Early Christians Believed More in Oral that Written?

[mo3]

2 Corinthians 3
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?
2 You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all,
3 shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5 Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
6 who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

Aren’t these verses saying that Early Christians believed strongly in Oral Tradition and not solely in the written word?

 

[blackrobe]

2 Corinthians 3
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?
2 You are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by all,
3 shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5 Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
6 who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

Aren’t these verses saying that Early Christians believed strongly in Oral Tradition and not solely in the written word?

The Church has always held and professed that Revelation subsists in Sacred Scripture+Sacred Tradition+Magisterium.

JSA

 

[Karianne]

The Church has always held and professed that Revelation subsists in Sacred Scripture+Sacred Tradition+Magisterium.

JSA

How can we get a copy of Sacred Tradition?
Also, have you ever heard about the Secret Archives of the Vatican?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Aren’t these verses saying that Early Christians believed strongly in Oral Tradition and not solely in the written word?

I’m guessing that most people didn’t know how to read; consequently, the written word would be a problem for most communities and Oral Tradition would be the only way.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A copy of Sacred Tradition? Easy. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And the Bible.

Because there is absolutely nothing in Sacred Tradition that contradicts Written Tradition; and the catechism contains the explanations of the faith using both.

And the Secret Archives of the Vatican? Hey, the link to them is right on the Vatican web site.

Here you are: asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m guessing that most people didn’t know how to read; consequently, the written word would be a problem for most communities and Oral Tradition would be the only way.

Whether people were literate or not: It would be difficult to hold belief in a Scripture that had yet to be written, no?

tee

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Karianne;1734268]How can we get a copy of Sacred Tradition?
Also, have you ever heard about the Secret Archives of the Vatican?

Do you mean the Secret Archives where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion along with the suppressed Da Vinci code and Templar exposes are kept???

 

[thistle]

Also, have you ever heard about the Secret Archives of the Vatican?

Ask Dan Brown!!

 

[TOME]

Mo3,
If you read Acts and the letters/epistles, especially those of Paul I think you may find that both scritpures and oral tradition were extremely important for early christians.

But remember, during the earliest history of the Church, the only scriptures we had we what we call today the Old Testament. The first written documents of the New Testament were not written until some time around 50 AD (this is a very general date) with Paul’s letters. The Gospels were not written and known through out the Church until the beginning of the second century ( here I am not saying when each was written, just when it seems all four were generally known). The canon od scriptures wasn’t finalized until several hundred years after the time of Christ.

But we know, from Acts and the letters of the NT and non-canonical writings of the 1st and early 2nd centuries that the OT was always considered to be the inspired word of God and used by the Church to understand Chist as well as used it the liturgy (worship) from the very day of Pentacost.

Also, we know, from the writings of Paul, that the Church understood that the Oral Tradition (the teachings of Christ and Christ earthly ministry) given to us by the Apostles was held to be as important as the OT (The OT really could unly be fully understood in light of the oral tradition, that is, the Kerygma.

So it is, as others have states so well, really a matter of the two together and not one more important than the other.