The Written Text Versus Oral Traditions

Throughout the centuries, mankind has passed down the written and verbal procession of the Holy Bible’s contents. From the ancient tablets of the Torah to the oral traditions of the church faithful, communication has been an important part of the biblical tradition landscape. However, there are certain differences between the two methods of communication.

They (Christian historians, scholars, and theologians) cannot have preserved every piece of information through oral dissemination. While there are pros to the oral traditions of Judaism and Christianity, preservation and written intent are the salient factors in receiving the truth as intended by the King of Glory.

From the outset—considering all factors—the oral communication of any biblically adjacent content is suspect from the beginning, because it involves hearsay and repetition through the mouths of mere mortals. From the very beginning of my study of communication methods used in church history, there seemed to be an enormous problem of canonization when it came to oral traditions.

Canonization is best defined by the “rule of faith” or “authoritative writing,” to use a better term. By this definition of canon, how can we trust the oral communication method if the very meaning of canonical is authoritative writings? Surely there must be a better way to preserve the Word of God than to use the hearsay of man.

I’m currently reading a book on how the Oral Law of the rabbis is completely made up. I’ve known this is a fact for a long time, but I enjoy delving deeper into such subjects as I go further in my walk with Christ.

The early proponents of the Messiah and the gospel message probably propagated the message through word of mouth.

This cannot be disputed in any significant way.

 We have many instances in the Scriptures where there is the word-of-mouth class of attention being given to Jesus Christ Himself, so perhaps this method of communication isn’t wrong to use in all instances.

Throughout the gospels, Christ had to hide himself for fear of the crowds, and to escape their attempts at making Him the King of Israel far too early in God’s prophetic timeline—so there would seem to be a power in hearsay and word of mouth. There is even evidence that many people proclaimed the miracles of Jesus Christ through simple word of mouth, and oral communication was perhaps the normal method during the time of Jesus’s First Advent. It would seem education and reading the Torah text were left to the establishment of the day, rather than the common man.

If that weren’t true, then the masses would have known the Scriptures as well as the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were guilty of propagating the myth of an Oral Law to the Scriptures. The Sadducees suspected anything that wasn’t the written Torah, even excluding the prophets and writings from their canon. Their established books were only the Five Books of Moses.

I suppose a plus for the oral communication pathway is that there was rarely hard work involved in preserving the message being conveyed. In the time of the Scriptures, copying text to be transmitted was extremely grueling.

If there were even one mistake, the complete text would have to be started from scratch.

This preserved the integrity of the text from all kinds of human error. With word-of-mouth traditions and communication, there was no need to copy the text in a physical format, and instead only the need to remember facts and details with accuracy. As long as the person communicating the message remained faithful to the original informant of the message, then there was no need to worry about faithful transmission to the rest of the people receiving the message.

Again, there are problems with this approach (ala the oral Torah we hear so much about in Rabbinic Judaism).

For example, if the person relaying the message was sure that they were being true to the original message—how could they be sure the original messenger was faithful to the original message that they had themselves received? This chain of transmission would go back for centuries, or even thousands of years, leading to some significant loss in transmission.

This is the key reason oral communication is a flawed method of preserving the Word of God, let alone any message at all. We are relying on the memory and capability of a fallible human being versus using something far more concrete.

Oral tradition may have in its favor the benefit of being readily accepted due to its communication in a clan or tribe of people—which were often very tight-knit, but it certainly falls short of complete and utter accuracy of a message.

It is important to examine concrete alternatives to oral communication if preservation is our goal for the reception of a message, and how those alternatives can benefit the message itself.

Having a concrete and solid method of transmitting information is far superior to simple hearsay and oral tradition.

Written communication and having a biblical canon over the oral communication method solves transmission error regarding the loss of information.

Not only does having a written text benefit those who would heed the message within by preventing transmission errors, but there would be a solid text used to copy the information over and make it easier on the scribes. The original tablets at Sinai and the books of the Law were copied over to a solid format from God’s first commandment to Moses at the burning top of the mountain.

Deuteronomy 17:18 states so clearly about the kings of Israel, “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests.”

This Bible verse shows us the need for every king to copy down the Book of the Law when they reign. There is no biblical basis for a simple word-of-mouth transmission of the biblical text. Biblically speaking, the method has always been written transmission.

Leaving things open to speaking discourse also opens the way for doctrinal errors and made-up sins that don’t exist in the Bible as written.

Divine inspiration and evidence of such in the written format show the authority of the Bible, to which I agree.

If there is a written text, there is actual evidence of God-breathed Scripture over the sayings of a simple man or woman. In oral communication, we must trust the words of whoever is relaying the words to receive a divine message, while if it is recorded, the integrity of said message is preserved and can be examined for divine authority.

The biblical canon is always portrayed in the active sense, which is simply not possible with oral communication methods. The Bible is authoritative on all matters in life in general, speaking from a biblical worldview, and in turn must be authoritative in a written format from an active perspective.

You miss that with oral transmission by a long shot.

In my opinion, the two best reasons for a written format in general are the integrity of the transmission, and the authoritative format of a canon. There is no way to canonize an oral tradition to the extent that we can see and study it daily, which makes written communication far superior to oral communication.

Not only that, but there is no loss of the message’s integrity when using written text. The written text is visible and can be examined as well, which is not the case with the ever-changing oral tradition. That is the benefit of a written text over oral communication, as oral communication can change over time, while writing something down leaves it concrete and faithfully transmitted (especially in Christian scholarship and scribal tradition).

The whole idea of an Oral Law is foreign to the Bible—as well as making little sense—because God expected His Scriptures to be written out by hand. It is in the name, after all. Scripture, not speaking.

If we see the merit of physical writing, we won’t be led astray by ridiculous ideas of what is sinful or harmful for us as we walk with Christ. It’s bad enough with the misinterpretations we have in the written format, anyway. No need to muddy the waters any further.

While there are two different methods of (alleged) transmission when it comes to the Bible, the written communication is by far the superior method. There is a concrete and solid foundation on which to study and observe the canon of Scripture in a written text, and that is simply not possible with oral traditions. While oral communication has the benefit of being readily accepted, especially tossed about in a group of people in a culture (some communities are like large families), it simply isn’t as reliable as written text.

Word of mouth can be misheard, and then there could be an entire doctrine based upon an error. For this reason, we would do well to continue relying upon the written text of the biblical canon and avoid the problems of oral communication altogether.

So, no, there is no Oral Law that was given at Mt. Sinai. Cheeseburgers are not sinful. The Sabbath is a delight, with it serving man instead of man serving it.

Rabbis did not trick God and confound Him because the Torah needs further explanation.

Don’t turn left means don’t turn left. It does not mean not turning left while standing on one leg.

We need to examine what the text says as written, respecting the work of those who had written these things for our benefit.

If we honor these things, the Father will also honor us.

He’s interested in our relationship with Him and others, not always the strict letter of the commandments, whether as written or made up by teachers and so-called prophets who have no business telling God He missed something.

Blessings and shalom to you.