Is oral history like the telephone game?

Question

Bart Ehrman argues that the gospel texts are not historically reliable beginning with this analogy:

It is [oral circulation] that causes special problems for historians who want to know what actually happened in the life of Jesus. We don’t have written records from his own day, only later accounts written by people who had heard the stories that had been in circulation for so many years. What happens, though, to stories as they circulate by word of mouth? Did you, or your kids, ever play the party game telephone? Kids all sit in a circle, one kid whispers a story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the one next to her, and so on, around the circle, until it comes back to the first kid—and by then it’s a different story. (If it weren’t a different story every time, it would be a pretty pointless game to play.)—Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, p.115

(He's made similar arguments in other books and debates.)

But is this a good model for understanding oral transmission? Can we expect that the text that goes into such a model will always or usually diverge in the same way that the text passed from child to child will diverge?

Answer 1

Ehrman is a fascinating scholar, swinging radically between perspectives throughout his career. He's obviously quite intelligent and it also seems like he wholeheartedly throws his entire being into his research, which is why you can account for such radical opinions. They become a part of his very being.

The primary medium by which information was communicated was through oral transmission. Even once the written medium became relevant, oral transmission was the primary means of replicating information. There are a few issues to take up with Ehrman's perspective.

First, he is being intellectually dishonest in his presentation of oral tradition. I am pretty sure that he has a better understanding of orality than he's letting on, but that would sell fewer books. The reality is that though the primary way of transmitting important information, the written word was still present far back into antiquity. For instance, the Ketef Hinnom Amulet, which dates to 600 BCE, has an inscription of the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6:24-26) which played a role in the temple cult of ancient Israel.

Because of the centrality of oral transmission in the role of life, and worship, this was not just an isolated "game of telephone" that followed one line. There were many, many, many parallel streams of transmission that coursed through each family, tribe, and the nation. One must imagine that, given the centrality of the edicts to the way of life of Israel, that an out-of-sync stream would be corrected. Though Israel did not always follow the mandates of the temple cult (the order of worship), the laws were intricately intertwined with the daily life of the people. There was no such thing as the separation of church and state (which is a fairly new concept).

Secondly, Ehrman's claim that this was like a grand game of telephone is a classical case of an anachronistic fallacy. It would be like questioning the validity of The Lord of the Rings because J.R.R. Tolkien used the antiquated medium of writing in whole words and complete sentences, whereas the present form of communication would be in SMS shorthand. ZOMG Blbo, U gave da ring 2 Frodo?? The inability of the present generation to accomplish a task does not disqualify previous generation from such a feat - especially when there is a tremendous amount of technology that no longer necessitates such direct recall.

Answer 2

An alternative answer:

The NT is not a history, neither were the apostles historians nor were their followers. The intent of the writings is to transmit a religious message, not to record historical fact. So even if the oral transmission was reliable, the motivation and the outlook of the authors was not historical.

Besides the oral transmission of the material for more than a century before it became text, the material probably also went through a language translation and shift of culture. No doubt those changes left their mark on the testimony and some facts were mistranslated, forgotten, or even mistakenly changed by well-meaning editors trying to reconcile different witnesses. It could be that material that we consider to be pseudepigraphal was included, because at the time of the compilation people of faith did not necessarily make the type of critical distinctions that we make today. So what. None of this changes the message of the text. In fact these probable changes enhance the meaning of the message. If Tacitus had written the Gospels we might know how much lunch in Tiberius or Kfar Nahum cost at the time but the message would have been lost.

The same reasoning applies to much of the OT. We're not looking to the book of Daniel to learn Babylonian and Persian history, or to Genesis to learn rocket science. We're looking for the Message.

Answer 3

Apologetics This illustration of the "Telephone Game" is a common ploy by atheist university professors and pop-book-writing skeptics. And we have dealt with it annually in our Apologetics class seminars. It falls in the same category of out-dated attacks on the historicity of the Bible as the old Moses couldn't write the Torah because they didn't have written languages in those days." Archeology has advanced so much that those criticisms seem quite ludicrous now. Linquistic studies have broken the codes and interpreted hieroglyphic and cuneiform tablet, revealing advanced languages.

Manuscripts Not only has archaeology advanced, but the science of ancient Manuscript evidence has marched forward by leaps and bounds. And discoveries of Biblical manuscripts has multiplied beyond the scholars wildest imaginations. So, instead of a circle representing the transmission of translations of Scripture, a better picture is that of the original ignoring most of the circle of children ( representing the centuries of copying), and going straight over to the last couple of children!!!

Scholars have manuscripts of the New Testament from the very early centuries of the Church's existence! These are these are the ones studied for accuracy and clarity. And the number of them is staggering. They far out number the existing manuscripts of the Greek and Roman philosophers that modern universities spend class time pouring over. Yet, no researcher dares accuse the professors of the telephone game scenario!

National Translations Not only do we have more manuscripts, and manuscripts closer in time to the originals (than the classic Greeks and Romans), but for research we also have ancient translations of the Bible into other nations (besides Latin and English). Variation, meaning of words, nuances, grammar, syntax...are easier to study because of them.

Dead Sea Scrolls Many scrolls were discovered in the caves of the Dead Sea regions' cliffs. These have been dated to the era in the centuries before Christ. A comparison of them with what we have in our modern Bibles is amazing! They put an end to the "telephone game" scenario, which alleges that "the Scriptures have been changed so much we can't trust them."

Archaeology The various aspects of modern archaeology have confirmed the veracity of the pages of the Bible, as well. City locations, existence of roads, wells, fortresses, etc. mentioned in the Bible, have been verified. Coins, household goods, people (emperors, kings, generals, orators, schools) have been uncovered by archaeological digs throughout the Mediterranean.

Historian Notice the preface of the biblical historian, Lucius (Luke):

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believes among us, even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were eye-witness, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophillus, that you might know the certainty of those things... (Luke 1:1-4)

The other writers of the New Testament also declared that they were writing as eye-witnesses. This type of information was what the historian, Luke, drew from. Luke was also writing to an official, so he took great pains for accuracy. (John 1:1, 2 Peter 1:16)

More Than Oral It is true that much of Jewish teaching at the time of Christ was oral in its discussion of ancient laws, and the Talmuds, later, clarified them in writing. But the New Testament events were contemporary happenings and not ancient. They were recorded in a civilization known for its much writing and abundance of libraries (Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, etc.)

The Gospel recorded in the Bible, was not hearsay evidence but was the message of a Church witnessing the ministry of Christ and the Apostles first-hand.

Not Children Notice carefully that those copying the Bible were NOT children, as pictured in the telephone game illustration. They were scribes and scholars. And they had teachers looking over their shoulders, exacting accuracy from their copyists.

Those who mention the Telephone Game in modernity, are doing so dishonestly, without integrity. There is so much evidence, one cannot draw any other conclusion.