The Reliability of the Oral Transmission of Jesus' Teachings in Early Christianity

 

Most scholars on the New Testament and the Historical Jesus believe that before the Gospels were written, Christ's teachings and sayings were orally transmitted and proclaimed. It is possible that Gospel of Luke indirectly refers to these oral traditions about Jesus' life and sayings when it says "just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us." (Luke 1:2). I 

Some modern liberal scholars and higher critics have proposed the idea that the early Christians changed Jesus' sayings when and how they pleased to suit their own agendas, whether theological or social ones. In this article, I will refute this claim in a number of ways by demonstrating the nature and reliability of oral transmission, memorization, note-taking in the ancient world (Greco-Roman and Jewish world, to be more specific) and then will apply this in a study of the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition. 

(Note: I give credit to Craig Keener for much information on this subject in his book The Historical Jesus of the Gospels)

Oral Transmission in the Ancient World

Though both writing and oral transmission were popular and coexisted in the ancient world, there was a bias towards oral transmission. The famous Stoic philosopher Seneca criticizes another writer because he "was writing words for the mind rather than for the ear" (Ep. Mor. 100.2). 

Bernard Lewis says the generally, oral transmission retained the essential elements of the message being passed on very accurately:

"The earliest expressions of the collective memory of a community are usually literary. In some parts of Africa the chants sung by the tribes at the annual round-up of the cattle record the history of the tribe for many generations, sometimes extending as far back as three centuries. While the chronology of such recollections is inevitably vague, the points on which they can be checked by some outside evidence—the testimony of some Portuguese or Arab traveller or the like—has shown them to be remark¬ ably accurate in essentials." (Bernard Lewis, History - Remembered, Recovered, Invented, pg. 43)

Another example of how the ancient world prized oral memory was the fact that reciters knew all of Homer by heart (Xenophon, Symposium, 3.5-6). Dio Chrysostom also says many people knew the Illiad by heart (Or. 36.9). 

Thucydides (best known for writing The History of the Peloponnesian War) did have his reserves about the reliability of oral recitation and memorization. He did in the end, however, say it was capable of preserving traditions accurately (Thucydides, Hist. 1.22.2-3).

Here are three other examples from the ancient world of skilled memory:

[1]. The elder Seneca says that he could repeat back 2000 names in reverse that he had just heard (Controversiae, 1.pref.2)

[2]. Pliny the Younger praises a rhetorician who could repeat speeches he had delivered without any preparation (Epistles, 2.3.3).

[3]. Cicero reports that memorizing one's speech was one of the most basic tasks of a good orator. (De Oratore, 2.351)

Disciples and Teachers

An expected part of Greco-Roman culture was that disciples of teachers (philosophers, rhetoricians, orators, historians, etc.) remember their teachers' sayings (Hermogenes, Progymnasmata, 4). 

Philostratus reports that when a teacher died, his disciples would often preserve his sayings (Vit. soph. 1.22.524).

A basic element of Greco-Roman education was memorizing the sayings of famous teachers of the time (Musonius Rufus, Frg. 51, p. 144.3-7)

Rabbinic literature emphasized the importance of respecting one's teacher and this would most likely include passing the sayings of said teacher (Gen. Rab. 22:2; Pesiq. Rab. 11.2; Sanh. 7:8; b. Ber. 19a).

Note-Taking

When an orator was giving a speech, there would often be people in the audience who would write down it either verbatim or get the basic gist of it, which was by far more common (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.2.2).

In ancient Greek academic setting, disciples would take notes during their teachers' speeches and lectures (Seneca, Ep. Luc. 108.6; Arius Didymus, Epit 2.7.11k; Quintilian, Inst. 11.2.25).

Sometimes people would publish their notes. Such was the case when Arrian published his notes taken from his time listening to the speeches of Epictetus (Diatr. 1.pref. 7-8).

Since Matthew was a tax-collector, he would have had writing skills and shorthand under his belt. This would present us a likely possibility that he took notes while listening to Jesus' teachings.

Application to the New Testament 

We have seen that within the world of the New Testament, oral transmission and memorization were held in high regard and disciples often transmitted the sayings of their teachers. This would increase likelihood of the oral transmission of Jesus' teachings being accurate and reliable. However, liberal scholars and higher critics have claimed that early Christian changed Jesus' sayings as they saw fit.

At first glance, a big problem with this idea is that we don't see things like circumcision (which was a big controversial issue in the early church period) pointing one way or the other within Jesus' sayings (with the exception of John 7:22, which actually argues in favor of the reliability of the oral transmission). If what higher critics claim is true, we would expect to see multiple sayings from Jesus concerning the issue.

Here are few further arguments for the reliability of the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition:

[1]. There is material in the Gospels that fits the criterion of embarrassment (Matthew 10:23; Mark 9:1; 10:18; John 7:22)

[2]. Eyewitnesses were held in high regard in the early church (Luke 1:1-4; John 19:35; 21:24; 1 Corinthians 15:6; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1)