What We Miss When We Only Read the Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 кві 2024
- A review of D. Brent Sandy's book, Hear Ye the Word of the Lord: What We Miss When We Only Read the Bible.
A little addendum to this one: I said in this review that Sandy is a good exponent of poor ideas. I left out the possibility that he is a bad exponent of good ideas, and due to word count limitations I could not explain why I felt free to reject that possibility. I have to admit (again) that I have not read any Walter Ong, and it is possible that I'm really missing out. But I checked my whole Logos library for references to Ong, and essentially no one I respect and cite and read (that I could find-and with Logos, I can find words like "Ong" pretty quickly!) is actually using Ong's ideas for their interpretation. He gets mentioned a tiny bit more than he gets used-which is easy, because he wasn't used at all. Given that fact, and given the fact that Sandy's book failed to give even one new insight into Scripture that is traceable to the recovering of orality, I felt safe to conclude that I was reading a good exponent of poor ideas. If Sandy had shown some insight stemming from orality, or if my commentators will consistently citing Ong (who's been writing for a long time), then I would have been very open to coming to a different conclusion in this review.
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
Originally published here:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2024...
I proudly stand with everyone who has ever claimed to have read a book when they "only" listened to the audiobook. We exist and our voice deserves to be heard... sometimes at 1.5x speed.
;)
Preach 👏
I had to listen to Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig at 1.0x 😂
Lol. Listeners of the world UNITE!!!
I usually make the distinction but not always because it takes more time and it sometimes hinders my thought pattern to clarify that I listened rather than read. I get distracted far too easily 😂
@@JR-lg7fd "I get distracted far too easily "
Punctuation would help you. (Yes, I'm serious. There is a direct connection.)
That was the kindest and most gentle blood bath I've ever seen.
@GTMGunTotinMinnesotan "That was the kindest and most gentle blood bath I've ever seen."
Yup. That's what he does. 😁
To get what Luke was trying to convey in his prologue, one must read it with an Oxford don's accent, then read the rest of the Gospel in a midwestern American accent.
I listen to the Bible everyday. Sometimes I hear things and catch nuances that I don't pick up on when reading. My understanding is that it engages different parts of the brain. Also it is really easy to hear the reading of the entire new testament in a day so you can go over and over everyday. Sometimes you can hear the persuasiveness of oratory come across very smooth, sometimes it seems more clear a statement is given for remembering, and sometimes the documentary power of a written record is clearly being used. I am persuaded that we are blessed with both these days and need to use them. Many bad doctrines and teachings have come from proof texting a few versus, and it is the majority method these days.
Excellent review. Does Sandy interact with the fact that God wrote the 10 Commandments for Moses and commanded that they be preserved in the ark of the covenant? Those events suggest that God has a higher view of the writing and reading than his analysis suggests.
That's a great point. I don't remember him bringing this up, but I read the book five months ago.
Thank you Mark for emphasizing the content of scripture independent of its means of transmission.
I've been listening to the Bible on my phone for 2 years.
I much prefer to listen than to read.
I listen to it a lot more than I read because I can do it at work
or anytime.
Good review. I prefer to read the Bible out loud. I get to hear my own voice, I have to slow down, and really think about what I am reading. I remember it much better that way. ❤
Yeah, excellent!
Great points Mark. I used to listen to unabridged books on audiotapes while working nights and can’t say enough how beneficial it was. Listening to Augustine required many rewinds but it was wonderful. It’s hard to listen to scripture without it in front of me, I find my mind distracted and not giving it the attention it deserves. Blessings🙏
A few observations not necessarily related to this episode:
1) Thank you for your hard work and dedication. I truly have been edified by your content that I’ve been binge watching for a week.
2) I’m sure you’ve already thought of of this, but one possible reason that people recoil at textual criticism is that the word criticism may be a false friend in that context? Not exactly a false friend but possibly a 2nd or 3rd cousin. “Why would we want to criticize the Word of God?”, someone might think.
3) A humorous observation. In my mind I’ve started to hear KJV-only people say The Bible in the same way that Buckeyes say THEE Ohio State University.
re 2 Isn't there some synonym for textual criticism that some people prefer to use for that very reason? I just call it textual criticism because it's what I hear it called virtually all the time and I have no issues with the term, but I thought I recalled some people using some alternate
I'm glad this was a book review. I mostly study the Scriptures. In my background, I was badly mislead by many different Christian Theologies so I had to discard everything I had ever learned to see what the Bible actually says.
Most of the time, when I read a book on theology, especially, I see a preconceived doctrine being imposed on the interpretation of the scriptures it references.
Mostly, I find myself interested in background information of the times, traditions and objects found in the scriptures.
I'm like you. I don't understand the difference in "hearing" vs "reading" the scriptures in context. But, I do understand that certain concepts could be misunderstood by using today's standards. Things like what is the Inn, and laying at the dinner table...
After I have done some research in scripture, including background information, I do like to read a couple of views supporting and opposing my findings. I have sometimes been persuaded to change my mind after evaluating additional scripture I may have overlooked that applies to my study.
Of course, there are many ways of "reading" the scriptures. Sometimes I read, do you call it "literary"? I just read to read the book. Other times, I read to get an outline or an indepth understanding of one or more points being made in the text. Other times, it is more devotional. What is God doing and what should I be doing? How do I use it to praise God?
People get upset with me when I suggest this. They ask, "How do you know you understand the scriptures properly if you don't read what the scholars or church father's say?" or "You could be misleading yourself and conclude false doctrines."
They are correct that it is possible that i misunderstand something. But, for every church father or scholar who interprets a doctrine from the scriptures, there is at least one or more who teach the opposite. Therefore, I have to choose what to believe between two church fathers, two scholars, or the Word of God.
I admit that it is difficult not to believe what I believe the scriptures teach. But, I put what I understand the scriptures teaching above the fathers and scholars. If I'm wrong, that's God's problem! It's His job bring me into understanding of His truth. And He can do it through His word, the scriptures.
Who should I trust? Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, Campbell, White, Flowers, or the Word of God?
One must be insanely arrogant to suggest knowing something of a God. It is by boldness, Moses became the world's worst navigator, by having one foot in some fantasyland. There is a fine line between fishing & standing on the shore, looking like an idiot. Fail to get the Jews to buy it for 2000 years & they should know who their Messiah is. Jesus is a fake, to immortalize the war against the Jews. Jesus Christ is crucified for all time in literature & the subjects of Rome are illiterate. Freud wrote, "The antidote to Christianity is literacy" & the joke is in the scriptures. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13
An improvement on your God & faith; would outlaw indoctrination & abuse of the vocabulary of fiction on children.
You’re ignoring the fact that in what you’re doing, you’re just another Calvin, Wesley, or Pastor Bob down the road at the local “Baptist Church.” No one, interprets the Bible objectively, so as to have infallible knowledge 100% that our interpretation is true. This is why Sola Scriptura is a spectacular failure.
@@frisco61 You ignore the fact, not all of us can pretend prophesy & God exist. That is why Jesus Christ says, "Think not I come with peace, but sword".
It is amusing to hear the profound arrogance of someone knowing of God, as if He were known outside of fiction. The believer & the literate are separated by the vocabulary of fiction: Blasphemy, God, faith, prayer, prophet, scripture etc. Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” I like asking believers how they can possibly think their faith is respectable, given Jesus said faith is worthless, since you can't expect obedience when ordering mountains to move? Freud wrote, "The antidote to Christianity is literacy".
Blasphemy is a fiction vocabulary word. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Believers lack quality-control, so we are to pretend their God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. Like playing book tag.
Compilation of evidence that Emperors Titus and Vespasian were responsible for
Jesus’ story, that Domitian modified it, and the reason they left such evidence.
@@frisco61 No, absolutely not. Calvin depended on Augustine. In spite of what they may say, Calvinism, and arminianism, which is a branch of Calvinism, are dependent on external teachers and text being taken out of context.
I'm not going to debate soteriology here, but almost every point of the calvinist specific doctrine proof text is defeated in reading the text in context and they can only support most of it by logical conclusion based on a false dichotomy of either this or it must be that.
"sola sscriptura" is a man-defined doctrine which has rules and regulations that I don't necessarily believe or accept.
I don't know any believers who will say that they know everything about the scriptures with 100% accuracy. But how do you answer the question, "what do you believe to be true, that you know you are wrong about?"
I read the scriptures to learn what they say and mean as they are written. Certain topics come up in what i read. Some are being "taught" while others may only be mentioned or referenced. But, each passage has one focus. What is that focus?
When someone is teaching some doctrine and presents their case, I examine the evidence. If they use a verse or two from Romans 9, I don't read "Romans 9". Paul did not write "Romans 9". Paul wrote an epistle, or letter, to the church at Rome. It's an entire letter, not a paragraph from a letter. So, I read the epistle of Romans. What is the role of the proof-text given in context of the entire epistle?
A friend once came to me and wanted to show me how God spoke to him from the scripture. He said he opens the bible and points his finger to a random verse and obeys it. In his demonstration, he pointed to the a verse that said Judas hanged himself. So, he tried again, and pointed to Jesus saying "go and do likewise" Not satisfied, he tried a 3rd time and hit "What you do, do quickly." Out of context verses are dangerous!
Of course, this was a pre-planned joke on my friend's part, but it teaches an important lesson.
I can't tell you everything about how I study, as I have many ways depending on my purpose. But when I read the scriptures, I have to open my mind to allowing God to teach me. That means take all of my presuppositions and leave them outside the door. Then when I learn what the scriptures are saying, they can teach something that might contradict what I believe. Then, my quest in the scriptures is to examine the text more closely as well as its apparent contradictions, each in their context. I have to be willing to admit I was wrong, if, as has happened, I had an erroneous belief before the reading.
part of that process may or may not include reading commentary. But, commentary is never on the same level as the scriptures.
I read by Bible in the morning with an audio version at 1.5 speed. However, my evening readings I do the old fashion way. I find sometimes I read a passage and think, what did I just read. Following along with the text while listening the audio version is helpful to me.
Thank you for this. Because of you I’m encouraged to read different books so I can have a more robust view of things.
I had an 8th grade teacher who would always say "Did you read the book or just say words?"
@Rod-Wheeler
Rod, as one that works with children in school, I can fully understand what your 8th grade teacher meant. There are lots of children who can "read," but they can't "read." That is, they can read the words but they have no understanding of what they are reading, don't know what the words mean, what meaning the writer is conveying, the inferences and decoding that goes on when we read. I'm pretty good with accents; I can reel off a range of British accents and foreign ones. I can reel off a great French accent and I can read in French.....without understanding a single thing that I'm reading !
Really great content brother. Very original. Refreshing 👍
Interesting topic. We had a kerfuffle in an online book club not long ago on the question of whether or not listening to an audio version constituted reading the book. We concluded that it did.
In the last couple of years I've found great pleasure and increased understanding in adding audio to my text reading of Scripture. I don't know if it's the repetition or the multiple modes that make the difference. It's possible that I listen more carefully than I read! It could be the relative novelty of the spoken text: I tend less to gloss over familiar passages.
How about a book discussing "only reading" but not obeying what we read? God didn't give us scripture to make us into theologians; He gave it to make us into disciples.
Perhaps the problem is that you read Sandy's book in print rather than listening to the audiobook.
Ha! Yes!
Thanks, brother Mark!
I got this book in the mail last week. Looking forward to digging into it soon.
Also, as both a student and practitioner of creative writing, I can tell you that speech and writing are intertwined. As one writes (especially in any meter), it is spoken aloud to feel its rhythm, and as one might create a rhyme, it is written and rewritten. They go hand in hand together. However, the final product is for an audience to read, and if they so feel, to read aloud, to help understand the words on the page.
Often I read along while I'm listening. Am I overzealous?!
Thanks Mark, for another great video.
I think it is revealing, that when you shared the following quote from Sandy's work, I didn't get the full meaning from your spoken words, but had to freeze the video on the printed version, so that I could slowly read and understand its meaning:
“Reducing spoken words to written or printed form is actually an act of decontextualization, resulting in a written account not containing a full sense of the original content, and therefore has inherent limitations.”
At least in this case, I completely understand the message of the author, whether or not I agree with him. I do not believe there was any decontextualization, and instead of limiting my understanding, the written word gave me time to “digest” the author’s words.
Um..."It is written " was spoken by who?
It seems to me that the audible delivery of scripture is the more important aspect of orality.
The creators may have been literate but most often the recivers were not, and even when they were literate they would have them read to them (like in Ester) read them aloud themselves.
However the individual Psalms were composed their purpose as a whole is as songs, often sung as part of liturgy.
The Epistles would have been more likely read to whole congregations rather than passed from individual to individual.
The point being that the books of the Bible were expected to be experienced as a flow of connected ideas rather than as sentences in isolation, and when we ignore that flow we can miss the original message.
I think of Tom Wright's recent critique of the standard Romans Road formula. While individual passages can be used to make that argument, the way it's often presented with jumps back ad forth through the text indicates it was not the argument Paul was nost interested in making.
Also, when the biblical authors quote other passages of Scripture it's to bring to mind the whole passage not just the directly referenced words. Just like when we quote a favorite line from a movie or song we expect our hearers to remember the whole scene or piece. ("Mawage", "Luke, I am your Father", "Oh say can you see")
The ultimate point being that we must guard against the temptation to treat scripture as a set of literary Legos we can rearrange for our own purposes but try follow the message the authors were trying to convey.
For most of church history wasn't the Bible read aloud? The Gospels where read aloud during Church services, at least before the canonization of Scripture.
Shouldn't his book only be available as an audio book? ;-)
Sounds like the author was unconvincing. That said, there is little better in this world than the reading of John's Gospel filmed in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, by the actor Sir David Suchet. Available here on UA-cam and it is glorious.
I'm not opposed to listening to the Bible in audio! I think it's awesome! I even think it's essential, but not because of the originally/primarily oral character of the Bible but because the NT says that pastors should "give attention to reading."
@@markwardonwordsPaul's instruction to Timothy is that he "attend to the _public_ reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching" (1 Timothy 4:13), which means reading aloud to an audience.
I always trust Dr. Ward's knowledge and wisdom.
I, too, love audiobibles, and audiobooks (wish more scholars would do them!). But I did seriously wonder why Revelation said blessed are those who read aloud and hear instead of just read.
Hearing how a conversation was spoken rather than merely reading it is one way we can lose a meaning of a verse, just like an email or text cannot totally convey how the remark was said or meant. What did Jesus say to the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43? "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" or "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."
Only cultists think the latter is what Jesus meant.
"Only meant to be read aloud" seems to undercut the fact that so many of our NT books are letters.
And who is recounting the journalism of Luke as a listening exercise, surely he wrote to whoever Theophilus was in the intention of the recipient(s) carefully reading the account.
I've quite benefited from hearing the word aloud even this week. Just yesterday I wanted to start a study in Romans so I fired up my audio recording of the KJV so I could listen to it all at once before delving into my ESV/NASB bible at the rate of 1 chapter per week for our upcoming study.
I am leading two Bible studies at my church where i encourage them to do a book survey first and understand the historical setting.
In our Women's Bible study verse-by-verse through Genesis, I found that Henry Morris in his Genesis commentary believes that the "toledot's" were written in some form - for instance Genesis 5:1 (NASB) "This is the book of the generations of Adam". Interesting video. Thank you.
Dr. Ward, are you familiar with the works of Dr. Ben Witherington III on the topic of Scripture’s orality? If so, do you have the same issues with those works that you mention in this video? I ask because I know Dr. Witherington sometimes seemingly says similar things to what you are critiquing here, namely, that Scripture comes to us from an oral culture and to fully understand it one must also understand the art of ancient rhetoric. Is this wrong?
I have used Witherington’s commentaries here and there over the years, and I’ve read a book or three of his, and I’ve interviewed him. Super neat guy. But I can’t say I’ve found particular insight from the “socio-rhetorical” aspect of his commentaries. But I haven’t given that matter focused attention, I admit.
I have not read this book, but I am a bit confused as to how you are using the word "oral"/"orality". I use it in this sort of context to refer to cultures without writing, and in some places in this video, especially when you cite the book, it appears to be being used this way, but at other points, it appears to be being applied to Luke, who lived in a literate culture and was clearly literate himself
5:57 The Psalms. I am unconvinced that this is much evidence at all that they originated outside of an oral culture. (I think the fact that many if not all of them were clearly composed post-Moses and Israel was clearly literate by then would be a strong argument, so I'm not objecting to the conclusion, just the argument) Oral cultures compose poems and remember relevant information about them, the Psalms including titles would not be weird at all to my knowledge. The Odyssey and the Illiad are famously believed to have been written in their earliest form as a recording of existing oral tradition.
8:49 Decontextualization. Are you sure that in context the author of the book is talking about the natural information loss inevitable over any medium transition? because I took it based on what you quoted to be referring to the fact that the myths of oral cultures are intertwined, and the meaning of a given myth may be partially or completely dependent upon the existence of someone who already knows the meaning explaining it, because it acts like a verbal memory palace, not a fancy encoding scheme. I'm perfectly fine believing that if any part of the Bible was transcribed from oral tradition (maybe Job would be the least controversial candidate), it still contains what Yahweh thought was important enough to preserve, even though a transcription from an oral myth to a written account would either include a book's worth of footnotes and appendices at a minimum, or lose some information which would have been decipherable from the myth to people with the right training in the oral culture from which it originated
(I'm using "myth" here in a generic sense, not meaning to claim or disclaim the literal truth of any such myth)
If orality is so important, then we must read the Bible aloud IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. How many Christians can do that, and how many fewer believers would understand a word they were saying?
From your description of the work, it sounds to me like his critiques are best aimed at the casual audience that is prone to uncareful reading (e.g., flip a bunch of pages and point at random for a "fresh word from God"). However, I seriously doubt that such an audience is going to pick up a book like this in the first place.
What audio Bible do you recommend?
The Bible Experience, TNIV. Love it!
I love Mark Ward videos.
At first i mistook “only reading the Bible” to mean “reading the Bible exclusively and nothing else.” Hmm…
So did I, and thought the video was going to be about those persons/groups who are opposed to theology books, commentaries, etc, and say that Christians should read only the Bible, and that the Spirit will interpret it for us.
I've never been a fan of having things read to me. I didn't even like stories being read to me out of books as a little child. I'd always rather do it myself. I learned to read at 4 so maybe that's why.
But I've always liked oral stories.
What audio Bible software/app do you use?
Dwell! And the ESV app.
I suspect the modern "cascade of studies... on the orality of Scripture" is more intended to advance the narrative that "the Scriptures" were not actually written until the intertestamental period. Put another way: it is just part of the larger effort to discredit God's word.
I can’t say that. That isn’t my impression. But I do not know.
I think in the Bible there is a blended nature to the orality of the text. The Psalms, as you mentioned, are good example. Yes, they seem to be structured in our canon as a musical sheet music of sorts, but what were they written for? Performance. To be sung and heard. And we simply do not know if they came down to us from the direct hand of the Psalmist or by means of a collated hymnbook of sorts.
A great example of orality in ancient literature, to me, is the catalogue of ships in Book II of the Iliad. Were you meant to memorize all the names mentioned in the poem? No, I think (and ancient and modern commentators have agreed) that its nature is to give the listener the scope of the armada, to see the forest rather than trees, if you will.
I think the genealogies serve a near similar purpose. Do they catalogue true history and provide a proof of sorts to certain people's lineage? Absolutely. But they always serve a theological purpose. There are generations that are skipped on occasion, not to lack information, but to provide all that is necessary for the topic at hand. I think moments like this show that though the text of Scripture shows layers of linguistic diligence, that doesn't negate their design for audiences both literate and illiterate. However, to claim a primarily oral focus of the Scriptures... is overstepping. And as you alluded to, reminds me of the concerning types that will say to listen for God's voice rather than "just read it".
I had Brent Sandy for a NT Intro. class when in seminary at Liberty University.
I hope it was great!
I was curious if he "spoke" about Scripture readings in synagogues or churches or mosques. Most traditions do have an oral recitation and wouldn't just say to the congregation, "take some time and read this to yourself." Why is that ritual important?
Because Paul tells pastors to "give attention to reading."
@@markwardonwords But are you saying it's simply what Jews call a "scriptural decree," with no rationally discernible meaning? In other words, doesn't Paul's instruction emerge from some insight into the great value of the oral presentation of the divine word?
@@markwardonwordsPaul's instruction to Timothy is that he "attend to the _public_ reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching" (1 Timothy 4:13), which means reading aloud to an audience.
Your response seems to me to have little to do with the question that was asked.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I do believe it reflects such an insight. But the further steps taken by Sandy I wasn't persuaded by.
...so going back to the title, are we missing things if we just read the bible? Some people release materials and lessons like The Bible Project to help people understand the bible more. But for people who didn't have proper education about the bible, how do we know if what they're saying is reliable?
Pray to God for discernment before reading or listening and be comfortable knowing that your understanding will evolve and deepen with time.
I ordered the Bible Recap book and told my friend about it, who then also ordered it. We independently found things in it that were “off” even though we have quite different religious backgrounds. I switched to the Bible in a Year podcast and simply take note of things that don’t make sense to me - sometimes I can look them up and find more context immediately, and sometimes it may take a few months before I stumble on the information.
I listened to a few episodes of the Bible Project podcast and again noticed things that were off. I appreciated their short videos before but now avoid them for the most part. I think the difference between all three may be that Father Mike shares more about different perspectives and makes it clear when he’s talking about something that the Roman Catholic Church believes, whereas the other two do not clearly make those distinctions to alert the audience that there may be a difference of opinion.
I don’t really get what he’s saying. And if the bible wasn’t written down how would we know what it says. It’s been thousands of years and if it was only oral it would be like a game of telephone where it would change so much t would have no meaning. Am I missing something?
Good review. While I haven't read this book, I have had many encounters with the literature on the orality of the bible; this is a predominate theme in minority language bible translation and was a dominant theme in the last BT conference. Most of what I have read either mirrors the kinds of arguments you saw in this book (or worse).
Yeah, I'm nervous about coming to such a negative conclusion when I haven't done a ton of reading in the literature. But I've paid attention to who and how it gets cited over a number of years, and I've really been unimpressed. =|
Even if it were true that some portions of Scripture were either initially oral or used liturgically orally, it does not follow that if we do not engage them in that way we are lacking or unable to gain full understanding. I think that as many different ways we can engage Scripture is a good thing. An old candy stick that is still just as sweet is Hand Illustration from the Navigators: Reading, hearing, studying, meditating, memorizing are all ways to enhance, augment, and provide variety to our engagement with God's word. But they are just that, different ways to engage.
Does it really matter whether the original audience was an oral society or a written one? Does God or the Bible demand of us to stay stagnant with what was? We must distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive. If we want to be a good learner, we need to know our learning style. Both reading the text and listening to the text of the Bible have their advantages. Audio does give me a different experience than just reading, but for deeper study, I need the text in written form. We are really very blessed by having both options so readily available.
Certainly a more profound and Biblical argument would have been made
on the speaking of the Word aloud, with faith and intent,
in how this effects the spiritual realm according to God's purpose.
Biblical world of hearing? What about God's command that Israel's kings write a copy of the of the law and read it all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord? Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Also, King Josiah learned of Judah's transgressions against the laws of God when the law was found in the house of the Lord and it was read. 2 King 22:8-20.
Yes, this is a very good point I should have thought of!
Hi Mark! Have you done or considered doing a vudeo on the apocryphaand why we should or should not consider it canon of scripture? Would be very interested as a critical scholar to hear your thoughts. I would expect it to be far more enlightening than the usual poor reasoning by most of us Protestants. Love your channel btw. Blessibgs in Jesus Christ!
Have you seen Disciple Dojo's interview with scholar David deSilva on the subject?
@MAMoreno no. Found it, i think. I would like to see someone talk about the problems feom a Protestant view? An actual well thought out one. The usual arguments are rather poor from what I have seen. I have issues with some of them, but they are nothing that others use to argue.
@@bytesizedbible Most of the arguments against it are weak, yes, as they could be applied to other parts of the Christian canon. Perhaps the strongest point is that the books of Maccabees seem to assume that there are no modern prophets.
The author of 1 Maccabees notes that the Jews placed the defiled stones of the desecrated temple in a temporary place until a prophet could come along and tell them what to do with it (4.46), and the book gives no indication that such a thing occurred subsequently. They later decide to appoint Simon as a high priest "until a trustworthy prophet should arise" (14.41), but again, there is no fulfilment of that hope in the book.
The second book of Maccabees also suggests a hope for a future prophet, this time to discover the location of the ark of the covenant. The book states that Jeremiah declared that "the Lord will disclose" its location when "God gathers his people again and shows them mercy" (2.7-8). Despite the presence of prophets at the beginning of the Second Temple Period (as seen in Ezra-Nehemiah), the author assumes that a future prophet is needed to reveal where the ark was hid. While this passage is not as strong as the evidence in the earlier book, it does support the notion that this period was lacking in prophets. And if you don't have prophets, you don't have prophetic messages.
@MAMoreno interesting. Thank you. In the book of Tobit, an angel lies and says he is kin and then says it was to trick them so he could help them. This seems contrary to God's nature and smacks of Satan, the father of lies. I would not throw them all out, but think we should judge each on its own merit. The others everyone seems to agree with.
@@bytesizedbibleDr. deSilva is a New Testament scholar that came from the Methodist background (so he's a Protestant), and the Apocrypha is one of his research focus. He authored "Introducing the Apocrypha, 2nd ed: Message, Context, and Significance" of which I highly recommend
Maybe you’d understand Sandy if he just spoke it out loud 🤷
Forehead bonk 🤦♂️
I'm contemplating this subject in light of 1 Samuel 3:21. "And Yahweh appeared again at Shiloh, because Yahweh revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of Yahweh". In some way, when Samuel heard Yahweh speaking, it is recognized that Yahweh appeared. He was seen somehow by the hearing of His Word to Samuel.
Yes, but the rest of the universe since then gets to hear about the story _in written form_. We get the report of what happened.
Gotta admit - I am beginning to increasingly HATE books written primarily via propositions (a la almost all of Walton's books, of which Sandy's former book written with John Walton, namely The Lost World of Scripture I DID THOROUGHLY APPRECIATE)
I am also little surprised how many pretty 'top notch' scholars endorsed this book (Blomberg, for instance)
It seems that people are often drawn by the 'new' and, perhaps, in some ways, the 'novel' vs. 'true' scholaticism
Great job noting the Romans and James passages about 'hearing' and 'seeing' and 'saying' and 'writing' etc
At Millar College of the Bible we take oral presentation of Scripture quite seriously and even offer awards based on it
I, therefore, am a little disappointed to hear how this book seems to 'come short' of its full potential
Thank you for an honest (and TEMPERED) perspective - well done!
Have you read much on orality? My biggest fear here is reflected in my note in the description: maybe these ideas are stronger than Sandy made them seem?
@@markwardonwords I must confess that i have NOT read much on orality but am persuaded that THAT was the authroative means of communication that the Apostles chose to elucidate their message(s) and it must therefore be taken seriously
I will read your description etc
The fundamental problem I have with Sandy's thesis is that within the Bible itself, it is clear that much of it was written down. Yes, the prophets spoke verbally and various people were supposed to hear what they said....but by the time Jesus came along and was quoting the prophets their words had clearly been written down. I do not get the impression that people in general were called upon by God to memorize everything they heard and even though I accept wholeheartedly that we are not so hot these days at memorizing, nevertheless, writing things down for later and further recall has long made human sense.
God has enabled us to develop a number of different ways of communicating and it is also quite significant that when the Lord gave Israel the law, he wrote it down.
It's funny, where my parents come from in Nigeria, there was/is an oral tradition and my Dad was full of great stories. But I've had to look them up to refresh my memory when I wanted to tell younger children those stories.
Besides which, there is an innate connection in us as reading, thinking, hearing human beings between those 3 disciplines. Hearing or reading something translates into thinking about what we've read or heard, without systematically having to break down which is which. It's in the way we're made.
"There are few insights into actual Bible passages that are clearly traceable to Sandy's thesis."
Well, Mark, I think you've finally done it. You've finally posted a video in which I must disagree strongly with you. Lol. 😂 In seriousness, though, I think you missed the point of the book. You correctly observed the thesis, as he made that plain in the beginning of the book, but his point was not so much to look at specific biblical passages and show how hearing them changes one's understanding of the text. Rather, the point of the book was to encourage a more dynamic reading of the Bible through aesthetics and the arts. His conclusion at the end, in my opinion, is where he most excels in proving his point. As I read his suggestions, I thought of things like Dorothy Sayers' phenomenal play-cycle "The Man Born to Be King", which caused a little bit of controversy because she not only didn't use KJV style English, but actually put slang in the mouths of the disciples who were fishermen, tax gatherers, etc., people who didn't "cut much ice" as a couple of centurions say at one point in the cycle. Hearing it performed (the cycle is available on Audible), it brings out so much about the story of Christ that one never thought about before. I also thought of Sight & Sound Theatres and their amazing productions (all of which are available through their App for viewing and a few are available on Prime Video). I also appreciated his mention of Malcolm Guite's poetry, a personal hero of the faith to me as a a poet myself. Good aesthetics incarnate so many truths in Scripture, bringing them down to earth, and all ancient cultures were oral like that. Homer's poetry was sung, as was Beowulf, and all the old epics. The culture of the Bible was the same, the writing down of it the last stage of its transmission. The Psalms were the most oral of all, as they were mainly heard when they were sung (such as the Psalms of Ascent which were sung as the pilgrims came up to Jerusalem). We need more performances of Scripture and less dry readings.
Excellent. Will consider this.
I think these debates stem from many Christians' aversion to individuality. The body of Christ is not a machine, and we are not cogs therein. For example, I absorb the sermon better in church if I don't follow along in my Bible and take notes. Pastors have scolded me and gotten the side eye from my fellow congregants. Groups tend to seek uniformity. That's why I don't like big churches or even big denominations. The desire to make everyone the same often means like ourselves. I also think this is at the root of legalism. Ultimately, it's about controlling other people.
At the same time, Christianity is inherently collectivist, not individualistic. (Hence Paul's use of the "body of Christ" metaphor in the first place.) Avoiding the extremes--either "lording over" the congregation to enforce superficial conformity or embracing hyper-individualism instead of a shared identity--is vital to the health of the body of Christ.
My comment keeps getting removed! I don’t understand why 😩
Does it contain links?
@@markwardonwords nope
@@markwardonwords if you get the app, make sure to go to settings and enable high quality audio - it makes a huge difference.
It's probably your fault for saying something hateful and awful and disgusting and vile and evil like "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" /jk
@@StrategicGamesEtc I’m not saying anything hateful or evil whatsoever! I’m trying to share about the word of promise audio Bible
Everyone's got a book to sell.
Sounds like form criticism, sort of.
I know you do more the best bible, but my answer is the one you will read and study, bible knowledge is at an all time low so pick one and read and study that one tell you find one that could be it and read and show your self approved to God standerd. That's my call !
Nice. 1:13
I left a few comments on a video from years ago; I'm anticipating reading my Parallel Bible in the next year. I also have an NRSV and an NASB (2020) I'd like to read. Not trying to get ahead of myself-I'm an Agnostic type of person. I need to know how unrighteous I really am, have been. I'd like to mention here in a more recent video. That I now and then like to listen to "How to Pray" by Reuben A. Torrey. Again; I don't go to church, but know why church is important. That I haven't in a lot of my life been part of a church community, that's ABSOLUTELY part of my unrighteous praise God!
I want the U.S. to secular-like try to get everyone in the nation over the age of 18 before anyone tries to have any children again. 😬 So that all the babies and toddlers are taught and learned to play differently. Needing to know they're not exactly missing out on anything. Not that we need to be teaching the bible, but proving that we have learned somehting! 10:37
We cannot seem to #StopListeningToMusic our love and like are confused, in so many words we don't really care about love as we know it #InTheWay of like, no such thing as lust just loving having others do things for us as money gets to cost more than what it's worth... 11:41
We don't script our words, these words are typed, we don't dip the pen in ink, aren't building fires to keep warm... little things that matter. Stoicism in this 2024 America is simply not doing something not all people would be doing in the 50's to 70's... 11:41
John 7:53-8:11 ?
Is that scripture?
:D I'd say no, and I assume from your asking the question that you'd agree, I'm honestly surprised people still use it after its provenance has been so well disseminated
yes
@@anselman3156 why?
@@StrategicGamesEtc There are textual scholars who have upheld the authenticity of the passage which is included in the Church's received text.
@@anselman3156 it doesn't show up until late, and it's found located in several different places in the earliest manuscripts it does show up in
The author’s remark at the eight minute mark that you put up as a slide is a very concerning idea. That sounds an awful lot like the dependence upon impressions and feelings for the speaking of the Holy Spirit that I heard in many hyper-charismatic circles.
What are we missing when we just read the Bible? Answer: NOTHING! John 17:17 , John 6:35, John 1:14, Mathew 24:35 and Deuteronomy 4:2 helps determine that! Still not convinced then read 2 Timothy 3:16-17!
To quote the Lord Jesus, It is WRITTEN!
To the original question - what one misses when reading the Bible alone? 2000 years of church history where men of God combatted heresies - the kind of heresies that keep cropping up because Christian history is largely ignored. Christianity didnt start 500 years ago.
You're distorting the question that the book asks. The issue is whether something is lost by reading without hearing, not whether a text has to be "heard" in light of later Medieval embellishments on the faith that would be foreign to the original inspired authors. And besides, if Christians were only allowed to encounter the Scriptures through public readings and not through personal study, that wouldn't leave much room for an Anselm or an Aquinas, anyway. Yes, access to written copies of the Bible can lead to misinterpretation and heretical distortion, but it is absolutely necessary if you're wanting to get anything beyond an off-the-cuff interpretation by a poorly-trained priest improvising a homily on the spot.
The above post provides a different answer within a different scope to that of the book. Read the question posted in the description of the video: that question is literally tackled in the above post even though it's not what the book is about.
Your attitude towards church history is a good reflection of those I have seen among my Protestant friends, and explains more than adequately why there has been such an outburst and proliferation of heresies (even the resurrection of dead ones) in the last 500 years. The issue is not with scripture or its reading. The issue is trying to reinvent the wheel outside of any tradition. The issue is inventing one's own traditions based on whims, and thinking that that somehow lines up with history.
Like I said - the original question of the video is answered differently by me.
Your reply has little relevance to the topic of the video, which has nothing to do with whether one should read extra-biblical material. The topic of this video concerns reading vs listening to Scripture.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh I know, but you missed the point. Mine was more of an observation than a critique of Dr. Ward or the book. I enjoy this channel alot, but the question posed in the description was too tempting. Not that Dr. Ward would likely want to cover the merits or demerits of the points I raised here which I understand. Dr. Ward's channel assumes his positions historically speaking. Not to mention, I wouldn't want this channel to be anything other than the Bible. So perhaps I spoke out of turn. My apologies, and peace of Christ our God be with you all.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Besides, most of Dr. Ward's views are extra Biblical (unless he is quoting the Bible). Dr. Ward's own critique borrows from extra Biblical reasoning (and/or their sources). The book itself borrows from extra Biblical reasoning (and/or their sources). I am not saying that I am not off topic, strictly speaking, but that the charge of being or appealing to anything "extra Biblical" in the context I spoke is probably self refuting here. Having said that, it's still off topic so I'll stop. Peace.
What you who make a living out of religion miss when we Christians only read the bible.