s best to start with the classics, such as Walter Ong. Story tellers in those cultures *change* their stories to fit the context. When Bailey argues that in Palestine it didn’t happen, how exactly would he know? If the traditions are oral, tehy are not written down, so that a tradition from 1000 CE cannot be compared with one from 1500 CE….
What do you think of my friend’s argument that the early church was well networked. I’ll re-quote him again,
“The Jerusalem church wasn’t simply the authorative hub of eyewitness and doctrinal knowledge, it was unanimously considered to be such by the daughter churches. It took an active role in supervising its daughter churches by sending apostles/representatives to check up on them and teach. Similarly, because of its status, the Jerusalem church regularly received representatives from daughter churches, who were sent to Jerusalem regularly to confirm their conformation. E.g., in the case of Antioch, we see Peter being sent from Jerusalem to check up on them, and just afterwards “some men James had sent” (Gal 2). In the other direction, we see Antioch sending folks (including Paul) to Jerusalem to get questions answered (from which Jerusalem would subsequently send prominent represenatives to Antioch to give the official answer). They were well networked. Of course, there didn’t even need to be special trips; many members from all the churches would’ve regularly visited Jerusalem because that’s where Jews pilgrimaged during their routine festivals. There was a steady stream of communication between the churches, and everyone worked to ensure compliance with the authoritative teachings. ”
He’s basing this on the book of Acts, one of its very clear and obvious Tendenzen, to show that the apostolic communtiy was all tied together and all rooted in the Jerusalem church — not something you find evidence for elsewhere! (Think about Paul’s letters)
What about Paul’s letter am I supposed to think about? Are you referring to how Paul is always having to straighten out controversies and various craziness in the early churches? That would seem to be a piece of evidence against my friends argument that the early churches were well networked with their headquarters in Jerusalem.
“He’s basing this on the book of Acts, one of its very clear and obvious Tendenzen, to show that the apostolic communtiy was all tied together and all rooted in the Jerusalem church — not something you find evidence for elsewhere! ”
I suppose the book of Acts was written after the fall of Jerusalem, by someone that we can’t know how much contact they had with any eyewitnesses to the Jerusalem church too, right?
I just meant that in Paul’s letters there’s no sense that his churches were appealing to Jerusalem to make sure they got everything right. And yes, Acts is later and has a theological investment in making sure that the jerusalem church was the center of things.
Another problem I sense with Kenneth Bailey’s argument is that controlled informal tradition doesn’t exactly have much of a mechanism for protecting uncontrolled informal “traditions” from creeping into the controlled tradition. I could easily imagine that rumors could make it into the controlled informal tradition without someone stopping it saying, “Hey! Where did this come from? Let’s all check out facts and get totally reliable information.” Is that apparent to you as well?