Joe7,
Thanks much for that link.
Now I've got even more Church to study.
A blessing indeed!
Merry, Holy Christ'smass,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

In ancient Israel, traditional laws were passed down by word of mouth from teacher to student, from one generation of Sages to the next. The Oral Law was the traditional learning of the Pharisees, a religious sect and political party. The Sadducees were the religious and political rivals of the Pharisees. The Pharisees eventually committed Oral Law to writing sometime between two thousand and fifteen hundred years ago.

The Oral Law can now be found in the Talmud, which contemporary rabbis tell us is the primary book of law for Jews. Contemporary rabbis are directly attuned with the Pharisees of Jesus' time through long and intensive study of the Pharisaic teachings in the Talmud.

"The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders." — Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson
and
"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees." — Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

From one of my very, very favorite study sites:

Navigate "Come and Hear"

---

Quite true. The Oral was kept oral until such time as it was written down. The same is true of oral tradition in the early church:

2 Thess 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
NKJV

The Apostles are no longer here to speak the word, but it was also in writing. In the NT, the oral was put in writing ver rapidly, in one book it is believed to be as short as 3 years.

Okay, so that's useful. That seems to show that Scripture is sub-set of Tradition: It is part of that part of Tradition that was written down (of course, most of Tradition has been in writing a long, long time).

It's a bit tricky, though. Scholarly consensus has long held that the first of the NT texts is 1Thess. written about twenty years after Christ's death (probably a little less than twenty years after). The Gospels were written later, beginning with Mark. Now we don't have any independent verification of who the authors of the Gospels were: The names, the titles, were added later. In any case, we have Paul's epistles which begin in the early 50's (maybe 51, in the case of 1Thess.). But many of the NT texts took quite a few years to circulate at all widely (no internet, alas). So from the time of the first NT text's composition, to the time all of the canonized NT texts had disseminated widely, several decades elapsed. All the while other texts were being written and, in turn, disseminated. So somewhere along the line, people had to make some decisions about which of these texts were the real deal and which were spurious, or at least not of divine inspiration. The texts themselves couldn't answer this question, so there had to be some other decision-procedure in place. Just as people can reasonably disagree about the meaning of Scripture, so too people reasonably disagreed about what counted as Scripture.

Now I know how the appeal to Tradition is supposed to sort this all out: Just as Tradition guides our understanding of Scripture, so too Tradition guides the decisions regarding which NT books are to be included in the canon and which are to be excluded. (This is, of coure, a very crude overview.) My question is, how do those who take a deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out? How, appealing to Scripture alone, do we determine what counts as Scripture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Okay, so that's useful. That seems to show that Scripture is sub-set of Tradition: It is part of that part of Tradition that was written down (of course, most of Tradition has been in writing a long, long time).

---

You claim that it is only "part", yet this scripture says that the teachings were both written down and spoken, and the Apostles are no longer here to speak so we must abide by 1 Cor 4:6 and we are not to go beyond what is written

But 1Cor.4.6 doesn't say not to go beyond what is written. There's nothing in Scripture telling us not to adhere to teachings which were passed down orally from the Apostles to their disciples which yet were not written down in one of the books that came to be included in the canon of the NT. I take it that a proponent of Tradition would not be unreasonable to say that in the Apostolic Fathers and others we have those teachings in writing, just not in canonized texts. The NT doesn't tell us never to go beyond what is written in the NT. It couldn't, there wasn't a NT yet.

Leaving that to one side, though, there is the question: How do we know, how was the decision ever made in the first place, which texts are Scripture and which texts aren't? In other words, even if we make the decision not to go beyond what is written in Scripture, how do we know which writings to abide by since Scripture does not itself tell us, and the canon came well after the deaths of the Apostles?

The Apostles ARE here to speak and they do at Mass every day.
I know that there is a minority that does not believe in apostolic succession as recorded in the bible but that's the way it is yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

But 1Cor.4.6 doesn't say not to go beyond what is written.

---

1 Cor 4:6-7
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV

Sorry, a correction: On 1Cor.4.6...

I understand this differently than you seem to. I take the reference to "what is written" to be to the epistle itself, and not to other texts which had not yet been written. And, as you rightly point out above, 2 Thess. Makes explicit mention of teachings that are handed on orally.


ADDED:

I was writing this post while you were posting yours, so I hadn't seen it yet. But I knew what was coming. Hope I cleared up any confusion so that we can get back to the real question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

My question is, how do those who take a deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out? How, appealing to Scripture alone, do we determine what counts as Scripture?

---

Akoue:

I guess I don’t know what you are driving at – “deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out.” It’s the second time you’ve asked this question, and apparently I do not understand.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

The Apostles ARE here to speak and they do at Mass every day.
I know that there is a minority that does not believe in apostolic succession as recorded in the bible but that's the way it is yet today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Scripture says that there have been ONLY 12 Apostles. If you see one at mass, then he must about around 2000 years old. Do give me his name.

Akoue,
Very good,
Thanks,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Sorry, a correction: On 1Cor.4.6...

I understand this differently than you seem to. I take the reference to "what is written" to be to the epistle itself, and not to other texts which had not yet been written.

---

The context does not contain that limitation.

Quote:

---

And, as you rightly point out above, 2 Thess. Makes explicit mention of teachings that are handed on orally.

---

Only insofar as they were also written down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Scripture says that there have been ONLY 12 Apostles. If you see one at mass, then he must about around 2000 years old. Do give me his name.

---

This thread has been quite amiable and I would like to keep it that way if possible. I ask that all participants stay on topic and save snide or sarcastic asides for PM.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Akoue:

I guess I don’t know what you are driving at – “deflationary attitude toward the role of Tradition sort this out.” It’s the second time you’ve asked this question, and apparently I do not understand.

JoeT

---

My apologies. I mean with this locution only to refer in a neutral way to any view that rejects Tradition in the sense clarified earlier in the thread and alluded to (alas, not as clearly as it should have been) in the OP.

Does this clear it up? Better: Tell me if it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

This thread has been quite amiable and I would like to keep it that way if possible. I ask that all participants stay on topic and save snide or sarcastic asides for PM.

Thanks.

---

No snide or sarcastic remarks. I am quite serious. If he has an apostle at mass, that would be extremely remarkable and I truly would like to check it out and verify that he is indeed one of the 12 and that he is indeed 2000 years old.

Posts are coming more quickly now, so I'll just reiterate the question that I mean to pose: How is a determination to be made regarding which texts belong to the NT and which do not, if we are not to appeal to Tradition?

I'm not necessarily expecting a well-wrought theology in response (although that's fine too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Posts are coming more quickly now, so I'll just reiterate the question that I mean to pose: How is a determination to be made regarding which texts belong to the NT and which do not, if we are not to appeal to Tradition?

---

I guess that this goes back to whether you believe in the omniscience of God and thus His predetermination and foreknowledge of what was to be included in His word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

No snide or sarcastic remarks. I am quite serious. If he has an apostle at mass, that would be extremely remarkable and I truly would like to check it out and verify that he is indeed one of the 12 and that he is indeed 2000 years old.

---

I don't want us to get off-track. Since nobody is claiming to have an Apostle at Mass I think we can eschew consideration of this possibility for the purposes of our discussion.

The OP delineates--in admittedly very broad strokes--two different views. I'd like to stick with them. As I've said all along, thoughful people have found them both to be reasonable, so I'm working on the assumption that each of them is reasonable (even if they can't both be right).

Please do offer your take on the question at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I guess that this goes back to whether you believe in the omniscience of God and thus His predetermination and foreknowledge of what was to be included in His word.

---

Okay, good. Can I ask you to expand on this a bit so that we can get another view on the table?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Okay, good. Can I ask you to expand on this a bit so that we can get another view on the table?

---

Simply - It was determined by God, not by man.