Category: Orality - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Talking Through Texts Together

10/13/2021

10/13/21
Scholarly Reflections

Miller, Shem. "Oral Tradition and the Dead Sea Scrolls." Oral Tradition 33:1 (2019), 3-22.

Considering Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, Miller observes there has been extensive work on the material from a text-centered perspective, which is natural considering the fact that the scrolls did need to be brought into print for study. However, in the meantime, study of their oral roots has been neglected (Miller 2019, 4). Miller notes that John Foley described four basic categories of oral traditional materials (2002, summarized in Miller, p. 5). Written oral poems, voiced texts, voices from the past, and oral performance materials generally suffice as categories, though Miller is quick to observe that works often seem to blur into multiple categories. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls can be classified as "voices of the past" and as "voiced texts" (Miller 2019, 6).

To illustrate the importance of orality Miller reviews an element from the Community Rule materials (Miller 2019, 8). In this narrative, participants in evening gatherings read from a book, interpret it, and engage in a corpirate blessing. Both reading and interpreting would be understood in terms of a corporate, oral activity (Miller 2019, 9). In all likelihood, the blessing would also be understood as corporate and oral in nature.

Miller goes on to describe the community understanding of laws as a combination of revealed and hidden laws. The revealed laws were articulated clearly in Scripture, while the hidden laws were matters of teaching engaged in orality (Miller 2019, 11). Miller takes the statements about interpretation to indicate the process of articulating the hidden laws (Miller 2019, 12). These materials also fit into the "voice from the past" since the interpretation does not seem to be novel in nature.

Miller does observe that the category of "oral performance" is very difficult to analyze in the Dead Sea scrolls since it specifically has no reference to writing at all (Miller 2019, 13). Yet there are references to material called "mysteries" which would seem to have been intended as entirely oral in nature. It remains unclear to Miller how these sublime mysteries are actually revealed to us (Miller 2019, 15). This raises difficulties for interpretation, of course, but it is clear that the expectation was that the mysteries would be studied and pondered.

Analysis Based on Sensible Chunks of Text

10/11/2021

10/11/21
Scholarly Reflections

Livesey, Nina E. "Sounding Out the Heirs of Abraham (Rom. 4:9-12). Oral Tradition 27:1 (2012), 273-290.

Livesey considers "oral cues such as repetition and word placement" (Livesey 2012, 273) as very important elements of reception of complex oral material. The auditor, thus, is a very active listener, possibly more so than a scholar reading a text. Sound mapping, identifying the natural breaks of the spoken material, proves useful in building an interpretive framework (Livesey 2012, 274). To assist scholars in their research, Livesey demonstrates with an analysis of Romans 4:9-12. The goal is to adequately identify the ethnic group referred to in the last phrase of verse 12.

At issue in the question of Romans chapter four is whether Paul considers both Jews and Gentiles to become heirs of Abraham on the same terms. At issue is a dative plural article which, if present, equates the Gentiles with the Jews on completely equal terms (Livesey 2012, 275). Livesey provides an extensive review of the challenge centered around the article, including a summary of the relevant critical apparatus in a number of Greek editions (Livesey 2012, 276). The article itself is not a matter of dispute, but whether it is appropriate to interpret the passage taking account of the article is the issue (Livesey 2012, 277).

Livesey maintains that the use of the article "contributes to the balance and harmonic quality of the entire unit" (Livesey 2012, 278). The repeated reference to the uncircumcised in the passage shows them to be a principal focus.

After providing a Greek and English text which divides the material into sensible chunks (the term I have typically used as a language educator), Livesey observes that the emphasis is on the uncircumcised throughout (Livesey 2012, 280). Not only do we see this in the vocabulary but also in the rhythm and harmonious arrangement of the words. The placement of the word δικαιοσύνην ("righteousness") in the second period associates it with ἀκροβθστίαν ("uncircumcision") in the first period (Livesey 2012, 281). One of these two word units ("lexemes") ends all but the last two periods. The hiatus before the first use of Abraham's name here also draws him into the passage as the critical figure of both righteousness and uncircumcision (Livesey 2012, 282). In the end, Abraham received the sign of circumcision after he received righteousness by faith. The purpose, judging from this passage, was so he could "be the father to all those who trust through foreskin, or while they are themselves in foreskin" (Livesey 2012, 283). The use of the article creates the rhythmic pattern needed to complete the sound set up by the words for righteousness, circumcision, and uncircumcision (Livesey 2012, 284). It rightly contributes to drawing our attention to the uncircumcised as recipients of righteousness.

Performing the Bible?

10/8/2021

10/8/21
Scholarly Reflections

Rhoads, David. "Biblical Performance Criticism: Performance as Research." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 157-198.

Rhoads proposes we should study the New Testament writings as transcripts of materials composed and performed orally, rather than as documents composed on paper to be studied as part of a print culture (Rhoads 2010, 157). This represents a paradigm shift in the scholarly methods common over the last several centuries. As a tool for scholarly methodology, Rhoads views contemporary performance as a proving ground of sorts, allowing us to evaluate scholarly methods (Rhoads 2010, 158).

The New Testament arose in a primarily oral culture. Rhoads cites numerous scholars suggesting the literacy rate was between three and ten percent (Rhoads 2010, 158). Rhoads ties an oral/aural culture to one in which personal and familial boundaries would be weak, a more communal life than we would see in literate cultures. Knowledge would be shared in community and spread through group encounters. Rhoads does not provide evidence for this conclusion (Rhoads 2010, 158). He goes on to note that memory is considered very important in oral cultures, though some level of creativity in performance may be encouraged. It is significant to Rhoads that composition was done with particular attention to the sound patterns of the language. Material was selected and presented so as to be memorable (Rhoads 2010, 159). Rhoads sees this as highly likely in the case of the New Testament documents as well. The work of writing, then, would serve orality rather than governing it.

Rhoads goes on to describe scrolls as "peripheral to performance" (Rhoads 2010, 160). A possible challenge to this idea, in practice, is the known habit of actually reading from Moses and the prophets in the course of a synagogue meeting. This would tend to indicate at least some level of authority given to a written document intended to be spoken and heard. Rhoads' argument against such a situation is that "readers" would study the manuscript, or have it present if needed, as a prompt for memorized performance (Rhoads 2010, 160).

Rhoads observes that scrolls were, by nature, expensive and therefore rare. Because he alleges that "early Christianity was predominantly a movement of the peasant class and the urban poor with the presence of some elites" (Rhoads 2010, 161), he concludes that the presence of written texts would be unlikely in Christian communities, especially prior to the end of the first century. While he makes a valid point which could be applied to individuals, a community would be more likely to retain a text of a letter which was brought to them, even if it would be retained for occasional reference. Rhaods' argument is not conclusive. He does, however, make a valid point as he speaks of the primacy of oral performance, which is also reflected in the dynamics of the texts.

Rhoads says boldly that the New Testament writings "were not originally conceived of as scripture" (Rhoads 2010, 162). While he doesn't define "scripture" clearly, he does discuss it in terms of a written tet which would be studied as writing, but would more likely be heard and performed. The performance would presumably tbe of the work as a whole, rather than in parts as smaller elements within a worship service. The early audience would have treated the entire letter or Gospel as a whole work.

Because the New TEstament works would have been "performed," Rhoads urges work of "performance criticism" (Rhoads 2010, 164), which moves to envision the nature of early presentations of parts of the New Testament, and to present them in performance as well. Rhoads describes each element in turn, whith the majority of his discussion based on actual performances.

To imagine the performance event in its original context, we would consider portrayals of public readings or performances in or around the time period of the original presentation. We would also consider the purpose of the performance as well as the way a performance would take place (Rhoads 2010, 165).

Performance criticism could require a major shift in the orientation of New Testament scholarship. Rhoads sees multiple different disciplines contributing to his model of scholarship. He lays out roles of traditional historical/critical methods (Rhoads 2010, 166), then addresses more recent scholarly methods, many of which already attempt to deal with oral and rhetorical elements (Rhoads 2010, 167).

Rhoads discusses the recent develoments in performance of biblical portions (Rhoads 2010, 168). The act of performing is helpful to understanding the materials which were produced for performance. Rhoads understadns both performing and hearing the New Testament materials as a new discovery, though some in the world of pastoral care would certainly disagree with him. However, he continues by detailing ways that performance can assist us in our understanding of the New Testament (Rhoads 2010, 169). The experience of the audience member, hearing the material in real time without the opportunity to stop, reflect, and review is very different from the experience of one who reviews a document.

In performance, Rhoads suggests, the performer discovers the aesthetics of a work to a greater degree than is normal when doing exegesis of a text (Rhoads 2010, 170). The manner of presentation, including pacing, posture, and expression, is important in the artistic presentation of the material (Rhoads 2010, 171).

Modern-day performers of biblical materials must make some choices which will govern their approach. Rhoads comments on choice of language for the performances, whetehr to use one's own translation or one prepared by someone else, and how to translate for best oral presentation (Rhoads 2010, 172). Rhoads does consider whether performances would normally present a story verbatim or would include spontaneous elements of composition. He prefers to stay as close to a verbatim account as possible, partly because the texts we have appear to be transcriptions of a performance, and partly due to the rabbinic tradition of remaining very close to a text (Rhoads 2010, 173).

Rhoads ginds as he performs a text that he continually becomes aware of different nuances (Rhoads 2010, 174). The performer, in a sense, is able to enter into the world of the selection. The world, then, comes alive to the audience in the performance (Rhoads 2010, 175). All the elements of the presentation serve a purpose, all geared toward the ultimate purpose of transformation. The transformation may well be applied to both the performer and the audience (Rhoads 2010, 177).

The performance Rhoads envisions is not speaking the text aloud. It is more akin to acting the text out. The performer attempts to supply what would otherwise be left to the imagination (Rhoads 2010, 179).

The performer becomes a narrator but also in some way expresses the emotions and actions of the characters being narrated (Rhoads 2010, 181). Each character is important in some way. Rhoads urges finding means of communicating them as individuals. In som instances, the narrator will address on-stage issues, some times off-stage, and sometimes the audience. These moves need to be deliberate and clera (Rhoads 2010, 183).

Rhoads considers the issue of a subtext to be very important, though often left inadequately addressed (Rhoads 2010, 184). The subtext becomes more prominent in a performance setting simply due to the oral presentation. The way an idea is expressed orally demonstrates a subtext (Rhoads 2010, 185). All this contributes to an adequate interpretation of the emotive nature of the material presented (Rhoads 2010, 186). Drama, humor, disappointment, and victory all appear in the biblical narratives. The temporal element is also important, as events unfold in order (Rhoads 2010, 188).

In the end, Rhoads considers the elements of performance to be foundational to entrance into the biblical materials, both as an exegete and as a recipient of the message (Rhoads 2010, 190).

"Reduced" to Writing?

10/7/2021

10/7/21
Scholarly Reflections

Kelber, Werner. "The History of the Closure of Biblical Texts." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 115-140.

Kelber acknowledges Ong's view that technology used in communication effectively changes us (Kelber 2010, 115). His question, in this paper, is how the biblical texts actually moved from oral beginnings, through manuscript, and eventually "to their trimphant apotheosis in print culture" (Kelber 2010, 116).

The journey begins in a primarily oral context, but one where literate people might have a manuscript available for reference. The goal of study would be recitation and internalization of the message (Kelber 2010, 117). These features of study, however, are rarely the focus of scholarly research.

Kelber considers this style of study, aimed at internalizing the message, to suggest a different view of ancient scholarship than that of tediolus, painstaking copying of texts letter by letter (Kelber 2010, 118). The textual-critical views were reinforced with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and attempts to verify an authoritative reading (Kelber 2010, 119). However, Kelber sees a world of manuscripts which are pluriform, showing adherence to a message but not always specific wording.

Kelber asserts that pluriform literary traditions were widely acceptable in the period around the start of the Christ era (Kelber 2010,120). Sadly, he does not give examples which would broaden the scope of our understanding. It would be very interesting to analyze what level of manuscript divergence would be considered acceptably similar to be counted as an accurate reading, and whether that could differ in various genres.

Another challenge to the idea that there is one authoritative version of a teaching is easily illustrated by the simple fact that Jesus went to various places and spoke to different people. If he delivered some teaching in one place, then the same teaching in another place, butworded differently, we are at a loss when we attempt to identify "the correct wording." Kelber expects that a written tradition could also face similar issues, especially a tradition which attempts to harmonize various events (Kelber 2010, 121). Further, Kelber considers that some level of fluidity of wording, but not of content, would have been considered appropriate, especially for important texts (Kelber 2010, 122). This effect is likely related to the frequency with which the topic and its ideas would be stated.

Kelber considers that the development of the codex could have been very critical in the change he observes in the way the biblical message was treated. The codex foreshadowed typographic norms, with relatively standard page formats (Kelber 2010, 123). The actual gathering of the works into one volume was rare, but eventually there were volumes which implied canonicity based on the texts which were selected and bound together (Kelber 2010, 124).

Origen's work with the Hexapla shows the pluriform nature of the biblical texts represented in it, though the work was later seen as a tool to harmonize the distinct text traditions (Kelber 2010, 125-126). Attempts to harmonize the Gospels, likewise, as early as Eusebius, also demonstrate variability in the expression of ideas (Kelber 2010, 126). However, the collections of various works into one bound volume, with some books being produced with the same content on the same page in each copy, very likely contributed to the idea of a single authoritative manuscript document (Kelber 2010, 127).

Kelber observes, however, that the oral readings, such as those from a lectionary, as well as the readings and preaching in church, which has its own context, would erode an idea of an authoritative text. Thus he says that the idea of Sola scriptura would not be practical prior to the advent of the printed book (Kelber 2010, 127). The Bible had an authority which was inherent in orality. It was as the Middle Ages progressed that the idea of definitive textuality developed, particularly leading to the Scholasticism which analyzed specific wordng in such detail (Kelber 2010, 128).

Kelber also observes that the production of texts prior to mass printing was different than we might imagine. Rather than one person looking at a text and making a copy, generally one person would read aloud while others transcribed (Kelber 2010, 129). The chapter and verse divisions were a relatively late development as well. When we step behind the technological advances we arrive in a world where the work of hermeneutics was aking to an exercise in spiritual discernment.

Around the start of the 14th century, with William of Ockham, the idea of an authoritative text with a definitive meaning took hold (Kelber 2010, 130). This concept of a textual economy, followed by the development of the movable type printing press, brought about a commitment to a written document which would retain one definitive and authoritative ud erstanding (Kelber 2010, 131). Kelber observes that even though the Protestant Reformers treated the Bible as an authoritative text with a particular meaning, they also hold to the oral dynamic which recognized the power of the spoken word (Kelber 2010, 131).

The growth of print, particularly in the vernacular languages, spurred growth in lteracy as well as specific preservation of older texts in a fixed form. Kelber sees this changing the nature of national identity, language, culture, and scholarship (Kelber 2010, 134).

Religion of the book?

10/6/2021

10/6/21
Scholarly Reflections

Kelber, Werner & Sanders, Paula. "Oral Tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Introduction." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 3-6.

Kelber and Sanders collaborated on a conference related to orality and literate elements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This conference led to the contents of Oral Tradition 25:1 (Kelber & Sanders 2010, 3). The ideas presented in the conference and its papers suggest that, counter to some popular traditional wisdom, it is inappropriate to call Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "religions of the book" due to the extensive interrelationship between orality, scribality, and memory (Kelber & Sanders 2010, 3).

The papers presented in this issue of Oral Tradition have retained any references to other works presented or suggested for presentation in the conference, even if not published in the journal. This was done to suggest an ongoing dialog (Kelber & Sanders 2010, 4).

Mark as an Oral Work

10/4/2021

10/4/21
Scholarly Reflections

Horsley, Richard A. "Oral and Written Aspects of the Emergence of the Gospel of Mark as Scripture." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 93-114.

Horsley observes that numerous challenges exist in our common presuppositions which underlie much biblical scholarship. The way authors approached their work, a time of New Testament texts existing without being recognized as authoritative and the nature of the distance between Judaism and Christianity are all difficult topics worthy of study (Horsley 2010, 94). Horsley takes the Gospels in particular to be problematic due to their lack of rhetorical polish and erudition. He sees this as a likely problem in what he understands to be an adoption of the texts in the fourth or fifth centuries by ecclesial authorities.

By evaluating Mark as an oral work which became widely distributed and respected before being written down, Horsley thinks it may have been more acceptable to leaders (Horsley 2010, 95). Horsley takes this to be a more plausible scenario if we first recognize that print culture did not exist in the first century.

Horsley asserts that it is more appropriate to think of texts as functioning primarily in the memory of monks and scribes, rather than being primarily written documents (Horsley 2010, 96). To take this view moves the scholar away from the assumption of the Gospel as a text composed in writing by a person consulting other written texts. Horley cites numerous recent studies which suggest a more oral culture, especially in Roman Judea, than we have previously assumed (Horsley 2010, 97).

Mark's Gospel, with its frequent references to biblical texts, introduced by "it is written," suggests the existence of authoritative texts (Horsley 2010, 98). However, the quotation introduced normally seems to be quoted from memory. A similar pattern is present in the Didache.

Horsley also considers it important that Mark's Gospel is addressed to "ordinary people" (Horsley 2010, 99). This largely presupposes an oral environment. Copies of the Scripture would not have been readily available and could not be read by ordinary people. They would know the Scripture by means of those who spoke of God's word (Horsley 2010, 100).

In the culture, then, Horsley takes Mark to have been transmitted through oral performance, not through study of a written text (Horsley 2010, 101). This attitude is borne out through several statements of early Christians, who would seek out a speech, not a document, looking for authority.

It is important that a text which will be widely performed and come into common use must be particularly approachable by its audience (Horsley 2010, 104). Horsley sees this as the case in Mark's Gospel. The text refers to well known cultural events and stories. Jesus is readily seen as a parallel to other figures in Scripture, thus also a fulfillment of the areas where they come short (Horsley 2010, 105). The introductory and concluding statements signal a shift of an oral storytelling setting. The narrative also tends to progress using memorable triads of activity (Horsley 2010, 106). Concentric or chiastic elements also often serve as an aid to memory.

Horsley continues by outlining the narrative structure of Mark's Gospel in terms which illustrate how it could well be memorized for oral performance (Horsley 2010, 107). The steps and scenes are quite logical and memorable.

Horsley concludes that we need to reach behind our presuppositions, which build strongly on print technology, to find the oral model used (Horsley 2010, 109).

Teaching Networks

10/1/2021

10/1/21
Scholarly Reflections

Hezser, Catherine. "Oral and Written Communication and Transmission of Knowledge in Ancient Judaism and Christianity." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 75-92.

Hezser notes the relatively difficult means of communication in antiquity compared to today. Written, eyewitness, and in-person communication were certainly available, but could sometimes prove complicated (Hezser 2010, 76). In times of conflict it could even be dangerous to serve as a messenger. Hezser observes that letters of introduction or instruction were considered imporant and fundamental, especially to relationships which cross class boundaries (Hezser 2010, 77).

The New Testament has a relatively limited focus on written texts and letters, normally assuming that writing could be used but that oral messages stood at the center of biblical communication (Hezser 2010, 78). Messages were delivered by going to a person and speaking. However, at the same time, Paul would send letters which were to circulate and reinforce the teaching he engaged in through his personal visits (Hezser 2010, 79). Hezser observes that this pattern of extensive letter writing was continued by Christian leaders as the growth of Christianity continued. She sees it as a means of asserting power and control over far-flung communities (Hezser 2010, 80).

Rabbinic Judaism progressed along similar lines as well. After 70 A.D., Judaism became less centralized, yet developed noteworthy networks of rabbis, who traveled extensively and communicated ideas through letters, which were published and read publicly (Hezser 2010, 81). Because the rabbis typically engaged in the business world, Hezser understands the development of teaching networks as a secondary concern, contrasted with the travels of Christian teachers, which may well have had evangelism as their primary goal (Hezser 2010, 82).

Hezser describes the growth of a mobile and epistolary rabbinic culture, especially in the third tofifth centuries, in some detail, resulting in extensive communication networks as well as written records of decisions and teachings (Hezser 2010, 87). The network among Christian missionaries was also relatively extensive and served to codify doctrines in a consistent way throughout the Mediterranean world (Hezser 2010, 88).

The New Testament as a Written Work Intended for Hearing

9/30/2021

9/30/21
Scholarly Reflections

Hearon, Holly. "The Interplay Between Written and Spoken Word in the Second Testament as Background to the Emergence of Written Gospels." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 57-74.

Hearon observes there is a complex interaction between the written and spoken word in first century Christian experience (Hearon 2010, 57). Her study focuses on primary sources, particularly Greek and Roman texts, as well as Luke and Acts.

The non-Christian world considered spoken and written communication to be highly intertwined. There are also repeated references to reading and speaking together in the New Testament (Hearon 2010, 58). The relationship, however, seems to be one-sided. While the written word can be seen as an extension of the spoken word, the reverse is not demonstrated very much. Hearon takes the spoken word to be the default authority (Hearon 2010, 59). However, Hearon sees the boundaries as porous.

Speaking fits into certain social contexts in the New Testament as well. It seems clear to Hearon that certain settings bear expectations of speeches, and that those speeches are to fit the contexts (Hearon 2010, 60). Hearon also concludes based on the verb used for speaking that there are different expectations plalced on different speakers.

Letters and documents fit into their own contexts, as do speeches. Hearon notes that various documents have different technical uses, but that the authors are normally quite matter-of-fact about their motivations.

Hearon further sees evidence for New Testament attitudes toward the Old Testament. Those characters found reading the Scripture in the work of the Church regularly suggest that the Old Testament is an authoritative written text which must be tested by fire in some way (Hearon 2010, 62). The Scripture is assumed to be a written word which demands attention through listening (Hearon 2010, 64).

Proclamation and teaching are normally considered oral activity. However, in some instances, proclamation and teaching may involve use of the Scriptures, which becomes a scribal application of oral material which has had contact with additional people since writing (Hearon 2010, 66). The method of interaction is not made clearly, but the fact of interaction is clear.

Hearon considers the New Testament use of "word of God" and concludes that here, the word is normally considered as something which would be presented orally, though it does have written roots (Hearon 2010, 68). Tradition, also, is typically understood as an oral transmission of a written text.

Orality as the Heart Repeating Tradition

9/29/2021

9/29/21
Scholarly Reflections

Carr, David. "Torah on the Heart: Literary Jewish Textuality Within Its Ancient Near Eastern Context." Oral Tradition 25:1 (2010), 17-40.

Much scholarly study has been done regarding theories of textual transmission of the Old Testament. These studies have influenced our view of other texts from the Ancient Near East, particularly those which, like the Hebrew Bible, have endured for many generations (Carr 2010, 17). However, relatively little interest has been shown until recently as regards the method of reliable oral transmission of materials through multiple generations. Carr considers it very likely that a combination of oral and textual materials were used, particularly in education of the elite cultural class, to pass on traditional teachings (Carr 2010, 18).

Literacy in antiquity, in Carr's view, consists not only of learning to read and write, but also mastering the material of the religious and cultural worls in which one is to be literate (Carr 2010, 18). Carr compres the process of learning literature to the process of mastering a musical score, in which the material is internatlized and largely committed to memory, but the score remains available for consultation and to correct the recall (Carr 2010, 19).

Carr surveys and compares education as we know it from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece, before turning to Israel and drawing conclusions.

Mesopotamian documents show many instances of written words as prompts for a larger body of material known by memory (Carr 2010, 20). The memorized materials appear to be a rather standardized canon, with emphasis on the Epic of Gilgamesh. Likewise, Carr finds evidence of Egyptian writings with mnemonic prompts for students who were to memorize the teachings presented (Carr 2010, 21). Greek education differs somewhat from that of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The fully alphabetic script sets it apart, as does what has been assumed to be a high rate of literacy (Carr 2010, 22). However, Carr still finds a strong emphasis on memorization of imporant stories, again, guided by some written prompts.

Carr observes that we have relatively less information about education in ancient Israel partly because of the more perishable writing materials used there and the climate which was less conducive to preservation (Carr 2010, 23). However, the information available does point to a system similar to that found in other cultures from similar times and regions. Reading and writing were tools used in education, which consisted of mastering the knowledge base required for participation in society. The point of education was internalizing the cultural message (Carr 2010, 24).

Carr continues his survey by evaluating biblical texts from a text-critical perspective, considering variant readings (Carr 2010, 24). Parry's work suggests that memorized texts have different patterns of variations than texts preserved by literary copying (Carr 2010, 25). Carr describes this phenomenon in considerable detail.

Carr describes what he would consider "memory variants" as occurring frequently in the manuscripts we have of ancient works (Carr 2010, 28). They differ in their nature from the errors which would be made by someone looking at and copying a document. The pattern of memory variants rather than strictly literary copyist errors appears widespread throughout the cultures Carr surveys (Carr 2010, 30). Texts expand or contract, but when memorized, they tend both to expand and to harmonize in content with other sections of a text (Carr 2010, 31).

In effect, Carr finds that the important texts are preserved, with no change of meaning. However, they may undergo change of wording (Carr 2010, 32). The message is taken inoto the heart and mind of the student, and reflected accurately.

Written Letters Intended To Be Heard

9/27/2021

9/27/21
Scholarly Reflections

Tsang, Sam. "Are We 'Misreading' Paul?: Oral Phenomena and Their Implication for the Exegesis of Paul's Letters." Oral Tradition 24:1 (2009), 205-225.

Tsang notes that the Pauline letters were presented in a society which had extensive verbal mediation of written messages. This may lead us to different exegetical assumptions in our interpretation of the works (Tsang 2009, 205). This re-evaluation of modes of interpretation has been developed in biblical studies to some extent, particularly in the Uppsala School, and especially by Susan Niditch in Oral World and Written Word (1996). The analysis of oral patterns was very important to her in this work (Tsang 2009, 206). The work of C.W. David (Oral Biblical Criticism, 1999), and J. Harvey (Listening to the Text, 1998), approaches Paul's epistles by applying oral studies and classical rhetorical analysis from the standpoint of a listener (Tsang 2009, 207).

The social context of the recipients of the Pauline letters may well be of greater importance as a starting point than a literary context. According to Tsang, "There are five social and literary factors that demand attention in this kind of oral communication: the role of rhetoric ,the role of memory, the relationship between letter writing and speech, the practice of reading letters publicly, and euphonics" (Tsang 2009, 208).

The rhetorical methods of the Sophists, particularly in their oral pedagogy, would be an important part of the context for Paul's letters (Tsang 2009, 208). Spoken words, including the way they were spoken, were considered of paramount importance. For this reason, rhetorical studies were often considered more important than a study of philosophy (Tsang 2009, 209).

Memory, both in oral and literate cultures, is of great significance. Tsang observes that memory is aided by the style of the composition (Tsang 2009, 210). Some works are more memorable than others, and a study of rhetoric includes learning to make memorable messages. Presentation of letters in a pattern which the recipients could remember would be of great value.

Letters would be written using speech patterns familiar to the audience. This also aids in memory and understanding. Tsang observes that training in memorization was not limited to pre-literate societies but extended through the time of Paul (Tsang 2009, 211). The voice of the author is part of the means of identifying the origin and content of a message.

The Pauline letters, as works intended for public reading, would have expected a great deal of comprehension on the part of the reader. Tsang notes, "The Christian scribes wrote fewer lines to a page with fewer letters to a line and paid stronger attention to breathing marks than in contemporary literature" (Tsang 2009, 212). This suggests a desire that the public reading should be very clear.

Euphonics, or the sound of the words when read, is a very important part of communication for oral reception (Tsang 2009, 213). Tsang particularly notes this as a difficulty in imperial Rome, where there was little uniformity in language use.

Paul's letters contain suggestions that he composed them orally. They also seem to expect to be read aloud in public, such as in 1 Thessalonians 5:27 (Tsang 2009, 215). Public reading is known to be common in contemporary synagogue practice. Paul further tells who he is sending with his letter. This suggests to Tsang that the person who brought the letter was prepared to help with interpretation of its underlying meaning as well. After presentation, it is reasonable to conclude that the letter would be copied for further circulation (Tsang 2009, 216).

Paul's use of repeated sounds, words, and concepts makes his intent to be understood and recognized clear (Tsang 2009, 217). Sound patterns abound in the text of Paul's letters, indicating oral expectations.

Tsang concludes that our interpretation of Paul's letters needs to be sensitive to the oral context of their recipients. This may well have had a strong influence on the way the letters were written and presented (Tsang 2009, 218). Memory was very important, thus the means of guiding a listener through an argument would be critical (Tsang 2009, 219). The rhetorical arrangement must be considered as critically important.

Oral Tradition May Imply Interaction between Speaker and Audience

9/24/2021

9/24/21
Scholarly Reflections

Hearon, Holly E. "The Implications of 'Orality' for Studies of the Biblical Text." Oral Tradition 19:1 (2004), 96-107.

Hearon observes that the twentieth century saw a ground shift in biblical scholarship, particularly as the scholarly community began to consider orality after Kelber's ground-breaking (1983) The Oral and the Written Gospel (Hearon 2004, 96). Hearon's intention in this paper is to suggest directions in which further studies might progress, particularly in New Testament scholarship.

The written record we have may be best considered as a transcription or interpretation of an oral work. The works of the Bible were primarily experienced by hearing. This should influence the way we try to understand them (Hearon 2004, 97). Interestingly, Hearon finds this to argue for, rather than against, a written "Q" document, though it is also possible that the "Q" material was a solid kind of oral tradition (Hearon 2004, 98).

Because biblical texts emerged from a highly aural culture, we should expect a meaningful choice of words and sentence structures which would particularly move understanding and emphasis in a direction which may be different from that expected in a fully literary work (Hearon 2004, 99). There would even be likely interactions between the performer and the auditor. Because the relationship between the performer and the audience could differ, there may be some variation in the way ideas would be expressed (Hearon 2004, 100).

The actual transmission of a written text could also be understood differently in light of orality studies. Hearon observes that there has been tension concerning how a text is reproduced. An eyewitness model places significant demands on the memory of eyewitnesses. On the other hand, it is possible that authoritative texts emerge from some sort of communal memory in which a collective tradition governs the shape of the information (Hearon 2004, 101). The model of a rhetorical culture of a community, which governs the general speech patterns and ways of managing topics may be valuable in terms of dealing with the divide between orality and literacy (Hearon 2004, 102). Hearon emphasizes the limited scope of literacy in the time when biblical texts arose (Hearon 2004, 103).

In conclusion, Hearon simply observes that we have taken great strides in terms of understanding the interaction of orality and the biblical texts. She trusts the progress will continue.

Tradition!

9/20/2021

9/20/21
Scholarly Reflections

McKean, Thomas. "Tradition as Communication." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 49-50.

McKean observes that tradition is a form of social communication, which combines memory, orality, and literacy as it passes ideas from one generation to another (McKean 2003, 49). In this sense, then, oral tradition is a living means of communicating an authority figure's information over time. However, McKean also acknowledges the instrumentality of the performer, who is, in a sense, creating a newly autoritative version of a work. The tradition, then, has both private and public elements, often oral and written sources, and multiple levels of connection among generations and cultures (McKean 2003, 50).

Should Scholarship be Based on Technology?

9/17/2021

9/17/21
Scholarly Reflections

Kelber, Werner H. "Oral Tradition in Bible and New Testament Studies." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 40-42.

Kelber observes that biblical scholarship has generally operated on the assumption that the Bible is a printed work, something that was not conceived of until the technology of the 15th and 16th centuries (Kelber 2003, 40). Form criticism, which arose to deal with the role of orality, has had a strong influence on biblical scholarship, but the discipline is running aground, largely because it, too, makes assumptions which could be taken as "post-Gutenberg." The complexity of the oral and literary environment which brought forth the Bible deserves a more nuanced scholarly approach.

Kelber suggests that "the search for the historical Jesus, the nature of pre-gospel tradition, and the interrelationship among the synoptic gospels" are areas which require special study (Kelber 2003, 41).

Orality as a Rearranger

9/16/2021

9/16/21
Scholarly Reflections

Jaffee, Martin S. "Oral Tradition and Rabbinic Studies." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 37-39.

Rabbinic literature compiled in the Middle Ages is normally assumed ot have developed and been transmitted orally for multiple generations before its redaction and condification in writing (Jaffee 2003, 37). The oral style is evident throughout. Jaffee observes that scholarly work has recently been focused on the relationship between oral tradition, written sources, and written outcomes. One critical issue Jaffee mentions is the way rabbinic narrative can rearrange historical details as moral or philosophical narrative. An understanding of the purpose of the actual narrative is key to this area of scholarship.

Frame Tales and Why They Matter

9/15/2021

9/15/21
Scholarly Reflections

Irwin, Bonnie D. "Frame Tales and Oral Tradition." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 125-126.

Irwin discusses frame tales, where literary "characters become narrators by telling stories of their own" (Irwin 2003, 125). She considers these tales to be important primarily because they shed light on the way people in the time of the piece of literature would use storytelling. Further, the presence of these tales suggests that there is not as great a divide between oral and literary composition as has often been assumed. Oral works can move into literature, and literary works can be transmitted and preserved orally. "Oral tradition studies enable scholars to escape the endless search for intertextual routes from the transmission of medieval tales and concentrate more on what those tales might mean" (Irwin 2003, 126).

Oral Tradition Operating on the New Testament

9/13/2021

9/13/21
Scholarly Reflections

Horsley, Richard. "Oral Tradition in New Testament Studies." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 34-36.

Horsley considers the field of New Testament scholarship to be focused on written composition of what is understood as the Word of God. He states that "oral tradition in the broader sense assumed in other fields poses a considerable threat to New Testament (Biblical) scholars" (Horsley 2003, 34). He then extrapolates that work done by New Testament scholars pertaining to oral tradition "is heavily derivative from work in other fields" (Horsley 2003, 34).

Recent work has suggested that literacy, even among Jews, was not widespread, so oral communication would have been of great importance (Horsley 2003, 34). Additionally, scholars are finding reason to believe that reading, reciting, and hearing were closely interconnected. Further, discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that written texts, even those considered authoritative, could develop in different versions within the same community (Horsley 2003, 35). Fourth, oral traditions may have developed into two threads, which "anthropologists would call 'great tradition' and 'little tradition'" (Horsley 2003, 35). A current parallel might be high art and folk art. Finally, Horsley considers that the speeches of Jesus as recorded were sample perfodqrmances which would be replicated but adapted for the particular use of the audience.

Horsley does not provide recommendations for New Testament scholarship, but his five areas mentioned surely can provide food for thought.

A Work within a Work

9/10/2021

9/10/21
Scholarly Reflections

Duè, Casey. "Ancient Greek Oral Genres." Oral Tradition 18:1 (2003), 62-64.

Duè observes that the concept of Homeric epic as an oral genre was not articulated until the 1930s, with Parry and Lord's research in Yugoslavia (Duè 2003, 62). The later research of Albert Lord in the 1950s and 1960s showed that, in performance, significant works could be composed at the time of the performance. In 2003, a book by Aida Vidan analyzed Bosnian women's songs, which were collected by Parry and Lord. Previously, the women's songs had not been published.

Vidan's work has inspired scholars to consider whether the voices of women as represented in Homer may actually represent a genre of women's singing, adopted into another text (Duè 2003, 63). This, in turn, suggests that a wider variety of forms and genres are brought directly into larger works.

The Point of a Written Text

8/25/2021

8/25/21
Tour of Christian History

Kelber, Werner H. "The Case of the Gospels: Memory's Desire and the Limits of Historical Criticism." Oral Tradition 17:1 (2002), 55-86.

Kelber observes that study of memory and mnemonic devices have sparked a renewal of scholarly interest in recent years, particularly spurred on by the work of Frances Yates (1966), who "surveyed the ancient and medieval art of mnemotechnique - ranging from memory as a set of waxed tablets to an architectural design functioning as storehouse or inventory - and produced in effect a handbook on ancient Western memorial commonplaces" (Kelber 2002, 55). Yates' work has led Mary Carruthers (Book of Memory 1990) to see late antiquity as "predominantly a memorial culture rather than a purely documentary, textual one" (Kelber 2002, 56). Of interest to Kelber is the concept of recollection which is geared toward gathering and preserving information which confirms a particular community identity. In Kelber's view, this is a selective and sometimes inventive, process. "The memory work of the group consists in constructing a new image from elements it retrieves from the past" (Kelber 2002, 57). Kelber suggests that a written record can distance itself further from a community and the expectations of hearers. This could potentially allow writers to reshape the audience's understanding of the past to a greater extent than would speakers. The written gospels, therefore, could possibly be more creative of past events than would be predicted of oral works (Kelber 2002, 58).

Kelber observes that biblical scholarship has not been heavily influenced by these recently postulated views of the scribal development of traditions. Rather, it has been influenced greatly by Birger Gerhardsson, particularly in his work Memory and Manuscript (1961). Here, Christian tradition operates through memorization of events in a relatively mechanical manner, through repetition of authoritative accounts (Kelber 2002, 59). This would preserve the narrative in a relatively static form. Kelber does, however, note that there is scholarly hesitancy about backdating later known rabbinic practices into the first century (Kelber 2002, 60).

Kelber does illustrate some of the challenges of tradition by citing the concept of the apostles as eyewitnesses of Jesus' work, a concept he sees as being developed after the fact (Kelber 2002, 61). The tradition, which he sees emerging between 80 and 200, would be used to legitimize the New Testament accounts. The fact that the Gospels contain relatively esoteric teachings which are said to be presented to the Twelve apart from the crowds suggests to Kelber a similarity to the Nag Hammadi gospels and a particular genre shift within the canonical Gospels (Kelber 2002, 62). Kelber considers that the New Testament scholarship has been slow to consider the possible distinct functions of memory versus manuscript.

In this relation, Kelber adduces Rudolf Bultmann's The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1921), in which Bultmann took the textual tradition to have been preceeded by extensive oral tradition, which led to a transcription which reflected developments in the tradition when compared to the actual events (Kelber 2002, 63). Bultmann's method, though intellectually and logically consistent, strikes Kelber as not reflecting the actual way content develops in orality or in writing (Kelber 2002, 64). Kelber provides several ways in which Bultmann departs from current understandings of orality.

Another important "analysis of dominical sayings" is John D. Crossan's In Fragments (1983) (Kelber 2002, 65). His analysis covers statements from Mark and Q, along with Matthean and Lukan parallels, for a total of 113 statements (Kelber 2002, 66). In 1986 he released a volume (Sayings Parallels) dealing with 503 statements. The extent of the variations among different sources is striking. Kelber concludes that the written sources act freely with materials, where oral tradition would be less likely to do so (Kelber 2002, 66).

Kelber considers yet another area of weakness in Gospel scholarship, namely, what he refers to as "the eclipse of Gospel narrativity" (Kelber 2002, 67). He describes this as a loss of understanding of the overall narrative structure and logic of the canonical Gospels, in favor of the referents contained in the pieces of narrative. The Gospel as a coherent narrative was considered as unimportant. The thing signified became more important than the overarching narrative concept. Kelber describes this development in terms of Derrida and postmodern deconstruction (Kelber 2002, 68). The movement ultimately looked for a meaning behind the narrative, which, when found, could be in contradiction to the narrative.

Kelber next considers the contribution of a focus on text, essentially on typography, to scholarly challenges (Kelber 2002, 70). Kelber suggests that a focus on the printed word as a rigidly fixed entity may lead to types of scholarship and interpretation which would be foreign to the ancient world. He illustrates this by describing the "Two-Source Hypothesis" in which Mark and the hypothetical Q document served as the sources for Matthew and Luke (Kelber 2002, 71). The outcome of such scholarship is that particularly Matthew and Luke are taken to be entirely dependent on specific wording found elsewhere. Another illustration of the problem is found in the construction of Gospel parallels, in which the four gospels are harmonized with one another. This practice suggests that the actual Gospel narratives are defective and need to be collated so as to achieve their intended purpose (Kelber 2002, 72).

As a possible corrective to the weaknesses Kelber has identified in Gospel scholarship, he notes a movement in the late 20th century to recover a distinct literary identity for each of the evangelists (Kelber 2002, 74). Each one has a distinct narrative voice. This realization breaks down Bultmann's view that the Gospels emerged from some meta-tradition. Source theories in general become less useful (Kelber 2002, 75). Theological ideas become the servant, rather than the master, of the narrative, by arising naturally from the narrative context rather than forcing the narrative to conform. Kelber illustrates the concept by describing how eschatology in Mark's Gospel is addressed based on an overall narrative of expansion of time and details of events as the text approaches the critical eschatological event of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The individual voices of the Gospels speak to issues which are relevant to the context of their original, local audiences (Kelber 2002, 77). These subtexts are significant to our attempts at interpretation. Kelber details several of the subtexts which are in operation, showing how each evangelist has a unique voice.

Kelber's conclusion is that the Gospels reflect a great deal of the way their authors selected and remembered events (Kelber 2002, 79). The written documents emerged from memory of events, but that memory would also have operated to place the events into some context, one which made overall sense. This effect can explain a great deal about the nature of the four distinct narratives and their voices (Kelber 2002, 80).

Trying to read an author through that author's own lens

8/23/2021

8/23/21
Tour of Christian History

Powell, Barry. "Text, Orality, Literacy, Tradition, Dictation, Education, and Other Paradigms of Explication in Greek Literary Studies." Oral Tradition 15/1 (2000) 96-125.

Powell, speaking primarily of Homeric studies, sees a myopia among scholars who attempt to interpret Homer using their own cultural context, rather than Homer's. In this article, Powell considers six different features of Homeric studies, reflected in his title. For each, he attempts to describe how the term has been used in a relatively perplexing way (Powell 2000, 96).

The challenge of a textcomes first. Powell maintains that the evidence we possess is a text, consisting of words written in a document. We don't have a non-physical text. Though the poetry was likely an oral composition, at least in part, we are left with a text (Powell 2000, 98). Powell observes that attempts to collect and codify speech always suffer from challenges. They are subject to one type or another of technological failure. Powell suggests that the practice of writing and the oral composition of hexameter verses are not naturally compatible (Powell 2000, 99). Homer's world itself seems nearly devoid of writing and does not understand what writing is for. Thus, it seems clear to Powell that the epic was written down after the time of composition, notduring the composition itself(Powell 2000, 100).

This brings Powell to theconcept of orality. in his view, oral cultures do actually compose works, but they are not in writing (Powell 2000, 100). Many are never written down. Orality, then, is "a Ding an sich with infleunce by no means primitive" (Powell 2000, 101). Orality should not be considered primitive or inferior to literacy, merely different.

Having discussed orality, Powell moves on to literacy. He notes that Ong views writing as enabling thought patterns which are not available in an oral environment (Powell 2000, 103). However, not all literate cultures engage in the same kind of linear thought patterns as the Greeks, who developed a purely alphabetic form of writing. Powell therefore takes literacy to be more fluid than would Ong (Powell 2000, 105). Speech can not necessarily be adequately represented by alphabetic text. In essence, then, Powell considers there to be a significant, though somewhat elusive, distinction between speech and language (Powell 2000, 106).

The nature of tradition is another area which has proven difficult for scholars. Powell observes that literary elements of many stories have parallels in traditions of other cultures (Powell 2000, 108). Identifying the actual roots of these traditions has proven elusive. Homer uses significant pictoral languate, but it doesn't appear to be original. Powell considers it to be borrowed from other cultures (Powell 2000, 109). He suggests then that while people can be multi-lingual and multi-literate, they may also function in multiple cultural and traditional mileus at the same time (Powell 2000, 112).

Powell makes brief mention of the use of writing as it developed, first, for dictation or transcription of oral compositions, then became a means of composition itself, by about 800 B.C. (Powell 2000, 112).

Education is another issue of importance. Powell notes that traditions are passed down through the process of education (Powell 2000, 114). Holding to a tradition is not a denial of originality or a sign of being ignorant. Tradition is seen as a tool which enables communication of important concepts. These concepts, especially as preserved in writing, are passed on through purposeful education (Powell 2000, 116). This process, as writing spread particularly in the Greek world, led to composition in writing rather than oral composition. These compositions frequently took the form of works based on traditional sogs (Powell 2000, 117).

In his conclusion, Powell focuses our attention more directly on Homeric studies. He finds a difference between tie aoidoi, such as Homer and Hesiod, and the rhapsodes, who learned and receited pre-existing works (Powell 2000, 118). Speech, which is always rhythmic, can follow specific rhythmic patterns, thus becoming poetry. The ability to create metrical works, though it requires training, should not surprise us. Writing the metrical work should not be a great surprise, but needs to be seen as an act secondary to the primary work of composition (Powell 2000, 120). Awareness of the progression of technological work and the nature of composition is of great value as we try to avoid interpretive errors.

Where Did Jude Come From?

5/14/2021

5/14/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

Eybers, I.H. "Aspects of the Background of the Letter of Jude." Neotestamentica 9:1 (1975), 113-123.

Eybers questions the background of Jude, as he notes the immediate move into polemics. It is worthy asking who the recipients of the letter were and what could have provoked this counsel (Eybers 1975, 113).

The heresy being resisted "is decidedly practical, without much metaphysical speculation" (Eybers 1975, 114). Eybers reaches this conclusion based on the descriptions of the heretics in verses 4, 16, 18, and 19.

Eybers notes that Jude's reference to a book of Enoch is significant. Enoch 1:9 is quoted and the text is considered authoritative, though non-canonical. It was apparently well knwon to the audience, which indicates an association with Jewish apocalyptic groups (Eybers 1975, 115).

Eybers also notes the important role of angels in Jude (Eybers 1975, 116). Their place is prominent in Jewish apocalptic literature. Here the angels are involved in disputes betwen worldly and spiritual issues. The dualism of the heretics can be applied to the angelic conflicts as well (Eybers 1975, 117).

Though some are quick to conclude that Jude is speaking against Gnosticism, Eybers notes that it was only one of many human systems which would separate religion and morality (Eybers 1975, 118). People frequently take the forms of a religion to substitute for moral and ethical requirements and vice versa. Gnosticism as found in the second century is not clearly identified in Jude (Eybers 1975, 119).

Eybers concludes that there is nothing inherent in Jude that requires us to look outside of a first century A.D. Jewish or Christian culture. There is no need to assign it a later date based on its background (Eybers 1975, 119).

Why Are Those Words "Missing"?

5/7/2021

5/7/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

Kloppenborg, John S. "Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthaean Tradition." Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 70(1979), 54-67.

Comparisons of Didache 16 with Mark 13 and Matthew 24 have abounded in the 20th century. Kloppenborg asks whether there is actual dependence. After providing a parallel text of Didache 16:6-8, Matthew 24:29-31, and Mark 13:24-27 (Kloppenborg 1979, 55-56), he refines the question by considering whether the passage in the Didache shows use of "pre-Markan material and the possibility of dependence upon Mt. 24:30-31" (Kloppenborg 1979, 57).

To consider the material Kloppenborg examines redaction of the relevant Synoptic passages, then compares them to the passages in the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 57). He begins by considering Matthew 25:31. Though there are doubtless influences and parallel ideas Kloppenborg does consider the verse authentic to Mathew (Kloppenborg 1979, 58). When compared with Didache 16:7, Kloppenborg notes the lanuage is more similar to a reference to the Septuagint than to the text of Matthew (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). This strongly suggests that the text itself is not dependent on Matthew.

Didache 16:8, Matthew 24:30b, and Mark 13:26, which refer to Daniel 7:13 is another case of interest. Kloppenborg argues that "the Didache represents tradition independent of both the Synoptic gospels and of the Vorlage of Mk. 13" (Kloppenborg 1979, 59). The change in wording between Daniel and the Synoptics also appears in rabbinic sources. This suggests it is not a point of redaction in Mark (Kloppenborg 1979, 60). Kloppenborg thus concludes that the different wording in the Didache does not need to be dependent on Matthew or Mark. The agreemend of Matthew 24:30 and Didache 16:8 over against the Septuagint and the other Synoptics does not demonstrate a derivation (Kloppenborg 1979, 62). Kloppenborg notes that the following phrase, μετά δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς is not taken into the Didache (Kloppenborg 1979, 63).

Kloppenborg continues by looking at Didache 16:6, which is parallelled only by Matthew 24:30a, 31. There is certainly a kinship in the ideas and some of the wording (Kloppenborg 1979, 64). Kloppenborg and others have noted a similarity to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, which may be more similar to Didache 16:6 than to Matthew 24:30a, 31. However, he considers the similarity to be best explained by their use of common apocalyptic themes (Kloppenborg 1979, 65). Dependence is not conclusively demonstrated, and again there are ideas and wordss omitted in the Didache which one would expect to be present if it were dependent on Matthew.

Kloppenborg's conclusion is that while he cannot demonstrate a dependence between the Didache and Matthew, there are similarities between the Didache and the material which seems unique to Matthew. This suggests that the Didachist and Matthew may well have had access to a common source which the other Synoptics did not know (Kloppenborg 1979, 66).

The Conversion of an Oral Poet

2/19/2021

Warning: Politically Incorrect Material to Follow.

2/19/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

Saenger, Michael. "'Ah ain't heard whut de tex' wuz': The (Il)legitimate Textuality of Old English and Black English." Oral Tradition 14:2 (1999), 304-320.

Saenger considers whether there are significant similarities, particularly in the transcription and legitimization of authors, between Anglo-Saxon monastic compositions and those from "the rurall Black South" (Saenger 1999, 304). The works he compares are written works which present the oral work of Christian preachers.

Bede's story of Caedmon serves as the Anglo-Saxon material .Caedmon was a common English shepherd who eventually had a call to sing songs of devotion to God. He subsequently spent his life as a monk, singing songs to God (Saenger 1999, 305). The hymn of Caedmon is presented by Bede in Latin, though there is a later gloss which translates it back into Old English (Saenger 1999, 306). Over time, Bede's words were also translated into Old English. Saenger takes this to indicate that Old English was gaining legitimacy as a language.

From the American South, Zora Neale Hurston's novel, Jonah's Gourd Vine describes the "illegitimate son of a white plantation owner" (Saenger 1999, 306). The man, after a series of troubles, finds he has a calling as a preacher. The novel transcribs an actual sermon from a church service (Saenger 1999, 307).

Saenger observes that the Black Christianity of the South in this period was syncretistic in nature, with many elements of natural religion present in Christian worship. Saenger sees this as a colonizing effect used by Christian leaders (Saenger 1999, 308). The elements of pagan poetry in the preaching of Hurston's preacher, John, hearken back to primitive roots.

Saenger describes both oral poets as associating with beasts of one kind or another "in their pre-enlightened state" (Saenger 1999, 309). The people they interact with are animalistic and they themselves bear the same tendencies.

The poet Caedmon takes on a civilized nature, while the preacher John remains wild by nature (Saenger 1999, 310). They are both, however, seen largely as domesticated animals. Yet they are depicted as having an abundant flow of poetry coming from the m in ways hardly imaginable in the common person (Saenger 1999, 311).

It is valid to ask whether the oral material recorded is a transcription or some sort of translation (Saenger 1999, 313). Caedomon is certainly a matter of translation, since he is said to sing in Anglo-Saxon but the song is presented in Latin. John's sermon is a transcription of a sermon by C.C. Lovelace (Saenger 1999, 313). The issue of legitimacy is also important to Saenger. Caedmon's move serves to legitimize himself, while John's move delegitimizes him. The poems serve to illustrate this process. Caedmon's does so in an apolitical manner, but John's is very politicized (Saenger 1999, 314). Both works show considerable intelligence and cretativey, as well as an attempt at distance form pagan sources. Neither makes that leap enirely (Saenger 1999, 317).

Saenger concludes that in both works there is an effort to legitimize its oral genre through liteary means. In neither is it entirely successful.

Writing Is Better?

2/12/2021

2/12/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

Neufeld, Christine. "Speakerly Women and Scribal Men." Oral Tradition 14:2 (1999), 420-429.

Neufeld observes a tradition, dating back to classical times, by which women are storytellers and allegedly inaccurate or irrelevant, while men engage in scribal, accurate, and relevant discourse (Neufeld 1999, 420). Because she sees this characterization as a way in which men have been described as having authority over women, she chooses to explore the concept in terms of sexuality and authority. As an example, she uses Dunbar's Tretis of the Tua Mariit Wemen and the Wedo, which appears in literary form in the early 16th century (Neufeld 1999, 421). In this work, the married women and the widow, who engage in oral poetry complaining about married life, the literary poet overhearing them reflects that it would be a terrible thing to marry someone who would speak in such a way. The women's speech is very derogatory toward men. What is significant to Neufeld is that Dunbar considers this as a normal type of behavior (Neufeld 1999, 423). Of additional interest to Neufeld is that the widow has a book, which she apparently could have read if she wished, but she uses it only as an accessory. She has rejected literary pursuits because of her desire to communicate within an oral tradition (Neufeld 1999, 423).

The overall concept of the literary poet as an evesdropper is of additional interest. He knows more about the women than they know about him. He is able to describe them, while they don't know he is present at all. This could also suggest that to Dunbar the literary sensibilities are superior to oral traditions, as they can know what those steeped in orality will never know (Neufeld 1999, 424).

Neufeld suggests it is possible that the genre of the oral poetry fits into that of a medieval "flyting", as described by C.S. Lewis. Here there is an oral poetry contest and the participants and audience decide which voice has been able to satirize the situation at hand most effectively (Neufeld 1999, 425). The work, then, may stand as an example of a literary attempt to capture an oral event and to make commentary on it.

Can You Write Songs Expressing Difficult Theology in a Language You Barely Know?

2/5/2021

2/5/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

MacCoull, Leslie. "Oral-Formulaic Approaches to Coptic Hymnography." Oral Tradition 14:2 (1999), 354-400.

MacCoull introduces the reader to the blend of exegetical, narrative, and folk elements found in Coptic hymnody (MacCoull 1999, 355). The Coptic language, written with Greek characters, came about around the third century CE. It was widely used by the sixth century and continued to be common until the later 10th century, when it began to be replaced by the Arabic language. From that time it remained in use in some liturgies for several hundred years.

Coptic hymnography has been relatively unstudied, despite there being a strong tradition of music using the language (MacCoull 1999, 356). MacCoull articulates a wide variety of scholarly questions which could and should be asked about this literature. She then discusses the types of hymnody which she can distinguish. First is a Psalmody, which is found "arranged according to the days of the week and including moveable feast seasons" (MacCoull 1999, 356-357). Another group consists of hymns to Mary, the Theotokia. Third is a collection of antiphons as the propers for the different saints' days. While there are dating clues, they are only occasional. The most common dating clues appear in the songs for martyrs, as it is clear the song would not have been composed prior to the death of the martyr. A few other linguistic clues can be found, but very few.

The Antiphonarium exists as a complete work only in some late Ottoman-era manuscripts. It progresses from the first month (September) through the twelfth (August) and places five intercalary days at the end. Though MacCoull identifies some earlier, partial manuscripts, there are few of these. The hymns in the fragmens are arranged in differnt ways, indicating to MacCoull that the manuscripts would be for monastic use, with morning and evening hours intended for meditation and prayer (MacCoull 1999, 359). The meter is the same for all the antiphons. All are strophic. Nearly all have a standard final strophe. The manuscripts contain some minimal pointing, though MacCoull points out that the later manuscripts, after the Coptic language was becoming less familiar, have more errors in the pointing (MacCoull 1999, 360).

The Coptic hymnography is a written tradition, yet MacCoull considers them to show significant oral-formulaic traits in composition. Specifically, she sees "recurrence of stock openings nad sock opening strophes, often subject to variation according to the meter" (MacCoull 1999, 361). Much of the earlier studies of this hymnography may have neglected the compositional methods, as they were conducted by musicologists, who may have taken a different type of interest in the composition. The similarity of openings became more apparent in 1995 when an edition of the work contained an index of first lines, causing the patterns to emerge more clearly (MacCoull 1999, 362). MacCoull describes and illustrates several of these similar openings. Their essential structure is the same, though nonstructural elements may change. MacCoull observes that collation of these elements and variations is an enormous task, just in its inception (MacCoull 1999, 366).

MacCoull observes also that the hymnody represents different types of saints: "martyrs, bishops, patriarchs, monks and hermits, holy women (ascetics or mothers), aposltes, as well as Old Testament figures, celestial archangels, and so on" (MacCoull 1999, 367). Her analysis shows that the martyr hymns are follow formulaic patterns to the greatest degree. She gives a number of examples of different compositions. Her conclusion is that many of these works were composed by oral poets who used elements which could be easily modified and connected to one another (MacCoull 1999, 371).

The Coptic hymnography is rich in doctrinal statements. MacCoull evaluates the way some of this doctrinal content is played out in the works (MacCoull 1999, 372ff). In an example she gives, not only is the concept of baptism and its relation to water and blood made clear (as observed by MacCoull), but there is also a trinitarian statement of consubstantiality which is not a necessary part of the hymn's narrative but which makes a strong defense of a critical element of Christian theology.

MacCoull raises the question of the identity of the composers and audiences of the Coptic hymnography, particularly after about 1100 CE when the language was really not well known (MacCoull 1999, 375). The tradition had apparently begun by the sixth century, when Coptic was still in active use (MacCoull 1999, 376). In the eighth through the start of the eleventh century there was substantial diglossia in the region, with Arabic being spoken in the marketplace but with Christians using Coptic at home. The use of Coptic eventually declined and died in domestic use. The language was effectively dead by the thirteenth century. At this time MacCoull observes there were tools used to train liturgists how to perform the liturgy, learning the forms as a foreign language (MacCoull 1999, 377). She does recognize that it would be possible for someone, having learned these liturgical patterns, to compose songs using the formulas and plugging in different vocabulary words that would fit a different occasion.

Oral Compilation

1/29/2021

1/29/21
Friday's Orality/Rhetoric Lesson

Jaffee, Martin S. "Oral Tradition in the Writings of Rabbinic Oral Torah: On Theorizing Rabbinic Orality." Oral Tradition 14:1 (1999), 3-32.

Jaffee introduces the idea of an Oral Torah as that which God preserved through oral tradition, though it was written down in one form or another by about the tenth or eleventh centuries (Jaffee 1999, 3). The teachings were considered to be authoritative and to preserve teaching that had stood for millennia. Jaffee seeks to analyze the antecedent traditions, particularly from the third through seventh centuries, andattempting to understand the oral foundations of the actual literature (Jaffee 1999, 4). He considers this article to be introductory in nature, but hopefully useful in setting the stage for further discussion (Jaffee 1999, 5).

Rabbinic literature may be classified into three basic forms. Mishnah (repeated tradition) "consists primarily of brief legal rulings, narratives, and debates, normally ascribed to teachers who lived from the last century BCE through the early third century CE" (Jaffee 1999, 5). Such works are largely compolied into a literary work itself known as the Mishnah. Tosefta (supplement or amplification) is commentary on the Mishnah. Jaffee seems to consider the Tosefta as a subgroup of Mishnah. These works appear in writing beginning about the twelfth century (Jaffee 1999, 6). Midrash (interpretive tradition) attempts to tie different types of teaching to Scriptural passages. Many of these works appeared, especially from the third to seventh centuries (Jaffee 1999, 6). The third class of literature Jaffee finds is known as "Talmud" or "Gemara" (learning, analytical discourse) (Jaffee 1999, 7). These relatively complex materials were used to train students in a process of dialectic by which they could resolve questions. The two compilations of this genre are the Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, both appearing in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries in written form (Jaffee 1999, 8).

The consensus of medieval Rabbinic scholars was "that the writings known to them in manuscript stemmed from, and, but for vagaries of scribal error and other sorts of natural corruption, faithfully reproduced teachings that for centuries had been inscribed only in the memories of scholars and transmitted solely in the oral instruction imparted by masters to their disciples" (Jaffee 1999, 8). Interestingly, Jaffee asserts that "what made a text Oral torah was neither the medium of its comtemporary preservation nor the fact that mastery of the text involved the capacity to call its sources immediately to mind from the ark of memory" (Jaffee 1999, 9). The manuscripts occasionally pointed to sources dating back to the earliest period of Judaism, though the understanding of the material in the manuscripts was taken to be transmitted primarily in the present time through oral means (Jaffee 1999, 10). The consensus of Rabbinic teaching is that the Rabbis do not consult books to confirm traditions, but they may consult those who are experts at memorization. Since the mid nineteenth century, Jaffee observes, scholars have sought out information that may enable reconstruction of the oral culture of the earlier time periods. Jafee mentions numerous lines of investigation which show a strong influence of the late 19th century and 20th century politics of oppression and power (Jaffee 1999, 11).

Jafee considers rabbinic compilations on three different levels, "the 'lemmatic,' the 'intermediate,' and the 'documentary'" (Jaffee 1999, 12). In esäsence, one can focus on very small elements, intermediay elements, or entire documents. On the lemmatic level, scholars have looked at small units, not generally words or phrases, but passages of a few sentences. At issue is to what extend the lemmata represent the actual oral tradition and to what extend they are literary elements (Jaffee 1999, 13). Jaffee observes that the maximalist scholars expect they can find the actual oral material behind the writing, while the minimalist scholars think this to be largely impossible.

On the level of intermediate and documentary analysis, there is debate about "how intermediate units are related to their documentary settings" (Jaffee 1999, 15). Some, exemplified by Neusner, consider that the different Rabbinic documents with their different characteristics, must have been composed by anonymous teams which had sovereign literary command of the material and style (Jaffee 1999, 16). One significant difficulty in this scheme is that the view of historiography is based on something which is not known to have existed. The collective editorial or compositional effort has never been demonstrated by anything except speculative efforts in modern times. Jaffee illustrates this through a brief analysis of Neusner's interpretation of literary process in composition of the Mishnah (Jaffee 1999, 18). According to Jafee, Neusner ultimately describes the Mishnah as something that is orally composed but written in order to be redacted so as to finalize the composition. It is therefore both an oral and a literary work in its composition, but is considered an oral work. Jaffee considers Neusner to overstate his case for order in texts which show relatively little intentionality (Jaffee 1999, 20). In contrast to Neusner, Jaffee discusses the work of Schäfer, who finds no pure background text with evidence of extensive compilation (Jaffee 1999, 21). Rather, Schäfer considers the material to have been gathered using a relatively organic process, resulting in the texts which we find now.

Jaffee proposes a compromise position between the two poles. "The most apt literary analogy for most Rabbinic comilations, I submit, is the anthology, provided that we add one crucial proviso. Rabbinic anthologies must be distinguished from those composed in cultures that ascribe sovereign integrity to authored literary works or are engaged in the business of canonizing Scriptures" (Jaffee 1999, 22). The compilers felt free to make adjustments to the readings of the material they were compiling. These materials, in turn, had already been subject to their own transmission history, which could have similarly made adjustments to them. Within this compromise position, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that oral performance of materials would occur. These oral recitations would be very likely to maintain particular language and structure, but it would be acceptable to exercise at least some level of freedom in transmitting the materials (Jaffee 1999, 24). The written collection, then, may well have been assembled from oral sources, and itself leads back to oral usage. The governing principle involved becomes discourse rather than literary editorial philosophy (Jaffee 1999, 26). Jaffee considers this compromise to move in a positive direction, answering many of the questions raised by both sides of the issue.