The Ability Test

Is it possible that information in the gospels was accurately preserved before it was recorded?

Lee Strobel's expert, Dr Blomberg, makes one primary argument in defense of this test.

A. Jewish scholars were used to memorizing huge amounts of scripture
B. Jewish scholars could accurately retell scripture from memory
C. ancient middle eastern retellings differ one from another by about forty percent
D. the gospels differ one from another on any given passage by about forty percent

Therefore, it is likely that early Christians engaged in the same kind of retelling practices.

Even if you ignore the admission of doubt signaled by the use of the word "likely," such an argument is almost impossible to defend. There is so much that we don't know. We don't know how many of the pre-gospel early christians were Jewish scholars and could have participated in accurate memorization, or been available to check the accuracy of other's retelling of scripture. More over, even if this practice was done, and we had concrete proof, we wouldn't know for which parts of the gospels it was used, and to what rate of success.

We know that there are chiasms in the New Testament, but we don't know if these are there because the material was passed orally and then written, or written to facilitate oral tradition, or both. We are left with the same dilemma, some parts of the gospels may go on a fact pile, and other parts may not. However, I still see no way to determine one from the other. In any event this test and accompanying argument do not convince me that accurate oral traditions were used to communicate facts about Jesus from the time the occurred to the point when they were related in the Gospels. But does it convince you?