The Problem with Oral Traditions

That was not my point.

Moses was not present at the time of creation. SO something was passed down. Compare what you wrote to the time of the beginning of man and the time of writing. There is a long time span.

Oral Tradition is not a theory. For example the Gospels were written long after Jesus. The information was known and passed down long before it was written down which is know as Oral Tradition not the tradition of man. There is a huge difference.

 

As I said, that is a theory, but not necessarily the way it was done.
It could have been "passed down" by the pen of God so to speak. What is not to say that God spoke directly to Moses and Moses penned what God wanted him to write. That is how the rest of the prophets did it. What is so different about Moses that "the word of the Lord came to me and I wrote..." That doesn't apply to Moses?? Why?

You are wrong again.
Lapse in time does not matter.
Matthew was one of the first books in the NT to be written--around 50-55 A.D. or about 20 years after Christ was crucified. He was one of the Apostles, and an eye-witness. He wrote what he saw and heard. There is no oral tradition involved here. If you chalk that up to oral tradition, you might as well call it hearsay. It wouldn't stand in a court of law. But it wasn't. It was the witness of Matthew himself.

John wrote later, but he was still a witness. He was younger and lived longer. By the time that he wrote he had all the other gospels at his disposal. One of the purposes of the Gospel of John is to give supplemental information that the first three (the synoptics) do not give. Again, he was an eye-witness, and did not rely on the info of others, or oral tradition.

Mark worked closely with Peter. He got his information from Peter.
It is still not oral tradition. What information he needed he got from Peter.

Consider the introduction to Luke:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
--He is writing to Theophilus, "declaring those things which are most surely believed among us."

Luke, the physician, was a companion of Paul. He is mentioned in the book of Acts, not only as the author but as one who traveled with Paul. Paul frequently was with the other apostles, and thus Luke would have been also. He must have gathered his information from the apostles themselves.

There is no oral tradition here. The authors of the gospels were either eye-witnesses or went straight to the eye-witnesses for their information. That is not oral tradition.

 

We can see from Scripture how the apostles themselves knew that other apostolic writings were inspired. They seemed to know which were inspired and which were not. (See 2Pet.3:15,16).

Just as much as I reject the history contained in the book of Mormon, I reject the history of the RCC given by the RCC. I have a different account. Therefore, why should I accept their view?

Work from the the time of the Apostles forward. What did they teach the early believers? That there is no Bible? I don't thinks so! Jude told them to contend for the faith! And that was a book written just before John's writings, perhaps around 70 A.D. Most of the canon had been written by then. "The faith" was that body of doctrine that we now have and believe as orthodox Christianity. That is what Jude was "contending for, or urging others to contend for.

The apostles taught the early Christians which books were inspired and which were not. That is where the canon came from, not from Catholic councils. I don't agree with the Sanhedrin's assessment that these were "unlearned and ignorant men," but I do agree with them when they said "they had been with Jesus." It was Jesus that sent them the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit told them what to write, and the Holy Spirit inspired the written word. They knew that and passed that knowledge along. There is no possible way that they had to wait a few centuries for a Catholic council to tell them if they were reading the right books or not. They knew that already. That theory does not make sense. They learned from the apostles.

This is where sola scriptura comes in. They knew error when they saw it. The apostles, all of them including Jesus, had warned them of error, of grievous wolves that would come in sheep's clothing. How to discern error? By measuring what they say to a yardstick, the Word of God, just like Isa.8:20 had instructed them to do. Acts 17:11 demonstrates that they did just that. Thus when spurious writings did come out they rejected them. The apocrypha never made it into the canon because the early believers rejected those books. The Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire only two out of four of Paul's epistles to the Corinth. But Paul knew that. He would have taught that to Timothy, Apollos, and others.

 

Granted but not all the NT was writen by Apostles. And it's also noted not all apostolic writings entered the NT. Who then decides that Hebrews should stay in the New Testament, or Luke and Acts (Not writen by an apostles), or Mark (Not writen by an apostle). So even that theory has its down fall.

Regardless of whether you believe history actually occured or not the question remains. A self authenticating bible demands fewer books than is currently in canon as certain books are not mentioned in the bible or referred to in the NT. Therefore since you can't determine which books belong in the bible by reading the text of the bible why are the books we now have considered canon? By definition then an extra-biblical authority established either a litmus test to determine which books were canon or some dictator pastor made a list an everyone followed him. But then who was this dictator and where is his list?

Sorry to break it to you DHK from 33 AD to 100 AD there was no completed "bible" and even then they were scrolls that didn't become codex until 300 years later. And certainly from 33 AD to 55 AD there were no NT texts at all. What does Jude saying "contend for the faith have to do with the bible? What faith did the Apostles pass on to the 1st generation of Christians? Did they give them a Gideons? Now it was based on their testimony alone. They used OT scripture to back up the logic of their testamonies.

You still have 20 years of no NT text and still have 50 years before a completed NT was accomplished. IE NO bible for the first generation Christians.

As passed on by the Apostles

exactly not the bible but the declarations and the testimony of the apostles.

That is certainly Conjecture because where do we have from any of the apostles a complete list of inspired scripture? Where? Peter says Pauls writings were inspired he however says nothing about Thomas writings. If the Apostles did as you say it would be in the bible but it is not.

There is no historical evidence nor is there biblical evidence to support your hypothesis here. Where is the Apostolic list of inspired scripture? Certainly, if the apostles wanted us to be the book only people they would have ensured a list in the text of scriptures. Or do you think God was not mighty enough to ensure that document was placed in the NT text.

Irrelevant.

But your contention is that the Holy Spirit to a 20 to 50 year break and was content at this time to let the Apostles just proclaim the message with no written text? Thats contradictory.

No one felt the need since everyone was on the same page. Marcion started the debate by thowing out the OT. It was generally accepted but from location to location the importance of which books differed as history shows. It wasn't until there was a need or a question came up that needed or necessitates the canon. Its kind of like you start a church by getting people to be members first and then framing a church constitution and how to conduct business based on how things have progressed and many things that will be included in those documents are based on what some one from the begining held.

 

You are forgetting that the writer of all these is really the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised would be their guide in all truth. It is the Holy Spirit that is furnishing these books and supplying them through the apostles and those under their direction. Most of the apostles did not actually pick up a pen and write their books but did through another disciple All the books of the New Testament were written under their superivision - this is precisely why they are the "foundation" of the church and why the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. These epistles were recognized by the congregations receiving and reading them as apostolic in origin and they had been told they were scriptures provided to them to follow.

The Bible was not developed in a vacuum. The Holy Spirit that provided it to the people of God bore witness with the book and worked in the people of God to receive and recognize it as scriptures. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Word of God as it is the sword of the Spirit. Hence, each book of the Bible is self-authenticated by its own contents; It's Divine Author; It's human author and the audiance receiving it wherein the same Divine Author resides and authenticates it as scritpure.

Not according to one of your own authorities! Tertullian argues that none can add or subtract from the "WHOLE VOLUME" that existed prior to Marcion. Indeed, Tertullian at the time he wrote (200 A.D.) claimed that he nor anyone else could add or subtract from that "WHOLE VOLUME." He argued that "WHOLE VOLUME" had its origin in the first century with the apostles. Hence, he is arguing for a "WHOLE VOLUME" of Apostolic scritpure previous to 140 A.D.

The very fact that Tertullian could chage Marcion with subtracting things from the "whole volume" of apostolic scriptures or that other added to the "whole volume" of apostolic scriptures proves there was a recognizable "volume" that could be subtracted or added from as early as 140 A.D. I could care less how you interpret his words as we all know how you will but the fact remains that every book in the New testament was written prior to 100 A.D. and you cannot prove that this "whole volume" did not include those books, regardless that some few argured over certain books in that "whole volume."

In context, Isaiah 8:16-18 is Messanic in nature beginning in Isaiah 7:14 reaching to at least Isaiah 9:6. The writer of Hebrews directly applies Isaiah 8:18 to Christ and the apostles (Heb. 2:3-4, 12-13). Jesus plainly tells the apostles that they would be led into "all truth" and that future generations would be saved through "your words" (not through your disciples words) (Jn. 17:17-21). The apostles understood and knew they were producing scriptures (2Thes. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:16-17). The last living apostle writing the last apostolic book deliberately chose to identify his book as "the testimony" which is the exact term used in the prophecy in Isaiah 8:16 and deliberately closed this book by sealing it (Rev. 22:18-19) in direct keeping with the explicit instructions found in Isaiah 8:16 and deliberately gave as the next expected revelation from God the coming of Jesus Christ from heaven precisely as did Isaiah 8:18.

Furthermore, the very nature of the Revelation takes the reader from the first century to eternity and explicitly terminates everything that began in the book of Genesis just as you would intentionally determine the conclusion of the Biblical canon should end - from the beginning of the heavens and earth to the beginning of the new heavens and earth.

 

Again you are thinking like a Greek in modern America and not like a Jew then.

Are you saying that Matthew did nothing until 20 years later. How was that message given and passed down to others.

If I use your date, it was still 20 years later.

Oral Tradition is memorization and memorization is found to be more accurate than writing.

There is no oral tradition here. The authors of the gospels were either eye-witnesses or went straight to the eye-witnesses for their information. That is not oral tradition.[/QUOTE]There is a time difference between the written message and the time of the events. Explain how people knew and heard the message before it was written down. The fact is that very few in society could read and write.

 

The New Testament was not written for just Jews to understand. The New Testament congregation consisted of Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, being a jew does not help you understand and rightly interpret scriptures because it is "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14) and spiritual discernment is not restricted to a ethnic cultural framework. The scriptures provide the framework for the Holy Spirit to teach believers His words - "comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Obviously Matthew was not INSPIRED to write his account until 20 years later. If the Holy Spirit wanted him to writer it earlier he would have. The most likely practical reason he did not write it sooner was there was no need to as there were many eye witnesses earlier. However, with the death of eye witnesses there was needful to make sure an account be provided for future generations.

On the other hand if you theory were correct, there would NEVER be any need for any written account because according to your rationale the oral method was superior as you go on to say:

This is patently false! Peter says that the written scripture is "MORE SURE" than oral memory:

2 Pet. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance......19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,

So Peter explicitly contradicts your theory that memory is "more sure" than written scripture and it is written scripture he is speaking about in verses 19-21.


Obviously the memory of those who wrote the collection of writings called the "Church Father's" was sure lacking! They couldn't even remember sufficient to accurately write down what they remembered or without contadicting each other so that counsels had to be called to sort all that record of a BETTER MEMORY out!

A prophet speaks to the audiance before him but writes for the audiances that do not "hear" him. His writings preserve his essential message for generations and as Peter demands is "MORE SURE" than oral memory of his present audiance (2 Pet. 3:15,19).

There was no need to write it down in the early years because most of the apostles were still living as well as hundreds of others who were eyewitnesses of his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6-9). They didn't write it for those who were eyewitnesses or heard eyewitness but for those future generations who neither were eyewitnesses or heard eyewitnesses.

 

So much of what is written is written in the context of the day and that was Judaism. Yiou are right in that not all of scripture was written in that context. However so much of what is written in the Greek NT is written using Hebrew phraseology. Much the same as someone who had Greek as a second language and not their mother tongue.

While I agree that was not my point. Whether one understood or not, we must understand for example that Matthew 18:20 is not about prayer as so often is taught today but rather the background is how Jewish boys learned when studying to be a rabbi. There is always a context behind scripture and it is our responsibility to study that context and not flippantly do as we please and give our garbage to our listeners.

I cannot imagine that Matthew kept his account silent because there would have been so many who were not eye witnesses. Paul names many eye witnesses in 1 Cor 15.

We do not learn as they did during that time. I cannot speculate why God chose what he did. I just accept it. I was not there and all of history is not proven by the scientific method. Even when I was a youngster we memorized a lot more than students do today. why the change? Who knows?

Even recently I saw a TV program about a black man in the civil war and in that program was the discussion about a document he wrote. They went back to what he wrote and what some of the words meant then. They interpreted not on the basis of the modern use of the word but on seeing how those words were used in other documents at the time.

You are thinking just like an American. When did you ever read "A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush?" Never for me. Try writing it one thousand times. I tried and failed after just a few times. We know there are textual variants and problems among the copies of the originals. Among some scholars it is thought possible that some of the originals were dictated and corrected before being sent out. Some Greek words are very similar sounding.

How much did they memorize? My understanding was that one studying to be a rabbi in Judaism of that time was responsible to memorize 100% of the OT. Then think about how lazy the church today is. They want make me feel good religion and will complain if serious study is required.

I was in a school years ago where we had to memorize almost 100% of the book we used. It came in handy later. Even today although I am not in that profession and have not been in 21 years I can still remember a lot of what I memorized.

That is part of my point about Oral Tradition and the passing down of information. They memorized important information and did not treat it so casually as we do today.

 

I did not quote an American but a Jew and that Jew's name was Peter. Peter, a Jew flatly contradicted your theory on memory versus scritpure. He said scripture was "MORE SURE" and you say memory is more sure! Now, who should I believe? Peter who is a Jew writing by inspiration or you????

I hope it does not hurt your feelings if I choose Peter over you?

2 Pet. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance......19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,

Do you think Peter was mistaken? Remember, he is speaking as a Jew! He told them to keep it in "rememberance" and told them it was his eye witness account (v. 16) that he had formerly told them ORALLY but then told them that the prophetic written word was "MORE SURE" than his oral account! How could that be IF memorization of the oral account is "MORE SURE" according to YOU???

 

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:1 (ESV)

 

Between the time Jesus taught and it was recorded what was the time period and how was the message retained?

 

You just brushed off what Peter said as though it was irrelevant to your assertion that memory is "more sure" than scripture!! If that is your response to the Word of God when it directly and explicitly contradicts your contention - why should we continue any discussion on this subject????

To answer your question, it was retained by EYE WITNESSES but when the Holy Spirit chose the time, He directed them to put it into writing and brought directly to their minds what they should write.

Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

I asked a question because you were so focused on your point that you forgot the obvious.
The answer is found in your next statement.

That is in essence Oral Tradition. You essentially described it well. I could not have said it better. You have proven the case of Oral Tradition.

 

Your thinking is completely irrational. All I have proven is that in the case of the APOSTLES the Holy Spirit worked in that manner by explicit divine promise to them and them alone! No such promise is given anyone outside those who were used to write the scriptures.

Again, Peter repudiates your whole theory when it comes to those who were not used by the Spirit to produce the scriptures. Again, you simply brush his words aside when they completely and fully repudiate your whole theory that memory is "more sure" than scripture.

 

Biblicist, you mostly write where you contradict yourself, as in writing the following;

"To answer your question, it was retained by EYE WITNESSES but when the Holy Spirit chose the time, He directed them to put it into writing and brought directly to their minds what they should write.

Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. "

Tell us Oh Great Biblicist why the application above, couldn't be applied to Oral continuation with out error,[ I'm positive that it was ] being that the Holy Spirit would also guide those Oral Teaching Teachers into all truth??? Please, no need of an answer if it amounts to only your eisegesis.

 

Your first mistake was failing to recognize my application. I was talking about the Apostles who were chosen by Christ to be EYEWITNESSES of his life and death. Most of them were still alive right up to the time that Peter and Paul were executed.

Your second mistake was failing to recognize that Peter explicitly and clearly repudiates the idea that oral tradition is "more sure" than scripture but rather the reverse is true (2 Pet. 1:15,19-21).

Your third mistake was failing to recognize that apostolic oral teaching was in the hearing of their immediate audiance as your favorite repeated text says "hear YOU" not as you interpret it to mean "hear those who heard you."

Your fourth mistake was failing to recognize that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 contains NO REFERENCE to oral apostolic traditions but claims that the man of God can be not only "perfect" (complete) by "scriptures" alone for doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof for "ALL" good words but is in addition "THROUGHLY FURNISHED" without your oral traditions!

Your fifth mistake is to fail to see the direct application of Isaiah 8:16-18 in the New Testament to Christ and the apostles that predicts the completion of the Biblical canon under the direction of the Apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit which this "whole volume" was finished so that it could not be subtracted from or added to with the final book of Revelation (Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19) and confirmed so by one of your own authorities (Tertullian) prior to 140 AD.

 

Do you not read your own writing when you wrote, "To answer your question, it was retained by EYE WITNESSES but when the Holy Spirit chose the time, He directed them to put it into writing and brought directly to their minds what they should write."

Take a look at Hebrews 1:1.

 

Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. "

Certainly God is able to do all things. But He always goes according to His Word, never against it; always in accordance with his nature, never against it.
For example, he could have created a "purgatory," but that would be both against his word and his nature or character. It would take away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. It would be God denying himself, telling himself that his own work was not satisfactory. If that were true, then God would not be God. Thus the dilemma of the RCC.

As to John 14:26, when Jesus said, "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," He was speaking to his disciples. The verse is applicable only to his disciples, not to us. It speaks of revelation. The only ones who would remember all things, all the things that He would bring into their remembrance would be the NT writers. No one else would have that ability. It is speaking of the inspired Scriptures. That is one way that we can be assured that the Word that we have today is inspired. The Holy Spirit Himself brought into exact remembrance those things that he wanted penned in His Book. That is what the verse is speaking about.
It has nothing to do with Oral Tradition, just as it has nothing to do with Shakespeare.

 

He didn't write when you (or I) wanted him to write. We did not dictate the terms of the Bible, or command God to do his bidding.
He wrote:
1. when God wanted him to write.
2. when there was a need for him to write.

And your point being? Does God have a bad memory??

Far from it! I have memorized thousands of verses in my Christian life. Just before college and during college I managed to memorize five books of the Bible including Romans. When someone preaches from the Book of Romans nowadays I don't really have to turn there for I am familiar enough with the passage. But I can't quote the entire book word for word as I could 30 plus years ago. Memorization is not more accurate than writing. People forget. They get words turned around, and sometimes confused. I know a lot about memorization.
But I also know that I have a Bible (just as they had scrolls) where the words were preserved and never changed. I can go and look in the Book of Romans whenever I am unsure of a verse, and it will always will be there just the same as it was 30 plus years ago. I may have forgotten it, but the Bible still has it. So it was back then also. We have over 5,000 MSS of the NT.

1. You are wrong in your history.
The common languages were: Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.
Hebrew was the sacred language of the Jews and still used in the temple and in the synagogues. Their OT was written in Hebrew, and the traditional Jews used it.
Aramaic was used commonly among the Jews, but not always.
Latin was the official language of Rome, but was mostly used in official transactions, not in everyday speech.
The gift that Alexander the Conqueror left to the world before Rome took over was the Greek language. By the time Christ came Greek was a universal language--so universal that even the common servant/slave could not only speak it but also write it. They lived in a very literate society. Peter and John were called ignorant and unlearned but they probably were fluent in at least five different languages!

When it came down to write Matthew probably had much of it already written. He most likely had to edit what he had been writing all the time he was with Jesus. That is just my opinion.
Most others believe that God simply inspired him to write when it was time for him to write, and at that time the Holy Spirit brought all things to his remembrance, as he promised he would according to John 14:26. That is what the Bible says. It is not too hard to believe is it?

 

But it's really not about the validity of oral tradition, though the argument seems to become about that.

It's the assumption that some separate whole body of "Catholic" doctrine, practice and polity/organization are apart of these "traditions". In the examples you gave, there is no evidence of them. It's just as I had said; the traditions are principles that can be found elsewhere in scripture, or at least, Holy spirit-approved sources, such as those references you cite.
You can't take just any practice and claim it was an "oral tradition". The Jews do the same thing (with the same methods of proof-texting), and that is what they use to claim that Jesus is not the Messiah. The "oral traditions" interpret the Messianic scriptures in a way differently than Christ and the Church did. And that "tradition" came first.