Angela Center

Integrating: spirituality, psychology, social responsibility and the arts

What's New

Reflection for August 6, 2006

Calendar

Psychotherapy /      Counseling Services

Conference Facilities

Registration

Contact our Staff

News

AC Press

HOME

The Law of Oral Tradition

In Richard Sheridan's 1777 comedy The School for Scandal an incident occurs in which old Sir Peter Teazle, who suspects his nephew Charles of flirting with his young wife Lady Teazle, learns that Charles's brother Joseph is the real culprit and a verbal confrontation takes place in Joseph's apartment.

It's not long before gossip takes over. Mrs. Candour still holds that Charles was the guilty brother. Sir Benjamin Backbite insists it was Joseph. Lady Sneerwell agrees with Sir Benjamin. Someone then mentions Sir Peter's having been wounded. Backbite confirms there was indeed a duel. He then describes word for word the insults exchanged and Lady Teazle's hysteria. But when Backbite mentions the use of swords, Crabtree says they fought with pistols. They then argue over whether Sir Peter was wounded by a sword thrust or a bullet in his thorax. (The details increase!) But Crabtree says the shot missed Sir Peter, ricocheted out the window and wounded a postman who was delivering a letter from Northamptonshire! The gossipers are interrupted at this point; otherwise we might have enjoyed rumors of what was in the letter, far afield though that might be.

Gossip! It follows what scholars call the Law of Oral Tradition, namely the tendency of word of mouth communication to grow in detail (and misinformation) from one teller's imagination to another. And it's gossip people prefer over prosaic facts. Look at the stuff at the check out counter. Listen to talk radio and TV. Even the once dependable print media seem to prefer sensation to a disciplined telling of what's actually happening. At least an old journalist friend of mine thinks so.

Of course the Bible originated out of a word of mouth narration of episodes about Abraham and Moses and Jesus and so it also retains in its written form evidence of word of mouth embellishment. The classic example is the story about Abraham's going to Egypt in a time of famine and passing his wife Sarah off as his sister to save his skin just in case Pharaoh took a liking to her (Genesis 12). The same story is told in Genesis 20 where it picks up 8 more verses! Except this time Abraham selfishly risks Sarah's virtue in the kingdom of Abimelech, not Egypt. Finally the story is told again in Genesis 26, still located in the kingdom of Abimelech, but this time it's not Abraham but his son Isaac who asks his wife Rebecca to pretend she's his sister to save his skin. In every version, of course, God intervenes to protect the integrity of Israel's matriarchs but in every case the same story acquired different details as it once circulated from campfire to campfire.

Today's Gospel has a similar history. The Transfiguration episode is told by Mark, Matthew and Luke, each influenced by its earlier circulation by word of mouth. So details have changed. Two versions begin with "After 6 days" while the third begins with "After about 8 days". One version describes the radiance of Christ's clothing while another speaks of the radiance of his face. Luke's version tells us what Jesus, Moses and Elijah conversed about while the others do not. All of which shows the Bible to be a human as well as divine book, a product of human beings who allow their imaginations to bring out the luster of any episode they narrate even as an artist enhances a landscape with touches of his brush - but all to confirm the fundamental truth and beauty of what they present.

The Bible is not gossip, whose intent is often to make much ado about little out of a need to enjoy the faults and even the ruin of others. So let's pray that insofar as we are inclined as human beings to embellish what we see and hear, we may choose to do so in the illuminating way of Mark's Gospel and not in the destructive manner of Gossip.

-- Geoff Wood