4 ms·

I think there are two ways to think about stories like this: that they are Wisdom, or that they are tools for those who are wise. I prefer to think of them in t

I think there are two ways to think about stories like this: that they are Wisdom, or that they are tools for those who are wise. I prefer to think of them in the second way. The stereotypical Bible-thumping Christian thinks of the Bible as Wisdom. That is, it doesn't require much critical thinking or wisdom to apply. The Bible says X, therefore X is true in every situation and you should apply it to everything. But I think in an oral culture it was more likely that these were tools for thinking. E.g. if your wise friend tells you this story (which you've heard before) and says, "I think in this area you're being the cat in the relationship," then that has some weight. But when a random priest says, "You're the cat in this area of the relationship," their priestly authority doesn't mean they are the voice of God and they are speaking infallible truth into your life. Your wise friend has more weight because you know from experience that they are wise and because they know you. Basically, the story is a tool that is only useful to those who are wise. The story is worthless in the hands of a fool.

detourdog 2y ago
The problem I see in the current culture is that most people view the ancient texts through translations that seem almost illiterate compared to the original language. I will take your word that some religions don't study the Bible. The study I went through was pretty in depth and I still have revelations 40+ years after the initial studying. The difference between oral tradition and the written word is that the written word takes discipline. Some of the early religions have strict rules on capturing the text of the documents. The fidelity between contents of the Dead Sea scrolls and the current Torah is impressive. The oral tradition is a secondary collection of contemporary stories that become the living dialog of the evolving culture. Some religions contain both oral and written tradition. The written word is stagnant and the cultural understanding is always evolving. I understand the divide you are describing but I know a culture that has managed to maintain both.
- detourdog 2y ago
  I guess Plato is given a lot credit for writing down oral rules of thought and being.

detourdog 2y ago

The problem I see in the current culture is that most people view the ancient texts through translations that seem almost illiterate compared to the original language. I will take your word that some religions don't study the Bible. The study I went through was pretty in depth and I still have revelations 40+ years after the initial studying. The difference between oral tradition and the written word is that the written word takes discipline. Some of the early religions have strict rules on capturing the text of the documents. The fidelity between contents of the Dead Sea scrolls and the current Torah is impressive. The oral tradition is a secondary collection of contemporary stories that become the living dialog of the evolving culture. Some religions contain both oral and written tradition. The written word is stagnant and the cultural understanding is always evolving. I understand the divide you are describing but I know a culture that has managed to maintain both.

detourdog 2y ago
I guess Plato is given a lot credit for writing down oral rules of thought and being.