On Authority, Part 2: On the Apostolic Tradition

In part 1 of this series, I introduced the process of traditioning and documented how it was used in the Bible. In this post I will trace how this traditioning process was used in the early church. First we will construct a narrative for the traditioning process up to and including the apostles. Second, we will explore the importance of the oral component of the tradition.

The Christian Tradition in the Apostolic Era

From Scripture we can reconstruct this narrative about the uniquely Christian tradition and the initial stages of its transmission:

1. God the Father is the ultimate source of the Christian tradition, and the Son is the agent through whom it is initially transmitted: "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27).
2. As the incarnate Word of God, the Son orally transmits a portion of the tradition to his apostles, and the remainder of the tradition he transmits through the agency of the Holy Spirit: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:12-15). 
3. The content of the apostolic tradition is called the "deposit of faith", and it was transmitted so completely and with such high fidelity to the apostles as a group that it can be described as being "once for all delivered": "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3).
4. No one apostle necessarily possessed the full deposit personally himself, so Jesus established the principal of conciliarity when needing to arbitrate the fidelity of transmission:
   

   If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:15-20)

5. The Jerusalem council of Acts 15 illustrates the principle of conciliarity in action. The apostles as a group arbitrated between conflicting traditions. And their conclusion indicates that both conciliarity and the Holy Spirit were factors in the determination: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements ... " (Acts 15:28).
6. Paul lays out the the process of transmission beyond the apostles: "You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:1-2). Paul entrusts the deposit of faith--and the responsibility to transmit it--to Timothy in front of witnesses, and then Timothy should do the same in turn, and "the grace that is in Christ Jesus" is the power behind the process.
7. The tradition consists of not just what the apostles wrote but also what they orally preached and taught: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and both components are authoritative and need to be faithfully transmitted.

The Oral Component of the Apostolic Tradition

For readers in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, a discussion of the oral component of the Apostolic Tradition might sound unfamiliar. Steeped in the presuppositions of Sola Scriptura, they might not even realize that their worldview is entirely anachronistic, that is, the early church did not subscribe to this doctrine nor could it. Others more skillful than I have already written on the problems of Sola Scriptura (and its followup) and the strength of oral tradition. So in this section I will limit myself to the following: 1) the Biblical case for an oral component to Apostolic Tradition, 2) the early church's testimony to its existence, and 3) identifying where we can find this oral component subsequently recorded?

The Biblical Case for an Oral Component

In the preface to his Gospel, Luke writes the following:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Here Luke makes clear that the source for his Gospel is the oral tradition that has been passed down to him. In other words, there existed an oral tradition, and he took a portion of it and committed it to writing. The oral tradition was primary.

The author of the Gospel of John writes this as his last verse: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (Luke 1:1-4). In other words, Jesus said and did so many things that most things were left to oral transmission.

We have an example of this in Acts 20:35, where Paul says "In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" This quote by Jesus is not recorded in the canonical Gospels. Thus, Paul was quoting from the oral tradition of Jesus's words here. Sayings of Jesus that are not recorded in the canonical gospels have a special name Agrapha, and that links show many other examples. The force of all this is that the four canonical gospels are merely the transcription of a small subset of the tradition that Jesus orally transmitted to the apostles.

And in the same way, the apostles used oral transmission of the tradition (preaching) most of the time. Paul's epistles are a very small portion of the transmitting that he did of the tradition, and in them, he frequently refers back to the oral transmission as authoritative (1 Thess 2:13, 4:1; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2, 15:1-3) and even more authoritative than a subsequent transmission (Gal 1:8-9; cf. 2 Thess 2:2).

For someone to claim that the apostolic deposit of faith was circumscribed by the 27 books of the New Testament is to deny how those books describe the transmission of the deposit and is to be ignorant of how societies operated before the invention of the printing press and its handmaiden, widespread literacy. The oral component of the apostolic tradition pre-existed the written component, was vastly larger in size, and was as authoritative.

The Early Church's Testimony to an Oral Component 

At this point I need to clarify a point of terminology. The distinction between the written and oral components of the apostolic tradition properly refers to the distinction between the New Testament writings and everything else in the apostolic tradition. It does not imply that oral components were never later written down. In fact, as history progressed more and more of the oral component was written down, but that does not mean that it "graduated" to become part of the written component. Any part of the apostolic tradition that exists outside of the canon of Scripture is oral tradition--even if subsequently written down.

Another important consideration is that open communion is not just a modern invention, it is an invention of the late 20th century (https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2013/11/19/the-politics-of-the-cup/#comment-71807). In the ancient church, things were very different. For a number of reasons (persecution being one), when the Mysteries were performed--baptism and Eucharist--those outside of the Church were not present. The divine liturgy is divided into two parts: the liturgy of the catechumens and the liturgy of the faithful, and the dividing line is the line "Catechumens, depart!" at which time all the unbaptized as well as those under penitential canons and unable to receive communion recessed out of the nave. The Holy Mysteries were secret. The order of the services was not written down, but was only transmitted orally; and in what was preserved in secret was contained the essential side of the faith. This is a very well documented fact, and it is important because it not only documents the existence of an oral component but also explains the reason that it continued to be strictly oral for such a long time.

We want to look at several quotes by St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who died in 386 AD. He prepared a number of catechetical lectures to give to those catechumens who were on the verge of being baptized. Perhaps they had already completed multiple years of catechesis, but now they are about to be baptized and so he teaches them the final things that had been kept secret from them during their entire previous catechumenate. Because he wrote down these lectures for future reference, we have a written record of what he told them, but notice the absolute secrecy to which he is binding the hearers as well as any future readers in the prologue:

When, therefore, the Lecture is delivered, if a Catechumen ask thee what the teachers have said, tell nothing to him that is without.  For we deliver to thee a mystery, and a hope of the life to come.  Guard the mystery for Him who gives the reward.  Let none ever say to thee, What harm to thee, if I also know it?  So too the sick ask for wine; but if it be given at a wrong time it causes delirium, and two evils arise; the sick man dies, and the physician is blamed.  Thus is it also with the Catechumen, if he hear anything from the believer:  both the Catechumen becomes delirious (for he understands not what he has heard, and finds fault with the thing, and scoffs at what is said), and the believer is condemned as a traitor.  But thou art now standing on the border:  take heed, pray, to tell nothing out; not that the things spoken are not worthy to be told, but because his ear is unworthy to receive.  Thou wast once thyself a Catechumen, and I described not what lay before thee.  When by experience thou hast learned how high are the matters of our teaching, then thou wilt know that the Catechumens are not worthy to hear them.

(To the Reader.) These Catechetical Lectures for those who are to be enlightened thou mayest lend to candidates for Baptism, and to believers who are already baptized, to read, but give not at all, neither to Catechumens, nor to any others who are not Christians, as thou shalt answer to the Lord.  And if thou make a copy, write this in the beginning, as in the sight of the Lord (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.iv.html chapters 12 and 18)

And then in the fifth lecture he writes the following about the Creed he is about to teach:

We comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines.  This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.html chapter 12)

So we see that there was an oral component to the apostolic tradition, and even until the late 4th century, diligence was practiced to make sure that only those who were deemed likely to be worthy transmitters of it (as signified through baptism) were entitled to hear the oral component in order to prevent its mistransmission by others.

The next witness is St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea, who died in AD 379. In his treatise On the Holy Spirit, he speaks extensively on the oral component of the apostolic tradition, citing very specific practices that were accepted as having apostolic authority even though never documented in the New Testament. Even though it is a long quote, I quote it in its entirety because of its importance:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk. ἀνάστασις) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek those things which are above," but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one" and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vii.xxviii.html chapter 66).

So we see from St. Basil the Great, one of the most influential defenders of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, that the oral component of the apostolic tradition has the "same force" as the written tradition and "were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals ..." Incidentally, this passage is part of an argument he is making about his Trinitarian formula. The argument goes like this: Given the fact that you accept all these practices as having apostolic authority because they are part of the oral tradition and thus are not recorded in Scripture, why do you reject this formula which also does not derives from Scripture given that it also does derive from oral tradition?

So we see that the early church recognized, guarded, and prized the oral component of the apostolic tradition. It can be traced back to the earliest period of the Church. And it was carefully preserved and unanimously acknowledged during the epoch of the great Fathers of the Church and the beginning of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Literary Sources of the Oral Component

As I mentioned earlier, portions of the oral component were written down over time outside of the New Testament. The question is where can we as 21st century believers locate it? For this I will be pulling from a book by Fr. Michael Pomazansky called Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. These are the seven places he documents where readers can find the oral component of the apostolic tradition written down in the 21st century:

1. in the most ancient record of the Church, the Canons of the Holy Apostles [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ix.vi.html];
2. in the Symbols of Faith of the ancient local churches [these would predate the Nicene Creed. An example is the Apostle's Creed; others are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_creeds#Local_and_Regional_Creeds_of_the_Early_Church];
3. in the ancient Liturgies, in the rite of Baptism, and in other ancient prayers [e.g., the Liturgy of St. James];
4. in the ancient Acts of the Christian martyrs. The Acts of the martyrs did not enter into use by the faithful until they had been examined and approved by the local bishops; and they were read at the public gatherings of Christians under the supervision of the leaders of the churches. In them we see the confession of the Most Holy Trinity, the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, examples of the invocation of the saints, of belief in the conscious life of those who had reposed in Christ, and much else; [https://oca.org/saints/lives is the best source but it does not separate the ancient martyrs from later saints so you have to know the ancient martyrs name first and then find his acts]
5. in the ancient records of the history of the Church, especially in the book of Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea,where there are gathered many ancient traditions of rite and dogma — in particular, there is given the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments; [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201]
6. in the works of the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church; [http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html]
7. and, finally, in the very spirit of the Church's life, in the preservation of faithfulness to all her foundations which come from the Holy Apostles.

In this post we presented a narrative for how the apostolic tradition came about. Then we drilled down on the oral component of it, which is often at least overlooked but sometimes even despised in Evangelical traditions.