The Implications of "Orality" for Studies of the Biblical Text

Efforts to examine the oral aspect of biblical texts date to the early part of the twentieth century. Since then, the tide of studies has flowed and ebbed. A swirl of activity during the 1950's and 60's slowed to a drizzle in the 70's and early 80's. This drought was broken with the appearance in 1983 of the ground-breaking study by Werner Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, which marked the beginning of biblical scholars' growing awareness of and engagement with the works of Eric Havelock, Milman Parry, Albert Lord, Ruth Finnegan, Jack Goody, and Walter Ong—and in subsequent years, it should be added, the works of John Miles Foley. Since then the flow of studies has steadily increased, surpassing the efforts of any previous decade. Needless to say, it is hoped that the twenty-first century will prove as fruitful as the late twentieth century for studies of the oral aspects of biblical texts.

My goal in this article is to highlight some of the ways in which the application of studies in oral tradition to biblical texts has begun to foment a shift in thinking among biblical scholars by encouraging us to look at the biblical texts in relation to their oral-aural contexts and by considering how these oral-aural texts functioned in the ancient world. Because these studies have taken us in many different directions, my paper is structured as a series of "sound bytes" loosely grafted together. My intent is to be suggestive rather than comprehensive, to describe some of the places we have been and some of the places we have yet to go. Before I begin, let me offer three caveats. First, most of my comments will be directed towards studies of the Second Testament, as this is the locus of my own research. Nonetheless, a number of issues that I raise find resonance in both Testaments. Second, while I will cite some studies, many more will be referenced only by allusion; if the study that has been central to your work, or perhaps is your work, is omitted, I beg your pardon. Finally, while I have endeavored to represent a spectrum of perspectives in my comments, my bias will no doubt be evident to those who have ears to hear. In this respect I do not beg your pardon, but your indulgence.

Written Remains

I begin with the written remains, because, in the end, that is what we have: written remains of texts that look nothing at all like what we are used to seeing when we encounter a written page or printed text. These written remains are not divided into chapters or paragraphs, they exhibit no punctuation and provide no spaces between words. The sheer visual impact of letter after letter without interruption is overwhelming. Yet it is the visual impact of the page that orients us towards their function. Because the structure of the text cannot be discerned from the construction of the physical page, we must discover it another way. As Paul Achtemeier (1990) has proposed, and Bernard Brandon Scott and Margaret Dean (1996) have demonstrated, one of the ways in which the structure of these texts is revealed is through sound. It is little wonder, then, that reading aloud was, if not the exclusive practice in the ancient Mediterranean world, at least the normative practice. This reality invites us not only to see, but also to hear our "written remains" and to experience them in relation to aural rather than visual cues by letting our ear be guided from sound to sound rather than our eye from chirograph to chirograph. As Scott and Dean have proposed, these cues can add to our understanding of how the rhetorical structure of the texts is shaped, for example, through patterns of repetition constructed around sound.

Attentiveness to the primarily aural nature of our "written remains" signals to us their close relationship with oral text. Since these "written remains" were largely dictated, the "remains" are, in fact, texts that began in oral expression and were "actualized" in performance...