Question

Theology Question:

How does the fact that the Gospels are the product of a society that transmitted most of its historical activities by means of oral transmission differ from your understanding of history? Does this diminish in any way your confidence in what you read? Explain your response.

Answer 1

What we understand as history has mostly come from written sources, such as books, diaries, notes, autobiographies, biographies, inscriptions and more. Gospels come from an oral tradition, meaning the they were transferred by reciting and memorizing- from one person to another, from one place to another, and from one time to another.

There is no denying that written methods have one big advantage- they are likely to remain the same. Not that the person copying a source (there were no printing press in those times) couldn't have changed some things here and there- based on their biases and understanding, but for the most part written sources remain the same- especially if we get the original manuscript. Seen from that perspective, it indeed seem to me that it would've been better if these were written sources rather than oral tradition. On the other hand, there are communities which have oral traditions and have been able to keep the exact same language and material- for examples Hindus in some parts of India. So, its not unheard of and Gospels are not an anomaly. Not to mention the subject is such that it lends to itself to many interpretations anyway, even if in written form.

So, I would summarize it by saying that while I personally would've preferred it slightly that these were written sources, it doesn't diminish my confidence in them by an appreciable margin.