22. The Gospels and Oral Tradition

When studying Gospel texts we should remember that they arose at a certain occasion in Jesus' life. We call this the original "situation-in-life" of the text. For instance, it makes a great difference whether Jesus' teaching: "You are the Light of the World", was said in the situation of talking to the Pharisees, or during instruction of ordinary Jewish listeners, or in a special address to the disciples only. The original situation-in-life also called ("setting-in-life") often explains why Jesus used these words and not other ones.

Apart from this original situation-in-life, there usually was another "situation", namely the situation in the Early Church,that influenced the formulation of the Gospel text. For instance, St Luke found himself in the situation of having to explain Jesus' teaching to Greek converts. That is why he explained Jesus' words: "Forgive us our debts" as "Forgive us our sins", etc. (see ch. 19).

In this lesson we are going to study one more example of how a Gospel text was formulated by Jesus, how it was handed down by the apostles and finally written down by the evangelists. It concerns Jesus' teaching in Mt 15:1-9 and Mk 7:1-13. Please, read the translations first (which have been kept as literal as possible) and then study the observations which we can make on them.

The dispute about tradition

(Matthew's version, Mt 15:1-9)
vs 1. Then came to Jesus Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem and said:
2. "WHY do your disciples TRANSGRESS the TRADITION of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat!"
3. He answered and said: "WHY do you TRANSGRESS the COMMANDMENT of God for the sake of your TRADITION?
(a) 4. For God commanded: 'HONOUR your father and your mother' and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, dying let him die!'
5. But you say: 'If anyone tells his father or mother, What you would have gained from me is given. to God, he need not honour his father'
6. So for the sake of your TRADITION you have made void the LAW of God!
(b) 7. You hypocrites! RIGHTLY did Isaiah prophesy of you saying:
8. 'This people HONOURS Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
9. In vain do they worship Me Teaching as teachings the COMMANDMENTS of men!'

The dispute about tradition .......................................... (Mark's version Mk 7:1-13)

vs 1. Now the Pharisees gathered unto Him and some of the scribes that had come from Jerusalem
2. and seeing some of His disciples eat With hands defiled (that is unwashed)
3. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat, unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders.
4. And when they come from the Market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze,
5. and the Pharisees and scribes asked Him: 'WHY do your disciples not walk according to the TRADITION of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?'
6. And He said to them: (b) "RIGHTLY did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people HONOURS Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
7. In vain do they worship Me teaching as teachings the COMMANDMENTS of men! "
8. Rejecting the precept of God you hold fast to the TRADITION of men, (according to ancient manuscripts) the washings of vases and cups! And many similar things you do!
(a) 9. And He said to them: "RIGHTLY - is it? - you put aside the precept of God in order to keep your TRADITION?"
10. For Moses commanded: 'HONOUR your father and your mother' and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother dying let him die!'
11. But you say: If a man tells his father or mother: What you would have gained from me is 'Corban' (that is 'a gift')
12. then you do not permit him to do anything for father or mother,
13. thus making void the word of God for the sake of your TRADITION which you hand on! And many similar things you' do!

The text lead us to the following observations:

1. First Observation:

The original situation of the passage was the conflict between Christ's teaching and the scribes' adherence to the tradition of the elders.

The whole text abounds with reference to the Pharisaical practice of religion according to the 'traditions':

— The "washing of hands" (Mk 7:1-5; Mt 15:) does not refer to a real washing for the sake of hygiene. The Apostles will certainly not have eaten with hands that were really covered with dust or dirt. The washing meant is a 'ritual' one (as Mark explains, vs. 2-5) and it was a highly complicated affair involving some 600 prescriptions. A slight neglect in any of these sufficed to have the hands considered 'defiled'. (Mk. 7:2) This topic presupposes therefore, a typically Jewish context.

— Jesus adduces an example of how the Scribes evade the law. The Jews could vow something to God by calling it 'Corban' (Mk 7:11; Mt 15:5). A thing vowed to God could not be given to a human person. But if the vow was made in a vague manner, no immediate obligation followed from it. In the example Christ adduces a person does not want to give some property to his needy parents. To escape this obligation he makes a vague vow. ("all I could give' etc.) and from this two advantages flow: — he need not give it to his parents, since it is a thing vowed to GOD. —
he need not give anything to the Temple, since the vow is too vague to impose a direct obligation!

Small wonder that Christ is angry about such hypocrisy! This type of legalism is, again, typically Jewish rabbinical. The whole question of the 'traditions of the elders', the argumentation with scriptural quotation. and the terminology involved also point to the same context of a rabbinical dispute. We observe, in other words, that this passage shows in its formulation that the situation in which it came about (in which it was formulated) must be identified with the conflict between Christ's teaching and rabbinical practice.

2. Second Observation:

The way in which MARK and MATTHEW have the passage in common suggests that both draw from sources that go back to an oral tradition.

— We should, first of all, notice the remarkable agreement in many formulations. The quotation from Isaiah, e.g., is almost verbally the same. (Mt 15:7-9; Mk 7:6-7). This is all the more remarkable since the quotation deviates somewhat from the standard Greek translation (the Septuagint).

— Yet, there are also many small differences which cannot be explained by the redaction of the evangelists alone. For example:
MATTHEW says: "God commanded: Honour your father", etc. (Mt 15:4).
MARK says: "Moses commanded: Honour your father", etc. (Mk 7:10).
MATTHEW says: "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" (Mt 15:2).
MARK says: "why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?" (Mk 7:5).
MATTHEW has: (i) Honouring parents; (ii) quotation from Isaiah.
MARK has: (i) quotation from Isaiah;. (ii) honouring parents. In these and more such differences there is no reason to accept that they were all effected by the evangelists. MATTHEW and MARK must have drawn from sources that contained these small differences.

— The agreement and the small differences can only be explained by the fluctuation in oral, memorized texts. Written texts do not allow of any changes of this kind. But memorized texts could have many small differences, such as whether 'God' commanded or 'Moses', whether the texts said 'transgressing' or 'not walking according to', whether this passage or that came first, etc. We observe, therefore, that the two versions in Matthew and Mark draw from sources which go back toan oral, memorized tradition:

An oral, memorized! tradition (Aramaic, then Greek) ..............................................explains the sameness

( form a written down) ....................(form b written down).......................................explains the difference

Version in MATTHEW....................Version in MARK...................................= small changes made by the evangelists

Third Observation:

The present form of the Greek text in MATTHEW and MARK proves that the original oral, memorized formulation was in Aramaic.

The terminology used proves this abundantly. MARK still uses the original 'corban'. (Mk 7:11) But also the other terms such as 'defiled' hands (Mk 7:2), 'tradition of the elders' (Mt 15:2; Mk 7:5), to 'transgress' (Mt 15:3), to 'make void (Mt 15:6; Mk 7:13)and to 'walk according to' (Mk 7:5) make no sense in Greek. Their meaning becomes clear if we understand that they are the literal translations of rabbinical Aramaic terms. The terms permeate the passage to such an extent that an Aramaic original must be accepted.

The Aramaic origin can also be illustrated from the constructions in the passage. The turn of phrase 'Rightly did Isaiah prophesy' (Greek: kalôs) is strange in Greek. But we understand it fully when we remember the Hebrew (and Aramaic construction hetîb, literally 'to make it good to do something' i.e. to do something rightly, etc. Another clear example we may see in the sentence construction of Mk 7:2 and 5: "seeing some eat...and the Pharisees asked". This goes contrary to Greek idiom, but the intermediate 'and' (between the main clause and the subsidiary ones) is characteristic of Aramaic. Since some of these features are present in MATTHEW and MARK at the same time we must conclude that the oral, memorized tradition that precedes their sources was formulated in Aramaic.

4. Fourth Observation:

MNEMONIC HELPS: aids in learning a text by heart.

We can still recognize in the versions of MATTHEW and MARK the characteristics (rhythm, structure, key words, mnemonic helps) of a MEMORIZED formulation.

The Jews used to memorize the teachings of famous scribes. The whole system of teaching was geared to this. For hundreds of years the teaching of the Rabbis (Mishnah, Talmud) were not written down at all, but simply learned by heart and so handed on. About the accuracy of this system of retaining knowledge we have excellent proofs in the Jewish sources.

To make it easier to learn texts by heart the matter was arranged in a way that would easily cling to memory and imagination. Such characteristics of memorized texts we also find in this passage:
— Jesus' reply to the Scribes is repeated three times: once in the general opening statement, and twice in the refrain.
— The scribes' question and Jesus' reply being the same word "WHY" (Mâdûao), which people would easily remember.
— Moreover, in both arguments we find the opening word 'RIGHTLY' (Hebi) and the key word 'HONOUR' (kabad). This links both arguments.
— The Aramaic must also have been rhythmic. We can still see this in some parts, as in Mt 15:1-3.

Again we come to conclusion that an Aramaic memorised, formulation must have preceded the sources underlying MATTHEW and MARK

5: Fifth Observation:

There are many indications that favour the hypothesis that Jesus Himself made the original Aramaic formulation which was memorized by the disciples.

— The passage in question corresponds in structure precisely to similar opinions expressed by famous Rabbis. When such Rabbis had had long discussions, they would come to a brief conclusion. Their disciples had to learn by heart:

(a) the introduction regarding the topic of discussion. (b) the Rabbi's opinion. (c) the Rabbi's arguments in a very concise form.

Precisely the same structure we find in this passage and since we know that Jesus taught as a Rabbi, we have to presume that Jesus acted in the same way. After the discussion with the Pharisees from Jerusalem He Himself expressed His arguments in the form in which the disciples had to learn them.

— The topic of discussion and Jesus' arguments reflect the situation before Jesus' resurrection. The whole centre of thought lies in the field of Jesus' new doctrine. Whereas after the resurrection attention is focussed on Jesus' new personality, we find that the preaching before the resurrection contains the simple proclamation of Jesus' teaching. In this passage, e.g. the force of the argument rests on two excellent quotations from the Old Testament and not on the authority of Jesus as revealer of God's will. Jesus fights the Pharisees on their own grounds. He proves His superiority as a Rabbi and arms His disciples against Pharisaic objections with excellent scribal arguments. The passage thus reflects the pre-resurrectional need of apostolic preaching in the face of scribal opposition.

The passage, as so many others, contains such a direct and revolutionary vision of God and morality that it cannot be ascribed to an amorphous community, such as the Early Christians. Only one, outstanding, leading thinker could be the source of such a harmonious and fresh doctrine. This again confirms that the formulation of our passage should go back to the 'master mind' to Christ himself.

CONCLUSION: We might summarize the formation of this passage in the following way:

Occasion: Some important scribes and. Pharisees came to Jesus. They accused Jesus of not observing the traditions. Jesus replies to them, proving their wrong approach with examples and quotations.

Formulation: After the scribes have gone, Jesus discusses the matter again with His disciples. In view of similar opposition they will experience during their preaching and to inculcate a new attitude, Jesus formulated His answer. The Apostles learned it by heart.

Tradition: Jesus' replies to the Pharisees were handed on in oral tradition. Also after the resurrection they proved very useful in the contact with Pharisaism.

Transition into the Hellenistic world: Greek written sources.
When non-Jews also became Christians a threefold adaptation had to be made: (a) the text had to be translated into Greek; (b) some notions had to be explained (as MARK does in Mk 7:3-4) and (c) the texts had to be written down, since non Jews were not used to memorizing teachings.

Assumption into the Gospels:
In slightly different forms the passage reached MATTHEW and MARK who assumed it into their Gospels. These evangelists also made minor adjustments to fit the passages into their composition. This is how the passage reached its final form, such as we find in the Gospels.

Not all passages were formulated by Jesus Himself. Some passages were formulated in the Early Church, when the Apostles saw that some words or deeds of Jesus (not yet formulated in oral tradition) had relevance for the Church of their time.

But the story of the formation of this passage on the dispute regarding the traditions would seem to represent fairly well how the bulk of the synoptic traditions were formed.

The dispute about tradition.

THE RECONSTRUCTED MEMORIZED ORAL VERSION

Introduction:

Jesus teaches as a Rabbi:

The Stages of Gospel Formation

From what we have seen in this chapter, and in the chapters on the history of the Our Father (chapter 19 and 20) and on the curse of the fig tree (chapter 21), we can now make a more general description of how the Gospels were formed. Modern writers on the Gospels often presuppose that we know about this process of Gospel formation, and they normally use certain accepted terms. In the survey which now follows care has been taken to include most of these terms and they will be underlined at their first occurrence.

1. From the year 27 to 30 A.D. Jesus Christ preached in Palestine. He announced the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. His teaching followed the well-known pattern of prophetic instruction: He never treated His subject systematically, but in various places and at various occasions he taught different aspects of His Kingdom.

Jesus selected some disciples whom He instructed more personally. Also this personal instruction was not theoretical and abstract but very direct and concrete. Jesus made His apostles learn certain words or sayings by heart, He did not command them at that time to write down any particulars. We have no evidence, in fact, of any writing done by the Apostles during that period. Jesus simply acted and taught, giving special explanations to His disciples.

At the last supper (Jn 16:12-15; 15:26-27) and after His resurrection (Act 1:8) Jesus promised the future assistance of the Holy Spirit. He would enlighten them and instruct them as to what to teach.

The period of Jesus' own teaching is generally called the ministry of the "historical Jesus." The words He spoke and the deeds He did are labelled the "ipsissima verba et acta Jesu."

2. From the year 30 onwards, the Apostles started to proclaim Jesus Christ. An outline of their preaching can be found in the many sermons recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Of course, their teaching could not content itself with this outline. Remembering what Jesus had done and what He had said, they would relate these acts and words to the new faithful. This teaching is called the "oral catechesis", in the "Apostolic Church".

The oral catechesis, like Jesus' own preaching, was no systematic treatise. at least at its beginnings. According to the need of the early Church the Apostles - guided by the Holy Spirit - would bring forward certain words and actions of Jesus. Meeting adherents of John the Baptist, for example, they would recall John's testimony about Jesus. (Mt 3:10-12; Mk 1:7-8; Lk 3:15-18) In this way John the Baptist's disciples could easily be persuaded to accept Jesus. (cf. Acts 19:1-7) A short, complete part of Apostolic teaching like John's testimony recalled by them. (Mt 3:10-12) is technically styled a "passage" or "pericope". The situation that gave rise to the recalling and shaping of such a passage (as the encounter with John the Baptist's disciples) is named the "Sitz-im-Leben"or "original situation" of the passage. These passages were repeated over and over again, so that they could be memorized by the disciples. In this way they gradually received their fixed form. Moreover, various passages were strung together, perhaps even on the pattern of Apostolic kerygma; Jesus' miracles, His sayings, His death, His resurrection.

Since it is in the preaching about Christ that this oral catechesis arose, the religious salvation, eternal aspects of Christ's deeds and actions would be stressed. The oral catechesis did not want to give a detailed, chronological, "photographic" account of Jesus Christ. It rather presents Christ as the Saviour, the Messias, the Head of the Church, the Son of God. All Christ's sayings and actions are now understood in the light of the resurrection. The Apostles were no cool stenographic observers, but enthusiastic proclaimers of the world's Redeemer; Jesus Christ. This aspect of Christ, or rather Christ as presented by the early Church, is called the "Christ of Faith" (in opposition to the "historical Jesus", of no. 1).

3. From the year 40 onwards. For the benefit of the preachers and catechists parts of the oral catechesis was rather soon committed to writing. Collections of deeds and sayings of Christ were circulating the Church. Two of these "written sources" or "Documents" have been reconstructed by scholars:

a) "Urmark" "original Mark" ) which received its name from the fact that the gospel of Mark is almost entirely taken from this source. The document was known to Matthew, Mark and Luke. All three amply drew from it in composing their gospels.

b) "Q", ( the German word "Quelle" means "source" ) . This document was known to Matthew and Luke.

4. From the year 50 onwards. The growing Church demanded a more uniform and complete presentation of its teaching. Some talented, zealous preachers set about to do this work. They are known as Evangelists. Each of these Evangelists, writing in very definite and concrete circumstances, had particular views, a circumscribed purpose and personal preferences. Mark and Luke wrote for Gentile Christians: Matthew for Jews. Mark concentrates on Jesus' deeds: Matthew and Luke carefully record many of Christ's smaller sayings. Matthew, writing for Jews, stresses Jesus' fulfilment as Messias: Luke wants to extol Jesus' love for all men, also for the Non-Jews. In short: each evangelist, having his own "themes"and gifted with his own literary abilities, arranged and presented the matter in his own way. This arrangement is called the literary composition". The outcome of the composition is a "Gospel".

Three of these evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, drew from the same written sources: Urmark and Q. That is why they have many passages in common. These common passages are styled "parallel passages". Passages which an evangelist does not have in common with others are known as "proper passages". It should be noted, however, that even in the parallel passages the literary preference and thematic purpose of the evangelists can clearly be seen. Moreover, the evangelists may have had (and surely had!) other written (and unwritten) sources at their disposal from which they drew their material. Since "Matthew, Mark and Luke" have many parallel passages, they are called the Synoptic Gospels.

Each of these evangelists presents Christ in a slightly different manner. It is therefore customary to refer to "the Christ of Matthew," "the Christ of Luke", "the Christ of Mark", "the Synoptic Christ", "the Christ of John".