Which came first? Scripture or Tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikaele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mikaele

Guest
I’m doing a presentation at university in a couple of days, and one of the questions is, ‘In your opinion, what came first, Scripture or Tradition?’

It’s logical that the Church came before the New Testament. But what do you think would be the best way to go about this? Also, I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I can’t understand where the Church gets her authority from. I know Jesus gives it to her in Matthew 16 and other verses, but is using a book that she canonised (not sure if that’s the right word,) to prove her authority a way of proving authority? Some help would be good.

Cheers.
 
Tradition came first–you can find the aging of the New Testament books on Wikipedia. Suffice it that Paul went a lot of places with oral preaching before he even got to writing 1 Corinthians.

And the authority of the Church is the authority of the Apostles themselves, and the Apostles had handed on their authority to bishops almost immediately starting with Matthias, so again, the Church came first, then the Bible.

Now, as to the authority of the Scriptures, keep these principles in mind:
  1. The Scriptures were authoritative as soon as they were written because they were inspired by God.
  2. However, there were a lot of fake epistles (e.g. 3 Corinthians) and Gospels (e.g. Gospel of Peter/Thomas) floating around.
So as soon as Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, for example, it was authoritative. But when pseudo-Paul wrote 3 Corinthians, that book was never authoritative but many people treated it as if it were. It took the Church to weed out the Gnostic stuff but this did not happen until the 4th Century. The Church’s decision on the matter was authoritative because the Church acted with apostolic authority.
 
Which came first? Scripture or Tradition? Read Luke 1:1-4 to start. The teachings and traditions would have been handed down in stories ( oral tradition) from year to year, generation to generation. Again go to Acts 1:1-7 ( really you may want to read further ).
You will find that many people, especially non-Catholics will want verses from the Bible only to support your thoughts forgetting that not everything that happened was written in the Bible
( John 21:24-25 ). Some of the history and traditions were written about by historians and some information has been gleaned from the catacombs and other places. You might not have time to fully prepare yourself for this speaking engagement, but I would recommend that you study the history of the Bible and the church. Blessings upon you in your quest.
 
Scripture is part of Tradition. Tradition determined which of the several-hundred early Christian documents were Scripture-the ones that conformed to Apostolic teaching. So Tradition comes first.
 
Mikaele said:
I’m doing a presentation at university in a couple of days, and one of the questions is, ‘In your opinion, what came first, Scripture or Tradition?’

It’s logical that the Church came before the New Testament. But what do you think would be the best way to go about this? Also, I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I can’t understand where the Church gets her authority from. I know Jesus gives it to her in Matthew 16 and other verses, but is using a book that she canonised (not sure if that’s the right word,) to prove her authority a way of proving authority? Some help would be good.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I would go back further. God came first, then man, then God’s covenental relationship with man. The Jewish tradition started with this living relationship, which was a real thing, not some idea about a thing, and this was so important it had to be written down. That same living tradition continues now in the Catholic faith, a living tradition whose founding was so important it, too, had to be written down for posterity.

Your dilemma dissolves when you look at it in a wider context.
 
So what would you say is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition?
 
Mikaele said:
So what would you say is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition?
Click to expand...
*I believe they go hand-in-hand. As Tradition was being established the Scripture was being taught and preserved. Both where handed down through Apostolic succession. *
 
This general subject is discussed in a book called Whose Bible Is It? by the late Yaroslav Pelikan (theologian; died as a member of Orthodox Church).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different traditions based on the same scripture.

Muslims believe that the blessings on Abraham of countless descendents was fulfilled through Ishmael, rather than through Isaac. Of course, the Jews believe the blessings were fulfilled through Isaac. And, Christians believe that the promises flow to all people through Jesus Christ (see book of Romans, for example).

Pelikan discusses details such as the Hebrew text of scripture. The language is ancient and primitive. It doesn’t have upper case and lower case, no punctuation, seldom indentation, and no vowels. Soooooooooooo…it took a tradition parallel to the written work just to interpret the text, e.g. what vowels sounds belonged in the words.

It is this language complication that we don’t even know what some words of scripture mean or how they are pronounced. We don’t know what “Selah” means in the Psalms (although I think it refers to a profound bow on one’s knees and face, like the Muslims do so often in their everyday worship – no basis for this, just my idea; BUT, look where “Selah” occurs – at very profound places in the text of the psalms.)

We don’t know how to pronounce the most sacred name of God given to Moses, someplace around Ex 3. “YHWH” is the Jews’ Tetragrammaton. To fulfill the commandment to keep His Name holy, only the High Priest would utter that word in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. Instead, when YHWH is encountered in the Old Testament, some Jews substitute Ha’Shem “the Name”. Christians are likely to pronounce the Name of God as Jehovah or as Yahweh. The Pope has directed that Catholic traditions substitute the word LORD for YHWH, out of traditional respect for the Name.

We “traditionally” interpret the command about the Sabbath to refrain from servile work. But, the word “molakah” cannot be translated and we really don’t know what was prohibited on the Sabbath. Nobody can figure it out, so tradition rules, and servile work is officially prohibited.

From the Jewish angle, the Talmud ("study [of the instruction (Torah)] was the compiled and polished interpretation of scripture. Jews are called the People of the Book. (The catechism of the Catholic Church para. 109 says that we are NOT people of the book.)

In the modern setting, the relevance of scripture vs tradition can be seen in the more than 30,000 branches of Christianity in the U.S. – each claiming explicitly or implicitly that only THEIR interpretation of scripture is correct. We have the same new Testament scripture, but many, many, many interpretations and claims to authority.

The defining document in recent history of the Catholic Church on this subject is the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation otherwise referred to as Dei Verbum. Available in the document library at www.ewtn.com. It says that divine revelation consists of two parts, scripture and tradition (equally), and that church doctrine (teaching) rests on divine revelation AND magisterium.

church teaching
| \
scrip tradi magisterium
ture tion

This is the “three-legged” stool or basis of church teaching, Take away any “leg” and the teaching fails. this is essentially true in all Christian churches, although protestants minimize “tradition” but quite disingenuously – they all have traditions, they just don’t want to admit it.

Conservative, orthodox, and reformed branches of Judaism are all based on the institution of rabbinic Judaism (google this for details). There are Jews that do NOT accept rabbinic Judaism and its interpretations. Again, these are traditions.

Now, I’m very weak on the subject of Islam. But, I think they have a broad independence to interpret their holy book (Quran) as they see fit. So, there are different branches of Islam with varying customs.

Jews consider tradition to be very important (hence the popularization in Fiddler on the Roof “Tradition” song). Their traditions are supposed to keep them out of trouble, but even Jesus criticized them for paying more attention to the traditions of men rather than the commands of God. Jesus would have been against Rabbinic Judaism – “don’t call me rabbi.”

Catholics distinguish sacred Tradition, which I referred to above simply as tradition. Then, there are the “customs” type of tradition, like blessing yourself with holy water when you enter a church. Sacred Tradition, for example, assures us of the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But, different “traditions” exist in the Catholic Church, wherein in the Western Rite, the Roman Rite, we use unleavened bread for the Eucharist. In the Eastern Rites, they use leavened bread. These are “strong” Church traditions, like super-customs.
 
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

CCC74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”: that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

CCC 75 “Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.”

In the apostolic preaching. . .

CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
  • orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
  • in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.
. . . continued in apostolic succession

CCC 77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

CCC 78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

CCC 79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: “God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.”

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

CCC 80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

CCC 81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

CCC 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

CCC 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
 
I’m curious which university you’re making this presentation at?

I don’t really think you can separate the two, as indicated by the prior Catechism posts. In addition to those posts, John 1:1 states the following:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
Click to expand...
The Catechism also discusses the creation of the world, which God did by means of his Word through the Holy Spirit (see Genesis 1 as well).

The complete Word of God is Jesus Christ, as you probably know. And Sacred Scripture and Tradition make up the complete Word of God…ie, the full revelation of Christ to mankind.

Furthermore, portions of Scripture existed prior to Christ’s Incarnation in the fullness of time, and Christ both referred to these and explained them (eg, on the road to Emmaus). Later, His personal teachings and revelations, along with subsequent revelations through the Holy Spirit led to additional Scripture being recorded.

So, again, I think trying to separate these concepts is a ‘straw man’ argument.

Hopefully you can use some of these concepts…but I don’t want to complete your assignment for you. 🙂

rocketrob
 
I would also suggest you read “Dei Verbum”, the Vatican 2 document on Divine Revelation - it’s really short and spells out the relationship between Scripture and Tradition.

I would also suggest the excellent presentation by Lawrence Feingold at hebrewcatholic.org/themesoftheearly.html. Look at his first lecture. He’s really nice to listen to.
 
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have different traditions based on the same scripture.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

Judaism and Christianity share the Jewisih portion, but the Jews reject the New Testament.
Islam does not base it’s belief on any portion of the Bible but upon the Quran which relates Bible narratives with a very different intent.

Though Muslims claim to respect “the book” this is very different than saying that they base their belief upon it. Though Mormons claim to believe the Bible, it would be an error to say they base their belief upon it, when in fact they base their belief upon the teachings of Smith and Young and only use the Bible incidentally.
 
There were Christians before there was a single NT writing. Oral preaching by the Apostles and their followers who founded churches antedated the Christian Scriptures. A good book that discusses the texts and their historical context if you are interested is

amazon.com/gp/product/0300069189/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1579109098&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0NPBBARG1SC2ZGX8QB82

This is another good book relating scripture and tradition in the early church and a quick read compared to the previous book given.

amazon.com/gp/product/081465536X?ie=UTF8&tag=stpaulcenterf-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=081465536X
 
Mikaele said:
So what would you say is the relationship between Scripture and Tradition?
Click to expand...
Much of scripture is simply written down tradition, ie, the gospels.

The same with the Old Testament. Scripture is said to begin with Moses–that implies that knowledge of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and all those generations, was transmitted orally by tradition. Moses finally wrote that tradition down and scripture began.

So, scripture begins with tradition.

Scripture therefore comes from the church, not the church from scripture.
 
Mikaele said:
I’m doing a presentation at university in a couple of days, and one of the questions is, ‘In your opinion, what came first, Scripture or Tradition?’

It’s logical that the Church came before the New Testament. But what do you think would be the best way to go about this? Also, I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I can’t understand where the Church gets her authority from. I know Jesus gives it to her in Matthew 16 and other verses, but is using a book that she canonised (not sure if that’s the right word,) to prove her authority a way of proving authority? Some help would be good.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I believe your talk is already done. But hey, in any case, here’s my penny of thought:

The Church AND the Scriptures came at the same time! However, I have to admit that the Scriptures were not written yet at some point because Scriptures are the histories of the Church. At some point, the Scriptures were passed on orally among the members of the Church.

In the Catholic sense, the Scriptures cannot be separated from the Church and vise versa. The Church is a living Body of Christ. She does everything like talk (preach) and write (the scriptures). Hey, she even sings and jumps! Even gives birth to new children of God.
 
Mikaele said:
I’m doing a presentation at university in a couple of days, and one of the questions is, ‘In your opinion, what came first, Scripture or Tradition?’

It’s logical that the Church came before the New Testament. But what do you think would be the best way to go about this? Also, I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I can’t understand where the Church gets her authority from. I know Jesus gives it to her in Matthew 16 and other verses, but is using a book that she canonised (not sure if that’s the right word,) to prove her authority a way of proving authority? Some help would be good.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Hun, they are ONE and the same. Scripture is God’s revelation to us in Jesus and the prophets. When Jesus gave his teachings they were done by example and by the spoken word. After he ascended to heaven some got written down and some was kept up by the early Church fathers and protected which is now considered Sacred Tradition.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is given it’s authority by God. And guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. Protected in the sense that when the Pope and the Bishops (In their teaching position) get together and decide on matter of doctrine, we the faithful are protected from being led astray so as to be lost. This means that through time some doctrine might develop that isn’t completely helpful, but we have the assurance that we won’t be lead astray, and we also have the assurance that it will be “prunend” from the body of the teaching as doctrine develops along the years.
 
I’m not American, but I think you could use your Constitution to make the issue a bit clearer to people who may not have much Christian knowledge (but then I don’t know who your audience is).

You could ask, who gave the original Congress the authority to draft and approve the Constitution. Was the authority “self evident” as being under God, or was it a tradition based on British and French precedent, the British with their penchant for legal order, and the French with their recent revolution?

In other words, which came first- the American government or the Constitution?
 
1st of all, what I think doesn’t matter. As a faithful Catholic, I am obiediant to the Catholic faith. I could be Einstein and I would never be able to master more than 2000 years of tradition. When some one like me starts off with, “My opinion is, ect…” we should with charity and mercy listen and refer to the truth of the Catholic faith.
Obviously, Tradition came 1st because scripture wasn’t in biblical form untill the Pope, sucessor of Peter, commisioned Jerome to translate from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew to the Latin in 400AD, In 1400 with the invention of the printing press by Guttenburg, Catholic Bibles were affordable by the average Christian.
Aside from the 4 gospels, scripture consiisted of the varios letters spoken by apostles and profits to scribes to thier various churchs.
Apostles were consecrated by Jesus and by the decent of Holy Spirit and the deciples and the church fathers, the martyers of the early church did not have scriptures to refer to for guidence. All they had was tradition handed down from Jesus to Peter, ect…
You will never here that from Protestant, Baptist and non-denomination churches and ministers because that would put them out of a job. When you do here it from them, they are bravely and obiediently answering God’s call to be Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top