Oral Tradition and the Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Craig Blomberg has written extensively on the historical reliability of the Gospels.  In the relevant article in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, he identifies a number of factors that support the probability that the Gospels faithfully preserve the oral traditions on which they are based.

1. Jesus was perceived by his followers as one who proclaimed God’s Word in a way which demanded careful retelling.

2. Over ninety percent of his teachings has poetic elements which would have made them easy to memorize.

3. The almost universal method of education in antiquity, and especially in Israel, was rote memorization, which enabled people accurately to recount quantities of material far greater than all of the Gospels put together.

4. Oral story-telling often permitted a wide range of freedom in selecting and describing details but required fixed points of a narrative to be preserved unchanged.

5. Written notes and a kind of shorthand were often privately kept by rabbis and their disciples, despite a publicly stated preference for oral tradition.

6. The lack of teachings ascribed to Jesus about later church controversies (e.g., circumcision, speaking in tongues) suggests that the disciples did not freely invent material and read it back onto the lips of Jesus.

7. The degree to which Jesus emphasized his imminent return, that is, to the exclusion of envisioning the establishment of an ongoing community of followers, has been exaggerated. Hence, the claim that the disciples would have had no interest in preserving the Gospel tradition until the second generation of Christianity is doubtful.

Historical Difficulties in the Old Testament

For some scholars the Old Testament narratives are remote from the events they purport to describe, and are of historical value only with respect to the authors and the times in which they lived.  Any lasting value is with regard to their religious ideas, rather than their witness to historical events.

But the OT presents us neither with ‘mere’ history, nor with ‘mere’ religious ideas.  It presents us with theological history; with a record of historical events and a theological interpretation of those events.

Historical Difficulties in the New Testament

Various kinds of difficulties are alleged:-

1. Contradictions between different accounts, e.g. was the ascension immediately after the resurrection (Luke 24), or 40 days later (Acts 1)?
2. Contradictions between the biblical account and other sources, e.g. the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1) took place well after the time of Herod.
3. Insufficient attestation from external sources, e.g. the alleged custom of releasing a prisoner at Passove time (Mark 16:6; Luke 23:25) is not attested elsewhere.
4. The scriptural accounts relate unlikely or impossible events, e.g. the number of soldiers accompanying Paul seems improbably high, Acts 23:23.
5. It is not possible to see how the author could have known about what he was relating, e.g. in Acts 26:30-32 Luke records what happened behind closed doors.
6. It sometimes seems easier to view biblical narratives in literary, rather than historical terms, e.g. various features of the Pentecost story, Acts 2-3.

Are the Gospels Reliable?

Some time ago, Mark Roberts posted a fine series on this subject.  This has since into a book published by Crossway.  Mark’s work is in the tradition of F.F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and also has affinities with Craig Blomberg’s Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

You can listen to an interview with Mark on this subject here.  And here are the links to his very helpful series:-

Not Cleverly Invented Stories – a Sermon

Text: 2 Peter 1:12-21 [See here for the Bible Study Notes on this passage]

How good are you at remembering things? There is a little exercise that I sometimes do with my students. I get people to line themselves up according to how they see themselves on certain characteristics. Do you see yourself as tall or short, as old or young, as out-going or shy, as optimistic or pessimistic? Do you have a good sense of humour? Do you have a good memory? Two things I have discovered without fail: nobody ever admits to having a poor sense of humour. And everybody wishes they had a better memory. It is with good reason that memory has been defined as ‘the thing we forget with.’