Christ did not say to the earliest church, “I give you my authority”

Following up with my recent comments about Larry Hurtado’s work and in the context of what he’s called “earliest Christianity” (basically the first 100 years of Christianity), I want to mention a comment by K Doran, who provided the first comment in Andrew Preslar’s response to R. Scott Clark and Robert Godfrey had on “the Lure of Rome”. Doran is wrong in this comment:

One additional point is that the data of antiquity is sparse — it is almost certain that the vast majority of what was written has been lost, and that much of what was lived and believed was never written in the first place. In light of this sparseness, arguments that the data do not contain sufficiently explicit references to the precise definitions of transubstantiation, the papacy, etc before, say the late 300s, are completely useless arguments from silence. They tell us nothing either one way or another. Give me the same sample size from 30 A.D. to 330 A.D. that we have from 330AD through 630AD, and then we can talk clearly about development on subtle issues from the very early church to the church of late antiquity. But, with the data as it stands, all we can say is: (1) as soon as the data set gets rich in the late 300s, it looks quite obviously non-protestant even on subtle issues; (2) no one during that time complained that the obviously “Catholic” teachings were corruptions; (3) many people at the time did explicitly and implicitly state that these “Catholic” teachings had always been taught; and (4) the sparse data from the first 300 years do not by any means contradict what was so clearly taught in the late 300s and beyond (unless, again, one is to abuse the statistically impossible argument from silence in that sparse data).

                                                 

In light of the above, the protestant approach to the data of antiquity is very inadequate in comparison to the Catholic one. There is a deep sense in which the majority of the data is Catholic. There is a deeper sense in which the Catholic church has had the confidence to be intellectually honest about the sparse data, applying arguments from silence when and where the data itself permits it, and ignoring silly arguments from silence where the data itself do not. I think this intellectual maturity is what many converts notice, even if they can’t explain it in words; to compare the Catholic embrace of the “mean” of history with the Protestant attempt to find a tiny niche in antiquity to call its own, is an eye-opening experience.

Rather, the New Testament provides for us an embarrassment of riches with respect to our knowledge of the earliest Church and antiquity. Roman Catholics like K Doran make a fundamental mistake in holding on to what Hurtado refers to the darkened pre-Constantinian centuries.

What’s really happening is that, in the first 100 years of church history, we see a picture of Christ-worship and an authority structure in the earliest church that is totally turned on its head, not by “subtle issues” as Doran says, but with true violence. Not all of it was intentional, but some of the Rome-ward and Pagan-ward drift was quite intentional.

There is no need for Protestants to make “arguments from silence” with respect either to “authority” or to what “the church that Christ founded” was really like. The Roman story – and even the Anglican story on “the episcopacy” has changed in recent years to reflect what’s now known about what he calls “the historical phenomenon” of both “Christ devotion” and the earliest church.

Both are now subtly fudging their account of how the episcopal structure came into being. It's important to note just how this fudge is being produced. 

Roman Catholics are fond of saying that the Roman Church is “The sole Church of Christ” that is, [the Church] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him…”

But as I noted last week, that’s a bait and switch. So too is the Anglican conception of “orders”. Some time ago, I cited Roger Beckwith in his work, “Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry” (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press ©2003). Beckwith [an Anglican] noted what he called “fuzzy language” in the preface to the Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer to describe the existence of “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” in the church:

“It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and the ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church” Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”

Of this statement, Beckwith says:

This is a very carefully phrased statement which, through loose interpretation, has been misrepresented both by its defenders and by its critics.

For, in the first place, it does not say that this is evident to those “diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors’; in other words, it is evident from Scripture and the Fathers taken together, but not necessarily from one of the two taken singly. If we have difficulty finding the threefold ministry in the New Testament taken by itself, the preface does not say that we should be able to find it there.

In the second place, the preface does not say that “by the Apostles’ decision there have been those Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church” but from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church”; in other words, from the period before the last of the apostles died there have been three orders of ordained ministers; and the last of the apostles, St John, is stated by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3;4) to have lived until the reign of Trajan, who did not become emperor till AD 98. Since the threefold ministry was [evident] when Ignatius of Antioch was writing his letters, about AD 110, it can hardly have arisen later than the beginning Trajan’s reign, in other words, later than the end of the apostolic age. So the preface to the Ordinal is stating the simple truth in saying that it dates from the apostle’s time. But how far the apostles were responsible for the development which took place is left an open question (Beckwith pgs 9-10).

Francis Sullivan, evidently in agreement with Beckwith and Kilmartin [whom I’ve cited earlier] and a raft of other modern scholarship on this topic of “authority in the earliest church”, concludes his work “From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church” (New York, Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, © 2001 by The Society of Jesus of New England [Jesuits]):

While most Catholic scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development, they maintain that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church (230).

On the contrary, the earliest history of the church shows a completely different “structure”, put into place by the Apostles and the earliest disciples. It was this “structure” that was cast aside in favor of an Episcopal structure that has its roots not in the authority structure that Christ left with his apostles, but rather, with the pagan and Roman world around them. As such, it is not a “divine institution” in any way, and the Reformers were clearly in the right to cast off the accretions.

Christ did not say to the earliest church, “I give you my authority”. He said, “go, and I will be with you”. There’s a big difference. 

“Low-information” Roman Catholic apologetics

In the recent Presidential election, we’ve seen the rise of what’s been called the “low-information” voter, who was perhaps characterized by the “Obama Phone” lady.

Now the Roman Catholic apologist K. Doran gives us a sample of “low-information” Roman Catholic apologetics in the following exchange:

Another writer had said this:

“The Church worldwide in the first 4 centuries hardly was conscious of Papal Infallibility (something one can only subscribe to with an accept despite the vagueness of the development of doctrine theories).”

To which K. Doran responded:

Musical popery

Papist Bryan Cross has a shtick about "interpretive authority." Without the papacy, we sadly lack the "interpretive authority" to rightly interpret Scripture.

Of course, that’s an old chestnut, and Protestant apologists have hammered it mercilessly by making the elementary observation that it only pushes the question back a step. By what “interpretive authority” does one interpret the “authoritative interpretations” of the pope?

Now Called to Communion has done us the unwitting service of illustrating that very conundrum. Benedict XVI was recently quoted as making some controversial remarks about the use of condoms.

Tim Troutman did a post in which he offered the first clarification of the pope really meant:

“Dr. Janet Smith has written an excellent rebuttal to the irresponsible treatment of this story by the media.”

But her clarification was insufficiently clarificatory, for we find, on comment #4, that “Academic Editor” Bryan Cross offers the second clarification of what the pope really really meant:

“In addition to Janet Smith’s article, Jimmy Akin has posted a helpful clarification here.”

Yet this additional clarification was insufficiently clarificatory, for that’s actually the first of five different clarifications (and counting) which Akin has issued:

November 23, 2010 BY JIMMY AKIN
New Developments on the Pope and Condoms

November 23, 2010 BY JOHN BURGER
Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
Freshly minted Cardinal Raymond Burke discusses the controversy regarding 'Light of the World,' and what it’s like to work in Ratzinger’s Rome.
November 21, 2010 BY JIMMY AKIN
Understanding the Pope's Dilemma on Condoms

November 21, 2010 BY EDWARD PENTIN
Vatican Clarification on AIDS and Condoms

November 20, 2010 BY JIMMY AKIN
The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???

Moreover, Akin’s clarification doesn’t seem to be all that helpful, for Bryan’s remark is follow by a series of comments in which Joe Palmer and Nathan B. present conflicting interpretations of what the pope really honest-to-goodness meant.

Then on comment #26, “Blog Editor” Sean Patrick offers the third clarification (not counting Akin’s five clarifications) of what the pope really really really meant:

it “appears to be an official response to the comment” by “Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.”

Yet this “official clarification” doesn’t clarify the pope’s comment to the satisfaction of mateo, Johannes, K. Doran, Ray Stamper, Tim Troutman, and Nathan B., who continue to present conflicting interpretations of what the pope really and truly meant until Michael Liccione pipes in on comment #37.

However, that doesn’t resolve the issue the satisfaction of all parties concerned, for Johannes, mateo, Ray Stamper, David Pell, Paul Rodde, K. Doran, Tim Troutman, Nathan B., and GNW, continue to present conflicting interpretations of what the pope really for real meant until comment #91, when Bryan Cross offers a fourth clarification of what the pope really really really really meant:

“Fr. Fessio’s ‘Did the Pope ‘justify’ condom use in some circumstances?” is helpful.”

Okay, so what are some of the “helpful” observations that he makes? Well, among other things, he says,

“It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter”, which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “ [eine] Prostituierte”, which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.”

And how does that square with the “official clarification” which Sean highlighted on comment #26? Among other things, Fr. Lombardi said:

"I asked the pope personally if there was a serious or important problem in the choice of the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and he said no, that is, the main point ... is the first step of responsibility in taking into account the risk to the life of another person with whom one has relations," Father Lombardi said.” Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we're at the same point.”

But in that event, Fr. Fessio’s “helpful” distinction between callboys and callgirls is moot.

Anyway, Fr. Fessio’s helpful clarification doesn’t seem to be all that helpful, for Jae, mateo, Tim Troutman, Nathan B., and GNW continue to present conflicting interpretations of what the pope meant to mean to intend to say until comment #102, when Bryan Cross offers a fifth clarification of what (take a deep breath) the pope really really really really really meant:

“Steven Long of Ave Maria University has a helpful article on this subject titled “Remarks of Benedict XVI Regarding Condoms.”

So what does his “helpful” article say? Well, among other things he says,

“Further, his [the pope’s] words appear far better than Lombardi's explanation of them, which tries to render the entire matter a function of moral theology, whereas part of the Holy Father's treatment is simply and purely epistemic, something that the media probably will never be able to grasp… Lombardi then goes on to speak of "numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures" who "have maintained and still maintain similar positions". He is, in other words, reading the Holy Father as providing a casuistry of an exceptional case, and then pointing toward unnamed but authoritative figures whose ineffable nimbus of authority seconds the papal motion. This seems to me neither close to the meaning of what the Holy Father actually wrote, nor in the least helpful.”

So Long’s “helpful” clarification contradicts the “official clarification” (of the Vatican spokesman, Fr. Lombardi) touted by Sean Patrick.

And that’s as of tonight. So we have a scene of musical popery, where various interpreters continually vie with each other to gloss the true blue meaning of the pope’s statement.

It’s comforting to know that in a world hopelessly lost in moral confusion, the papacy is a beacon in the darkness.

Why Irenaeus may be dismissed as an early source for “apostolic succession”

Roman Catholics point to a selection from Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” as a key piece of evidence (a) for Roman primacy and (b) that the concept of “apostolic succession” was widely believed and practiced. Here is that text as cited by Sean Patrick:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

I gave a number of reasons why this selection might be discounted, notably the fact that Peter and Paul (and Paul especially) could not be said to have “founded and organized” the church at Rome. This notion was challenged, but it is not the only reason to dismiss this passage.

I described an account of the church historian Eusebius reporting as actual fact, what really was a fictional account of an exchange of letters between Jesus and the Edessan king Abgar.

Sean Patrick then (351) in response to a question of mine, made a comparison between these letters to and from Abgar and what Irenaeus supposedly wrote in the late second century:

Do you grant that there is a huge difference between Eusebius thinking the Agbar letters to be genuine and apostolic succession?

I mean, if the Agbar letter was foundational to the ecclesiology of the Church and repeated and relied upon for 2,000 years spanning the geography of the known world then maybe you would have an argument. If, in addition to what you call Augustine being hampered by his bad ecclesiology you could argue that he was hampered by accepting and relying upon the Agbar letter then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

Thus, that you can show that this father here or that father there held something that kind of sticks out as unreliable does not even compare to apostolic succession. In fact, that these things are aberrations prove that, to the fathers, apostolic succession was no aberration.

No, I do not grant that there is “a huge difference” between the Eusebius/Agbar fiction and Irenaeus’s account of “apostolic succession”. It is just as easy to dismiss Irenaeus’s account. Here’s why.

K. Doran (353) also refers to this passage “The earliest direct evidence we have”, and, if it is (to use Sean’s words) “foundational to the ecclesiology of the church” and “the earliest direct evidence we have”, then it is not very valuable as evidence, and indeed, should be challenged and dismissed.

Michael Kruger, in a recent blog post, pointed out that the number of manuscripts provide important physical evidence of relative use and popularity of certain works. Thus he says:

The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity. Such remains can tell us which books were used, read, and copied. [The notion here is that important works were copied and re-copied, whereas unpopular works were not.] When we examine the physical remains of Christian texts from the earliest centuries (second and third), we quickly discover that the New Testament writings were, far and away, the most popular. Currently we have over sixty extant manuscripts (in whole or in part) of the New Testament from this time period, with most of our copies coming from Matthew, John, Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. The gospel of John proves to be the most popular of all with eighteen manuscripts, a number of which derive from the second century (e.g., P52, P90, P66, P75). Matthew is not far behind with twelve manuscripts; and some of these also have been dated to the second century (e.g., P64-67, P77, P103, P104).

During the same time period, the second and third centuries, we possess approximately seventeen manuscripts of apocryphal writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Protevangelium of James, and more. The Gospel of Thomas has the most manuscripts of all, with just three.

The implications of this numerical disparity has not been missed by modern scholars.

By comparison, a work such as “Shepherd of Hermas”, which appeared in some early canonical lists, and which was very highly regarded in some circles, “has not been well preserved”, according to Michael Holmes (“The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations”, Third Edition ©2007), notes that “Only four incomplete Greek manuscripts and several small fragments have been discovered.” In all, he lists about 22 different manuscript sources (many of which are Latin) in which this work appears.

On the other hand, Irenaeus, whose “Against Heresies” is claimed to be a superb piece of evidence, was not so highly regarded all, with only fragments of one Greek manuscript, and a late fourth century Latin translation as the only extant manuscript evidence prior to the tenth century. Note what Eric Osborn says in his study of Irenaeus:

The original Greek text of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is found only in fragmentary form, while [only one] complete Latin translation prepared about the year 380 has survived (emphasis added). There are three early manuscripts of the Latin translation, the oldest of which (Clareomontanus) dates from the tenth or eleventh century. The others are later (Leydensys, Arundelianus). Erasmus’ edition princeps of Irenaeus (1526) contains some readings not represented by any of these three manuscripts and the sources from which his variants may dreive have since disappeared (pg 1).

No complete text exists, and only one manuscript source exists from prior to the 10th century. Thus, in a period (2nd-10th centuries) when literally thousands of New Testament manuscripts exist, including many complete manuscripts of both the OT and the NT, we have only three extant manuscripts of Against Heresies. Thus, Irenaeus’s account was neither “repeated and relied upon for 2,000 years” nor did it “span the geography of the known world” during that time.

The fact that only three manuscript sources existed is an important piece of evidence against the notion that Irenaeus’s beliefs were widespread. In fact, that’s a very important piece of evidence that actually quite provincial.

Moreover, in addition to the paucity of texts, what text we do have, as Chad Brewer (#356) noted, is “a highly debated Latin text”.

Especially debated (as J.N.D. Kelly notes) is the passage in question. He says:

To illustrate his argument Irenaeus singled out, in a famous and much debated passage, the Roman church; its greatness, its antiquity, its foundation by the apostles Peter and Paul, the fact too that it was universally known, made it an apt example.Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, so the surviving Latin translation runs, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua simper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolic traditio. If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc … ecclesiam, and [it is] anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus (J.N.D. Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines”, pg 193).

The anachronism he speaks of here is more pronounced, given the date (380) of that Latin manuscript. This was during the papacy of “pope” Damasus, whose mission as a “pope” is widely regarded to have worked diligently to enhanced the status of the papacy. Eamon Duffy notes (“Saints and Sinners”, ©2001 edition), “The Romanization of the papacy was more than a matter of external decoration. Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”.

However, whereas we may safely say that Eusebius’s “goof” regarding Agbar was a simple error, it is possible to attribute an active kind of tampering to this passage from Irenaeus (again, the Latin manuscript is dated 380).

Why do I say this? Roger Collins has noted, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process. Forgery is an emotive word, and it should not necessarily be assumed that the documents, including the acts of two synods, were cynically concocted to justify a particular claim. Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true.

Thus, he says, “It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.” (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

Thus it is “not inconsistent” with the facts as we know them, and in fact, it is possible to suggest that there is a high degree of probability, given that there is no complete Greek text, and a “translation” of the text dating to 380, during the time when Damasus was beginning to work to enhance Rome’s status vis-à-vis actual history, that this “controversial text” was doctored to enhance Rome’s status.

(The fact that it was a “known enhancement” would also speak to the fact that so few manuscript copies were produced early on).

So, in response to K. Doran’s list of stipulations about evidence (353), all of these things must temper the kind of, and the amount of enthusiasm we have, for regarding Irenaeus’s text as a “key piece of evidence”.

While it’s possible to say that this passage from Irenaeus is not quite so fictional as the letters between Jesus and Agbar, it is still very possible to challenge the authenticity of the passage on the basis of available manuscripts, the text itself, and the things we know of the Roman and papal cultures of the times.

On “the assent of faith” and on locating “Mary’s Immaculate Foot” in Gen 3:15

Chuck Noll, the coach of those great Pittsburgh Steelers teams of the 1970’s, was fond of “getting back to the basics”. That is, at the start of training camp, he held practice sessions in which players would walk through the plays, without pads, before they would run them.

In discussions between Roman Catholics and Protestants, before we get to some of the highfalutin philosophical theories that are floated, it’s important to walk before we run. That’s the spirit in which I submitted this comment to the discussion at “Called to Communion”:

* * *

Michael Liccione (#443):

John’s purpose is not to “identify doctrinal truths calling for the assent of faith as distinct from that of provisional opinion,” but simply to argue that the historical data show that the Catholic doctrine of ecclesial authority is false.

Yes, I believe I have not been shy about my intentions in any way.

As to the wider question which doctrines call for the assent of faith, as distinct from that of opinion, he does not argue that his use of scholarship successfully identifies such doctrines. He just takes for granted that the Protestant canon is divinely inspired even though, on his showing, interpretations thereof can themselves qualify only as provisional opinions.

I take for granted that the Bible is “divinely inspired”, and thanks to Michael Kruger’s work, “Canon Revisited”, I understand that “the narrow question of whether Christians have a rational basis (i.e., intellectually sufficient grounds) for affirming that only these twenty-seven books rightfully belong in the New Testament canon” is “an unqualified yes”. Or put differently, “the Christian belief in the 27-book canon of the New Testament is justified (or warranted)”.

[No, I have not reproduced his argument here. If you want to contend with it, you should read the book, because he presents it so much better, and in so much more detail, than I could. According to Sean, someone from here is going to write a review of it].

Now K Doran, Bryan, and others have already made clear in detail why one cannot infer, from such facts as John presents, that Catholicism is false. There are just too many leaps beyond evidence and logic.

In one sense, this is true. Roman Catholicism has written its doctrines in such a way that it’s just plain difficult to find the “defeaters”. One might think, there is just no way to falsify it. There is no way one can check under God’s robes to see if, for example, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son. No one was there when Mary was conceived, and no one was there (that we know of) who saw Mary “Assumed” into heaven. And on some questions, such as that Mary really had other children (i.e., “James the brother of the Lord”), well, the “interpretive paradigm” says that “οἱ ἀδελφοὶ” really doesn’t mean “brothers”. It would just be a “leap beyond evidence and logic” to suggest that “adelphoi” means “brothers”.

This is just for example. There are other instances like this.

It just isn’t empirically plausible to say that finally, after all these centuries, scholars have dug up enough solid information about the early Church to actually prove that the Catholic (or, for that matter, the Orthodox) doctrine of ecclesial authority is false. If the eminent Catholic scholars John cites thought so, they would have doffed their priestly collars and ceased to profess Catholicism–which none of them have done. But that is itself a secondary problem.

I have also been honest about this. In 363 I say:

A theologian like Francis Sullivan can say “most Catholic scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of a post New Testament development” and further “that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church”.

I would agree with the first part of that statement, but reject the second part of that statement. And to do so, I would look to Bavinck’s analysis of a “superadded gift” with respect to special revelation. Or the lack of such a thing, according to Protestants. The upshot is, “oral tradition” did not have “supernatural protection”. The canon of Scripture was the determining factor in ongoing “orthodoxy” (beginning with Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the way that Cullmann explains it), and yes, “Scripture alone” was God’s intended method for seeing to it that the gates of hell do not prevail against the church.

This is an honest disagreement, and we can honestly discuss this sort of thing. Again, this is where I think that theologians like Brown, Sullivan, Meier et. al. are doing a greater service for honesty and “unity” than you are – they are not hiding behind some “IP” that fixes the rules of the game. They are dealing honestly with the historical facts as they are very generally agreed upon these days.

And of course, “after all these centuries”, yes, we are in a position know more about “Second Temple Judaism”, and the peculiar mix of Hellenistic and Palestinian cultures – the histories that led to the shaping of that particular world, and the imposition of the Roman Empire on that world. We know what the synagogue structure was like – we have archaeologically uncovered synagogues, and we have, through the writings of the time, come to understand what the synagogue worship and synagogue leadership structure was like. So when Acts tells us that Paul spoke in the synagogue, and then he later ended up forming a church in someone’s house, we know how the leadership structure was set up. We know what an elder was in a synagogue. We know how the Roman and Greek households were structured (from “direct evidence” accumulated inductively, the way all history is understood), and so when Paul says “ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ” (“the household of God”, in 1 Tim 3:15 for example), we know what kind of imagery is being pictured here, and it is does not comport with the official explanation given in Lumen Gentium 8.

When you start pulling on threads like this, they come loose. And when you talk about “divine authority”, it is really God who has the real “divine authority”. Some of you may have heard the phrase, “words mean things”, and words like “household” and “brother” refer to certain definite things, and at some point, the weight of just simply the words whose meanings must be fudged to allow for Catholic dogma (consider Mary’s “Immaculate foot” in Gen 3:15 – to consider just one thing that’s “rationally unassailable”) makes the whole system look more like “wishful thinking” than anything else.

So no, I do not choose to believe that Almighty God empowers (in any way) people who “deduce” “Mary’s Immaculate foot” from the text of Gen 3:15, and then authoritatively make that into dogma.

I didn’t start off the great quest of my life saying, “Gee, Protestantism looks like it has an ‘interpretive paradigm’ that just is going to set the world on fire”. I began by looking at all the inconsistencies in Roman Catholicism, and the accumulative weight of them all, and saying, “God does not empower an infallible church to authoritatively do this”. This is where the true weight of the “leaps beyond evidence and logic” lie.

I’ll talk about “divine propositions” in another comment.

Irenaeus confirms Michael Kruger on the "canonical core" of Scripture

I'm continuing to interact with the folks at Called to Communion.

Irenaeus is offered up as “direct evidence”. I question that evidence up above, especially his reporting of history, but citing Darrell Bock, who said that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of the Gnostic heresies against which he was discoursing, I allowed that it may also be possible to allow that Irenaeus was a faithful reporter of what the church believed at the time.

In this vein, it is interesting that immediately before Irenaeus says anything about either “succession” or “Rome”, he talks about the Scriptures, and echoes these warnings from Matthew: the notion that the Apostles had a totally new message, that this message itself was the bearer of its own power, and that those who did not keep it properly were subject to “the worst calamity”:

The Lord of all gave his apostles the power of the Gospel, and by them we have known the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God.

Not the leftover teaching of the Jews. Per Cullmann, this is Paul’s paradosis “from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23 etc).

To [the Apostles], the Lord said, “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises Him who sent me”. For we have known the “economy” for our salvation only through those through whom the Gospel came to us [only through the Apostles]; and what they first preached they later, by God’s will transmitted to us in the Scriptures so that would be the foundation and pillar of our faith (“Against Heresies, 3 Pr.).”

So here, in the words of Irenaeus, before there is a promise of an “unbroken succession”, we have the Apostles carrying the message, and the message being written down, and what is written, to Irenaeus, is “the foundation and pillar of our faith”.

He continues:

It is not right to say that they preached before they had perfect knowledge …

That is, the apostles had “perfect knowledge” which they preached and set down. This speaks to Irenaeus’s understanding of “development”, too, as some [Gnostics] venture to say,

boasting that they are correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord arose from the dead and they were clad with power from on high by the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were filled concerning everything and had perfect knowledge. They went forth to the ends of the earth proclaiming the news [the message] of the good gifts to us from God and announcing heavenly peace to men. Collectively and individually they had the Gospel of God.

They had the message and it was written down. It is the written records that are “by God’s will transmitted to us”. Not “the succession”. Here, Irenaeus describes what Kruger called “the canonical core”. This, too, before any mention of “succession”:

Thus Matthew published among the Hebrews a gospel written in their language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church there. After their death Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself delivered to us in writing what had been announced [the message] by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Later John the Lord’s disciple, who reclined on his bosom, himself published a Gospel while staying at Ephesus in Asia.

Note, this is in contrast to the process that Joseph Ratzinger outlined in his work “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica” (which I’ve cited above):

“The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [and not in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (pgs 22-23).

The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger 25).

We should not deceive ourselves: the existence of New Testament writings, recognized as being “apostolic”, does not yet imply the existence of a “New Testament” as “Scripture”—there is a long way from the writings to Scripture. It is well known, and should not be overlooked, that the New Testament does not anywhere understand itself as “Scripture”; “Scripture” is, for the New Testament, simply the Old Testament, while the message about Christ is precisely “spirit”, which teaches us how to understand Scripture.” The idea of a “New Testament” as “Scripture” is still quite inconceivable at this point—even when “office”, as the form of the paradosis, is already clearly taking shape” (Ratzinger, 25).

This open situation of the existence of recognized New Testament writings without the existence of any New Testament principle of Scripture or any clear notion of the canon lasted until well in the second century—right into the middle of the period of the conflict with Gnosticism. Before the idea of a “canon” of New Testament Scripture had been formulated, the Church had already developed a different concept of what was canonical; she had as her Scripture the Old Testament but this Scripture needed a canon of New Testament interpretation, which the Church saw as existing in the traditio guaranteed by the successio (Ratzinger, 25-26).

This notion is reproduced in CCC 83:

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Note that Irenaeus here contrasts with both Ratzinger and the CCC at this point. Irenaeus provides us “direct evidence”, in K. Doran’s usage, that what the Apostles preached, and then what they “put down” was, actually, “the Scriptures” which “would be the foundation and pillar of our faith”.

Cullmann’s whole premise is to say that there is a sharp disjunction between the “oral transmission” of the message, and the need to write it down in a fixed, canonical form.

Irenaeus has said all of that before he talks about Rome. At this point, too, there is an echo of the warnings of Matthew 23:

Thus the tradition of the apostles [now written down as “Scriptures”] manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time, men who taught or knew nothing of the sort that [the Gnostics] madly imagine. If however the apostles had known secret mysteries that they would have taught secretly to the “perfect,” [as the Gnostics were teaching – those who could somehow improve on the Apostles’ message, perhaps through some process of “development”], they would certainly have transmitted them especially to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless in every respect [1 Tim 3:2). If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity.

What we have in Matthew 23 is echoed here in Irenaeus. It is not the promise of some future “unbroken succession, but as evidence that a faithful transmission has occurred to this point. It is a warning against “improving upon” the message (rather, the need to keep it faithfully” and also that warning (in the light of the destruction of the temple) that those, in the “succession”, “if they failed it would be the greatest calamity”.

This is not a promise for the future, but an echo of Matthew’s warning of destruction to church leadership that was not faithful.

Tarot card Catholicism

 I'm going to comment on some comments at Called to Confusion:

Bryan CrossNo Gravatar June 20th, 2012 9:58 am :

The Bible has authority in two distinct and non-mutually exclusive ways. All Scripture has divine authority because it is God-breathed. But the canon of Scripture also has authority in another sense because it was recognized as canonical by the Church, through Tradition. What Tom is talking about is the authority Scripture has as God-breathed; Scripture does not derive that authority from the Church. What Eck is talking about (in the selection Swan cites) is the authority the canon has on account of its having been recognized as canonical by the Church; Scripture does derive that authority from the Church.

i) This is somewhat confused. Something with no inherent authority can have derivative authority. Take the rules for football. These have no inherent authority. They are arbitrary, conventional, manmade rules. It would be possible to change the rules.

But in a football game, both teams agree to play by the same rules. Both teams ascribe authority to the rules. The rules function as an authority.

ii) Likewise, the Bible can function as an authority in the life of the church. But that doesn’t mean the functional authority of Scripture is merely ascriptive. Rather, the Bible has functional authority because the Bible has inherent authority. It ought to function as an authority (indeed, the supreme authority) in the life of the church.

Michael LiccioneNo Gravatar June 20th, 2012 7:55 pm :

John, you’re overlooking a few rather elementary facts.

For one thing, while they lived, Peter, Paul, and other authors of New Testament books were themselves the leaders of the Church appointed directly by the Lord.

i) What makes Liccione think every NT writer was appointed directly by Jesus? That isn’t even true on traditional authorship.

ii) Moreover, modern Catholic scholars routinely deny traditional authorship. Likewise, modern Catholic scholars don’t assume that the Gospels or Acts give us an accurate picture of how the church was originally constituted.

iii) What makes him think every NT author was a church leader? Was Mark a church leader? Was Luke a church leader? “Leader” in what sense?

They had been teaching the Church and speaking for the Church well before they wrote those books. So “the Church” just is “older than Scripture,” where the Scripture in question is the New Testament. (More generally, the entire “people” of the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ is older than the entire scriptural canon, since the Jews were constituted as God’s chosen people before any of the OT was put to papyrus.)

But is “the Church” older than the word of God? There’s a sense in which the word of God goes all the way back to creation (“And God said…” Gen 1).

Given as much, believers saw some of the NT books as divinely inspired because the Apostles and those who wrote and taught with their authorization said they were.

i) Who is he referring to when he alludes to those who “wrote and taught” with apostolic authorization? Is he alluding to the subapostolic fathers? The church fathers generally? Roman bishops?

If so, he’s begging the question in favor of apostolic succession. That’s something he needs to establish.

ii) Or is he alluding to some NT writers? If so, why assume NT writers needed apostolic authorization? If they were divinely inspired, they already had divine authorization.

The faithful believed them because, in making that claim, the Apostles and those they authorized were known to be exercising the authority the Lord had given them. So those NT books which were accepted early as divinely inspired–whatever the exact list, if any–were authenticated as such by the Apostles and those they authorized to write and teach. And that is the same as to say that said books were authenticated as divinely inspired only with “the Church’s authority.” So Eck was by no means off base in making the claim you say does “violence” to the Scriptures.

If you were already a Christian, then you accepted the authority of Christ and the apostles. But if you were a Jew or pagan gentile, that wasn’t a given.

The NT Scriptures were books of the Church: written through her instrumentality, and recognized as such by her authority. That is historical fact, not theological dogma.

In what sense is it a historical fact rather than theological dogma that the NT Scriptures were written through the church’s instrumentality? That sounds like theological dogma to me.

What does that even mean? How is Liccione defining the church? What is the minimal unit of the church? The laity? The episcopate? The Apostolate?

In what sense did Paul write through the instrumentality of the church? He was directly called by Christ. He was divinely inspired.

In what sense did Jude write through the instrumentality of the church? He had a direct connection to Jesus, as his stepbrother.

Moreover, it’s just a historical fact that the entire NT canon took several centuries to coalesce and be closed. It was the Church which decided all along which books belonged in the NT canon and which didn’t.

i) Which church decided that? Certainly not the church of Rome, all by itself. That wasn’t the unilateral decision of local church like Rome. Rome didn’t decide that for every other church. That was more of a collective decision.

ii) And to a great extent that wasn’t even a decision, but a prior understanding. Most books of the NT were never in doubt. That was the only canon the church ever had.

iii) Of course, as you move later into the process, you encounter later books. Apocryphal books written in the mid-2C and beyond. But that’s not what the church started with. Those are barnacles. The church was sloughing off barnacles.

So the church came full circle. She ended where she began.

iv) Did the church select the NT? Or did the NT select for the church? A church is not a true church if it contradicts the NT.

v) There’s also a sense in which the OT selected the NT. For the NT must correspond to the OT. The NT Scriptures are the counterpart of the OT Scriptures. The OT pairs off with the NT, and vice versa.

 That decision didn’t make the NT divinely inspired, but as things happened, the decision was clearly necessary for making the conviction that certain books were divinely inspired anything more than private opinion. Just recall the Marcionite controversy and others regarding particular books.

It was more than “private opinion” in the sense that this represents collective opinion. But there’s nothing intrinsically deficient about “private opinion” as long as that’s correct.