Friday, June 15, 2012

Kruger vs Ratzinger 4: Four different kinds of “tradition”


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