The Oral & Written Law

Another name for the oral law is ‘tradition’. There is the tradition about the books
that should belong to the Bible. And there is the hermeneutical tradition that deals
with the meaning of what has been written. There is also a broad tradition that also
includes traditions without confirmation in the Holy Scriptures themselves. Take the
preparation of the Catholic liturgical ointment that goes back to the Last Supper. The
book of hymns is also tradition. Finally, there is an oral tradition without a solid foun-
dation. For example, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, is said to have been buried
in the garden of Rabban Gamalael. Here I limit myself to the canonicity of Scripture
and some thoughts on hermeneutics, otherwise all the books in the world would be
insufficient to discuss all. The latest Christian tradition should never contradict the
older tradition, which usually envisions the tradition as it existed from the beginning
of Christianity. A forteriori, it should never contradict the true Judaic tradition. So,
to know the true Judaic tradition is to know the Christian tradition!

1 – The Canonicity of the Sacred Books

Hermeneutics is the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, but before starting that exercise,
it must first be established what exactly the Scriptures are, acceptable as ‘Word of God’
in the sense as if He is speaking to me personally. First, then, the canonicity (i.e. belon-
ging to Scripture) of the books available to us must be agreed upon and the original text
thereof with all permissible variants. That is also tradition. If a variant exists for a parti-
cular phrase or verse, it should be mentioned in a good Bible. But there is no case where
a known variant would compromise the deposit of faith. So, that’s not something to
worry about. Regarding the canonicity of the major books, there is little difference of
opinion among the different Christian faiths, despite the complicated genesis of the
Bible, especially that of the Old Testament. It would go too far, in view of our topic, to
delve into that further.
 -2-

As for the first five Old Testament books, known as the Pentateuch or the Torah, and
the prophetic books, including the Book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible), the
tradition is unanimous as far as canonicity is concerned. The Book of Daniel, which is
hermeneutically on the same level as the Book of John (Book of Revelation) is a diffe-
rent story. Because only after Christ did the Jews throw them out of the canon, in my
opinion because the calculation in verses 9:24-26 points too clearly to the date of birth
of Christ. In this regard, I agree with the Christian tradition, which does accept Daniel
as canonical. What recent scientists say about this does not impress me, for the simple
reason that an old established tradition, such as this, is not open to revision. The distance
in time is the most reliable certainty for this, although they use it as a counter-argument.
The accumulated treasure of faith should not be tampered with under the guise and in
the name of a ‘higher’ understanding, certainly not for such an essential cause. Under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and
with the help of God’s grace, the people
of God accept the truth as revealed by
God. And although Christians have
crossed swords on many points, there is
a remarkable unanimity about the ca-
non, and that also applies to the less
evident part of the New Testament (evi-
dent with regard to canonicity), as it is
recorded in the historical books, think of
Acts and the Gospels. Alternatives to
the Gospels appear to have existed in the
first century, but these have been lost.
Again, what the modern theologians
concoct, I don’t care.1) Then there are
the New Testament letters. Fortunately,
there is little disagreement among Chris-
tians about their canonicity.

As for the New Testament canon, it gradually took shape. The recognition of the apos-
tolic writings as an authoritative and complete instrument was initially hesitant. Many
years passed before it was believed that the words of someone who talks to people are
really God’s words. Famous Brooke Foss Westcott comments about this in his book on
the sources of the New Testament: 2)
«« The successors of the Apostles did not recognise that the written histories of
the Lord and the scattered epistles of his first disciples would form a sure and
sufficient source and test of doctrine for later times when the tradition would have
grown indistinct or corrupt. Conscious of a life in the Christian body, and realising
the power of its Head, they did not feel that the Apostles were providentially
charged to express once for all in their writings the essential forms of Christianity,
in like manner as the Prophets that had foreshadowed them. »»

2 – Lex orandi, Lex credendi

There is no conclusive proof that the Bible is God’s Word, any more than it can be
‘proven’ that God exists. For me the clearest evidence is the fact that the Bible, which
has been recorded over an enormous period of time by authors from completely different
backgrounds and cultures, nevertheless forms an organic whole and can be read as one

1) See my book “The Bible, Word of God”, in particular appendix 3.

2) Seventh and last revised edition of 1896 of “A General Survey of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament” (p. 56), first edition 1855.
 -3-

book, as if all its parts were written by one author, by who else but God? Together with
the Emmaus disciples I say: “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us
on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32) That shows
another sign by which I know for myself that I am not erring in the acceptance of
Scripture as the Word of God. The Jews call this burning the Simchat Torah or ‘joy of
the law’. I have never been able to find any mistakes with regard to the historical aspect
either. We can study the Bible from its historicity and cultural context to show that the
Bible is a truly unique collection, with which it can be made plausible on scientific
grounds that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’. Historical verification is extremely impor-
tant because, unlike many other religions, such as Buddhism, Biblical historical ‘facts’
have a meaning that makes our belief stand or fail. The most important truth of faith is
that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’, his Most Holy Word. As soon as that is questioned,
everything collapses like a house of cards. It is for this reason that God’s enemies focus
precisely on that in a supposedly scientific jargon. It should be realised that any uncer-
tain transmission of the text brings the prophetic content of the Bible into disrepute. The
core question is: does God speak through the Bible or not?

The official doctrine can never deny nor contradict itself

“Doctrine, that has been definitively proclaimed, cannot be changed either in the
sense of denying or contradicting what has been taught, or by asserting some-
thing that raises doubts for such a truth”, said Father George Woodall, professor
of moral theology at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum Athenaeum in Rome. “If
there were to be an authentic development of doctrine”, Woodall said, “this would
neither entail nor imply any of these violations, but would deepen some particu-
lar point of prior doctrine, maintaining that doctrine intact.” Those who suggest
such doctrinal development must first show that whatever they propose does not
violate this principle and is thus compatible with constant definitive doctrine.
Lifesitenews - July 17, 2018

There are mathematical tools that provide evidence for the Bible as Word of God. The
best known is the ‘Bible Code’. There is also the ‘Panin Bible Statistics’. Suppose one
sees these approaches as conclusive proof of the divine origin of the Bible, it still means
little if it affects only the intellectual part of his being.3) The way to God always goes
through the heart to the intellect, which opens itself up to God’s promptings through the
inspiration of our heart. God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit to our spirit which
challenges the human mind through the heart. In Biblical parlance the heart is the organ
of a person that serves to make of him a thinking, perceiving, willing and affectionate
being, bringing together the ideas of knowledge, understanding, will and desire. The
Hebrew uses of the word heart are more or less comparable to the way we use the word
‘mind’ in English.4) Thus the intellect (a faculty of the soul working through and with
the brain) is subservient to the human mind and heart, and not the other way around.

Only after having finished this article the writer understood the true relationship between
the heart and the mind. We are brainwashed that the mind rules our actions. But nothing
could be further from the truth. Our mind is the servant of the heart, which means that
one cannot be brought to an essentially different opinion on the basis of rational argu-
ments alone. The discussion between creationists and evolutionists is an example of this.

3) The conclusion is not surprising that a person cannot be brought to faith solely on the
basis of the special mathematical properties of the Bible. Why then did God create that
structure? This can be compared to the watermark of a banknote. After the payment
method has in principle been accepted, the watermark serves to obtain total certainty
that this is indeed a real banknote.
 -4-

I have never heard of an evolutionist who was brought to other thoughts by a creationist
or vice versa, because the issue at stake goes much deeper. In politics too it often goes
much deeper and that is why such absurd laws are passed under the guise of rational
arguments. After all, the heart has its reasons which reason knows not. (Blaise Pascal)
It is also the case that once a ‘miracle’ becomes a mere intellectual argument, this
achieves nothing in terms of persuasiveness unless a certain conviction already existed,
and that explains why the hard-hearted cannot be moved, even not by a miracle. (Mt.
13:58) Put differently: One might convince someone against his will, yet the will
remains unchanged. 4)

We may therefore say that the Christian life does not begin with knowing something
about a truth or an important doctrine as if it is pure intellectual knowledge, but it begins
with an exhortation of the heart after the human spirit has opened up to communion with
God’s Spirit. In other words, this means that our attitude to life and faith confirms faith,
or on the contrary damages it. Even if we believe that an expression of faith comes from
an understanding, it is first of all the indwelling of God’s Spirit that nourishes this
expression of faith, often by simply drawing our attention to something, so that we can
start thinking about it. In the natural order, the things precede ideas, and in the super-
natural, the divine mystery - the reality of God - precedes faith, which is the answer to
the individual being existentially challenged. In other words, a person sees what he
believes and not the other way around, a principle with far-reaching consequences. This
explains why Jesus did not perform miracles when the spectators were totally lacking in
faith. The Nazis did not see a human being when they saw a Jew but a piece of vermin
that had to be destroyed, because their sunken opinions preceded their observation.

Well, it is this principle that has led to all the rituals and devotions in the Catholic Church
as summed up in the expression ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ or in short ‘ora ut credas’,
which loosely translated means ‘pray first, then believe’. In theology the phrase is to be
understood that it is in the worship of the community that the beliefs are expressed and
that in itself this kind of worship gives it a form of authority. The principle is that the
group of the faithful through a certain practice underpins the faith, without having to
argue: “This is why we do what we do.” This mechanism provided a measure for develo-
ping the Creeds, the canon of Scripture and other doctrinal matters. In the Early Church
there was a praxis before there was a common creed and an officially sanctioned canon.
However, the ritual expression of the church community could only be embedded in the
general ‘tradition’ when anchored in a time-honoured practice that was not just a local
phenomenon. Like Vincentius of Lerins (†445) teaches in his “Commonitorium” (ch. 2):
«« In the Catholic Church itself all possible care must be taken that we hold that
faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all (quod semper, ubique et

4) The Hebrew term ‘heart’ in its figurative sense is the most important Biblical term for
the inner person. It views the inner person from a number of angles, of which of concern
here is its reference to the thought or will of human beings. Typically the heart is the
organ of understanding. Thus, ‘heart’, or ‘to set the heart’, means to make up one’s
mind or to decide (2 Chron. 12:14, Neh. 4:6). ‘Calling to mind’ is as such expressed in
Deuteronomy 30:1, Isaiah 46:8, 65:17 and also Jeremiah 3:16. ‘Recalling’ is similar
(Deut. 30:1, Jer. 51:50, Ezek. 38:10). Wisdom and understanding are located in the
heart (1 Kings 3:12, Prov. 16:23) and perceived with the heart (Prov. 18:15, 22:17; Eccl.
1:1, 8:16). Moreover, it is the heart that plans or decides to act (Prov. 16:1, 16:9). God’s
‘mind’ is sometimes described this way (Jer. 19:5, 32:35, 44:21). Decisions of an ethical
nature take place in the heart (Gen. 20:5, Job 11:13). This being the case, evil will also
be manifested in the heart, where decisions to disobey and rebel take place (Jer. 17:9).
A heart, or the mind, can be perverted and therefore incapable of apprehending truth
and wisdom (Prov. 10:20, 11:20, 12:8, 17:16, 17:20). The heart is also the place where
disappointment is being coped with. (Is. 44:20). (Source: Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology, under Mind/Reason).
 -5-

ab omnibus creditum). For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which,
as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.
This rule we shall observe if we follow ‘universality’, ‘antiquity’, ‘consent’. We
shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole
Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from
those interpretations which it is manifest and were notoriously held by our holy
ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to
the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all
priests and doctors. »»

If true that a prophet is not well received in his own country, it is equally true that he/she
is not well received in his/her own age. This observation gave the theological framework
for establishing the Catholic doctrine in Papal decrees, which actually began with the
apostles Peter and Paul, the first one representing the inspired high priestly authority and
the second the theological foundation of the New Covenant. The New Testament
tradition begins with them, as at the time with the duumvirate of Moses and Aaron. At
the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the prayer goes as follows in the collecta (first prayer)
of the Tridentine Mass: “O God, who hast made this day holy by the martyrdom of thine
Apostles Peter and Paul: grant that thy
Church may in all things follow the pre-
cepts of those through whom she received
the beginnings of the extension of the
faith.” It does not say “the last extension of
the faith”. This means that the “quod sem-
per, ubique et ab omnibus creditum” should
not be considered absolute, because then
God’s plan throughout the ages would be
muzzled, which was the sad mistake of
Jewish prelatism at the time of Jesus. They
thought to have the treasure of truth in eve-
rything. But even the knowledge of the
Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church is in part, is gradually being deepened and must be
corrected if so required, such as the disastrous view that the Millennium should not be
taken literally, as well as the foolish view that never again there will arise a prophet in
the Old Testament tradition; these are views, not dogmas, as contained in Denzinger,
which is the book containing all the original sources (papal decrees, adhortations, etc.)
of Catholic doctrine, and it thus constitutes the ultimate handbook of Christian faith and
morality.

The task of Rome has always been to legitimize, in collegial cooperation, including
councils, a practice or belief as a tradition pleasing to God, of something long-standing.
That long-standing tradition originated in God’s mind. Even a person, when writing
something down, has it in his mind before he entrusts the letters to the paper. If asked
about the meaning of a particular text, the author will be able to explain it further,
because what he wrote existed already in the mind. And that is the core of the oral tradi-
tion. The oral tradition therefore precedes the written one; there can never be any contra-
diction between the two; there can never be any contradiction between the later and the
former, not even between the interpretation of the New and the Old Testament. And
because God had all future times in mind before giving us the Bible, beginning with the
Pentateuch, the Bible includes all times to come and is therefore always up to date.
Stubborn dogmatism kills what God has in mind for us, “for the letter is dead, but the
spirit gives life.” (2 Cor. 3:6)

In an extreme reaction to Protestantism, which relies almost entirely on the Bible, the
erroneous view has crept in that Catholic doctrine is superior to the Bible, when it should
 -6-

have been that the Bible and the Doctrine complement each other. After all, how could
the Teaching be superior to the Bible that is the letter-perfect Word of God? They are
complementary and must complement each other because, according to 2 Peter 1:20-21,
the Bible does not allow for unauthorized interpretation (i.e., without the prompting of
the Holy Spirit). The official dogmas of the Catholic Church are infallible, but that does
not alter the fact that teachings exist on minor points that are more or less certain depen-
ding on the subject. There is much virgin territory in the theological field where extreme
thinking can be viewed as a sin of arrogance, especially when used as a sieve to silence
God’s living prophets.

Outside of collegial cooperation, the pope has often made dogmatic statements or acted
as a judge on the basis of his primacy, that is, his own power, to settle theological
disputes or to limit a discussion. The legitimation of a tradition must of course be sub-
stantiated theologically and rationally and must always fit within the already established
dogmatics. Moreover, it must be traceable to what the Holy Scriptures say. The First
Vatican Council teaches: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter
that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance
they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith
delivered through the Apostles.” (ch. 4/169 1st Const.) The term “expound faithfully”
indicates that ecclesiastical doctrines, called dogmas, do not add to pre-existing doctrine,
but provide a deeper insight into what already exists. Here too we have to beware of
obstinate opinions. For example, no one until the very recent past has suggested that the
Babylon of the Book of Revelation represents the entire human civilization residing in
the city called Earth, but it would be wrong to condemn this view on the basis of its
recentity.

What the First Vatican Council (1870) says about the tradition
The doctrine of the faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed to
human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system,
but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded
and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which
our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be aban-
doned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Let
intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly
and vigorously in individuals and in the masses, in the believer and in the whole
Church, throughout the ages and the centuries – but only in its own kind, that is,
according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.
Constitution Dei Filius (I, 4:22)

The official acceptance of a devotion within the Church was certainly not automatic, for
there are many instances where a certain popular devotion has been condemned. That a
practice is a ‘living devotion’, adhered to by a great many people is not in itself proof of
its legitimacy. Consider the Roman Church’s severe condemnation of flagellantism in
which the power of self-flagellation manifested itself, which, within the so-called Holy
Church, can be regarded as one of the worst perversions to have occurred there. ‘Pious’
self-flagellation with blood flowing was no exception. Flagellants, also called Scourge
Brothers, or Brothers of the Cross, were Catholic fanatics who roamed the country in
‘pious’ processions, in the 13th to 15th centuries, seeking to enforce God’s mercy with
self-chastisement. The followers were noted for including public flagellation with up to
ten thousand strong groups marching across the plains and through the cities, although
sometimes they were refused entry by the authorities. This devotion did not have a cen-
tral doctrine or overall leaders, but mass hysteria, as its expression, and occurred all over
 -7-

Europe in separate outbreaks. In the early-onset, the Catholic Church tolerated the
Flagellants and then monks and priests joined in. But after 1300 the Kerk became less
and less tolerant, being alarmed by the rapid spread of the movement and its excesses.
Pope Clement VI condemned the flagellants in a Bull in 1349 and admonished Church
leaders to suppress them. This position was reinforced 23 years later by Gregory XI,
who associated it with other heretical groups. And then, in 1417, the Council of Con-
stance sharply condemned the movement.

When it comes to tradition, the most important is that of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
in which Jesus Christ, Son of God, is truly and in reality present in the guise of bread
and wine. The Bible does not elaborate on this in detail and the doctrine of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass is therefore rejected by the Protestants, also because according to
them, it goes against common sense. However, this tradition was foretold. Psalm 136,
called the Great Hallel (great psalm of praise), is often and enthusiastically sung in
Judaism because of its simple rhythm. By punctuating the third Hebrew word in verse
25 (the punctuation is optional), the translation becomes: “He [Yahweh] gives all
nations the bread that is flesh.” Here, Mosché the Preacher refers to Psalm 34:9,5) quoted
in 1 Peter 2:3: “Having tasted the sweetness of the Lord.” And Mosché comments:
“Taste and see how good Yahweh is. For the bread that He gives to all is his own flesh.
And while the taste heralds bread, it has turned into meat.” This is not just any psalm.
This Psalm represents the delights of the soul and can only be fully enjoyed by devout
and grateful hearts. The song begins with a threefold praise to the Holy Trinity. Then,
in six verses, there is a praise for the six-day’s work of creation, followed by six others
for the deliverance from Egypt, an image of the deliverance from the demonic domi-
nation of God’s creative work. Seven verses follow about the Exodus through the desert
on the way to the Promised Land. Humanity is now in the seventh (re)-creation day; the
Exodus wanderings are a picture of that day. It ends with two verses of personal thanks
for the kindnesses received. And then comes the apotheosis with the veiled announce-
ment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that evokes never-ending praise. It is no coinci-
dence that this Psalm consists of 26 verses, for that is the numerical value of Yahweh,
God’s Holy Name, who resides in his fullness in the consecrated Holy Host.

The 1969 Novus Ordo Missae (New Misorder or the NOM), formulated on the instruc-
tions of the Second Vatican Council, did not meet the outlined state of affairs, seeking
a completion of a dogma that meets current needs. It was not a logical consequence of
the council decisions and did not correspond to an established practice or belief. It was
decreed from above and did not meet the requirement of an organic development (a slow
and harmonious build-up over time). The New Misorder was said to be the elaboration
of the conciliar decree of December 4, 1963 under the name “Constitution on Sacred
Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)”. This aimed at a more active participation of the
faithful during Holy Mass, which was a commendable goal, because at that time this
was hardly the case. However, the elaboration of the constitution was of a completely
different caliber and did not bother at all with the guidelines formulated therein. As early
as 1965 on the basis of the Sacrosanctum Concilium, a recommendation for Holy Mass
was published, which was up to the norm, but it did not last long because it lacked an
active introduction into the Church herself, and we do not have to guess why that recom-
mendation was received lukewarm by the rebellious authorities.

5) The writings of Moshje the Preacher (Mosché Ha-Darshan of Narbonne) have

been lost, but are known in part thanks to the frequent quotations. Le Chevalier Drach
quotes a number of his sayings, including his Hebrew commentary on Psalm 136:25,
taken from Raymond Martin’s “Pugio fidei” and Peter Galatinus’s “Arcana catholicae
veritatis”. Mosché Ha-Darshan owes his reputation mainly to the fact that, together with
Tobiah ben Eliezer, he was the most prominent representative of the symbolic exegesis
(derash) in the 11th century.
 -8-

“The Novus Ordo represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure
from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council
of Trent [in the year 1562]. The ‘canons’ of the rite definitively fixed at that time provi-
ded an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Myste-
ry.” With these words, Cardinal Ottaviani, Emeritus Prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Bacci, editor-in-chief of Pope John XXIII’s ency-
clical “Veterum sapientia”, addressed Pope Paul VI on September 3, 1969, and presen-
ted him with the “Breve Esame Critico del Novus Ordo Missæ pro Manuscripto” (short
scrutiny of the NOM), a few weeks after it came into effect. This commentary was made
public on the occasion of the Year of the Eucharist (Oct.2004 - Oct.2005).

How these changes were incorporated is exemplified by Pope Benedict XVI, then the
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his foreword to the French
translation of 1992 of Klaus Gamber’s book: “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”. Sur-
prisingly, the foreword was refused and went as follows: “I also went through that initial
period. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its
hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused
deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.” 6) This comment ties
in with what he noted at the turn of the millennium in the “Spirit of Liturgy”: “Anyone
who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of the old Latin liturgy or takes part
in it, is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like
this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past.”

It is precisely this principle of the traditional transmission, or oral tradition, that the
sixteenth century reformers took offense. The NOM is therefore also referred to as a
‘reformational breach’. In the eyes of the Reformation, the original instructions at the
Last Supper (the thursday before Crucifixion) regarding the rules of the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass – which are not recorded in the Gospels – and the subsequent popular
devotion and ritualism of early Christendom, cannot be normative! Not all that Christ
taught is recorded, especially the teachings that were intended solely for the apostles and
their descendants in the priesthood, and this is logical and explainable. In their denun-
ciation of the Church of Rome, they had no choice but to reject the ordained priesthood
and therefore the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the most precious gift of God to mankind.

The paradigm of the Reformation movements (Continental and Anglosaxon) about the
essence of the tradition is the great divide between Protestantism and Rome. While the
Reformation openly distanced itself from the lex orandi principle, it could not do so
completely, for otherwise they could not have adhered to Scripture as the infallible Word
of God. Its books have been gradually accepted by the Christian community as an
integral part of the sacred canon. God speaks to his people in many ways and has never
failed to do so, but these specific books have in a special way received from Him the
seal of absolute reliability, and according to the undersigned, even every letter is divinely
inspired. They are the manna that came down from Heaven and must be harvested and
eaten every day or else it loses its beneficial effect. I would like to add that in conse-
quence of its by God given vitality, Scripture conveys its own heartrending message
irrespective of its readers, so that Roman Catholics can marvel at the great Biblical in-
sights of men of Protestant denominations and likewise Protestants can marvel at the
great insights of men of a Roman Catholic background.

The conviction of the Continental Reformation movement on this issue was as follows.
Rather than regarding ‘tradition’ as something above or beneath Scripture or parallel to

6) This unpublished preface is in the archive of Una Voce America with which Benedict
had good connections. The quote is from their summer issue 2013 (No. 48) in an article
by editor-in-chief Bill Basile: “A Tribute to Pope Benedict XVI”.
 -9-

it, the founding theologians (Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, Zwingly, and others) consi-
dered Scripture the culmination and supreme expression of the church’s divinely
communicated tradition. Councils and creeds recognized as authoritative are therefore
interpreted only as defining and more fully explicating the orthodox faith handed over
to the apostles and as such found in Scripture, without anything being added in both
spirit and substance. Remarkable in this respect is that the Confessio Augustana (from
1530), which summarizes the Lutheran creed, fully accepts the Nicean-Constantinople
decrees, and curses (anathema) each and everyone who opposes them.

The situation is somewhat different within the Anglican Church. There the lex orandi
principle belongs to the character itself of this movement. They explicitly refer this to
the authority and interpretation of the Scriptures. It is hardly a coincidence, then, that
Westcott – with his pioneering work for the final determination of the Greek original –
was an Anglican bishop. The position of the Continental Reformation is that the tradition
of the faith (a tradition therefore in the narrow sense) is subject to Scripture, whereas the
English Church affirms that tradition of the faith is equal to Scripture, which implies
that the institutional church possesses total control over what it considers to be the
orthodox doctrine. But, as already explained, the oral tradition precedes the written, and
is therefore superior to the written, to be understood in such a way that they are mutually
consistent and never contradict each other, never will, never, ever will.

The Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine the Great in 325 and is known as
the first ecumenical or general council of the Christian Church. Twelve years earlier,
Constantine the Great and Roman emperor Flavius Licinius jointly issued the Edict of
Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity and pledged to return confis-
cated Church property. From then on the Christian religion and its practices were bene-
volently allowed. However, it neither made paganism illegal nor made Christianity the
state religion; these were later actions of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I. It was
not until 391 that Theodosius declared the Christian faith as the only legitimate imperial
religion, ending state support for the other religions. It is at that date that many Prote-
stants place the birth of the Roman Catholic Church, who, in their view, made common
cause with the political rulers. The Protestants, to indicate that this caused the rupture,
say that Siricius (384-399), then reigning, was the first bishop of Rome to call himself
Pope and to take the title of ‘Pontifex Maximus’,7) but both claims do not prove that the
Pope was a usurper.

The Protestants do not see a continuity as from the birth of the Church at Pentecost (Acts
2:1-4), which persisted in an unbroken line after the foundation of the institutionalised
Roman Church in 391. They see what happened in 391 as a clear breach with the old
practice based on Biblical teachings. As if the Roman Church does not follow Biblical
teachings! The Roman Church would have since become a state institution and not a
divine institution directly directed by Christ. In the sixteenth century, therefore, the
reformers decided to accept the two oecumenical councils that were held before the year
391. The third one was in 431, but that one did not include the Eastern Churches as did
the two first oecumenical councils.

3 – Some thoughts on Jewish Hermeneutics

The original Hebrew has been put into a kind of cipher because of the vowel gaps. Along
with the handing over of the Scriptures, Moses also heard how it should be read and
understood. Without the vowel application, as established in the second half of the first
millennium AD, the text is only legible if one knows what it says. So, the hermeneutic

7) The title Pontifex Maximus was used as a title for the Roman emperors until 381 and
that was the year that Emperor Gratian officially renounced it.
 - 10 -

tradition begins with Moses. During his 40 days’ stay Moses was instructed on the
Horeb. That is why we say he received the double law. The oral ‘law’ is a vital element.
Without it the prophetic testimony cannot be properly understood, even for such simple
things as the ‘totafot’ prescribed in Deuteronomy 11:18 (small box with a text to be
bound upon the head during prayer). Likewise the 40 days, in which Jesus instructed his
disciples, served as an ‘oral law’. They are called the oral law, not because it would
always have been transmitted orally, but to indicate that the written and oral law are
together a whole. We could also define it as the instruction for an understanding of the
Biblical context, with which we can discover the underlying intentions of the divine
author, for the present but also for new future conditions.

Jewish tradition professes that the first five Bible books have far greater authority than
the others because, again according to tradition, they were written by Moses himself (his
own death on Nebo would have been told by someone else). Yet the borderline between
the oral and written tradition is not as distinct as often pretended. As for the genesis of
the world, the Paradise story and the beginning of the patriarchal events, Moses, too,
must have reverted to a tradition that, since the art of writing still had to be invented,
must have been oral. The tradition known to the patriarchs – Noah, Abraham, Joseph
and others – functioned as an inspiration from God and was treated on the same level as
Scripture now. However, the writing down of it by Moses, at least the relevant part, was
done under God’s direction. For the Levitical priesthood respect for the oral tradition
has always been as great as for the Word itself, because much of what the Scriptures say
is unclear and even seems contradictory – and isn’t that also true of the New Testament?
Thus word and explanation are mutually dependent on each other. The much later Tal-
mud (recorded well after Christ), which contains the result of an oral tradition, is said,
according to some texts, to be even more important than Scripture itself, but based on
historical considerations and the many conflicting opinions in the Talmud itself (a form
of discussion), this is untenable. That myth is convenient to keep the people in check.

The Jewish oral law was known at the time as Masorete (derived from the word fetter),
which concerns the practice of handing down from memory from one generation to an-
other. That should have functioned for certain period in that form, but not as extreme as
people want us to believe. Now everything falls under Masora: the written word, cus-
toms, history. I have respect for the oral tradition (later written down), though not as
much as for the unfolding Word, i.e. the explanation of the Bible in the Bible itself. Yet,
knowledge of the Old Testament and the Judaic tradition is essential, although the latter
must be approached with the required caution, because it is not all gold that glitters.
According to Masora, Hebrew is bound and unfolding, but it is not unfolded by the
supposedly scientific method of ‘Critical Bible Analysis’ that questions divine inspira-
tion, but instead by adding to an existing core - always keeping faithful to the old
tradition and expanding it with deeper insight. This means that the old tradition is as
valid as the newest development and provides a good test for new insights. The problem
is that the old knowledge has not come to us undamaged. Unfortunately much has been
lost along the way and many additions have been made that have nothing to do with the
tradition or inspired knowledge, but are rather personal opinions.

The basic assumption remains that the Bible is not suited to self-opiniated interpretation
(2 Pet.1:20) and may only be approached in faith and with awe. And even then! In the
past, when someone made an official visit to the Japanese emperor, the first sentence of
the account always started with: “Trembling and full of trepidation…” So it should be
with the Bible, but unfortunately, worldly princes are often more in awe than the Bible.

g
 - 11 -

The Ordinance against Tractatus Theologico Politicus

On the next page is a translation of the 17th century Ordinance
by the Dutch government against Tractatus Theologico Politicus,
which is a Socinian book.
Socinianism, or Rosicrucianism, is at the root of Freemasonry.
After its followers were chased from Poland in 1660 under penalty
of death, they went to Holland. At a later stage only, they went
to London. In Holland they recruted a number of eager adepts,
amongst whom Spinoza.
In July 1674 Dutch government published the ordinance con-
demning the Socinian books, Leviathan (by Thomas Hobbes), and
other harmful books, and in particular Tractatus Theologico Politi-
cus, written by Spinoza. Although he might not have been a devil
worshipper, the highest Socinians certainly were. Anyhow, Spinoza
felt at ease with them.
Benedict Spinoza (excommunicated by Judaism) anonymous-
ly published the Tractatus in 1670 under the auspices of the most
powerful man then in Holland, the Councillor Pensionary Johan De
Witt. It was at first well-received, but following De Witt’s assassi-
nation by a lynch mob in 1672, political support for the treatise
waned. In it, Spinoza put forth his most systematic critique of
Judaism and organized religion in general. He rejected the belief
that there were such things as prophecy and the supernatural. He
argued that God acts solely by the physical laws of his own ‘nature’
and he categorically rejected that God could have any purpose in
mind.
In the long run, Tractatus proved of decisive influence for the
direction of Biblical research that tries to destroy the divine autho-
rity of Holy Scripture, a form in vogue today and known as Modern
Biblical Criticism (MBC).
A contemporary of Spinoza, who outlived him by 35 years,
was the priest Richard Simon, who at the end of his life was head
of the Rosicrucian movement. He was fond to call himself a
Spinozist. He defended the Tractatus and poured scorn on every-
one who dared to criticize it. Simon’s epoch making book “His-
toire critique du Nouveau Testament” (Critical History of the New
Testament) was written in the vein of the Tractatus and was
printed in 1678, one year after Spinoza’s death. By a decree of the
Royal Council of France the whole production of 1,300 books was
seized and destroyed, but one copy survived and was soon reprin-
ted in Amsterdam. Both Spinoza and Simon are called the fathers
of the MBC, which attests to a blasphemous persuasion. The MBC
does not merit the name of science.
 - 12 -

Edict of the Hof of Holland

Against the Socinian Books,
Leviathan and others.
Dated 19th July 1674

Source: Groot Placaet Boeck (in J. Scheltus, ’s Graven Hage,

1683, 3rd part - p. 523, from Pollock’s bk. XII:444, app. B.)
That of June 25, 1678, condemning the Opera Posthuma, is to be
found at p. 525 of the same book. I am indebted to Nynke Leistra’s
translation from the ancient Dutch.

The ordinance of the States General and of the States of Holland and
West-Friesland, and of the States of Zeeland, condemning Spinoza’s
Tractatus Theologico Politicus

Willem Hendrik, by the grace of God Prince of Orange and Nassau, Count of
Catzenellenbogen, Vianden, Diest, Lingen, Moers, Buren, Leerdam, etc… And
the President and Councils of Holland and West-Friesland: Having learned that
for some time several Socinian and other harmful books have been published by
way of printing and are still daily being spread and sold, as there are the books
entitled Leviathan, Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, quos unitarios vocant, Philo-
sophia Sacrae Scripturae interpres, and also Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, and
finding, after examination of the contents of these that they not only deny the
Doctrine of the true Christian Reformed Religion, but also abound with all calum-
nies against God and his Qualities and his Trinity worthy of admiration, against
the Divinity of Jesus Christ and his Atonement, and also [against] the fundamen-
tal main tenets of the said True Christian Religion, and that they, in effect, try as
much as they can to render the authority of the Scriptures contemptible and at-
tempt to confuse weak and unstable minds, all directly against repeatedly issued
Resolutions and Edicts of the Country [prohibiting this], Thus, in order to restrain
this harmful poison and in order to prevent as much as possible that anybody shall
be misled by this, we have judged it our duty to declare the said books to be as
we deemed aforesaid, and to condemn them as blasphemous books, pernicious to
the soul, full of unfounded and dangerous propositions and abominations, detri-
mental to the True Religion and divine Worship. Therefore we herewith as yet
prohibit each and everyone to print, to spread or to sell these or similar books on
auctions or otherwise, under penalty of the Edicts of the Country and especially
that of September 19th 1653 which has been issued to this end. We order anyone
whom it may concern, to comply with this [edict], and that this [edict] will be
published and posted up everywhere where it should be and is customary in simi-
lar matters.

Given under the Seal of [the] Judiciary stamped below on July 19th 1674.

Beneath [that] it said: In my presence.

Signed: Ad. Pots. Bk.XIB:198-1
 - 13 -

Reproduced with permission of Thomson Gale, Farmington Hills, Michigan, U.S.A.

ORAL LAW (Heb. ‫)ֹתָּורה ְֶשׁבַּﬠל־ֶפּה‬: This is the authoritative interpretation of the Written
Law [Torah, which is the text of the first five Bible books, the Pentateuch] which was
regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This
view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral
Laws constitute together “two that are one”. “It is related that a certain man stood before
Shammai and said: ‘Rabbi, how many Torahs have you?’ The rabbi replied: ‘Two - one
written and one oral’.” (ARN 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351) There is a strong and close bond
between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other –
both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality. The Oral Law
depends upon the Written Law, but at the same time, say the rabbis, it is clear that there
can be no real existence for the Written Law without the Oral. The need for the positing
of the existence of the Oral Law is inherent in the very character and nature of the Torah.
The statutes of the Written Law could not have been fulfilled literally even in the
generation in which they were given, since “that which is plain in the Torah is obscure,
all the more that which is obscure” (Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3, 35; cf. Moses of Coucy in
Semag, introduction: “For the verses contradict and refute each other”, and “the state-
ments in the Written Law are vague”). Even those statutes of the Torah that appear to be
clearly formulated and detailed contain more that is obscure and requires explanation
than what is manifest and understandable. The reasons given for this are many and
various. The Written Law contains contradictions (e.g. Deut. 16:3-4, 16:8), because there
is a lack of clarity and definition: The law “he shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 21:12 et
al.) does not state whether by stoning, burning, or some other method not mentioned in
the Torah. “Ye shall afflict your souls” (Lev. 16:31) does not indicate whether it means
by mortification of the body through ascetic practices, by fasting, or in some other man-
 - 14 -

ner. The prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath does not specify the nature of
work (see below). “And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her
fruit depart and yet no harm follows… But if any harm follow…” (Ex. 21:22-23) does
not make it clear whether the ‘harm’ refers to the woman or her embryo. Dimensions
and quantities are not given, e.g., in the precepts of leket, shikhḥah, and pe’ah, or terumah
(the priestly portion), etc. Individual laws are given without any indication of whether
the law is confined to that particular case or whether it is to be regarded merely as an
example of a category of laws, e.g., the law that a slave goes free if his master destroys
his eye or his tooth. (Ex. 21:26-27)

There are lacunae, and laws which are not explicitly stated but to which mere passing
reference is made. For instance the only only reference to the laws of sale and acquisition
is the prohibition against overreaching - ona’ah; there is no reference to the laws of mar-
riage, while the law of divorce is mentioned only incidentally in connection with the
injunction that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has remarried and
become divorced again (Deut. 24:1-4); the Torah enjoins that one sentenced to be flog-
ged may not have more than the fixed number of lashes inflicted (Deut. 25:1-3), but
nowhere does it specify which transgressions involve the punishment of a flogging. From
the above it seems clear that it was impossible for life to be regulated solely in accor-
dance with the Written Law (“and I should like someone to adjudicate between two
litigants on the basis of the weekly portions, Mishpatim [Ex. 21-24] and Ki Teẓe [Deut.
21:10-25:19]” - Judah Halevi, Kuzari 3:35). It may even be inferred from the Written
Law itself that immediately after it was given there already was difficulty in under-
standing it. Thus, it is apparent that until he heard it explicity from God, Moses did not
know what the penalty was for the transgression of gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num.
15:32-35; cf. Sif. Zut. 15:34: “Eliezar b. Simeon says: Moses did not know that that
person was liable to death, nor did he know how he should be executed, as can be inferred
from the reply given: ‘And the Lord said unto Moses: this man shall be put to death’, for
he is liable to death; how shall he put to death? He [God] replied: by stoning”; which fits
the case of the blasphemer in Levivitcus 24:10-23). As stated above, the Pentateuch has
no definition of what constitutes work in connection with the Sabbath or Day of Atone-
ment, only some of the things forbidden being explicitly mentioned like plowing, reaping
and kindling fire. Furthermore, in connection with the desecration of the Sabbath, in one
and the same verse (Ex. 31:14) two different punishments are given – punishment by
death (by human hand) and kareth (dying by God’s hand like not being able to live
beyond sixty years). From the point of view of its judicial literary form, the Written Law
is in fact no different from other early Oriental statutes that were never exhaustive or
aimed at exhausting all the details of the laws given.

If the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which
it was given, how much less could it be understood by the later generations? In addition
to this it was a fundamental doctrine of the scribes that the Torah was given by God for
all time, that it would never be exchanged for another Torah and certainly never rescin-
ded, and that it provided for all possible circumstances that might arise at any time in the
future. Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions – on the social, economic and other
plane – raised many new problems, as well as the question to find satisfactory solutions
in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which
arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored. From the very
beginning the Written Law was the basis of authority for the Oral Law of the future.
(Deut. 17:8-11) Yet, it can be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law did not come
into being after the Written Law was given, and that it is correct to say that the Written
and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Mount Sinai. It may even be maintained
 - 15 -

that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Oral Law not only assumed the
observance of the Written Law at its inception, but also its future observance by means
of its continuing development, known as the unfolding of the Oral Law that once, of
course, would be put in writing. This effect can only derive from the previous existence
of the Oral Law (in the Mind of God), as otherwise the Written Law would not a priori
allow for its proper development. Thus we can say that the Written Law is a summary
of the Oral Law, and therefore both are consistent and can never contradict each other.
Furthermore, since the Written Law relies - by allusion or its silence - on statutes, cus-
toms, and basic laws, which are not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, busi-
ness), these omissions are ipso facto part of the Oral Law and this too was bound to
develop along preordained paths. [The part in bold has been amended by Hubert Luns]

The impossibility of the Written Law existing without an Oral Law is underlined by the
history of the Jewish people. The development of the Oral Law can be traced outside the
Pentateuch throughout the books of the Bible, especially in the prophets and the hagio-
grapha [all other Bible books except the annals], in the Jewish literature of the time of
the Second Temple [apocrypha and pseudo-epigrapha, in Jewish Hellenistic literature,
and in the early targums], the talmudic as well as the rabbinical literature throughout the
generations. Even the dissenting sects outside normative Judaism, as long as they did not
abandon Judaism completely, did not maintain the Written Law without an Oral Law:
the Sadducees possessed a “Book of Decrees” – who were to be stoned or burnt, who
beheaded, and who strangled [the scholium to Megillat Ta’anit]; the Judean desert sect
developed, especially by means of exegesis, a extremely ramified halakhah [bylaws
based on the tradition] which has survived in its works (in particular in the Damascus
Covenant, the Manual of Discipline and other works, like the Dead Sea Scrolls); and
there is a most ramified halakhah also developed among the Karaites [8th century AD].
In the relationship between the Written and the Oral Law there exists a kind of paradox,
both interesting and characteristic. From the dogmatic point of view the Oral Law has
its basis in, and derives its validity from, explicit verses in the Written Law, but at the
same time the Written Law itself obtains its full validity and authority from the practical
halakhah from the Oral Law. The Written Law in fact establishes the authority of the
Oral Law by stipulating that “if there arises a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn
unto the judge that shall be in those days”, and “according to the tenor of the sentence
which they shall declare unto thee from that place (…) According to the law which they
shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do.
Thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither
to the right hand, nor to the left.” (Deut. 17:8-11) It follows precisely from those very
verses that it is the Oral Law itself which determines what the halakhah of the Written
Law is in practice, including the true explication (as distinct from the theoretical philo-
logical meanings) of those verses just mentioned.

Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of
the Written Law – “from Heaven”, at Sinai, but then in the language of men and to men
– it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars
of the Oral Law, who accept the “yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, but may give halakhic
ruling according to their own understanding (“henceforth no prophet can innovate
anything” - Sifra, Be-Ḥukkotai 13:7; cf. Shab. 104a), since it is not in Heaven.” (TJ MK
3:1, 81d; BM 59b - based upon Deut. 30:12) Though indeed this rule was not accepted
without protest, yet those who objected belonged to the fringes of Judaism, and it was
not they who determined the halakhah. The Oral Law is even able to circumvent the
Written Law (see TJ Kid. 1:2, 59d). In consequence of this provision, Maimonides, follo-
wing the talmudic sages, ruled that “in an emergency any Bet Din (court of law) may
 - 16 -

cancel even the words of the (written) Torah (…) in order to strengthen religion and to
prevent people from transgressing the Torah. They may order flagellation for breach of
law, but such a ruling may not be effected permanently. Similarly, if they see a temporary
need to set aside a positive precept, or to transgress an injunction in order to bring many
back to religion, or in order to save many Israelites from affliction in other matters. They
may act in accordance with the needs of the time, just as the physician amputates a hand
or a leg in order to preserve the life. So, the Bet Din may rule at some particular time
that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be
preserved.” (Yad Mamrim 2:4) 8) Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is
the major and the main part of the Torah (i.e. both in quantity and quality). “The Holy
One made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that transmitted orally.” (Git. 60b;
cf. TJ Pe’ah 2:6, 17a: “those given orally are beloved”) The Oral Law, which is well-
nigh sovereign in relation to the Written Law, is the “mystery” (μνστήριον) of the Holy
One, because of the essential nature of its being given orally. (Tanḥ. Ki Tissa 34, et al. –
Though the sources speak of the Mishnah, it is certain that the whole Oral Law is
intended.) It is this nature of the Oral Law - that it was given orally - that determines its
vitality and organic development. It is not immutable and fossilized but alive and evol-
ving. This vitality, however, could only be preserved in words not fixed in writing and
in a binding and unchangeable form, but in words developing continually and unceasing-
ly. As mentioned, the Sadducees had a Book of Decrees in writing which was their “Oral
Law” and therefore according to their outlook the whole of the Torah too was “prepared
in writing” (Kid. 66a – according to early printed versions and Haggadot ha-Talmud,
Constantinople 1511, 56d), i.e. that only the written word binds. The Pharisees, however,
claimed that the distinguishing feature and authority of the Oral Law is embedded in the
fundamental rule of Deuteronomy 31:19: “put it in their mouths” (the scholium to Meg.
Ta’an). The Oral Law was handed over to the sages by means of whose words it is fixed
and evolves from generation to generation. It is this nature and this sovereignty that are
the real will of the Written Law that was given on the basis that it be explained by means
of the Oral Law. This, apparently, is the reason that although there is a disciple who
expounds “more than was spoken to Moses at Sinai” (ARN2 13, 32), yet “even what a
distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher was already conveyed to
Moses at Sinai.” (TJ Pe’ah 2:6, 17a; cf. Meg. 19b and SEZ 2:171 – “Surely both the
Bible and Mishnah were communicated by the Almighty.”) The meaning of all these and
of similar sources is that from the point of view of its functional essence, the whole of
the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai, since “the Torah itself gave the sages a mind
to interpret and to declare.” (Sif. Num. 134; cf. the saying: “Matters not revealed to
Moses were revealed to Akiva.” – Tanḥ. B. Num. 117; for its true meaning see Men. 29b
– according to the aggadah/parable of Moses entering the yeshivah/school of Akiva: “and
he did not know what they were saying”, not even a detail of a halakhah given to Moses
at Sinai.) Even the Holy One repeats, as it were, a halakhah as are spoken by the sages.9)
(P RK, ed. by D. Mandelbaum, 1962, 73, et al.).
[Moshe David Herr]

8) See also Matthew 19:8: “You are so heartless! That is why Moses allowed you to
divorce your wife. But from the beginning God did not intend it to be that way.”
9) See also Matthew 16:19: “Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in
Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”