18: The Gospels and Resurrection Testimony
18
The Gospels and Resurrection Testimony
The four canonical Gospels plus Paul’s Epistles are certainly the two groups of New Testament books most formative in the early church’s development of its ideas and notions regarding Jesus’s resurrection. While contemporary critical scholars emphasize and give preference to what they term the “authentic” or “unanimously recognized” seven authentic Pauline Epistles, it may be accurate to report that Christians in the pew probably think first of the Gospels.
In this chapter, we will view various general aspects of the Gospels as a whole. This has nothing to do with, and hence should not be understood as, some species of precritical mixing and matching, combining, or some other attempt to harmonize the four texts without viewing crucial differences between them. Rather, we are simply observing a few wide-ranging trends and characteristics of this first-century genre together.
For example, how did Jewish thinking about the general resurrection of the dead in the centuries before the writing of the Gospels differ from the outlook presupposed in these four texts? Are changes evident? Did the Gospels depend on earlier sources? Or were they simply the products of storytelling from the time in which they were written, several decades after Jesus’s life? If the former, of what sort and how early were these previous traditions?
Seven Areas of Resurrection Transformation in Christianity
Leading up to the Gospels, what sort of developments were taking place regarding the subject of resurrection in the intertestamental Judaism preceding the public ministry of Jesus? In a public dialogue, N. T. Wright, followed by John Dominic Crossan, has spoken of multiple “mutations” that occurred between the close of this intertestamental Jewish period and the birth of Christianity. Wright enumerates “six Christian mutations within first-century Jewish resurrection belief.” He comments concerning his earlier 2003 text, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that this listing was “perhaps the most original aspect of the book.”1
Crossan in response to Wright states, “Now, concerning Christian tradition, I like very much Tom’s word mutation.” Then he adds, “What we must realize is how profoundly different everything is after a mutation.” Even more intriguingly, Crossan enlarges these thoughts with another notion: “Mutations are hard to live with. . . . I think that he [Wright] is absolutely right that it requires a historical explanation. It’s a historical question.”2
Wright’s six mutations, which are apparently appreciated by Crossan, are as follows: (1) Resurrection belief moved from a peripheral Jewish doctrine to the very center of the earliest Christian faith. (2) Jewish sources are rather vague concerning the details of the resurrected body, while the subject is “sharpened up” in Christianity, where the body is said to “be transformed into a new type of immortal physicality.” (3) From Paul until Tertullian, the Christian view on the last subject is rather uniform, whereas the views in both Judaism and paganism vary quite a lot.
(4) The resurrection event “split into two” for the early Christians. Judaism conceived of a single, corporate event for believers at the end of time, whereas Christians saw the resurrection of Jesus alone followed by the resurrection of believers when Jesus returns. (5) The idea of resurrection functioned in a metaphorical way in both Judaism as well as Christianity. For Judaism it could be the symbol for the Jews returning from captivity. However, while still retaining its bodily meaning, the event becomes for Christians a metaphor for baptism and following Jesus in holiness. (6) Lastly, in Judaism, a messiah who rises from the dead was unexpected, whereas in Christianity, this notion is the center of the gospel faith, providing arguments that Jesus really was the Messiah.3
For his part, we saw that Crossan was very pleased with Wright’s notion of mutations. He even compliments Wright’s phrase “transformed physicality,” since in Crossan’s far more skeptical position, real social and other change happens on a real earth, so it figures that real bodies would have to be the agents.4 Crossan also appreciates the Christian notion that resurrection is split in two, but cautions that in between the two events believers cannot just sit back and do nothing. They must be working actively to clean up the world.5
Regarding the social change just mentioned, Crossan calls this notion the “collaborative eschaton” or as it is termed later, “collaborative eschatology.” This is the idea that humans are commanded in Scripture to assist God in changing the wrong to right in our world. For his part, Wright prizes Crossan’s use of this collaborative future and not only wishes that he had said it first, but told Crossan that the next time he wrote on this subject, he would make this concept a seventh mutation, giving Crossan the credit for the thought!6 Indeed, this is precisely what Wright did too, as he later expanded his list to seven and cited Crossan’s contribution from the dialogue.7
The central point of the mutation scenarios, then, is that something incredible was afoot in the early church, as it differed at least in emphasis from the Judaism of this time. Change was apparent, and it manifested itself in at least these seven areas, as Wright and also Crossan note, with all of the Christian concepts relating directly to the earliest belief in a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. This revolution that touched many areas beyond apologetics was in the making. Certainly one of the most intriguing options here, emphasized by both Wright and Crossan, is that it is precisely because of the resurrection message that believers should be sacrificially committed to both believers and unbelievers alike. This is a theme that is emphasized several times in Scripture and needs to be pursued in detail, as we do in the last volume of this study.
Indications of Early Traditions behind Gospel Resurrection Concepts
Some skeptics and mythicists have charged that these Christian ideas did not arise during Jesus’s time but rather emerged a few decades later around the period when the Gospels were composed. Of course, if this were the case, then these ideas would not reflect Jesus’s original teachings.
But the vast majority of critical scholars oppose this notion. Even agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman asserts that there are “compelling reasons” why “virtually all scholars of the New Testament” think that stories were being told about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection which predate even Mark and, still earlier, Paul. The late Maurice Casey is another recent agnostic authority who accepts these sources. Still others are aligned all the way from more agnostics and skeptical thinkers to the more conservative ones. How much earlier were these previous sources used by these New Testament authors? The Gospel writers knew many older stories that included various traditions that predated their writings, as Luke 1:1–4 attests.8 If these stories predated Paul, like both Ehrman and Casey conclude, that would push back the dates of the original pre-New Testament accounts at least into the 40s or even earlier. Again here, Ehrman and Casey readily agree.9
Thus, it is widely concluded that the Gospel authors indeed relied upon oral or written sources of some kind. Ehrman even includes the Gospel of John in this evaluation.10 Whether or not these original stories were reliable is a matter considered many times throughout this study. We will mention several paths that help indicate the reliability of the accounts that are most necessary for our purposes. These paths will simply be listed here very briefly, without much elaboration.
Greco-Roman Biography
First, although there were some scholarly precursors, especially since the epochal work of classical scholar Richard Burridge almost twenty-five years ago, it is probably fair to conclude that most scholars now agree that the Gospel genre is most likely a species of Greco-Roman biography known as bioi, “Lives.” Burridge arrived at this conclusion after an incredibly detailed analysis of the secular classical works compared to the Gospel characteristics and features.11
After his major work on this subject, Burridge explained more succinctly some themes of his 200-page argument. In the hands of influential New Testament skeptical scholar Rudolf Bultmann, working largely before World War II, the Gospels had been treated as a collection of folktales and myths unlinked to history. Many thought of the Gospels as a unique genre unlike other ancient writings. But the Gospels actually exhibited many of the characteristics of the Greco-Roman Lives, such as jumping directly into the subject matter as the hero reached a major point in their life. Additionally, these works were chiefly concerned with a person’s moral character and actions rather than their inward, psychological states of mind. Still another common characteristic emerging from a structural analysis is that the Gospels also share with the classical bioi approximately the same percentage of verbs being concerned directly with the hero. While the Gospels do not mimic modern biographies, neither do the Greco-Roman Lives.12
However, not all Greco-Roman Lives were created equally. Bauckham follows Christopher Bryan in noting some differences in these ancient works between the “elegant” ways that Tacitus and Plutarch wrote their Lives and the lack of flowing or “continuous” treatment in other Lives, such as the anonymous Life of Secundus or Lucian’s Demonax. Bryan places the smoothness of Mark’s integration of his Gospel sources as being somewhere in the middle, less elegant and continuous than Plutarch or Tacitus but not as separated or disjointed as portions in Secundas. So there are several varieties among the classical Lives themselves and hence no uniform code that the ancients were required to fulfill in order to “qualify.” Bauckham adds that Mark’s Gospel is structured like it was drawn from oral sources, which may account for some of these differences.13
How does this first path contribute to the overall issues that we are addressing in this chapter? Granted, even if the Gospels were patterned after the Greco-Roman bioi,14 this does not automatically ensure their historical reliability. Yet, it does provide many more helpful hints or even hopeful promises that the conclusions could be trustworthy, especially when compared to the old picture of many decades ago supported by Bultmann and others. Indeed, this comparison places the Gospels in the most helpful category of all, hence shedding a little more light on the subjects before us. As such, it is indeed significant that so much data point firmly in this direction, causing the majority of contemporary critical scholars, including even skeptical ones, to agree with these general concepts.15
Early Creedal Traditions
Our second and perhaps the major recent path to discovering early material behind the Gospels consists of a detailed number of scholarly studies on the nature of oral and written traditions and how these were passed down from one generation to the next. Different sorts of confirmation could increase the likelihood of the earlier reports being accurate.
Initially, probably the strongest indication of reliable traditions in the earliest church is drawn from the brief creedal snippets contained throughout the New Testament Epistles and the sermon summaries in Acts, which are recognized as such by the vast majority of critical scholars. These teachings usually concern the central message in the New Testament teaching and preaching—identified as the good news. At a minimum, it is defined in these texts as the core message of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Here’s the chief point: Paul’s epistles certainly precede the traditional dating of the Gospel of Mark, so the trail of very early creedal items reported in these epistles,16 drawn from these oral transmissions, can be checked. These texts serve at least as a fair indication of several facets of how carefully this early Christian tradition was kept and passed on to others at slightly later dates. Much space is given elsewhere in these present volumes to the details of this topic of early Christian creeds. So it will simply be left here for now: the majority of critical scholars recognize at least the broad outline of the process just delineated, including the implications that this progression fairly describes and provides at least some understanding of how the Gospel traditions could likewise be built in part, connected to, and grounded in these earlier reports.17
Critical Models of Traditioning: The Scandinavian School
Next, other attempts that also sought to trace carefully the tradition behind the Gospels arose as critiques of form criticism (in German: Formgeschichte, “form history”), an early to mid-twentieth century approach. Seeking a solution to the relationship between the preexisting traditions and the texts of the Gospels, Bauckham maps three options as “Models of Oral Tradition.” Bauckham opens the discussion by recounting the chief argument of his book: that the four canonical Gospels were “close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus.”18 The first option that Bauckham presents is the chiefly German form-critical challenge by Rudolf Bultmann and others,19 which concentrated on the particular oral “forms” (Gattungen) and how they were pieced together like “beads on a string” comprising each entire Gospel narrative.20
What is sometimes referred to as the Scandinavian School arose in response and opposition to Bultmann. Swedish New Testament scholar Harald Riesenfeld, an early advocate of this alternative, rejected form criticism, argued for a model that cohered more with Jewish practice. Riesenfeld argued roughly that Jews transmitted their oral testimony with a more fixed and controlled method. Early Christians, most of whom were Jews, carried the same concern to record Jesus’s teachings carefully and accurately. This was also Jesus’s own method in making his disciples repeat and strictly memorize his message.21
Riesenfeld’s student Birger Gerhardsson attempted to expand many of these thoughts, drawing from his major study of the rabbinic Jewish treatment of oral tradition.22 However, Gerhardsson’s thesis was criticized for being too firm, rigid, and anachronistic, especially in requiring strict memorization and exactitude, given our observation of both rabbinic as well as Christian examples of somewhat freer transmission, as well as treating almost chiefly early oral sources, hence allowing little room for written sources.23
Critical Models of Traditioning: Kenneth Bailey
To be quite sure, there is a large amount of ground between Bultmann’s view on the one hand that the pre-Gospel tradition was uncontrolled by the apostles and thus was actually quite open to pagan ideas or other errors, and Gerhardsson’s thesis entailing a very controlled tradition that required Jesus’s followers to memorize his words on the other hand. A popular third, mediating ground is found in the work of Kenneth Bailey, a New Testament scholar who spent over thirty years in the Middle East, often among local villagers. From this overall background and context, Bailey honed his views. In contradistinction to Bultmann, Bailey proposed a tradition that was controlled by the Christian leaders like the apostles without requiring the rigidity or lack of flexibility of Gerhardsson. He gave special emphasis to the eyewitnesses.
According to Bailey, in these Middle Eastern village settings, the elders, leaders, or even the listeners in general would step in and correct the reciter when key words were missed or to fill in a phrase if the recitation paused beyond the normal amount of time. At the same time, some flexibility was allowed in noncrucial details.24
Bailey’s thesis has garnered less attention than either Bultmann or Gerhardsson, whose views occupy the positions on either side of him, but those who have noticed Bailey include some very influential scholars. For example, while summarizing Bailey’s thesis, N. T. Wright thinks that it deserves a place among the best sources on how pre-Gospel tradition most likely became included in the Gospels.25 So how does the process actually take place? Helpfully, as Wright explains, “new and important stories are repeated over and over until the basic pattern of their telling is indelibly imprinted on the village mind.” It can no longer be charged or assumed that early Christians were not interested in a truthful depiction of history.26
In a separate treatment of Bailey, Dunn praises his theory of oral tradition as the best model on offer while cautioning that Bailey’s treatment still tends to be anecdotal.27 While Bauckham clearly thinks that Bailey offers some worthwhile innovations to help satisfy the need for a model of oral tradition, he locates probably the most areas of concern.28
Critical Models of Traditioning: James D. G. Dunn, Samuel Byrskog, and Richard Bauckham
While these three major researchers have developed many ideas on the nature of the traditioning process in the Gospels that complement one another, they certainly have their differences as well. Unfortunately, in this immediate context, we will only be able to list a few highlights.
We have already remarked that Dunn approves many aspects of Bailey’s view of informal controlled tradition as a sort of middle ground between Bultmann’s Formgeschichte and Gerhardsson’s formal controlled versions of chiefly oral testimony. Bailey tended to place more emphasis on the testimony of the earliest eyewitnesses as reciters of the tradition. For Dunn, eyewitnesses are certainly part of the process (including his heading “Apostolic Custodians”), but Dunn seems to place more emphasis on the early Christian communities. The idea is that the eyewitnesses and the community together could be responsible for reciting the stories handed down from Jesus, hence controlling the process.29 Then Dunn proceeds to identify in minute detail how the oral tradition develops in the Gospel narratives and teaching.30
Dunn provides a couple of summaries of his position. The broad strokes are as follows: (1) Jesus as he was remembered is the only legitimate objective for a historical study. (2) The gospel tradition confirms that the earliest Christians sought to remember Jesus. (3) The Jesus tradition showed how Jesus was remembered. (4) The essential shape of this tradition was arranged by the eyewitnesses of Jesus. These distinctive points here most likely go back to “the consistent and distinctive character of the impact made by Jesus himself.”31
Samuel Byrskog emphasizes the crucial role of eyewitnesses in the contexts of ancient Greco-Roman writers, in the ancient imparting of oral testimony, as well as in early Christian tradition. Ancient historians actually considered an overreliance on written sources to be subpar research! One of the worst types of dishonesty consisted of an ancient writer who fabricated having possession of the primary sources or lied about seeing something personally without having done so32—indicating just how important firsthand information was considered. So the author should either be a participant in the events or interview the eyewitnesses. These same historical practices should be evident when the Gospel authors record tradition.33
Bauckham’s theme is stated several times throughout his volume. He thinks that fresh, new attention needs to be given to the idea that the historical Jesus of the Gospel traditions is much more closely tied to eyewitness testimony than is usually acknowledged by today’s scholars. The Gospel writers (or “evangelists”) “were in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses” leading to the authors being faithful to their witnesses concerning both the words and deeds of Jesus.34
Bauckham acknowledges several strong contributions from Dunn and Byrskog as well as others. He does hold that both need more emphasis on the place of the eyewitnesses, especially Dunn. While Byrskog does the most of these two scholars here, even he “requires further testing and development.”35 So it seems as if Bauckham’s response is that while Byrskog does well in identifying the place of eyewitness testimony in the Gospel traditions and bringing it more to the forefront of discussions, it is left to him to show that the Gospels actually possess this eyewitness information. It might just be noted here in passing that beyond the normal arguments often seen in books written on the reliability of the Gospels, Bauckham does adopt some very fresh, different, and original ideas on this theme.
The study of potential models for passing on the “Jesus tradition” in the Gospels is a crucial topic. The most supported of recent scholarly models that we have viewed, from Bailey to Bauckham to Gerhardsson with a few others in between, all take very seriously the oral traditition, the text, the transmission, and most vitally, the issues involving historicity. This is an exciting time in historical Jesus Gospel research because it is bringing together some new, worthwhile, and exciting insights across the theological spectrum.
N. T. Wright’s Four Indications of the Early Date of the Gospels’ Resurrection Material
When discussing the general model for passing on tradition in the Gospels, we saw that Wright prefers Bailey’s approach.36 N. T. Wright also maps out four indications here,37 which evidence that much of the resurrection tradition in the four Gospels is quite early.38 Given the state of recent Gospel research, he argues, quite shockingly, that “it is far, far easier to believe that the stories are essentially very early, pre-Pauline, and have not been substantially altered except for light personal polishing.”39 Elsewhere, he adds that the texts would not read as they do unless the teachings were before AD 50.40 This presumably would be to place the original portions of these narratives back into the same time frame as the pre-Pauline creedal texts contained in the Epistles! This would indeed be an explosive notion in the world of New Testament studies today. What data could possibly warrant a comment such as this?
First, Wright asks how we can account for the near absence of Old Testament quotation, allusion, or even hint in the Gospel resurrection narratives. While the Gospels make constant and repeated reference to the Old Testament with phrases such as “according to the Scriptures” or “as was fulfilled” by this or that prophet, the resurrection accounts are “almost entirely innocent” of such references, “with only a couple of small exceptions.”41
Wright adds that it is simply difficult to imagine how, while attempting to celebrate the most important event in the Gospels, the writers would not only discontinue their practice of referring to Old Testament fulfillment but also that, in the process, they would pass up an opportunity to further evidence the miracle with predicted scriptural confirmation. Strangely enough, why would John go to almost the opposite extreme by telling his readers that the two chief disciples, Peter and John, did not understand the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was even supposed to rise from the dead (20:9)?42
Second, Wright wonders why the women were described as the “the principle witnesses” to Jesus’s resurrection.43 The most mentioned aspect from commentators is that it was certainly an embarrassing move to designate the women as the first eyewitnesses, especially when there is no deviation in this basic fact in any of the four Gospels in spite of this awkwardness. Clearly, the traditional apologetic punch is missing here, given that female testimony was generally not respected in the Mediterranean world.44
Further, why is the account of the women not present in the famous pre-Pauline creedal list of appearances in 1 Cor 15:3–7? It’s probably because this list in context highlights the evidential approach while the Gospels are telling the original story. Wright maintains that this certainly makes the Gospel traditions appear to be quite early, as if they were before any concerns regarding either appearance or apologetic. This does not look like a concocted account, especially when such a conspiracy would have to occur to what critical scholars think are four at least partially independent writers located some distance away from each other. Rather, the clearest explanation is that the narrative appears this way in each of the Gospels because this is the way it actually occurred—what Wright terms “ruthlessly historical.”45
Third, the best a priori guess regarding how these four authors might have portrayed their descriptions of Jesus’s resurrection body would probably be that it would involve some sort of shining body surrounded by glory or, at the very least, topped by a halo! Not only is that seemingly a common human idea throughout history, but that would be the most consistent picture corresponding to the best known resurrection text in the Old Testament, Dan 12:2. There the righteous saints appear like shining stars.
So what about the Son of God—wouldn’t he be at least as glorious as these raised saints? Or more so than holy men in other religions? Also, what about the angels at the empty tomb who were shining according to two of the four Gospels (Matt 28:3–4; Luke 24:4–5)? Yet, how could it be that not a single one of these four accounts included at least vestiges of a Messiah who was also shining?46
To add another conundrum, even though Jesus’s resurrected body appeared quite normal, it also seemed to possess new powers. When the stone was rolled back from the grave, Jesus was already gone without a window or door through which to exit. He appeared and disappeared through locked doors. As Wright says, Jesus “disappears into God’s space, that is, ‘heaven.’”47
So Wright’s point here is that the Gospel portrayal of Jesus’s resurrection appearances seems quite down-to-earth and natural in many respects. It gives no evidence of having expanded or grown due to the intervening length of time. This again points to an early message, far before other texts like the Gospel of Peter’s depiction of Jesus, for example.
Fourth, and one of the most important signs of an early date, is that there is incredibly no connection in the Gospel narratives of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances to the resurrection of believers. Thus, none of these resurrection stories explain that because Jesus was raised from the dead, believers will be raised as well. Yet, this connection is mentioned almost twenty times in the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles.48 Since this doctrine is so frequently connected to Jesus’s resurrection as one of the foremost theological applications in the New Testament, it would certainly seem that the lack of mention in the more than 100 Gospel verses concerning the original resurrection story itself is most likely due to the early date of the report where the supreme interest was in simply telling and ascertaining the original story, even before bridges were developed to other doctrines.
Intriguingly, the chief application that Jesus expressed in the resurrection narratives, as Wright likes to say, is “Jesus is raised, therefore Jesus’ new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do.”49 In the Gospels, the message of these closing texts is that Jesus sent out his followers to carry everywhere the good news.50
Wright’s four categories of resurrection testimony point strongly to at least some Gospel traditions being very early. As such, they serve as intriguing pointers that move back the time frame for some major reports regarding the historical Jesus and his teaching. Of course, various Gospel traditions, like sources in a history textbook, can describe events from the same general period, though with the interviews themselves being given at different times. Similarly, we do not know when Luke’s conversations about the historical Jesus (Luke 1:1–4) took place. Yet Wright’s entire theme here is that the reports had to be both early as well as accurate, since the material itself contains those built-in characteristics. So as contemporary research moves on, new data appear to indicate more and more reasons to trust the Gospel reports.
Conclusion: Bringing Together the Gospel Models of Tradition
This chapter began with brief descriptions of seven significant mutations that accompanied the modifications regarding the concept of resurrection between Jewish and Christian emphases. These were presented by N. T. Wright and appreciated by Dom Crossan in one of their dialogues. Though a number of Christian ideas concerning resurrection remained the same or were similar to their Jewish roots, many other beliefs took on radically new and exciting forms. These trajectories were in vogue during Jesus’s ministry as it began, grew, and ended.
Over the bulk of this chapter, we outlined several reasons for our primary conclusion that the oral and perhaps written Gospel traditions that described Jesus’s life and ministry took seriously the idea of historical accuracy. The acknowledgment of these themes has emerged from the presence of many strong details and sources, such as the broad scholarly recognition that the New Testament genre is an example of the general Greco-Roman bioi model. Further, the existence of dozens of early New Testament creedal sources, some of which are pre-Pauline and definitely date to the 30s, are actually windows directly into the earliest Christian traditions themselves. Intriguingly, even highly critical scholars probably recognize these two areas as regularly as do conservative researchers.
The question before us in this present chapter, that we addressed very briefly, can be stated in the words of Bauckham’s chapter title: what are the potential “Models of Oral Tradition”? To that end, Wright raises an excellent point while interacting with Bailey concerning the same issue: there is a need for an adequate model for the transmission of Gospel tradition, and the New Testament certainly provides some helpful textual indications as hints. After all, the New Testament clearly specifies that the tradition was in the hands of authoritative persons. Wright notes this from both the Gospels (as in Luke 1:1–4; 4:20) as well as the Epistles (like 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1–3).51
Certainly Wright was not trying to be exhaustive. Many more texts easily could have been added to these and related subjects, since various New Testament passages place a high premium on a wide variety of relevant subjects here. For more examples, some passages value eyewitness testimony (Luke 7:18–23; 24:36–43; John 19:35; 20:27; 2 Pet 1:16–18; John 1:14; 1 John 1:1–3), passing on tradition or trustworthy sayings (Mark 7:3; John 14:26; 1 Cor 11:2; Gal 1:20; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11–13; Titus 1:9), and the need for faithful witnesses to impart the gospel message to others (Matt 10:5–7, 14, 16, 18; Luke 11:49; 24:48; John 1:7–8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26, 28, 32; 4:39; 5:31–32; 12:17; 15:27; Acts 1:8, 21–23; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 2 Tim 2:2). At least a couple of times, the subject is a very specific creedal formula for passing on tradition (1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–7).52
It is noteworthy that Dunn also highlights similar notions, citing dozens more New Testament passages that primarily emphasize two motifs—“bearing witness” and “remembering.” Dunn considers the latter notion as the more striking of the two, but both remind us regarding the common method(s) that the earliest Christians utilized in “retelling the story of Jesus and of taking steps actively to recall what Jesus said and did.” Thus, we gain a good overall understanding here of the general process that was employed, as well as the importance that was attached to this, in the early church to ensure that Jesus’s teachings and accounts of his activities were reproduced in a trustworthy manner.53
However, could it be that the key words in these texts above were used more generally or even carelessly by first-century Jews? At any rate, perhaps the terms simply did not have the meaning that they do in the twenty-first century? Posed differently, how do we know that the statements above were not meant more loosely with much room being allowed for stories to be invented and added? So on different ends of the spectrum, could Bultmann be closer to the correct use of tradition than Bauckham?
Looking more closely at the details of just a few of these texts, it must be concluded that a stricter view like Bailey’s (or any of the other models that we discussed that take tradition more literally and historically) that still allows for some play is required not simply by the textual wording but by the relevant actions too. For instance, in Luke 1:1–4, the spotlight is on collecting and investigating particular occurrences, teachings, and other information concerning Jesus as they had been handed down by the eyewitnesses. Luke claims to have investigated these items to ascertain their certainty. There is no need for such lofty language or inspection if the accepted practice were simply to add material freely. On the other hand, if this language were only embellished to sound more authoritative, it seems a little odd that similar verbal loftiness does not appear elsewhere in New Testament books.
Or when reporting the early Q material regarding John the Baptist’s doubts (Luke 7:18–23; Matt 11:2–6), it is not simply that Jesus responds by mentioning his miracles, but that virtually all recent critical scholars think that these events occurred in some historical sense, since they are well attested in historical terms.54 At this point, the nature of John’s disciples as witnesses (Luke 7:22, 24; cf. Matt 11:4) pertains not only to literal events, but to healings at that.
Later and similarly, Jesus calls his own disciples his “witnesses” after he produces decisive evidence of his resurrection appearances (Luke 24:36–48), just as Jesus did in John while declaring his disciples to be his messengers (20:19–21). For Jesus’s disciples as well as John the Baptist’s followers, both the witnessing as well as the miracles were real events to be passed on or proclaimed to others. As Dunn points out, retelling and bearing witness in cases like these involves recounting literal events,55 very much unlike Bultmann’s model.
Or again, in both the early Acts sermon summaries embedded within Acts 2–5, 10, and 13 and with the very early pre-Pauline creedal references such as Rom 1:3–4 and 10:9–10, we note some similar traits. If the tradition was simply free-floating and sometimes invented, then why do the historical contours of the good news of the gospel message always stay virtually the same, agreeing in proclaiming at a minimum the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus? This would seem to be even more unlikely in that it involves more than one author over time, unless, of course, there were an objective historical message here with which the sources comply.
Further, when a replacement apostle was chosen to take Judas’s place, why was the person also required to be a witness to historical events, especially Jesus’s resurrection (Acts 1:21–22)? This is especially crucial if, per Bultmann’s model, all sorts of items could be added, invented, or fashioned to which a new recruit needed to subscribe, according to one’s own fluctuating religious notions. So why is the same central gospel message present instead of the willy-nilly scenarios? This also reflects clearly the disciples’ belief that tradition had to be passed on in an orderly and historical fashion.
Along the same lines, why did the apostle Paul make at least two trips to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 and 2 (along with perhaps a third in Acts 15), precisely for the purpose of checking out the nature of his gospel message with the major apostolic leaders to be sure that he had understood it correctly? Paul received a positive response from the apostles too (particularly Gal 2:2, 6, 9). But in the same context, the preaching of any other message brought eternal condemnation (Gal 1:8–9). Later Paul reports that he and the other apostles were all preaching the same account of the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:11). So why was this dire warning of judgment and the need to accurately confirm the gospel message necessary for Paul and the other apostles? Why did they need to agree and “get the message right”? On Bultmann’s model, the apostles certainly had the power to expand the gospel any which way they wanted. This argument alone indicates that Bultmann’s approach is clearly mistaken, and by a wide margin too.
Lastly, the more formally stated, exceptionally early pre-Pauline creeds like 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3–7 include the equivalent of the technical Aramaic words for passing on tradition (“delivered” and “received”), along with almost identical preambles. This alone poses very difficult issues for the view that Christian tradition was transmitted at will and could be adjusted freely. The mere formality along with the same essential message (as also noted above) belie the “almost anything goes” supposition. Further, these two texts are more recognized and accepted as authoritative by recent critical scholars than virtually any other New Testament texts.
The foregoing seven examples indicate that a model of tradition somewhere between Bailey’s approach on the one side and Bauckham’s option on the other is demanded by the New Testament evidence. Bultmannian mythical models are the odd views out, and some of the cases just presented here are among the many that indicate precisely why his position is now considered to be defunct, as we have documented in another chapter. Each of the other models takes the historical data seriously, respects the careful transmission-of-tradition process, and allows some flexibility in some of the details while requiring agreement in the essential message, as these seven New Testament examples require.
The bottom line is this: scholars may not always agree or perhaps cannot narrow down a single, specific model of passing on tradition, as in accepting the approaches of Bailey, Byrskog, Dunn, Bauckham, Gerhardsson, or others. Still, the relevant New Testament texts teach each of these items: the importance of eye-witness testimony, passing on tradition (sometimes even in fairly strict forms), being faithful witnesses, plus Dunn’s additional emphasis on remembering. Each of these practices is clearly valued. So just one clear model may not be ascertained, no doubt largely due to their similarities and sometimes slight nuances. Perhaps we can view it from the opposite direction however: can any models be eliminated? We saw that it was clearly the case that the vast majority of contemporary commentators think that Bultmann’s form-critical and demythologizing methods have already come crashing down.
The clear choice appears to be to pick one of the models that best fits these parameters that were outlined in this chapter. An aspect or two from another model might be borrowed to explain a few additional features. The latter may be necessary, for example, with the “tighter” parameters involved in passing on particular traditions in some creeds that appear like they may have been memorized. This could include texts like Luke 24:34; Rom 1:3–4; 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23–26; 15:3–7 (which may have circulated first in Aramaic); Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 3:16; or 2 Tim 2:11–13.
The chief conclusion is that this approach makes it possible to narrow down a general model for passing on tradition in the New Testament, like those of Byrskog or Bauckham, while employing a stricter approach like Gerhardsson’s in those instances like 1 Cor 11:23–26 or 13:3–7, which were “received” and “delivered” in formalized ways and appear closer to having been memorized. After all, the myriads of applicable New Testament texts demand, especially in essential areas like the gospel message, some sort of organized and deliberate approach that required the word or confirmation of an authoritative eyewitness to guide as well as assure the tradition.
So, we examined in detail several different models for the accurate passing on of early tradition. But conclusions that often diverge only in some rather minute ways are difficult to choose between, especially since more than one model may be utilized to account for different sorts of data. So our chief point is that we can get close enough to see that the Gospel bioi are based on good sources and data. Further, dozens of accredited New Testament texts, including early creeds along with some Acts sermon summaries that are placed in the 30s as allowed and utilized even by skeptics, also indicate these conclusions.56
Wright even concludes that at least some of the best Gospel materials were also pre-Pauline in nature, apparently joining some of the creeds in dating back to the decade immediately following the crucifixion.57 But why should this be considered radical? As we just said, the creeds are almost always dated there already. Further, agnostic New Testament skeptic Maurice Casey placed the date of Mark’s Gospel at about AD 40 and dated Matthew’s Gospel not too long afterward—at about AD 50–60.58 Another New Testament agnostic and skeptic, James Crossley, wrote his PhD dissertation defending his view that Mark dates from the mid-30s to the mid-40s.59 Strangely enough, his reasons for this conclusion differ from Casey’s, thereby providing differing sets of arguments for Mark’s exceptionally early dating!
In case it has not been noticed, the conclusions drawn in this chapter are far from conservative theological encumbrances on the text. Rather, many of the conclusions throughout have been shared by agnostic scholars like Casey, Ehrman, Crossley, and Wedderburn, or other critical scholars like Crossan, Borg, Dunn, and Bryskog. For the most part, the views here are well established. Other critical scholars, like Bauckham, have taken many extra steps to argue that the Gospels are largely true.60
Notes
1 N. T. Wright, “Opening Statement,” in Crossan and Wright, The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 18. The exact enumeration and order of Wright’s mutations, as well as their title, have been expanding among his ongoing publications. In his earlier volume, Resurrection of the Son of God, 477–79 (see chap. 6, n. 44), Wright lists “five remarkable things” instead of these six “mutations.” The six mutations in this dialogue with Crossan will later become seven mutations, as we will note. The arrangement of these ideas has varied as well.
2 Crossan, “Opening Statement,” 25–26 (see chap. 10, n. 94).
3 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 18–20.
4 In all three of the Wright-Crossan dialogues on resurrection that I attended, Crossan has been very particular each time in emphasizing his point of real bodies accounting for real change on a real earth as we take back the world from the “thugs,” as he likes to say. For Crossan’s clearest statement that the early Christian view was that Jesus rose and appeared bodily, see Crossan, “Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” 29–57, esp. 37–40, 46–49, 55 (see chap. 10, n. 94). What makes his position on this subject even more amazing and honorable is that, while recognizing this as the early Christian position, Crossan himself does not believe in either Jesus’s literal resurrection appearances or an afterlife. On this last point, see Habermas, “Resurrection Research,” 135–53, esp. 148–49 (see chap. 4, n. 4).
5 Crossan, “Opening Statement,” esp. 27.
6 On the idea of a “collaborative eschaton” or “collaborative eschatology,” see Crossan, “Opening Statement,” 26 and also “Dialogue,” 43 (see chap. 10, n. 94). On Wright’s appreciation and promise to cite Crossan, see “Dialogue,” 42–43. (All of these references are from The Resurrection of Jesus.)
7 N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 40–49, esp. 45–46.
8 Contrasts are readily available from Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74–93, 156, 259–64, quotation on 261 and the citation of Luke 1:1–4 on 260 (see chap. 2, n. 15), along with skeptical New Testament scholar Casey, Jesus, 52–53, 83, 243–44 (see chap 4, n. 41), on one side, and more conservative New Testament scholars such as Richard Bauckham on the other in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, with chap. 9 serving as a major example in an entire book devoted to features like these (see chap. 1, n. 25).
9 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 140–41, for several examples among a large number of such texts in this volume; Casey, Jesus, 185–86, comments on the major New Testament example.
10 Ehrman, 260.
11 Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71). The crux of Burridge’s argument comprises the vast majority of the book, esp. chaps. 3–10.
12 Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, esp. 49–52 (see chap. 11, n. 29).
13 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 231–33.
14 The term Lives is more accurate here, for as Burridge and Gould point out, the later word biographe does not actually appear until the ninth century. Even so, this term indicates the writing (graphē) of a life (bio or bioi). However, the term biography entails more like the modern notion of writing about people’s lives in a more full and complicated way than what was meant by either the Greco-Roman or the Gospel writers. See Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49.
15 On this being the majority scholarly view at present, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 276; cf. also 231–32. Some of those in agreement include skeptics like Casey, Jesus, 110, 130, 134, 234; and Ehrman, New Testament, 55–59 (see chap. 4, n. 34). Other major scholars who agree include Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, chap. 10; and Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 185 (see chap. 1, n. 3). Much more recently, Michael Licona has published perhaps the most in-depth comparison ever of Plutarch’s famous Lives in relation to the genre of the canonical Gospels. Like Bauckham, Licona attests that “the majority of New Testament scholars” have embraced the findings of Burridge and others “that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography” (197). Throughout the entire volume, Licona argues in a wide variety of ways to this end. See Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 43).
16 As we will list examples below, even some major agnostic scholars have agreed that at least some of these creeds and Acts sermon summaries are pre-Pauline and therefore should be dated back in the 30s, within just a couple of years after the crucifixion.
17 For far more relevant details than we can discuss here of the movement from these creedal texts to the Gospels, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–79; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 854–62; as well as the very helpful argument that moves from chapter to chapter in Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (see excursus 1, n. 94).
18 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 240; cf. also 6. “Models of Oral Tradition” is the name of chapter 10, from which this material was drawn.
19 As in Bultmann and Kundsin, Form Criticism (see chap. 5, n. 28).
20 Bauckham begins chapter 10 with a discussion of form criticism (241–46), followed by nine decisive criticisms that recent critical scholars have leveled at this method (246–49), before turning to the “Scandinavian Alternative” (249–252), followed by what may be the halfway house of Kenneth Bailey (252–63), in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Wright dates the popularity of form criticism to approximately 1920–1970 in Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 596 (see excursus 1, n. 65). Wright provides his own criticisms of form criticism in New Testament and the People of God, chap. 14, parts 1–2 (see chap. 1, n. 15) as well as in his coauthored work with Stephen Neill, Interpretation of the New Testament, 276–81 (see chap. 4, n. 16). We discussed more details of form criticism in an earlier chapter.
21 This summary is presented by Archibald M. Hunter in Bible and Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 39–40.
22 Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (see chap. 8, n. 71).
23 For some additional works written by Gerhardsson, see the following: Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1964); The Origin of the Gospel Traditions (London: SCM, 1977); “The Authenticity and Authority of Revelation,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 47–59; The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). Some critical responses, both pro and con, would include: Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 3n2; 111n1; 209n3 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 114, 116, 125–26 (see chap. 1, n. 23); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 251–52; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 197–98.
24 Works by Kenneth E. Bailey include: “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 34–54; “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Expository Times 106 (1995): 363–67; Poet and Peasant/Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 206n176, recommends three other volumes that provide some confirmation of Bailey’s ideas: J. Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); Vansina, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (London: Routledge, 1965); I. Okpewho, African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character and Continuity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992). N. T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God, 133n22 recommends another text to augment Bailey’s approach, as well: Henry Wansbrough, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
25 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, esp. 133–37. Wright provides additional worthwhile insights on Bailey too, on 53, 100, 129 (esp. n. 15), 170, 175n118, 179.
26 Wright, 135.
27 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 205–10, esp. 206.
28 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 252–63.
29 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 176–84, with the heading above on 180, 205–10. Cf. the input and evaluation by Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 260–63.
30 Dunn, 210–54.
31 Dunn, 881–84, emphasis in the original. Subpoints follow. The list is also given on 335–36.
32 Ancient historian Lucian specifically mentions and complains about this sort of misrepresentation in his text How to Write History, trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), 43–45; cf. an author’s work being destroyed by Alexander the Great because the writer bragged of misrepresenting Alexander’s exploits (19), as well as Lucian asserting that historians should never lie (11) or exaggerate (13).
33 Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 214–20; cf. Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog, eds., Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), “Introduction”; see also Bauckham’s summary here, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 8–11.
34 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 6, 240, 260, 304–5.
35 Bauckham, 10–11, 262–63.
36 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133–37.
37 Compared with the earlier list of seven mutations outlined at the outset of this chapter, Wright maintains the same number of (four) comments here, but the numbering and amount of details vary. The summary in the dialogue with Crossan is by far the briefest; see Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21.
38 As we unpack these four areas, we will augment Wright’s rather brief comments with some additional thoughts.
39 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 57. Cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 608, for some similar thoughts that are not quite as hard hitting.
40 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21.
41 For two examples in Luke, the risen Jesus shares with Cleopas and his companion in Emmaus how, according to the prophets, the Messiah had to suffer death and then “to enter into glory” (24:26). Several verses later, Jesus goes through a number of Old Testament texts and makes similar comments (24:45–47). True, some might want to remind Wright of the obvious: since each of the resurrection narratives is much shorter than the rest of that Gospel as a whole, one would expect less of these mentions, so even a few go a long way. Even so, some items still need to be noted: (1) Wright allows that there were a few such exceptions. (2) There are still no citations to particular Old Testament prophets or books being mentioned in the resurrection narratives. (3) Lastly, concerning our two examples above being found only in Luke, Wright could respond that these cases are probably part of the “personal polishing” and light editing that he had already conceded; see Surprised by Hope, 57.
42 Wright, 54.
43 Wright, 55.
44 Occasionally, critical scholars will question the historicity or the value of the women’s testimony. For example, agnostic/atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann thinks that the testimony of the women is a late, apologetically motivated move in Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 118 (see chap. 6, n. 173). These objections are considered in the chapter on the empty tomb. But it will simply be noted, in the spirit of a chapter that is already populated with many examples of critical scholars who freely accept the arguments here, that another agnostic New Testament scholar, A. J. M. Wedderburn, criticizes Lüdemann for his thesis. Wedderburn argues well that rather than being invented for apologetic purposes, Lüdemann’s thesis “crumbles away,” as it is more likely that the women witnesses to the empty tomb “played the major role in the earliest stages of the events of Easter . . . and that the Gospels have retained this tradition despite its shortcomings as evidence. It is far likelier that a prominent role of women, particularly Mary of Magdala, was later suppressed.” Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 57–61 (see chap. 1, n. 42).
45 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607. The treatment in this text (607–8) is the most detailed of Wright’s explanations of his third point.
46 Some critical scholars have suggested that perhaps the transfigured Jesus (Mark 9:2–9 and parallels) or the Jesus of John’s initial vision in Rev 1:9–20 were transplanted resurrection appearances that were separated from the resurrection narratives. But these certainly seem to be cases of special pleading. There is no hint that either episode was more than a heavenly vision, and though visions are also described throughout the Bible, we do not automatically treat them as resurrection appearances. Moreover, as the transfiguration account ends, Jesus even tells the three disciples accompanying him that they were forbidden to tell anyone about the event until after he had died and was raised from the dead (Mark 9:9–10; Matt 17:9). So the story would have to be wrenched from its context as well. Further, the vision in Revelation depicts Jesus as having white hair, with eyes like blazing fire, feet like glowing brass, with a double-edged sword in his mouth (Rev 1:14–16), plainly an eschatological vision lacking any historical touchpoints! These suggestions certainly appear to entail uphill arguments.
47 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 55.
48 Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chap. 6 (see chap. 2, n. 33); Habermas, The Resurrection: Heart of New Testament Doctrine (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2000), see chap. 5, “Raised Like Jesus.”
49 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21; also, Wright, Surprised by Hope, 56; cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 603.
50 Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:21–23; 21:15–17; Acts 1:8. When on earlier occasions Jesus sent out both the Twelve (Matt 10:1, 7–8) and the Seventy (Luke 10:1–2, 9–11, 17), he also told them to preach the Gospel of the kingdom of God, adding that they should freely heal the sick and cast out demons.
51 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 135.
52 Two important items must be noted here. First, in this list of New Testaments texts, this is one of the only places where there is a mixing and matching of some passages that are appreciated by critical scholars along with others that are not. However, this is not an apologetic argument where we are attempting to convince skeptical scholars by using a minimal amount of only their data. After all, even if critics think some of these noncritical texts are of later provenance, or were not written by this or that author, the passages are still very helpful in pointing out the chief ways that tradition was passed on in the earliest church. Our mention of Dunn in the next paragraph, who cites dozens of similar non-critically accepted texts, apparently is making this same point. Second, the majority of these texts were taken from the Gospels, though some were also drawn from various Epistles. While this chapter treats the former subject, the other texts still contribute to the prevailing notion in the early church as to the nature of tradition, which is our overall theme.
53 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 176–81.
54 As even Marcus Borg asserts, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 59–61, 65–66 (see chap. 2, n. 32). The quotation is from 61; a similar statement occurs on 59.
55 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 177–78.
56 Examples of agnostics alone who hold this view of dates in the 30s for the creedal traditions include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 140–41, 172, 251; Casey, Jesus, 185, 187; Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 171, 176, 178, 186 (see chap. 15, n. 33); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113–17.
57 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 57.
58 Casey, Jesus, 81, 90, 108.
59 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 208 (see chap. 4, n. 41).
60 Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is largely dedicated to setting this thesis on stronger footing throughout. Some key pages include 231–33; 330–35; 341–46.