Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
INSIGHT: The article will give you an overview of the oral tradition that existed among the Jews of Jesus and the apostle’s day and we must remember Jesus never used oral tradition in his teachings, not would he of had to, but all of the NT authors and the initial Christians were all Jewish, including Luke. The Gospel authors did publish the Gospels orally initially and Christians did so even after the written records were published. The article is not long but informative on a couple of fronts. It gives you more of the skepticism and uncertainty within Christianity right now but it also does give some insightful information. At the end of this brief article is insights from Edward D. Andrews that will offer even more insights and dispel the skepticism and uncertainty that the other Bible scholar put you through. Our articles do not hide or ignore this skepticism and uncertainty within the scholarly world but we do share it with you openly and undermine it at the same time, waking you up to it before you come across it on your own, giving you reading answers in your apologetics.
Oral Tradition is both sharply distinguished from written tradition and yet closely connected with it. Many literary traditions are based on oral traditions, making it necessary to investigate how transitions were made from one to the other.
In the ancient Near East, all significant events were committed to writing by the scribes. At the same time, an oral version of the occurrences would enable the information to be disseminated in contemporary society, and perhaps also to subsequent generations. It is important to realize the coexistence of written and oral forms of the same material, so that the way in which material was transmitted will be understood properly.
Oral transmission was very important in Judaism, and one of the strongest characteristics of rabbinic theology is the importance attached to the oral law in addition to the written law. This oral law consisted of traditional interpretations which had been handed down from teacher to pupil. In the course of the passing on of the tradition, further explanations of basic principles were added. Rabbinic literature supplies many indications of the careful methods which were used in the schools for the study of the Law. The teacher’s main aim was to ensure that the disciples accurately memorized the content of the teaching. There is no doubt that in rabbinic Judaism the passing on of the oral tradition had developed into a highly organized technique.
Such care is not surprising in view of the fact that the oral law carried equal weight with the written law. It was essential that the transmission of this tradition should not be left to chance. Authorized oral tradition was an essential feature of Jewish life. Yet in spite of its aim to explain the Law and preserve its true meaning, the oral law had frequently become a burden and as such was condemned by Jesus (Matt. 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8-9). He criticized those who attached more importance to the tradition of the elders than to the Law of God.
There are no parallels to the strong Jewish emphasis on oral tradition in the Hellenistic world, which had a more extensive literary tradition. Nevertheless, there were secret traditions which were at first orally transmitted, as for instance in the mystery religions. A similar appeal to secret oral traditions also occurs in Gnosticism, but much of this teaching soon found its way into documents attributed to apostles from whom the teaching was supposed to have been derived.
In the attempt to explain how the traditions about Jesus were preserved, there have been two major appeals to oral tradition. During the 19th century one of the earliest suggestions was the view that each of the Gospel writers drew his material from what was called the “oral gospel.” There were several variations of this theory, but as the view that Matthew and Luke both used Mark and another source is preferred.
More recent studies have seen a revival of interest in the oral tradition. Form criticism has attempted to find out the forms in which the oral tradition was transmitted. The passing on of the material was possibly governed by laws of tradition. The most important of these may be the law of dissimilarity, in which only traditions which cannot be paralleled in Jewish literature or in early Christian teaching are considered genuine. The result has been a skeptical attitude toward the historical accuracy of the Gospels. But oral tradition cannot be readily reduced to laws, especially when the subject matter is the teaching of one who is unique. Yet in spite of the unsatisfactory nature of much form criticism, it has once again drawn attention to the importance of oral tradition and lessened reliance on source criticism.
There is little doubt that in the earliest period the words and works of Jesus were passed on by word of mouth. Whether Jesus himself followed the rabbinic teaching method is doubtful, but as much care went into preserving his teaching as the rabbis used in preserving their oral law.
Insights From Edward D. Andrews On Oral Publishing of Gospels
We must keep in mind that we are dealing with an oral society. Therefore, the apostles, who had spent three and a half years with Jesus, first published the Good News orally. The teachers within the newly founded Christian congregations would repeat this information until it was memorized. After that, those who had heard this gospel would, in turn, share it with others (Acts 2:42, Gal 6:6). In time, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to see the need for a written record, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would pen the Gospels, and other types of New Testament books would be written by Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. We can see from the first four verses of Luke that Theophilus was being given a written record of what he had already been taught orally. In verse 4, Luke says to Theophilus, “[My purpose is] that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
When the Son of God on Golgotha, outside of Jerusalem on Friday, Nisan 14 33 C.E. about 3:00 p.m., gave his life, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write their Gospels immediately. It was Matthew, who first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew some 12-17 years after Jesus’ ascension, 45-50 C.E. Shortly after that, translating it into Greek. Luke followed with his Gospel about 56–58 C.E. Then, Mark and his Gospel were written about 60–65 C.E. Finally, John’s Gospel was written some 65 years after Jesus death in about 98 C.E. One thing few biblical scholars in the seminaries address today is how these apostles Matthew, John, and the disciples Mark and Luke were able to record the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ with such unerring accuracy.
The appearance of the written record did not mean the end of the oral publication. Both the oral and the written record would be used together. Many did not read the written documents themselves, as they could hear them read in the congregational meetings by the lector. This would apply to those that could read as well because they may not have been able to afford to have copies made for themselves. Paul and his letters came to be used in the same way as he traveled extensively but was just one man and could only be in one place at a time. It was not long before he took advantage, in that, that he could be in one place and dispatch letters to other locations through his traveling companions. These traveling companions would not only deliver the letters but also know the issues well enough to address questions that might be asked by the congregation leaders to which they had been dispatched. In summary, the first century saw the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his death, resurrection, and ascension. After that, his disciples spread this gospel orally for at least 12-17 years before Matthew penned his gospel. The written record was used in conjunction with the oral message.
 Theophilus means “friend of God,” was the person to whom the books of Luke and Acts were written (Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1). Theophilus was called “most excellent,” which may suggest some position of high rank. On the other hand, it simply may be Luke offering an expression of respect. Theophilus had initially been orally taught about Jesus Christ and his ministry. Thereafter, it seems that the book of Acts, also by Luke, confirms that he did become a Christian. The Gospel of Luke was partially written to offer Theophilus assurances of the certainty of what he had already learned by word of mouth.
From an Oral Gospel to the Written Record
Jesus had commanded his disciples to, “‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and look, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matt 28:19-20) How then was this gospel (good news) to be made known?
During the forty-day period between Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension, Jesus instructed his disciples in the teaching of the gospel. Accordingly, he prepared them for the tremendous task that awaited them on and after Pentecost.
There were only ten days after Jesus’ ascension to Pentecost, when “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” Jesus put it this way, in his words, it being only “a few days.” This time would have been filled with the process of replacing Judas Iscariot, prayer, and the established gospel message, which would be the official oral message until it was deemed necessary to have a written gospel some 10 to 15 years later. According to Scripture, the gospel message was quite simple: ‘Christ died for our sins, was buried, and he was resurrected on the third day.’ – 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
15 Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, 2 by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed in vain.
By the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by General Titus of Rome (70 C.E.), all of the Greek New Testament books had been written, except for those penned by the apostle John. The Gospel of Matthew was penned first, published between 45 and 50 C.E. The Gospel of Luke was written about 56-58 C.E., and the Gospel of Mark between 60 to 65 C.E. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, as they are similar in content. At the same time, John chose to convey other information, perhaps because he wrote his gospel to the second generation of Christians in about 98 C.E. Luke informs us of how the very first Christians received the gospel message. Very few translations make explicit the exact process.
Luke 1:1-4 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty concerning the things about which you were taught orally [Gr., katechethes].
Acts 18:24-25 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been orally [katechethes] instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John.
Galatians 6:6 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
The one who is orally [katechethes] taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.
We can see clearly from the above that both Theophilus and Apollos received the initial gospel message orally, just as all Christians did in the early years. Even after the written gospels were available, the gospel of Jesus was still taught by oral instruction (katechethes). In time, it was deemed that there was a need for a written record, which is the reason Luke gives for his Gospel. This was not to discount what Theophilus had been orally taught but rather to give credence to that oral message that he had already received. Of course, the New Testament was not limited to these gospels.
The publishing of these New Testament books in written form would have come about in the following stages:
- the inspired author certainly would have used a well-trusted, skilled Christian scribe to take down what he was inspired to convey, some believe by shorthand;
- The scribe would then make a rough draft if it had been taken by shorthand. If shorthand had not been used, this first copy would have been the rough draft;
- this draft would then be read by both the scribe and author, making corrections because the copyist, though professional or at least skillful at making documents, was not inspired;
- after that, the scribe would make what is known as the autograph, original, or initial text, to be signed by the author,
- which would then be used as the official exemplar to make other copies.
Both Tertius and Silvanus were very likely skilled Christian scribes who assisted the New Testament authors. (Rom. 16:22; 1 Pet. 5:12) It is unlikely that Paul personally wrote any of his letters that were of great length. It is clear that Peter used the trained Silvanus to pen his first letter. Some scholars have suggested, the second letter was possibly the result of Jude’s copyist skills. Why? Some as it is remarkably similar in style to the letter by Jude. They say that this may explain the differences in style between First and Second Peter. We should emphasize that this is not logical, for it is not possible nor reasonable that the inspired author would give his skilled Christian scribe some latitude to serve as a coauthor regarding word choices or writing style, as some have suggested. There is no Scriptural support to suggest that the Bible authors’ scribes were inspired and moved along by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there must be different reasons as to why the writing style differs between First and Second Peter, such as the subject and the purpose in writing were different, because Peter is that author of both letters.
First, Jesus had no reason to use any oral teaching of the Mosaic Law, he was the Son of God, a divine person, who was actually there at the time before his descending from heaven to come as a perfect man. Jesus condemned the so-called oral law that was taught among the Jewish religious leaders. So, his teacher with authority came directly from the Word of God that he quoted or referred to some 130 times. Second, we must keep some basics in mind, the Jewish Gospel authors lived within an oral society, which gave them skills beyond the normal person as to memorization. The first Christians 3.5 years after Jesus’ death were all Jewish. And for the next 33 years, many Jewish persons came into the early church as Christians. These had the skills to share the written gospels orally in their evangelism. Now, all of this is certainly beneficial. Yet, what the Bible scholars generally do not mention is the Holy Spirit. The Gospel authors and the rest of the NT authors were inspired, moved along by the Holy Spirit. While it was great they had great memory skills, in the end, it was unnecessary. You will notice that the Holy Spirit was not mentioned by the other scholar who did the Bible Encyclopedia article until you came to my insights section.
 Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 17, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 47-48.
 The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) is under production by Christian Publishing House. It is by permission that we use these next few verses before it is published, as their rendering better conveys the original Greek.
 “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.” (Rom. 16:22) “By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it.” (1 Pet. 5:12)
 Again, there is the slight possibility of Tertius or other Bible author’s scribes taking it down in shorthand and after that making out a full draft, which would have been reviewed by both Paul and Tertius. This is only the case if it is comparable to what a modern-day court reporter does. In some sense, they are taking down whoever is speaking down in shorthand. Imagine a courtroom where you have a witness talking fast, the prosecution interrupts, the defense jumps in with his rebuttal and the judge snaps his ruling, and the witness resumes his or her account of things. All of that is taken down explicitly word for word in shorthand, and if ever turned into longhand, it would be exactly what was said, down to the uh and um common in speech. So, if the shorthand of the day had that kind of capability; then, it is conceivable. We must remember these are the Bible author’s dictated words to the scribe based on their inspiration, not the word choice or writing style of the scribe.
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Tradition, Oral,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2094.