Pages

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Why the “oral tradition” of the Apostles had to be written down

I’m continuing to address the question of why the “oral tradition” mentioned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 had to be written down. This is used as a Roman Catholic proof text for its own version of “Tradition”. But there is a huge difference between what Paul is saying and the “Tradition” that Roman Catholic doctrine talks about.

Here is that verse:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter

In previous articles, I’ve gone to some length describing how Jewish “oral tradition” worked (with reference to the the different kinds of Jewish oral tradition were (Mishnah, the Halakah, midrash, the Gemara, etc.), what Jesus thought about Jewish “oral tradition”, and the fact that the various forms of Jewish “oral tradition” was actually written down at some point.

The notion is that in the earliest church, there was a parallel situation. For example, there was not simply “oral tradition”; this was comprised in part of “apostolic tradition” and, for the sake of simplicity, “non-apostolic traditions” or if you prefer, “ecclesiastical", or “church-originated” traditions.

Oscar Cullmann is very careful to articulate this difference In his work “The Tradition: The Exegetical, Historical and Theological Problem” in “The Early Church”, London: UK, SCM Publishing, 1958.

Regarding the first, he notes that Paul writes in various places, especially 1 Corinthians 11:23, “I received (the tradition) from the Lord” (“ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου”). This means, he says, “I received it through a chain of tradition which begins with the Lord”. 1 Cor 15:3 and 1 Thess 2:15, for example, also describe a part of this “apostolic tradition” which is “from the Lord”.

Why “from Kyrios”? Why not “from the Church”?

This passage is usually, but wrongly, treated in isolation, and has given rise to two different interpretations. The one maintains that the passage is not concerned with tradition in the usual Jewish sense, which would necessitate the presupposition of a chain of successive human intermediaries, from whom Paul received the account, but that is a question of a direct, immediate revelation from the Lord. This came to Paul in a vision, just as in Galatians 1.12 he asserts that he has not received the Gospel from men, but by a direct revelation, an apokalypsis--an obvious reference to Christ’s appearing on the road to Damascus (60).

Cullmann himself takes a second view: that Paul does have in mind “tradition in the usual Jewish sense”, but with a whole new content. Not the “halakic” content, but instead, a new tradition “from the Lord”.

I shall show that, seen in this perspective, the designation Kyrios (1 Cor 11:23) can be understood as not only pointing to the historical Jesus as the chronological beginning and the first link of the chain of tradition, but to the exalted Lord as the real author of the whole tradition developing itself within the apostolic church (62).

This, according to Cullmann, “best explains St. Paul’s direct identification of the apostolic paradosis with Kyrios: the Lord himself is at work in the transmission of his words and deeds by the church; he works through the church” 62).


Cullmann is very careful at this point to outline the rest of his argument:

The course of our argument in this chapter will now be as follows. In the first section we shall undertake to show that for Paul the paradosis, in so far as it refers to the confession of faith and to the words and deeds of Jesus, is really Church tradition which has a parallel in the Jewish paradosis. [Cullmann notes here in a footnote that “this point seems important because J. Danlielou (his Roman Catholic interlocutor) is inclined to reserve the word ‘tradition’ for the post-apostolic tradition, and to call the apostolic tradition “from the Lord” [spoken of here] as ‘revelation’. While justifiable to a certain extent in principle, this use of the words seems to me to lack precision. The objective “revelation” is the person and work of the incarnate Christ”.]In the second section we shall bring out the relation of this tradition to the direct apokalypsis of the Lord to the apostles. In the third section we shall examine this conception of paradosis against the background of Pauline theology and see if it is paralleled in Johannine thought. Finally, in the fourth section, we shall discuss the relation between this tradition and the apostolic office (62-63).

Some of this should not be in question for either side: Jesus rejected Jewish tradition; Christ himself (“the exalted Lord”) is the real author of the whole tradition developing itself within the apostolic church. This concept of “tradition” is “attested in the rest of the New Testament”. After an analysis of John 14:26 and 16:13 he suggests is precisely concerned with “the relation between the historical Jesus and the risen Lord … “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you [men in front of me] all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (that is, you men who are sitting here in front of me: apostles whom I have chosen and whom I will send). (71).

Crucial, however is “the relation between this tradition and the apostolic office”. This promise (and I’ve heard “infallibility” defended based on John 16:13) was not made to “the Church” which came after the Apostles.

Christ himself distinguished “these men sitting in front of me” both here (“all that I said to YOU”), and in John 17:20 (“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…”

Without getting too long here, there was an “apostolic tradition”, the content of which was “from the Lord”.

Fourthly, he discusses “the relation between this (apostolic) tradition (“from the Lord”) and the apostolic office”.

For those who are squeamish about challenges to “the Catholic paradigm”, feel free to tune out here.



Yes, there was “apostolic” tradition (“from the Lord”). But, there was also a non-apostolic tradition – in the words of Cullmann, “ecclesiastical” traditions. Here, he asks, “Does this favorable estimate of the apostolic paradosis justify the attribution of the same normative import to later ecclesiastical paradosis? The Catholic Church claims that it does; and this is because it identifies the authority of the post-apostolic Church which preserves, transmits and interprets the apostolic message with the authority of the apostles”. He cites his interlocutor, above, J. Danielou, as saying “In this transmission and interpretation of the message, the Church enjoys a divine, infallible authority as did the apostles as recipients of Revelation”. (Of course, note that he wrote this prior to the time when Dei Verbum was written).

But is this identification justified? In order to answer this question we must inquire into the relation of the apostolic office to the Church.

The problem of the relationship between scripture and tradition can be viewed as a problem of the theological relationship between the apostolic period and the period of the Church. All the other questions depend on the solution that is given to this problem. The alternatives—co-ordination or subordination of tradition to scripture—derive from the question of knowing how we must understand the fact that the period of the Church is the continuation and un-folding of the apostolic period.

Here he acknowledges that (as a Lutheran) he takes a very “Catholic” view of Church and sacraments. “In fact, I would affirm very strongly that the history of salvation is continued on earth (through the Church). I believe that this idea is present throughout the New Testament, and I should even consider it the key to the understanding of the fourth Gospel”. (He later wrote a work entitled “Salvation History”).

Nevertheless, he says,

The time within which the history of salvation is unfolded includes the past, the present, and the future. But it has a centre which serves as a vantage-point or norm for the whole extent of this history, and this centre is constituted by what we call the period of direct revelation, or the period of the incarnation. It comprises the years from the birth of Christ to the death of the last apostle, that is, of the last eye-witness who saw the risen Jesus and who received, either from the incarnate Jesus or the risen Christ, the direct and unique command to testify to what he had seen and heard. This testimony can be oral or written (76).

Richard Bauckham, in his “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co, ©2006) confirms this account at great length.

Bauckham concludes, “In this book, I have followed Samuel Byrskog in arguing that the Gospels, though in some ways a very distinctive form of historiography, share broadly in the attitude to eyewitness testimony that was common among historians in the Greco-Roman period. These historians valued above all reports of first-hand experience of the events they recounted. Best of all was for the historian to himself have been a participant in the events (direct autopsy). Failing that (and no historian was present at all the events he needed to recount, not least because usually some would be simultaneous, they sought informants who could speak from firsthand knowledge and whom they could interview (indirect autopsy). This, at least, was historiographic best practice, represented and theorized by such generally admired historians as Thucydides and Polybius (479).

Thus, as a cut-off point, the concept of “history still within living memory” “was the only point of history that should, properly speaking be attempted” (479).

The value of getting history from “participant eyewitness testimony” was thus a key in the production, especially, of the Gospels.

He uses “the Holocaust”, and the eyewitness testimony of the survivors,to say, “the testimonies of the survivors of the Holocaust are in the highest degree necessary to any attempt to understand what happened. The Holocaust is an event whose reality we could scarcely begin to imagine if we had not the testimonies of survivors”.

“Authentic testimony from participants is completely indispensable to acquiring real understanding of historical events” (499). And, “the exceptionality of the event means that only the testimony of participant witnesses can give us anything approaching access to the truth of the event” (501).

This is why Cullmann is (and others are) able to “cut off” the period of “revelation” at the death of the last of the apostles.

Papias knew this. He said that he preferred oral testimony. But in describing some very bad “oral traditions” that Papias was relating, Cullman wrote, “Above all there is the obscene and completely legendary account [in Papias’s oral tradition] of death of Judas Iscariot himself.”

The period about 150 is, on the one hand, relatively near to the apostolic age, but on the other hand, it is already too far away for the living tradition still to offer in itself the least guarantee of authenticity. The oral traditions which Papias echoes arose in the Church and were transmitted by it. For outside the Church no one had any interest in describing in such crude colours the death of the traitor. Papias was therefore deluding himself when he considered viva vox as more valuable than the written books. The oral tradition had a normative value in the period of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses, but it had it no longer in 150 after passing mouth to mouth (Cullmann, 88-89).

This is why, after this period, the only “apostolic tradition” that existed was that which was written down. This is Kruger’s “canonical core” – written documents which reliably carried the “apostolic witness”, the “apostolic tradition” which came “from the Lord”. “Oral tradition” was not sufficient to guarantee it.

Even the Jews, in writing down “the Talmud” (and other sources prior to it), knew that “oral tradition” that “repeating”, was not sufficient to guarantee that the correct message was being “handed on”. It had to be written down, and only written sources from the Apostles and their immediate representatives (i.e., Luke, Mark) could accurately recount that message.

By that point, the value of “oral tradition” had ceased.

20 comments:

  1. Evidently, Liccione has never heard of Karaite Judaism:

    "What do Karaites believe?"

    See: http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml

    "Do Karaites accept the entire Hebrew Bible?"

    Yes.

    "Do Karaites accept the Oral Law/ Talmud?"

    No.

    "If you interpret the Bible then don't you have your own Oral Law?"

    No. An Oral Law would imply that we claim that a given set of interpretations were bestowed upon us through a prophecy which was not included in the Hebrew Bible. Not only do we not make such a claim, but we believe that every interpretation must stand up to the same objective scrutiny, regardless of its source.

    "How can you have a community if everybody interprets the Bible themselves?"

    This is only a problem if we start off with intolerance. Karaites have learned to have tolerance of greatly varying interpretations as long as they are derived from sound principles of Biblical exegesis and only based on the Tanach. The reason for this tolerance is that we know that it is more important to do the right and moral thing than to do the same thing as everyone else.

    "Why don't Karaites accept the Oral Law/ Talmud?"

    See: http://www.karaite-korner.org/salmon_ben_yeruham.shtml#canto1

    http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dang, Steve, you stole my thunder. This is precisely where I was headed next ;-)

      Delete
  2. "blessed are the liars for they shall not be found with TRUTH in the next Life!"

    The Lord took issue with those false brethren who carried the weight of the traditions from the Talmud.

    The Talmud, in simple minded terms, is just a man's justification for why they will not deny self and die and live in Christ by the power of God!

    Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
    Mat 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
    Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Natamllc, that about sums it up :-)

      Delete
    2. John, I read somewhere the magisterium provide an explanation of Mt. 15:9 -> Catholic tradition would indeed be false if it were in fact the commandments of men, but it is not - it is the commandments of Christ given orally.

      This is no different than the priests, visa vis Hebrews. As Fr Pacwa said, Catholic priests are not the Levitical kind, they are more the kind of "elder" that was present with Moses.

      In other words, they have an answer for *everything.* Makes our job quite the challenge!

      Delete
  3. Oh yeah, if you want to be a follower of Christ from the whole body of the Scriptures the Holy Spirit inspired written down for our learning and admonition what the Apostle established in the book of Acts by the hands of Luke might be a good place to start?

    Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
    Act 20:33 I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel.
    Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
    Act 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"


    It seems prudent then to taste and see because as Christ said it is not what comes into the mouth that defiles the man. Later on in Matthew's Gospel chapter 15, it was pressed even more. Apparently it is the ears, eyes and mouth that have the order of the day?:

    Mat 15:10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:
    Mat 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
    Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"
    Mat 15:13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
    Mat 15:14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do Catholic apologists even try to validate any oral tradition as coming from an apostle or do they just assume it?

    Another thought: some Catholics believe in partim-partim for tradition and some believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. doesn't it seem weird that that they can't be consistent on that matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Geoff -- It seems to me that they just really assume it, and then try to backfill it (as in this article: "The Catholic Retreat to Commitment". Hutchinson here cites Heiko Oberman -- the same "Quo Vadis" article that Ken Collins used in discussing "Tradition". I'm revisiting all of this right now for an upcoming review article. It boils down to "Sola ecclesia".

      Also, regarding "partim-partim" -- the majority of the bishops at Trent, and the overwhelming sentiment at the time was exactly that. However, for some reason that I can't recall (or even that isn't even all that clear historically", the word "et" ("and") was used, leaving an out for future generations who may have wanted to deny the "partim-partim" view.

      Delete
    2. So they're basically saying "I'm not exactly sure how the apostolic message gets communicated to us today"

      Delete
    3. Geoff, I've used the phrase "Magisterium du jour". This is why the Bergoglio thing is so serious, and the conservatives and traditionalists are up in arms.

      Delete
    4. That's all true. But my main point is that they critique Sola Scriptura and they can't even say how the apostolic message gets to us today.

      Delete
    5. Well, they have a "living Magisterium" etc. But as for the precise mechanics of it, no, nobody knows. With pope # Bergoglio + 1 or Bergoglio 2, they could all end up being Buddhists or something.

      Delete
    6. "With pope # Bergoglio + 1 or Bergoglio 2, they could all end up being Buddhists or something."

      Or more people might recognize that Bergoglio is probably a formal heretic and not a Pope (it is a dogma that a formal heretic ceases to be member of the Church), and his "Magisterial" documents are thus null and void.

      Delete
    7. No matter who "recognizes" that, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if popes and Bergoglioan majorities of cardinals and bishops are all driving for a few generations. They've got the keys to "Rome", the bishop of which everyone's got to be in communion with.

      Delete
    8. You clearly don't know or don't understand the Catholic teaching on membership in the Church. Every formal heretic is outside the Church at the moment he falls into formal heresy. In such case the fact that he is dressed in white robes and sits in the Vatican or wears cardinal's hat means nothing - because the membership in the Church is based on supernatural aspects, i.e. baptism and professing true faith. Without one of these one is not member of the Church and does not hold any authority in the Church, even if he occupies the office materially. If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, which he probably is (although I can't be 100% sure without Church declaration), he does not hold any keys, his teachings have zero Magisterial authority and nobody is bound to be in communion with him.

      Delete
    9. ///You clearly don't know or don't understand the Catholic teaching on membership in the Church. Every formal heretic is outside the Church at the moment he falls into formal heresy. ///

      This is very fuzzy and unverifiable. The white robes and hats mean everything in Roman law. No one but God can judge a pope. That's why there is discussion about why (or how) to correct a sitting pope. And Bergoglio is clearly stacking the deck in his favor for the next go-round. Like-minded Cardinals and Bishops. His teachings will have full Magisterial authority going forward, and no one of any account in future generations will have the wherewithal to say otherwise. There can be no "Church declaration".

      Delete
  5. The problem with this argument is that it violates sola scriptura. St. Paul clearly says that some of his teachings were passed down orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and that the Churchs received his teachings in oral form prior to any inspired epistle being sent to them (1 Thessalonians 2:13, Philippians 4:9), or even that Apostles prefered oral communication over writing (3 John 1:13). So the burden is n a Protestant to prove that all of this teaching which is mentioned as being passed down orally was written down, and it has to be proven from Scripture if sola scriptura is true. However, the argument here is primarily a historical one: oral Tradition must have been written down, because if it was not, there was no guarantee it could have been passed on reliably. However, Scripture does not say that - it is an argument which is based on extra-biblical historical evaluation of circumstances in which Revelation was received and passed on. Therefore, it is:

    1) non-Scriptural - Scripture never teaches that all of the oral tradition mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 etc. was written down, neither does it teach that everything must be written down because otherwise there will be no sufficient guarantee it will be passed on - that is extra-biblical reasoning based on historical arguments.
    2) indicating that to properly understand verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we must consider historical circumstances and historical sources such as Papias to come to conclusion that oral tradition must have been written down, because if it was not, there was no guarantee it was passed on. So, deduction based on historical circumstances and extra-biblical historical investigation is used to silence plain meaning of the text (we are to obey both Scripture and oral tradition - St. Paul never revokes the command from 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which means it is binding today), so Scripture in itself is insufficient. What you really argue is that the command from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is no longer binding, because the oral tradition was written down - but 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was never abolished or taught to expire in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arvinger -- I think you're confused.

      ///The problem with this argument is that it violates sola scriptura. ///

      I can't imagine how this is so.


      ///St. Paul clearly says that some of his teachings were passed down orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and that the Churchs received his teachings in oral form prior to any inspired epistle being sent to them (1 Thessalonians 2:13, Philippians 4:9), or even that Apostles prefered oral communication over writing (3 John 1:13). ///

      You're not taking into context what "tradition" means in any of those Scriptures. This article allows that apostolic teaching is "handed on". But that was only the case for their lifetimes. After their lifetimes, then you got into a big game of "telephone".


      ///So the burden is n a Protestant to prove that all of this teaching which is mentioned as being passed down orally was written down, and it has to be proven from Scripture if sola scriptura is true. ///

      I think you're confused. The burden is to show that what's being passed down orally rises to the level of Scripture. The real definition of "sola scriptura", which you don't seem to know, is that there is no other source that rises to that level.


      ///However, the argument here is primarily a historical one: oral Tradition must have been written down, because if it was not, there was no guarantee it could have been passed on reliably. ///

      Of course.


      ///However, Scripture does not say that - it is an argument which is based on extra-biblical historical evaluation of circumstances in which Revelation was received and passed on. ///

      Which is part of what the doctrine of Sola Scripura says. "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."


      ///Therefore, it is: 1) non-Scriptural - Scripture never teaches that all of the oral tradition mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 etc. was written down, ///

      Nor does it say that there will be an unbroken succession of bishops who will pass "tradition" along correctly for 20 centuries. In fact, we have your word for this, and Rome's word, and you both don't agree on how it works. So what's your point?


      ///neither does it teach that everything must be written down because otherwise there will be no sufficient guarantee it will be passed on - that is extra-biblical reasoning based on historical arguments.///

      See above. "Do not go beyond what is written". There is no guarantee that what is not written is anything but a muddled mess.


      ///So, deduction based on historical circumstances and extra-biblical historical investigation is used to silence plain meaning of the text (we are to obey both Scripture and oral tradition - St. Paul never revokes the command from 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which means it is binding today), so Scripture in itself is insufficient. ///

      What, specifically, is the "tradition" that Paul commanded be passed along? Where is its source? Where is the "infallible canon" of it?


      ///What you really argue is that the command from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is no longer binding, because the oral tradition was written down - but 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was never abolished or taught to expire in Scripture.///

      What you are really doing is never really defining what Paul meant by "tradition" -- you are merely assuming that you have it or Rome has it -- but you can't tell me where it is. And you can't even tell me that "the Traditions" that Paul was speaking about ever extended beyond what got written down. The simple fact is, you don't know, you can't know, and neither can anybody else.

      Delete
    2. Not just rise to the level of Scripture, but can be verified to go back to the apostles.

      Delete