What Oral Tradition?

For years critics of the New Testament have insisted that 4-5 decades of must have separated the historic Jesus from the first written Gospel accounts. Normally the story goes something like this: The man Jesus as crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. For the next several decades stories about him were circulated. During that time the stories became embellished so that the human Jesus of history became the supernatural Jesus of faith. Evidence for this, it is maintained, comes from an examination of the Gospels themselves. Mark, said to be the earliest of the four [1] contains far less allusions to Jesus as divine as does the last of the Gospels, namely John. By that time, Jesus had become the divine Son of God in the minds of many.

How did this amazing situation come about? The chart below (Taken from "After Jesus: The Triumph of Christianity", Reader's Digest Association, 1992, p. 80) helps to illustrate popular scholarly opinion.

No consideration of the New Testament's "evolution" is complete without reference to the Apostle Paul. Popular opinion maintains that shortly after the death of the historic Jesus, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul) became a follower of the dead Messiah. The reason for this conversion is variously debated among scholars. What most can agree on is the profound influence Paul had on the development of Christianity. Many would argue that it was Paul, largely if not exclusively, that transformed Jesus the man into Jesus the divine Son of God, and introduced the doctrine of his bodily resurrection from the dead [2]. It is maintained therefore that the written gospels are somewhat of an amalgam. They represent a mixture of oral tradition stemming from early followers of Jesus and the teachings of Saul of Tarsus. In the minds of many, an antipathy exists between the two that can be seen in several places [3]. This position is debatable and will be the topic of a future article.

What we want to focus on here is the time interval between the historic Jesus and the earliest written accounts of his teachings. Was it really several decades, as the New Testament critic maintains? We can understand the critic's reason for making such a claim. The more distance we put between the historic Jesus, time wise, and the first written accounts of His life, the more embellishment we can suppose has crept into the text. We understand this from the critic. But what about professing Christians? Almost unanimously, Bible commentaries and handbooks speak of first century Jewish culture as "rich in oral tradition", and almost unanimously, these resources place several decades between Jesus and the written Gospels. Surely there must be strong historic evidence to support such a contention. Is there? In my opinion, not really.

It is normally claimed that the writing of the Gospels was postponed because the early Christians were convinced that Jesus would return at any moment. After several decades of waiting, the Christian community decided to record the teachings of Christ is written form [4]. Years later narrative was added, and of course, the facts concerning Jesus were embellished. The whole idea, however, falls flat in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls, rich in biblical text and commentaries, were written and protected by the Essenes, a community of religious Jews who were obsessed with the idea that the end of the world could come at any moment. Even so, they wrote copious religious works. Truly then, the Jewish religious mind was not content to leave valuable spiritual teachings to the frail memories of men, even in the light of an impending apocalypse.

It must be remembered that the earliest converts and propagators of the Christian faith were Jews who were utterly convinced of the Old Testament's accuracy and authority. This is helpful when considering the question of when the early church finally got around to writing the accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Of all the figures in the Old Testament respected and admired among the Jews, Moses has to rank chief [5], and it is within his works, namely the book of Deuteronomy, that we gain insight into Jewish thinking regarding the recording of important spiritual truths.

In Deuteronomy 31, Moses recorded God's strict command to teach the children of Israel a special song that was to serve as a reminder of God's faithfulness. It cannot be denied that a song that is sung often is easier to remember than bare historic facts. Nevertheless, God knew better than to trust the preservation of this important song simply to "oral tradition", but insisted that it be recorded in written form. Whether we believe that God actually spoke to a man named Moses and instructed him thus is entirely beside the point [6]. What is important here is that the Jews of the first century believed it. This insight into the first century Jewish thought (among other things [7]) makes it extremely difficult to imagine that the first Christians, who regarded their master as far superior to Moses, (see the book of Hebrews [8]) neglected to record the facts about Him in written form.

There really is no reason at all to suppose that several decades had passed before the earliest written accounts of Jesus' life and ministry were recorded. Unless we are predisposed against the idea that the New Testament contains factual history, there is no problem at all believing that the Gospels were composed very soon after the resurrection of Jesus by then men whose names they bear [9].

Notes and References

1. This belief is based upon several dubious assumptions. For instance, it is assumed that the miraculous events of Jesus' earthly ministry are purely legendary accretion. Because Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels it is assumed to be first. This type of reasoning ought to be foreign to the born again believer but sadly it is not. As far back as the early second century Matthew was regarded as the first of the four to be written. This was first asserted by Papias, a contemporary of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who was a hearer of Polycarp, also shared this view.

2. This is a very strange assertion. Almost all scholars agree that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Galatians. In this epistle he clearly states that he shared with the original Apostles the Gospel that he was actively preaching. According to Paul they concurred that the message was accurate and he was given the right hand of fellowship. All agree that the resurrection of Christ played a central theme in the Gospel preached by Paul. If he truly was the inventor of the doctrine, why in the world didn't the original Apostles correct him?

3. The most obvious example is Paul's teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, apart from works. This, it is claimed, contradicts the teachings of James, who supposedly represents more pure teachings of Christ. In addition, it is claimed that Jesus would never have sanctioned the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, but reserved the salvation message for the Jews alone. This is ludicrous. Apart from Paul's claim the original Apostles gave him their blessing in taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, we have the clear words of Christ throughout the Gospels themselves not only sanctioning but also commanding that the Gospel be preached "to every creature." To claim that these portions of the Gospels are "worked up" or are "later additions" is simply arguing in a circle. An honest assessment of the biblical data makes it clear that there really is no contradiction between the teachings of Christ in the Gospels and the doctrines taught by the Apostle Paul.

4. This is another example of how the belief in the evolution story has colored everything the secular scholar looks at. Here he assumes, without evidence, that the New Testament has evolved from depicting the teachings of a purely human Jesus into a fantastic narrative describing the ministry of the supernatural Son of God. There is no reason at all to suppose that the earliest Gospel was simply "a collection of sayings". Nevertheless, scholars remain convinced that this is the case and the imaginary "sayings" Gospel, called "Q" has been the subject of thousands of books and commentaries. This is an amazing situation considering that not one single shred of "Q" has ever been recovered. Until some hard manuscript evidence is uncovered, "Q" remains therefore purely a mental abstraction.

5. "The tremendous personality of Moses impressed itself upon Israel in its formative years and shaped its maturity. The people learned to live by his laws and wrote great books about them. The revered the quality of Moses' character, his loving kindness, strength and humility, his wisdom and modesty. And they wove innumerable legends about his life. The peoples of the world shared with Israel the reverence for Moses, and the "Five Books of Moses" gave direction to the civilization of the West." "Junior Jewish Encyclopedia", Fourth Revised Edition, Shengold Publishers, Inc., New York, 1961, p. 224

6. Only for the point under discussion here. I and the CARE team remain committed to the belief that a man named Moses did indeed lead the Israelites out of Egypt in an Exodus accompanied numerous supernatural occurrences. Furthermore we remain steadfast in our belief that this same Moses was responsible for the Pentateuch – the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

7. There are plenty of reasons for supposing that the earliest Gospels were written very soon after the resurrection of Jesus. Below are some of the ones that I find particularly compelling:

a.Jesus' Promise to Send Scribes. In Matthew 23, Jesus told the Pharisees that He was sending them (present tense) prophets, wise men, and scribes. Prophets prophecy, wise men impart wisdom, and scribes write things. It's hard to reconcile a promise like this with the idea that the earliest Gospels weren't written until several decades after the fact.

b.The Date of Acts. The Book of Acts claims to be written by a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. Since Paul becomes the star of the book from around chapter 13 on, it is passing strange that his death (c. AD 65) was not recorded. In fact, the book is silent regarding numerous significant events such as the fall of Jerusalem (AD70), the Jewish uprising (AD 66) and the death of James (AD 62). The most reasonable explanation is that Acts was completed before Paul's martyrdom. Church history is unanimous that Paul was released after his Roman imprisonment and resumed his missionary activities for a couple of years before his re-arrest and second imprisonment, where he finally faced martyrdom. Since Acts ends during Paul's first Roman incarceration, many suspect that Acts was written around AD 62. All agree that the composition of Acts follows the Gospel of Luke. This means that the third Gospel was written within 30 years of the resurrection of Jesus. Since it is unanimously agreed upon as being the last of the synoptics to be completed, we can say with certainty that the first three canonical Gospels were written far closer in time to the historic Jesus than the New Testament critic would like.

c.Paul's Allusions to the Gospels. In several places in Paul's epistles strong allusions are made to the Gospels. These allusions are so strong that one must reasonably conclude that at least the first of the Gospels were already written. Some examples:

1 Timothy 5:18 is a direct quote from Luke 10:7. We cannot claim that Paul was referring to any oral tradition here since the passage in question is referred to clearly by Paul as "scripture."

1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Every commentary that I have consulted claims that Paul was referring exclusively to the Old Testament with the phrase "according to the Scriptures." The facts about Messiah's death and subsequent resurrection may reasonably be claimed as being gleaned from the Old Testament text. However, the fact that "He was buried, and that He rose again the third day" is pretty hard for me to see in the Old Testament without "bending" the text a bit. There is no reason why Paul could not here be referring to one or more of the written Gospels.

Paul's instructions on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 allude to the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. In verse 10 Paul states, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. Let the wife not depart from her husband. But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Notice that this doctrine was taught by Christ as recorded in Matthew 9:19 and Mark 10:9. Paul continues in verse 12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be not pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." From there Paul continues to teach regarding marriage between believer and nonbeliever. Notice that these latter teachings on marriage are not to be regarded as Paul's and not the Lord's. Paul is simply saying that these are new revelations from God, as opposed to the former instructions of our Lord as recorded by Matthew and Mark.

In 1 Corinthians 13:2 Paul states that "though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." This is a clear allusion to Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23.

In 2 Corinthians 8:18 we read of the "brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches." Commentaries are unanimous that this most likely refers to Paul's fellow laborer, Luke. But what are we to make of this strange reference to him as being the one "whose praise is in the Gospel." Very likely the people in Paul's day understood that Luke was the writer of the Gospel which today bears his name.

d. Early Church Testimony. See pt 1.

8. The superiority of Jesus over anything that has come before is the clear theme of the Book of Hebrews. We know the book is a first century work from the writings of Clement of Rome, who quoted from it c. AD 95. Much is made of the superiority of Jesus over the Old Mosiac covenant and temple ritual. Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 - along with the temple - which effectively ended the Jewish sacrificial system. This event would have served as an excellent object lesson for the writer of Hebrews to use in demonstrating the temporary nature of the Mosaic Covenant and the supremacy of Christ and the New Covenant. Almost certainly Hebrews was written before the destruction of AD 70.

9. There has always been unanimous belief throughout the churches that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is difficult to reconcile with the liberal idea that anonymous authors originally published the Gospels, and that only later were these names attached to them in order to give them "authority". Three of the names, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are very unlikely inventions. Matthew was the despised tax collector, and neither Mark nor Luke was one of the twelve. Only John's name has any authority and numerous internal and external evidences support the belief that he was in fact the author of the book that bears his name. For more on John's authorship of the fourth Gospel click HERE. For a discussion on the reliability of Mark's Gospel, click HERE.