Loading...Another box in my upcoming new edition of my textbook.
********************************
Something to Think About
Box 5.3 How Reliable Are Oral Traditions?
If stories of Jesus’ words and deeds were in oral circulation year after year before being written down, how do we know whether they were changed significantly over time? One way to answer the question is to see how “oral cultures” preserve their traditions generally.
In written cultures, such as ours…
The rest of this post is for blog members only. If you don’t belong yet, now’s your big chance!
I think Mike Licona believes there was some rigorous process and determination in the ancient world to keep the oral traditions and retelling of stories free of or with little error. However given things he said in his debates with Bart, he seems like one of the scholars who makes the evidence fit his faith.
I recently attended a Bible study with my wife in which the leader trotted out the old assertion that oral cultures were very skilled at accurately memorizing large amounts of information. Having read Jesus Before the Gospels I countered that assertion with the points you mentioned, but I don’t think anyone was swayed. Would you say that one of the reasons fundamentalists are so intent on “proving” the accuracy of the Bible stories is because that is the only real “evidence” they have of what Jesus said and did? And if the evidence is flawed, then their belief system is at risk?
I imagine that made you very popular, huh?
That took some courage for you to speak up, fishician.
Dr. Ehrman, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that your textbook is not used at Liberty University.
Except as an object of ridicule, of course.
As long as they pay for their to-be-ridiculed copy I’d be OK with that!
Not sure our modern sense is much different – most people would see jesus healing two demon-possessed men in matthew as the same story as jesus heals a demon possessed man in luke/mark
Hi Bart – off topic question but, when you were an evangelical christian beginning your new testament studies did you have a problem with markan priority? was it one of the things which made you stop believing in biblical inerrancy?
It’s hard for me to remember, but I *think* we subscribed to it.
The first Christians were Jewish. Therefore they spoke Hebrew. Therefore when they were using words they knew it was not just a one level thing.
Telling a story from A to B to The End is not even in the mental structure of the hebrew texts.
Just as an example of the depth of the original text: The first word of the Torah is Bereshit… the last one is Israel… so the first letter is Beit (B) the last one is Lamed (L) and since hebrew is read from right to left, the word that emcompasses the hole Torah is Lev (B can also be said as a V) and LeV in hebrew means Heart.. .and so the hole torah is emcompassed in the Heart, and that is done by showing the importance of cycles as when reaching the end to go back to the beginning, it is dynamic! (the Torah is not fixed, that would be called Idolatry).
So then not the first, at least I expect, but later Christians trying to put forth texts as a one level thing is a bit like trying to sell Flatland (see Carl Sagan’s Flatland, you can find it on youtube) as the orginal word of God. So then one may ask, when was the preserving of the tradition, either oral, writen, or in any shape way or form done?
But then again, with the original texts, the depth of it is so intense, alpha, numerical and even geometrical, and the “Sod” it is hard for the tradition, oral and or written, to be lost… or misplaced! … and thats one of the beauty of it! 😉
My sense is that very few people spoke Hebrew in the first century — the language of Galilee was probably Aramaic.
Sorry, I should have been more precise. I ment spoke hebrew in a learning and teaching context.
I once was told that people spoke aramaic (not hebrew) in their day to day living in reverance to the sacredness of the language of G.od and also in order to preserve it. Hebrew is more widelly used now and we can see their is a difference with the biblical hebrew and what we could call the hebrew slang.
I am pretty sure the first christians knew hebrew pretty well as they reference the Torah often, and the Torah is written in hebrew. They even go as far as using the different levels as for example the refference to 14 (the numerical for the hand… Yad, Yod Dalet, 10+4, also 14 phalanges in the hand) wish represent Action (when Moses was tired of keeping is hands toward the sky in the desert Aarron helped him to keep them there). Btw I often wonder if people are aware of the underground meaning of the hands beeing peirced! 😉
When the Christians quoted the Bible, they did so from the Greek translations available to them (often called the Septuagint). There is not any good evidence they read it in the Hebrew. The reason Aramaic was so widely spoken was taht it had been the language of the Persian world and became the lingua franca of that region.
It is an obligation for a jew to study the Torah, maybe not implimented so much these days, but back then I expect it was… and for a jew to study the Torah in any other language than hebrew makes no sense… that’s one of the reasons I do expect a big difference with the first christians, who where jewish, and the christians latter on using translations.
What ever other language was spoken in the day to day living to me is less relevant than the real reason why they did so. If i want to protect the sacred language of the sacred texts and if I am living in the U.S I’ll speak english, If i live in Quebec, i’ll speak french, If I live in Germany, I’ll speak german… but when I study the sacred texts, I’ll speak hebrew as that’s the language they were written in. Any other translation is a bit like living in flateland (as I have mentionned) and that’s my point about the unreliability of the traditions when passed on without the original language.
Most Jews at the time could not read and didn’t have direct access to Torah scrolls. If you’d like to see the definitive study of Jewish reading in the time of Jesus, see Catherine Hezser’s magisterial book, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine.
“Most Jews at the time could not read and didn’t have direct access to Torah scrolls. If you’d like to see the definitive study of Jewish reading in the time of Jesus, see Catherine Hezser’s magisterial book, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine.”
Maby not most jews but I dont think non readers without access to the Torah scrolls would have been able to mention underground levels of the sacred text as I mentionned here (example of 14)… and I dont think the translation of the Torah was what was used in the Temple or around it either (where it seems the first christians spent some time).
But the letter directly in the middle of the Torah is ayin, so that would spell bet-ayin-lamed, which is…Baal! Uh oh.
This is how I like to mess with the Rabbis.
Baal is not a negative word in itself as it means Lord or Master…
You may be reffering to the Canaanite god, wish is a normal thing to do based on the usage of translations (without the original meanings of words).
As for example a Baal Teshuva (master of repentance) is regarded very highly, sometimes even more so than a Tzadik (someone considered righteous).
Evangelicals equate Baal with Satan.
Actually, I’m much better looking.
Talmoore as a lawyer would say ” I rest my case” 😉
Your answer was pretty funny Mr. Ehrman! 🙂
Julie, I don’t quite understand this. Could you explain this circular writing style more thoroughly? Do scholars of the Torah believe that?
Hi Nexus, I’ll do so but please keep in mind that I am only a student of the Torah teachings, I’m not a teacher, so I can only answer you at the fly on the wall level that I’m at.
First I don’t know if you are aware of something important about the circle and the line so I’ll start with this just in case:
If you are situated on a point on a line, and you leave that point moving forward, you can only move away from your starting point, the source. But, if you are situated on a point on a circle, and you leave that point moving forward, you will eventually come back to the starting point, The Source.
That is one of the reasons the circle is so important in the underground teachings of the Torah. When you leave The
Source, you will eventually get back to it.
And that is one of the Sod (secret teachings) of the Circumcision. It’s the revealing of the circle (I don’t have to draw a picture here) at the exact location where life is transmitted!
Getting back to the text, as I just showed the importance of the circle, you can extrapolate to understand the importance of that circular writing, reading style. Yes the Torah scholars a very much aware of it as it is imbedded in the way they read the Torah. Every week they read a different part (paracha) of the Torah and when they get to the end, they start back at the beginning the next year. To understand the beauty of it, just imagine when you read something once, for example a parable, and you read it again the next year, you are not at the same place mentally, spiritually etc. so that circular reading is a big part of what makes the teachings alive!
As surprising as this might seem, if you think more about it, I don’t think it should be. Think how often stories are changed even in modern times. Ever see the movie Lincoln based on the book Team of Rivals? Or the show Vikings? Dare I even mention Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter? Writers of modern books, movies and shows have said they are less interested in telling what is fact and more interest in telling what it true. History is often mixed with legend. Sometimes the order of events is changed or maybe two distant events are portrayed as happening closer in time (or even at the same time). If even modern folks don’t insist on verbatim accuracy, why would ancient people?
So true. When I hear a good joke I almost always adapt it to my audience when re-telling it.
When I tell stories of my childhood I make sure they sound good to my audience. When I tell stories of my childhood to my childhood friends I almost always add in something that’s patently not true (usually making me the hero or at least less the villain!). The people who were there know the truth, and laugh at and with me. Others listening might not know I have embellished or altered. If they ever re-tell that story, an alteration will have crept in.
THUS – in my opinion – goeth oral history.
The boxes are great, Bart. Why limit us to the new ones, lol?
Many thanks! 🙂
Interesting idea!
Do conservative scholars generally accept the idea of oral tradition in the gospels? Or do they think that, for example, Mark got his info directly from Peter…and Matthew and John were direct witnesses, so as least 3 gospels are all eyewitness accounts? Do they think there were eyewitness accounts, plus oral tradition?
Particularly conservative scholars continue to hold to the idea that Peter was behind Mark, that Matthew and John were disciples, and that Luke did lots of research to make sure everything he said was accurate.
1. How could he, since he is clearly altering things in several places to prove his own agenda?
2. Do you think that Christians back then had much less interest in perserving their sources intact than today?
1. Not sure which “he” you’re referring to. 2. Apparently so! They certainly changed them a lot!
he – Luke -> “and that Luke did lots of research to make sure everything he said was accurate.” If Mark was one of his sources and he changed Mark to make things sound more like he wanted things to sound, doesn’t that automatically mean *accuracy* wasn’t Luke’s top priority?
It probably means that he did not consider *Mark* to be sufficiently historical!
“It probably means that he did not consider *Mark* to be sufficiently historical!”
That’s a sarcasm, right?
No, it’s actually what I think! He says that he had many predecessors, Mark was certainly one of them, and he implies that he is now (in contrast to them) get the story straight.
I am fascinated by the question of what motivates an oral tradition to become literary. What makes people decide to write the stuff down? I know there is research on how oral cultures work. Is anybody doing research on why oral turns to literary?
thanks
Yes, there’s a good bit of research on this. Among other things, writing down a tradition more or less “cements” it for a community, and provides an “authoritative” version that can then be read from time to time.
Given the problems and questions that have arisen regarding the authenticity of the Bible; if in fact Jesus was the son of God, and maybe God incarnate (as some believe), and if he knew he wouldn’t be returning for at least 2K years, why didn’t Jesus (or God) make indisputable provisions in writing or historical evidence for the preservation of his words and deeds? After all, the written and historical evidence since Jesus’ death has only led to thousands of Christian denominations and spawned many conflicts and wars leaving untold thousands dead. And today we are no closer to any consensus of facts regarding Jesus’ life or words, other than he probably was a real person, than were known about him probably a year or so after he died.
Lots of different possible answers! A theologian might say, for example, that he entrusted the work of preservation to the Spirit….
The late 19th and early 20th century in England saw the first folk revival, led by the likes of Rev. Baring-Gould, Cecil Sharp and, a bit later, Vaughan-Williams and Percy Grainger. There was an argument about whether to retain the purity of the songs or view them as part of a living tradition, which succeeding generations of singers adapted to their own circumstances. The purists lost because there is no such thing in traditional folk-song as the ‘Original.’ All singers tailored the songs to their audience: after all they wanted paying and to be invited back.
Those new to the blog may find Dr. Ehrman’s “Jesus Before the Gospels” of interest since it deals with oral traditions in a very helpful and easy to understand way.
Mr. Ehrman. I’m fully in line with what you write about Oral Traditions. My concern is the source of these Oral Traditions, and I’ll show my concern with a thought experiment that may seem ridiculous at first glance. This thought experiment is based on the assumption that Christian texts are a form of midrash, pesher, targum, etc. of texts in the Tanakh, and that the familiar names in the OT have been changed for this purpose.
Let’s start with Acts 18 where Priscilla and Aquila have recently arrived Corinth because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome. Let’s suppose this is a rewrite of Esther and Mordecai who fled Nebuchadnezzar. That is, Priscilla is Esther, Aquila is Mordecai and Claudius is Nebuchadnezzar. Esther and Mordecai ended up outside the palace of Ahasuerus/Xerxes/Artaxerxes, which it seems to be some confusion about in early jewish traditions.
Now, Nehemiah was a governor under the same Artaxerxes. Nehemiah was sendt to rebuild the Temple, and so we have an apparent connection between Esther, Mordecai and Nehemiah that fits the story, if we assume Apollos is meant to be Nehemiah.
Now let’s assume Titus is Daniel – the penitent thief on the cross. Daniel’s connection to Nebuchadnezzar was of great concern for the early jews. Some believed Daniel’s close relationship with Nebuchadnezzar made him responsible for the fate of the Jews. In Paul’s letter to Titus he says: “Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need”. Or in other words: – Daniel, do everything you can to help Ezra the lawyer and Nehemiah on their way(…).
Finally. Paul as a Pseudonym for Jeremiah the Benjamite – the vessel of Christ. Who also had had a problematic relationship with Nebuchadnezzar.
I agree that if Jesus were, indeed, God that He would have made this claim loud and clear in the Synoptic Gospels since this would have been this most important thing Jesus said..
Love this topic, but here’s my query.
If the “Word of God” was so important to the monotheists of Israel–and the offshoot factions that followed–why was the vast majority of the population illiterate?
Whether we’re talking about the time when Hebrew was the vehicular language, or Aramaic, or Greek, wouldn’t they want to actually read this infallible word for themselves?
Along the same lines, I’m curious about schooling available in ancient Israel, for instance. Did the priesthood actually WANT an illiterate populace? Or perhaps it was a case of the literate class wanting a monopoly on the forming and editing of scripture.
I’m unsure of the structure of society at the time, and it’s probably more a case of the literate class taking advantage of being in said class, but can anyone point me to recommended scholarship on the topic?
Much thanks.
Hi Bart,
I have a question. Churches that claim apostolic succession mention often that they’re not Sola Scriptura, and supplemented by “apostolic tradition”. I recall you saying in one or two books that, of course, the Bible wasn’t always the definitive answer to everything because at one point there wasn’t a Bible to reference. My question I guess is how much legitimacy do churches like the Catholics or Orthodox have by citing apostolic tradition? Can apostolic tradition be sourced early or this something that developed? I’d have to imagine apostolic succession, if illegitimate, came about shortly after the gospels were written as we don’t really see references to confession to priests, the perpetual virginity of Mary/sinlessness/assumption/explicit literal consumption of Jesus body and blood of the Eucharist(though the gospels confuse me on that). The thought has been bothering me lately so I was curious what you or I’m general critical scholars think. Thanks!
Yeah, it’s a good question, but hard to answer. The problem is that “legitimacy” is not an objective category with set criteria that everyone agrees on. Those standing in the Catholic or Orthodox tradition place a high premium on succession as a legitimating claim; those outside (Protestants) do not. Historians do not get involved in that dispute because it is a matter of theological reasoning, not history.
Dear Ehrman,
As you know, Luke 24:9 says “And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest” expression passes. In Matthew 28:8, the phrase “And they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word” is mentioned. Notice that Luke uses the phrase “to all the rest”, unlike Matthew. Do you think this could be an evolution of oral culture? Or could it be something Luke added himself?
In my view Luke used the phrase “to all the rest” because he was talking about the disciples who would go the way of Emmaus. Because the disciples who were going the way of Emmaus were not among eleven , and they too needed to hear this news.It seems to me that Matthew also knew the story about disciples who would go the way of Emmaus, but he did not use it in his narrative. Therefore, he only included the phrase “to bring his disciples word”, not deeming it necessary to use an expression like “to all the rest”.
What is your opinion on this matter?
Yes, it’s an odd statement in Luke, since it’s nt clear who the “rest” could have been. Since 22:13 indicates that the two on the road to Emmaus were two “of them” (those who learned from the women), then I suppose at least Cleopas and his unnamed companion were with them. Possibly Luke is simply thinking that there was a larger crowd of followers of Jesus, not just the eleven.
Dear Ehrman
Thank you for your answer. But why is there such a difference between Matthew and Luke? Why does the expression who the “rest” occur in Luke, while it does not appear in Matthew?
In my estimation there may be an evolution of oral culture. But I don’t know why the oral culture has evolved to such a point. That is, I don’t know what the main driving factor was. Oral culture evolved over time, perhaps to argue that the resurrection of Jesus was a well-known event. In this way, they would be able to give the following answer to those who oppose the resurrection:
“Not only the eleven apostles knew Jesus’ resurrection, but all the disciples knew his resurrection. It was a very famous event. Because the women did not tell only the eleven apostles what they heard from the angel in the tomb. The women told all of Jesus’ disciples what they had heard from the angel. This resurrection was a very famous event.”
Why do you think there is a difference between Matthew and Luke? Why do you think oral culture developed in this direction?
I don’t think oral traditions develop in a straight line, in a linear fashion. Stories circulate and change all the time (still!), with additions, omissions, alterations all happening rapidly, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes just incidentally. If you want to read more about all that, it’s the subject of my book Jesus Befrroe The Gospels. In this case, there are *lots* of differences between Matthew and Luke that are completely unreconcileable (including in the resurrection narratives). For example, did the disciples see Jesus in Galilee as in Matthew or did then *NEVER* leave Jerusalem until long after the ascension as in Luke?
If story embellishments happen overtime, more historical findings should be dated earlier.
Do you think the early Jerusalem church would’ve at least written anything historical down? If so, what do you think are the chances of us finding them soon?
The earliest apostles were almost certainly illiterate. If any of them did write something, oh boy would that be good to have. But I’m not holding my breath…