24
tradition and partially from these written notebooks of material used privately for
memorization.106 To this end he writes, “In reality there was hardly a great difference between
memorized written texts and memorized oral texts of the same type.”107
While Gerhardsson’s model does have some strengths, such as the aforementioned
primacy of place of the apostles and the attribution of the importance of the Jesus material in
its preservation and transmission, there are also some serious critiques of it. Take, for example,
the foundation of Gerhardsson’s model, which is built upon the rabbinic traditions of
memorization. Scholars have considered this an anachronistic assumption by trying to impose
mishnaic rabbinical tradition upon second temple Judaism.108
Secondly, the idea of Jesus as simply a teacher who wanted his message memorized
verbatim has been found problematic by many scholars.109 There is no evidence anywhere in
the New Testament that Jesus commanded or taught his disciples in such a way as to indicate
his desire for rote memorization.110 There is also no indication that the early Church treated the
transmission of tradition in this manner.111 Evidence is also lacking for the supposition by
Gerhardsson that memorizers of tradition kept notebooks or writings as aids. 112 This alone
would seem to undercut the theory of written texts (notebooks) and oral memorization as the
two streams by which the written gospels were formed. Perhaps one of the biggest problems
106
Ibid.
Wansbrough, 308.
108
Kelber, Chapter 1; Wansbrough, 123.
109
Wansbrough, 122.
110
Kelber, Chapter 1.
111
Bauckham, location 4091-4093, Kindle edition.
112
Kelber, Chapter 1.
107