The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Gilles
Date: 26.04.2011
Category: Orality
In truth, formal oral learning among Western cultures never really disappeared. However, how did literary learning become so pre-eminent in schools, Churches, and other social meeting sites? Blame Plato for that. During his lifetime (427-347 BC), he apparently did not like the fact that teachers controlled learning. The teachers taught orally and their teaching style was through poetry, often accompanied by dramatic performance. This combination of style and performance created mental images, and paired with poetry made learning and memorization easier.
By Plato’s time, the Greek alphabet provided a rich way to construct prose in ways that so many other writing forms had not been able to achieve. According to Eric A. Havelock (1986), this is when Plato sized the day, possibly to supplant the power of the poet/teachers by shifting learning to the written word. A tension existed between the poets and the writers of this time over the two mediums for learning. Plato pressed for the democratization of learning through literary methods. A little later, the two forms co-existed as revealed in plays and other oral/visual performances. In the West, eventually the written text became the dominate way to learn.
I heard a story recently about a Bible translation project in New Guinea. The people group had received the written Word with the help of Western translators, and then they lost the written Word due to jungle decay. Fortunately, the people had produced hundreds of Scripture-based songs from their new translation so even if the books disintegrated, the oral Word could continue, passed on by parents and pastors to the next generation. Sadly though, other missionaries had instructed the people to stop signing the songs and learn Western Church songs. That way, all the groups could sing the same songs during regional gatherings. As a result, the oral Word was also lost for a generation of people.
Now these people have a renewed interest in Scripture translation, and their communication method of choice is to install the same practice that existed for a time in Greece when the oral and written text co-existed, each bringing the richness and practical use that both mediums of communication provide. Could it be that we are now in a time when oral preference and literary necessity can peacefully co-exist? In regard to Scripture translation, acknowledging the importance of oral Scriptures will insure that it is no longer viewed as just a curious practice in the eyes of Western workers. Instead, oral Bible learning and telling of Scripture will expand so that the Word is not lost to future generations due to the corruptible nature of printed books.
Keywords: oral learning, performance, Bible translation, literary, history
Views: 6460
Comments: 10
Recommendations: 1
Conversation Post Comment
United States
John Wilson’s comments reveal a common assumption, that a literary rendering of the Word is Scripture. Granted, the Scriptures in the sense of the Old Testament referred to the teachings of Moses and the prophets, and they were written down on scrolls. The "Bible" is written text on folded papyrus, which is what Bible means. But the Word is, as the apostle John said, living and active. Therefore, telling those words rather than reading them from a scroll, papyrus or book, is still God’s Word. I find it interesting that a stilted reading of Scripture from an English translation was less meaningful and impacting than when I told the same verses in natural English style to a group of middle school kids. God’s Word penetrated their hearts in ways the old NIV reading never seemed to do. So maybe, the living Word breathes better when people are telling it instead of just reading it out loud to others?
03.04.2012
Canada
@ Gilles:
Gilles, you mistake my intent. I fully appreciate the
theological concept that the Scriptures convey the living Word; but the written text is still our fundamental, tangible reference point. Any oral form of recounting the Scripture’s message is always in danger of degeneration over time; but reference back to the text can bring it back to memory and correct any deviance.
God did command Moses and others to write the texts we have. The Law (Pentateuch) was written and copies required to be made by kings of Israel (according to Deuteronomy), and it was read aloud with interpretation by Ezra and others. Similarly, some form of the gospels in oral form must have circulated for a while, but Matthew, mark
and Luke saw the need to make a written record. Luke especially notes the various accounts which are circulating, and sets out to give a carefully researched account. Then the letters of Paul were
obviously read aloud to the recipients; but copies circulated.
If no one had written down the Scriptures, there would be no
reliable oral record transmitted over the centuries.
I don’t write in ignorance. Back in the late 80s I did research on orality (including studying the orality of the Yali people in Papua), and I wrote my masters thesis on Scripture in an Oral Culture. I put into practice the things I learned—both in oral teaching and in Bible translation which (when read aloud) would communicate effectively to the
listeners, because we re-introduced natural oral features which literacy
normally reduces.
The important thing to recognize here is that orality is not simply literacy/literariness versus orality. The important thing is how we transmit the Word of God faithfully in oral cultures where orality is part of the culture and also a preferred learning and communication style.
That does not mean that oral peoples should not learn to read. They can learn to read and still prefer orality. But if we translate materials for oral cultures, we need to do so with sensitivity to teh culture and awareness of teh diverse oral genres.
Too often people think it is simply a matter of telling stories (in the way they know how); but to do it effectively you have to know the nuances of the language, its oral style and also the specific oral genres which are significant to meaning and used often in specific contexts.
03.04.2012
Canada
While I like what Gilles had to say about oral learning, I question the use of the expression "oral scripture". This is not simply because it is an oxymoron; but because "Scripture" (as we have it in the Bible) was meant to be written.
Through many centuries, kings and priests were entrusted with the written OT scriptures, and even had to make their own copies of the written Law (See Deut 17). However, on a number of occasions, we see that those Scriptures were read aloud for the largely non-literate (oral) population (e.g. 2 Kings 22-23; Neh 8). We see that the OT Scriptures were read aloud in the synagogues and this practice must have been in mind when Paul enjoined Timothy to practice (public/oral) reading of the Scriptures.
There is a place for (written) Scripture in oral cultures and I have written elsewhere about atention to orality in Scripture Translation, so that oral qualities are preserved for the benefit of listeners when the Scriptures are read aloud. (Contact me for sources j_gwilson@sympatico.ca )
Some modern English translations of the Scriptures are not easy to read aloud; nor are they easy to listen to.
We should indeed pay attention to the locally preferred ways of learning and communicating; but in reality, oral learners and communicators need access to a base (written) text of the Scriptures in their own language which has been prepared with sensitivity to both readers and listeners.
It is a misnomer to refer to "oral scriptures" or "oral Bible". They are not translations or paraphrasing of the Scriptures; but oral recitations of some stories or passages from the Scriptures, and as such are limited.
Scriptures in song indeed play an important role in communicationg Scripture in oral cultures. I have written about this in the context of the Southern Yali in Papua, Indonesia. But they too are an incomplete and limited expression of the Scriptures. This is exemplified in the case study from New Guinea which Gilles cites.
It highlights the point he makes that Orality and Literacy can and should be capable of co-existing.
31.05.2011
United States
@ John_D_Wilson:
I appreciate the importance you place on the written word of God. Indeed, I believe it is inspired scripture. However, we must remember that not every society even has a written language. And for many societies that do use a written language, many people have no access to it because of illiteracy, so they require that the learned class read the word to them (as you eluded to in your post). Even many parts of the Bible itself were probably passed down orally for countless generations before they were written down in the Hebraic language.
I believe the main point of this article is that learning based on the written word is largely a construct of western society, and we must be careful not to impose western styles of learning on societies for whom this does not work. Lest we be guilty of spreading the good news of western society instead of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
I agree with you that both orallity and the written word in foreign tounges must both continue to be developed as ways of spreading the Gospel, but I think that the written word is not for every society.
21.11.2011
United States
Marcus 14,
I think you are correct when you said that we should share what we have learned with others. I also believe that by doing so, we will continue to propagate the great truths of the Bible as well. Orality is very important because most of us have gained a great deal of valuable information from our realtives who lived in the past. for example, our family tree, story telling which has been precious to us as we have learned so much of the history of our past generations who did not have the privilege of having the printing press, computers, etc...
31.10.2011
United States
@ Ernesto:
This is an important point. Orailty is nothing new in the west; most all of our culture, family, morals, etc. is passed along from generation to generation without the use of the written word. We use writings mainly for more formal forms of education. My four year old daughter can’t read the Gospel of John, but she can sing Jesus loves me. We need to take this form of education that comes so naturally and use it more often when spreading the Gospel.
21.11.2011
United States
In regards to orality, I think that it was a greatt way to communicate valuable information in the past. And, not only in the past, but in the present as well. There are so many people who cannot read or write and they can benefit from that. In other words, orality is not a thing in the past, but it is also very important today as well. By using it, we can be a blessing to others by sharing God’s love in a way that they would be able to hear the gospel just like every one else in the world.
03.11.2011
United States
good point Gilles,
I agree with you when you said that the Word can be passed on by parents and pastors from generation to generation. Not only that, but those of us who had the blessing of having a family member who lived in past generations, are priviledged by the fact that they shared precious information about our ancestors that we never met. And, at the same time, we were able to know them by the many stories told by that particular realtive.
01.11.2011
United States
Orality is definitely a lost art. We don’t want to share with people what we have learned. How can we grow as a church if we don’t share the convictions the Holy Spirit. I believe we become so others can become after us. Like the orality of history, African-Americans told their stories to pass down a legacy but also to instruct lessons learned along the way.
18.07.2011
United States
Oral learning, the method of telling a stroy. In this article we find the wrtier speaking about translation as well as illiteriacy. the art of oral story telling helps the listener learn the stories of the bilbe. the african griote told the village a stroy in arythmic tone so the listener could comprhend the story better. We have to give the gospel in a manner inwhich the listeners will comprhend and then go a tell what they have heard. Oral learning is a lost art. The preacher needs to tell the story of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ so who hears this message will tell what they have heard to others.
15.07.2011
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).