Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations.
— Endnotes appear in this format. — More information.
In the game of Telephone
(sometimes called Gossip
), the participants (the more, the better) usually stand in a circle. The first person whispers a message to a second person, who in turn whispers the message to the third person. The process continues until the message has been delivered to the last person. The message received by the last person is then compared to the message delivered by the first person. Normally, the message has undergone a tremendous change and the message received by the last person bears little similarity to the original message.
Many people think this game conclusively proves that oral communication is not reliable. They mistakenly believe this proves
that oral tradition is fallible and unreliable. As we will see, it proves nothing of the sort.
The game of Telephone
does not actually simulate normal oral communications. The game relies on whispering the message which eliminates the distinction between unvoiced and voiced consonants. Whispering, because it loses the distinction between voiced and unvoiced pairs of consonants (e.g. v/f, b/p, d/t, z/s, zh/sh, th of this
/th of thin
) is inherently more prone to miscommunication. Normal oral transmission uses plainly spoken language and is thus less prone to miscommunication. The game transmits a message on a one-to-one basis, once (or possibly twice, depending upon rules) and thus the message can always be altered by a single person (deliberately or accidentally) whether due to a misunderstanding or mischief (it is a game, after all!). Normal oral transmission, especially of a message as important as Holy Tradition, is on a many-to-many basis, many times. This provides built-in correction. If one person changes the message, others transmitting the correct message override those errors. If one person misunderstands the message, the transmitters can repeat the message and the other recipients can provide clarification (e.g. if a person in a group of movie viewers misunderstands the dialogue [a one-time transmission], he will accept corrections from others, especially when the vast majority of the group is in agreement). In normal oral transmission, the message, being heard many times, is not just learnt, but memorised. Anyone who has participated in a play (especially one with numerous rehearsals and/or performances) is familiar with the fact that everyone — not just the players delivering the lines — memorises all the dialogue. If a mistake is made, everyone involved recognises it.
Those who argue against the process of Holy Tradition often do so because of an ignorant bias held by so many modern, technologically-based people against the dumb
, benighted
, backward
ignoramuses of centuries past. People having this bias start with an assumption that the only way to preserve a message is by preserving it in written form. This bias may also be due to societal changes. Not that long ago, it was common for people to see their grandparents daily; many lived with them. They were able to hear their grandparents speak of their own parents and grandparents and thus had a real sense of knowing their great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents. Recent changes (e.g., most households now consist of only the nuclear family; families frequently move so people do not live where they were born and raised) have largely destroyed this living connection to the past. As a result, there is a loss of confidence in the possibility that history can be preserved by oral tradition; written records are thought to be the only reliable way to preserve history. They overlook the fact that written texts, unable to transmit experiential knowledge and lacking heart and soul, are more easily misunderstood than oral traditions.
Another part of this bias is based upon the failure to recognise that in societies that were largely illiterate (in the strictest sense of the term) had to rely on oral traditions. Most (all?) societies where means of preserving text was inconvenient have relied on (tribal) historians who learnt their national/cultural heritage from an elder who learnt it from an elder, etc. Each historian's responsibility is to (1) preserve what has been given them, (2) add the events that occur during his/her lifetime, and (3) pass on to a successor all of the first two. This has always been an important responsibility in these societies which is honoured by the group.
It is no different within the Church. In fact, because it deals with knowledge about God Himself, preserving the history was even more important.
Now, within the Church, Holy Tradition is constantly being transmitted by many people and being heard by many people (most of whom have heard it many times already), errors in transmission are corrected. Because the message is particularly rich (see John 21:25), a single person may forget some portion, but another person will supply the information, as can be seen in the (unimportant) differences between the various gospels. Those who alter the information are corrected (see Acts 18:26), and if they reject correction are excluded (see Galatians 1:9: If anyone preaches a gospel to you besides what you received, let him be anathema.
) because the alteration is as obvious to the entire Church as the actor's mistake is obvious to everyone involved in a play's production. This is what Saint Vincent of Lerins means when he defines the truth as that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all
. The definition doesn't include those who have never seen the play (those outside the Church) or have just come for a single performance (visitors who remain outside the Church). The definition refers to all those within the Church no matter where they live (everywhere
, thus excluding regional and cultural differences), no matter when they've lived (always
). G.K. Chesterton's definition of tradition explains the idea of always
particularly well:
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes — our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around.
An Analogy
The Teacher appeared and taught The Play to a small troupe, but without a script. The actors learnt The Play through hearing the Teacher repeat the lines and by observing the Teacher's movements. In learning The Play, they acquired a real understanding of the play's main character.
The troupe performed The Play for others. Repeatedly. In many places. They performed The Play so many times they all knew everyone's lines, everyone's movements. Most importantly, they all acquired a real understanding of The Play's main character. Others began to join the troupe. At first, newcomers learnt The Play the same way the original cast had learnt it: without a script. But, between a few of the original cast and some of the newcomers, most of the lines were written down and even some of the movements. But not everything was written down at first. It took more years and a few generations before that happened. Some of the experienced actors wrote notes offering insights into the play and its main character. All the texts provided help to the newcomers — especially the pages containing The Play's dialogue — but they didn't replace rehearsals. The newcomers still had to learn The Play. All the lines and all the movements. And they had to acquire a real understanding of The Play's main character in order to play the role correctly.
Enough newcomers were added to the troupe that it was able to spin off new troupes. This meant The Play could be performed in even more places. Over the years, the number of troupes grew, but The Play remained unchanged. The actors changed, but the lines and movements of the characters did not change. The Play was translated into different languages, but the story was not changed. All the actors in every troupe acquired a real understanding of The Play's main character. Some actors wrote notes after many years of experience which enabled them to acquire insights into The Play and its main character. These notes weren't as important as the script, but they contributed to other actors' understanding and were quite helpful for rookies.
With the passage of years and generations, there were some who wanted to make changes to The Play. The troupes accepted — very reluctantly and quite slowly — very small cosmetic changes such as updating the language in order for audiences to better understand. But some wanted more radical changes, even changes to The Play's main character. These were firmly rejected. Nevertheless, some of the more persistent proponents of change made changes without the approval of their troupe, right on stage. Whenever something like this happened, the rest of the troupe recognised the change immediately (of course!) — they didn't have to refer to lines of script or other notes. The wayward actor was corrected, and if he persisted, the troupe dismissed him.
Unfortunately, sometimes dismissed actors would get together and form a group that would deviate from The Play's original version. Some of these went so far as to change The Play's main character. But the most pernicious groups were those that introduced reinterpretations and claimed these reinterpretations were just as valid because they had retained the lines of the original script. These innovating groups tried to argue that just because troupes had been performing The Play with the same interpretation for years didn't mean they were correct. Rejecting the notes written by actors through the years and insisting that only scripts were reliable, they challenged the troupes who continued performing The Play with the original, traditional interpretation to prove why the traditional interpretation was the only correct one, using only the original scripts.
Because the troupes maintaining the original, traditional interpretation were unable to provide proof within the limitations artificially imposed by the innovators, the innovators continued to maintain the validity of their reinterpretation. But the troupes maintaining the original, traditional interpretation knew the innovating reinterpretation was wrong. They could recognise the changes. They could say, The way we perform The Play is the way The Play has always been performed, wherever it has been performed, regardless of who has played the various roles.
They may have lacked the type of proof
demanded by the innovating groups, but they knew how The Play was supposed to be performed.
Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!