In his book does Ehrman spend much time defending the view that there were no other writings before the Gospels?   Because the arguments don’t get off the ground unless that is established.  And I just tend to think they likely had some writings about Jesus before the Gospels.   

Paul was very literate and writing quite a bit before the gospels.  He also seems to suggest the church is at least somewhat of an institution.  I find it hard to believe they would have had no written texts about Jesus life at that time.  

Here is the part from the blog that I wonder about most:

“Was There No Writing in the Christian Communities Prior to the Gospels?
As we’ve said, form criticism has tended to embrace the view that, in all likelihood, neither Jesus nor anyone in his inner circle was literate. They thus assumed that writing played no regulative role in the oral transmission of early material about Jesus, which made it easier for this material to be significantly and quickly altered as it was passed along. However, while no one disputes that first century Jewish culture was an orally dominated culture, there is increasing evidence that reading and writing was not as rare in the ancient world in general, and in ancient Palestine in particular, as was once generally thought.

For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)

If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,

“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” (4)

Thus, as Birger Gerhardsson argues, “the milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus’ life and teaching were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” (5)

In light of this, we have no reason to question the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as not only being able to read (e.g. ** you do not have permission to see this link **). Nor do we have any reason to suppose that all of Jesus’ disciples were illiterate. At the very least, Matthew’s occupation as a tax collector would have required some level of literacy. It’s perhaps significant in this regard that an early second century church father named Papias — a man who seems to have been a direct disciple of the Apostle John — mentions that Matthew was the designated note-taker among the earliest disciples.

We thus conclude that, while the recollection of Jesus’ words and deeds would have been passed on primarily by word of mouth in the early church, it seems more likely than not that, to some extent at least, they also would have been recorded in writing. These written materials likely would have provided a check on how much the oral traditions about Jesus could have been altered over the first several decades of the new found Christian communities”

Does Ehrman spend much time arguing that in fact it was oral tradition for lengthy periods of time or does he mostly assume it and then talk about how memories can be faulty?

I have listened to four of Dr. Ehrman’s books and I also listened to three of  his teaching company classes. 

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

I have learned quite a bit from him no doubt and would encourage others to give him a listen.   

He has used the telephone game example in at least one of his lectures I saw, and here he is making the same sort of argument more recently:

“Jesus Before the Gospels is about what was happening to the stories of Jesus before they were written down in the Gospels.   It is about the oral traditions that were in circulation prior to their production in writing.

As you will see by reading the book, scholars since (especially) the 1920s have been interested in knowing how stories of Jesus were in circulation between the time of his death around 30 CE and the first accounts of his life in 70-95 CE.   That’s (obviously!) a forty to sixty-five year time gap!  It is important to realize (as I try to demonstrate) that, the persons writing the stories were not telling their readers what they themselves had seen or heard Jesus do and say.  They were not eyewitnesses, and almost certainly (in most cases) did not know any eyewitnesses.  They inherited stories that had been in circulation year after year and decade after decade before they had even heard them.

What happens to stories put in circulation like this, in different communities, living in different parts of the world, speaking different languages?  I have had a few readers tell me with some assurance that it is NOT like the “Telephone Game” (as I have likened the process to before).  And they’re right.  It’s not.  It’s MUCH WORSE!!!”

** you do not have permission to see this link **

That blog is him discussing the book Stephen mentions.  

“The telephone game” doesn’t involve writings.  So if you are going to make that argument you need to establish or agree that there were no writings.  But I have never actually heard good arguments to that effect.  Bottom line is if Dr. Ehrman just assumes it is the telephone game up until whatever time he dates Mark and then talks about problems with memory it will not be of much interest to me.  If however he goes into the various arguments made for thinking there may or may not have been writings that pre-exist mark well then I am very interested.  That is why I ask.    

godspell said
1)Listening isn’t reading.  Actually, that’s a good point to make for this discussion.  Something read may be more easily retained, since you can refer back to it.  Again, Bart believes there were Christian writings before the gospels, and he’s been very clear about that.  He, like most people in his field, believes the gospel writers had written sources that no longer exist.  So it’d be nice if you’d admit you were wrong about that. 

2)The telephone game is not something I’ve seen mentioned in any Ehrman book (I’ve never listened to any, but I’ve read more than four).  He may have referenced it earlier, but he’s gotten quite a lot more sophisticated since then, and has done a lot of research into oral transmission, which obviously did not happen via the telephone in the First Century.

I enjoy irony and this post is no exception.  You seem to suggest we understand better by reading then we do by listening.   Yet, assuming you read what you are responding to, you didn’t understand it. 

I quoted Dr. Ehrman using the telephone game analogy.  And it was referring to a book he recently published in 2017.  Maybe he became more sophisticated since then, and indeed he seems to have backed off that analogy a bit in his more recent response to a blog comment I made.  But the quote I give does not have him backing off due to the fact they used written sources.  Instead he says “It’s MUCH WORSE!!!” (his caps and his triple exclamation marks) than the telephone game.