Hear Ye the Word of the Lord (eBook)

What We Miss If We Only Read the Bible

D. Brent Sandy (Autor)

eBook Download: EPUB

2024 | 1. Auflage
216 Seiten
IVP Academic (Verlag)
978-1-5140-0299-5 (ISBN)

Infos

Long before the words of the Bible were written, God's communication through the spoken word rang out loud and clear. Jesus in particular commissioned representatives to speak on his behalf even during the time of his earthly ministry. And yet today we are a reading culture. It is easy for modern Christians to take for granted that the Bible was handed down in written form, but the way we receive God's message is far different from how the original hearers would have heard it. These differences not only shape the way that we hear God's message to his people, but they put us at risk of misunderstanding his revelation. In Hear Ye the Word of the Lord, biblical scholar D. Brent Sandy explores how oral communication shaped the ways that biblical writers received God's message-and even more importantly, how the ancient and modern faithful receive it through hearing. Filled with helpful biblical insights related to oral communication and constructive ways for modern readers to become better hearers and performers of Scripture, Hear Ye the Word of the Lord provides a constructive way forward for readers interested in exploring how we can better hear God's Word.

D. Brent Sandy (PhD, Duke University) taught New Testament and Greek at Wheaton College and chaired the Department of Religious Studies at Grace College. He is coauthor (with John Walton) of The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority and author of Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic.

Textauszug

Proposition 1

Oral Culture Can Be a Lost World

We were never born to read.

MARYANNE WOLF

IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT WORDS. In place of babies’ first words, endless gurgling. In place of people conversing, a few hand signals. In place of broadcasts and podcasts, silence. Actually, according to Genesis 1, in place of us, a blank canvas—a world without form, and void (Gen 1:2). We wonder, would even God be the same without words (Jn 1:1)?

The reality is, words are part and parcel of who we are. But what if words are only oral? Nothing inscribed on rock, potsherds, or page. Imagine trying to get along in today’s world without reading and writing—and texting!

The French have a common expression, “Je n’ai qu’une parole,” which literally translated is “I have only one word.” It’s not that they know only one word. The point is the same as when we say in English, “I give you my word.” Or we can also say, “I’ll take your word for it.” In either case, the spoken word is enough, writing unnecessary. (Note that different words can convey the same idea, and they can point to a function beyond what appears on the surface.)1

Jesus declared that “yes” or “no” is all that’s needed in certain situations (Mt 5:37). More than that, he considered the words he spoke—inspired by no less than the Father himself, and backed by his actions—to be adequate for the most important exchange of information of all time: his own divine revelation (Jn 8:28; 12:50).

For most of us, that doesn’t compute. If we didn’t have the truth in written form, especially the words of Jesus, which we can scrutinize, memorize, plaster on the wall—we’d feel slighted, shortchanged, even unsure about what the revelation was all about. After all, aren’t reading and writing an obvious advancement over the oral alternative?

But not so fast. Plato (fourth century BC) and other ancient philosophers questioned the value of written words in place of oral ones, especially for communicating important ideas. Socrates (fifth century BC) and the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (second century AD) are examples of Greco-Roman philosophers who wrote nothing when they surely could have. We only know about their philosophies through what their students recorded. Why? Because they considered teaching via written words inadequate.

In what ways? We won’t understand all the reasoning, since most of us are deeply immersed in the culture of reading and writing. But for them, personal interaction and give-and-take with students was essential for communicating profound concepts. And since reading skills and backgrounds varied, teachers could not count on the ideas expressed in writing to be adequately understood by all readers. Even more, if students had written versions of a philosopher’s thinking, they might not read carefully and think through the concepts sufficiently, missing important parts. Students might also neglect the necessary step of applying philosophy to their life situations, something philosophers could better encourage in face-to-face discussions.2

Nonetheless, some philosophers did write (Aristotle and Epictetus) and sought to recreate in written form ways they would orally lead students into deep discussions. The result was the dialogue and symposium forms of philosophical essays. Plato is a case in point. All but two of his twenty-seven writings were dialogues. The essays featured dramatic argumentation with hypothetical participants discussing philosophical issues.3

For examples of an oral preference in more recent times, we could explore numerous cultures around the world.4 In the case of early Americans in our country, “To native people, oral speech was more trustworthy than written words. . . . Writing could not make language more truthful or promises more binding.”5

Or as reported by one of my former students ministering in Cameroon:

During something like a boundary dispute, though the traditional council of the village has long since begun writing court verdicts in a log, often they will still bring all the concerned parties and any available elders out to the site of the dispute, regardless that the issue had previously been settled and recorded. Then, on location, a heated discussion will commence, concluding in a consensus which becomes the verdict. Quite interesting considering boundary disputes in America are settled by data in filing cabinets at city hall.6

For an example of the preference for oral accounts of what Jesus said and did, note what an early Christian said a century after the time of Jesus, even though by then there were written accounts of Jesus and his disciples’ lives. Papias preferred hearing over reading: “I do not believe that things out of books are as beneficial to me as things from a living and enduring voice.”7

In other words, literacy isn’t the panacea of perfect communication; never was, never will be, certainly not across all time, in all situations, for everyone. Humanity from the beginning was a society of social interaction with orality as the bedrock of interpersonal relations; thus textuality was unnecessary. (Orality refers to anything pertaining to spoken communication; textuality refers to written communication.) It was a collectivist culture in which speaking and hearing were the norm. The human brain was prewired for it; children growing up today still catch on fast. As research demonstrates, “we were never born to read.”8

Reading and writing, on the other hand, took centuries to develop . . . and takes years to acquire; some of us are still learning the art of writing. The brain actually had to rewire itself for the advanced technology. “More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness.”9 But once it did, it’s difficult to retrace the steps back into oral ways of thinking. The Western paradigm of textuality—the “default setting”—stands in the way.10 Most of us are very comfortable in our textual skin and the culture of individualism.11 We write alone, we read alone—typically.

ADJUSTING THE DEFAULT SETTING

It comes down to this. What we do with words—whether oral, written, printed, or digital—affects how we use our faculties, how we relate to people, how we spend our time, and most important, how we think.12 The cultures of hearing and reading are not the same; there can be different ways of being and doing, calling on distinct functions of our brains. Which means, to understand Scripture correctly, it’s essential to recognize how reading differs from hearing.

The farther apart, then, the worlds of hearing and reading are, the less those in one world will understand the other. And particularly, the less they will understand the communications of the other. “In antiquity, the most literate cultures remained committed to the spoken word to a degree which appears to our more visually organized sensibilities somewhat incredible or even perverse.”13

This brings us to the challenge we face in this book. Not orality versus literacy, as if one is better than the other; but there are differences. Not hearing versus reading; there is room for both. Not that oral and written communication are opposites—as if there’s a “great divide”; there is interface between them.14 But being twenty-first century readers born and groomed in modern textual culture, can we sufficiently understand the meaning of documents originating in ancient oral culture simply by reading them?

More specifically, for biblical interpreters, if the culture was predominantly oral in which the supreme revelation of all time was birthed, formed, and transmitted—and it was—and if oral culture left an indelible mark on written Scripture, including its words, forms, and structures—and it did—and if its authors were writing on the assumption that people would hear what they wrote—and they were—what might that mean for how we read and interpret the Bible in colleges and seminaries, churches and Sunday school classes, and everywhere in between?

It can be a catch-22, seeking to understand a text—which was designed to be heard—without hearing it. Shouldn’t we learn as much as possible about oral culture lest we misinterpret Scripture out of blindness to the very nature of Scripture? Isn’t it our moral responsibility to do so?

It can be a catch-22,
seeking to understand a text—
which was designed to be heard—
without hearing it.

To be sure, the most important issue is not how God revealed, but what. The storehouse of eternal truths, whether preserved orally or in written form, is what matters most. But the how can influence the ways in which the what was presented and is properly understood. The medium and the message are inseparable.15

CLARIFICATIONS

Now you may have doubts about some of what has been stated so far. Maybe you’re not ready to rethink ways you have always understood the Bible. If so, no worries. Keep reading. What we’ve said up to this point is a preview of more to come and a simplified version of what’s ahead. Hopefully, if you stay the course all the way to the end, you’ll agree with the conclusions. Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know.

There is something that needs to be set straight straightaway. The Bible in our hands certainly appears to be a fully textual product. The books were written; they were collected into a canon...

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 12.3.2024
• Vorwort: John H. Walton
• Verlagsort: Lisle
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Religion / Theologie ► Christentum
• Schlagworte: Ancient Near East • Bible • biblical backgrounds • biblical commentary • biblical context • Biblical Hermeneutics • biblical oral history • biblical prophets • Biblical Studies • Moses • orality of the bible • Oral tradition • Pastoral Resources • Prophets • Scripture
• ISBN-10: 1-5140-0299-X / 151400299X
• ISBN-13: 978-1-5140-0299-5 / 9781514002995