Oral Tradition vs. Written Tradition The Bible is one of the world’s greatest books. To believers and nonbelievers alike, this book has caused a massive stir in societies. Many do not know how this book came to be. For the most part, we are familiar with the stories of the bible and their moral lessons because we’ve been told them.
From that experience the question would arise about whether oral tradition is superior to written tradition. Webster’s Dictionary says Oral Tradition is, “Cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by storytellers.The forms of oral tradition include poetry (often chanted or sung), folktales, and proverbs as well as magical spells, religious instruction, and recollections of the past. ” That was the way religion came about. Because there was no written Christian bible until the days of Constantine The Great, Oral Tradition was the means of relaying important information from one generation to the next. The main problem with Oral Tradition in contrast to written tradition is consistency.The historical information passed from generation to generation may have been altered and falsified. The facts would be hard to determine because nothing was written.
So when it comes to Oral Tradition of religion, many aspects of Christianity raise up questions for debate due to the lack of consistency. For a lot of people, many works in the Christian bible is accepted as truth because the bible is a generally accepted historical document throughout the world.Written tradition does not have a problem with consistency even though it can be just as false as oral tradition.
Written Tradition can be significantly more precise than oral tradition. Written words can be chosen with greater accuracy and a written argument can be more sophisticated and lengthy. These attributes of written tradition are possible because the pace of writing is controlled by both the writer and the reader. Written documents can be rewritten at great length.The reader can also take in more information because the text is visible as opposed to oral tradition.
You can Read quickly or slowly or even stop to think about what you’ve just read. More importantly in written tradition, you always have the option of re-reading what you’ve just read. Speeches can be more precise to listeners than reading. Although precision in oral communication comes only with a great deal of preparation and compression, it is more receptive to listeners because once words are spoken, they cannot be retracted.One can even read from a written text and achieve the same degree of verbal precision as written tradition. But word-for-word reading from a text is not speech-making, and in most circumstances audiences find those speeches boring and retain very little of the information.
Oral tradition can also be stronger because you can put emphasize on words that you cannot in writing. Oral Tradition and written tradition are both complex and simple. Both of them can be stronger than one another. It all depends on how strong of a case you present.