Ong argues that it is only as society has entered into an ‘electronic’ tradition that the profound differences between oral and literary traditions have become apparent.
Ong suggests that one of the most apparent difference between the two traditions is the different relationships to time. In the oral tradition, memory exists, but records of those memories do not. Time belongs to the memory, whereas in literate cultures time often exists as a written record. History becomes an externalised record of past actions. Oral cultures do not possess the understanding of history held by literate cultures. Oral tradition understood that the past became present when spoken about and acted out in the social institutions of society. ‘Facts’ as we would understand them, become intertwined with myth. Words, as vocalisation, are a happening alive event, not just a piece of recorded information that physically exists as a lifeless object. I find this relationship to time and history most apparent in the Australian Aboriginal concepts of the dreamtime and dreaming.
The other main difference between the two traditions is the way in which memory is exercised. Thought structures in an oral tradition are structured by the mnemonic procedures employed. Good memory skills do not necessarily equate with the ability to remember verbatim (though there was a place for this). Rather, the emphasis was on thematic and formulatic skills. Indeed, at times literacy has been proved to be a hindrance in some uses of language.
Literate cultures have a tendency to overrate verbatim repetition or
record, with a tendency to assume that words have a universal exact meanings
that remains constant through time. Literacy allows much greater quantities
of information to be handled, allowing a greater degree of abstract analysis
to occur throughout society. In oral cultures, verbalised learning takes
the form of a celebration. Encyclopedism was a matter of poetry combined
with oratory, which was often in itself poetic. This allowed poets and
orators to play a large role in learning within society. However, in literate
cultures, much learning has become an individual exercise, often being
considered as hard work.
2. Explain what Spinoza means when he argues that the Bible should be studied with the same methods as the natural sciences.
Spinoza wrote during a time of scientific renaissance. He viewed the power of natural reason as the supreme tool for the interpretation of Scripture. Despite his affinity with nature, Spinoza often argues from purely theoretical definitions. He argues that if the study of nature can occur using geometrical methods moulded around Euclid’s geometry that provides a ‘mathematical certainty’ about nature, then the interpretation of Scripture should be able to fit within this universally applicable framework. In the same way that knowledge of nature is derived from nature alone, so too must knowledge of scripture be derived from scripture alone. While definitions of nature must be deduced from the various workings that occur within nature itself, definitions within scripture must be defined from the relevant Scriptural narratives.
Therefore, the methodology involved in interpreting nature requires the examination of the history of nature. From this history we are able to deduce definitions of natural phenomena based on certain established self evident principles. That which is most universal and common to all nature is examined first, followed by that which is less universal. Likewise, Scripture is interpreted in light of its history. That which is universal and common to the teaching of all the prophets as being eternal and most profitable is examined first. After an examination of these universal doctrines, that which flows from the universal doctrines but are of less universal consensuses are examined. Such historical examination includes consideration of the nature and properties of the original language, an analysis of each book and its various subjects, and the social and cultural conditions that impinged on the author.
This coming together of natural science aided in returning the power
of interpretation to all who posses the power of natural reason. Behind
this methodology is a desire to discard the dualism of Descartes. Spinoza
was highly monistic (God and nature seem to be interchangeable terms) and
presented a philosophy that allowed for only one method of understanding;
that is, rational knowledge that is consistent with the newly emerging
natural science.
3. What does Rudolf Bultmann mean by demythologizing?
Bultmann understands demythologization as a hermeneutic method that seeks to interpret the mythological understandings of the various authors and original audience of the New Testament, so that the contemporary hearer is able to both understand and make an individual response to the Kerygma. (that is, the central New Testament message). Mythology is dually defined here as either descriptions (or explanations) of apparently supernatural/superhuman activity, or as a linguistic tool used to describe other-worldly concepts.
The demythologization process involves two essential questions. The first question involves the interpretation of the original message in modern terminology. Such questioning of the text can only occur because the reader has a prior understanding (vorverständnis) to the subject matter. It is our prior understanding that moulds the questions we bring to the text. These questions determine the answers we receive from the text, while at the same time it is the readers relation to the subject matter that determines the questions we bring to the text.
The second part of the process involves questions concerning the nature of human existence. This has its basis in Bultmann’s assumption that questions of God and questions of ‘my’ individual existence are in fact identical questions. Therefore, the New Testament is primarily existential (or existentiell). Demythologization is then the interpretation of Biblical faith in terms of the understanding of human existence. The mythical elements are reinterpreted in a way that is in line with their underlying existential meaning. This existential mindset is required for an adequate pre-understanding for the interpretation of the New Testament
By defining this hermeneutic method, Bultmann rejects both Liberal exegetical
methods which removed mythology in order to understand the eternal truths
present behind the myths, and those who would seek to treat the New Testament
world view as equal to that of the New Testament kerygma.
4. What do you consider to be Schleiermacher’s main contribution to the idea of hermeneutics?
I consider that Schleiermacher’s separation of what constitutes pre-understanding and that which has been understood is his one of his main contributions to the idea of hermeneutics.
Schleiermacher is often regarded as the founder of modern hermeneutics. He was instrumental in his views that Scripture should be subject to the same interpretative procedures as all other texts. Therefore, the Scriptures do not require any special style of interpretive procedure, as hermeneutic principles are universally binding . For Schleiermacher, the central issue in any textual interpretation was that of the nature of language, as language functions as the medium of all understanding.
As a part of this understanding of the nature of language, Schleiermacher proposed that both a grammatical understanding of the characteristic modes of expression and the linguistic forms that culturally conditioned the way in which an author thought, and a technical or psychological understanding of the unique subjectivity or creative genius of that author,1 are required for a pre understanding of a text.
From this historical and linguistic knowledge which aids in the process
of pre understanding, Schleiermacher works towards an account of what has
been understood as a distinct separate element. The distinctive characteristics
that influence the author’s work form the foundation of subjective meaning,
which itself is not part of understanding. From this ‘subjective’ meaning,
we can formulate a series of rules that lead to the possibility of a ‘pure’
deliberate scientific understanding. Therefore, that which is understood
becomes separate to that which is the actual understanding.
This methodology liberated the process of hermeneutics from the assumption
that hermeneutics existed solely to support the currently accepted understandings
of texts. However, a major problem often identified with Schleiermacher’s
theory is that he assumes that the greater the historical and cultural
distance of the interpreter from the that being interpreted the greater
the scope for misunderstanding.