Although the Church accepted the four Gospels at a very early date, the authors of the Gospels did not write them immediately after Christ's ascension into Heaven. The Church spent many years without any written documentation on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
The first Gospel, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, may have been written as early as 50 A.D. Some say that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 A.D. According to Papias, a man who had listened to the preaching and teaching of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist St. John the Theologian, the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew by St. Matthew and later translated into Greek.
Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Papias, Fragment VI, by Papias, 70-155 A.D., vol. 1, p. 155, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Another second century Christian, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, also said that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular stress upon the fact that Christ should be of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences with an account of His genealogy. (Fragments of Irenaeus, Fragment XXIX, written by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 573, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 1, section 1, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 414, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
There is plenty of other ancient evidence that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, too. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Church History, Book III, chapter 24, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, pp. 152-153, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Eusebius also quoted Origen as saying that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under Heaven, I [i.e., Origen] have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew. (Church History, Book VI, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 273, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
According to Eusebius, the second century Christian Pantaenus found a copy of the Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel when he was in India.
Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached to them, and left them with the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. (Church History, Book V, chapter 10, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 225, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
St. Jerome lived in the fourth century and the early fifth century. He also claimed to have seen a copy of the original Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel in the library in Caesarea.
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" [Hosea 11:1], and "for He shall be called a Nazarene." [Isaiah 11:1, Pre-Masoretic Hebrew text] (Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3, by St. Jerome, 345-420 A.D., vol. 3, p. 362, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
So then, since the first Gospel was written sometime between 50 and 70 A.D. in Hebrew and since someone later translated it into Greek, there was a period of time during which Christians were having church without any written Gospels at all. The Church began on the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem in about 29 or 30 A.D. If the Gospel according to St. Matthew was written in 50 A.D., then Christians were having church without a written gospel for about 20 years. If it was written in 70 A.D., then they had church without a gospel for about 40 years. This Gospel written by St. Matthew had to be translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Christians. During the period of time from when the Gospel was originally written to when it was eventually translated into Greek, there were Greek speaking Christians who did not have a copy of this Gospel that they could read and understand.
So then, the story of Jesus Christ was preserved orally by various Christians who had spent time with Jesus. The oral version of the Gospel was the only one that the Church used for about 20 to 40 years.
The second Gospel is the one that St. Mark the Evangelist wrote. According to Papias, St. Mark wrote down from memory what he heard St. Peter say about our Lord.
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Papias, Fragment VI, by Papias, 70-155 A.D., vol. 1, pp. 154-155, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
There are some modern Bible scholars who believe that St. Mark's Gospel is the first Gospel that was written. However, the ancient tradition of the Church says that St. Matthew's Gospel came first. It is possible, however, that the Greek translation of St. Matthew's Gospel came after the writing of St. Mark's Gospel, but St. Matthew is credited according to tradition as being the first person to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ. Scholars believe that St. Mark's Gospel was written sometime shortly before 70 A.D.
The third Gospel is St. Luke's Gospel. Bible scholars believe that this gospel was written sometime between 70 and 80 A.D. According to tradition, St. Luke wrote down what he heard St. Paul taught.
Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 1, par. 1, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 414, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. (Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 5, by Tertullian, 145-220 A.D., vol. 3, p. 350, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; II Tim. 2:8) (Church History, Book III, chapter 4, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 137, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says “according to my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; II Tim. 2:8) he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying “Even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the apostles as he himself had seen. He was buried at Constantinople to which city, in the twentieth year of Constantius, his bones together with the remains of Andrew the apostle were transferred. (Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 7, by St. Jerome, 345-420 A.D., vol. 3, p. 364, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Since St. Luke was St. Paul's traveling companion (Acts 16:9-16; Col. 4:14; II Tim. 4:11), it is likely that much of what he wrote he had learned from St. Paul. In the first chapter of his Gospel, St. Luke says:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (St. Luke 1:1-4)
So then, although much of what he wrote is based upon what he had learned from St. Paul, much of what he wrote had been authenticated by others who were eyewitnesses of the events recorded in his Gospel.
St. Luke's Gospel and St. Mark's Gospel are based on oral tradition.
St. John's Gospel was written by St. John the Theologian. He is one of the twelve apostles that spent time with Jesus Christ. St. John, according to modern Bible scholars, wrote this Gospel in about 96 A.D. According to tradition, St. John dictated this Gospel to St. Prochorus who wrote it down.
So, from 20 to 40 years, Christians were without a written Gospel. For about 40 years, they were without two written Gospels and for about 40 to 50 years they were without three written Gospels. For most of the first century, they were having church without the Gospel according to St. John. One may wonder then how they were having church without a gospel. The answer to this question is that the stories about Jesus Christ were being transmitted orally by people who had traveled with Christ, heard Him teach, and watched Him perform miracles.
Jesus Christ had twelve apostles who were His closest companions. (St. Matt. 10:1-4) He also had seventy other apostles that traveled with Him. (St. Luke 10:1) In addition to these two groups of apostles, Christ had some women who traveled with Him as well. (St. Luke 8:2,3) On the Day of Pentecost after Jesus Christ had ascended up into Heaven, there were about 120 people who had spent time with Jesus praying together in a room in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:15; 2:1) St. Paul said that over 500 people had witnessed Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. (I Cor. 15:6)
So, there was much oral tradition being passed on while the Church was functioning without a written gospel.
Baptisms were being done, people were receiving the Eucharist, people were worshipping together, and bishops were being ordained while the Church continued to function without a written Gospel.
Even though we now have four Gospels in the Bible, there are still many things that Jesus Christ said and did that have not been recorded. St. John said in his Gospel:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (St. John 21:25)
Many of these other things that Christ taught and did have been passed down in the form of oral tradition. Over time, these things were written down in the writings of the Church Fathers and in other ancient Christian documents. These oral traditions are just as important as the Books of the Bible. St. Basil the Great wrote:
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. (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, by St. Basil the Great, 329-379 A.D., vol. 8, pp. 40-42, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
The existence of such Apostolic traditions was admitted by the Council of Gangra in its Epilogue to its Canons.
And, to sum up in a word, we wish that all things which have been delivered by the Holy Scriptures and the Apostolical traditions, may be observed in the Church. (Epilogue to the Canons of the Council of Gangra, met between 325 and 381 A.D., vol. 14, p. 101, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Apostolic Tradition was affirmed to exist by St. Irenaeus of Lyons and by Tertullian. Both of these men lived in the second century.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 2, paragraph 2, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 415, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (The Chaplet, chapter 4, by Tertullian, 145-220 A.D., p. 95, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
St. Paul himself even praised the Corinthian Christians for adhering to the traditions that had been passed down to them.
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (I Cor. 11:2, NKJV)
He told the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the traditions that they were taught "by word or our epistle."
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (II Thess. 2:15, NKJV)
Alongside of Holy Scripture, there has always been something else in the Church -- Holy Tradition.
Steve
Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D., volumes 1-10, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., volumes 1-14, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. & Henry Wace, D.D., volumes 1-14, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts
The first Gospel, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, may have been written as early as 50 A.D. Some say that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 A.D. According to Papias, a man who had listened to the preaching and teaching of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist St. John the Theologian, the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew by St. Matthew and later translated into Greek.
Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Papias, Fragment VI, by Papias, 70-155 A.D., vol. 1, p. 155, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Another second century Christian, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, also said that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular stress upon the fact that Christ should be of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences with an account of His genealogy. (Fragments of Irenaeus, Fragment XXIX, written by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 573, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 1, section 1, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 414, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
There is plenty of other ancient evidence that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, too. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (Church History, Book III, chapter 24, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, pp. 152-153, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Eusebius also quoted Origen as saying that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under Heaven, I [i.e., Origen] have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew. (Church History, Book VI, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 273, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
According to Eusebius, the second century Christian Pantaenus found a copy of the Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel when he was in India.
Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached to them, and left them with the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. (Church History, Book V, chapter 10, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 225, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
St. Jerome lived in the fourth century and the early fifth century. He also claimed to have seen a copy of the original Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel in the library in Caesarea.
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" [Hosea 11:1], and "for He shall be called a Nazarene." [Isaiah 11:1, Pre-Masoretic Hebrew text] (Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3, by St. Jerome, 345-420 A.D., vol. 3, p. 362, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
So then, since the first Gospel was written sometime between 50 and 70 A.D. in Hebrew and since someone later translated it into Greek, there was a period of time during which Christians were having church without any written Gospels at all. The Church began on the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem in about 29 or 30 A.D. If the Gospel according to St. Matthew was written in 50 A.D., then Christians were having church without a written gospel for about 20 years. If it was written in 70 A.D., then they had church without a gospel for about 40 years. This Gospel written by St. Matthew had to be translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Christians. During the period of time from when the Gospel was originally written to when it was eventually translated into Greek, there were Greek speaking Christians who did not have a copy of this Gospel that they could read and understand.
So then, the story of Jesus Christ was preserved orally by various Christians who had spent time with Jesus. The oral version of the Gospel was the only one that the Church used for about 20 to 40 years.
The second Gospel is the one that St. Mark the Evangelist wrote. According to Papias, St. Mark wrote down from memory what he heard St. Peter say about our Lord.
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Papias, Fragment VI, by Papias, 70-155 A.D., vol. 1, pp. 154-155, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
There are some modern Bible scholars who believe that St. Mark's Gospel is the first Gospel that was written. However, the ancient tradition of the Church says that St. Matthew's Gospel came first. It is possible, however, that the Greek translation of St. Matthew's Gospel came after the writing of St. Mark's Gospel, but St. Matthew is credited according to tradition as being the first person to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ. Scholars believe that St. Mark's Gospel was written sometime shortly before 70 A.D.
The third Gospel is St. Luke's Gospel. Bible scholars believe that this gospel was written sometime between 70 and 80 A.D. According to tradition, St. Luke wrote down what he heard St. Paul taught.
Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 1, par. 1, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 414, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. (Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 5, by Tertullian, 145-220 A.D., vol. 3, p. 350, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; II Tim. 2:8) (Church History, Book III, chapter 4, by Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 A.D., vol. 1, p. 137, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Some suppose that whenever Paul in his epistle says “according to my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; II Tim. 2:8) he means the book of Luke and that Luke not only was taught the gospel history by the apostle Paul who was not with the Lord in the flesh, but also by other apostles. This he too at the beginning of his work declares, saying “Even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the apostles as he himself had seen. He was buried at Constantinople to which city, in the twentieth year of Constantius, his bones together with the remains of Andrew the apostle were transferred. (Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 7, by St. Jerome, 345-420 A.D., vol. 3, p. 364, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Since St. Luke was St. Paul's traveling companion (Acts 16:9-16; Col. 4:14; II Tim. 4:11), it is likely that much of what he wrote he had learned from St. Paul. In the first chapter of his Gospel, St. Luke says:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (St. Luke 1:1-4)
So then, although much of what he wrote is based upon what he had learned from St. Paul, much of what he wrote had been authenticated by others who were eyewitnesses of the events recorded in his Gospel.
St. Luke's Gospel and St. Mark's Gospel are based on oral tradition.
St. John's Gospel was written by St. John the Theologian. He is one of the twelve apostles that spent time with Jesus Christ. St. John, according to modern Bible scholars, wrote this Gospel in about 96 A.D. According to tradition, St. John dictated this Gospel to St. Prochorus who wrote it down.
So, from 20 to 40 years, Christians were without a written Gospel. For about 40 years, they were without two written Gospels and for about 40 to 50 years they were without three written Gospels. For most of the first century, they were having church without the Gospel according to St. John. One may wonder then how they were having church without a gospel. The answer to this question is that the stories about Jesus Christ were being transmitted orally by people who had traveled with Christ, heard Him teach, and watched Him perform miracles.
Jesus Christ had twelve apostles who were His closest companions. (St. Matt. 10:1-4) He also had seventy other apostles that traveled with Him. (St. Luke 10:1) In addition to these two groups of apostles, Christ had some women who traveled with Him as well. (St. Luke 8:2,3) On the Day of Pentecost after Jesus Christ had ascended up into Heaven, there were about 120 people who had spent time with Jesus praying together in a room in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:15; 2:1) St. Paul said that over 500 people had witnessed Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. (I Cor. 15:6)
So, there was much oral tradition being passed on while the Church was functioning without a written gospel.
Baptisms were being done, people were receiving the Eucharist, people were worshipping together, and bishops were being ordained while the Church continued to function without a written Gospel.
Even though we now have four Gospels in the Bible, there are still many things that Jesus Christ said and did that have not been recorded. St. John said in his Gospel:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (St. John 21:25)
Many of these other things that Christ taught and did have been passed down in the form of oral tradition. Over time, these things were written down in the writings of the Church Fathers and in other ancient Christian documents. These oral traditions are just as important as the Books of the Bible. St. Basil the Great wrote:
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. (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, by St. Basil the Great, 329-379 A.D., vol. 8, pp. 40-42, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
The existence of such Apostolic traditions was admitted by the Council of Gangra in its Epilogue to its Canons.
And, to sum up in a word, we wish that all things which have been delivered by the Holy Scriptures and the Apostolical traditions, may be observed in the Church. (Epilogue to the Canons of the Council of Gangra, met between 325 and 381 A.D., vol. 14, p. 101, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series)
Apostolic Tradition was affirmed to exist by St. Irenaeus of Lyons and by Tertullian. Both of these men lived in the second century.
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 2, paragraph 2, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 120-202 A.D., vol. 1, p. 415, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (The Chaplet, chapter 4, by Tertullian, 145-220 A.D., p. 95, Ante-Nicene Fathers)
St. Paul himself even praised the Corinthian Christians for adhering to the traditions that had been passed down to them.
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (I Cor. 11:2, NKJV)
He told the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the traditions that they were taught "by word or our epistle."
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (II Thess. 2:15, NKJV)
Alongside of Holy Scripture, there has always been something else in the Church -- Holy Tradition.
Steve
Bibliography
Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D., volumes 1-10, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., volumes 1-14, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. & Henry Wace, D.D., volumes 1-14, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts
No comments:
Post a Comment