June 23, 2004
Oral Tradition in the Old Testament
Often on this blog we engage in dialogue, or maybe debate would be the better word, about "oral tradition" verses the "written word." Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters insist that it is the Bible alone that reveals to us the truths of God. We have consistently shown that this is a false notion easily disproven by Sacred Scripture itself, but more importantly, by a simple exercise of reason. To limit God's ability to reveal to humanity the truths about Himself and what it is He desires of us to a single book isn't reasonable. Sacred Scripture is of the utmost importance in knowing the truths of God, but it is not the only means God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. I often find it ironic how our Protestant brothers and sisters want to preach to us about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but then cannot accept the fact that God would actively be involved within His Church, teaching it all things through the workings of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 14:26). As Jesus said:
And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever... - John 14:16
Yet we find "oral tradition" even in the early days of the first covenant made between God and man. God dealt directly with His people and they held to "oral traditions" during those early centuries of Judaism, before any part of the Old Testament was written.
We know that, at best, the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was not written until the time of Moses. That means that from Adam to Moses there was no "written word." Yet this did not prevent God from communicating His covenants and promises to Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and even Moses. Each of them, in turn, handed down to the next generation the truths they had received and God remained with them.
Many biblical scholars believe that the Pentateuch may not have been written until the time of the return from the exile in Babylon (6th and 5th centuries B.C.). That being said, it could have been an even greater length of time that the Jews' beliefs were kept through the use of "oral tradition."
Yet even once they had the Torah it was not considered by the Jewish people to be the complete source and guide for the living out of their faith. A good example of this is the ritual sacrifices of the Jewish people. The ritual of the sacrificing of the unblemished lamb cannot be reconstructed from the Old Testament alone. Yet they all knew it was necessary. If there is one thing we can clearly see, even in the Gospels, is that the ritual life of the Jew was of the highest importance. Jesus faithfully kept the various feasts and observances of the Jewish people. So where did the Jewish people find the means to live out their faith? The answer is obvious...in the oral traditions that were handed down to them by their forefathers.
In reading the New Testament, we can see that even the Apostles considered "oral tradition" to be an important source of guidance and for the conveying of sacred truths. As St. Paul fittingly says to the Thessalonians:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thess 2:15
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joe,
I think you'll find that most Evangelicals believe in modern day revalation and God's influence over the Church. They see scripture as a bench mark for teachings. If someone has a teaching that conflicts with scripture we believe that teaching is not valid. It's not that all truth is comming from one book but that there should be no conflicts. When the Catholic church was putting together bible they belived this also that's why some books are in the bible and some aren't.
I don't know about the protestant churchs you have been too but you'll find the oral tradition alive and well. You'll find testimonies of what God is doing in people lives(today) and prophetic messages for those strugling with issues. I know of many speakers who will agonize over a message they have to preach just because they are waiting on God to deliver it to them and they don't just want to write a speech.
One way that the holy spirit makes himself evident to me is by having multiple people either recieve in prayer or talk about the same message without any prior knowledge. We have a group that meets on Fridays at 8pm, prior to meeting a select group gets together to pray for the meeting at 6pm. 9 times out of 10 the message for that night will come to those praying before hand.
I don't know what kind of Churchs you've been too but the above has been my experience in my Church. God has not stopped revealing things to me through scripture, prayer, fasting and my fellowship with others.
God bless
To concur with Joe's summary of Oral Tradition and Judaism, which I have written about before on this web log. For 1st Century Judaism, generally speaking, there was both the written Torah and the Oral Torah (basically oral commentary on Torah) – both equally considered divinely inspired. Eventually, after the destruction of the Temple (AD 70), the Rabbi’s at Javneh codified this Oral Torah and thus writing it down. This came to be known as the Mishnah (“repetition,” or “instruction”), and continued to evolve over several generations of discussions between the Tannaim, i.e., “sages,” or “teachers” – the Rabbis!!
One of the magnificent things about the Catholic Church, I think, is the understanding of Divine Revelation as being comprised of both Holy Scripture AND Tradition which corresponds directly with Judaism’s Oral AND Written Torah!
Peace!
To concur with Joe's summary of Oral Tradition and Judaism, which I have written about before on this web log. For 1st Century Judaism, generally speaking, there was both the written Torah and the Oral Torah (basically oral commentary on Torah) – both equally considered divinely inspired. Eventually, after the destruction of the Temple (AD 70), the Rabbi’s at Javneh codified this Oral Torah and thus writing it down. This came to be known as the Mishnah (“repetition,” or “instruction”), and continued to evolve over several generations of discussions between the Tannaim, i.e., “sages,” or “teachers” – the Rabbis!!
One of the magnificent things about the Catholic Church, I think, is the understanding of Divine Revelation as being comprised of both Holy Scripture AND Tradition which corresponds directly with Judaism’s Oral AND Written Torah!
In addition, Joe is correct too in saying that it is difficult to reconstruct the cultic ritual of ancient Judaism from the Old Testament alone. In fact, most of what we know of the cultic rituals of 1st Century Judaism comes to us - yep, via the Mishnah!!! Scholars think this is indeed an amazing thing especially since the beginning of the composition of the Mishnah was AFTER the Temple's destruction. Shows us how vital ritual sacrifice was to the ancient Jews!
Peace!
Stan,
Many of those on this blog argue that, for instance, Mary isn't a perpetual virgin because the Bible doesn't explicitly say it. Or that the Eucharist isn't Biblical because the term "Eucharist" isn't used. This is what Joe was referring to, I believe. Tomorrow I'll post an article detailing the different ways of understanding whether a term has a basis in Scripture.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Thanks for the response, I see some of your point. But remember we interpert scripture differently on those issues, you could even say its a tradition. :)
I've been reading your site for a few months and a question has been on my mind. How does the Lord judge protestant and catholic martyrs, does he see them the way we do? Does he weigh whether one thinks Mary was always a virgin or not? or does think it less if someone rembers his son through communion whether its transubstation or not? I'm really not a relativist kind of guy. I don't believe that all paths(religions) lead to God. I also don't believe just because He loves us means he has to accept our sin in the case of homosexuality or other deviant behavior. What I do believe is that He is looking for our love, repentance and obedience. I know it sounds cliche to some of you but still think trully following Luke 10:27 is hard. Loving God more than any friend, more than your family or your very children is an amazing thing. Showing love to your enemies because God loved you when you were his enemy. To me these things after all this time are still revoloutionary. If the whole world made even a half hearted a atempt at loving God and each other we would have a utopia.
Ok sorry for rambling of topic just couldn't stop my self....
God Bless.
Posted by: Stan at June 23, 2004 11:16 PMStan,
We don't mind the rambling - we tend to do it ourselves! You raise a good question about what God expects of us. At this site, we're trying to make the argument that God created the Catholic Church (Matt 16:18) and gave it special Sacraments which enable us to better live out Luke 10:27. We believe that through the Eucharist, Baptism, Confession and other Sacraments, God gives us grace that enable us to love and follow Him more completely. Can we attain heaven without going through the Catholic Church? Yes, but it is difficult (see John 6:53). Is it much easier to go through the path designed by God to lead us to heaven? Absolutely.
I would suggest that the Catholic Church is the earthly institution God designed to lead us to heaven. In other words, it's a "saint-maker" that continually points toward Christ and through which Christ reaches down and pulls us to Him. It is impossible for us to come to Jesus of our own will - He must draw us to Himself and I believe He does this most effectively through the Church He promised "the gates of Hell will not prevail against."
Let me know if I missed your point here, but I think I'm on the right track!
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
You are on the right track and I really admire your passion.
God Bless
Posted by: Stan at June 24, 2004 11:42 AMJay,
God can and does reach out to us through other means than through Scripture. However, Man has fallen from his perfect state due to Adam’s sin. Because of this we must be wary of what is in our hearts, because the heart of Man is “desperately wicked”. Not only that but Satan is very cunning and can easily sidetrack Man’s best intentions. Man can too easily proclaim that something is God’s revelation, when in reality it is nothing more than man’s own personal agenda or Satan’s tricks warping what has been given to Man by God. Then the real question becomes if everything that is produced by man is inherently suspect, how can we know that this revelation as reveled through Scripture is different or set apart from every other thing that Man has produced? We can know that the Scripture is set apart because what our experiences tell us. Never is the history of Man has a document been so thoroughly reviewed and analyzed than Scripture. It has been through the ringer so to speak. Scientifically, archeologically and in every other way and never once has it been found failing or wanting. Can we say the same about the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout history? I don’t think that anyone would seriously argue that we can. If some teachings/revelations of the Church have not been given from God in the past then how do we know that any teaching of the Church is correct? The simple answer is that we don’t. The only way to know for sure whether a teaching is correct or not is to compare it to the only truly miraculous document that has never been found in error, the Scriptures. Without the Scriptures we are set a sail in the sea of uncertainty. Much more importantly when we base our lives on the Good News of the Scripture we hear and see the testimony of truly changed lives. Thus we must always look back to Scripture as the solid foundation for what we believe, and not the traditions made by Man.
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas at June 24, 2004 01:52 PMThomas,
I'll agrue that we can fully trust that in matters of faith and morals the Catholic Church has been consistent and God-inspired down through the ages. I will point to the fact that it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible as we know it today (392 A.D.), it was the Catholic Church that explained to us the meaning of the Blessed Trinity, it was the Catholic Church that provided us with guidance in terms of the dual nature of Jesus Christ, and so forth. Every stone that Christianity is built upon has come to us through the Catholic Church, whether in writing or through oral tradition. This co-revelation of truth is consistent with the Old Testament and it has been manifested and made perfect in the New Testament. This truth is obvious in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
In Christ,
Joe
I would beg to differ. Every stone that Christianity has been built on has come from Christ, the Apostles and Scripture. When the Catholic Church has pointed to and based its arguments on these it has been correct, whenever it has not it has been hit or miss. To say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible or any doctrine in the Bible is the same as saying that the Church has created the truth about God. The key distinction is the Catholic Church may have been the first to recognize the truth of what is Revealed (Scripture), as well as the truth of the Creator and the creation, but it did not create that truth. (and even the statement that is was first there is room for argument, as the Eastern Orthodox Church has equal claim to this.) It certainly does not have the right by virtue of being the first to recognize the truth, to make a claim that all its teachings are and have always been true.
Love In Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
The Catholic claim to having the truth is Biblically based. See 1 Tim 3:15 (the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth"), Eph 3:8-10 (through the church the "manifold wisdom of God is made known"), and especially Matthew 16:18 and following (Jesus promises that the "gate of hell will not prevail against" the Church).
Keep in mind, Jesus created the Church, then members of the Church preached (Oral tradition), then members of the church (not necessarily apostles) wrote down the Bible. If Jesus intended the Bible to be the foundation of our faith, why didn't He write a book? Or clearly state the a book would be written? Or at least command the apostles to do so? Because that wasn't Jesus' goal. His goal was to found a Church that contained the truth fully, and the Church decided to write the Bible. Remember, the New Testament wasn't put together until almost 400 A.D., long after the apostles and their followers had died.
Also, please point out where the Church has taught anything but the perfect truth. The Holy Spirit insures that the Catholic Church will only teach pure truth and nothing else. If you think this is incorrect, please give me a specific instance.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
First of all, we must separate the Catholic Church as an organized movement founded hundreds of years after the Christ’s death and the early body of believers referred to as the Church in Scriptures. When those particular passages of Scripture were written, the Catholic Church as we know it did not exist. The church referred to in these passages is the body of believers of the one true Gospel. Yes I Tim 3:15 does says that the Church (or the whole body of believers not the organized Catholic Church) is “the pillar and Foundation of the truth”, but only so long as it preaches the gospel as proclaimed by Christ and the Apostles. As Galatians 1:8 states “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.” I quote this verse not to say the Catholic Church has indeed preached a contrary gospel, but look at the emphasis from the Apostle Paul. Where does the true Gospel come from? Not the Church! It came from what was given to the apostles by Christ what they in turn preached. That is the foundation. Where is this Gospel that the apostles preached written down in an uncorruptable form for future generations to read and hear? The New Testament. Should we then not view everything that comes from anyone else, including the Church, through the filtering glass of the Scripture? To paraphrase this passage. If anyone (read even the Church itself) has preached a different gospel than the one we have preached (or one set out in these pages) then they are to be eternally condemned. How are we to know if the Church has indeed preached a different Gospel, except by comparing it to the solid foundation of Scripture. In Ephesians 3:8-10 what “manifold wisdom” is the church to proclaim? Surely not its own manifold wisdom, but that of the Gospel. The Gospel that was handed down from Christ to the Apostles.
As far as Jesus writing a book, he did. It’s called the Holy Bible. He just didn’t write it in the conventional way. Since when has God ever acted in such a way as we expect Him? Jesus’ goal was to found a Church that proclaimed the Gospel. What Gospel? The Gospel according the Traditions of the Catholic Church, or the Gospel taught and proclaimed by Christ and his Disciples as recorded in the Bible? I am firmly convinced that it is the later. Whenever the Catholic Church diverges from this Gospel it ceases to become the true Church, and its teachings become heresy. See Galatians 1:8 above.
As for the New Testament being formed 400 years after Christ, this is ridiculous. The various books of the New Testament were written shortly after Christ’s death most were written within fifty years by people who were there with Christ, and 90% of them were immediately recognized as Holy Scripture inspired by God by the early church, as they were either detailed eyewitness accounts of Christ’s life and teaching or were the teaching of the Apostles who were immediately trained by Christ. The only thing that the Counsel or Trent (I believe this is the right name for this counsel) did in 400 AD was to formally recognize these various writing as Cannon. They had already previously been informally recognized as such by the early church from the very beginning.
As to your last point, I will name just one, which should be sufficient: The Sale of Indulgences.
Lastly I will leave you with this verse:
II Timothy 3:16-17
ALL Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY good work. Emphasis is mine.
I hope I have not ruffled any feathers.
Love in Christ,
Thomas
Thomas,
All I can say is Amen. However the Council of Trent met and declared the apocrypha to be scripture in 1546...I believe. Regardless...you are correct, early church fathers such as Jerome and Athanasius did not believe the books of the apocrypha to be inspired words of God.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 25, 2004 11:56 AMThomas,
Again, I have to disagree. The Early Church Fathers were distinctly Catholic, even calling themselves Catholic. The doctrines held by the Church today were held by them as well as we have repeatedly shown on this blog.
Secondly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has in no way been compromised in the teachings of the Catholic Church, if anything it has been guarded and upheld. In Matt 16, Jesus clearly instructs Peter that whatever he (Peter) should bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he (Peter) loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. This is no small or trivia mandate. It involves eternal authority given by Christ to Peter. Later in Acts, Peter clearly shows that the authority entrusted to them as apostles is to be handed down.
Third, the Church does not condone the selling of indulgences.
Fourth, Jay didn't say that the New Testament was written hundreds of years after Christ only that the Bible wasn't assembled until approximately 392 A.D. That is a historical fact my friend. Even Protestants acknowledge that much. Keep in mind, again, that there was controversy over which books should be included in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament and yet what the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, would decide should be included in the canon of Sacred Scripture is what we have today. Again, a historical fact.
Finally, all Scripture is God-breathed and useful, including 2 Thess 2:15:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Did Jerome or Athanasius or any early church father practice the Marian doctrine?
Did Peter in the Bible have papal authority over other disciples? The word catholic means universal...however the Roman Catholic doctrine is not the same as the original universal church.
Be blessed
SandT,
I'll answer your questions one by one.
Yes, Jerome and Athanasius believed in the Marian Doctrines professed by the Catholic Church today:
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. In neither case would it have been profitable to us men: if the Word were not by nature Son of God, or if the flesh which He assumed were not true flesh.
- St. Athanasius, Discourses Against The Arians, 358-362 A.D.
Here we find St. Athanasius calling Mary the Ever-Virgin back in 358 A.D. Now let's see what St. Jerome has to say about Mary.
You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that the Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock.
- St. Jerome, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 383 A.D.
So here we find St. Jerome writing an entire letter on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Next question: Peter did have authority over the other disciples Matt 16, John 21, and Acts 15.
The Early Church was distinctly Catholic, the Early Church Fathers attest to this truth with clarity and detail. Just look at what they have to say about the Chair of Peter, the Eucharist, Mary, Confession, and so forth. The beliefs of the Catholic Church today can be found throughout the Early Church Fathers and down through the ages.
In Christ,
Joe
