2. From Sacred Stories to Gospel Texts

Tell me the story of Jesus.
Write on my heart every word.

Millions of Christians have sung these words since the 19th century. Knowing they were written by a songwriter blind from birth lends an insight to them.^[1]  

"Tell me the story…"

 

 Sacred Stories

That, by the way, is how the Gospels began—as memories and stories about Jesus told over and over again in the hearing of the earliest believers. They were held as precious—even sacred—from the start. That's why they were told and retold.

We know this not only because of the detailed scrutiny biblical scholars have given to the nature of the Gospels for many years, and because of similar studies of oral-to-written texts of other literarture, but also because the Gospel of Luke explicitly makes claims that support such an understanding.

Luke 1

A close look at Luke 1:1-4 (with notes) can be very instructive:

As it is a well-known fact that many have taken in hand to bring together in an orderly sequence,[2] a running account,[3] about the deeds that have now been fulfilled in our midst

—just as those who were from the start
eyewitnesses and ministers of the message,
how they handed the oral traditions over to us[4]—

I decided also

—since I have closely traced,
thorougly from the time of their beginning,[5]
carefully in all respects,[6]—

to write for you an orderly sequence,[7] most excellent Theophilus, for the purpose that you might come to know the certainty about the things of which you have been taught by word of mouth.[8]

A careful reading of Luke's Gospel (likely coming about five decades after Jesus' death and a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem)[9] reveals that the author was aware of and had access to oral traditions handed down from eyewitnesses as well as multiple ("many") written accounts.

The author then claims to have closely sifted and traced these available resources, all the way from the earliest parts of the Jesus story—drawing on those resources, whether oral or written, in order to produce his own carefully constructed account.

This short introduction to this Gospel is chocked full of useful hints that help us realize just how much the author was not dealing with 21^st century writing concerns.  

The Return of Jesus?

The writing down of Jesus-stories and Jesus-sayings may have begun early within the first 30 years—but then we don't know for sure whether such "writing down" might have been delayed because of earliest Christian expectations that Jesus was coming back.[10]

I mean, why do we need to write anything down if Jesus is coming back tomorrow?

It is actually intriguing to think about this, because there are many details we simply don't have for when the "Jesus-sayings" started to be written down. Even from NT sources, the striking fact is that we have no record of Christian writing for the first fifteen or so years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Some surely existed, but we have no clear record of them.[11] 

The first mentioned Christian letter appears to be the one sent by the Jerusalem apostles and elders about 48-49 CE.[12]

Assuming 1Thessalonians to be the first actual Christian writing we have available to us, Paul had certainly previously taught them orally, and now he wanted to continue the conversation. So, it is interesting that one of the main issues was their anxiety over … Jesus' lack of return (4:13–18)—and Paul felt it was necessary to address the issue.

A few months later, in 2Th 2:15, Paul speaks of traditions taught “by word of mouth or by our letter.” A few years after that, in 1Cor 11:23; 15:3, he speaks explicitly of what he had “received” and “handed on.”

In sum, the NT evidence itself suggests a development. For roughly the first fifteen years, the story of Jesus was delivered orally through the tradition being handed on—in preaching and teaching. And the earliest Christians believed Jesus was returning at any time. Then, around the early 50s letters begin appearing alongside that oral tradition; only later do sustained written Gospel narratives emerge.

Writing Down

However, by the late 60's, things have changed. A decade of Christian teaching is now "on the books" about getting on with life. The first generation of Christians is passing away. The writing down of the oral traditions becomes more appealing or urgent.  Likely by this time, oral and/or written collections of logia (sayings of Jesus) are known, including perhaps early attempts at what Luke 1 calls narratives—also known as stories.

This is not entirely imagnation.

As an example, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke apparently had access not only to the written Mark, but also to written or oral sources that contain "Jesus sayings"—sayings that Mark did not appear to have or know. So much so, that quite a number of these sayings make it into both Matthew and Luke, sometimes verbatim. That verbatim part is what's so interesting. 

Here is merely one small sample from the Sermon on the Mount (Mt) and Sermon on the Plain (Lk) where parallel material is unmistakeable:

Again, here is another mere sample:

Mt 7:7 // Lk 11:9:  “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”

Mt 7:8 // Lk 11:10: “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”

The question is, how do we account for verbatim and near verbatim content that gets interspersed throughout the two Gospels in entirely different ways?

Some biblical scholars have theorized this as source Q (for Quelle, German for "source"). I'm not here to explain, defend, or dispell this theory (in its many forms).

I only wish to point out that this phenomenon of near identical sayings found in these two Gospels is a simple way to illustrate that "Jesus sayings" existed either in oral or written form—or both—and pre-existed the Gospels we have.  (The word "many" in Lk 1:1 should not be thought of as including only the other three written Gospels we now have.)

Sacred Texts

And so, near the end of the 60's, there appeared what is apparently the first Christian work of its kind—although, in final form, not entirely unique among ancient biographies. It presented a running narrative (story) of the ministry, teachings, and destiny of Jesus and his disciples.

This work was also apparently the result of multiple stages or editions, in which the final author shaped already-developed miracle collections, controversy stories, sayings material, and especially some form of a pre-existing passion narrative.

The final author of this work was not merely a compiler of traditions, but neither did he make personal efforts or claims to the story as his own or anyone else's. Any careful study of the final work shows a reliance on previous oral and possibly written resources to produce what we now know as the first Gospel—we call it the Gospel of Mark.[13]

This was a complete story—a narrative account focusing on the significance of Jesus' teachings and how his disciples did not understand who he was, even on the day of his resurrection.

This work was well enough received that about 90% of it was reproduced a few years later in what is now called the Gospel of Matthew—reshaped to tell its own version of the Jesus story. And maybe a decade later, The Gospel of Luke, its own version.

Do we know exactly how all of this happened? Of course not. Is it possible the events unfolded in some entirely different way? Yes, it's possible. What I've presented is a plausible scenario based on the texts we have and the studies that have been done over centuries on these books.

Finally, does what I have presented deny inspiration? Again, the answer is no, it most certainly does not. Instead, it seeks to take seriously the numerous things that actually show up in various biblical texts. If inspiration is to mean anything, it must account for the texts as they exist.

Telling the Story

The earliest church was hungry for the stories about Jesus—even before the Gospels were produced. And this can be surmised and deduced retrospectively from a close and careful comparison of one Gospel with the others.

Telling the story of Jesus, from its beginnings, was an energized process.

It is that energy we need to recover. Understanding how the Gospels came to be helps us read them the way they ask to be read. Listening carefully to how these sacred stories became sacred texts helps us get more from Bible study.

https://www.biblicalconversation.com/more

Questions to Consider

1. If the stories about Jesus circulated orally before they became written Gospels, how should that shape the way we think about the relationship between memory, tradition, and text?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What does Lk 1:1–4 suggest about the human processes involved in producing a Gospel—and why might those processes matter for how we read it?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. If Gospel writers selected, arranged, and reshaped earlier traditions, does that weaken inspiration—or require us to think more carefully about what inspiration actually means?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What changes when we stop imagining the Gospels as untouched recordings of Jesus and begin seeing them as carefully constructed narratives growing out of living Christian tradition?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next Week: 

3. "From General Theory to Specific Details"
What happens when our theories about the Gospels collide with the details actually on the page?

Series Note

This is Study Session #2 of the free, online, ten-session Bible study series: Beyond the 5th Gospel. It is best to begin with Study Session 1 and follow the entire study in the proper order, on a week-by-week schedule.

Because this is copyrighted material intended for personal or goup study, you are granted the right to freely use this material in Bible classes, small groups, private study, or similar settings—as long as you keep the material intact and unchanged, including this series note.

If you have come to this study session out of sequence, please go here for the beginning of the series:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/blog/5th-gospel-prelude

Go here for all available PDF downloads:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/studiesbc#section-1788376027032

Thank you.
Gary D. Collier

 Footnotes

[1] Fanny J. Crosby (1820–1915) wrote “Tell Me the Story of Jesus,” first published in 1880, with music by John R. Sweney.

[2] In an orderly sequence: Translates ἀνατάξασθαι (anataxasthai). BDAG notes "To organize in a series…implying use of traditional material and, as the context indicates, with emphasis on orderly sequence."

[3] A running account: Translates διήγησιν (diēgēsin) a Hellenistic word for narrative or story. See  Jdg 5:14; 2Ma 2:32; 6:17; Sir 6:35; 9:15; 22:6; 27:11, 13; 38:25; 39:2; Hab 2:6.

[4] Handed the oral traditions over to us: Translates παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν (paredosan hēmin) which is placed at the beginning of the clause, emphasizing it. In some context, can mean " handed over, betray" but in other contexts the teaching which is handed over to someone else. See 2Th 2:15, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught." In such contexts, "the body of teaching handed over" was by word of mouth.

[5] Thorougly from the time of their beginning: Translates ἄνωθεν (anōthen) adverb telling how closely he had been tracing (following) the matter. BDAG says to "follow from the beginning … w. suggestion of thoroughness rather than temporal precision."

[6] Carefully in all respects: Translates πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς  (pasin akribōs), an adverbial phrase again telling how he had been tracing (following).

[7] An orderly sequence: Translates the adverb καθεξῆς (kathexēs).  "Successively, point by point." Does not imply strict chronology. Lk. 1:3; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:4; 18:23

[8] Of which you have been taught by word of mouth: Translates ὧν κατηχήθης (hōn kaēchēs). The verb implies what one is told (by word of mouth). Cf. Lk 1:4; Ac 18:25; 21:21, 24. See Liddell-Scott. See note above "oral traditions."

[9] Of course, some contest the date of Luke-Acts. But substantially earlier dates face several difficulties: Luke’s likely use of Mark; his apparent perspective on Jerusalem’s destruction as a past event; and the developed literary and theological character of Luke-Acts. A date around 80–90 remains a standard and entirely defensible judgment.

[10] It's not possible to know if or how much this concern affected Christian writing. But I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek comment from one scholar (I don't remember his name) who quipped something like, "The earliest Christians expected the return of Jesus; what they got was a set of books." Others have made similar comments: expected a kingdom, got the church, and so on.

[11] Of course, we're not even sure of the exact date of the first NT letter. Most scholars think it was 1Thessalonians in 50-51 CE, while a cadre of Evangelical scholars thinks it was Galatians in 48-49 CE. Dating NT documents has always been contested. Beginning in 1939, a revisionist critical chronology was proposed by John Knox that gained a small group of adherents (including Gerd Lüdemann, Karl P. Donfried, Charles Buck, Greer Taylor) that put 1Thessalonians in the range 41–46 CE by essentially revising how Acts presents Paul’s missions. However, the majority of scholars of all sripes reject that reconstruction. On other grounds, a minority of conservative scholars have placed James in the mid-40's.

[12] Acts 15:23–29

[13] Tradition might have a basis that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote, or had something to do with, all of the Gospels that now bear their names. But none of the Gospels name their authors. Authorship is not the point of this essay.