Oral Tradition; Style

Jan Vansina’s study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, demonstrates that fictional legends and historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other.  Much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately. Research into oral transmission shows that custodians of oral tradition are able to transmit large blocks of material very accurately over time.  Furthermore, Richard Bauckham has compiled a great deal of research by psychologists on the marks of recollected memory.

Recollected memory is selective—it fixes on unique and consequential events, it retains irrelevant detail, it takes the limited vantage point of a participant rather than that of an omniscient narrator, and it shows signs of frequent rehearsal.  Bauckham then shows these same marks in the gospel narratives.

Vivid and important events can stay with you for decades if frequently rehearsed and/or retold. Factor in that disciples in the ancient world were expected to memorize their masters’ teachings, and that many of Jesus’ statements are presented in a form that was designed for memorization, and you have every reason to trust the accounts. 

Now consider the style of writing. In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction. Ancient fiction was nothing like modern fiction. Modern fiction is realistic. It contains details and dialogue and reads like an eyewitness account. This genre of fiction, however, only developed within the last three hundred years. In ancient times, romances, epics, or legends were high and remote. Details were spare and only included if they promoted character development or drove the plot.

Next time: C. S. Lewis’ take on the writing style of the New Testament.

Eyewitnesses and the New Testament

Returning to the viability of the New Testament: Richard Bauckham uses evidence within the gospels themselves to show that the gospel writers named their eyewitness sources within the text to assure readers of their accounts’ authenticity.  Mark, for example, says that the man who helped Jesus carry his cross to Calvary “was the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:21).  There is no reason for the author to include such names unless the readers know or could have access to them. Mark is saying, “Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, if you want you can go and ask them.”

Paul also appeals to readers to check with living eyewitnesses if they want to establish the truth of what he is saying about the events of Jesus’s life (1 Corinthians 15:1-6).  Paul also refers to a body of five hundred eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at once. You can’t write that in a document designed for public reading unless there really were surviving witnesses whose testimony agreed with and who could confirm what the author said.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were recognized as authoritative eyewitness accounts almost immediately, and so we have Irenaeus of Lyons in 160 A.D. declaring that there were four, and only four, gospels.  The widespread idea, promoted by The Da Vinci Code, that the Emperor Constantine –in the year 325 - determined the New Testament canon, casting aside the earlier and supposedly more authentic Gnostic gospels, simply is not true.

With the reliance and availability of so many direct observers, it would have been impossible for this new faith to spread as it did had Jesus never said or done the things mentioned in the gospel accounts.

Women, Suicide, and the Mass

Something a bit different this week from the LA Times of June 29:

Against a grim backdrop of rising suicide rates among American women, new research has revealed a blinding shaft of light: One group of women — practicing Catholics — appears to have bucked the national trend toward despair and self-harm.

Compared with women who never participated in religious services, women who attended any religious service once a week or more were five times less likely to commit suicide between 1996 and 2010, says a study published Wednesday by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Psychiatry.

It’s not clear how widely the findings can be applied to a diverse population of American women. In a study population made up of nurses and dominated by women who identified themselves as either Catholic or Protestant, the suicide rate observed was about half that for U.S. women as a whole. Of 89,708 participants aged 30 to 55, 36 committed suicide at some point over 15 years.

The women’s church attendance was not the only factor; which church they attended mattered as well.  Protestant women who worshiped weekly at church were far less likely to take their own lives than were women who seldom or never attended services. But these same Protestant women were still seven times more likely to die by their own hand than were their devout Catholic sisters.

Among especially devout Catholic women — those in the pews more than once a week — suicides were a vanishing phenomenon.  Among the 6,999 Catholic women who said they attended mass more than once a week, there was not a single suicide.