Where does scripture state that Tradition will be protected?

[Genesis315]

This one is probably the best, and I must say it certainly does imply a Tradition. I think the problem though is that this isn’t necessarily a prophecy for our time. Clearly, this is a prophecy about Jesus, but I think it applies to his second coming, not his first. Look a couple verses earlier:

18 According to what they have done,
so will he repay
wrath to his enemies
and retribution to his foes;
he will repay the islands their due.

This clearly isn’t Jesus the first time around, but it is certainly the second time around. So, I’m not sure if the verse in question actually applies to now. Just my thought. Even so, I would point out that one verse is too little to base a major doctrine on, and all there really is is this one verse.

It says in the very preceding verse that he will send a Redeemer–Christ came as Redeemer the first time, He does not come as Redeemer the second time, but as Judge.

Here’s some more.

These two have one common point, that I think is true for most of the other verses as well. This doesn’t actually make any mention of tradition, you are assuming that Jesus is speaking of an Oral Tradition, when no such thing is mentioned. I really think you are reading too much into these verses. For instance, in John 14:25 neither tradition nor scripture are mentioned. All it says is that the Holy Spirit will teach the Apostles what they need to know. It doesn’t tell them to pass down oral traditions, it doesn’t tell them to write those teachings down. It makes no mention of later generations. If anything, I would assume that the Holy Spirit will do the same thing for later generations as well, since the Holy Spirit will be with us forever. Certainly, nothing is mentioned about tradition.

Again in Matthew 28, no mention is made of how the teachings will be passed down. It’s completely open. All that is stated is that the Apostles will teach others. It doesn’t say that they will do it by word of mouth, it doesn’t say they will do it by writing, heck, they might even be passing down Jesus teaching through interpretive dance! All this verse says is Jesus commanding the Apostles to teach, it makes no mention of a divinely protected Tradition. That is an unjustified assumption.

To be continued…

It says teach. The Apostles went preaching. They didn’t just write some things and pass them around. They went out and taught the Gospel (the whole good news). As we know from elsewhere in Scripture, this includes written and oral traditions. So if you look at the verses from Matthew and John I provided in the context of the definition of the “Gospel” it applies to both.

For example, John writes that the Paraclete will remind them of all that Jesus taught. And then at the end of his Gospel he says not everything Jesus taught was written down. Likewise, St. Paul says to hold fast to the written and oral traditions–implying the Gospel is made of both. Therefore, if the Gospel in its entirety is to be taught and preserved, both the written and the oral must be preserved.

 

[HJProtestant]

This is a fascinating thread and I came to the same conclusions as you did, cmancone. In fact, I was just scribbling down on paper the circular reasoning that I have noticed from interacting in this forum:

Belief is stated, when challenged–>vague scriptural passages are cited (beliefs forced onto scripture instead of beliefs derived from scripture)
When vague scriptural referenced are challenged–>tradition is cited
When tradition is challenged–>more tradition is cited OR ad hominem remarks is used against challenger (including the accusation of being judgmental, being a liar, or just rhetoric about going to hell because we are separated from “the church”)

It is all very predictable.

 

[cmancone]

It says teach. The Apostles went preaching. They didn’t just write some things and pass them around. They went out and taught the Gospel (the whole good news). As we know from elsewhere in Scripture, this includes written and oral traditions. So if you look at the verses from Matthew and John I provided in the context of the definition of the “Gospel” it applies to both.

For example, John writes that the Paraclete will remind them of all that Jesus taught. And then at the end of his Gospel he says not everything Jesus taught was written down. Likewise, St. Paul says to hold fast to the written and oral traditions–implying the Gospel is made of both. Therefore, if the Gospel in its entirety is to be taught and preserved, both the written and the oral must be preserved.

First, I agree, when the Gospels went preaching they did so both by writing stuff down and by word of mouth. However, nowhere, in any of the verses you quoted, is it implied that the things they teach would be passed down by oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. In fact, no where in the entire Bible is it specified just how God’s Word will be preserved for later generations. That is left completely open. For this reason, it is an assumption to believe that God’s Word would be passed down in oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say that scripture will be protected! Clearly then, it is an assumption to believe that Oral Tradition will be protected, since no such thing was ever stated.

Again, yes, Paul used both oral teachings and writings to spread the Gospel. However, once again, no provisions are mentioned for how the gospel will be spread to future generations. For the gospel in its entirety to be taught and preserved, it is not necessary for both oral tradition and written scripture to be preserved. Instead, it’s easier to just write down the oral tradition and preserve the writings. More importantly however, I point out again that neither your theory nor my theory are supported by scripture because no where does scripture say how Jesus’ teachings will be preserved for future generations. Instead, all we know is that it will be. Since nothing is mentioned, it is clearly an assumption to believe that it will be preserved through an oral tradition.

 

[Scottgun]

Textual analysis let’s us verify that the Bible we read today is pretty much exactly what was written down.

Yep. But guess what? Textual analysis let’s us verify that the Koran a Muslim reads today is pretty much exactly what was written down. But the Koran is chock full of error in spite of being exactly as Mohammed wrote it. Why? Everyone is absolutely correct to ask about the protection of the Scriptures, and since it is fundamental to the discussion, it ain’t off topic.

 

[Scottgun]

Belief is stated, when challenged–>vague scriptural passages are cited (beliefs forced onto scripture instead of beliefs derived from scripture)

Easily asserted. Now establish it.

When vague scriptural referenced are challenged–>tradition is cited

How is this any different from non-Catholics saying there is no scriptural support of x doctrine, and when we do provide scriptural support we get accused of eisegesis?

When tradition is challenged–>more tradition is cited OR ad hominem remarks is used against challenger (including the accusation of being judgmental, being a liar, or just rhetoric about going to hell because we are separated from “the church”)

Please. Catholics hardly have a monopoly on ad hominems. Just the facts please.

It is all very predictable.

Truth has that samey quality to it.

 

[upbeatjonm]

First, I agree, when the Gospels went preaching they did so both by writing stuff down and by word of mouth. However, nowhere, in any of the verses you quoted, is it implied that the things they teach would be passed down by oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. In fact, no where in the entire Bible is it specified just how God’s Word will be preserved for later generations. That is left completely open. For this reason, it is an assumption to believe that God’s Word would be passed down in oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say that scripture will be protected! Clearly then, it is an assumption to believe that Oral Tradition will be protected, since no such thing was ever stated.

Again, yes, Paul used both oral teachings and writings to spread the Gospel. However, once again, no provisions are mentioned for how the gospel will be spread to future generations. For the gospel in its entirety to be taught and preserved, it is not necessary for both oral tradition and written scripture to be preserved. Instead, it’s easier to just write down the oral tradition and preserve the writings. More importantly however, I point out again that neither your theory nor my theory are supported by scripture because no where does scripture say how Jesus’ teachings will be preserved for future generations. Instead, all we know is that it will be. Since nothing is mentioned, it is clearly an assumption to believe that it will be preserved through an oral tradition.

Here are some great verses which show the importance of keeping traditions (from the library):

Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “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 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “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 Thess. 3:6).

Why do you insist that the Holy Spirit be kept inside the Bible only? We Catholics believe He is still very active in our Church.

 

[cmancone]

Yep. But guess what? Textual analysis let’s us verify that the Koran a Muslim reads today is pretty much exactly what was written down. But the Koran is chock full of error in spite of being exactly as Mohammed wrote it. Why? Everyone is absolutely correct to ask about the protection of the Scriptures, and since it is fundamental to the discussion, it ain’t off topic.

I think you are mistaken about the Quran. One of the things done within about 100 years of Mohammad’s death was the destruction of every version of the Quran except one (and there were a lot of different versions, too). I’d really like to see some literature that demonstrates that textual analysis can be used accurately on the Quran.

There’s already a very long post about the accuracy of scripture. Since it is already being hashed out there at the moment, there is really no reason to re-argue everything here. I fail to see why the accuracy of scripture matters anyway. There is either two options:

1. Scripture is accurate, in which case it is important whether or not a protected tradition is mentioned in scripture, for the reasons I’ve already argued.
2. Scripture is not accurate, in which case one of the three legs of Catholicism falls out, leaving only the magesterium and tradition. Since Tradition would only then be verified by the magesterium, and the magesterium only verified by tradition, the whole thing quickly falls apart under circular logic.

Therefore, either scripture is accurate and my question is valid, or scripture is not accurate and Tradition is automatically invalidated. So, I conclude that the question of the accuracy of scripture is moot in this context, since in neither case is Tradition firmly established.

 

[christcnection1]

Here are some great verses which show the importance of keeping traditions (from the library):

Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “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 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “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 Thess. 3:6).

Why do you insist that the Holy Spirit be kept inside the Bible only? We Catholics believe He is still very active in our Church.

Yes, but the Bible never says that tradition will be safegaurded against error; therefore, we know for a fact that the Catholic Church is lost in false traditions of men.

After all, the Bible clearly states that tradition was only intended for a brief time. That’s why the apostles commanded it and taught it so forcefully. He obviously desired His people walk around in theological darkness and false traditions for nearly 1,500 years. Why else would He have established apostolic succession and tradition to begin with?

It’s all getting much clearer now…

 

[cmancone]

Here are some great verses which show the importance of keeping traditions (from the library):

Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “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 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “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 Thess. 3:6).

Why do you insist that the Holy Spirit be kept inside the Bible only? We Catholics believe He is still very active in our Church.

Hi upbeatjonm,
Again, I think you are reading into these verses. As I have stated before, no where in any of these verses is it stated HOW those traditions will be passed on and protected. Traditions can be passed on both in writing and by oral tradition. There is no reason to favor one over the other, so there is no reason to assume that Paul is referring to Oral Tradition. Therefore, to conclude that these verses imply a protected Tradition is entirely an assumption. Don’t confuse the word “tradition” with oral tradition.

Also, most of these verses are commands, not promises. Neither 2 Thess 2:15 or 2 Thess 3:6 are promises that those traditions will be kept. As I stated in my initial post, a command is a command, not a promise. Given how poorly we people follow commands, it is a very bad assumption to think that Paul commanding people to hold onto traditions is the same thing as Paul promising that those traditions will be held onto.

Finally, I don’t insist that the Holy Spirit be kept in the Bible, or in a bottle. In fact, I think that the Holy Spirit continues to speak to believers throughout the world to this very day. That fact, however, has nothing to do with the existence of a protected oral tradition.

 

[clmowry]

First, I agree, when the Gospels went preaching they did so both by writing stuff down and by word of mouth. However, nowhere, in any of the verses you quoted, is it implied that the things they teach would be passed down by oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. In fact, no where in the entire Bible is it specified just how God’s Word will be preserved for later generations. That is left completely open. For this reason, it is an assumption to believe that God’s Word would be passed down in oral tradition and protected by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say that scripture will be protected! Clearly then, it is an assumption to believe that Oral Tradition will be protected, since no such thing was ever stated.

Again, yes, Paul used both oral teachings and writings to spread the Gospel. However, once again, no provisions are mentioned for how the gospel will be spread to future generations. For the gospel in its entirety to be taught and preserved, it is not necessary for both oral tradition and written scripture to be preserved. Instead, it’s easier to just write down the oral tradition and preserve the writings. More importantly however, I point out again that neither your theory nor my theory are supported by scripture because no where does scripture say how Jesus’ teachings will be preserved for future generations. Instead, all we know is that it will be. Since nothing is mentioned, it is clearly an assumption to believe that it will be preserved through an oral tradition.

An interesting interpretation, completely wrong, but interesting none the less.

Chirst promised the Holy Spirt would lead the church in all truth, but by your logic this promise doesn’t apply to anything (Scripture or Tradition). So what in the world does that promise apply to? Apparently it’s just an empty promise.

So are you going to abandon the christian faith sense you’ve demonstrated it is completely unreliable?

Chuck

 

[jburgherr]

cmancone try this quote from the Holy Gospel according to Mathew:

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (19)Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20)Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Notice Jesus doesn’t say…“Go think about things for 60 to 150 years…write down just some of the stuff that I said and did during my 3 year ministry into books…and then ONLY teach what you wrote.”

If this is what he wanted, he could have surely picked better staff writers than fishermen, tax collectors, and the like. Not a professional biographer in the bunch!

It amazes me cmancone, that you assume that Jesus Christ…the a omniscient, omnipotent King of Kings, Lord of Lords, second person in the Holy Trinity has no understanding, knowledge or care for the needs of future generations of the church.

Jesus knew that he needed, and then provided a means for, protecting his church from teaching error…not only for his apostles but also for his church in the future. That is why he “breathed on them” and conveyed the ministerial priesthood onto the Apostles, giving them the authority to convey this priesthood to other men. He then sent the Holy Spirit to protect them and their assigns from teaching heresy. This is the same authority and protection that the Majesterium has now and forever.

When you have no holy authority or protection of error, you get 30,000+ denominations of Protestantism.

 

[PhilVaz]

cman << Nowhere in the Bible does anyone say: “You will tell your followers what I told you, and they will tell their followers, and so on and so forth, divinely protected by the Holy Spirit.” >>

Read 2 Timothy 2:2

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (NAB)

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (KJV)

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. (NIV)

Basically, you tell your followers what I told you, and they will tell their followers, and so on and so forth, guided by the Spirit of truth (John 14:16f; 16:13f; cf. 1 Tim 1:3; 4:11; 6:2-3; 2 Tim 2:2,24; 3:16; etc).

Phil P

 

[DJim]

Really, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the Bible. I’d worry more about Tradition. Textual analysis let’s us verify that the Bible we read today is pretty much exactly what was written down. But there is no such method that can verify the oral traditions that were first passed down 2000 years ago. By it’s very nature, Oral Tradition is unverifiable. Doesn’t that worry you in the slightest?

Actually, you are mistaken to use “Tradition” and “Oral Tradition” interchangeably. In the Catholic Church there is Living Tradition, not just “oral” tradition. And, with living Tradition comes the means of verification–the Magisterium. One of the key points of this thread should be to correctly identify the authentic Catholic view of what the Church calls “Tradition”. Unless/until this emerges, we can’t answer your question. Agreed?

“Pretty much exactly” seems a bit inexact for something that is supposed to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian. “Textual analysis” can not answer every question about the human transmission of Scripture. While I agree that Scripture is “pretty much exactly” authentic and accurate, which is pretty amazing, there is simply no more absolute certainty attached to the transmission of Scripture than there is attached to the tranmission of Living Tradition.

By the very nature of the Catholic Church, both Scripture and Living Tradition are verifiable, completely. That’s why it’s a superior plan to the “let’s give them an infallible textbook without an infallible teacher” plan…(Sola Scriptura)…

DJim

 

[upbeatjonm]

Hi upbeatjonm,
Again, I think you are reading into these verses. As I have stated before, no where in any of these verses is it stated HOW those traditions will be passed on and protected. Traditions can be passed on both in writing and by oral tradition. There is no reason to favor one over the other, so there is no reason to assume that Paul is referring to Oral Tradition. Therefore, to conclude that these verses imply a protected Tradition is entirely an assumption. Don’t confuse the word “tradition” with oral tradition.

Also, most of these verses are commands, not promises. Neither 2 Thess 2:15 or 2 Thess 3:6 are promises that those traditions will be kept. As I stated in my initial post, a command is a command, not a promise. Given how poorly we people follow commands, it is a very bad assumption to think that Paul commanding people to hold onto traditions is the same thing as Paul promising that those traditions will be held onto.

Finally, I don’t insist that the Holy Spirit be kept in the Bible, or in a bottle. In fact, I think that the Holy Spirit continues to speak to believers throughout the world to this very day. That fact, however, has nothing to do with the existence of a protected oral tradition.

The Bible says that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church, therefore, with traditions handed on by the apostles is where the deposit of faith is kept to this day. Has there been any other Church besides the Catholics that have held to the traditional beliefs as faithly? Which church upholds the principals of Christianity such as being pro-life, and refuses to bend to popular culture? The traditions we keep can be traced back to the the earliest times, to the apostles and church fathers. Which other Church can claim that? The Church therefore must be protected by the Holy Spirit, or it wouldn’t have survived for so long, holding to the traditions of the apostles.

 

[Bishopite]

cmancone;2483246]Again, these are all assumptions and reading into the text. Take Luke 10:16. First of all, you are assuming that this statement applies to people that came after Jesus. Why? There’s no reason to expect Jesus statements to apply to anyone else. Even if this did apply to later generations, it is equally reasonable to assume that this statement applies to anyone who is preaching Jesus message. In other words, if a person is preaching the Gospel, and the person they are preaching to rejects that message, then the person has rejected Jesus. It makes perfect sense, and it could still be wrong, because it’s an assumption, just like assuming that this implies divine protection.

Jesus in Luke 10:16 is speaking to the Apostles as is found earlier in Acts 9:1-6 where He addresses this with the Apostles. He the appoints the seventy others who go out and also preach the gospel, so in one sense you are correct, everyone who preaches the gospel correctly (and which Protestant church correctly divides the word of God? 2 Tim 2:15) is speaking for Jesus, however what you are falsely assuming is there wasn’t then nor is now an authoritative and hiearchal structure with the Apostles and successors. The Apostles were the authoritative final words of God for they were appointed by Jesus Himself and for scripture to be part of the canon it has to be written and or attributed to an Apostle which shows their authoritative stature.

Honestly, I don’t see how this is clear. Jesus is not saying that doctrine will develop over centuries (as the Catholic Church believes). More likely, I would assume that this means that the apostles would be able to bear it later in their lives. Since nothing is stated about when they will learn to accept these things, to take any stance is to make an assumption.

Did those in the first and second century know specifically how the nature of the Father related to the Son, the Son to the Spirit, the Spirit to the Father? No.
They did know that Jesus was divine and all were God, however how Jesus was divine wasn’t yet knows and had to be developed by the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic church at the council of Nicea 325. The council proclaimed the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as homoosius, which means “of the same substance” that all were a Triunitos or a Trinity of the same one God.

Finally, you have actually misquoted John 21:25
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

It is referring not to Jesus’ teachings, but to his ACTIONS, not his teachings. That is a very big difference. There’s no need for a Tradition to develop to pass down the record of all Jesus’ doings

Your postive statement here is saying that there is a difference between Jesus’ teachings and His actions and that can not be. What Jesus did was always in accord with what He taught, if it didn’t then He would have committed a sin which isn’t possible.

 

[DJim]

Again–this thread is dependent upon correctly understanding what the Roman Catholic Church means by “Tradition”.

Properly modified, topic is Living Tradition, and not “oral” tradition. The Church does teach that Apostolic preaching was transmitted both orally and in writing. But Apostolic preaching is a past event and is not the same category as Apostolic or Living Tradition, which the Church teaches IS (notice I did not say “was”) transmitted today and always through the Holy Spirit, but is distinct from Scripture. Scripture is a definite and distinct part of Living Tradition, and is exactly the part of Living Tradition whose transmission is already complete–but the transmission of the rest of Living Tradition continues through all time until world’s end.

Two questions:

1. Then how can we say God’s public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle if the Holy Spirit is still in the process of “transmitting” that public revelation?? Because God’s final and full public revelation is the Son Himself. This public revelation in its fullness is Incarnate. The “Deposit of Faith” is His Gospel, His truth, and He entrusted it to the Apostles, who then poured out their lives in handing it on to the early Church, not as some tangible “laundry list” of the full content of public revelation, not some exhaustive encyclopedia of truth.

Nor did Jesus just give “Scripture” as the Deposit of Faith–that would sort of be like giving us a tape recorder with no batteries and lots of unmarked dials and buttons–“how is this thing supposed to work?” He gave us everything we needed to continually have the Deposit of Faith transmitted in the Church for all time. Batteries were included, so to speak.

Which leads to question two:

1. What means can continue the living transmission of the Deposit of Faith for all time?

The same means that worked originally–the living transmission of Apostolic authority.

So, the answer to the question in the thread title will be found by demonstrating through Scripture that Jesus did intend for His Apostles to have successors, thus giving the Church living access to the fullness of His Gospel for all time.

Both Tradition and Apostolic Succession are mutually essential–can’t have one without the other.

Living apostolic authority is the only thing will safeguard “Tradition” and “Tradition” is the only thing worthwhile to preserve via ongoing apostolic authority.

So, I will be using Scripture, through Jesus’ own words and actions, to demonstrate that He fully intended that Apostolic authority would always be with the Church, via successors to the original Twelve.

Fair enough?

DJim

 

[cmancone]

So, I will be using Scripture, through Jesus’ own words and actions, to demonstrate that He fully intended that Apostolic authority would always be with the Church, via successors to the original Twelve.

That makes plenty of sense DJim. Of course, I don’t think apostolic succession can really be supported by scripture, but that’s why you intend to prove it. By all means, start a new discussion and prove your point. I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

[cmancone]

cman << Nowhere in the Bible does anyone say: “You will tell your followers what I told you, and they will tell their followers, and so on and so forth, divinely protected by the Holy Spirit.” >>

Read 2 Timothy 2:2

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (NAB)

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (KJV)

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. (NIV)

Basically, you tell your followers what I told you, and they will tell their followers, and so on and so forth, guided by the Spirit of truth (John 14:16f; 16:13f; cf. 1 Tim 1:3; 4:11; 6:2-3; 2 Tim 2:2,24; 3:16; etc).

Phil P

Again, no one has actually responded to my primary point. Let me reiterate it again for the above scripture, and someone please respond specifically to what I say here:

Phil, this scripture in no way implies a protected Oral Tradition. It doesn’t imply such a thing because no mentioned is made of how Jesus’ teachings will be passed down. It simply says they will be passed down. It doesn’t say they will be passed down orally, it doesn’t say they will be passed down in writing. It says nothing. Therefore, to assume any particular method (whether orally or in writing) is an assumption, nothing more, nothing less. Since either method would fit equally well to Jesus’ words, neither can be assumed to be true from this verse. The same is true for EVERY SINGLE verse that has been quoted here. I still stand by my original statement - no where is there a verse that supports the notion of an eternally protected Oral Tradition.

 

[DJim]

If it’s okay with you, my intention would be to post my argument in this thread, since ultimately I’m trying to demonstrate Scriptural support for the protection of Tradition (Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church)…

But, if you rather I launch a new thread, I can do that…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Cmancone–

I see you are continuing to focus on oral tradition in your replies–do you want an answer to your original thread question, or do you want to modify the thread question to focus on oral tradition?

DJim