Posted on 09/18/2019 9:57:31 AM PDT by Gamecock
Over the last number of years, I’ve had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers are an informal collection of early Christian writings, roughly 95-150 AD, which include books like the Didache, 1 & 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and letters from Polycarp and Ignatius.
In recent years, scholars have expressed increased skepticism about whether these writings can inform our understanding of the development of the canon. What appear to be citations of and allusions to New Testament books are not that at all, we are told, but instead are best explained by these authors drawing upon oral tradition.
This preference for oral tradition is based on the belief that Christians were not really concerned about written documents yet–that doesn’t come about until the end of the second century.
Now much of this approach is certainly correct. Early Christians did use and value oral tradition well into the second century. And certainly it can explain many of the citations/allusions in the Apostolic Fathers. But, must we insist that it can explain all of them? Should we assume an author used oral tradition unless we can prove (without a shadow of doubt) that he used written tradition?
These questions are too big to answer in a single blog post, but I think there are reasons to challenge the idea that oral tradition should always be the default explanation:
First, early Christianity was not an oral religion. Sure, traditions of Jesus were transmitted orally, but this is not the same thing. We cannot confuse a medium of transmission with a mentality (or disposition) of early Christian culture. I have argued elsewhere that early Christianity was a religion of textuality, even if most its adherents were illiterate (as were most people in the ancient world). For more, see my Question of Canon, 79-118.
Second, the authors represented in the Apostolic Fathers were obviously literate. Not only were they producing written sources, but they show awareness of (and interact with) other written sources. Indeed, the letter exchanges in early Christianity were rapid and extensive (see such exchanges in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians as one example).
So, if these authors were quite textually oriented, why should we assume they mainly drew on oral tradition? Of all the people in early Christianity likely to be influenced by written texts, it would’ve been these authors!
Third, by the time these authors wrote in the second century, earlier generations of Christians had already exhibited significant interactions with written texts. For instance, the authors of Matthew and Luke seemed to know Mark (and possibly Q) and interacted with these writings textually. John may have known the texts of the Synoptics. And all of these Gospels interacted with the text of the OT.
So, if first-century Christians interacted often with written texts, then why would we assume Christian writers in the second century only used oral tradition?
Fourth, a number of times the Apostolic Fathers actually mention that they know of written Gospels! As just one example, Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis and wrote around 125AD (see inset picture!). He tell us plainly about the written gospels of Mark and Matthew:
The Elder used to say: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he [Peter] remembered. . . . Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.
What’s particularly noteworthy is that Papias received his information directly from “the Elder” who is no doubt “John the Elder” he mentions elsewhere as a follower and disciple of Jesus himself. Thus, although Papias is writing around 125 AD he is actually referring to a much earlier time when he received this tradition, probably around 90AD.
Here, then, is the key point: Papias attests to the fact that at the end of the first century, one of the primary ways Christians were receiving Jesus tradition was through written gospels, two of which were named Matthew and Mark (!). This fact alone should challenge the notion that only oral tradition can/should explain all citations in the Apostolic Fathers.
In sum, there’s little doubt that oral tradition still played a role in the second century and beyond. But, the evidence above suggests that there’s little reason to prefer oral tradition as the default, catch-all explanation for the Gospel tradition in the Apostolic Fathers.
On the contrary, the “bookish” nature of early Christianity, and its deep textual identity, suggests that we should be open to the idea that these authors—at least sometimes—knew and used written Gospel texts.
Ping
FWIW, I assumed there was extensive writings about Jesus that were written and held by the Jews. Many stories about Jesus describe the presence of the “scribes and the pharisees”. I assume that the scribes would have prepared written documents concerning these interactions. I wonder if they are the common denominator otherwise known as Q.
Fox's Book Of Martyrs
The Actes and Monuments, popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, is a work of Protestant history and martyrology by Protestant English historian John Foxe, first published in 1563 by John Day. It includes a polemical account of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church, with particular emphasis on England and Scotland. The book was highly influential in those countries and helped shape lasting popular notions of Catholicism there. The book went through four editions in Foxe's lifetime and a number of later editions and abridgements, including some that specifically reduced the text to a Book of Martyrs.
Bookmark
That’s all they had at that time from Jesus. Of course, they had the Old Testament, but no New Testament so they turned to Holy Tradition.
Nowhere in the 4 Gospels does Christ instruct his Disciples to "write" anything.
Rather He instructs them to go and teach all that I have told you.
The first NT instruction to "write" anything occurs in John's Book of Revelation, long after the other Disciples have been martyred.
Indeed the Gospels were only reduced to writing after years spreading the Word via oral tradition throughout the world.
“....common denominator otherwise known as Q. ...”
Q - Quelle or German for “source” document has only been theorized because of the commonality in 3 (Matthew, Mark & Luke) of the 4 gospels. There are arguments both for & against a single source Q. Some say Q is multiple non-surviving documents. Its interesting reading. Its going to take a miraculous discovery of an archaeological cache to resolve anything.
“I assumed there was extensive writings about Jesus that were written and held by the Jews. Many stories about Jesus describe the presence of the “scribes and the pharisees”. I assume that the scribes would have prepared written documents concerning these interactions.”
Could you trust anything written about Jesus by scribes and pharisees?
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Colossians 4:15-16 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
Nonsense.
Colossians 4:15-16 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.
Verbal preaching is not *oral tradition*.
I think so. Jews attempting to follow the law would be abiding by the law against false testimony and the requirement of two witnesses.
I think it’s all about HAVE and NOT HAVE.
The Apostles heard the words of Jesus and wanted to HAVE a record of those words.
The problem was they were ‘on the road’ most of the time, thus limiting the supplies they would carry.
The problem was that they did NOT HAVE a spiral notebook. Nor a ream of paper.
The problem was that they did NOT HAVE a Bic pen. Nor a sealed bottle of fresh ink.
The problem was that they did NOT HAVE a a #2 pencil nor a quill that could be used with the ink.
The NOT HAVE’s won.
bump
The Disciples were preaching the Gospels and taught them to other Disciples, and by the time you get to the third tier it IS "oral tradition".
And you know this how?
I mean, as opposed to the church fathers who lived and breathed the early church.....and who wrote extensivley about oral tradtion, the scriptures and the teaching church....
Ahem....that’s “exactly” what it is.
wrong. Paul’s letters were WRITTEN and available to be passed around. In Revelation the Risen Christ commanded John to WRITE. There was an early body of written work for the new Church. The Holy Spirit knee shat was needed and graciously supplied early Christians as well as those of us today with the written Word.
Holy Spirit knew what was needed... big fingers small keyboard
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.