How was the Bible formed? (Oral Tradition – Part Two)
“Holy Spirit, Soul of my soul”
(Fr. Joseph Kentenich – Founder of the Schoenstatt Movement)
Holy Spirit, you are the soul of my soul. I humbly adore you. Enlighten me, strengthen me, guide me, comfort me. And as far as it corresponds to the eternal plan, Father, God, reveal your desires to me. Let me know what eternal Love desires in me. Please let me know what I need to do. Let me know what I must suffer. Let me know what I must accept, carry, and bear with quiet modesty and prayer. Yes, Holy Spirit, make known to me your will and the will of the Father. For all my life, I do not want to be anything other than a perpetual, continual Yes to the desires and will of the eternal Father God. Love.
Introduction
It is no secret that forming a bible is a sophisticated process and extremely hard to master, especially because it had been performed for more than two thousand years by now. After thorough contemplation, I have decided that the process was made of five crucial steps, the second of which is oral tradition. As a result of diligent discussion, it should be noted that this step was an important part of the process of creating the holy scripture.
HOW WAS THE BIBLE FORMED? ORAL TRADITION…
In the last intervention, we left the following question ... “How Was the Bible Formed?” I mentioned that the Bible, as we know it, is the result of five steps that took a little more than two thousand years to take shape. The five steps are events, oral tradition, written tradition, editing and canonicity. We must take the time to discuss each of these steps.
This is the second step of oral tradition, unfortunately marked by many misunderstandings. The first thing to be clear about is that there is no trace of an event being contemporary with the same event (I'll explain myself). There is no evidence of the events that Abraham went through from the point of view of Abraham himself.
The phenomenon of oral tradition represents a special system for the transmission of text from mouth to ear, the practice of telling, and cultural and sacred knowledge in oral form. This is an ancient method, the use of which preceded the appearance of the writing culture.
Many religious traditions, including Judaism and Christianity, had long been passed orally before being written down. In Judaism, the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, was orally transmitted before being recorded in writing, according to some scholars. In Christianity, the Gospels, which tell the life and teaching of Jesus, were also first transmitted orally, according to the apostles. Before it was written down in its present form, the biblical text was edited, changed, and shaped in oral tradition.
The Bible itself mentions oral teachings and traditions. “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 Thessalonians 2:15).[1] Two elements to keep in mind. First, “word of mouth” is the oral tradition that we are reflecting now. Second, “by letter” that means written that we are going to discuss in the next intervention.
Let see more biblical example about oral tradition. “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2).[2] Oral tradition plays a fundamental role in the history of the development of Sacred Scripture. According to some experts, the written gospels were put together by blending various oral stories about Jesus. These oral stories include the miracles of Jesus, parables, and other teachings. Oral tradition is the passing of the stories or information from one generation to the next by mouth. For the longest time, the use of written gospel was shunned, and oral communication was used to share ideas and knowledge.
Christianity uses the term Sacred Tradition or Tradition. There are various times when the terms Scripture and Tradition are used as distinct. The Catholic point of view is that both Sacred Tradition, oral tradition, and Scripture are divinely revealed. In Catholicism, oral tradition is living and unchanging. The teachings of the Church and the way of worship were passed from generation to generation by oral tradition. Oral tradition is a lively and personal way of handing down information and knowledge. By word of mouth, faithful believers can hand over religious knowledge to each other or their children.
On the other hand, however, being an oral tradition which is transmitted orally, it is possible that the tradition could become corrupted or misinterpreted as the years go by and thus could produce varying stories and doctrines. In certain traditions (esp. Catholic) the work of the Church magisterium is thought to be one such factor. The function of the Church Magisterium is thought to be important for this preservation.
How was the Apostolic Tradition formed? Within the oral and written traditions of biblical events, what was not included in the edition is what constitutes Sacred Tradition. Of course, I'm keeping it simple here because it entails much more. But the main requirement here is that it was preached by the Apostles and continued by the Church Fathers (Apostolic Fathers, Apologetic Fathers, and the other Church Fathers), and that it is safeguarded by the Magisterium of the Church.
Contrary to the “belief” that Moses wrote the first five books (Pentateuch) of the Bible, there is no evidence or testimony of Moses’ experiences from his point of view. We have testimonies of Jesus from the Apostles and the first generation of disciples. But we have no testimony about Jesus’ point of view. All these events in the Bible are not known to us through oral tradition, firstly by the community that lived through this experience and secondly, as they were transmitted from generation to generation. The fact that these events have been transmitted by oral tradition, for sure, will cause some discomfort, because most of the time they associate oral tradition with the word gossip and for this reason consider it untrustworthy. This is certainly a misconception.
Oral tradition has remained (except for some notorious cases) because it has not had to prove its viability, it is not necessary for it to prove anything. The oral tradition is viable in essence, because it is a product of the community. Starting with the community that lived these events. This is why it cannot be confused with gossip. Even less so with the “game” known as the telephone, which we all used as children. When we have a private conversation with another person, there is no one (outside this conversation) who must correct them if necessary. If this same mistake is committed at the community level, it is the community itself that has the responsibility to make the necessary correction. An example of this would be that an error such as the following should not have been maintained in the community: "Our Father who art on earth as in Heaven, (trivialized) “be thy name...” An error like this could not have continued to exist because the community is aware of the right context and is responsible for correcting. The narratives that the community faithfully handed down from one generation to another through oral tradition are the same faith of the community.
The oral tradition has three modalities (as mentioned above) that do not pretend to be certain or exact in their context. The first thing that must be established is that it has not been (nor can it be) said that the oral tradition has been transmitting the original quotations. We can also apply it to the Gospels. This does not mean that there is no relationship between what we read in the Gospels and what Jesus said during his earthly life. To want to "print in red letters" or attribute what Jesus said (literally) is a misunderstanding. When Jesus carried out his ministry, a large part of his words (what he preached, what he taught, parables, etc.) was not (widely) understood until after his Resurrection.
As his contemporaries narrated about their experiences, shared discernments and grew in understanding (grace), they narrated the events about Jesus in such a way that the listener could understand them. Secondly, that the oral tradition does not claim to be certain is because this oral testimony was not always made in the social environment in which the events took place. This is why we sometimes read two gospel texts that Jesus has said something but not for the same audience or in the same context.
We can understand this better if we think about our own life experience. In our ways of expressing ourselves (characteristic of each country), we can transmit a joke orally, but it will not reach everyone who listens to it in the same way. We can exemplify this from the Gospel of St. Matthew, where Jesus preached the Beatitudes on a mountain, whereas in Luke, they are presented as being said on a plain. Because Jesus' words were transmitted through oral testimony, neither of the two editors of these gospels probably knew exactly where Jesus was located at the time of preaching. Matthew on the other hand, wants to show us Jesus as the new Moses with authority to proclaim the new law of Love.
Recall that Moses received the Law on the mountain. Matthew gave us this information for theological and not historical reasons. The third way in which oral tradition does not claim to be certain is in the historical chronology of events. When the first Christians put together the narratives of the miracles of Jesus, they did not take into account the order in which they occurred. They did not bother to figure out if Jesus healed the hemorrhagic woman or the paralytic first. For them, the important thing was that these events happened.
Another example is the one where Jesus chased the vendors out of the Temple. Matthew, Mark and Luke put this event before the passion and death (end of their ministry), while John puts it at the beginning of their ministry, after the Wedding at Cana. So when was it really. The answer is not available and not relevant either, since the reason for this double location was theological and not historical.
The oral tradition about the events around Jesus continued for a generation, before these narratives were written and edited in the form we have them today. It is a relatively short time compared to Abraham, who passed through oral tradition for about 600 years. These were written (or handwritten) for the time of the Exodus.
The same happened with the other patriarchs of Israel, who were told in the light of the experience of the Exodus from Egypt. These narratives were told and added details with contemporary nuances and not the original events. This made the narratives more interesting and easier to understand for each generation. Noah and the Flood precede the experience of the Exodus (1250 B.C).
Archaeologists have found evidence of great floods around the year 3000 B.C. Although the Bible presents Noah next to the patriarchs (about 1850 B.C). The important thing in this case is that the context has remained unaltered, although some details may change. We can say that the oral tradition was "archived" as happens with any personal document we have. Oral testimony lived for generations in a circle of details that grew around its foundation.
Conclusion
I would like to reiterate that the second step in the Bible’s formation process is important and should be discussed and analyzed in depth. Oral tradition is a key circumstance and was the springboard for the formation of Holy Scripture. The stories and interpretations shared for centuries finally came to life on the pages. While some people consider oral tradition a process for spreading gossip and fake news, it is necessary to remember that this process is systematic and, first and foremost, crucial to maintaining proper behavior toward the elders.
In our following interventions, we will reflect on the written tradition, edition, and canonicity in the Bible.
[1] PRESS, IGNATIUS. Ignatius Bible: Revised Standard Version - Burgundy - Second Catholic Edition (p. 2848). Kindle Edition.
[2] Ibid (p. 2770).