But of course, assumptions remain assumptions when they are without evidence. In this discussion, which has been wide ranging, you are not bringing forth evidence that supports anything about Jesus' brothers and sisters, perpetual virginity or as far as I remember (long day) any other topic. In the end an assumption may be right or wrong, but it is not known which it is without evidence.
Obviously there were gaps in Hebrew revelation, but in the end, it was all inspired revelation that is augmented with non-inspired history and other sources. Those other sources are very, very interesting, but not inspired.
"Clement of Rome, (died in 99 AD), who was a contemporary of the Apostles; and Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD)" OK, bring forth the evidence from these two sources and let's take a look! They wont change the utter absence of inspired evidence, but let's take a look.
From your St. James link: "This Liturgy is the oldest Eucharistic service in continual use. In its present form, it's believed to go back to the Fourth Century, and some variation of the Liturgy likely dates back much earlier, perhaps as early as 60 A.D. (making it older than much of the New Testament). It's classically ascribed to St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and has special prayers for the Church at Jerusalem. and what we have here is probably pretty close to what a Jerusalem Christian would be praying on an ordinary Sunday in the early 300s."
Believed, Fourth Century, Likely dates back, perhaps as early, ascribed, is probably pretty close, in the early 300s.
Frankly, it is indeed interesting, but there are no Christian priests in the Church recorded in the New Testament as an office. There is no evidence of a belief in transubstantiation in the early church in Acts or the Epistles. For those reasons and the outright admission that there is not an unbroken chain between the NT church and this form of liturgy, it is not definitive. Much was obviously added in later centuries. Still, it is interesting.
In closing, I always appreciate your good spirit, despite our disagreements.
You seem to be using two different sets of criteria for determining the historical reliability of Scripture and Tradition. In particular, I noticed that you are skeptical of the authorship, provenance, and dating of the Liturgy of St. James, when the historic grounding for this Liturgy has the same kind of parameters as the historic evidence we have for -- for instance --- the Gospels and Epistles of the NT.
Note here that I am not saying that the Liturgies are equal in authority nor that they are inspired in the same sense as the books of the NT. I am just saying that the bibliographic information is just as good, just as accurate (or inaccurate!) if you judge them by the same criteria.
Plus, a position of “Scripture yes, Tradition no” is self-contradictory, since Scripture comes to us from, and is identified to us by, Tradition.
Let me use just one plain and obvious example: the naming and authorship of Biblical books.
As you probably know, many Biblical books do not carry within them (within the text) who the author is, or the date of its publication. Obviously a few do. Some start out like this: (Hosea 1:1) "The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri...", and Joel, Micah and Zephaniah begin in a similar manner. But for most of the rest of them we are relying on Rabbinical Tradition at a later date -- or Patristic Tradition at a MUCH later date --- to decide of the title and/authorship of books which are not attested in the scroll itself.
It's only according to Rabbinic tradition that the five books of the Torah were written by Moses. Yet most Christians and Jews accept these as “the Books of Moses.” And it’s only tradition dating from at least the 2nd century AD (!) that asserts that what we now call the Book of Joshua was by Joshua, and the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel were by the prophet Samuel. But many of the books have no human author indicated, and in some, the “given” human author is clearly disputable. (E.g. Isaiah, which contains a sequence of pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic material spanning almost 3 centuries: virtually no one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person – the 8th century BC prophet Isaiah ben Amoz.)
All of the Gospels were anonymous. Anonymous! But the "settled" idea of their authorship by "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke", and "John" rests entirely upon oral tradition and the early Fathers. And then there’s the still hotly disputed questions of, “Who really wrote 2 Thessalonians? or 2 Peter? Or the Epistle to the Hebrews?”
I could go on, but I need not for you to get my point. We rely on Tradition to grasp, as well as we can, who the authors of these books were, and in what time frames, and under what conditions (Autographic? Dictated to scribes? Collected and redacted from previous materials?)
So I’m dissatisfied by the way you so briskly brush away major chunks of Christian Tradition (like the Liturgy of St. James) which are, paleographically, just as solidly established as the Epistle of St. James..
As I said, it’s actually incoherent to set Sacred Tradition at odds with Sacred Scripture, since the fact that the physical Bible exists at all is entirely, 100% dependent on Tradition--- which is to say, human transmission. If it were not for human composition, editing, copying, collection, distribution, canonization, translation and publication, the Bible on your bedside table or mine would simply not exist. Though it is the inspired Word of God, it did not drop down from the sky, The inspiration is heavenly. The way it got to us, is exactly what we mean by “Scriptural Tradition.”
It's a good discussion! Thanks for the to-ing and fro-ing.
G’Night, my friend! Blessing in tagline.