Was the early church "high and dry" being without Scripture until the 3rd centrury?

[kepha1]

**Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the “you make void the word of God by your tradition” passage), didn’t Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture? **

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected.

Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion’s edited version of Luke and Paul’s epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, “No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing.”
So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q076.htm

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
by James Akin
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2canons.htm

 

[mercygate]

michaelp:

Vern, do you think that we should lay this one to rest and agree to disagree?

It has been great. I know that you are frustrated, but believe me iron (you) are sharpening metal (me). I do appreciate your time–I know that you don’t have much of it.

Michael

The real question of this thread is not so much “did the early Church have Scripture?” as “When did the New Testament (in its parts and as a whole) become **known to be **inerrant, venerated as equal to the God-breathed Scriptures of the Old Testament, and used as the ground of faith?”

Since, in the Apostolic and sub-apostolic age, the Church was understood to be the rule of faith via her God-breathed charism from Christ, it is she who authenticates the accepted writings. Surely the Corinthians did not receive Paul’s two surviving epistles and say to themselves: “Man! This is *definitely *the Word of God!” They very likely reacted with chagrin, petulance and hostility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… that God would preserve it through this word of mouth since it is inherently unreliable.

So the oral tradition which gave us the Book of Daniel, for exmple, do you believe it to be reliable or not? Was it not passed on by word of mouth? Or do you disount its reliability too?

Much of the Bible must seem unreliable to you since it was handed on by word of mouth, according to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant bible scholars.

It seems “word of mouth” was reliable when it came to what was ultimately written in Scripture. But for what St. Clement taught (AD 80) or St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), word of mouth is untrustworthy. I see the inconsistency in your thesis even if you still do not.

Most Christians today, and evern still more given the hisory of Christianity take a contrary view than you do, and see the reliability of what St. Paul calls *paradosis, *both oral and written, as due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, keeping that *paradosis, *some of which was written in the Bible from becoming unreliable. Catholics, as did all Christians at one point, continue to see Sacred Tradition, both oral and written in the same light, as being guided by the Holy Spirit. If oral tradition is unreliable, then Scripture is unreliable, as it was passed on by oral tradition. If you say that this particular oral tradition was guided by God to be indefectable, than I say Amen … as it does for Sacred Tradition.

Either you trust the Holy Spirit and the indefectability of the deposit of faith as handed on (*paradidomi) *or you open a big door of doubt, which Protestant scholarship such as that given by the Jesus Seminar is the logical result.

That’s the conclusion a former Evangelical Protestant, Mark Shea, discovered, as discussed in his book *By What Authority? *I recommend it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t think that we have to have an infallible canon to be sure about Scripture, so it is not begging the question.

It it is not an infallbile canon, then error is possible in Scripture, and anything can be denied as “an epistle of straw.” I actually debated with a Protestant who like Luther, denied the Epistle of James in “his canon” of Scripture. When the very basis of Christianity is open for debate, then Christianity can be legitimately what the likes of Shirley Mclain, for example, says it is, to include a doctrine of reincarnation, etc, etc.

One need only study the claims of the Jesus Seminar to come to conclude that without Tradition, Christianity becomes a mosaic of anybody’s own making.

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

So the oral tradition which gave us the Book of Daniel, for exmple, do you believe it to be reliable or not? Was it not passed on by word of mouth? Or do you disount its reliability too?

Much of the Bible must seem unreliable to you since it was handed on by word of mouth, according to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant bible scholars.

That’s an interesting point. If you read Genesis, you find the Creation Story is told twice. The Flood Story is told twice. Later on, the story of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister (and getting into trouble for it) appears three times – the last time, it is Jacob who makes that mistake.

This is evidence that these stories were told word-of-mouith for a very long time, so long that several versions of them were extant. The author who redacted them simply included the various versions as his way of reconciling the differences.

We might point to the Mishna, as well – this is the “Rabinical Tradition” that illuminates and amplifies the Inspired Texts.

Clearly, if oral tradition is ruled out, there can be no Scripture!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am really not playing the fool. The early church fathers do not make a distinction between their opinion and this “deposit” that you say they recieved

I dont’ agree. For example, Origen, in his *De Principis, *says this:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points. … so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [Preface, *De Principis

]
Origen taught many things in *De Principis. *Some of which was not derived from apostolical tradition, and he makes this very clear. For example, in his preface of De Prinicipis, Origen states:

The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: …" (ibid).

Origen is well-known for teaching the pre-existence of the soul. But did he teach it as it this were handed on as part of apostolical tradition? No. Observe,

But with respect to the soul, whether it is derived from the seed by a process of traducianism, so that the reason or substance of it may be considered as placed in the seminal particles of the body themselves, or whether it has any other beginning; and this beginning, itself, whether it be by birth or not, or whether bestowed upon the body from without or no, is not distinguished with sufficient clearness in the teaching of the Church. (ibid)

At the time of Origen, the teaching regarding the origen of the Soul had such various views, that it was unclear what amidst all these variant opinions was apostolical teaching, and Origen knew this.

Your characterization that the early Church fathers taught all doctrines as having come from the apostles is simply unconvincing. If you read patristics instead of merely reading about patristics, you find that Catholic doctrine stands out like an orthodox lamp in the darkness of variant heterodox opinions. Did the Church formally develop its understanding of the deposit of faith, as Origen in his preface describes? Yes. And when the Church comes to a decision regarding a doctrinal matter, councilar decrees of the universal Church ratified by the Roman Pontiff is sufficient to remove all uncertainty on the matter.

 

[michaelp]

So the oral tradition which gave us the Book of Daniel, for exmple, do you believe it to be reliable or not? Was it not passed on by word of mouth? Or do you disount its reliability too?

I don’t understand this. Daniel was written by Daniel.

Much of the Bible must seem unreliable to you since it was handed on by word of mouth, according to Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant bible scholars.

Like what?

It seems “word of mouth” was reliable when it came to what was ultimately written in Scripture. But for what St. Clement taught (AD 80) or St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), word of mouth is untrustworthy. I see the inconsistency in your thesis even if you still do not.

Word of mouth is decent in the first generation or so. But it can still be currupted. Look at John’s Gospel. Word of mouth tradition was already currupted by John’s day.

**John 21:21-23 **21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you?”

This was tradition currupted by “the brethren.” What I would say here is that I am glad that we have the written word to correct the currupted traditions that had already crept in. Paper trails are very helpful, but it is the most helpful to go to the source. That is why “traditions” passed on would not have much weight in a court of law as the original sources would. Traditions cannot be verified.

Most Christians today, and evern still more given the hisory of Christianity take a contrary view than you do, and see the reliability of what St. Paul calls *paradosis, *both oral and written, as due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, keeping that *paradosis, *some of which was written in the Bible from becoming unreliable. Catholics, as did all Christians at one point, continue to see Sacred Tradition, both oral and written in the same light, as being guided by the Holy Spirit. If oral tradition is unreliable, then Scripture is unreliable, as it was passed on by oral tradition. If you say that this particular oral tradition was guided by God to be indefectable, than I say Amen … as it does for Sacred Tradition.

For the first centrury, I think that it is reasonable for the first Christians to refer to tradition as reliable, though not infallible. But as time passes, these traditions can be currupted by the current events. There is no reason to believe that this did not happen in the Church. Many of the Church fathers were wrong about alot of things. This shows that their traditions were either insufficient, or they did not understand them, or they had already been currupted. This is just the way it happens.

If you do text criticism, you see this even in the copying of written teachings/traditions of the NT. On recention to another carries differing traditons. These can usually be explained internally through the current events and the battles that the carrier was involved in at his time. Thankfully, there is a paper trail and it is not that difficult to work out the issues. How much more spoken teachings/traditions? They were already currupt in John’s day.

Either you trust the Holy Spirit and the indefectability of the deposit of faith as handed on (*paradidomi) *or you open a big door of doubt, which Protestant scholarship such as that given by the Jesus Seminar is the logical result.

The Jesus Seminar starts with anti-supernaturalistic assumptions. They cannot be used to illustrate anything. They have an entirely different starting point. I believe that the Holy Spirit preserved the traditions of the apostles in the NT. The other traditions found in the Apostolic Fathers may or may not be true. They are second hand.

That’s the conclusion a former Evangelical Protestant, Mark Shea, discovered, as discussed in his book *By What Authority? *I recommend it.

Got the book. Thanks.

 

[michaelp]

It it is not an infallbile canon, then error is possible in Scripture, and anything can be denied as “an epistle of straw.” I actually debated with a Protestant who like Luther, denied the Epistle of James in “his canon” of Scripture. When the very basis of Christianity is open for debate, then Christianity can be legitimately what the likes of Shirley Mclain, for example, says it is, to include a doctrine of reincarnation, etc, etc.

It is not infalliblely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow, but it can be trusted nontheless. The evidence is compelling.

 

[michaelp]

That’s an interesting point. If you read Genesis, you find the Creation Story is told twice. The Flood Story is told twice. Later on, the story of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister (and getting into trouble for it) appears three times – the last time, it is Jacob who makes that mistake.

This is evidence that these stories were told word-of-mouith for a very long time, so long that several versions of them were extant. The author who redacted them simply included the various versions as his way of reconciling the differences.

Believe me, if the Pope did what Moses did showing the signs of someone who spoke for God, I would believe him to. I don’t believe Moses just because he says that he has traditions and it is reliable, I believe him because he verified his words through signs and wonders. None of the successors of Peter have ever done this. Why should I believe that they have recieve uncorrupted tradition and infallibly speak for God? Again, it is a justification issue. There is no justification in the system.

We might point to the Mishna, as well – this is the “Rabinical Tradition” that illuminates and amplifies the Inspired Texts.

Clearly, if oral tradition is ruled out, there can be no Scripture!

I know that this makes sense to you because you keep on saying it. But it is not true. We don’t need recognition of something before it comes into being.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dont’ agree. For example, Origen, in his *De Principis, *says this:
Origen taught many things in *De Principis. *Some of which was not derived from apostolical tradition, and he makes this very clear. For example, in his preface of De Prinicipis, Origen states:
Origen is well-known for teaching the pre-existence of the soul. But did he teach it as it this were handed on as part of apostolical tradition? No. Observe,
At the time of Origen, the teaching regarding the origen of the Soul had such various views, that it was unclear what amidst all these variant opinions was apostolical teaching, and Origen knew this.

Dave, I am not the one who said this. Someone else did. They said that the Apostolic Fathers did not always distinguish between their opinion and the teaching of the Apostles. Read the early posts. This was not me.

But now, I ask you the same question that I asked them. As you read throught the Church fathers, is it always required that tradition be proceeded by some statement that distinguishes it from their opinion? If this is the case, could I extract all of these statements from the fathers and have a complete book of the deposit of tradition?

If you read patristics instead of merely reading about patristics, you find that Catholic doctrine stands out like an orthodox lamp in the darkness of variant heterodox opinions.

My friend, I don’t know where you come up with these assumptions that I don’t read the Fathers. I don’t make such assumptions about you, please don’t about me. If you would like to ask if I read the patristics, do so.

Did the Church formally develop its understanding of the deposit of faith, as Origen in his preface describes? Yes. And when the Church comes to a decision regarding a doctrinal matter, councilar decrees of the universal Church ratified by the Roman Pontiff is sufficient to remove all uncertainty on the matter.

Origen the heritic? I am glad you believe this, but I find it very unconvincing.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

Believe me, if the Pope did what Moses did showing the signs of someone who spoke for God, I would believe him to. I don’t believe Moses just because he says that he has traditions and it is reliable, I believe him because he verified his words through signs and wonders. None of the successors of Peter have ever done this.

"Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.’ " (John 20:29)

 

[Sarah_Jane]

“For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (St. Augustine, C. Epis. Mani 5,6)

 

[michaelp]

“For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except moved by the authority of the Church.” (St. Augustine, C. Epis. Mani 5,6)

Augustine also believed that the atonement was made to Satan, not to God. Do you also believe this?

“We all walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like best.” --John Hannah

The longer I am on this thread, the more I see this to be the case.

Michael

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

Augustine also believed that the atonement was made to Satan, not to God. Do you also believe this?

“We all walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like best.” --John Hannah

The longer I am on this thread, the more I see this to be the case.

Michael

Like St. Augustine I believe what the Church teaches. I’m sure that St. Augustine would have accepted the teaching of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is not infalliblely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow, but it can be trusted nontheless. The evidence is compelling.

I agree. However, the evidence that Protestantism rejects with regard to a great many things is also compelling, yet it is rejected nonetheless. Every Greek manuscript of Sacred Scripture include the Theodotian recension, which Catholicism and Orthodoxy have always accepted. Protestantism rejects many things where the evidence is compelling, creating instead traditions of their own, to include omitting parts of God’s Word from Holy Writ.

If everybody simply obeyed in accord with Heb 13:17, there would have never been such protesting. Yet, the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16, Jude 11) is a sin which protestantism continues to commit.

I don’t understand this. Daniel was written by Daniel.

When was it written? According to even Protestant scholarship, it was not written during the Babylonian captivity, but was written centuries later. If you have another theory, then use another example, say that of Noah, and tell me if it was Noah that wrote the portions of the Pentateuch applicalbe to him, or was it oral tradition preserved and assembled by a later inspired author, such as Moses. If you assert that oral tradition had no role in the receipt of Scripture, then you aren’t looking at the evidence very closely.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“We all walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like best.” --John Hannah

Can you explain why Theodotian’s Book of Daniel was acceptable to all of Christianity, and is the witness of every Greek manuscript as well as other ancient Christian manuscripts, but not acceptable to Protestantism? Surely you have more than post-1st century Jewish manuscripts as your source of authority, don’t you?

Seems to me the protestants rejected Jerome’s scholarship, Origen’s scholarship, and every Christian manuscript in favor of post-AD 70 Jewish authority. You didn’t pick a flower, but picked a weed that was sown by the Pharisees in Jamnia.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Augustine also believed that the atonement was made to Satan, not to God. Do you also believe this?

“We all walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like best.” --John Hannah

The longer I am on this thread, the more I see this to be the case.

Michael

This atonement made to the devil I think is misrepresented here. It is not as if before Anselm people had no accurate understanding of the atonement, just an emerging one.

In the book, Augustine through the Ages it states, “Although Augustine uses the language of payment [to the devil], the nerve of his argument concerns justice. Unjust and erring humanity long ago found itself in the grip of evil (the devil) by its own free consent to wrongdoing. The evil power justly held sway over humanity ‘until he [the devil] slew the Just Human One [Christ], in whom he could point out nothing worthy of death’ (lib. arb. 3.10.31.) In Roman law a false accuser became himself culpable; so the devil forfeited his status as tormentor. All humanity, believing in and identifying with the just, slain Christ, can find restoration with him to eternal life. Christ has entered into evil and broken its power.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michael,

The reason I’m asking about the Book of Daniel is that is betrays, in my opinion, your theory of accepting books into the canon based upon “very compelling evidence.” The Book fo Daniel itself is a written *tradition. *Theodotian, a Jew of the second century translated a tradition of Daniel from Hebrew to Greek, which differed from the Masoretic tradition.

Your acceptance of the Masoretic tradition shows that you reject the heretic Origen, for the scholarship of the heretic Luther against the overwhelming weight of historical textual evidence that EVERY Christian Church accepted the larger book of Daniel until Luther omitted portions from “his canon.”

If you can explain your thinking on canonicity of the Book of Daniel specifically, perhaps we would better understand your rational as differentiated by the one The Church, to include St. Jerome used, which insisted upon adhering to the “judgement of the Churches” in contrast to the judgement of a group of post-AD 70 Pharisees.

 

[dennisknapp]

And further on in that same book,

“Augustine also adopted the notion of a dept owed to God, which he attached to the theme of Christ’s sacrifice. By the time of his writing to Simplicianus (396), commenting on Romans 7 and 9, he states that ‘all humankind… is a mess of sin, owing to be punished by the supreme divine justice.’ (Simpl. 1.2.16). And yet, ‘you are dead to the punishment of the law through the body of Christ, through which the sins are forgiven that bound us to legal punishment’ (1.1.17). And in that same year Augustine writes: ‘[Christ] died because of our sins, taken in his flesh from our penalty’ (c. Faust. 14.6).”

So, the issue is not so black and white like Michael presents it. As I have shown, Augustine could be said to hold to both and not commit a contradiction in his beliefs.

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

But you fail to realize. I am not looking for infallible evidence for this. I just need to look generally at the concensus and take this into account. The weight of evidence tells me that the early Church had access to and believed that the Gospels Acts, and the Pauline corpus was inspired. There is no Church father who speaks otherwise. There is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I am on safe ground.

Besides all of this. Didn’t the deposit of truth handed on by the Apostles have the canon list? Or was the deposit not inclusive of this in the early Church? If this is the case, how can anyone say that the full deposit of traditions was handed off from the beginning? In other words, if they had “all of it” was the canon included?

Looking to Church Fathers(they, having been retrospectively designated?) does give you a picture of what the selected CFs believed. But only a statistical picture - which you personally feel comfortable, morally, relying on.
Were there other documents from multiple sources (NOT retrospectively viewed as a CF but of unknown validity in their day) which were circulating within the community and which were capable of exerting influence on believers at the time, which (due to subsequent analysis as “heretical”) did not survive the ravages of time? You don’t know, but the answer is probably yes.
This system, however, must be recognized as a standard of secular creation - not that that makes it bad. Nowhere in Scripture, however, is such a concept proposed that each individual is responsible for deciphering history to establish relative probability in ascertaining “moral certainty” with respect to Church teaching. Nowhere is “history” designated as the “final authority” that your interpretation of Scripture is meant to be judged against. You will counter that you really have no other option. But I will submit to you that you need to identify anyone in the history of the Church who followed this route successfully in order for it to be valid.
You want intellectual security, not moral security. Actually, you want both, but you want your “moral certainty” to be a function of your intellectual certainty. This, again, does not ring any biblical bells in my mind and also fails the test of Church tradition. I’m the same way, but I don’t have the time nor intellectual capacity to have researched as deeply as you have. The fundamental problem is that we don’t trust the holy Spirit to guide the Church completely with respect to doctrine.
I, as a Catholic, know that I should but it still requires humility for me and I pray for that. I understand that your background makes it significantly harder for you to the point that you would feel irresponsible abrogating that responsibility to something you see as vague as Tradition.

Only dimly aware,

Phil