Lindsay Brash wrote:
> >I'm sure that in communities which relied upon oral history, it
> was a long
> >way from chinese whispers.  And that is hard for us to understand
> >today.  But on the other hand, there would be influences which
> moulded the
> >stories over time ... I don't think it is reasonable to assume
> that there
> >was no change over time.

and Andrew Alder responded:

> OK. But I don't think I've ever seen the Bible *defended* on the
> grounds of
> the alleged *accuracy* of oral transmission. I'm sure it has been
> *somewhere*, but it's not prevalent among my circles, and it's
> not the way
> I intend to argue here. But what *is* prevalent is to *attack*
> the accuracy
> of the Bible on the basis of the supposed parallel between
> chinese whispers
> and oral traditions.

Oral transmission in oral-based cultures is far more accurate than Chinese
whispers.  I would be deeply offended if anyone were to suggest to me that
there is any parallel.  In most games of Chinese whispers, what comes out at
the end bears no resemblance to what was put in, and to all intents and
purposes, this is the aim of the game - most people aren't actually *trying*
to get the right version at the end and they certainly aren't able to hear
accurately what is going on.

There are two very important differences between the transmission of
information in cultures without writing.

One is that everyone's memories for heard information are much better.  In
much the same way that the memories of people who have been blind since
before the advent of palm pilots have much better memories than those of us
who are sighted - because it was so much more difficult for them to look up
information like phone numbers and addresses, they remembered them better.

The other is that important information was learned off by heart.  It was
not just that people were told stories around campfires and passed them on -
members of each community were identified whose role it was to learn the
important stories and teach them to their apprentices. And the teachers made
sure that their pupils had them word perfect, because it was important that
the information be transmitted accurately. The reason that old manuscripts
are written all in uppercase with no gaps between the words and no
punctuation (and, in the case of Hebrew, no vowels either) is that they
weren't designed to convey information, but to remind people of what they
already knew by heart or almost so.

There is a third difference between the cultures that transmitted Scripture
orally and ours, and that is the reverence in which they held God.  We would
tend to call their attitudes 'ignorant supersition' in many cases, but the
fact remained that they were conscious that they were telling others about a
very powerful being of whom they were very much more scared than we tend to
be today.

So to try to equate the accuracy of early oral transmission of Scripture
with Chinese whispers is a total nonesense, but that still doesn't mean that
there is no room for error.

If you look at collections of old English folk songs, you will see that
there are variations of wording for the same song between collections, which
reflect the fact that they were handed down orally for many generations
before they were written down.  The differences aren't all that big. But
they do come in several types.  Some can be explained by substitution of
words that sound very similar but have different meanings.  Typically, one
version will make far more sense than the other in this case.  Others seem
to be attempts to fix the poetry (sometimes by more modern singers when a
shift in pronunciation over the centuries has made the original words no
longer rhyme or fit the rhythm pattern properly). Still others are blatant
attempts to change the meaning because a particular singer or group of
singers just plain didn't like the words in that bit.

A more modern example of the first and last types of variation is the
different versions of the grace "be present at our table, Lord" which are in
circulation.  The last two lines I learned growing up in a very reformed
Presbyteryian church were "and grant that we may spend our lives in serving
Thee".  It wasn't until I started mixing with people from Methodist
backgrounds that I hear "and grant that we may feast in Paradise with Thee".
When I was studying theology, one of my colleagues made a study of different
versions of this (I think it was a time-wasting exercise) and discovered
that, while most people sang "these mercies bless, and grant...", old
collections of table graces had this line as "these *morsels* bless, and
grant..." which makes far more sense both grammatically and theologically.

And when you look at different manuscripts of Scripture, you can find
examples of both these types of difference (not sure about the shift in
pronunciation one, though).  The "I don't like the theology" changes can
have happened any time, but the similar sounding words one would only have
happened either during the course of oral transmission or in the days when,
in order to produce copies of the text as quickly as possible, one monk
would sit at a desk with the text in front of him and dictate to a roomfull
of other monks who wrote down what they heard, and then may not have
proofread as carefully as they should.

>From my perspective, the versions of Scripture we have available now are
very (surprisingly) accurate, but they are not inerrant.

Judy

--
"Politics is the work we do to keep the world safe for our spirituality" -
Judith Plaskow

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
action for peace:
http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/links/peace.html
email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



------------------------------------------------------
- You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe 
insights-l' (ell, not one (1))
See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm
------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to