The Church

Tract: The Biblical Basis for Oral Tradition

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known…Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles..." (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum)

Oral Tradition in the Old Testament:

The Protestant believes that ONLY the bible is the sole rule of faith for faith and morals. That means all his beliefs are based on the explicit testimony of the Scriptures. However, in order to substantiate his belief in 'sola scriptura', he must turn to the bible to prove this doctrine as well. He cannot rely on anything or anyone else. So the challenge is: Where does the bible teach that it alone is the Word of God? Answer: there is no Scripture in all of the bible that teaches this doctrine. This means that 'sola scriptura' is a tradition of men - a sixteenth century heresy. On the other hand, the biblical evidence is clear that the Word of God is communicated in two ways: the written and oral tradition of God. The Written Tradition in Christianity is the Holy Scriptures, while Oral Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles which were not consigned to writing. In fact, if we look at the New Testament itself, we find that the Apostles themselves recognized that their Jewish Oral Tradition was just as binding as their Written tradition since it comprised of one deposit of faith. Here are some example of the New Testament writers citing as received, binding, authoritative, and inspired teachings, Old Testament oral tradition:

• "And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" (Matthew 2:23). There is no such prophecy spoken of in the Old Testament Scriptures.
• "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3). Where is the reference made to "Moses' seat" in the Old Testament?
• "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:1-4).
  • As Catholic Apologist David Palm explains, "the Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness."

  Where are these accounts recorded in the Old Testament?

  • "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith…" (2 Timothy 3:8).
  • "But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you'" (Jude 1:9).
  • "Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth." (James 5:17).
• "It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'" (Jude 1:14-15).
  • This reference is found in the book of Enoch, which is not considered canoncial by either Catholics or Protestants. It was written around 200 B.C. The prophetic utterance, although not contained within an inspired book, was itself inspired and therefore passed on for centuries by oral tradition.
• "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Hebrews 11:35).
  • This reference is found in abook of the Old Testament. What book, you ask? The book of Maccabees. Oops, I forgot. Protestants don't accept that book. So either they have to accept Hebrews 11:35 as yet another example of binding oral tradition or concede that Maccabees is canonical. Not a great position to be in, for sure.

The Scriptures do not contain the formal sufficiency of the Word of God:

• "I appeal to you, brethren, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly" (Hebrews 13:22).
• "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 1:12).
• "I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with penand ink…"(3 John 1:13)

And this is not all. Indeed, the tone of the NT letters suggest that they were never meant to be a complete and exhaustive discourse on the Christian Faith, but rather written to address a particular controversy in a particular church. For instance, St. Paul's letters to the Roman and Galatians deals a lot with Gentile circumcision. The books of the NT were produced and called forth by special circumstances that arose, and were therefore written to meet particular demands and emergencies. Indeed, if we were to take this idea of the bible, and the NT in particular,as the sole source of revelation, we would think that God had a big problem with circumcision given the amount of time St. Paul addresses the issue, but that is hardly an issue in today's Christian Church, is it?

Explicit Indications of Oral Tradition:

• "And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the LORD. And as for me, this is my covenant with them, says the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children's children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for ever more" (Isaiah 59:20:21).
• "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 Thessalonians 2:15).
• "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
• "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2).

In all of these passages, there is an explicit command to hold fast to the ORAL TRADITION of the Apostles. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly distinguishes between the written tradition (the Scriptures) and oral tradition (word of mouth).

Other Proofs

• "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Tim 2:1-2). Catholic Apologist David Palm explains: "This is the end of Paul's life (2 Tim 4:6-7). It is a perfect opportunity to preach sola scriptura. Instead, he writes in 2 Tim 2:2: "and what you (second generation) have heard from me (1st generation) before many witnesses entrust to faithful men (third generation) who will be able to teach others (fourth generation) also." Timothy is Paul's spiritual son, the second generation (2 Tim 2:1). Timothy is charged to pass on this oral word of God to the third generation. They are then entrusted with this same oral word of God to pass on to the fourth generation. This thus shows apostolic succession through four generations. Timothy was ordained (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6) to pass on this teaching and authority. Paul gives no hint that after he dies, the following generations are only to rely upon written scripture."
• "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.' The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "… why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear… For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15: 5-7,10,28-29) When a contentious issue came up in the NT Church, how did the Apostles handle it? Did they consult ONLY the Scriptures? No. Because if they did they would see that circumcision was to last forever (Cf. Genesis 17), and the Christian Judaisizers would have been right. As it turns out, we see THE CHURCH AND NOT THE SCRIPTURES coming to a decision OUTSIDE of the direct authority of the Old Testament to make a binding decision on Gentile converts.

John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
July 1, 2002
www.catholic-legate.com