Textual analysis has shown that it wasn't just written down all at once -- the "received version" was only established over a period of time. Just like the Canon established by the Church . . . the conversion of oral to written tradition really does follow a pattern!
Then, of course, you have the issue of translations. I always thought that the Lattimore translation was as good as it was going to get, until Fagle came out with his. Lattimore is line-for-line more accurate in terms of a literal translation of the Greek, but Fagle catches the meaning better, if that makes sense. I wish I read Greek well enough to enjoy Homer without a "crib" . . . but I don't now and was just barely literate in Greek back when I was taking it seriously with an eye to a Classics major . . . but I started Greek too late and had switched Latin for German in high school, so there was no way I could get the required courses done in 4 years . . .
My Homeric Greek class with John Foley was a great experience of which I probably did not take full advantage. It was the toughest Greek class I took, easily. I was lost without my Homeric dictionary. Lucian it is not.
the conversion of oral to written tradition really does follow a pattern!
Of course it does. That said, it is still not analogous to Catholic Tradition. The Canon could absolutely be compared to Homer in the transition from oral to written. But there is not really an analogy that I can see in the development of doctrine in the Catholic Church to something in Oral Tradition. Your posts have been very helpful, however, and perhaps you could point me in the proper direction.