Decades passed between the events of Jesus’ life and the writing of the four Gospels. During this time, Christians spread of the stories of Jesus’ messages, miracles, and overall ministry. But did they transmit these accounts accurately? How do we know if these stories were passed along with precision, rather than with exaggeration or embellishment? Critic Bart Ehrman asserts,
Nearly all of these storytellers had no independent knowledge of what really happened [to Jesus]. It takes little imagination to realize what happened to the stories. You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game ‘telephone.’ A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants.[1]
Ehrman compares the transmission of the historical traditions of Jesus to the children’s game of Telephone. If we were to be generous, we might think that Bart Ehrman’s “analogy well” was dry the day he wrote this. However, this is not the case. He really likes this illustration, and continues to use it over and over. Indeed, despite repeated criticisms of this analogy, Ehrman even included it in the fifth edition his textbook on the history of the New Testament (2012).
Sadly, many people have adopted this view.
The early Christians had excellent RECALL
The children’s game of Telephone is a deeply distorted way of describing the transmission of the earliest accounts of Jesus. As we will see, the historical accounts of Jesus’ life were communicated, collected, and conserved with accuracy and integrity. To help the reader remember the ways in which the early Christians communicated about the life and teachings of Jesus, we will use the acronym RECALL:
- REPEATED TEACHINGS: Jesus repeated his teachings over and over which aided memorization.
- EARLY EYEWITNESSES: The Gospels preserved early, eyewitness testimony.
- COLLECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Entire Christian communities—not individuals—received and delivered these historical accounts.
- APOSTOLIC OVERSIGHT: The apostles supervised and corrected the spread of the message.
- LIFE-CHANGING & LIFE-AND-DEATH TEACHING: This type of teaching led the early Christians to handle it accurately.
REPEATED TEACHINGS: Jesus repeated his teachings over and over which aided memorization
As an itinerant teacher, Jesus constantly taught in new cities and to new audiences. Think about it: Are we honestly supposed to believe that Jesus created brand new teachings every time he entered a new city? If the audience was entirely new, he likely repeated his teachings. This would mean that Jesus’ disciples heard his teachings over and over and over and over and over and over and…. (Well, you get the idea.) After 3.5 years of following Jesus, these teachings would have been seared into their minds!
The Gospels themselves give evidence of this practice of repetition. Even in the same Gospel, we see that Jesus repeated himself. A few examples of this will suffice:
(1) Oft-repeated riddles. Jesus said, “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it” (Mt. 10:39; 16:25; Mk. 8:35; Lk. 9:24; 17:33; Jn. 12:25). This little riddle appears in all four gospels at least once, and in Matthew and Luke twice. Moreover, Jesus spoke this aphorism in different settings, which shows that he clearly repeated this little teaching: He used this teaching on his tour of Galilee (Mt. 10:39), in Caesarea Philippi (Mt. 16:25; Mk. 8:35; Lk. 9:24), on his way to Jerusalem (Lk. 17:33), and on the last week of his life (Jn. 12:25). Other examples would include:
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mk. 4:9, 23; 7:16; Lk. 8:8; 14:35).
“Many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Mt. 19:30; 20:16).
“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell” (Mt. 5:29-30; 18:8-9).
(2) Jesus’ prediction of his death and resurrection. In Mark alone, we see that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection five times (Mk. 8:31; 9:9, 31-32; 10:33-34; 14:28). He had no problem repeating this important prediction over and over.
(3) Receiving the kingdom like a child. Jesus used the humility of children to describe how to come to faith. He did this twice in Matthew (Mt. 18:13; 19:14), which again demonstrates his use of repetition (cf. Mk. 10:15; Lk. 18:17).
(4) The Lord’s Prayer. Jesus most likely used this model prayer multiple times. For one, it was given as a pattern of prayer (Mt. 6:9), so we would expect him to reuse it. Second, Jesus used this model prayer in different locations: Matthew places the Lord’s Prayer in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 6:9-13), while Luke places it after Jesus had finished praying in solitude (Lk. 11:1-4). Third, Luke’s version is shorter than Matthew’s, and it isn’t likely for Luke to cut from such an important prayer as this.
(5) The Sermon on the Mount/Plain. We must confess that our view is held by a small minority of commentators. But that being said, we would argue that Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) is a different teaching than Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:17-49). Indeed, when we compare the two, we see that the “differences are many,”[2] and there is a “considerable difference in content.”[3] For one, the location is different. Matthew records that Jesus “went up on the mountain” to teach (Mt. 5:1) and he “came down from the mountain” when he was finished teaching (Mt. 8:1). Luke, however, states that Jesus “came down” from a mountain to begin this teaching (Lk. 6:12, 17). Second, the length is different. Matthew records 107 verses, while Luke records only 30 verses. Luke spreads much of Matthew’s content throughout the life of Jesus, rather than clumping it all here (Lk. 8:16; 11:2-4, 9-13, 33-35; 12:22-34, 58-59; 13:24, 26-27; 16:17-18). Third, the chronology is different. Matthew places Jesus’ teaching before Jesus chooses his twelve disciples (Mt. 10:1-4), while Luke places it after this event (Lk. 6:12-16).
As we noted above, most commentators argue that these differences can be harmonized, and both versions refer to the same teaching. This is certainly possible,[4] but a more natural reading leads us to believe that these are two separate teachings. Indeed, some commentators hold that Jesus had one sermon that was a sort of “keynote address,”[5] which he repeated over and over. Consequently, Matthew and Luke only recorded parts of this teaching that Jesus repeated over and over.
After hearing these “reruns” several dozen times, Jesus’ disciples could probably rehearse Jesus’ teachings in their sleep. Indeed, the disciples memorized Jesus’ teachings enough for Jesus to send them out to teach without supervision (Mt. 10:7; Mk. 6:12; Lk. 9:2; 10:9). In our modern world we get a sense of what this would be like when we memorize song lyrics or lines from our favorite movies. Memorization—even of large amounts of material—is not improbable.
How does this compare to the Game of Telephone? It doesn’t. How fun would Telephone be if the person sitting next to you was allowed to repeat the message dozens of times? Not even little kids would want to play the game if this was the case, because you’d get it exactly right every time!
EARLY EYEWITNESSES: The Gospels preserved early, eyewitness testimony
The sources for the Gospels were EARLY. Luke writes that he composed his Gospel by going back to those who were with Jesus “from the beginning,” and Luke states that he “investigated everything carefully from the beginning” (Lk. 1:2-3).
After the death of Judas, the apostles needed to choose a replacement. By what criteria did they pick an apostle? Good looks? High IQ? People skills? No, none of these. Luke records that the replacement needed to be with Jesus from the “beginning” of his ministry. Peter stated, “It is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22 NIV).
The apostles likely got this idea from Jesus himself. John records that Jesus told his disciples, “You [i.e. the apostles] will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (Jn. 15:27).
The sources for the Gospels were EYEWITNESSES. The early Christians placed a high premium on getting “eyewitness” sources:
Luke: “Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order” (Lk. 1:1-3).
John: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3).
John: “He who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe” (Jn. 19:35; cf. Jn. 21:24).
Peter: “We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16).
Paul: “Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen Jesus our Lord with my own eyes?” (1 Cor. 9:1 NLT)
Hebrews: “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:3 NIV).
The Gospels use the term “witness” (martus) to describe the role of the disciples, and this term refers to “one who testifies in legal matters” (BDAG). In fact, the New Testament authors use the term 30 out of 35 times to refer to eyewitness testimony.[6] Consider just a few examples:
“You are witnesses of these things” (Lk. 24:48).
“You shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
“We must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22 NLT).
“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32 NIV).
“You will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts 22:15).
“I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5:1).
Don’t miss the point. The Gospels were not based on late legends or exaggerated embellishments. The authors were either eyewitnesses themselves (Matthew & John), or they interviewed “eyewitnesses” who were with Jesus “from the beginning” (e.g. Mark & Luke). (For a defense of the traditional authorship of the Gospels, see our earlier article “Who Wrote the Four Gospels?”.)
How does this compare to the Game of Telephone? Again, it doesn’t. No one would play the game of Telephone if you were allowed to ask the first person in line what the message was. But as we have seen, the historical accounts of Jesus went back to the beginning and to the eyewitnesses themselves—not through a long line of convoluted communication.
COLLECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Entire Christian communities—not individuals—received and delivered these historical accounts
The historical accounts of Jesus’ words and works were given to groups of people—not single individuals. Indeed, the NT describes the early churches as communities of people—not individuals practicing spirituality alienated and alone. The early Christians met regularly for times of reading (1 Tim. 4:13; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27), prayer (Acts 2:42), fellowship (1 Cor. 11:18ff; Jude 12), and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23ff). During these times, they must have shared the stories about the life of Jesus. But unlike our individualistic society today, these stories were shared in communities—not from one isolated individual to another.
Early Christianity emphasized true teaching about Jesus. The apostles instructed the earliest Christians to recognize false teaching, watch out for it, and actively refute it.
“We are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14).
“Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9).
“Instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines” (1 Tim. 1:3).
“Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. 4 Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding” (1 Tim. 6:3-4 NLT).
“Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. 18 Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people” (Rom. 16:17-18 NLT).
Christian leaders needed to be able to “exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).
Jesus encouraged the church in Ephesus because they “put [false teachers] to the test” (Rev. 2:2), and Jesus criticized the church of Thyatira because they tolerated false teaching (Rev. 2:20).
These examples come from multiple NT authors and multiple different geographical locations. This shows that refuting false teaching was a major emphasis to the early Christians. Indeed we see this in 18 out of the 22 letters in the NT, which speak against false teaching.[7] Truth was very important to these early Christians.
Christian groups would correct each other in the context of community. While the apostles themselves oversaw local churches, they also taught Christians to evaluate one another in what they taught. James wrote to correct anyone who “strays from the truth” (Jas. 5:19-20). Paul told the Colossians to “teach and admonish one another” (Col. 3:16 NIV). In the context of having accurate “doctrine,” Paul stated that the early Christians needed to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:14-15). When people taught publicly, the entire church would judge whether their teaching was accurate. As Paul wrote, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (1 Cor. 14:29), and he also stated, “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The apostle John used stronger language for false teachers, when he wrote, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).
How does this compare to the Game of Telephone? Telephone would be an incredibly boring game if you could say the catchphrase out loud to the entire room at FULL VOLUME! In fact, doing so would ruin the game. But this is precisely what we see in the transmission of the accounts of Jesus’ messages, ministry, and miracles—namely, these were entrusted to entire groups, not individuals.
APOSTOLIC OVERSIGHT: The apostles supervised and corrected the spread of the message
Christians shared about Jesus’ life before the Gospels were written. However, the apostles supervised the sharing of these accounts to keep them free from embellishment, exaggeration, or error.
We see examples of the apostles supervising and correcting the message about Jesus. The early Christians listened directly to the apostles’ teachings (Acts 2:42). As Christianity grew outward geographically, the apostles would visit new churches. For instance, when a large group of Samaritans came to faith, the Jerusalem apostles “sent… Peter and John” (Acts 8:14), who probably wanted to make sure that the Samaritans were believing accurately. Likewise, the apostles visited churches to teach them face to face (2 Jn. 12; Rom. 1:11), and also to refute false teaching and false teachers (3 John 9-10; 1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 13:2, 10).
Collective communication with apostolic oversight was very reliable and stable. Dr. Kenneth Bailey[8] refers to this as an “informal controlled oral tradition.”[9] The sharing of the content is “informal” in the sense that anyone can share it (1 Cor. 11:2, 15:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). But it is also “controlled” in the sense that these Christian communities had eyewitnesses who could prevent errors from creeping in. This form of oral tradition is very reliable. Even today, entire communities can memorize huge swaths of material.[10] In fact, in some cultures, it isn’t uncommon for Muslims to memorize the entire Qur’an—sometimes without even knowing Arabic![11]
Because we don’t live in a culture of orality, some are skeptical in the reliability of oral tradition. But even though we aren’t a culture that has honed this ability, other cultures have. It is simple ethnocentrism to think that other cultures are incapable of passing along accurate teaching from memory. In fact, even in our culture, many can remember phone numbers from growing up (before we stored these numbers in smart phones). We also memorize long lines from movies or lyrics from our favorite songs. Those in theatre memorize entire scripts with some dedication and practice. In oral cultures, memorization is developed, trained, and highly valued.
How does this compare to the Game of Telephone? Just imagine playing Telephone if you could speak the phrase to the entire group (i.e. collective communication), and the person who created the phrase could correct the players if they were wrong (i.e. apostolic oversight). This change in the rules completely changes the game. The two concepts simply aren’t comparable.
LIFE-CHANGING and LIFE-AND-DEATH teaching: This type of teaching led the early Christians to handle it accurately
We probably don’t need to persuade anyone of this point, but Jesus clearly taught life-changing and life-and-death concepts. Indeed, the early Christians held Jesus’ words to be a matter of life and death. We can see why when we read his words:
“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Mt. 7:24).
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Mk. 13:31; cf. Mt. 24:35).
“He who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (Mt. 10:40).
“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (Jn. 6:63).
“Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life” (Jn. 6:67-68).
“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn. 8:31-32).
“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (Jn. 12:48).
How does this compare to the Game of Telephone? We hate to be a broken record, but there’s simply no comparison. After all, the phrases in Telephone are childish and silly—not life-changing or life-threatening. Just imagine if you were playing a game of Telephone at a work party, and someone whispered, “There’s a bomb in the room… Get out!” A message like this would have a much greater chance of being communicated clearly!
Lessons from Luke
Does this description of the transmission of the NT fit with reality? One way to check to see if we’re on the right track is to compare our findings with the introduction to the Gospel according to Luke. In this prologue, Luke explains how he wrote his Gospel, and we find that his explanation fits with what we have outlined thus far.
(Luke 1:1) “Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us.”
How “many” accounts does Luke have in mind? We know that at least Mark preceded Luke, but who else? We’re simply not sure. The term “many” is used in “rhetorical prefaces”[12] and for “rhetorical effect.”[13] Therefore, it can simply refer to “others.”
Was Luke interested in writing history? Yes, in fact the term “account” (diēgēsis) was “frequently used by Greek writers to describe historical works.”[14]
(Luke 1:2) “Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”
Is Luke referring to oral tradition here? Perhaps. After all, Luke most likely interviewed many of the eyewitnesses. However, we know that Luke used Mark as a source, and this was obviously a written tradition. We would argue that Luke used both verbal and written sources.
The term “handed down” (paradidōmi) includes both verbal and written communication.[15] For one, the definition of the word means “to pass on to another what one knows, of oral or written tradition” (BDAG). Second, this term is sometimes used for written sources. For example, Luke records, “While [Paul and Timothy] were passing through the cities, they were delivering (paradidōmi) the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Of course, this refers to the “letter” composed by the apostles and pastors at the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:23, 30), not an oral tradition. Third, some scholars like E. Earle Ellis[16] and Alan Millard[17] argue that the disciples may have immediately begun to take notes during the life of Jesus. We agree with Richard Bauckham who states that “writing and orality were not alternatives but complementary.”[18] He states that writing was actually a “supplement” to oral tradition (see 2 Thess. 2:15).
Who were Luke’s sources? Were they based on late legends or embellished accounts? Hardly! Luke states that his sources were (1) “from the beginning” and (2) “eyewitnesses.”
“From the beginning” refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.[19] Indeed, Acts confirms this understanding: “It is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22).
“Eyewitnesses” (autoptes) literally means “seeing with one’s own eyes” (BDAG). Green notes, “Luke has used the term ‘eyewitness’ in his prologue in deference to the historiographical and scientific traditions.”[20]
“Servants of the word” is found only here in the NT. It seems to refer to “men who preached the Christian gospel.”[21] The use of the Greek article before “eyewitnesses” and “servants of the word” implies that these are the same group (Acts 26:16), not separate groups of people.[22]
(Luke 1:3) “It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.”
Did Luke write in chronological order? No, but he doesn’t claim this. The term “consecutive order” (kathexēs) doesn’t necessarily mean chronological. It can refer to “logical and artistic arrangement.”[23] Specifically, it can refer to chronological (Acts 3:24), geographical (Acts 18:23), or topical/logical arrangement (Acts 11:4).[24] This term was used “throughout Greek literature by writers who sought to convince their hearers of the meticulous research and careful organization of their material.”[25]
To whom was Luke writing? “Theophilus”[26] was a literal person—not a symbolic figure (see Liefeld,[27] Morris,[28] Stein[29] and Green[30]). For one, “Theophilus” was a common name at the time. Second, the designation “most excellent” fits with an actual government official—not a symbolic person (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Third, if Luke dedicated his book to a symbolic person, this would “be unparalleled in Luke’s literary culture.”[31] Indeed, Theophilus was most likely Luke’s “patron,” who “met the costs of publishing the book.”[32] The older view—which happens to be our view—was that Luke was writing a “legal brief” to show that Christianity wasn’t dangerous to the Roman Empire. This was the occasion for writing to (and for) Theophilus.
(Luke 1:4) “So that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
Did Luke care about truth? No, he cared about the “exact truth”!
Conclusion
Does any of this sound like the game of Telephone?
Not at all! First, Jesus’ teachings were repeated over and over, rather than whispered once. Second, the writers of the Gospels went back to the early eyewitnesses, rather than getting the message at the end of a long chain of people. Third, the eyewitnesses taught the message to entire groups, rather than whispering it from one person to another. Fourth, the apostles corrected the message as it was passed along, rather than distorting the message every time it was told. And fifth, the message was incredibly important—not childish and meaningless.
[1] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 72-74.
[2] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.146.
[3] Walter Liefeld, Luke: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p.890.
[4] First, the term “mountain” can refer to a hilly area that could include a plateau or plan. Second, Luke could have selected some of Jesus’ teachings from this broader teaching, as we see in various Gospel differences. And third, the Gospels regularly arrange their material topically or logically, rather than chronologically.
[5] Walter Liefeld, Luke: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p.890.
[6] Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), p.50.
[7] Every NT letter mentions false teaching with the exception of 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, James, and 1 Peter (Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Cor. 2:17; 11:13-15; Gal. 1:6-9; 5:10-12; Eph. 4:14; Phil. 3:2; Col. 2:16-23; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 1 Tim. 1:3ff.; 4:1-5; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-8; Titus 1:10-16; 3:9-11; Heb. 13:9; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 1 Jn. 2:18-26; 4:1-6; 2 Jn. 1:7-9; 3 Jn. 1:9-10; Jude 1:4ff.; cf. Rev. 2:2, 15, 20).
[8] Kenneth Bailey was a former missionary to Bedouins and a research professor of Middle Eastern NT studies.
[9] K. E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20.2 (January 1995), pp.4-11.
[10] Bailey was a missionary to the Bedouin people, and he discovered that this community could “create (over the centuries) and sustain in current usage up to 6,000 wisdom sayings.” K. E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20.2 (January 1995), p.8.
[11] Those who memorize the Qur’an are called a Hafiz (meaning “guardian” or “memorizer”). The Qur’an is roughly two-thirds the size of the New Testament, so this is quite a feat of memorization.
[12] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.63.
[13] Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p.38.
[14] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.63.
[15] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.82.
[16] E. Earle Ellis, “New Directions in Form Criticism,” Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (WUNT 18; Tübingen: Mohr, 1978) 242-47.
[17] Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), see chapters 7-8.
[18] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2017), p.287-288.
[19] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.64.
[20] Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p.41.
[21] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.82.
[22] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.64.
Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p.41.
[23] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.83.
[24] Compare Acts 11:15 with Acts 10:44-45. This shows a topical—not chronological—arrangement.
[25] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.65.
[26] This is a compound name that means friend (philys) of God (theos). Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.66.
[27] Walter Liefeld, Luke: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p.823.
[28] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.83.
[29] Robert Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), p.66.
[30] Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p.44.
[31] Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), p.44.
[32] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.83.