Oral and written tradition. . .

The idea once was that the apostles did not write down that much but instead passed on their doctrine and preaching largely through oral means.  The writing was left to others who later wrote down what they remembered hearing.  It was a convenient idea and explained in theory the discrepancies between the Gospels that bothered some.  But it was and remains a convenient truth that bears little resemblance to what the New Testament says about itself.  When Paul wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians, he explained tradition.  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 Thess. 2:14  The matter of fact way that St. Paul speaks of both the spoken word and the written underscores that this was the norm -- oral and written.  Tradition, therefore, according to the Apostle, is of two kinds, written and unwritten.  Tradition, being oral, is presume to be less reliable and some believe it becomes corrupted in the course of time.  But properly speaking tradition is not oral or at least not just oral and is always accompanied by the written.  The integrity of the witness depends upon it being the same and it is.  It was never only oral.  Furthermore, the oral did not invent other truths but the preaching and the writing are one truth.  The idea of an oral tradition which was later written down was also convenient in explaining and justifying the development of doctrine not explicitly taught in Scripture.

The text critic and those who try to answer the process questions often get bogged down more with their own presuppositions than with the actual words of Scripture.  It would seem we have a yearning to make it more difficult than it is and to attach at least a little uncertainty that what we have is actually the same as what was preached.  Further, we invent justifications to give credence to our skepticism -- skepticism we seem intent to hold onto with regard to the transmission of the truth and even of the manuscripts themselves.  It is as if there are some, perhaps many, who want to cast doubt upon the veracity of what we call the New Testament (or Old) now and to put space between the actual and what developed and got written down.  The arguments once thrived on this point but now we are finding more evidence to support the writing and have more cause now than ever before to believe that the Biblical texts are not simply reliable but authentic.  The apostles did not have to invent their authority, after all, but that authority was a given because of their relationship to Jesus.  Their words preached and taught carried with them the full weight of the apostolic credentials.  In this way we can also suggest that the disciples who wrote were not merely doing something utilitarian but understood themselves to be putting God's Word to paper and that this Word would have authority not for the narrow addressees and their time but for all eternity.  So St. Paul calls on them to hold to the tradition, the sacred deposit, and do not ease up on it or relent in its life-giving conviction.  It is rather amazing and profoundly comforting to know that the apostles who wrote were not simply jotting down words but as holy men informed by the Holy Spirit passing on what God had delivered to them.  The sooner we get that in our minds and hearts, the better for the Word of God will have even greater authority knowing that the apostles expected people would read their words as authoritative.  What is most amazing, though, it that they would also read their words as the salutary truth which  actually delivers what is said and written.  Amazing, indeed.