From a
historical perspective I’ve shown, through a number of writings by Oscar
Cullmann, how the historically accepted process of “oral
tradition” or “paradosis”, (a
word used by Paul) gave way to a more secure emphasis on the written word:
Papias was therefore deluding
himself when he considered viva vox as more valuable than the
written books. The oral tradition had a normative value in the period of the
apostles, who were eye-witnesses, but it had it no longer in 150 after passing
mouth to mouth (Cullmann, 88-89).
Over time, the “oral tradition” degraded to
the point that it was not only not useful, but harmful.
For Paul, there was an “Apostolic Tradition”
which came directly from the Lord to the Apostles. This is outlined by Michael
Kruger in his work Canon Revisited, in the chapter “The Apostolic Origins of
the Canon”:
It
is clear from our earliest Christian documents—the New Testament itself—that
the apostolic message would have borne the authority of Christ and therefore
would have been seen as a divine message with the same authority as (if not
more than) the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus had commissioned his apostles “so
that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have
authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14-15). Thus, the apostles were his
mouthpieces to the nations, his authoritative witnesses. In John 20:21, Jesus
declares to the apostles, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Peter testifies to the fact that the apostles were “chosen by God as
witnesses…to preach to the people and to testify that [Christ] is the one
appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:41-42). The
book of 2 Peter makes it clear that the words of the apostles are the words of
Jesus and are on par with the authority given to the Old Testament prophets: “You
should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the
Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2). Likewise, the author
of Hebrews argues that the message of
the apostles is the same message of
salvation that was announced by the Lord Jesus himself and thus bears his full
authority and weight—more weight even than the old testament borne by
angels (Hebrews 2:2-3), [emphasis added].
This is what Paul has in mind when he uses
the word “paradosis”. Roman Catholics often throw around that word as if what
Paul was teaching is actually what the Roman Catholic Church today is teaching.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. As we’ll see, the word “tradition”
actually has about four different meanings. That Roman Catholics are able to
equivocate among these four meanings is a testimony to the weakness of their
doctrine on this matter … it’s why the Roman Catholic has to “check his brain at the door” when entering the Roman Catholic Church. It’s
why virtually every statement that Rome makes must be qualified with phrases
like “the problem is not with the truth of the church’s teaching but with our
understanding of the Church’s full teaching”.
Kruger continues:
This
apostolic message—which is really the authoritative message of Jesus Christ
himself—was originally transmitted orally.
Such oral tradition is evident within the New Testament itself when Paul speaks
to the Thessalonians about “the tradition [παράδοσιν] you have received from us”
(2 Thess 3:6). In 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul also refers to the institution of
the Lord’s Supper as tradition” “I received [παρέλαβον] from the Lord what I
also delivered [παρέδωκα] to you.” By saying that this tradition is “from the
Lord,” Paul is not suggesting that he received it by direct revelation, but is
likely referring to the fact that the Lord spoke in (and behind) the apostolic
tradition and thus that tradition is really from him. Similarly, in 1
Corinthians 15:3 Paul states “For I delivered [παρέδωκα] to you as of first
importance what I also received [παρέλαβον]: that Christ died for our sins in
accordance with the Scriptures.” The structure of this verse suggests that Paul
is passing along a standardized apostolic tradition about the resurrection of
Jesus. Other passages speak of this same phenomenon (Luke 1:1-4; Rom 6:17; Gal
1:9; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-8; 1 Thess 2:13-15; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; 2 Pet 2:21;
Jude 1:3).
Of
course, the term oral tradition can have a variety of negative connotations.
After all, Christ rebuked the Pharisees for relying on the “traditions of men,”
which are unreliable and often change (Mark 7:8; cf. Matt 5:21; Col 2:8). In
addition, modern versions of form criticism have continued to highlight how
traditions of Jesus were orally transmitted in various early Christian
communities and were subsequently modified and adapted for each new Sitz im Leben. It is important to
recognize, however, that the New Testament passages above are speaking not of
human tradition or even of ecclesiastical tradition, but of apostolic tradition. Luke tells us that
his tradition was “handed down” (παρέδοσαν) to him by “those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2), a clear
reference to the apostles. This type of tradition was not passed down over long
periods of time through anonymous communities, but was passed down by those who
were eyewitnesses of Jesus’s redemptive activities and were given an authoritative
commission by Christ to guard and preserve these traditions by the help of the
Holy Spirit (John 16:13). In their role as guardians of the oral tradition, not
only would the apostles have passed it along themselves in their own preaching
and teaching, but, as Bauckham has argued, they would have entrusted that oral
tradition to key leaders and disciples “with the skills and gifts necessary for
preserving that tradition.” No doubt there were other streams of oral tradition
about Jesus that were being promulgated during this early time period—some of
which were more reliable than others. But the apostolic stream of tradition was
viewed as unique because Christ himself was speaking through it (Kruger,
175-178).
This is why, as I’ve written before, Cullmann
noted that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, for example, were “at a
considerable distance from New Testament thought”, and that church fathers who
wrote after 150, especially Irenaeus and Tertullian, understood “infinitely
better” the essence of the gospel.
This “improvement” was certainly anchored in “the codification of the apostolic tradition
in a canon“ [Kruger: a “canonical
core”] that became the superior norm of oral tradition. (For a further
analysis of the reliability of Papias in general, see Jason
Engwer’s comments here).
* * *
In his “Laymen’s Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles”, ARTICLE XX, “Of
the Authority of the Church”, the Continuing Anglican Fr. Robert Hart
talked about “tradition” (or “paradosis”)
in these same terms. He notes that there are three kinds of tradition, which
correspond with Cullmann’s:
First, there
is tradition that is simply the handing down of [Apostolic] revelation. “Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (παράδοσις, paradosis) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
epistle (II Thes. 2:15).”
As with Kruger above, Cullmann argued that these are Apostolic
traditions, given by the Lord. Hart says, “These things are inflexible, no
matter how they are expressed. And as has been noted, these “inflexible”,
revealed truths, were “written down” in the writings of the New Testament (Luke
1:2).
Second is
manmade tradition that is good, wise and reasonable. This corresponds with
Cullmann’s category of “ecclesiastical” tradition. Because it is manmade
tradition, it is flexible. “But, because it is good, wise and reasonable it is
foolish to cast it aside or to alter it carelessly. That is why Richard Hooker
wrote about reason and ‘the church with her ecclesiastical authority’ so
closely together”.
Some developments in doctrine fall into this category. Hart suggests
that “wisdom and reason are not really altogether separate from this category
of tradition. Indeed, it is also wise to consider the possibility if not
likelihood that the Holy Spirit showed the way and gave light to the minds of
our fathers who came before us, so that what any church finds itself compelled
to change in any given generation (and for the sake of posterity) is changed
only with the greatest care”. And, he says that change should be limited to
what the Article mentions specifically: “…rites or ceremonies,” and corrections
to false teaching with “authority in controversies of faith.”
I’d place “the development of the episcopate” (and contemporary RC
scholars - like Sullivan) put it into this second category. It was useful at
the time. But was not foundational with the church. And hence, with “the
greatest care”, the Reformers were able to step out from under a corrupt
episcopal system. It was not to be “forever”. It is not a dogma from the lips
of Christ or the Apostles.
The third kind (Hart’s second kind) is manmade tradition that
contradicts the first:
“Then came to
Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands
when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also
transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?... Thus have ye made the
commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matt. 15:1-3, 6).” The
reader should place his emphasis on the words “God” and “your” to get the point
across.
Very much in Roman Catholicism, both before the Reformation and after
it, fits this category. And, as Hart suggested, many of the critical statements
in the Thirty-Nine Articles were aimed at errors that fit this second category
perfectly, such as “the Romish doctrine of Purgatory,” and other things we have
discussed.
I’d suggest,
also, that there is a fourth category of “tradition”, one adopted at Vatican II
– it is the “Living Voice”, the notion that “what we say, goes”. Within this “Tradition”,
such very old traditions as “no salvation outside of the church” may be “reformulated positively”
to say such things as “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know
the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try
in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their
conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation”.
But that’s a
discussion for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment