Scriptural literacy

[Robin]

Not necessarily.

The Essenes at Qumran, for instance, had an entire building set up for the reproduction of scrolls. It was one of their enterprises.

There's a reason why the Jews were called "the people of the book".

Jewish Temples would all have people whose job was to copy scrolls - they are mentioned a few times in the Gospels. This has been a key role withing the Jewish religion since the first scriptures were written.

Be that as it may, these written texts would still have been rare objects.

 

[Robin]

No, actually the opposite. Oral tradition requires that you lern the whole story by heart, not a particular text. Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly. Research into oral story-telling traditions has shown that there are significant differences, rendition to rendition, despite the fact that the story-tellers report handing down the same exact story.

It is only with written texts that the idea of exact renditions even came into being. You cannot check how different one story rendition is from a previous telling in a purely oral society.

It would seem to depend upon which oral tradition you are talking about.

 

[Robin]

Robin, can you remind me what the original issue was that was being discussed when the point was raised about the degree to which NT writers would have been familiar with the Hebrew Bible?

I've lost track.

Thanks.

I made the point that the concept scriptural literacy assumes that all the writers and compilers were themselves scripturally literate, with reference to previous writings.

The example I gave was of the epilogue added to Job, which not only softened the argument, but in many ways reversed it.

 

[Piggy]

I find myself fascinated by this simple statement and I must know more.

If the subject is not too extensive to be touched on within the reasonable limits of this forum, might you explain what was different between the rabbis and Pharisees and how they related to the Jesus movement? I have already made a note to acquire the book you've cited.

The Pharisees were just one rabbinical group, albeit the dominant one of the day.

You might think of the Saducees as roughly equivalent to Catholic priests... associated with a centralized headquarters (Temple/Vatican), hierarchical, and from a tradition (Jewish priesthood / Papal establishment) in which priests mediated between laypersons and God.

The Saducees controlled the Sanhedrin, which is roughly equivalent to a supreme court. The Romans allowed the Jews to run their own affairs as long as they paid the taxes, did not foment insurrection, and generally obeyed Roman law. However only the Jews, if I'm not mistaken, were exempt from sacrificing to the emperor.

This is why early Xians ran into such big legal trouble. When they were no longer identified as a Jewish sect, that exemption no longer applied to them.

The Scribes were roughly the equivalent of lawyers -- keep in mind that Temple and government were one and the same. Their position in the 2nd Temple goes all the way back to Ezra and Nehemiah, who were authorized by Cyrus to re-establish the Temple in Judea after the Jews were repatriated, ending the exile.

Pharisees were sort of like protestant pastors. If you lived in Galilee, for instance, away from the Temple, you would perform your religious duties and fellowship and hear the teaching of the rabbi in synagogue (local assembly).

Not all rabbis were Pharisees, but they were the dominant faction of the day. Sects like the Essenes, for instance, were not Pharisaic, and they disagreed with the Pharisees on some important points of doctrine.

Jesus was a rabbi with his own school, his disciples and followers, and they also disagreed with the Pharisees (and Saducees and scribes) on important points of doctrine.

 

[Piggy]

I made the point that the concept scriptural literacy assumes that all the writers and compilers were themselves scripturally literate, with reference to previous writings.

The example I gave was of the epilogue added to Job, which not only softened the argument, but in many ways reversed it.

I don't see that as an example of scriptural illiteracy.

Obviously, the writer of the epilogue knew what the ancient scripture was. It was the intention to alter the meaning.

The Bible is full of deliberate rewritings.

In many cases, the Deuteronomic redactors made changes to the scripture to attempt to bring El-based scripture into line with their theology and politics. Yahwistic redactors did the same.

 

[Piggy]

Jewish Temples would all have people whose job was to copy scrolls - they are mentioned a few times in the Gospels. This has been a key role withing the Jewish religion since the first scriptures were written.

Be that as it may, these written texts would still have been rare objects.

How do you define "rare"?

Also, don't forget that by Jesus' day, the codec was in wide use.

 

[Hokulele]

No, actually the opposite. Oral tradition requires that you lern the whole story by heart, not a particular text. Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly. Research into oral story-telling traditions has shown that there are significant differences, rendition to rendition, despite the fact that the story-tellers report handing down the same exact story.

It is only with written texts that the idea of exact renditions even came into being. You cannot check how different one story rendition is from a previous telling in a purely oral society.

I have a very minor nitpick with this. Some oral traditions focus on song or chant as the transmission method and would most likely have a higher accuracy rate in terms of the "real" text being reproduced faithfully. I vaguely remember reading somewhere how verse form triggers something different in rote memory than prose narration. I think that is why programs such as "Schoolhouse Rock" were successful.

I do not have anything to back this up at the moment, but am willing to dig if anyone is interested in pursuing this.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have a very minor nitpick with this. Some oral traditions focus on song or chant as the transmission method and would most likely have a higher accuracy rate in terms of the "real" text being reproduced faithfully. I vaguely remember reading somewhere how verse form triggers something different in rote memory than prose narration. I think that is why programs such as "Schoolhouse Rock" were successful.

I do not have anything to back this up at the moment, but am willing to dig if anyone is interested in pursuing this.

Right, but that's not much of a nitpick, since I assumed this argument concerns biblical traditions? I was referring to, I think it was, examinations of Hungarian myths that were largely sung, much like the Homeric myths were.

I wasn't trying to make a grand overarching statement about all oral traditions, and particularly not about shorter types of songs. In fact, one of the problems in applying the Hungarian oral tradition to the Homeric, for example, is that those works are considerable shorter than the Iliad and Odyssey and more along the lines of some of the Homeric Hymns.

The ultimate point I was trying to make, as I understand it from works looking at many of the oral traditions (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the story is the primary interest and not the particular words told in an absolute literal sense.

Perry and Lord showed, for instance, that the epithet applied in any particular part of the Iliad concerned not the ongoing action but what fit metrically. I thought most folks assumed that this allowed greater variation in any particular performance -- just apply the particular epithet of Hector that fits metrically if what you've said runs on a bit in some performance.

So, it isn't the text that matters, per se, in most oral traditions, but the sense and the story, the precise wording being somewhat fluid.

 

[Radrook]

I agree that scriptural illiteracy exists in that there are those who are critical or dismissive while never having read them. This is akin to saying Life of Brian is a terrible film without having seen it (not that anyone would do such a thing).

I would say that the other illiteracy involves those who read and having read are unable to understand basic things which should be readily understandable to a person of normal intelligence and basic education.

Typical godless confusion

Confused by Hyperbole
Confused by Simile
Confused by Personification
Confused by Poetic License
Confused by Multiple Choices
Confused by Two people having same name. Example: Goliath
Confused by Words with multiple shades of meaning such as "Yom-day" or 'heaven."
Confused by Literal as opposed to symbolic

The problem arises when such educationally deprived individuals purport to understand and then presumptuously go about ponderously and pestiferously propounding their illogical propensities.

The other kind of scriptural illiteracy seems to be where there is disagreement regarding the meaning of the text. This is more problematical. Is the Pope a scriptural illiterate? I think not. However, his reading is quite different from that of say the Seventh Day Adventists or the Christian Scientists not to say the Mormons. Can it be that there is sufficient ambiguity to allow divergence of opinion. Clearly, Radrook, you think not but strands of history would say otherwise.

I never said that divergence of opinion necessarily indicates biblical illiteracy. There are criteria, however by which to identify illiteracy. Such as inability to tell the difference between
the predominantly literal and the predominantly symbolic when
the literal is clearly literal and the symbolic symbolic.


The historical books of the Bible such as First and Second Chronicles and First and Second Kings for example, are predominantly historical. Someone who asks the question of whether one should take the whole Bible literally or symbolically therefore, is automatically showing a lack of basic knowledge needed in order for one to be biblically literate.

Suggestions that the Bible has no discernible theme Bible is another indication. Yet another is the suggestion that any and
all scatterbrained ideas are biblically acceptable. That we biblically literate might disagree on certain texts which are not meticulously explained is another matter altogether.

Moreover I can't see the relevance of the distinction between the Godless and the Godfull. A text is just that, it has grammar, syntax and a historical context. This is true for all scriptures of all religions. Can we not read the Avesta of the Zoroastrians with some understanding unless we believe in Ahuru Mazda?

Exactly! Of course, the only thing necessary for literacy is to treat the Bible as one would other literary work and not make it an exception when it comes to the evaluation process.

I accept that unless one is a dedicated believer the texts will only have a limited emotional facet for the reader but that does not negate the understanding of the words or an understanding that these words have an emotional capability for believers. This is not scriptural illiteracy though, merely viewing the text dispassionately.

I wish everyone would read it dispassionately instead of angrily trying to see contradictions in the slightest thing instead of researching the matter before jumping to godless conclusion. My mention of godless, mind you, is because the godless tend to generate his own misunderstandings due to his need to prove a godless bible. At least that has been my experience on this forum. Godless people frothing at the mouth and hell-bent on reading contradictions into texts. So since there is a positive correlation here between the twain one tends to make a causal connection.

 

[volatile]

Given that Radrook clearly has me and Piggy on ignore, he won't see thins message. Could someone whom he doesn't have on ignore (Nogbad?) copy/paste Piggy's posts as if they were their own? It might be the only way to get him to respond to anything.

 

[Hokulele]

Right, but that's not much of a nitpick, since I assumed this argument concerns biblical traditions?

Yes, this argument does. Large portions of the OT are in verse form, some clearly meant to be either sung or recited. Other portions appear to be prosification (Is that word? It should be.) of earlier verse forms. Parts of Genesis have this feel, as well as some of Deuteronomy. It may be why the KJV is so popular, as it makes use of meter in several verses.

I admit, I have no idea at what point the various oral traditions were written down, and when exactly the verse structure was lost (pre- or post-NT). Maybe some of the people with a stronger background in biblical history can help.

I was referring to, I think it was, examinations of Hungarian myths that were largely sung, much like the Homeric myths were.

I wasn't trying to make a grand overarching statement about all oral traditions, and particularly not about shorter types of songs. In fact, one of the problems in applying the Hungarian oral tradition to the Homeric, for example, is that those works are considerable shorter than the Iliad and Odyssey and more along the lines of some of the Homeric Hymns.

That makes sense then. I am more used to the Polynesian/Micronesian myths and their transmission. Here it is more easy to see how accuracy is preserved, as you can compare the various myths from different island groups and the date of colonization to see how and if the myths evolved over time. In addition, Polynesian cultures make use of chanted verse, interpretational dance, as well as more standard story-telling, and all three can be examined and contrasted for consistency.

Then again, most of the history and anthropology I know I read as prose, so I could very well be misremembering.

The ultimate point I was trying to make, as I understand it from works looking at many of the oral traditions (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the story is the primary interest and not the particular words told in an absolute literal sense.

Story-telling, yes. Things such as fables do not depend as much on the details. However, in myths that transmit ancestral history or applications of law, both of which are very important to Polynesians, and I would guess Jewish priests, the devil is in the details.

Perry and Lord showed, for instance, that the epithet applied in any particular part of the Iliad concerned not the ongoing action but what fit metrically. I thought most folks assumed that this allowed greater variation in any particular performance -- just apply the particular epithet of Hector that fits metrically if what you've said runs on a bit in some performance.

So, it isn't the text that matters, per se, in most oral traditions, but the sense and the story, the precise wording being somewhat fluid.

I understand a bit more what you are arguing now. I agree, when it comes to biblical interpretation, every word is taken literally, which was not the point of most oral traditions (pesky adjectives can create a world of hurt).

Where I disagree is in your original statement, "Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly." I believe in many cases, ancestral history and law in particular, absolute accuracy was intended, although not always successfully met. In several cases, the provenance of the story is a required element of the story itself. In the second half of your sentence I have quoted here, you seem to be slightly arguing for this yourself.

 

[Toke]

Right, but that's not much of a nitpick, since I assumed this argument concerns biblical traditions? I was referring to, I think it was, examinations of Hungarian myths that were largely sung, much like the Homeric myths were.

I wasn't trying to make a grand overarching statement about all oral traditions, and particularly not about shorter types of songs. In fact, one of the problems in applying the Hungarian oral tradition to the Homeric, for example, is that those works are considerable shorter than the Iliad and Odyssey and more along the lines of some of the Homeric Hymns.

The ultimate point I was trying to make, as I understand it from works looking at many of the oral traditions (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the story is the primary interest and not the particular words told in an absolute literal sense.

Perry and Lord showed, for instance, that the epithet applied in any particular part of the Iliad concerned not the ongoing action but what fit metrically. I thought most folks assumed that this allowed greater variation in any particular performance -- just apply the particular epithet of Hector that fits metrically if what you've said runs on a bit in some performance.

So, it isn't the text that matters, per se, in most oral traditions, but the sense and the story, the precise wording being somewhat fluid.

I have not been able to find a propper translation of "lovsigemand" but he is the one at the year 800-1100 year nordic parlaments/courts who knew the laws and could recite them.
There were more than one of them around, and hiring one to represent your case was considered a really good idea.

Could laws be formulated in a way that made them easier to memmorice?
Could you use that to tell how far a living document is from oral tradition?

 

[Piggy]

The historical books of the Bible such as First and Second Chronicles and First and Second Kings for example, are predominantly historical. Someone who asks the question of whether one should take the whole Bible literally or symbolically therefore, is automatically showing a lack of basic knowledge needed in order for one to be biblically literate.

Suggestions that the Bible has no discernible theme Bible is another indication.

Actually, the scholarly term for the genre of those books would be "narrative" rather than "historical". They constitute a narrative of God's relationship with Israel and include a variety of subgenres from formulaic introductions of the kings to purely didactic passages. They are not attempting to write "history" as we understand the term today.

And in fact, we see more than one strain of tradition preserved in these books -- traditions which do not always agree with each other, even in terms of reporting what happened and when.

As to the "theme" of the Bible, it is impossible to discern a single "theme" even to the Pentateuch, much less to the entire Hebrew Bible, or to the entire Xian Bible. The redactors were concerned with preserving traditions, not "themes".

 

[Piggy]

I admit, I have no idea at what point the various oral traditions were written down, and when exactly the verse structure was lost (pre- or post-NT). Maybe some of the people with a stronger background in biblical history can help.]

When you're talking about the earliest books, what you have is the insertion of some very ancient oral traditions in the form of snippets of what was probably (at one point) epic poetry into a larger prose work.

Most likely, the prose narratives also existed in oral tradition long before they were written down.

In many cases, the significance of the oral traditions changed over time, and much of the material was lost and only the most important bits (e.g. those used in ritual) or the most memorable were preserved.

For example, it is entirely possible that the Song of Deborah -- thanking God for victory over the Egyptians -- and the tale of Joseph's enslavement came from a time when the Egyptian empire included Canaan. So they were actually local stories about battles with Egyptian forces and having some of their numbers enslaved and possibly bartering prisoners.

Centuries later, bits of the songs and tales were still being sung and told, but the memory of the old Egyptian empire had been lost, so a larger narrative, blended with tales of the nomadic period, spring up around them to explain them -- Israel was held captive in Egypt and wandered after being freed, Israelites were kidnapped and sold into bondage in Egypt and their families traveled down there and found them.

That kind of thing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Where I disagree is in your original statement, "Renditions of oral stories were not expected to be absolutely accurate recreations, though the story tellers apparently believed that they did recreate the stories exactly." I believe in many cases, ancestral history and law in particular, absolute accuracy was intended, although not always successfully met. In several cases, the provenance of the story is a required element of the story itself. In the second half of your sentence I have quoted here, you seem to be slightly arguing for this yourself.

Ah, OK, I see. Yes, I stated that badly. I should have been a bit more specific since I was referring to a particular type of oral tradition, like the longer poems in the Western tradition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Could laws be formulated in a way that made them easier to memmorice?
Could you use that to tell how far a living document is from oral tradition?

Oh, sure. As Hokulele has mentioned, song and verse are excellent ways to improve the chances that some tradition is remembered. Our memories seem to work better for song/verse than for prose.

Solon was supposed to have written his laws in verse, for instance.

As for distance from the oral tradition, I don't know. I think it better for me, a rank amateur, to defer to Piggy on a question like that. He knows far more than I do about it.

My guess, though, would be that anything transmitted through the oral tradition would carry its general marks, as being composed in some form of verse. Some people try to argue that the New Testament would have been transmitted word-for-word as we have it through an oral tradition, but the gospels don't show the typical hallmarks of orally transmitted works, as I understand it. ETA: or, rather, I should have said, that while the gospel stories are part of a type of oral tradition -- the stories were passed down orally, after all, they don't carry the hallmarks of the same type of oral tradition like long poems were, where much of the information is preserved well.

 

[joobz]

Someone who asks the question of whether one should take the whole Bible literally or symbolically therefore, is automatically showing a lack of basic knowledge needed in order for one to be biblically literate.

You do realize that most people ask questions when they lack knowledge on a topic? That's sort of the whole point to asking questions.

 

[Hokulele]

Ah, OK, I see. Yes, I stated that badly. I should have been a bit more specific since I was referring to a particular type of oral tradition, like the longer poems in the Western tradition.

The lark is on the wing
The snail is on the thorn
God is in his heaven
And all is right with the world.


The difficult part of doing a literary analysis of the bible, is that just about every literary form makes an appearance at one point or another, oral or otherwise.

It is somewhat like doing a literary analysis of the Community sub-forum of JREF.


ETA: Or a moral analysis. Or a humor analysis. Or a financial analysis.

 

[Piggy]

My guess, though, would be that anything transmitted through the oral tradition would carry its general marks, as being composed in some form of verse. Some people try to argue that the New Testament would have been transmitted word-for-word as we have it through an oral tradition, but the gospels don't show the typical hallmarks of orally transmitted works, as I understand it. ETA: or, rather, I should have said, that while the gospel stories are part of a type of oral tradition -- the stories were passed down orally, after all, they don't carry the hallmarks of the same type of oral tradition like long poems were, where much of the information is preserved well.

There would certainly have been a lot of oral tradition in the early Xian communities, but the Xians were also on the forefront of using codeces (booklets, rather than scrolls) so there appears to have been quite a bit of written material circulating as well.

The earliest written works were likely tales of Jesus' death and resurrection and collections of sayings attributed to Jesus. (This is one of the reasons why it's incorrect to assert that the earliest Xians did not think of Jesus as someone who lived and breathed.)

The synoptic gospel writers likely had access to a variety of written material in codex form, including sayings, genealogies, miracle stories, and resurrection accounts, as well as the Septuagint (Hebrew Bible in Greek).

Mark, the earliest gospel, likely used this kind of material. He creates a very rough and brief narrative, which reads almost like a list, with the various elements often joined simply by "and" (a lot of these conjunctions are omitted in English translations).

Luke and Matthew appear to have both used versions of Mark, as well as a common collection of sayings, and material of their own which the other was not using. Where they parallel Matthew, they often smooth out his transition and sometimes correct apparent errors.

In fact, Luke starts his gospel by saying he wants to set the record straight.

 

[Piggy]

The difficult part of doing a literary analysis of the bible, is that just about every literary form makes an appearance at one point or another, oral or otherwise.

Yes, but this also makes our task easier, in certain ways.

For instance, in your post there, we can tease out the poetry from the prose. And within the prose, we can divide the main body from the post-script.

Similar cues, and many others, are used to separate the layers of the books that we have, and in doing so, to re-create the history of the books.