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

[vern_humphrey]

Kurt G.:

Guys, I’m not looking for a scrap here, I truly want an opinion…

Regarding michaelp’s quote, would it not be more accurate to say “The writer of Hebrews is unknown” than to say flat out “it was not written by Paul?”

Now, for my honest question…I really want to know, 'cause I don’t know, and I’m not leading anywhere 'cause I don’t know where it would lead! But:

If the early Church had no fair certainty as to WHO wrote Hebrews, and it still made the "short list" so to speak, then
what criteria (criterion?) were used by the Church to claim Divine Authorship to some books, and exclude Divine Authorship from others**? **

(If nobody wants to answer, I won’t get my feelings hurt. I’ll just remain ignorant of the answer another day or so, until some kind person on this thread finds time to offer an answer…please?)

God Bless Us All!

You are making an excellent point – in fact, in view of Michael’s claim that “They had 80%” and his rejection of the need for a canon to be established, I’d like to see him reply.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

To understand the criteria for selecting the canon, we have to rely in some cases on inferences – that is, we must look toward the result, rather than hope to find a definitive list of instructions on selecting books!

First of all, authorship by an Apostle was clearly not an over-riding criterion. After all, neither Mark nor Luke were Apostles. And the Gospel of Thomas was probably genuine (in the original, before the Gnostics edited it) but was not accepted.

The three primary criteria seem to be:

Apostolicity – not necessarily authorship, but association with an Apostle.

Catholicity – widespread use in the Church (by the 4th Century, of course.)

Orthodoxy – agreement with other accepted documents.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

But you are the one who said that the entire early Church had “all of it” with regards to tradition. You also implied that they believed all of it to be inspired. Just by looking at the footnotes of the catechism tell me that they are referencing only certian teaching of the early Church fathers and not others.

In your examples, below, I note you do not include any Apostolic Fathers. The teachings or concepts you select are developments much later than the Apostolic tradition/

michaelp:

Did you mistakenly say that they had access to all of it? Or did they have all of it but they did not know at that time what was inspired tratition and what was not? In other words, what evidence is there to show that the Church for the first 300 knew what the deposit of tradition was and could distinguish it from the rest of tradition (that was not true)…

So you DO think they had the printing press?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Christian communities (and all communities of that era) were, as I said, isolated, compared to today. Many communities had their own traditions – handed to them by Apostles or those instructed by Apostles. It took a long time for these individual, but related, traditions to be brought together.

michaelp:

What is the difference in this and Scripture? You said that they did not have Scripture for the first 300 years (at least), but they did have all of tradtion. Were you mistaken? No shame in that . . . I am all the time )

.

Scripture is what is in the canon. For a long time, both inspired and other documents circulated. Eventually, as the concept of the New Testament arose, some documents were recognized to be inspired. Others were seen to be valuable but not given that same status.

michaelp:

There are only references to certain teaching of the Church fathers, not others. For example:

1. Justin taught that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father–condemned later on.
2. Irenaues taught that there was a coming 1000 year millenium, not part of your tradition.
3. Augustine taught that the atonement was paid to Satan rather than the Father.

How does this evidence that the early Church had “all of it” with regards to the deposit of tradition. Did they just get part of it? Where did “all of it reside?”)

.

And it is your claim that all these writers were Apostolic Fathers?

They were not. Therefore, the concepts and ideas they originated are not part of the tradition.

On the other hand, oral teachings which they had handed down to them – coming not from themselves, but from the Apostolic generation – are tradition.

michaelp:

Believe me Vern, I don’t know these answers. They are confusing to me. I think that they are valid concerns

I think you like to play the fool, Michael. You don’t need me to tell you that Saints Augustine, Irenaeus and Justin were not Apostles, nor did they personally know Apostles.

And you don’t need me to tell you that the concepts they originated are therefore not part of the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Kurt_G]

Dave and Vern- thank you for those quick answers… I can print and file in my “guess what I learned this week” folder…

I actually share some of michaelp’s problem, but in reverse, if you know what I mean. In other words, of the Christians mentioned in our New Testament books (like Stephen, all of Paul’s buddies, both men and women, etc.), none of them had a complete New Testament Scripture to work from, yet I would have a hard time calling Saint Stephen less than a full Christian. He became part of the body of Christ without the benefit of the New Testament.

And michaelp, where you see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Tradition, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

likewise I see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Scripture for exactly the same reason, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

It looks to me like the early Christian Church had an important place for both Scripture and Tradition… it looks to me like they both exhibited signs of development over time.

I don’t think it’s fair to Scripture to expect that it fell from Heaven all at once, and

I don’t think it’s fair to try to prove that Tradition had to be “all at once” either. But I’m listening when I can!

God Bless Us All!

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

In your examples, below, I note you do not include any Apostolic Fathers. The teachings or concepts you select are developments much later than the Apostolic tradition/

So you DO think they had the printing press?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Christian communities (and all communities of that era) were, as I said, isolated, compared to today. Many communities had their own traditions – handed to them by Apostles or those instructed by Apostles. It took a long time for these individual, but related, traditions to be brought together.

.

Scripture is what is in the canon. For a long time, both inspired and other documents circulated. Eventually, as the concept of the New Testament arose, some documents were recognized to be inspired. Others were seen to be valuable but not given that same status.

.

And it is your claim that all these writers were Apostolic Fathers?

They were not. Therefore, the concepts and ideas they originated are not part of the tradition.

On the other hand, oral teachings which they had handed down to them – coming not from themselves, but from the Apostolic generation – are tradition.

I think you like to play the fool, Michael. You don’t need me to tell you that Saints Augustine, Irenaeus and Justin were not Apostles, nor did they personally know Apostles.

And you don’t need me to tell you that the concepts they originated are therefore not part of the Apostolic Tradition.

OK, I think that I am getting this Vern. But how does anyone distinguish what is true Apostolic tradition and what is not. Papias believed in a coming 1000 year millenium, why isn’t that part of Tradition?

Also, I still don’t know how you can believe in this theoretical set deposit of Tradition without any evidence that the early Church had it. Even though it is tradition, it has to be passed on in some communicative form, doesn’t it? Where do we find evidence for this full deposit? Or is it merely assumed that it must have been passed on, so whether we have direct evidence for it or not, we have to believe it.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Kurt G.:

Dave and Vern- thank you for those quick answers… I can print and file in my “guess what I learned this week” folder…

I actually share some of michaelp’s problem, but in reverse, if you know what I mean. In other words, of the Christians mentioned in our New Testament books (like Stephen, all of Paul’s buddies, both men and women, etc.), none of them had a complete New Testament Scripture to work from, yet I would have a hard time calling Saint Stephen less than a full Christian. He became part of the body of Christ without the benefit of the New Testament.

And michaelp, where you see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Tradition, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

likewise I see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Scripture for exactly the same reason, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

It looks to me like the early Christian Church had an important place for both Scripture and Tradition… it looks to me like they both exhibited signs of development over time.

I don’t think it’s fair to Scripture to expect that it fell from Heaven all at once, and

I don’t think it’s fair to try to prove that Tradition had to be “all at once” either. But I’m listening when I can!

God Bless Us All!

Thanks for the comments.

I like this kind of thought. It makes sense to me and is honest with the evidence concerning the NT. I can relate to it and it represents Scripture as being an important source that was availible to the early Church to some degree. This was really the purpose of this post. Not necessarily to debate the validity of Tradition.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

Kurt G.:

Dave and Vern- thank you for those quick answers… I can print and file in my “guess what I learned this week” folder…

I actually share some of michaelp’s problem, but in reverse, if you know what I mean. In other words, of the Christians mentioned in our New Testament books (like Stephen, all of Paul’s buddies, both men and women, etc.), none of them had a complete New Testament Scripture to work from, yet I would have a hard time calling Saint Stephen less than a full Christian. He became part of the body of Christ without the benefit of the New Testament.

And michaelp, where you see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Tradition, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

likewise I see difficulty in early Christianity operating solely from Scripture for exactly the same reason, because it was never laid down anywhere all at once;

It looks to me like the early Christian Church had an important place for both Scripture and Tradition… it looks to me like they both exhibited signs of development over time.

I don’t think it’s fair to Scripture to expect that it fell from Heaven all at once, and

I don’t think it’s fair to try to prove that Tradition had to be “all at once” either. But I’m listening when I can!

God Bless Us All!

I think you summed it up pretty well.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

OK, I think that I am getting this Vern. But how does anyone distinguish what is true Apostolic tradition and what is not. Papias believed in a coming 1000 year millenium, why isn’t that part of Tradition?

Also, I still don’t know how you can believe in this theoretical set deposit of Tradition without any evidence that the early Church had it. Even though it is tradition, it has to be passed on in some communicative form, doesn’t it? Where do we find evidence for this full deposit? Or is it merely assumed that it must have been passed on, so whether we have direct evidence for it or not, we have to believe it.

Michael

Hello, everyone! Why would the Early Church Fathers have to address certain Traditions unless the Traditions were being challenged?God Bless,Lisa

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Thanks for the comments.

I like this kind of thought. It makes sense to me and is honest with the evidence concerning the NT. I can relate to it and it represents Scripture as being an important source that was availible to the early Church to some degree. This was really the purpose of this post. Not necessarily to debate the validity of Tradition.

Michael

Now THAT is absolutely correct – the early Christians got their Christianity by oral instruction. Over time, some Christians wrote down what they heard or learned (including some Apostles.) And with more time, both oral and written Christian messages circulated.

There were also spurious messages, and it finally became necessary to definitively organize the Christian message, rejecting heresy and canonizing the most important written documents.

But this took a long time. By the early 4th Century, the controversy over which writings were inspired was not over – there were some that everyone accepted, but there were still those that were in dispute.

By the late 4th Century, the Church had proclaimed the Canon of the New Testament, and also accumulated a corpus of redacted material that came not directly from the Apostles, but through various oral traditions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But how does anyone distinguish what is true Apostolic tradition and what is not.

How did Athanasius? The councilar decision of the Catholic Church at Nicene was sufficient to refute Arianism. You can learn a thing or two from Athanasius. The Bible should have been sufficient against Arianism, but in practice, it wasn’t. Arianism quoted from Scripture just like any Protestant I know, yet they didn’t understand these passages in the same sense that the apostolical men of the Church had always taught.

So, even Protestant scholars describe the relationship of tradition and Scritpure within the early Church as follows:

According to non-Catholic church historian Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:

“Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies ****same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.” (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

Likewise, Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly states:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole [early Church] period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

Again from JND Kelly:

“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition.” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48, 51)

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

How did Athanasius? The councilar decision of the Catholic Church at Nicene was sufficient to refute Arianism. You can learn a thing or two from Athanasius. The Bible should have been sufficient against Arianism, but in practice, it wasn’t. Arianism quoted from Scripture just like any Protestant I know, yet they didn’t understand these passages in the same sense that the apostolical men of the Church had always taught.

So, even Protestant scholars describe the relationship of tradition and Scritpure within the early Church as follows:

According to non-Catholic church historian Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:
Likewise, Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly states:
Again from JND Kelly:

Thanks Dave,

I do agree with this, but it does not answer the question that I asked in particular. Just by saying Athanasuis referred to tradition does not give evidence that there was some deposit of faith in tradition that was passed on infallibly by the apostles. I am looking to find this deposit, universal knowledge of it, and its universal acceptance as infallible tradition. Vern has put me to the task about the deposit of Scripture for evidence of its acceptance and availibility, and I am just trying to do the same with this deposit expressed through Tradition.

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp,

Papias believed in a coming 1000 year millenium, why isn’t that part of Tradition?

If by what you mean is a particular form of Millennium and Millenarianism, then the question becomes, which form comes from apostolic tradition and which is theological speculation? A solemn mission of the Church was to authentically and authoritatively distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. It did so for tradition just as it does so for Scripture.

There were false Gospels and false traditions mixed with orthodox Gospels and orthodox tradition. This was the problem facing the Church. Various forms emerged, and it was up to the Church to decide what, within the various teachings regarding Millnarianism or Chilaism or anything else was true, if anything at all. St. Justin Martyr (2nd cent.) taught a form of millenariansim, yet he also said that there are many who, though adhering to the pure and pious teachings of Christ, do not believe in it. So this early testimony suggests it was a doctrine based upon theological speculation and not from apostolic tradition. In any case, the theology seemed to fizzle out on its own, as it didn’t have anyone advocating a coherent theory that was acceptable universally.

Have you heard of the rule of St. Vincent de Lerins? Your questions seem very similar to the one he put forth in the 5th century:

[4.] I HAVE often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, ***by the authority of ******the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. ***

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,–***because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands ***its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, … lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. 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 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. (Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith )

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Millennium and Millenarianism passed the rule of antiquity, but did not pass the rule of universality or consent. Thus, it is not a part of apostolic tradition as taught by the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

that there was some deposit of faith in tradition that was passed on infallibly by the apostles.

What does Scripture tell us about the deposit of faith? It was “handed on” right?

Jude 3 says:

"… ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered (Gk "paradidomi “) unto the saints.”

Scripture testifies that the deposit of faith was handed on, which is what paradidomi means.

Paradidomi is the verb from of the word paradosis (tradition). The deposit of faith, in other words, was traditioned unto the saints.

2 Thess 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

From Vine’s Expository of NT Words:

paradosis “a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes "a tradition," and hence, by metonymy, (a) “the teachings of the rabbis,” interpretations of the Law, which was thereby made void in practice, Matt_15:2,3,6; Mark_7:3,5,8,9,13; Gal_1:14; Col_2:8;
(b) of "apostolic teaching," 1_Cor_11:2, RV, “traditions” (AV, “ordinances”), of instructions concerning the gatherings of believers (instructions of wider scope than ordinances in the limited sense); in 2_Thess_2:15, of Christian doctrine in general, where the Apostle’s use of the word constitutes a denial that what he preached originated with himself, and a claim for its Divine authority (cp. paralambano, “to receive,” 1_Cor_11:23; 1_Cor_15:3); in 2_Thess_3:6, it is used of instructions concerning everyday conduct.

Can we be absolutely certain that this deposit of faith was “traditioned” unto the saints complete and without error? If we are to believe Scripture where it elsewhere contends that the Church is to be guided to all truth and the Church is in fact the “pillar and foundation of truth,” then yes, we can be certain that the deposit of faith, that paradosis handed on (paradidomi) to the Church is the truth, “whether by an oral statement or by a letter.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Thanks Dave,

I do agree with this, but it does not answer the question that I asked in particular. Just by saying Athanasuis referred to tradition does not give evidence that there was some deposit of faith in tradition that was passed on infallibly by the apostles. I am looking to find this deposit, universal knowledge of it, and its universal acceptance as infallible tradition. Vern has put me to the task about the deposit of Scripture for evidence of its acceptance and availibility, and I am just trying to do the same with this deposit expressed through Tradition.

Michael

You’re looking for a book entitled “Tradition.” There isn’t one. What there is, is a library. That library is composed of many documents, some of which bear on one issue, some on another.

For example, although Iraeneus’ speculations aren’t tradition, when he says (about the Number of the Beast), “Here John reckons according to the Greek system,” that is tradition – his source for that is Polycarp, who knew Jonn personally.

Now, this little tidbit is difficult to organize into a coherent text – it’s something like a footnote you would use in interpreting Revelation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

itsjustdave1988:

Can we be absolutely certain that this deposit of faith was “traditioned” unto the saints complete and without error? If we are to believe Scripture where it elsewhere contends that the Church is to be guided to all truth and the Church is in fact the “pillar and foundation of truth,” then yes, we can be certain that the deposit of faith, that paradosis handed on (paradidomi) to the Church is the truth, “whether by an oral statement or by a letter.”

And that is what Tertullian means when he uses (for the first time in Christianity) the phrase “Novarum Testmonium.” His “New Testament” is the Church.

 

[michaelp]

What does Scripture tell us about the deposit of faith? It was “handed on” right?

I don’t see anywhere in scripture that shows a separate avenue through which this “in fallible depsit” is destributed other than through Scripture. In other words, I don’t see anywhere that this deposit is said to be passed on infallibly though a succession of bishops. I see general statements that tell others to teach the truths that have been taught to them. With this we continue to strive to do. But there is not any place where we are told that these truths would be passed on by word of mouth and remain infallible.

Jude 3 says: Scripture testifies that the deposit of faith was handed on, which is what paradidomi means.

Paradidomi is the verb from of the word paradosis (tradition). The deposit of faith, in other words, was traditioned unto the saints.

This speaks about the delivering of the truth, but not how it would be preserved. One way of course is through Scripture, the other, word of mouth is the second. But this doesn’t gaurantee that God would preserve it through this word of mouth since it is inherently unreliable.

I also do not see this full deposit of infallible tradition being handed over to “successors” either by way of illustration or direct teaching. I just see that they told people to teach others what they learned from the Apostles who were God’s mouthpiece.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

This simply means to stand firm in the teaching that I gave you. I don’t see anything in this that would imply that there teaching were to be infallibly passed on by an successor who was given the authority and infallibility of the apostles. That is why they wrote it down. They were the only ones who had proven themselves with the “signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor 12:12). This is why only they can be said to speak for God. All others are only speaking for God to the degree that they adhere to their words/traditons preserved in Scripture.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

And that is what Tertullian means when he uses (for the first time in Christianity) the phrase “Novarum Testmonium.” His “New Testament” is the Church.

Actually the term New Testament was used in 190 in a letter against Montanism. The author of this is not known. (Although this has no bearing on this issue).

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

I don’t see anywhere in scripture that shows a separate avenue through which this “in fallible depsit” is destributed other than through Scripture.

You’re back to begging the question – you want to prove Sola Scriptura to us, but in order to it, you have to get us to agree that everything is in scripture.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[michaelp]

You’re looking for a book entitled “Tradition.” There isn’t one. What there is, is a library. That library is composed of many documents, some of which bear on one issue, some on another.

OK, so it is not there in any hard form. Got it. So we just must assume that it existed without any evidence?

I don’t really even have to have a book. But what I am looking for is this concept that some “full deposit” of infallible Tradition was handed from one person to the next. I do believe that there were teachings from the apostles that were handed down and down and down etc. But I believe that there is no reason to believe that this was the or even a form in which God wanted His word to be preserved for the last 2000 years. Expecially though some succession of bishops who are the sole carriers of this tradition.

I believe that this is why we have the Scriptures. We can be more certian that we are going to the sourse of their teaching rather than trying to extract them from the Church fathers.

For example, although Iraeneus’ speculations aren’t tradition, when he says (about the Number of the Beast), “Here John reckons according to the Greek system,” that is tradition – his source for that is Polycarp, who knew Jonn personally.

But how was Irenaeus to tell the difference between what was speculation and what was not. He does not make this distinction that you would expect if he understood this concept of opinion and infallible tradition that he was given or at least knew about.

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

You’re back to begging the question – you want to prove Sola Scriptura to us, but in order to it, you have to get us to agree that everything is in scripture.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I don’t think that we have to have an infallible canon to be sure about Scripture, so it is not begging the question. I think that we can look back at many different evidences and make a decision about what should or should not be included in Scripture. I think that this is heathly. When the evidence is considered, we can be assured (though not infallibly) that we have the correct Scripture.