Tag Archive for tradition at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'tradition'

Tradition & Heresy

Published by cchrisr May 1, 2008 in Essays and Theology. 10 Comments

(This is the fourth and final part of a series on tradition. Part One, Part Two, Part Three.)

Tradition is best defined as the cyclical interaction between orthodoxy and scriptures. It can be seen most in the way that scriptures have been transformed through the course of time in their interaction with orthodoxy. Brevard Childs has provided an excellent resource for this: his book The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. This one work is a wonderful collection of texts from as early as the second century with the most influential church fathers to as late as ten years ago; it is one of the best collections covering the way that the book of Isaiah has been reinterpreted throughout Christianity. As the book revolves around the interpretation of Isaiah from the second century to the twenty-first century, it is worth a brief look to show the interaction between orthodoxy and scriptures.

Isaiah as an Example
Childs begins with Justin Martyr’s take on Isaiah. Justin reads in Isaiah the prophecies of the virgin birth and the suffering servant, particularly seeing the death of Christ as being symbolic of the Passover lamb. Yet Justin also has his own radical interpretations, such as applying the attacks in Isaiah 3 and 5 on the eighth-century Jewish leadership to the Jews of his own day [Brevard Childs, Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004): 41].

The first two interpretations carry to this day, but the third was eventually excluded in later (much later) generations. It is already here that there is an influence of scripture on orthodoxy, which gets re-interpreted as the basis for later interpretations.

Soon after Justin, Irenaeus added a few interpretations of his own. His chief addition was in interpreting Isaiah 7 and 9 as indicating the divine and human nature of Jesus [Childs, 51]. Irenaeus is also one of the first church fathers to quote at length Christian writings and treat these as canonical literature. By the end of the third century, orthodoxy had equalized about the nature of Christ and began to flesh out its view of the incarnation of Christ. Eusebius in the third century is fixated by this idea and dedicates four chapters of his Demonstratio Evangelica to it [Childs, 83]. Furthermore, Eusebius authored the earliest extant commentary on Isaiah—evidence that Isaiah had successfully crossed over from Jewish to Christian scripture [Origen authored the first, but it is lost].

The interaction has thus far developed in this way after the death and resurrection: the early Christian community sought to read the Jewish scriptures through the lens of the death and resurrection, which lead them to the passages in Isaiah (as well as others) that could be re-read as foretelling Jesus. By appealing to these Jewish scriptures for Christian theology, they had created the first connection between scriptures and orthodoxy: one had to believe in the death of Christ as a symbol of the Passover lamb. By making this first connection, Christianity treated Isaiah now as Christian scriptures; the first cycle. Within just 100 years, this cycle was completed again as orthodoxy included the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, and the human incarnation of God. By 400 CE, Isaiah was so integral to orthodoxy that it had gained acceptance throughout Christianity. This was the case with most of the books accepted into the canon at the second Council of Carthage.

Changes and Alterations
There are also cases where orthodoxy has changed scriptures, either by removing texts from the canon or modifying the actual texts. One such instance is the story of Bel and the Dragon from the Septuagint . Not only was this text attested by fathers of orthodoxy (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen) [Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 103], but it was also accepted at the Council of Carthage. It was removed during the Reformation first by protestants in their struggle to return to the Jewish scriptures, even though it appears in the original 1611 Authorized Version as well as being listed in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.

There is also a second form of orthodoxy interacting with scripture: deliberate alterations. In the Gospel of Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism, there is a point where God speaks from the heavens saying “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” [Luke 3:23, NRSV]. Yet many early variants record God saying “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Bart Ehrman believes that this variant is the earlier, more original text which was changed in order to prevent an adoptionist reading of the passage [Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2005): 159-160]. It is highly likely that this is the case, but it brings up the question on how orthodoxy and scripture should interact.

Theologians today seem to suggest that it should be a simple relationship indicated by fidelity to the original texts (or what we can gather as such) coupled with studious translation and interpretation to that. On the other hand, history has consistently suggested that orthodoxy and scripture should define and change the other, even at the cost of losing the most original documents. It may be better to see scriptures “not primarily as a chronicle but as a testimony of faith in the One who identified himself to Moses from the burning bush” [Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible is it? (New York: Penguin, 2005): 31].

Tradition is arguably the most important aspect for the longevity of a religion. While it is normally seen as the handing down of beliefs from one generation to the next, it should also be seen as that which is handed down, particularly the interaction between orthodoxy and scriptures. This interaction is a never-ending cycle of alteration and redefining, sometimes subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle). The relation most often seen is scriptures defining orthodoxy. Yet the reciprocal also happens, perhaps more often than some admit; orthodoxy changes scriptures through either interpretation or in modifying the set of accepted scriptures. These two functions play on each repetition of each other throughout multiple generations. Whereas some people see this as problematic, it should be embraced as an integral part of the nature of religious movements as they are concerned ultimately with the nonphysical, be it God, nirvana, rebirth, or the end of ages. Faith is not a matter of fidelity to a group of texts but rather that which inspired those texts.

Tradition & Theology - Part III

Published by cchrisr April 16, 2008 in Theology. 7 Comments

(This is part 3 of a four part series on tradition. Part one can be found here, part two here.)

Tradition is where religious authority is found; it is no wonder then that it is deeply embedded in the concepts of orthodoxy and sacred scriptures. Tradition is the endless cycle of dialogues between scripture and orthodoxy that travel through each generation, never quite the same in each instance. The tradition handed down is the contextual backdrop for the current dialogue. There is never a moment in these dialogues that tradition is not somehow involved, even in the most extreme theologies (e.g., theologies that believes that the scriptures can be completely understood at face value without any context). In other words, even a theology that says it rejects tradition still plays in the game of interaction between scripture and orthodoxy.

Beginning with the Council of Trent and surfacing most recently in the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has emphasized its belief in tradition as coming from the same authoritative source as scriptures [Robert Murray, “Tradition and Sacred Texts,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6:1 (Jan 2004): 6. Also, the document “Dei Verbum” which was the backbone for II Vatican]. Protestant denominations have frequently claimed “sola Scriptura” as Martin Luther did during the Reformation, yet many still appeal to a form of tradition (e.g., the Baptist Faith and Message, Westminster Confession, and Thirty-nine Articles). No group of Christians has been able to survive without tradition because it undergirds orthodoxy.

Why is it that some (or many) Christians want orthodoxy without tradition? This can be answered by looking more closely at how orthodoxy views itself.

Orthodoxy distinguishes itself by the quality of its theology: originality, proper (or true) transmission from its inception, unity and universality, and a middle way between heretical extremes [John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998): 85]. In other words, orthodoxy is seen as the original “formula” that existed from the beginning and was accepted by all believers. Heterodoxy was, by extension, a deviation from orthodoxy; Eusebius used this as an argument against heterodoxy[Henderson, 85].

Even when it is clearly not the case that the orthodox position was the primary, original view, it has been re-interpreted as such by its proponents. An example of this can be found during the Reformation when Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon, part of his (and later followers’) argument was that these texts were originally not part of the canon, despite the Council of Carthage in 397 declaring otherwise (this is the same council that affirmed the Synod of Hippo’s canon, which Protestants accept for defining the canon of the NT).

Another argument used by orthodoxy is the harmony and unity of their beliefs in contrast to the heterodox ones. This notion is a powerful argument for the orthodox because it paints all other theologies as not only divergent from the “true” orthodox but also as divergent within themselves. Why should heterodoxy be entertained if it is self-refuting? Related to this quality is that of universality.

The earliest form of the church was the catholic—universal—church. The Nicene Creed of 381 states that there is “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”—the two qualities that come only from orthodox belief.

The final quality of note is that of moderation. Orthodoxy prides itself on keeping away from heretical extremes. We can see examples of this in the most basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity: Christology (both divine and human in one person) and the trinity (three persons in one substance). In order to fuel this line of argument, orthodoxy must create a canon; both church fathers such as Augustine and Reformation leaders such as Luther agreed that the church had the “power to recognize the books of the canon” [Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984): 263].

As beliefs grow from a singular point (e.g., Jesus the crucified and risen messiah), regular texts are perceived in new light as authoritative. One example of this is the acceptance of 2 Peter into the canon in order to “[oppose] those who promote false teaching” [Bart Ehrman, The New Testament (New York: Oxford, 2000): 421] even though its claim to authorship by the apostle Peter was not well received.

Another more well known example is Luther’s exclusion of not only the deuterocanonical books but also James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation from the canon! [Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 226] Just as the nature of orthodoxy is the creation (and maintenance) of a canon, the function of a canon is to define orthodoxy. Tradition, in the sense of this interaction, is the compass (orthodoxy) and map (scriptures) to the territory of belief.

Some Important Questions On The NT Canon

Published by Bryan April 15, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 3 Comments

When one sits back and really thinks about the NT canon, several important questions should come to mind that are not often addressed. Too often, one jumps to questions such as; what was the criteria for including a book, why was book X not included, and why is the canon closed, before actually considering the concept of canon. That is, one starts their investigation of the canon before considering if there should be a textual canon or not.

To question if there should be a canon or not may seem strange, since there has been some kind of NT canon for much of the history of the church, and perhaps it is a silly question since nearly every Christian alive today would agree that there should be a textual canon. But to start an investigation of the NT canon with this question will force us to examine what we believe the place of the canon is in the Christian life, and to look deeper at why it was formed, even if we all agree on the answer already. Much like in math where you are required to show your work on a test to prove you have thought the concept through and are not simply copying what you have memorized, I think this question will force a person to think through beliefs that they may otherwise take for granted.

I am not sure my answer to the question of why we have a textual canon is correct or not. I think it would be difficult to definitively give an answer to the question, and I think more then one answer may be correct. What I will do in what follows is then only lay out my thoughts on the question of the necessity of a textual canon and invite the discussion of canon to make this question one of it’s starting points.

Who Created the Cannon: God or the Church?
Unlike a great majority of Protestants, I believe that the church created the textual canon. The canon of scripture is above all things a book of the church, the book of the church. The authority that scripture has in the life of the believer comes from God, but not directly. God set up the church as His instrument on the earth, and it was through this instrument that the textual canon was decided. This is in opposition to the view that the church merely recognized the books we have in the textual canon as scripture. I believe this view is neither historically nor theologically defensible.

If the church only recognized what was obvious, then why was there the contradicting lists, the debate, and the need to set a textual canon? Would it not have been so obvious to the church that one would not need to set a list? No, there was discussion and disagreement, true there was also much agreement that certain books needed to be included, but it was not simply because a book had some innate quality that made it scripture, but because it was a true and trustworthy account of what happened that agreed with the teachings of the church.

The textual canon did not come down from heaven like the Ten Commandments did, but it was the authority that Christ gave to the church that allowed it to come into existence. The commands to watch over and feed the sheep/flock (John 21 Acts 20:28) gives the church a general authority. The creating of a textual canon, something to hand down among the sheep to keep them on the straight path after the first few generations begin to die out, can be seen as one way (among many) the church has attempted to fulfill this authority. There really is little other command or prediction to produce such a book.

Defining “Inspiration”
The response to this line of reasoning would be to affirm that although there was not a prediction of scripture, or a command for the church to create a canon, the fact that it is inspired by God (pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16) places it in a category not unlike a gift to the church, but definitely not decided upon by the church. The argument ignores the historical context of the creation of the canon, but also relies on a very specific understanding of what the word “inspired” means.
Continue reading ‘Some Important Questions On The NT Canon’

Tradition & Text - Part II

Published by cchrisr April 3, 2008 in Theology. 1 Comment

Author’s Note: This is part 2 of a 4-part series on tradition. Part 1 here.

As much as orthodoxy is defined by scriptures, so are scriptures defined by orthodoxy. It appears that during the time that Christianity separated from Judaism around the middle of the first century, Jewish scriptures were divided into three sets: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. While the first two had been closed sets of scriptures for approximately 2 centuries, the third set was open for discussion.

The earliest estimate for closing this part is believed to be the meeting at Jamnia in 90 CE [James A Sanders, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987): 12-13]. Sanders mentions that the whole issue was not completely settled until the second century, but that the areas of debate were very minimal:

And the fact that some scattered debate continued into the second century about the canonicity of Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and even Proverbs and Ezekiel, should, in that perspective, properly viewed as minimal in the extreme [Sanders, 13].

Other scholars do not see this meeting as being as conclusive; they suggest a later date some time during the second or third century CE. Regardless of when the Jewish canon was settled, it is certain that Christianity does not begin with a definitive canon of scriptures. While the two religions appeal to the same set of texts, their interpretations of these texts as sacred scriptures can differ radically from each other. In both instances, it is orthodoxy that informs the decision-making process.

Early Christian theology focused on Jesus as the central point of faith and belief. Throughout the writings of the church fathers, it is clear that this is the litmus by which they read Jewish scriptures as their own Christian scriptures. It is important to perceive this difference between Jewish and Christian uses of the same text. An average Jew does not read, for example, the book of Jeremiah the same way a Christian does—and vice versa. For this reason, it will be better to think of the two as completely separate instead of one being a subset of the other.

By the Council of Carthage in 397, church fathers had accepted the Greek Septuagint as the text of their Old Testament; and it differed from the Jewish canon of scriptures. There was little dispute in the church prior to the Reformation on this. During the Reformation, protestants began to reject this difference and reduced the set of texts for their Old Testament to match the Jewish canon [Henri Blocher, “Helpful or Harmful?”, European Journal of Theology 13.2: 82].Throughout all of these decisions, it was the concept of orthodoxy that played the greatest role in determining which texts are truly sacred.

Scriptures have been defined primarily for the justification and creation of orthodoxy, but it has also been defined for the exclusion of other beliefs. As Henderson wrote,

André Suarès has argued that ‘Heresy is the lifeblood of religion. It is faith that made heretics.’ But it might be equally true to say that heretics have made faith, or at least the faith [John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998): 2].

Marcion, for instance, believed that the God of love Paul describes is so radically different from the Jewish God of creation that anything related to this Jewish God was completely worthless. His idea of orthodoxy led him to reject all forms of Jewish scripture and to suggest a canon consisting of Paul’s letters and a single gospel. While his canon most likely did not reflect what most Christians at this time read, church fathers began to react against Marcion’s canon and formulate a more accepted canon. Scholars agree that Marcion’s forming of a canon was the catalyst for Christianity to define a single canon.

The example of Shepherd of Hermas is more to the point. It was well accepted by the earliest fathers, much as Epistle of Barnabas, but it was rejected and then treated as heretical in the matter of three hundred years. It is clear that Shepherd could have been interpreted as presenting an adoptionist [Robert J. Hauck, “The great fast: Christology in the Shepherd of Hermas,” Anglican Theological Review 75.2 (Spring 1993): 197] Christology; this is probably the primary reason it was excluded from the canon and branded heretical: it did not fall in line explicitly enough with the emerging orthodoxy. It is through the debates in the first 400 years of Christianity that settle the issue of what texts are sacred and what beliefs are proper. It is here, through the question of what beliefs are acceptable that texts become scriptures.

Tradition & Orthodoxy - Part I

Published by cchrisr March 19, 2008 in Theology. 18 Comments

Author’s Note: This is part 1 of a 4-part series on tradition adapted from a paper I recently authored.

What is the process surrounding the development of texts into sacred scriptures, particularly in new religious movements? Additionally, what relation, if any, does this process have with the defining of orthodoxy? This series will examine these two movements as a re-imagining of what is nominally considered tradition, “the process of handing something on to another generation and that which is handed on” [Robert Murray, “Tradition and Sacred Texts,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6:1 (Jan 2004): 4]

These two ideas—orthodoxy and scriptures—are codependent concepts that require the other for proper existence. Without a defined orthodoxy, it is nearly impossible to define a set of scriptures. Without a set of scriptures, there cannot be a strong definition of orthodoxy. These two movements interact with each other reciprocally: scriptures define orthodoxy while orthodoxy defines and interprets scriptures. In other words, it is a constant dialogue and interaction between theology and text that provides the context for present and future instances. All of orthodoxy and scripture is embedded in the context of the sum of its previous interactions and dialogues. This series will look at each of these, first from a theoretical perspective, followed by a few case examples. Tradition has the association that it has always been as such, but this article will show that this is only because the interactions between scriptures and orthodoxy force them to be reinterpreted as having always been the case.

Rightly Dividing
Christianity did not begin in a vacuum, nor with its theology fully formed at inception. Its orthodoxy was largely a process of refinement that is most visible in the many creeds that still stand today (e.g., the Nicene Creed). What we do know about the earliest groups of Christians is that they were, at times, wildly divergent with some believing Jesus to be purely divine without any kind of bodily form and others believing Jesus to be strictly human adopted by God later on [See Bart Ehrman, The New Testament (New York: Oxford, 2000) chapter 1 as well as Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2005) chapter 6].

Every one of these groups had in mind a particular set of texts as their sacred scriptures which provided the evidence they needed to define what they constructed as orthodoxy—proper belief. There is even enough evidence to suggest that “the proto-heretical, not the proto-orthodox, were in the majority at some points in the early Church” [John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998): 40]. For instance, Arianism at one time was so popular that Jerome remarked that “the world groaned and was amazed that it had become Arian” [Quoted in Henderson, 43-44].

Throughout these events, support was provided by appeal to what was considered sacred scriptures. When Pope Leo I declared the Roman tradition as orthodoxy and focused church authority to the papal office, his support was based on the succession of popes that began with Jesus’ instruction to Peter in the gospels[Henderson, 44], not to the primacy of the Roman See, the influential location of the Roman church, some divine vision, or the popularity of its beliefs in the emerging Christianity.

In the various councils that fought against what became heresies—or more precisely, heterodoxies—creeds were formulated by appeals to scriptures. By the time of these councils, much of Christianity had come to a mostly agreed-upon set of scriptures; only a handful of books were disputed at the fringes [Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995): 206 and Appendix 1.D]. Given an early date of acceptance of the NT canon to be Athanasius’s Easter Letter of 367 and a late date to be the Council of Carthage in 397, much of what is now orthodox belief in Christianity was not finalized until this time or later [The doctrine of the trinity was not fully formed until the second Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople) in 381. Most other issues were not settled until at least the mid-fifth century].

The ability to define orthodoxy requires both an accepted set of scriptures and a motivation to do such. During much of Christianity’s first century, there was not a motivation for creating orthodoxy—something that is for longevity of the religion—because the primary focus was the imminent second coming of Christ. What good is it to discuss and flesh out a set of beliefs that will probably not come to fruition before the end of time. This is similar to the reasoning scholarship believes there were few books in the beginning of Christianity. As just mentioned above, the majority of sacred scriptures were agreed upon relatively early compared to the formation of orthodoxy. The greatest driving force behind the consolidation of belief into orthodoxy came almost exclusively from the proto-orthodox predecessors. In other words, the proponents of what would become orthodoxy wanted to promote their beliefs as orthodox and exclude other beliefs, even if those other beliefs were more common. As John Henderson mentions,

Despite the discovery of some Gnostic heresiology in the Nag Hammadi materials, there remains a “curious scarcity of anti-orthodox polemics in the heretical literature. Although it seems that second-century heretical authors were far more prolific than their orthodox counterparts, they appear uninterested in refuting the orthodox position.” [Henderson, 27]

This is a major factor to consider when analyzing the development of orthodoxy. Too often, it is believed that the battle for orthodoxy was a constant fight between both parties, but it seems that orthodoxy was brought by brute force rather than discussion [Henderson, 46].

The creation of orthodoxy depends upon the existence of an accepted set of sacred scriptures, a canon. It is important that the texts are treated as religiously authoritative and not just edifying. This distinction can be seen most clearly in the acceptance of Epistle of Barnabas. It was originally accepted as canonical by fathers such as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, as well as being included in the earliest textual witnesses, including Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, later church fathers such as Athanasius and Rufinus removed it from their list of canonical books while still suggesting it as edifying for the church [McDonald, 271]. Through the use of scriptures, orthodoxy defines its core doctrines as well as those beliefs that are incompatible with them—heterodoxy.

Changing Church: Part 4

Published by Bryan September 18, 2007 in General and Emerging Church. 4 Comments

This is part 4 of a series yet undetermined in length.

With Protestant evangelical churches’ historical animosity toward church history, there are few resources to help those who are trying to bring older practices into today’s churches. This is particularly true in free churches (Baptist, E-Free, Pentecostal…) that do not have a set liturgy. Churches that have come out of the magisterial reformation (Anglican, Reformed and Lutheran) and kept the liturgy (although modified for each denomination) have part of the historical church passed down in their liturgy week after week. The liturgy provides a common reference point, a kind of living memory for a church from which a connection with the historical past can be emphasized and explored. In churches without a liturgy and a general a-historic view of the church it can be difficult to find a way to begin to explore the past with the church community.

The one resource that most churches, even free churches, have to use is church creeds. No matter what denomination, nearly everyone will agree with what is said in the Apostles and Nicaea Creed. There are some exceptions here, the Church of Christ (and some others smaller groups) do not use creeds, there is disagreement on Christ descending into Hell and the Filioque clause with the orthodox church, but the these two creeds come the closest to being catholic (in the universal sense) documents that the church today has.

When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds. Most churches and denominations within the free churches have not given much thought as to why they use, or at least recognize these creeds, which provides an amazing chance for a church to begin an investigation of the history of the church.

We have, in our churches, examples of how scripture and tradition have historically interacted with each other in the church that are waiting to be investigated and explored. Among Emerging Churches, Dan Kimball seems to take the creeds the most seriously. In his chapter in Listening To The Beliefs Of The Emerging Church he spends a lot of time discussing what their role in the church should be. He seems to understand what I have been saying here; that they are a doorway that we can use to enter into the past, but more importantly are the bounds of orthodoxy. Kimball represents the emerging church at its best on this point.

There are many resources available to churches wanting to begin an investigation of the creeds. With the internet, documents such as Philip Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom and other writings on the creeds are available to everyone. There is also a newer book by D.H. Williams entitled Evangelicals and Tradition, which, among other things, discusses the formation of the creeds and is an important book which I hope to review in full at a later date.

Zeal For Truth