“You seem to be using two different sets of criteria for determining the historical reliability of Scripture and Tradition.”
I don’t believe we’ve discussed the criteria for determining the historical reliability of Scripture.
“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.”
It isn’t that I am skeptical. The very article you had me read was as uncertain as could be. I pointed out every phrase from just one or two paragraphs. So, if they can’t accurately date it, I sure can’t. In other words, there is no definite historical link. It is obvious it has been altered over the centuries, as the author readily admitted.
“Plus, a position of “Scripture yes, Tradition no” is self-contradictory, since Scripture comes to us from, and is identified to us by, Tradition.”
I understand why, as a RC, you would believe that, while at the same time condemning those who questioned the canonicity of every choice the RC made. I don’t mean you personally condemning, but the RC in general and frequently condemned here. Yet the fact that the extensive criteria that was used then can be used now is important. It isn’t just historical criteria, but obviously a wrong date or false history could eliminate a choice. Some books were eliminated for those reasons and others in the non RC canon.
“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.”
There is truth in what you wrote and frankly, we do not know the exact basis upon which God guided those who recognized the Hebrew Books as inspired. Yet God worked.
“It’s only according to Rabbinic tradition that the five books of the Torah were written by Moses.”
No problem. Knowing with 100% accuracy isn’t necessary in this case and again, we do not know exactly how God guided the process.
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 that belief was one important criteria used in choosing the canon.
“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?)”
Yet that was one criteria. Just one.
“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..”
BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL TO James in authority. And once you have a canon, you are not deciding if it is true. You have it. As I pointed out, the Liturgy is no certain thing as a reflection of what happened in 60 ad among Christians in the new church. It is a crapshoot. It is not inspired. It is not authoritative. It is interesting.
“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.”
Again, I can understand your POV, but I see absolutely no such conflict - and I point out that the inspired Scriptures were not 100% dependent on Tradition. I disagree completely with that point. I reject that tradition = 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.”
I can go this far: God chose to use what you listed to give us His Word. He could have accomplished His purpose through any way He chose. Had He not done the first, He would have used a different purpose. We see His message delivered by angels, by a disembodied hand writing on a wall, a talking ass, etc.
“It’s a good discussion! Thanks for the to-ing and fro-ing.”
Agreed. As I said, I always appreciate your spirit and consider you a sister in Christ.
Blessings back.
(BTW, I do think that my brain is getting slower and fuzzier, so if I misconstrue your major points, I won't mind being corrected. OK. Now I'll plunge in. Batten down the hatches.)
"It isn’t that I am skeptical. The very article you had me read was as uncertain as could be."
I see your point. But wouldn't the same objection apply to, for instance, the Epistle of St. James? We don't know who the author is: James son of Alphaeus? James son of Zebedee? James son of Joseph ("the brother of the Lord")? Does James son of Alphaeus = James the son of Mary Cleophas? Or is the work pseudographical, a collection of different authors writing under the patronage of the Church of Jerusalem headed by James?
James "the Just" was martyred in 62 AD. If he wrote it, it would have been written before that year (duh); but some scholars cite strong reasons why it was probably written in the last years of the 1st, or early 2nd century; and the earliest existing manuscripts of James are mid-to-late third century.
So we don't know who wrote it, and don't know when it was written.
As early as the 4th century, some voices here and there were doubting that it was written by an Apostle, that it was canonical, or that it was doctrinally sound, particularly as regards the doctrine of justification. 1200 years later, Martin Luther raised these same objections.
Long way of saying: I think Martin Luther and the various critics were wrong. Why? I am satisfied that the Epistle is legit, because it was accepted and received into the actual practice of the Church; I am likewise satisfied that the Liturgy of St. James is legit, and for exactly the same reason: because it was accepted and received into the actual practice of the Church.
It is the practice of the Church as a whole --- the sensus fidelium---which guarantees the authenticity of the texts, because the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church--- as Jesus repeatedly promised. I trust Him on this one.
Does that mean that every human act of every crapulous Renaissance pope was impeccable (without sin)? Of course not. Ha. (Again I say, Ha.) It just means that the Church as a whole will not be led into formal doctrinal error. We're thinking with the Church, the Bride of Christ, in union with Our Lord the Holy Spirit. With due respect to Martin Luther, these things are not up for grabs.
(It reminds me of a former Cuban neighbor's exclamation when viewing the "chaos and anarchy" of her kids' unkempt bedroom:
"La Iglesia in manos de Lutero!""The Church in the hands of Luther!"
"...In other words, [for the Liturgy of St. James] there is no definite historical link."
That is way too sweeing a conclusion, even considering the uncertainties of authorship, dating and provenance. Even if the Liturgy dates from the 4th century and not the 1st, it's what the Church of Jerusalem at least from the 4th century accepted as legit, as "from the Apostles," without liturgical improprieties nor doctrinal errors. We know of no objection from the rest of the patriarchal Churches, Alexandria, Damascus, Constantinople, Rome, anywhere.
If the Council of Nicaea, for instance, had said "The Liturgy used in Jerusalem is screwy and that place is a hotbed of heresy," then it would be a different story.
"Yet the fact that the extensive criteria that was used then can be used now is important. It isn’t just historical criteria, but obviously a wrong date or false history could eliminate a choice."
Obviously? That depends. Some inaccuracies are not that important: they just show human error. Consider Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech in around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. And Gamaliel says that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus and other records.
But... so? I would not throw out the Acts of the Apostles for that reason. Maybe Luke got it mixed up. Maybe Gamaliel got it mixed up. Maybe there were different revolutionaries also named "Theudas" and "Judas the Galilean," in different generations, whom we don't know about. Basically, it involves no error in faith and morals, so it really doesn't bother me.
The (well-known in some Evangelical circles) Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has found a zillion of these kinds of discrepancies of detail. For instance, he was much perturbed by Jesus talking about David entering the Temple "when Abiathar was High Priest" (Mark 2:26) when, according to 1 Samuel, David did this when Ahimelech was high priest. Ehrman was so anguished: did Mark get it wrong? Did Samuel get it wrong? Did Jesus get it wrong? It drove him right into the arms of the atheists, poor man.
I say: Get a grip, Bart. It's de minimis. Nobody's faith depends on whether Abiathar or Ahimelech was High Priest.
" No problem. Knowing with 100% accuracy isn’t necessary in this case and again, we do not know exactly how God guided the process."
Exactly!
" And once you have a canon, you are not deciding if it is true. You have it."
Ah, brother, I wish it were so! If it were, your Bible wouldn't be ..umm... 7 books slenderer... than most Bibles! :o)
"I reject that tradition = human transmission."
This may be a sho-nuff definition problem, and the responsibility for that is probably mine because I did not approach the discussion systematically, by putting a discussion of definitions out there first and trying to get a shared understanding. It's a frequent problem in this kind of forum: people club each other over the head repeatedly before they realize that they actually have been using words in different senses.
I am using the word "tradition" (small "t") in the broadest sense of "everything that is handed down" (tra=across, ducire=to hand over, to convey). Not necessarily authoritative or inspired.
I am using the word Tradition (big "T") as a synonym for "the deposit of Faith" handed down from the Apostles.
In this sense, there are two divisions of big-T Tradition: Oral Tradition and Written Tradition. Oral Tradition would be what people heard from the Apostles, repeated, taught others in their turn, and imitated. (Paul: "be imitators of me as I am of Christ.") It's the content of the Apostolic preaching and teaching and example, put into practice. Written Tradition would be a synonym for the Sacred Scriptures. Both forms are authoritative: what the Apostles preached and what they wrote (and the way they lived their lives.)
I might not have been using these terms carefully or consistently enough--- which means mushy thinking on my part --- and for this I would ask your patient forbearance.
"I can go this far: God chose to use what you listed to give us His Word. He could have accomplished His purpose through any way He chose. Had He not done the first, He would have used a different purpose. We see His message delivered by angels, by a disembodied hand writing on a wall, a talking ass, etc."
We are in total agreement on that!!
I've got to go scrub a burned pot.
See you later, 'tater.
Oh, and get this (tagline):