Loading...Do we mean the same thing by “the same” that people in oral cultures do?
Here I pick up on my discussion of oral cultures; in the previous post I talked about how Milman Parry began to study one such culture, and his discoveries were starting. Professional memorizers/reciters would claim that various performances of the “same” tradition/account/story/song was in fact the “same” as earlier performances. But, well, apparently not. At least by our standards.
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!
Again, everything you’ve written is correct, but it is not complete.
(1) There is a critical distinction between illiterate communities living under literate elites (1st century Judean fishermen, 20th century Balkan poets), vs truly oral cultures that depend on memory to survive.
(2) The more information is repeated and shared, the more it is corrupted. Therefore oral cultures keep their most precious knowledge secret, reserving it for initiated elites. Myths shared with the whole tribe around the campfire do indeed change quickly. Modern anthropology has developed sensitive ways to study this secret, restricted information, and it is far more accurately preserved.
I identified my source in a previous reply to this blog series. Here is what she has to say about Goody:
“Goody did a lot of terrific work in the field. I quote him a lot – his _Myth of the Barge_, in particular, really supports my way of thinking. He is dated now, but also changed his tune a bit in later years, especially his 2010 book, _Myth, ritual and the oral_. All academic work gets refined by later scholars, as mine will be.”
I can quote you her comment on Lord and Parry, but perhaps by now you see a pattern.
Again I ask if you read my book?
I have not, and do not claim to be responding to your book. I am using this blog series as an opportunity to address concerns I have with things you’ve said about oral cultures in the past, be it previously on the blog, in a Youtube video of a public debate or lecture, or any other context.
Even if you’re much more careful in published writing, your less guarded remarks presumably reflect what you most deeply internalised from your research, and I simply wish to offer a course corrective. The analogy of someone who overcompensates for fundamentalism by embracing mythicism is apt.
When we view oral cultures on their own terms rather than ours, defining accuracy as it makes sense for them rather than us, we see that their ability to memorise and pass down accurate information is phenomenal, and that everything Cicero wrote about is a pale shadow of memory techniques that human beings have used for over a hundred thousand years. There is evidence from genetics that those very memory techniques (method of loci and so on) played a part in human evolution itself.
Can you harmonise that view of oral culture with everything you wrote in your book?
It’s just that if you want to say you don’t agree with my views it would be useful for you to see what my views are. Why would you imagine that I try to understand oral cultures on something other than their own terms? That’s the very point of all the research that is done on them,.disabledupes{aa814a29b5f1772acef20ae7021f68d2}disabledupes
I can only say I disagree with specific things you’ve said on specific occasions (my “yes but” reply to this blog post is not an example). If you said something then you said it, whether it truly reflects your views or not.
If you read about Australian Aboriginal anthropology and take notes on what’s applicable to 1st century Judea, that’s not understanding oral cultures on their own terms. If you assume people mean “verbatim” when they say “accurate”, that’s not understanding oral cultures on their own terms. (It’s not even generally true for literate cultures.)
I do genuinely think you would benefit from some familiarity with Kelly’s work, even if superficial. It’s more up-to-the-minute than the sources that were available when you researched your book, and would enrich the scope of knowledge you could draw on if you’re discussing oral cultures on a podcast or responding to a question at a public lecture. If you’re talking to people with knowledge of oral cultures, it might make it easier to identify common ground.
In total I’ve read as much of your work as I have of Kelly’s, just not specifically on that topic.
OK, well last time I need to say it: I think you have misread my summaries. The point about “verbatim accuracy” is precisely that conservative Christians who want to claim that the words of Jesus are exactly what he said do so on the basis that in “oral cultures they preserved their traditions accurately.” They, not me, mean by “accurately” what they themselves mean by “accurately.” They assume that people pass on traditions by memorizing them verbatim and don’t change them. If that is your view of “accurately,” then no, oral cultures do not pass on oral traditions accurately.
Apart from that mistake, I think it is fair to say that MOST people, not just conservative readers of the Bible, would say that if a narrative poem that is recited in two ways, one of them two or three times as long as the other, it is not the “same” poem. In oral cultures examined by interested western observers starting with Milman Perry, and continuing down to more highly trained anthropologists in his wake, it has been found that, at least in some of them, these two recitatoins sometimes are indeed considered “the same.” Most of us would not say so. To argue that we *should* call them the same because those in their own cultural contexts call them the same would be a bit odd. It would be more accurate to say that they consider them accurately recited both times, and most of us would not consider them the same or equally accurate. It is precisely my *point* htat our view of “accuracy” is not the one held everywhere, so I don’t think I”m missing the point!
Goody, Vansina, and others have shown how it all works by dealing with these peoples in their own contexts and taking them “on their own terms,” and to my knowledge their views have never been overturned by subsequent reserarch. If I’m wrong about that, I certainly do want to know!
disabledupes{aaeae1dda60876b8c52e526a7b21c8eb}disabledupes
I do understand that, but the point you seem to have missed is that I am writing with a memory of things you have said in the past. If I wished, I could quote things you wrote two years ago, four years ago, whatever, that clearly go beyond what your sources can be cited to defend, and that cite Vansina, Goody, etc in apparent refutation of true statements (concerning the interest of oral cultures in memorising substantial amounts of information of _any_ kind by _any_ definition of accuracy). I see this exchange not simply as a response to the blog posts above, but as an attempt to settle matters raised in previous discussions once and for all.
Accuracy, even in literate cultures, is context dependent, as can be seen by considering contexts other than narrative poems. If I memorise information from an encyclopedia, I can paraphrase that information any way I like, and it will be considered accurate as long as the _information_ is the same.
Is there a kind of biblical understanding/interpretation that, on the one hand, tries to respect the view that it is divinely inspired/revelatory in some important sense, and that faith is required to understand and respond to it appropriately; AND, on the other hand, makes use of the intellectual tools that have been developed to understand it better.
I’m thinking such an approach might include the following features: it isn’t literal and doesn’t claim inerrancy; identifies material that is pretty clearly legendary, more poetic than descriptive, editorializing, highly interpretive rather than factual BUT still preserves the core message and some kind of factual basis for it; identifies pre or unscientific mistakes (such as an earth-centered solar system) but is able to give or allow credence to a core of miracles and prophecies; understands NT allusions to the OT; conveys understanding of the historical and cultural context of authors; identifies various literary forms; puts both the Bible as a whole and parts of individual books into the context of the whole narrative and its major emphases; relies on the most accurate translations; etc.
I think you’ve generally recommended the Harper Collins Study Bible. Might that be the sort of thing I’m looking for?
Yes, I would say that this is the view of most critical scholars who are also committed Christians. It’s the view that probably most of my professors had in seminary. And yes, it would be the view of most of the contributors to the Harper Collins Study Bible.
One of the most irritating things about fundamentalists/evangelicals is their frequent use of proof-texts to prove a point. Do mainstream/liberal scholars generally see much value in proof-texts as a means of understanding the various messages in the Bible?
I can see proof-texts as a “lead in” to a discussion of what the Bible is saying about a certain matter. It could serve as a basis for saying we should at least “consider” this to be an important truth. But not anywhere near close to proof.
It seems to me that people can prove almost anything by quoting the Bible — including contradictory things. Proof texts don’t provide any context for understanding what is being said or how these statements are qualified and limited by surrounding material. They tend to take the words at their simplest face value without any attempt to understand their overall meaning within the overall context of the particular book they appear in.
Too often it makes the Bible into a book of divinely-ordained rules to be followed without understanding of the purpose of the rules or how the rules relate to one another.
Among mainstream scholars, “proof-texting” is a four-letter word. The very point of serious exegesis is to understand what words mean in their literary and historical context, and that’s precisely the opposite of proof-texting.
disabledupes{5a8cad95f33ece4571861ff487212685}disabledupes
Hi Dr Ehrman, I remember listening to your podcast on the Genius of the gospel of Mark and have heard you say a few times that one of the main points the gospel writer wanted to convey is that the disciples never understand exactly who Jesus is. However, unless I have missed you mention this, I was just curious why it is then that he is so intent on showing this throughout his gospel. Is it that he is trying to convey some theological point or message by portraying Jesus’ followers as persistently baffled by his true identity as if so was just wondering what this is then as can’t seem to understand what the author of Mark’s intention for showing this is?
It’s a much debated issue. Some scholars have argued that this theme is being used to show why no one understood who Jesus *really* was until after the resurrection (so that the traditoinal Jewish expectations of the messiah were shown to be wrong not till Jesus was raised); others argue that it is to show that the reality of Jesus is mind-boggling; others that it is meant to cast doubts on the historical disciples (as opposed, say, to Paul); others to show that only spiritual insiders can understand the truth of Jesus. I tend to prefer the first of these.
Dr. Ehrman, I sent a UPS package to you Jan 11 with documentation that the “seventy weeks” in Dan 9 is esoteric in the prophecy and ends in the year 162 BCE, not in 33 CE.
[email protected]
Thanks.
Everything you say about oral cultures is correct. The question then becomes, what evidence in the NT tells us that there is such an oral substrate? Homer retains oral storytelling architecture in his texts. Where are examples in the NT? Let’s be specific. What in Mark’s gospel would mitigate against it being a purely literary composition?
Thanks
For one thing, the fact that we have other such stories before him (Paul’s account of the Last Supper) and independently of him (that is, in Gospels that appear not to have used his, such as John); and that it is impossible to explain how belief in Jesus was spreading throughout the world at the time (which can be documented independently of Mark) if no one wsa telling stories about him.
I show in accurate detail what the prophecy actually means. The 490 years result is flat-out wrong. Dan 9:24-27 is not a prophecy of the ministry of Jesus. It CAUSED the ministry of Jesus.
@DaveP16: I realise I’m doing the irritating thing of asking questions about something I haven’t read, but, since one of the major problems with reading the Dan 9 passage as a prophecy is that the count of years doesn’t actually come out at the right time for Jesus’s ministry however it’s counted? I don’t see how it could have ’caused the ministry of Jesus’.
@Dr_Sarah, it caused the ministry of Jesus because Jesus made the same mistake that everyone else did.
DaveP16: What mistake? You mean, about the dates? (And if so, how do you think Jesus made that mistake?)
Thank-you.
I enjoyed this and the last 2 posts.
Folk music in the US was passed down orally in the 19th century and even earlier. There was a lot of variation in the lyrics regionally and by performer. It wasn’t until sheet music and recording that “standard” versions evolved.
Greetings Mr Ehrman.
Do you yourself have a critical commentary covering the whole NT writings? or could you recommend the works of someone for this? (either book or course)
The ones I find on the internet are evangelical and I would like to see another perspective, one analytical and taking the verses step by step in this way – commenting the context, the history and cultural background.
Thanks,
If you want a one-volume work, you might want to try the HarperCollins Bible Commentary (revised in 2000 or so?) or the Oxford Bible Commentary?
Thank you!
If you don’t mind sir, I have 2 more questions:
1) I have seen that the translation from Hebrew to the Christian Bible has been in some places altered in order to conform to the prophecies. What do you think of the website chabad.org (is the translation of the OT good?) and what do you thinkof the jewish commentator Rashi?
2) If I want to see what the words in ancient greek of the NT are, what website would you recommend? I found greekbible.com , where taking verse by verse, I have both the words in greek and in english
Your response is much appreciated
1. The English Bible used by Christians is translation from the Hebrew itself; the best translations translate it faithfully. I think you must be thining of the claim that the Greek Old Testament sometimes altered the meaning of the words in places. That translation was not done by Christians, htough. 2. There are several interlinear Greek and English editions on line; if you know a bit of Greek, you can see right away what the Greek word and how it is trasnalated.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Is there a sub-sect of biblical scholarship that uses/ intersects with psychoanalysis?
Thanks so much!
Well, kinds. There are biblical scholars who dabble in psychoanalysis but are not well trained in it; and their are psychoanalysts who dabble in biblical studies and are not well trained in it. The problem is that both fields take MANY years of training (my MA/PhD in New Testament took 7 years after university, and I was already trained in Greek adn Bible before starting!) (and psychoanalysis — yikes! lots of time and effort), and htey are completely different, so no one that I know has done both. The other BIG problem is that psychoanalysis as practiced today depends on our modern understandings of humans AND on how humans are today in our 21st century culture, and cultrually speaking ancient people were very different indeed psychologically (not physiologically of course), so applying modern psychoanalytical theory to ancient people is fraught and almost never successful (or possible)
Hi Dr Ehrman was also wondering if you might also be able to help me with this argument I came across regarding the reliability of Papias. One of the reasons I know people regard Papias as unreliable is because of his legendary account of Herod’s death. However, another Christian I came across recently was arguing that it is possible Papias (or maybe the person quoting Papias he doesn’t really make it clear) could be using ekphrasis, a type of ancient rhetoric. However I know your more knowledgable about the first century and textual criticism than I am so was just curious to hear your thoughts on this argument and whether like the claim Sean Mcdowell made about Chylothorax this was highly implausible?
I think maybe the person who told you this got things confused? Ekphrasis is a type of deep descriptoin in words of a visual object so that the reader can “see it” in their mind. It has nothing to do with whether an account is accurate or not.
This topic is fascinating. My beloved kitty cat died in the time frame of this topic; I was (still am) grief-stricken. But what I did the day after my cat died was to document the details of the last days of the cat, vet visits, conversations, hospitalization, etc. It was a gut wrenching task. I am glad I did because there are certain things which I have already forgotten and remember differently (when compared to the document I wrote after the death of the kitty). This impacts how I would (orally) tell the story of the last days of my cat. And my wife, who did not write anything down, has different recollections even though we were both there at the hospital at the end.
Interesting! So sorry to hear about your cat’s death, though.
I wonder if Parry, Lord, Goody etc, ever confronted their informants with recordings of what they said/sang at different occasions, like “Here you said/sang A, but here you said/sang B. It’s not the same.”, and if so, how the informants reacted then…
I believe Goody did, but I may have that wrong. (And that they said that it *was* the same — because they meant something very different by “the same”)