Controlled Oral Tradition

I think we need to be clear at the outset that oral tradition is a wide term that potentially includes gossip, but at the other extreme we see, for example, the oral transmission of the Talmud, which was tightly controlled to preserve it. Thus we can see a distinction between controlled and uncontrolled oral tradition, and indeed a spectrum of possibilities between the extremes.

Jesus' Teaching

I think an argument can be made that there was a controlled oral tradition among the disciples, and we can see that in the gospel accounts.

Mark 3:13 And He *went up on the mountain and *summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. 14 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, 15 and to have authority to cast out the demons. 16 And He appointed the twelve:

Mark 6:7 And He *summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits; 8 and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff—no bread, no [f]bag, no money in their belt— 9 but [g]to wear sandals; and He added, “Do not put on two [h]tunics.” 10 And He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you [i]leave town. 11 Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust [j]off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them.” 12 They went out and [k]preached that men should repent. 13 And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.

In Mark 3 the disciples are appointed. Some time later they are sent out. It is certainly plausible that the intervening time was spent with Jesus teaching and the disciples memorising. Perhaps hey were sent out in pairs so they could correct each other when they got the teachings wrong.

We cannot say for sure, but it seems likely this is what Jesus would want to do, it fits what we know of the era.

Jesus' Teaching, After the crucifixion

That said, there is some evidence that this oral tradition was not tightly controlled at all, and Paul spends much of his letters admonishing the early churches for following different teachings.

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you [c]by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

2 Cor 11:4 For if [b]one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

It is possible this is due to a discontinuity between Paul and the disciples. The disciples were trained by Jesus, but Paul, at least to some degree, went his own way, drawing on his own supposed revelation from God. At once we can see a point where the oral tradition was broken.

It is also worth pointing out that the primary control in the process was Jesus himself, and once he was gone it is plausible that there was no control. Furthermore, the disciples were left in a position of trying to work out for themselves what had happened and what it all meant. The gospels are clear that they did not understand what had happened to Jesus. Their attempts to find answers must have impacted the oral tradition, and in all likelihood did so in an uncontrolled manner.

The Passion Narrative

When we consider the passion narrative (or indeed any history of Jesus; what he did, rather than what he said), the situation is somewhat different to he teachings. In this case we have no reason to suppose the oral tradition was controlled at all.

1. Rather than a single person who puts the teachings into words, we have numerous people with their own perspectives potentially contributing.
2. Was there any editorial control on what got added to the tradition? It is very doubtful.
3. Was there anyone ensuring it was properly memorised? Again, very doubtful.

The biggest argument against a controlled oral tradition of the passion narrative is the way the story changed over the decades of the first century, with the empty tomb appearing between Paul and Mark, the Jerusalem appearances between Mark and Luke, etc. If there really was a controlled oral tradition, we would expect the disciples to see the risen Jesus in the same order in every account. That is patently not the case.

If the written tradition was so freely embellished, how can we possibly imagine the oral tradition was kept any better?

The biggest argument against a controlled oral tradition of the passion narrative is the way the story changed over the decades of the first century. The creed in Paul and the gospel accounts show a very clear development of the story. The empty tomb was invented between Paul and Mark. The Jerusalem sightings between Mark and Luke with a transitional story in Matthew. The guard on the tomb was invented between Mark and Matthew. The spear in the side between Luke and John. The burial description gets more and more elaborate through the gospels.

If there really was a controlled oral tradition, we would expect the disciples to see the risen Jesus in the same order in every account. That is patently not the case.


Further reading see here and here.