August, late 2nd Cent. A Word from Irenaeus: Tradition is Scripture
Hutchinson, E.J. “Tradition is Scripture.” The Calvinist International. 30 Jul 2014. http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/07/30/tradition-scripture/. Accessed 30 Jul 2014
Tradition Is Scripture
On the One Hand…
Let’s take a statement out of context, shall
we?
But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to
that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are
wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
On a first reading, this would seem to be an
appeal to tradition as dispositive for the proof of Christian doctrine, rather
than, say, to Scripture. But what does Irenaeus mean by this “tradition”?
On the Other…
To determine that, we have to back up. In Against
Heresies 3.1, he writes of the “plan of our salvation” that
“has come down to us” in the Gospel. How do we know what that Gospel is? We
know it “from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us.” What does
that mean? It means that we know it by what the Apostles wrote down (leaving
aside for the moment some of the specific claims he makes, e.g., Matthew
writing in Hebrew, details about Peter in Rome 1, etc.). For instance, how do we know what Peter preached? Mark
wrote it down. How do we know what Paul preached? Luke wrote it down. And so
on.
We have
learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at
one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is
unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves
as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts],
and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings
of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the
peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess
the Gospel of God. Matthew also
issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect,
while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in
writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did
himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
The position that there was more or different
truth to be had and that could not be proved from what was written was the
position of his opponents. The first move in refutation is the case from
Scripture; when that has been applied, these “heretics” find another ground on
which to wage the battle. His opponents allege that, for truth to come from
Scripture, tradition must be applied. Why? Because tradition, handed on viva voce, has to be used to interpret the written
word and extract the truth from it.
When,
however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they
were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and
that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents,
but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared,But we speak wisdom among those that
are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of
his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time inValentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other
opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse
disposition,depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
The above paragraph immediately precedes the
one quoted at the beginning of this post. When he speaks of “refer[ring] them
to the tradition which originates from the Apostles,” we must understand it in
light of what comes before and in the general structure of his argument.
For Irenaeus, the ”tradition which originates from the Apostles,”
and therefore the truth that should confound his opponents, was delivered
precisely “by means of written documents,” as we just saw above. When Irenaeus
speaks at the end of 3.2 of consenting to Scripture and tradition, we must
understand that, for him, they have the same content.
Succession, Barbarians, and Heretics
Only in light of the foregoing, then, can we understand
the role of the Church in its succession of bishops that Irenaeus goes on to
describe in 3.3. They are to guard continously (and Irenaeus says that they
have in fact done so) “the tradition,” which we have seen to be synonymous with
the apostolic Gospel, first preached by the Apostles and later written down.
That this is Irenaeus’ position is only
confirmed by what he goes on to say in 3.4. There, he speaks of those who believe based on (oral) tradition
alone and not on the basis of what is written–and this because they are what he
calls “barbarians”; they cannot read. We can understand the position of these
“barbarians” if we imagine (hypothetically) that the Apostles never wrote
anything down but only preached their message and then passed it on to others. The faith
of those who believed that message, he says, would be the same as those who
learned it from the written testimony.
Notice, though, what is necessary to underpin
this assertion: the assumption that the two messages, what is preached and what
is written, are the same. We must
keep this in mind in interpreting what he means by the Apostles “depositing”
the truth with the Church and of us “lay[ing] hold of the tradition of the truth.”
Irenaeus even states in 3.4.2 what he takes that “tradition” to be: it is
basically synonymous with the Creed, and therefore with the central story of
Scripture and the message of the Gospel. Because the content of what has been
preached to them is the same as what is written, he claims that the
“barbarians” are just as well equipped as anyone to ward off the attacks of
heretics upon the truth.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged
in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her
the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are
thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to
the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of
the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to
some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most
ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what
is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how
should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not
be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of
the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit
the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the
ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all
things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of
the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour,
shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge
of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who,
in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as
regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were
to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop
their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to
the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of
the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of
the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers,
among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
Conclusion
I am not interested here in the particulars of
the historical case that Irenaeus makes for the situation “on the ground” in
his own day. 2 What I am interested in, rather, is the structure of his argument
and the way in which he links up the “pieces” or “strands” of Scripture and
tradition. In these first four chapters of Book 3, he argues for an identity of
content between the two that is publicly accessible to all comers, learned or
unlearned, verifiable by documentation, and opposed to all secret so-called
“knowledge” from his adversaries.
Notes:
For instance, Irenaeus’ own claim for the place assigned to Rome necessitates the presence of both Peter and Paul in Rome in the first century. If that is shown to be doubtful, then that particular claim of Irenaeus becomes doubtful; if it is shown to be without foundation, then that particular claim of Irenaeus collapses; etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment