Alethias

A lot of research has gone into figuring out how the New Testament got to be the way it is, and there are genuine experts on the subject, people with scholarly credentials that are fully capable of answering your questions on the subject.

But, alas, many of them may not frequent GRD! What to do, what to do...

Well, many of them seem to frequent the Biblical Criticism & History forum. Hmmmm....

I know! I'll move this thread there, so that, perchance, some of the Biblical Criticism Scholar Types will read it and make some meaningful comments.

So Spoken, So Moved.

Alethias,
GRD Moderator

Diogenes the Cynic

It is true that there is no proof that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament were actually said by Jesus. The Jesus Seminar estimates that something like 20-25% of the sayings are probably authentic. Others think the JSem is too generous.

I will say this about oral transmission as means of preservation -- if the FORM of a saying is presented in a certain way, it can be fairly easy to remember. Short, pithy adages, rhyming couplets and certain kinds of story forms can all work well to transmit information in a reasonably intact manner.

In the case of the Jesus sayings in particular, many employ a couple of forms which are amenable to oral transmission. One form is that of adages in repetition "Blessed are the...." Another device is to take already familar sayings and spin or reverse them, ("You have heard it said that _____, but I say_____").

Probably the most signature device associated with Jesus, though, is the use of parables. The thing about parables is that you don't have to remember them verbatim, you just have to be able to remember the basics of a very short story with a memorable payoff. They're similar to jokes in the way that they're transmitted. Most of us can remember the basics of the setup and punchline for a joke and it isn't important to remember them verbatim from how they were told to you. You can still remember a joke for a long period of time and communicate to others without losing important information. It's the same with parables. Most people can probably tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son and get the basic points across, even if they don't remember them word for word from the Bible. That's the advantage of that particular form as a method for oral preservation of information.

The longer stuff, though, especially the long winded discourses and lectures attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, are NOT the kind of thing which would be easily transmissible by oral transmission, and the fact that no one but "John" remembers those speeches (70 years after they were allegedly spoken) makes them highly suspect as authentic sayings.

Doug Shaver

That depends. Are you asking whether the authors thought they were quoting him accurately, or whether we have good reason to believe that they quoted him accurately?

Do you really need to ask? You have heard of inerrantists, haven't you?

Sure, you can say it. And, it will be true. But if you're talking to an inerrantist, you'll be wasting your time.

gregor

Crossan's Birth of Christianity discusses in great length (e.g. pp. 82-84) the frailty of the "oral tradition" explanation to retain any accuracy for original sayings.

aa5874

So, how do you explain the differences of the genealogy of Jesus, the differences in the birth, place of residence after birth, the differences in the cursing of the fig tree, the differences of the riding of the asses, the differences of the two thieves crucified with Jesus and the differences of the resurrection? Why weren't those information reliably transmitted orally?

And there is a rather strange statement in Matthew which complicates this oral tradition theory, Matthew 13:10 & 13, 'And the disciples came and said unto him, Why speakest thou to them in parables?
Therefore speak I unto them in parables, because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

After not being able to understand, how could someone quote over 1600 words back to back many years later,see Matthew ch5, ch6 and ch7. I find that is not likely to be credible, especially when there are so much contradictions in other scriptures.

I will not be able to quote this post, word for word, tommorrow, and it's only about 130 words, much more years from now!

EssEff

Modern society relies on writing much more than people then did. It's possible that the oral tradition transmitted things more or less correctly until they were finally written down. Not likely imho, but not as impossible as you think. For things that were pivotal in my life I remember things quite clearly.

Kosh

They must be real quotes, they're written in RED! Right?:Cheeky:

Equinox

Doc Cabbage wrote:

I agree that this is a plausible hypothesis. However, Dr. Ehrman, in his course on the New Testament, mentions actual research looking at the ability of people to recall what others have said in both modern cultures and in existing oral cultures (a few still exist). The research found that the oral cultures were actually WORSE at remembering the words someone said.

One possible reason for this is because in a modern culture, it's very likely that someone could check on you, by comparing what you say someone said to a tape, or newspaper quote or whatever. Thus, in a modern culture it actually crosses your mind that you should try to be precise. In a purely oral culture, you know you can never be seriously challenged, since no such records exist. Thus, in an oral culture people feel MORE free to change and paraphrase, since it is the meaning only that they want to convey, and the exact words are irrelevant.

As in so many other areas, without actual data, we'd all be rightly just guessing on this point. I'm glad there has been some work, which provides a hint, though of course not a definitive, unchallengable answer.

Take care-

-Equinox

aa5874

That hypothesis will ever hardly be true. Wihout any means of recording audio in the 'live' mode, most information were transmitted by 'hearsay' which is by far the most unreliable method of transmitting information. In fact, without any 'live' mode recording capability, deliberate erroneous information can be spread to cause some adverse effect.

Complete forgeries and interpolations were prevalent 2000 years ago, because it was difficult to ascertain authenticity.