It is important to remember that for the earliest Christians, the term “gospel” was used to refer to the “oral proclamation of the significance of the [life], death and resurrection of Jesus, not to a written account of the story of Jesus.” While the term “gospel” was eventually also applied to written texts that contained the story of Jesus, the term never ceased being used to refer to the oral proclamation. It has retained this dual-purpose semantic range to this day, but we must always remember that in the beginning was the “gospel” as Good News proclaimed orally.

p. 354

They go on to discuss how scholars believe the gospels to be composed with the intent of being read aloud:

Christopher Bryan effectively demonstrates that both in terms of its narrative structure and its compositional style Mark shows all the evidences of being written for oral recitation. Bryan concludes his study by asking, “Was Mark written to be real aloud?” He answers this question with a resounding yes. “Mark, ” he adds, “was designed for oral transmission – and for transmission as a continuous whole – rather than for private study or silent reading.”

p. 359

Noting that some scholars doubt that such a lengthy text would be read in a single service, the authors remark in a footnote, amusingly, that:

This hesitation, however, is fueled by anachronism. In the ancient Mediterranean world – where neither a roast beef in the oven nor the kickoff of an NFL football game made the congregation nervous if the service lasted more than an hour – a narrative the length of Mark’s easily would have been performed during a single gathering of the community. As we noted in chap. 6, oral narratives much longer than Mark’s are routinely performed to this day in certain cultures.

p. 359

All of the above prompted several personal responses.

First, the majority of the non-denominational/baptist churches I have attended have not typically read scripture aloud in service, at least not more than a few verses. This seems a questionable (non)practice; at the very least, the entire text which is being preached on should be read at some point during the service. (I’d take a few psalms and Old Testament readings as well, but let’s go for at least the text of the day).

Second, I wonder what it would be like to hear the Gospel of Mark read in its entirety in the context of the church community. If a church put on a “performance” of the Gospel of Mark, it being read by church members who had practiced reading sections of text, would any attend? In all honesty, I don’t know if I am up to listening to a reading of the entire Gospel of Mark in a single sitting. It seems that one would need not only practice at reading that much text aloud, but practice listening to that length of text aloud. Perhaps a church group could practice with shorter works of texts, and work their way up to a gospel?

It would seem that audio bibles are perhaps one way to practice listening to the gospels aloud. BibleGateway.com has several audio bibles available, so perhaps I will try to spend some listening to the gospels and epistles. I wonder, if such a discipline was sustained over time, would I understand the scriptures differently?

Finally, as a counter-argument to the classical clerical complaint about congregations getting “nervous” when service goes to long, I invite you to watch a video of Lyle Lovett’s classic song, “Church.”

There are some very interesting things in this book.  Eddy and Boyd go on the offensive against presuppositions against the supernatural.  Some critics dismiss the Gospels because of miracles.  Eddy and Boyd remind us that ancient history writers did not dismiss the supernatural, nor do many people in the present age.  The authors also take an indepth look at the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus.  They admit when the sources are weak but also show the quality of much that we do have.  There is also an interesting section on the genre of the Gospels.  This is worth quoting.

While the Gospels may not be fully captured by the genre of ancient biography, they nonetheless are biographical in nature. Similarly, while the Gospels—even Luke—may not be reduced to historiography, pure and simple, still they are clearly historical in their intent. (p. 351)

Eddy and Boyd base much of their claims on the oral formation of the Gospel tradition. They argue persuasively that the oral nature does not work against the reliability of the Gospels. In this they use some of the current work on oral cultures.

It is not uncommon to find in orally dominant societies a clear conceptual and/or terminological differentiation between narratives considered to be factual and those considered to be fictional…. A most significant expression of this historical awareness is that it is frequently the case in predominantly oral settings that, within the context of the performance arena, the audience shares in the responsibility of accurately preserving the essential historical remembrances. That is, if an oral performer misrepresents the tradition—sometimes in even relatively minor ways—the audience frequently corrects him in the midst of the performance. (pp. 261-62)

I very much enjoyed the Jesus Legend.  The authors have an engaging writing style and the content is solid.  The footnotes give plenty of information for those who are looking for more.  The one criticism I have is that they do not give much detail in the comparison of the Gospels to pagan myths.  Nevertheless, this is a solid work.  If you have encountered any of the claims that Jesus never existed or that the Gospels are simply legends mistaken as history, this is the book to get.