I’d venture a no, because both are incompatible with Christianity.
There are certainly many commentaries on Scripture. There is also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a systematic explanation of the dogmas, doctrines, and moral teachings of the faith with citation to source material that includes the Scriptures as well as historical teaching and Church documents. There are also the many writings of the Popes and the Church Councils that define and expound upon points of the faith and reveal the development of doctrine consistent with the entire deposit of faith from the beginning of the Church. There are also the writings of the various “Doctors” of the Church e.g. Thomas Aquinas, that offer explanations and arguments for the faith But aside from the Catechism, I’m not aware of a single volume or set of books that is the Catholic equivalent of the Talmud or Hadith.
We have sayings and teachings of Jesus and the apostles recorded in Holy Scripture, the New Testament. Outside of that, no.
It’s about verifying the traditions that are claimed to be traced back to Isa ibn Maryam (AS) and his disciples. Of course, I don’t believe the Talmud authentically verifies the oral Torah, but at least the Jews made an effort to provide a source for their traditions, even if they did it more than a millennium after the writing of the Torah, without being able to provide a chain of transmission all the way back to Musa (AS) and the elders of Israel; this is the obvious flaw of the Talmud.
There is a history of records and documents showing the beliefs and doctrines as they were passed on through Christ to Peter and on to his successors. The Catholic Church is a living Church that has maintained Sacred Tradition from the time of Christ’s resurrection to the present day. The continuity and existence of the Church and its teaching magisterium is much stronger evidence of the validity of Tradition than a set of writings.
I’m not sure which books of the New Testament you are referring to. Which books are based on assumption and which are not? Which are based on “secondary sources at best” and which are not? Plus, I’m not sure what you mean by the term “secondary source.” Do you mean the writer was not Christ? Was not an Apostle? Was not a Presbyter or Bishop of the Church? Maybe you could pick one example of a book from the New Testament, explain why it is not trustworthy to you, and explain what evidence would prove to you that it was a credible source of divine revelation?
Again, I don’t think you are being very clear here. (No disrespect intended.
) Is it the text you are trying to verify or the author’s comment that oral Tradition was worthy of his detailed study. And what do you mean when you say “a primary source is for all times.” Please give me an example of what you would accept as a “primary source” for a matter of Sacred Tradition? I’m not sure I understand what you’re looking for, but if you can explain it a bit, I may be able to help.You were asking if the Church had anything like the Talmud or the Hadiths. In a general sense, the Talmud and the Hadiths are commentaries upon their respective religions, as are council documents, creeds, and the writings of the fathers. If that’s not what you were asking about, please tell me what exactly you were looking for, and I’ll see if I can be more precise in my response.
You should look into the science of Hadith to get an idea of what I’m talking about. People may or may not accuse me of looking at things from an Islamic lense, rather than objectively, but one would realise how objective the scholars of Hadith truly were should they study them.I’m not sure which books of the New Testament you are referring to. Which books are based on assumption and which are not? Which are based on “secondary sources at best” and which are not? Plus, I’m not sure what you mean by the term “secondary source.” Do you mean the writer was not Christ? Was not an Apostle? Was not a Presbyter or Bishop of the Church? Maybe you could pick one example of a book from the New Testament, explain why it is not trustworthy to you, and explain what evidence would prove to you that it was a credible source of divine revelation?
Again, I don’t think you are being very clear here. (No disrespect intended.
Another thought about your comment, perhaps a better way to verify what is a Sacred Tradition as opposed to something else, is to see how widespread it is, and how accepted it was from the beginning of the Church, and whether it has remained a part of the Church’s practice to the present, like Baptism, or Eucharist, or anointing of the sick. If the particular Tradition being examined was accepted by the Bishops of the Church in union with Peter, that would seem to me to be pretty strong evidence that it was a genuine part of Tradition, since authority to bind and loose was given by Christ to Peter and his successors.
Peace,
Robert
Hadiths are not commentaries, but they are literally traditions. They are narrations, each of which record a certain statement or act of Prophet Muhammad (S). Since traditions can be fabricated, or lost in meaning over time, the scholars applied objective methods to verify whether each narration they collected were (i) Sahih- Authentic, (ii) Hasan- Sound, (iii) Daif- Weak, (iv) Mawdu- Fabricated. Even the writing and recitation of the Mushaf (Qur’an), is considered Mutawatir (mass transmitted). Any Mutwatir report, means that the chain of transmission is too numerous leading back to the original witnesses who were too numerous to have agreed on mishearing what Prophet Muhammad (S) stated. In other words, the writing and recitation of the Mushaf (Qur’an) is the exact same Qira’at (recitation) Muhammad (S) conveyed to a large number of his companions, and we Muslims of course believe that Allah revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad (S). Any Hadith that is Mutawatir is Sahih (authentic) by default, whereas Ahad (linguistically meaning single transmitted, but can mean multiple narrators) can be Sahih, Hasan, Daif, or Mawdu.You were asking if the Church had anything like the Talmud or the Hadiths. In a general sense, the Talmud and the Hadiths are commentaries upon their respective religions, as are council documents, creeds, and the writings of the fathers. If that’s not what you were asking about, please tell me what exactly you were looking for, and I’ll see if I can be more precise in my response.
Peace,
Robert
I have no idea who Isa or Ibn Maryann are. I am a Scientist. So tell me in valid scientific terms
OK. So, I looked up “Hadith” and “Science of Hadith” on Wikipedia to gain a bit more knowledge about Hadiths and the Science of Hadith. It’s interesting, but ultimately Hadith’s differ so greatly from Sacred Tradition, that I think you’re comparing apples to oranges here.
Objectively, meaning without any doctrinal bias. The early Muslim scholars classified oral/written reports after examining chain of transmission, biographical evaluation, etc. and placed reports under two classes:
Thanks. It does help. But see my comment above. I don’t think this is comparable to the way in which Sacred Tradition was passed on in the Church. Sacred Tradition is not static like a saying or a past act. It’s a living set of practices that has developed over time as the Church has grown, like an acorn grows into an Oak tree. The continuity and authority of the Church is why we would not need something like a list of sayings.
The original narrator is also considered a primary source, since he is a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (S). Not only that, but anyone who provides verifiable sources can be considered a primary source. The scholars had various ways of knowing whether someone was reliable or not. One example, was testing the memory of the living narrators, by asking them to repeat the narration and its chain multiple times on different occasions to see whether there was any slight contradition.
But again, you cannot verify that this authority was actually instituted by Isa ibn Maryam (A) or his disciples.
The Isa ibn Maryam you keep referring to can you name one follower?
Thats not objectively verifying anything scientifically.
It’s clear you have no idea what I’m even talking about when I mention objective verification. I’m referring to whether teachings of Prophet Muhammad (S) can really be traced back to him, and whether the writing and recitation of the Mushaf (Qur’an) can be really be traced back to him and his Sahaba (companions). How on earth does your question of “how do you objectively verify virgins in paradise?” have anything to do with what I’m talking about? It’s like me asking you “how do you objectively verify limbo of the infants?” which I’m not asking, because the question makes no sense; what, you’re asking me to visit paradise so I can see whether terrorists are really being rewarded with virgins? No can do.