Scholarly Reflections
Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Three: Method: Orality and Oral Tradition." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 70-106.
In this chapter Young describes the method he will use to apply recent developments in study of orality to the Jesus traditions referenced in the Apostolic Fathers (Young 2011, 70). Prior to that methodological discussion, he considers the possibility of identifying oral materials with certainty, then oral markers which may be sought out.
Young notes a difference in discourse between those conceived orally and later transcribed and those composed and written during composition (Young 2011, 71). This suggests that characteristics of orality and of literacy will be preserved, at least to some extent, in a way which can be identified.
The ancient Mediterranean world as Young observes, functioned largely as an oral society. It may be a matter of debate to what extent some baseline literacy was present, but there is little doubt that the normal use of written materials was either to store information or to read aloud for an audience, thus making written records into oral messages. young takes literary rates in the first century to be low, at perhaps 10-15%, and even lower, more like 3% in Israel (Young 2011, 74-75). He does back his argument up with a lengthy, discursive footnote (Young 2011, 75-76), which fails to capture the nuances necessary in evaluating exactly what would be considered as functional literacy. However, his desire, as he states it, is to emphasize "the high rate of orality" (Young 2011, 77). He goes on to describe the positive use of orality, "In this environment those who had not acquired the ability to read and write should not be thought of as deficient in literacy but as proficient in orality, while those who did acquire the skills of literacy should not be imagined to have lost their proficiency in orality in the process" (Young 2011, 78). "Written" documents were typically dictated. Reading, even to oneself, was normally done aloud. This describes a significant role of orality.
Young follows the foundational work of Parry and Lord in evaluating the actual function of oral elements in ancient compositions (Young 2011, 81). The formulaic nature of compositional elements will serve for young as identification marks. Young continues by citing the classification of oral markers as outlined by Walter Ong in Orality and Literacy (Young 2011, 83ff).
Comparative study does have some inherent limitations, as Young concedes. Not all of "the oral" fits into broad philosophical categories Young recognizes "many different ways of being oral" (Young 2011, 97). The statements of Jesus do not necessarily appear oral in the same way as Homeric traditions. Young specifically observes that the traditions of Jesus as used in the Apostolic Fathers were relatively close to their source in time and culture. As opposed to Homer, the Apostolic Fathers are no more than a few generations from the events described (Young 2011, 98). Very little transition has occurred in passing on the stories. There may have been first generation eyewitnesses for much of the time involved. Further, Young notes that the care shown to forms and content of liturgical and doctrinal material in early Christianity would preserve specific narratives in an uncorrupted form (Young 2011, 100).
Finally, Young affirms his commitment to take scribal work seriously, along with orality (Young 2011, 102). There is certainly a possibility that the Apostolic Fathers drew on documentary evidence for sayings of Jesus. This may include, for example, paraphrase of portions of canonical writings. "It is fairly ceratin that oral traditions of Jesus' sayings continued to co-exist with the written Gospels or other written collections of Jesus tradition well into the second half of the second century" (Young 2011, 104). The boundary between oral and written communication, then, remains quite blurry.