Can We Have Confidence in the Gospel Records of the Teachings of Jesus? (Part 14)

So far we have focused on the accounts in the synoptic gospels of the deeds of Jesus; but what about his words? Do these gospels give us a fair and accurate picture of the message that he proclaimed?

We must leave aside for the moment the vexed question of the accuracy of the reported sayings of Jesus in the Gospel According to St. John (we will look at that issue in our next article). With regard to the synoptic gospels, the manner in which the sayings of Jesus are presented in these accounts, as well as the circumstances of the early Church in which they were preserved and passed down prior to their incorporation into these gospels, encourages us to treat them with historical respect.

First of all, there is the controversial theory originally expounded by Harald Riesenfeld and Birger Gerhardsson in the 1960s that the disciples of Jesus would have been expected, like the disciples of the Pharisaic rabbis of 2nd and 3rd century, to memorize verbatim their master’s teachings. This theory still has much to recommend it. As Brant Pitre reminds us:

Jesus’s disciples were students who remembered what he did and what he said. Although nowadays we tend to use the word “disciple” to refer to a “believer,” in the first century AD, it literally meant “student” (Greek mathetes; Hebrew talmid). Being a student in the ancient world was radically different from what it is like today, when it simply means you may (or may not) listen to a fifty minute lecture three times a week for a semester. Being one of Jesus’s students meant following him everywhere, and listening to him all the time, for anywhere between one and three years. As the gospels make clear, it also meant remembering what he said (Matthew 16:9; Mark 8:18; John 15:20; 16:4). (The Case for Jesus, pp. 86- 87)

Moreover, it is undeniable that the oral traditions of the Jewish world emphasized fairly accurate preservation of the teachings of great prophets (and Jesus was held to be a prophet during his lifetime). This would apply even more to someone believed by his disciples to be the Messiah, since the Messiah was commonly expected to be a teacher of divine Wisdom. Leaning on the work of German New Testament scholar Rainer Riesner, Craig Blomberg points out that the gospels “phrase over 80% of [the sayings of Jesus] in forms that would have been easy to remember, using memorable imagery and figures of speech much like those found in Hebrew poetry and in carefully preserved Middle-Eastern tradition more generally” (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, pp. 16-17). Thus, parables and patterned verses (such as the Beatitudes) would have aided the memory even of those disciples who never had the benefit of a rabbinic education. In fact, largely oral education for boys up until the age of 12 was common in Israel in Jesus’ day, so most of his disciples would have possessed the capacity to learn his teachings in oral fashion. (NB: Reza Aslan argued in his book Zealot, p. 35, that there is no reason to think that Jesus could read or write, because he “would not have had access to the kind of formal education necessary.” But Jesus did have a relative who was a priest, Lk 1:5-23, 39-80; he may have been taught to read by him). Moreover, it is clear from the gospels that Jesus expected his disciples to learn the lessons he was teaching, and to transmit what they had learned to others (e.g., Lk 10:1-16, and Mt 28: 18-20).

In general, research shows that people in oral cultures such as ancient Israel have little trouble remembering and passing down stories of important events with a remarkable degree of accuracy – indeed, remembering events and sayings far longer than the gospel accounts about Jesus. Blomberg writes:

Studies by anthropologists such as A. B. Lord on Eastern Europe and Jan Vansina on Africa have enabled scholars to observe twentieth century examples of oral folklore and sacred history being preserved by specially designated members of very traditional communities uninfluenced by the development of literacy or technology. … Lord, for example, studied certain Yugoslavian folk singers who had ‘memorized’ epic stories of up to 100,000 words in length. The plot, the characters, all the main events and the majority of the details stayed the same every time the stories were retold or sung. Members of the community were sufficiently familiar with them to correct the singer if he erred in any significant way. Yet anywhere from 10% to 40% of the precise wording could vary from one performance to the next, quite like the variation found in the Synoptic Gospels. (Blomberg, p. 18)

Second, the teachings of Jesus were originally passed down in the Christian community not in private, whispered conversations, but usually before assemblies of Christian believers, over and over again. This too would have tended to preserve their form, since distortions and inconsistencies easily would have been noticed and questioned.

Third, stories of the sayings and deeds of Jesus circulated in the early church at the same time that the apostles and other eye and ear-witnesses of the life of Jesus were travelling among the Christian communities, repeating these stories and preaching about them. Thus, those who were in a position to know the facts were easily accessible all over the Mediterranean world, and could have served as reference points if questions arose about what Jesus actually did and taught. The synoptic Gospels may have been written precisely to preserve the apostolic testimony when the first generation was beginning to die off.

Finally, the words of Jesus the Messiah obviously were considered authoritative, and sometimes disputes in the early Christian communities were settled by appeal to them (e.g. I Cor 7:10, 25; 9:14; Acts 20:35). Again, there was every reason for the early Christians, and the gospel writers, to preserve and transmit the words of Jesus with considerable accuracy. While they would have availed themselves of the latitude, common in the ancient world, to pass down speeches of their Master in paraphrase form, or with explanatory elaboration, rather than simply verbatim, still, there was no question that authorized disciples of the Messiah needed to preserve, and share with others, the real teachings of their Lord. Any fair study of synoptic parallels shows that by and large, that is precisely what they did.

Yet Jesus was far more than just a great religious figure of the ancient world whose sayings were, by historical standards, fairly well preserved. His teachings, both in form and content, were strikingly unique. They manifest a figure of remarkable personal authority, impossible to categorize, dissimilar to anyone before or after him. Perhaps no one has captured this aspect of his ministry better than Gunther Bornkamm did in his book Jesus of Nazareth (1960):

Jesus belongs to this world. Yet in the midst of it he is of unmistakable otherness. This is the secret of his influence and his rejection. Faith has given manifold expression to this secret. But even he who, prior to any interpretation, keeps his eyes fixed upon the historical appearance of Jesus, upon the manner of his words and works, even he meets with this his insoluble mystery. We become aware of the fact when we try to fit this figure into any of the descriptions and categories then prevalent in Judaism. He is a prophet of the coming kingdom of God. Indeed the title of prophet is occasionally used by the tradition (Mk 8:28; Mt 21:46, etc.). Yet he is in no way completely contained in this category, and differs from the customary ways of a prophet. A prophet has to produce his credentials, somewhat as did the prophets of the old covenant in telling the story of their calling and in accompanying their message with the sacred prophetic saying “… says the Lord …” (Amos 6:8; Hos 2:16; 11:11; Is 1:24; and elsewhere). Jesus, on the other hand, never speaks of his calling, and nowhere does he use the ancient, prophetic formula. Even less do we find any trace of that self-justification typical of the apocalyptic visionaries of later Judaism, who claim the authority of ecstatic states of mind and visions, secret revelations of the next world, and miraculous insight into God’s decrees. Jesus refuses to justify himself and his message in this way. …

The prophet of the coming kingdom of God is at the same time a rabbi, who proclaims the divine law, who teaches in synagogues, who gathers disciples, and who debates with other scribes in the manner of their profession and under the same authority of scripture. The forms and laws of the scribal tradition are to be found abundantly in his sayings. Prophet and rabbi — how does this go together? How does the message of the kingdom of God agree with the proclamation of the divine will? And what is the meaning of becoming a follower, and of the discipleship for which he calls, in view of the unity of prophet and rabbi? …

This rabbi differs considerably from the other members of his class. Even external facts reveal this difference. Jesus teaches not only in the synagogues, but also in the open field, on the shores of the lake, during his wanderings. And his followers are a strange crowd. There are even among them those people whom an official rabbi would do his best to avoid: women and children, tax collectors and sinners. Above all, his manner of teaching differs profoundly from that of other rabbis. A rabbi is an interpreter of Scripture. This lends authority to his office, an authority which has to prove itself from the given letter of Scripture, and the not less authoritative exegesis of the “Fathers.” Their authority is thus always a derived authority. Jesus’ teaching, on the other hand, never consists merely in the interpretation of an authoritatively given sacred text, not even when words from Scripture are quoted. The reality of God and the authority of his will are always directly present, and are fulfilled in him. There is nothing in contemporary Judaism which corresponds to the immediacy with which he teaches. [For example, he never quotes the opinions of revered rabbis to lend external authority to what he wants to say. Apparently, his own personal authority is enough: “Truly, I say to you …. You have heard it was said, but I say to you ….]. This is true to such a degree that he even dares to confront the literal text of the law with the immediately present will of God. …

The Gospels call this patent immediacy of Jesus’ sovereign power his “authority.” They apply this word to his teaching: “They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes” (Mk 1:22; Mt 7:29). (Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 56-57 and 60).

Next Time: The Teachings of Jesus in the Gospel According to St. John

Robert Stackpole, STD
© The Mere Christian Fellowship, 2017