(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...How do oral cultures “work”? How do they pass along their traditions? How accurately? And why did scholars first get interested in the question. Not at ALL in the way that you might think!
Here’s how I discuss the matter in my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2017).
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I agree with just about everything you’ve written, _particularly_ the fact that “when someone in an oral culture claims that the current version of the tradition – a story, a poem, a saying – is “the same” as an earlier one … they mean “the same basic thing.” They do not mean “exactly” the same”.
This is 100% correct. However, two caveats.
The smaller caveat first. To your claim that “oral cultures have no way of checking”, I’d add that there are circumstances in which they can, e.g. if the information preserved in oral tradition consists of encyclopaedic knowledge of plants and animals.
My larger caveat concerns not so much what you wrote as the subtext. I think you vastly overestimate the extent to which modern people project our standards of “accuracy” onto oral cultures.
Take, for example, the friend you mentioned in the previous blog post. Had you asked her, “Are you saying that oral traditions are repeated word for word the same every time?”, I expect there’s a high probability she would have said, “Of course not, I’m saying the gist is preserved, even if it’s embellished differently for each performance”. (I may of course be wrong about her personally.)
I had a very short discussion a couple years ago with a committed evangelical who follows those type of orthodox scholars. First, he contended that Jesus spoke Greek rather than Aramaic. When I countered with William Harris’ book Ancient Literacy and that only 10-15% of people were literate and schools for commoners were nonexistent, and that we don’t have copies of copies of copies…etc. of the original gospels and that many errors have been introduced, he countered with the ‘gist’ position. If the gist is acceptable, then inerrant accuracy is simply wishful thinking, for those who promote inerrancy.
Now add oral remembering and storytelling prior to someone in the 10-15% who were literate attempting to write a coherent themed narrative. Simply impossible that any of the gospel narratives are inerrant or accurate. We should read them as myths which present one or more themes. This is another area which scholars can provide direction.
How confident are we that these general findings about “oral cultures” would be applicable to first century Rome & Judea? Necessarily given the low levels of literacy, we’re talking about traditions that would primarily circulate orally. But neither is it a context in which the idea of preserving accounts in written form, or checking an oral account against written records, is completely foreign. Is there any scholarly consensus about whether other no-longer extant written sources like Q might have preserved some of these traditions? Or whether the background elite literate culture might have affected the practice of oral transmission?
Scholars have looked at that as well, and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence contradicts it (especially since the same event almost always gets presented in different ways) and nothing that even points in another direction. And we don’t have any evidence that I’m aware of that speaks of anyone doing a comparison of an oral account for which there was a written record. I would imagine Q certainly had other traditions that we no longer have. ANd of course elite folk could read and so didn’t rely on their meories as much, but there certainly developed methods of memorizing that were used, e.g., by orators, who memorized written speeches (Cicero e.g.)
It’s funny how jokes change with their retellings. That’s what she said.
This is more of a comment than a question but I felt that I should share. I highly recommend for anyone who is interested in learning about oral tradition and cultures to read this book- “Jesus Before the Gospels”. Recently I asked Prof. Ehrman a question here on the blog relating to this very topic and not only was give me a great answer, he directed me to this very book which I have since picked up and have been working my way through.
I must say I’m learning so much that I never expected to, not just about the pre-literary traditions of Christianity but of oral history and memory in general. In particular I have always heard that oral cultures were meticulous in preserving the stories they were telling, but to learn that it wasn’t even a concern for them was shocking! It makes total sense though and Bart explains it in a great way.
Thanks for the work you do Dr. Ehrman.
-Wesley
Thanks!! May your tribe increase!
Hi Bart, Odd question for you: Other than suffering, which of your own beliefs would you say is the most problematic for the Christian? In other words, what theological positions do you hold which are the most difficult to wrestle with for a practicing believer? (Taking the obvious agnostic-athiesm aside…haha…I mean fundamental truths about Christianity itself). Thank you! – Brad
Well, if the Christian believer is a committed conservative, then the idea that the Bible has contradictions and errors and contains forgeries would be big problems. But there are many Christians who think the faith is not about the accuracy of the Bible, and they point out that the Bible is never mentioned as being inspired in any of the Christian creeds that established what was to be believed. Many of my friends are practicing Christians, and apart from the issue of suffering, none of my views is particularly offensive to their faith. (My views are largely ones I learned in seminary)
Ty sir…this is what I am gleaning from all your courses lately…your beliefs are honestly not that crazy and manifestly accurate. Very much appreciate your work. – Brad
Another great post, and another interesting aspect of the overall theme, which reminds me that this USD 200 annual subscription fee is such a great deal for me.
Thank you!
In making up their minds about important (often controversial) questions and issues, what general guidelines do you think reasonable people – with limited time and expertise but who want to think for themselves – should use in deciding how much to accept of the findings/knowledge of experts/specialists in a given field?
Although I find myself searching for a general answer, I can’t argue against the rejoinder that it’s way too broad and general to admit of a reasonable, meaningful response
So I’ll pose it in relation to the search for the historical Jesus but hope that maybe your answer can help with a broader range of questions.
Not only are there multiple views about the historical Jesus but many would say the historical-critical search is invalid because the Gospels/NT can and should be taken pretty much at face value.
Also, the historical Jesus question may not be determinative but still has strong implications for religious faith.
Personally, I would like to pretty much just accept a scholarly consensus but what should my own reasonable responsibilities be? But I also want to remain true to my own experience and deep convictions.
Yup, it’s a problem all of us have. I’ve been reading books on evolutionary biology and on psychological theories of altruism — fields I have Zero Training in. So I see which books are well reviewed by experts (even if they don’t agree with them) and read different ones with different perspectives, and then try to form my own judgments. It’s certainly a mistake to read one author and take that as gospel truth on any topic.
I’m wondering whether there’s debate among scholars about whether the Gospels as written clearly refer to Jesus’s “Second Coming”?
They clearly refer to the coming of the Son of Man who became identified with Jesus. But that seems disconnected from Jesus’s death and resurrection. Could there be an implication that Jesus’s references to his own “return” simply meant the resurrection and maybe the coming of the Holy Spirit? And the Final Judgement was to take place immediately after an individual’s death rather than at the end of history? With a supernatural heaven as the ultimate reward rather than an earthly utopia?
I know Paul clearly expects a second coming. And while I’m not very familiar with Acts I think it does too. I’m just not sure how clear the gospels as written are about the second coming as a distinct event.
Yes, I’d say that since the Gospels identify Jesus as the Son of man and since they indicate the Son of man will soon arrive from heaven, they must be referring to Jesus’ return to earth.
I’d like to point out the problematic nature of a 100 year old “gist” oriented oral tradition against the pendantic doctrinal formations throughout church history. Entire Christian doctrines rely on exact definitions of words. Microscopic research is done on these words and what they must mean for doctrinal purposes. For instance the gist of final judgement is articulated through terms like aionios kolasis. Depending on who you ask that either means eternal punishment or judgement of the age. If someone thought they were capturing the gist of Jesus original words passed down through oral tradition and all that mattered is that there will be some kind of judgement (the gist), how do we know that we can rely on the oral tradition having specified eternal hell? Thats just a single example. Theres a huge amount of room for the telephone game playing havoc with Jesus original words-not to mention the fact that the oral tradition switched tracks somewhere from Aramaic to Greek! Then you have the transmittors temptation to interpret the “gist” according to presuppositions and bias. As in “Jesus couldn’t have meant that! I bet he meant THIS.” And down in history it goes.
Prof. Ehrman,
The Romans in the time of Jesus did not use their average troops to perform crucifixions, but a specific group of trained executioners – Is this correct? In the case of Jesus specifically, the fact that we get the noted detail that he “was buried” seems to put added strength behind the notion that he really died, do you concur with this?
Not that I know of, no. And yes, if he was buried he really died. I don’t think anyone doubts that he really died, since he was no longer alive.
Dr. Ehrman,
How would you counter the “swoon theory”?
Well, I suppose on the grounds that we don’t have a single reference to any such thing ever happening? Plus, Romans left bodies on the crosses for days, so when they were pretty far along in deteriorating, it was pretty clear they weren’t in a swoon.