Two people might represent a tradition if they came from a community of more like them.
Two by themselves can't be a community.

There are self-styled communities such as organizations as "The Sons of the Confederate Soldiers" created to serve political or social/religious agendas. These aren't folk traditions but manufactured entities. The BNP comes to mind.

I agree with Jim Carroll that singers and players from the traditional folk sources have a level of understanding and sophistication about what they do and how they differ from
the commercial music world.

To dismiss folklore studies, cultural demarcations, and traditional sources in general suggest an ignorance as to what folk music is. The defense is generally, "if I do it,
it's folk" which is like "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like".

It's not up to the traditional singer to define his role. That can be determined by those
who have familiarized themselves with the musical and textual elements of a song.

The "Jesus quote" sounds more biblical than communal.

Jim, you can't expect that traditional folk performers would be treated any differently in the commercial music and show business than any other commodity. That's why it makes sense to keep the two approaches separate. A trad folksinger will find it corrupting to be a part of the music machine. The purpose of "the machine" is to make money with music as a commodity. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about this.
It's just a different driven agenda.

Academia, on the other hand, can be "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
There is a lot of fakelore out there by so-called reputable folklorist academics.

If we allow that there is a "tradition" in folk music, we can wade through the inconsistencies, agendas and attitudes about it and learn to appreciate it.

Frank Hamilton