Michael Bird has recently posted a very helpful analysis of the interplay between written and oral traditions in early Christianity. Unfortunately, modern scholars often pit these two modes of transmission against one another, as if early Christians could only have used one or the other.
But, we have every reason to think that both would have been used–and would have interfaced with one another–from the very start. Written notebooks/codices would have been aides-mémoire for recalling oral tradition. Moreover, as eyewitnesses (the “living voice”) began to die out, early Christians would have wanted to preserve their voice for later generations.
Thus, written traditions did not exist in opposition to oral tradition, but were viewed as the permanent embodiment of oral tradition (see similar practices in ancient historians like Polybius, Galen, Thucydides, Tacitus). If so, then this presents a fundamental challenge to the classic form-critical reconstructions of early Jesus tradition made so popular by Bultmann and Dibelius. I address these issues further in chapter 5 of my book Canon Revisited.
Bird comments:
But if the lines between orality and textuality were fluid –and they were– with oral material written down and written materials delivered orally; and if the Jesus tradition was carried in a mix of oral and textual media beginning in Jesus’ own life-time all the way through to the Gospels and beyond; then we need to take serious heed of the interface between the oral and written forms. More specifically, we should take seriously the possibility of notebooks being used to aide in the remembrance and transmission of Jesus’ teachings
Sam says
I appreciate the information. I am new to the understanding of the rhetoric of the NT times, and the information you have provided is very helpful and insightful. I have been reading much of Witherington III and Wright, and I am begining to see the importance of the rhetorical and historical context of the NT though I have noticed that many of my friends take a more “literal” view of the NT. This blog entry helped me see the transition from an oral to a written form of communication more clearly. Thanks for the post.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Sam. Yes, I think the transition from oral to written was not an “all or nothing” sort of deal. The two were often present at the same time. Glad you are enjoying the site.
Stephen says
This is also in keeping with much of the recent work on education, “scribal culture,” and so on in the ancient Mediterranean. Though focused more on the Hebrew Bible, David Carr, for example, comes back over and over again to how writing and “orality” went together in the practices of scribes (e.g., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005]). Such interplay goes far beyond simply how written texts were often read aloud to others, and so on.
Though we still, of course, must study as much as possible the characteristics of oral versus written aspects of their practices (e.g., especially how each factored into the composition and editorial history of various writings, to the extent we can plausibly get at such matters), it’s time for scholars to move beyond the hard distinction between oral and written.
On a different note, your webpage looks interesting. Hope you do not mind my occasional comment. Thanks.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Stephen. I appreciate these comments. Yes, happy to have you participate in the discussions on this blog.