If you mean the reliability of orally transmitted information, I’m sure a fair few, but there’s no such thing as ‘the oral gospels.’ There were stories told about Jesus after his death (and before it, for that matter). Everybody who pays attention knows stories change in the telling, usually grow with the telling (if you stick strictly to the facts, are utterly objective, and are constantly saying you’re not sure about this or that, people will find your stories very boring, and nobody will pass them on).
It’s not that Bart thinks there’s no real information passed on through oral traditions. No historian believes that. But most would say you have to allow for transmission error, and the disagreement is about how much you have to allow for it. Some who want to say the gospels are substantially accurate have tended to emphasize the extraordinary memories of people who recite long epic poems, for example. But Bart looked at research that showed that remarkable as their memories are, people who do this often make significant changes from one recitation to another.
In any event, we don’t know much about the way stories about Jesus were passed on orally. We don’t know if there were the equivalent of griots or seanchais or Homeric-style poets among the early Christians. There might not have been much of a tradition like that among Jews, because they were People of the Book–their stories had been written down, even though most Jews couldn’t read them. Probably there were people with good memories who could tell long stories without reference to written material. But they certainly would have added to them, and changed them, and improved them–as all such storytellers do.
There was a great tradition among the Greeks of such storytelling, which is how we have the Iliad–but the Iliad contains many things we have no reason to believe happened. It also refers to Troy–which has been proven to have existed. So the question is, how much drift was there in the roughly 40-60 years between Jesus’ death and the writing of the gospels.
So you’re saying Bart believes the oral recollection of Jesus’ life and teachings (as partly preserved in the written gospels) is entirely unreliable? That wasn’t my impression. And does any historian believe any record of the distant past (which must be written down, since otherwise they couldn’t study it without a time machine) is 100% reliable? I’ve never found any scholar of Roman history who believes everything Tacitus says.
We just had a guest poster on the main blog who is a conservative evangelical scholar, and he doesn’t believe that. He fully admitted that there are errors and inconsistencies, even while defending the idea that the New Testament writings are divinely inspired. So it seems like you’re misrepresenting biblical scholars as a whole, since all of them would agree that the material must be evaluated for accuracy, and that real information is in there, waiting for scholars to ferret it out. Or is that what you meant to say? Am I being unfairly persnickety here? Or did you just express yourself a mite clumsily?
You know, nitpicking is fun. I can see why you like it. 🙂
You defended Mark’s functional, effective, but basic Greek. But that wasn’t in any way significant to the point being made, which is that Mark clearly wrote before Matthew and Luke. The thread isn’t about exactly how good Mark’s Greek was. If it was, I wouldn’t be on it. You were sniping at adjectives. Waste of time. Happy trails.
‘Fluent’ is a word. Like all words, it means different things in different contexts. I, for example, am more fluent in English than you. Your English is decent enough, but frankly, your writing is not all it could be (and you have admitted as much). So while we are both fluent, I am more so than you, and others are more fluent than either of us. It’s a spectrum. Mark’s Greek was less fluent than that of Paul, Matthew, and Luke. Their Greek was less fluent than that of others. Overly elegant correct Greek wouldn’t really have served the purpose of reaching the people they were trying to reach. But Mark’s Greek is clearly such that it can’t be copied from Matthew’s Greek. Which was the only point I was trying to make, and you agree with it.
Your point isn’t about Mark at all, of course. It’s that I’m not a scholar. Very true. We have that in common, you and I. 🙂
Robert said
Pretty much all critical scholars who accept the approach of form criticism of the mid-20th century. But not very many evangelical or conservative scholars. Not very helpful, perhaps. Sorry.
I am not sure Ehrman really accepts form criticism.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
He is responding to comments in about 10 minutes in and at about 12:55 he says “…. Nobody really agrees with the form critics anymore..”
I haven’t read his book but he seems to suggest he explains his reasons for rejecting that view – or at least he doesn’t base his view of the gospel sources on their arguments.
Robert said
No, I was not saying that. I’m saying that Bart like other critical scholars generally accepts the approach of form criticism (generally rejected by more conservative and evangelical scholars), which recognizes the creativity of the early Christian oral tradition prior to the writing of the gospels.
I agree that Dr. Ehrman believes there was an oral tradition involving oral story after oral story similar to the telephone game. This is indeed the same conclusion those who take a form criticism approach.
At 1:03:55 or so Bauckham says most modern scholars reject form criticism and Ehrman says he completely agrees with that.
Certainly it seems Dr. Ehrman rejects form criticism as a basis for concluding that there was this telephone game. But Ehrman still seems to think it happened. We never really get a clear explanation of why he reaches that conclusion. That is not necessarily Ehrman’s fault as I do think the he had a bit less time than Bauckham.
Bauckham argues that there is no reason to conclude that at least Mark was talking with an eye witness – peter as suggested by Papias. Baukham also says there is no reason to think the gospels were called something different than Matthew Mark Luke and John from the beginning. He argues that they had to be called something and a sort of occums razor would rule out arguing a whole ordeal where they were renamed without any evidence to support it. They both make some arguments about that based on Papias. At best Ehrman seems to suggest Baukham has the burden of proof, but I don’t see that as being the case. It seems that if the gospels are named these things in the second and third century we would naturally want some evidence that they were named something else before we would presume the names changed.
Ehrman seems to want to say there were no early written sources. I said it seems to me that there was already a sort of Church institution by the time of Paul’s writings and Paul himself wrote quite a bit. It seems unlikely to me that there would be no written accounts of Jesus at that time. I asked if he thinks we are to assume there were none? Dr. Ehhrman said
“Yes, if Mark and the others used earlier sources, those sources are certainly lost. Mark appears not to have known Aramaic; there’s nothing to indicate he had written sources (if he had them) in anything other than Greek.”
So I don’t know why it would matter whether the sources were written in Greek or Aramaic. Also I do not know why we can’t imagine that Mark may have used aramaic sources with someone who could translate it to Greek. If anyone wants to follow up that is fine but I think if he had good reasons for those views we would have heard them. “Nothing to indicate he had written sources” is not the same as saying “x suggests he did not have written sources.” Just because we don’t have the written sources Mark may have used is not really a good reason to think he had none -as it is unlikely that writings from that time would survive. It is almost a miracle that we have 4 gospel accounts surviving from so early in time even though they cover much of the same ground.
I realize that it’s never just cut and dried but it seems to me there is a real issue that needs to be addressed. How can the scholarship of Bauckham and Licona and others attain any sort of scholarly objectivity when it’s clearly being guided and shaped by a prior faith commitment? Who would try to prove that the Resurrection actually happened unless they already believed it happened? Otherwise you would treat it like the same accounts of otherworldly happenings in all the world’s legends and mythologies. Why insist on the gospels being written by eyewitnesses unless you already assume the all narrated events have to be historically reliable? And if the response is that secular historians have a prior agenda as well that simply undermines their entire enterprise. If your view of the gospels is entirely dependent on your presuppositions then what becomes of attempts to claim historicity?
So you reserve the right to dismiss the findings of historical scholars, whenever you don’t like them, because nobody in this world is 100% objective? Leaving aside the fact that nobody is saying “Whatever one individual scholar says has to be accepted as law.” It’s about a body of opinion, not the authority of individuals, and consensus shifts over time.
But you seem to be saying “Everybody is biased, so I can believe what I want.” That would seem to be the logical conclusion of your train of thought. You may have just expressed yourself poorly, of course.
My train ends up at a different station–I trust no one’s judgment absolutely. I assume everyone has an agenda myself included. But I also think trained professionals try to do their jobs as best they can. If they have prejudices (and everyone does) I can allow for those, and truthfully, a good argument doesn’t stop being a good argument because the person making it has an ulterior motive for doing so. If you can understand the basis for someone’s opinion, you can evaluate that opinion objectively, even if the person in question isn’t always objective.
And if you ever make a good argument, Stephen, I promise I shall acknowledge it as such.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert