Reddit mentions of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Oral cultures function differently from chirographic ones. Richard Bauckham has the dirty on that. As for 'memory' leaks, Jewish rabbinic tradition has long been known for it's exacting standards of memorization (my favourite modern example are the Shass Pollack). It would be unusual for that not to continue on into Christianity with the influx of Jewish believers.

The post was 14 hours old and had no comment so I just tried to help. I don’t believe my comment is out of line because (1.) the mods haven’t deleted it and (2.) it has a scholarly context and (3.) notes/codices were used in the transmission process (both pre-literal-oral and literary traditions.)


I’ve tried twice to post all the citations I have but I keep getting the error “this is too long (max 10,000)”.


So briefly, including the links in my first reply, here’s some more:


Richard Bauckham: “Such notebooks would not be a wholly new factor in the process of transmission through memorization …” and remarks that they were used only in the transmission process, both oral and literary (written) traditions. (Richard Bauckham – Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Eerdmans, 2006. (Richard Bauckham is Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlow Professor at the University of St Andrews, Scotland; A Fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh)


In Did Some Disciples Take Notes During Jesus’ Ministry? by James M. Arlandson (teaches World Religions, Humanities, Introduction to Philosophy, and Introduction to Ethics at various colleges. His Ph.D. is in Comparative Literature (ancient Greek literature, religious studies, and critical theory) he cites:


1.) Edgar J. Goodspeed writes that it would have been strange if Matthew the tax collector had not written down some of Jesus’ teachings. (Edgar J. Goodspeed. Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist. John C. Winston, 1959.)


2.) Saul Lieberman (Jewish scholar, expert in Talmudic literature) “Now the Jewish disciples of Jesus, in accordance with the general rabbinic practice, wrote the sayings which their master pronounced not in a form of a book to be published, but as notes in their . . . codices [plural of codex or early book], in their note-books (or in private small rolls). He writes notes and notebooks or codices (early forms of the book) for note-taking of the oral law were acceptable. (Saul Lieberman. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962.)


(3) E. Earle Ellis, “It is more plausible [than just oral teaching] to suppose that at least some written paradigms of the Lord’s pronouncements would be left with those who received his message of the kingdom” (p. 245). (E. Earle Ellis. “New Directions in Form Criticism.” In Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Mohr, 1978. Pp. 237-53.)



(4) Werner Kelber, “The concept of a predominantly oral phase is not meant to dispense with the existence of notes and textual aids altogether. The Q tradition, other saying collections, anthologies of short stories, parables, miracles, and the like could well have existed in written form” (p. 23). (Werner Kelber. The Oral and the Written Gospel. Fortress, 1983.)


(5) Harry Y. Gamble, Christianity grew out of Judaism, and the earlier religion valued literacy and the Book. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews, and his followers preached to their fellow Jews. So those “who sought to persuade fellow Jews to their faith necessarily developed scriptural arguments, and there is every reason to suppose that the primitive church turned immediately to the study and interpretation of scripture and began to adduce those texts” . . . (p. 23). Eventually, their skills made it into the written synoptic Gospels that we have now. (Harry Y. Gamble. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. Yale, 1995.)


(6) James M. Robinson (one of the foremost scholars on the hypothetical Q source and the Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi collection) says that the pre-Synoptic traditions were not entirely oral: “The history of the synoptic tradition is no longer dependent only on the forms of oral transmission, but now has a series of written texts bridging much of the gulf back from the canonical [Biblical] gospels to Jesus” (p. 61). (James M. Robinson. “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige.” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 61-67.)


(7) Samuel Byrskog says that oral and written traditions were important for the earliest followers of Jesus. Spoken or written traditions are not mutually exclusive. “Oral and written transmission are not mutually exclusive alternatives and do not follow the logic of first oral and then written.” (pp. 139-40) (Samuel Byrskog. Story as History – History as Story: the Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Brill, 2000.)


(8) Graham N. Stanton says the oral and written traditions were not like oil and water. They could exist side by side; orally transmitted traditions could be written down by the recipients – and written traditions could be memorized and passed on orally. (p. 189) (Graham N. Stanton. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge, 2004.)


(9) Richard Bauckham, fter describing the notebooks that the rabbis used, he expands the cultural context to the ancient world. It seems more probable than not that early Christians used them” (p. 288). (Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Eerdmans, 2006.)

Sure. That's very understandable. First I'd first like to say that God no longer acts through a nation-state as he did in Old Testament times. He chose Israel as a special people and used them in various ways from the repeated commandments to welcome the foreigner in their land (since they were once foreigners in Egypt) to the divine judgment I just described. But they were imperfect stewards and often faced the natural consequences of their poor diplomacy, decision-making, spirituality and morality.
You will see, looking at the Old Testament that Israel itself was not free from God's punishment. The Jewish prophets themselves called it judgment when they were faced with calamity.

That is no longer the case which puts some serious holes in any Hitlerian claim to divine command to commit genocide. It is wrong when we claim American exceptionalism and it is wrong when anyone does it-- God has no state on earth. Repeatedly Jesus declared to a Jewish people longing for the state of Israel to be independent again "The Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world".

Secondly, there's a Straight-Dope article which explores Hitler's religion and it's not so clear-cut he was even a theist. It's likely Hitler was just a sociopath and found religion useful.

It's also a bit of a "by their fruits you will know them" type thing. Were the Jewish people any more sinister or evil than any other? Probably not. Were the Amalekites? Well, it's hard to tell. But it's not as if one Amalekite did something which ticked God off and he said "That's it. Nuke 'em!"

Nope, even foreseeing that things would become intolerable, God promised to let the Amelekites live as Genesis 15:16 tells of God saying to Abraham: "In the fourth generation your descendants will return here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its limit." Paul, much later, in Romans 9 says:
> "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
>(Romans 9:22-24 ESV)


There's a bit of patience exhibited there toward a wicked people. The Jewish people on the other hand were NOT markedly wicked and killed by the command of a man whom invoked God's name, didn't really live as a follower of God, clearly had an economic-end in mind and lamented that many of Jesus' core teachings were "weak".

The message of the New Testament is that God is dealing out his judgment directly now (and his mercy-- I do NOT mean to under-emphasize that... it's easy to do when you're blabbering a response to someone's question about judgment).

In Romans 2 Paul reminds us not to think we're so important and judge others because that day of judgment--not when Christians will judge others but when Christ will judge everyone (including Christians) will come:

> Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
>(Romans 2:1-5 ESV)

Ultimately though, my view is based on a belief in Christ and the reliability of the New Testament. Believing the NT is reliable, and seeing how Jesus regarded the Old Testament as accurate and God-breathed-- I also accept it.

Richard Bauckman, professor of New Testament Studies at the Unversity of St. Andrews, makes the case for the Gospels as eye-witness testimony in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".

C.S. Lewis, literary critic primarily (many people just think of him as a Christian philosopher or essayist of sorts) said of the Gospels:
>“I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage — though it may no doubt contain errors — pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative.”
>(Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, Christian Reflections)

There is something unique about these Gospels....


I mean, Mark 15:21, when talking about Jesus cruxifiction, mentions this:

"The Crucifixion of Jesus

21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross."

Who the HECK is Rufus?! He's COMPLETELY irrelevant to the stories. Well, okay, he's not irrelevant but why do we need to know who he is or who his Dad is especially!

In epics, myths and other ancient literature you didn't really mention irrelevant details for the sake of "realism".

Romans 16:13 also mentions Rufus (although this is a letter so it is less suspicious): "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well."

I believe that these odd details were included in the Gospels of saying: "He was there, go ask them-- they're still alive!" There were eyewitnesses. And so that adds to the credibility of the NT for me, which if I accept as true I also accept the Amalekites were really wicked, God exists and is powerful and wise and that Moses was a legit prophet and not a tyrant (probably psychopath) like Hitler.

Jesus did not seem to have the same problem many have today. He preached his message of love and believed in that Old Testament God. I think it's because he had a clear idea of the separation of God and man's responsibilities in judgment. And it is BECAUSE God has the power that we are free to live and love one another. It is because he died that we can truly live. The seeming paradoxes really only work with the God-man of Jesus.

But I've spoken too much. I can't promise to have clarified everything but maybe it gave you a little idea of where I am coming from.

Thank you for asking in such a kind way. I've been asked a similar question in much more... threatening ways.


edit: Wrote "New Testament" instead of "Old Testament"-- fixed it.

Fortunately, Bart Ehrman isn't the only source or final say of bible scholarship.

• “It is highly probable that notebooks were used by Jesus’ own disciples and by later adherents in the early church to assist in memory retention by functioning as an aide-mémoire.” – The Jesus Tradition and Notebooks – Michael Bird, Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry (Ph.D University of Queensland).
  
  
  
• The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early churchy Wrote the Story of Jesus – Michael Bird, Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry (Ph.D University of Queensland).
  
  
  
• Graham N. Stanton says the oral and written traditions were not like oil and water. They could exist side by side; orally transmitted traditions could be written down by the recipients – and written traditions could be memorized and passed on orally. (p. 189) (Graham N. Stanton. Jesus and Gospel Cambridge, 2004.)
  
  
  
• Saul Lieberman (Jewish scholar, expert in Talmudic literature) “Now the Jewish disciples of Jesus, in accordance with the general rabbinic practice, wrote the sayings which their master pronounced not in a form of a book to be published, but as notes in their pinaces codices, in their note-books (or in private small rolls). In line with the foregoing we would naturally expect the logia of Jesus to be originally copied in codices. (p205) (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Saul Lieberman The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962.)
  
  
  
• James M. Robinson, one of the foremost scholars on the hypothetical Q source and the Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, says that the pre-Synoptic traditions were not entirely oral: “The history of the synoptic tradition is no longer dependent only on the forms of oral transmission, but now has a series of written texts bridging much of the gulf back from the canonical [Biblical] gospels to Jesus” (p. 61). (James M. Robinson. [A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige.] (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 61-67.) Harvard Theological Review research article
  
  
  
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony – Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlow Professor at the University of St Andrews, Scotland; a Fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
  
  
  
• “It is clear that the synoptic Gospels reach back to the ministry of Jesus. When we read them, we can be sure that we hear his voice and his words. The Synoptics accurately convey his ministry.” Did Some Disciples Take Notes During Jesus’ Ministry? – James M. Arlandson, teaches World Religions, Humanities, Introduction to Philosophy, and Introduction to Ethics at various colleges. His Ph.D. is in Comparative Literature (ancient Greek literature, religious studies, and critical theory)
  

See also a recent book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that argues mostly for the second thing.. that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts.

I recommend Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Here are a few of the resources that have helped me:

https://biologos.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/0857215787
https://www.amazon.com/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348605&s=books&sr=1-2
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621
Also, I've visited a lot of different churches and have plenty of friends that are Christians. Seeing that Christians are so very different from JW's- many are well educated, intelligent, thinking people- with a faith that is extremely different from the JW belief system. They have this passion, sincerity and relationship with God that is the opposite of the legalistic JW cult.

Before saying "the resurrection has no evidence," I would suggest reading The Resurrection and the Son of God by N.T. Wright, or Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham. They're thought provoking to say the least, and they're actual historical research instead of someone like William Lane Craig saying "well it kind of makes sense."

What sorts of things specifically are you interested in? I'm just throwing out most of the stuff that isn't C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga or Francis Collins.

He quotes this guy Lamin Sanneh, and his book Whose religion is Christianity. Now I look at it, that looks really interesting.

For The Glory of God, By Rodney Stark

Jesus and The Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham

'Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights'

Um, I was expecting for the chapters where he talks about the historical basis of the Gospels to be full of sources, but his only sources seems to be Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and The Resurrection of The Son of God, by N.T. Wright. This book is turning out to be more disappointing than I thought was possible. I was actually going to investigate some of his historical conclusions a bit more.