If Jesus's followers expected the imminent end+remaking of the world as per his apocalyptic message of the coming kingdom of god, that doesn't seem to fit with a picture of them spending time studiously memorizing his teachings during his lifetime, as if there would be a need to pass them on to anyone after those apocalyptic world ending events soon occurred - let alone to future generations after he was gone (which they weren't expecting while he was alive and they were following him around).
I can believe they may have heard him say similar things in different places to different crowds and that some of the pithy sayings, aphorisms and parables were memorable enough to be more or less reliably remembered and transmitted orally. But I think it's a bit iffy to say with great confidence exactly which things go all the way back to him and of those that may, how accurately they have been preserved vs. which developed later via oral tradition, which were invented in the wake of his unexpected death, reported resurrection + passage of decades and the necessary mental & theological reinterpretation that followed. Or, which were entirely the literary product of the gospel writers themselves.
The scholarship of Robyn Faith Walsh among others, suggests the latter as playing a significant role.
Hey John. Prior to Synoptic Gospels was the Marcion's Gospel. The first gospel. Widely used up to 4th century. So much so that according to some scholars if we were transported to 2nd Century, Marcion was winning in terms of followers and influence against other forms of Christianity including the branch which became official belief of the Roman Empire.
Why do you think scholars tend to neglect Marcion despite serious attempts by serious scholars like BeDuhn and Vinzent's reconstructions.
Hi Baris, I won’t speak directly to those scholars you mention because I haven’t engaged their work directly, but I don’t believe Marcion’s gospel was - as you describe it - the first gospel. With the mainstream, I believe that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple, placing it considerably earlier than Marcion. There are more knotty questions around Luke and Marcion, which I will perhaps engage in a future post. Thanks!
I very much appreciate your insightful and explanatory articles explaining issues scholars have with biblical text. I appreciate that the oral tradition period is problematic primarily because in our current world, written text is deemed much more reliable. Often the disciples are described as illiterate which in their context, means that they could not read or write. However they were multi-lingual. Many native English people are not fluent in a foreign language, including myself. So how would I compare to them? I am led to believe that in those times, you may well get a slave to write and / or read whatever was necessary. It just wasn’t considered a very necessary skill for themselves. So the inference of the term "illiterate" should be used with care, though I do appreciate the thinking behind it.
Having said that, it is intriguing to try and get insights into the disciples. In Acts 1 v15 – 26 I think we see some amazing insight into Peter. This narrative happened soon after Jesus’ ascension and we see Peter leading the group of believers (~120, men & women, including Mary the mother of Jesus and J’s brothers).
For some reason Peter believed it important that there should be 12 disciples and Judas should be replaced, by someone who had been with Jesus the whole time from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Two are selected. We assume that out of the 120, only 2 met the criteria, because given that the final selection was by lot, there could have had more.
It is of course true that Acts was actually written a long time after Jesus’ ascension because it includes all the stories of Paul’s journey etc. If there were a temptation to re-write this bit of “history”, it seems strange that given Paul becomes an apostle later on, that Peter saw the need to appoint a replacement apostle at this early stage. Surely he could have been satisfied that Paul would soon become the 12th apostle in a short time? Paul actually becomes the 13th apostle but in theory they did not know that at this time. Hence it is hard to consider this as a made up story, as why tell it? Hence it is probably representative of what did happen.
In this story, Peter came to this conclusion of the need for a replacement apostle from two “prophecies” that he sees from his knowledge of the Psalms, 69v25 and 109v8. This is an incredible insight and new interpretation of those Psalms which would not have come from Judaic thought. I wonder if any bible scholar today would have thought of those verses as their reasoning for replacing Judas? Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 are today considered prophecies by David about Jesus. Psalm 69 is also referred to twice by Paul in Romans and in John’s gospel four times. Do we think that the (illiterate) Peter recognised this before Paul and the writer of John? I think it is very profound. Written Psalms were probably only accessible on a scroll in a synagogue. As you say, we do not really know how Jesus taught his disciples but there are many examples in the gospel of it happening. If Jesus did not pre-teach this, did Peter come up with it on his own? Either way, I think it’s quite amazing for an “illiterate” person ….. and perhaps we should be careful when we think about memorising and comparing it to our current world view. Memory learning was the norm' and a necessity.
I think it’s quite a bizarre phenomenon- that modern scholars still think the earliest disciples were illiterate fishermen (erring on the side of needless apologetics). As the passage below shows, it is just another prophecy historicised (as Crossan would put it):
“but “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. I am now sending for many fishermen, says the LORD, and they shall catch them, and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill and out of the clefts of the rocks.”
Whichever way we see it, the gospels are literary creative texts NOT eyewitness testimony.
Even if 5% of the material we have were from an eyewitness, it would be natural for the writers of the gospel to claim all of the material were from that eyewitness in order to be believed- in fact we see this attempted in the prologue of Luke and with the “beloved disciple” trope in John without explicit naming of the eyewitnesses.
Furthermore if the above model is to be believed we would have these pithy sayings throughout NT literature- in Pauline letters and in other epistles- which we do not.
And yet even among modern scholars, memory, Oral tradition and eyewitness testimony will somehow be the only way we get the Jesus tradition despite all the evidence contrary to the same.
I have also used the response below as a reply to another comment:
I think it’s quite a bizarre phenomenon- that modern scholars still think the earliest disciples were illiterate fishermen (erring on the side of needless apologetics). As the passage below shows, it is just another prophecy historicised (as Crossan would put it):
“but “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. I am now sending for many fishermen, says the LORD, and they shall catch them, and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill and out of the clefts of the rocks.”
Whichever way we see it, the gospels are literary creative texts NOT eyewitness testimony.
Even if 5% of the material we have were from an eyewitness, it would be natural for the writers of the gospel to claim all of the material were from that eyewitness in order to be believed- in fact we see this attempted in the prologue of Luke and with the “beloved disciple” trope in John without explicit naming of the eyewitnesses.
Furthermore if the above model is to be believed we would have these pithy sayings throughout NT literature- in Pauline letters and in other epistles- which we do not.
And yet even among the best of scholars- memory, Oral tradition and eyewitness testimony will somehow be the only way we get the Jesus tradition despite all the evidence contrary to the same.
Very interesting! I wasn’t aware of this particular tension between schools of thought. I think you do a nice job of offering fair evaluation.
I’m wondering…since we know that the crowd of Jesus followers was socially mixed, is there reason to think that someone in the eyewitness group might have written down teachings (even if most disciples were illiterate)? Matthew? Nicodemus? Joseph of Arimathea? Whoever wrote Q? Or are there reasons to doubt this?
If Jesus's followers expected the imminent end+remaking of the world as per his apocalyptic message of the coming kingdom of god, that doesn't seem to fit with a picture of them spending time studiously memorizing his teachings during his lifetime, as if there would be a need to pass them on to anyone after those apocalyptic world ending events soon occurred - let alone to future generations after he was gone (which they weren't expecting while he was alive and they were following him around).
I can believe they may have heard him say similar things in different places to different crowds and that some of the pithy sayings, aphorisms and parables were memorable enough to be more or less reliably remembered and transmitted orally. But I think it's a bit iffy to say with great confidence exactly which things go all the way back to him and of those that may, how accurately they have been preserved vs. which developed later via oral tradition, which were invented in the wake of his unexpected death, reported resurrection + passage of decades and the necessary mental & theological reinterpretation that followed. Or, which were entirely the literary product of the gospel writers themselves.
The scholarship of Robyn Faith Walsh among others, suggests the latter as playing a significant role.
Hey John. Prior to Synoptic Gospels was the Marcion's Gospel. The first gospel. Widely used up to 4th century. So much so that according to some scholars if we were transported to 2nd Century, Marcion was winning in terms of followers and influence against other forms of Christianity including the branch which became official belief of the Roman Empire.
Why do you think scholars tend to neglect Marcion despite serious attempts by serious scholars like BeDuhn and Vinzent's reconstructions.
Love to hear your opion. Thanks
Hi Baris, I won’t speak directly to those scholars you mention because I haven’t engaged their work directly, but I don’t believe Marcion’s gospel was - as you describe it - the first gospel. With the mainstream, I believe that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple, placing it considerably earlier than Marcion. There are more knotty questions around Luke and Marcion, which I will perhaps engage in a future post. Thanks!
I very much appreciate your insightful and explanatory articles explaining issues scholars have with biblical text. I appreciate that the oral tradition period is problematic primarily because in our current world, written text is deemed much more reliable. Often the disciples are described as illiterate which in their context, means that they could not read or write. However they were multi-lingual. Many native English people are not fluent in a foreign language, including myself. So how would I compare to them? I am led to believe that in those times, you may well get a slave to write and / or read whatever was necessary. It just wasn’t considered a very necessary skill for themselves. So the inference of the term "illiterate" should be used with care, though I do appreciate the thinking behind it.
Having said that, it is intriguing to try and get insights into the disciples. In Acts 1 v15 – 26 I think we see some amazing insight into Peter. This narrative happened soon after Jesus’ ascension and we see Peter leading the group of believers (~120, men & women, including Mary the mother of Jesus and J’s brothers).
For some reason Peter believed it important that there should be 12 disciples and Judas should be replaced, by someone who had been with Jesus the whole time from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Two are selected. We assume that out of the 120, only 2 met the criteria, because given that the final selection was by lot, there could have had more.
It is of course true that Acts was actually written a long time after Jesus’ ascension because it includes all the stories of Paul’s journey etc. If there were a temptation to re-write this bit of “history”, it seems strange that given Paul becomes an apostle later on, that Peter saw the need to appoint a replacement apostle at this early stage. Surely he could have been satisfied that Paul would soon become the 12th apostle in a short time? Paul actually becomes the 13th apostle but in theory they did not know that at this time. Hence it is hard to consider this as a made up story, as why tell it? Hence it is probably representative of what did happen.
In this story, Peter came to this conclusion of the need for a replacement apostle from two “prophecies” that he sees from his knowledge of the Psalms, 69v25 and 109v8. This is an incredible insight and new interpretation of those Psalms which would not have come from Judaic thought. I wonder if any bible scholar today would have thought of those verses as their reasoning for replacing Judas? Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 are today considered prophecies by David about Jesus. Psalm 69 is also referred to twice by Paul in Romans and in John’s gospel four times. Do we think that the (illiterate) Peter recognised this before Paul and the writer of John? I think it is very profound. Written Psalms were probably only accessible on a scroll in a synagogue. As you say, we do not really know how Jesus taught his disciples but there are many examples in the gospel of it happening. If Jesus did not pre-teach this, did Peter come up with it on his own? Either way, I think it’s quite amazing for an “illiterate” person ….. and perhaps we should be careful when we think about memorising and comparing it to our current world view. Memory learning was the norm' and a necessity.
I think it’s quite a bizarre phenomenon- that modern scholars still think the earliest disciples were illiterate fishermen (erring on the side of needless apologetics). As the passage below shows, it is just another prophecy historicised (as Crossan would put it):
“but “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. I am now sending for many fishermen, says the LORD, and they shall catch them, and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill and out of the clefts of the rocks.”
Jeremiah 16:15-16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/jer.16.16.NRSVUE
Whichever way we see it, the gospels are literary creative texts NOT eyewitness testimony.
Even if 5% of the material we have were from an eyewitness, it would be natural for the writers of the gospel to claim all of the material were from that eyewitness in order to be believed- in fact we see this attempted in the prologue of Luke and with the “beloved disciple” trope in John without explicit naming of the eyewitnesses.
Furthermore if the above model is to be believed we would have these pithy sayings throughout NT literature- in Pauline letters and in other epistles- which we do not.
And yet even among modern scholars, memory, Oral tradition and eyewitness testimony will somehow be the only way we get the Jesus tradition despite all the evidence contrary to the same.
I have also used the response below as a reply to another comment:
I think it’s quite a bizarre phenomenon- that modern scholars still think the earliest disciples were illiterate fishermen (erring on the side of needless apologetics). As the passage below shows, it is just another prophecy historicised (as Crossan would put it):
“but “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. I am now sending for many fishermen, says the LORD, and they shall catch them, and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill and out of the clefts of the rocks.”
Jeremiah 16:15-16 NRSVUE
https://bible.com/bible/3523/jer.16.16.NRSVUE
Whichever way we see it, the gospels are literary creative texts NOT eyewitness testimony.
Even if 5% of the material we have were from an eyewitness, it would be natural for the writers of the gospel to claim all of the material were from that eyewitness in order to be believed- in fact we see this attempted in the prologue of Luke and with the “beloved disciple” trope in John without explicit naming of the eyewitnesses.
Furthermore if the above model is to be believed we would have these pithy sayings throughout NT literature- in Pauline letters and in other epistles- which we do not.
And yet even among the best of scholars- memory, Oral tradition and eyewitness testimony will somehow be the only way we get the Jesus tradition despite all the evidence contrary to the same.
Very interesting! I wasn’t aware of this particular tension between schools of thought. I think you do a nice job of offering fair evaluation.
I’m wondering…since we know that the crowd of Jesus followers was socially mixed, is there reason to think that someone in the eyewitness group might have written down teachings (even if most disciples were illiterate)? Matthew? Nicodemus? Joseph of Arimathea? Whoever wrote Q? Or are there reasons to doubt this?