The earliest Christians were the most successful in history. We need to understand why.
Holy Oral Tradition played a huge (read primary) part in the practice of their faith. Memory texts - the ones that make up the entirety of the Gospels - were how the earliest Christians knew their Resurrected Rabbi, the focus of their faith.
The earliest Christians had no New Testament. They didn't have the letters of Paul or even the Gospels. They didn't have other writings from other apostles, either. But instead, they collected in their memories the stories about, and teachings of, Jesus, handed down person to person by word of mouth. Don't let this fact escape your understanding. It's of utmost importance.
Now, not all of the earliest Christians knew how to interpret each of the teachings or sayings. Not all believers even had access to all of the stories. But within each vignette of the Jesus Tradition, there were layers of meaning and understanding that had to be learned in a discipleship manner, that is, being taught the meanings by one who had been taught by one who had been taught by an original apostle (we can find many instances in the Early Church where the references of teachers were checked. Those who learned wanted to make sure that the teacher's origin could be directly traced back to one of the original disciples, thus insuring an uncorrupted transmission of the original teachings). But rest assured, the earliest Christians knew by memory many of the stories and teachings of Jesus. This, even though these memory texts weren't written down.
Back now to Paul. Our modern teachers and pastors and theologians teach Paul's letters as though they were the basis and foundation of the early churches faith. Today, sermon series come from Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, etc. Our leaders believe these letters to be primary texts. They teach them as primary texts. But I don't believe that the early churches would have seen them that way. One clue is these 'hallowed' letters don't mention, recall, or recount the earthly deeds and sayings and teachings of the One they called Lord. Their focus - Paul and the churches both - was on Jesus, not on the letters that Paul wrote. Paul encourages them in their faith and clarifies too, so we can accept his letters likewise. But they were not the primary texts for their faith, as some of our modern leaders have made them out to be.
Why Paul's Letters Should Not be Viewed as Primary Texts
The fact that Paul refused to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters is a mystery to most. I would also say that most have never even realized that Paul consciously avoided writing about Jesus in his epistles. Strange for sure. But the question of why merits our most careful thought and examination, especially if we still choose to see Paul's letters as the highest Scripture available to us as Christians.
Some theologians have promoted the idea that Paul neglected Jesus because he wanted to form his own sort of religion, relegating the Messiah to figure-head only status. Paul could then mold the religion to his own liking while ignoring the teachings of Jesus. But this seems rather ludicrous when we read of his undying love for his Savior within the pages of his letters AND his willingness to suffer great hardship and even death because of his faith in the Resurrected Rabbi. The more likely truth is that the words and deeds of Jesus were first seen as Holy Oral Tradition. Again, in Hebrew culture, Holy Oral Tradition was meant to be memorized and expressly forbidden to be written down, passed along only by word of mouth. This would account not only for Paul refusing to include these things in his written work, as well as for the bafflingly long period between the Resurrection and the appearance of the First Gospel.
What if Paul transmitted the Holy Oral Tradition regarding Jesus to the leaders of each church at its inception? This seems most likely considering the combination of these facts:
1. Paul refuses to mention the words and deeds of Jesus in any of his letters
2. The rules governing Holy Oral Tradition forbade its written form
3. Holy Oral Tradition was only to be passed on 'by the mouth'
4. Holy Oral Tradition often contained stories and teachings of Sages and Rabbis
5. If we assume Paul was not a charlatan intent on hijacking a new religions, then we must also believe he - as the founder of many early Christian churches - taught them about the person and teachings of Rabbi Jesus. But again, he doesn't do that in his letters
When I first learned about how the Hebrews viewed the Holy Oral Tradition (from Sages and Rabbis) and that they considered it too holy to be written down, I was appalled by what I perceived as their arrogance. The written Word was much more holy than their opinions, I thought. But here's how the ancient Hebrews defined the difference between the Written and Oral Traditions:
The Law (The Written) is like a father who tells his children what to do. The little one, still immature, may not even understand the command or how to fulfill it. The Oral Tradition then, is like the child's mother (she's more mature and knows the father well) who explains what the father meant and the best way to go about obeying. Holy Oral Tradition was meant to help the initiate live by the Law, or by The Way. Memorizing kept it on the mind and heart and tongue. Simply brilliant and quite effective. If one was to pass it on, then they had to know it by heart.
The Ancient Hebrews wisely prohibited the writing down of the Tradition for a very specific reason. It wasn't because there was a shortage of paper. It wasn't because most people didn't know how to read and/or write. It was because the Rabbis knew the enormous pratfall caused by relegating that which was intended to be written on the heart into books.
We've downloaded Jesus from our minds and hearts and tongues into lifeless books.
So how should we then see the Pauline letters, the letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament?
To be continued.
Comments