Tradition and Basil

Icons (again)

Francis warns his readers before linking to an Orthodox site with "graphical attempted likeness of the Christ", aka an icon of Christ.

One wonders who Francis is warning since Presbyterians seem to have a great love of religious icons. So before getting down to serious business let's go on a very brief tour of Presbyterian imagery of Christ, courtesy of 2 minutes of Google searching....

http://www.foxchasechurch.org/StainedGlass.htm

http://www.cliftonpc.org/history/sgwindow.htm

http://museum.msu.edu/museum/msgc/jul06.html

http://www.standrewskw.com/wtour.htm

http://www.ettc.net/njarts/details.cfm?ID=1177

I find this ironic given the inordinate amount of time Francis has devoted to icons in this debate.

Tradition

Looking for sola scriptura among the Fathers is a fruitless exercise, and never more so than in the document Francis has quoted, "Oration on the Holy Spirit" by Basil the Great of Caesaria (bishop 365-379 AD).

I offer below some more quotes from the same document which I think truly speak for themselves:

"The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

"In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity." Chapter XXVII, ibid

"Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?" ibid

"Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of today — because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently, — at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned." - Chapter XXIX ibid

"Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day." Chapter XXX ibid


Of course, nobody is saying that "it is tradition, look no further", means that one can't look in scripture. After all, scripture IS tradition, as I have said many times, and which the apostle says also.

But if the question is whether Basil is prepared to say we need not look any further, if something is a tradition of the fathers, and yet not in the writings (aka scripture), then clearly Basil adopts that view, just the same as Chrysostom. I had thought of commenting on the above quotes from Basil, but they are so clear as to not warrant comment. It is tradition, look no further is fundamental to the whole Oration. Of course, "The Bible says, therefore I believe it” is a subset of "it is tradition, look no further". Holding to the latter does not negate the former. Looking for something in the Fathers does not prevent us looking in the scriptures. But neither did not finding something in the scriptures cause Basil to therefore think of it as anything less than apostolic and authoritative. He offered scripture, when it was available. And he unapologetically offered the tradition of the Fathers when it was not available.

Is Basil the Great Your Father?

Basil the Great wrote, in his “Oration on the Holy Spirit,” Chapter 7:

What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.

(link) (to avoid accusations of bias in the translation, the source is an “Orthodox” web site – CAUTION – graphical attempted likeness of the Christ)

Is the way of obtaining this important doctrine, according to Basil the Great:

a) “It is a tradition, seek no farther” (i.e. rest on the fact that such the tradition of the Fathers);

b) “The Bible says, therefore I believe it” (i.e. I deduced from Scripture, as did the fathers before us); or

c) Some other path?

-Turretinfan

P.S. Don’t get me wrong, Basil may very well have been quite willing to believe in the existence and apostilicity of various unwritten traditions such as triple baptism, praying to the East, praying standing, and so forth: Basil may not have been fully a Sola Scriptura kind of guy – at least not by modern standards. That’s not the question. The question is whether Basil rested on the traditions of the fathers, or whether Basil sought to deduce the doctrine from Scripture. Basil’s opponents in the debate demanded written proof. Did Basil turn to John Chrysostom’s maxim or to Scripture?

That is not a Law, which is Enjoined by Men

O: “My question is, can you prove absolutely from scripture alone that Jesus' commentary in the Mt15/Mark7 incident has anything to do with Jesus condemning oral teachings over and against praising written teachings, since scripture never connects the dots between tradition must equal oral tradition, and "word of God" must equal written teaching?”

Without regard to Orthodox’s comments beginning “since …” I can easily agree that the main point of Jesus’ comments in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 is not to distinguish between the mechanisms of oral versus written transmission of information, but to distinguish between Scripture and extra-Scriptural tradition.

O: “Can you prove that the traditions of men or the traditions of the elders, isn't differentiated from the word of God, not because of the oral/written distinction, but because of the distinction that these teachings weren't passed down and accepted by all the people of God as the authentic word of God, especially given that they are explicitely [sic] referred to as the traditions of the elders which implies they weren't accepted by all the people?”

Surely those traditions of the elders were not accepted by all the people, for there was always a faithful remnant that clung to the word of God. On the other hand, that is not the distinction that the passage is making, nor is it the reason that the traditions are termed the traditions of the elders. The term “elders” here is equivalent to “them of old time” (i.e. the ancient Jews). It’s a reference to the fact that these traditions (like those of modern Orthodoxy) are very old.

Furthermore, as noted above, it is not precisely the oral/written difference that is being made. Instead the difference is between the Scriptures and the extra-Scriptural Jewish traditions.

O: “Given that the passage doesn't actually say explicitely one way or the other, is it possible your understanding is coloured by your own protestant traditions?”

Actually, as noted above, the false dilemma is resolved by noting that the passage is teaching a third thing, not either of the two “Orthodox” provided. Protestant coloration does not come into it.

O: “Can you see how someone with different pre-suppositions regarding the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of men, could legitimately interpret this passage differently to protestants? (e.g. Athanasius).”

Athanasius discusses one of these passages in his “Homily 51.” (link) (This link has been provided from a Roman Catholic web site to free the link of any claim of Protestant bias.) His discussion is more or less the same as a modern Protestant’s discussion would be: the Jews invented traditions, and those invented traditions are contrasted by Jesus to Scripture, Athanasius goes so far as to point out that such human innovation was prohibited by Scripture: about as close to Sola Scriptura as one could ask for.

Indeed, Athanasius asserts essentially the same position set forth above, for he writes: “For of course that is not a law, which is enjoined by men (wherefore also He calls it "a tradition"), and especially by men that are transgressors of the law.” Our Rule of Faith is Scripture Alone, not the traditions of men.

-Turretinfan

Tradition and the Word of God

Tradition. Παράδοσις.

The word itself certainly doesn't imply either written, or not. In fact Paul in 1 Th 2:15 refers to both scripture and oral teachings as tradition.

In principle, oral and written tradition suffer from the same problems. Both are passed imperfectly from person to person. Both can suffer corruption during this process. Writings are more suitable for transmitting exact word for word teaching. By the same token, oral tradition has its own advantage in passing on certain kinds of shared understanding by virtue of its interactive nature.

The word παράδοσις is not used in the LXX with this meaning.

In the NT:
It is used negatively in the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incident.
It is used positively at 1Cor. 11:2.
It is used neutrally at Gal. 1:14.
It is used negatively at Col. 2:8.
It is used positively at 2Th. 2:15.
It is used positively at 2Th. 3:6.

In the Mt 15/ Mk 7 incident, Jesus' criticism is that "the traditions of men" break the "commandment of God" and invalidates the "word of God".

The phrase ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, "commandment of God", occurs 4 times in the LXX:
At Josh 5:6 it refers to the "voice of God" (non written).
It is used twice in 4 Maccabees where what it refers to is non-specific.
It is used in Psalm 119 where what it refers to is non-specific.

In the NT:
It is used in the Mt 15/7 incident.
It is used twice in Revelation where what it refers to is non-specific.

Other different phrases which are translated "commandments of God"
At 1Cor. 7:19 it sets up God's commandments in opposition to circumcision (even though circumcision is actually a scriptural command).
At 1Tim. 1:1 it refers to Paul's calling as a commandment of God. This is a non-scriptural command.
At Titus 1:3 it refers to Pauls calling again, which was a non-scriptural command.

The phrase λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, "word of God", occurs twice in the LXX.
At 2Sam. 16:23 it is non-specific.
At Jer. 1:2 it refers to non-written revelation.

The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 5 times in the LXX.
2Sam. 14:17 refers to the oral words of a King.
1Esdr. 1:24 seems to be referring to something non-written.
Psa. 33:4 is non-specific.
Psa. 33:6 is not referring to scripture.
Ezek. 11:25 is not referring to scripture.

In the NT, λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, occurs about 34 times.
2 are the Mt 15/Mk 7 incident.
Luke 5:1 refers to oral teaching.
Luke 8:11,21 & 11:28 are non specific.
John 10:35 is non specific.
Acts 4:31 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:2 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 6:7 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 8:14 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 11:1 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 12:24 probably refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:5 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:46 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 17:13 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 18:11 refers to oral teaching.
Rom. 9:6 is non specific.
1Cor. 14:36 probably refers to oral teaching.
2Cor. 2:17 is non specific.
2Cor. 4:2 is non specific.
Col. 1:25 refers to oral teaching.
2Tim. 2:9, Titus 2:5 and Heb. 4:12 are non specific.
Heb. 13:7 refers to oral teaching.
1John 2:14 refers to God's word "in" you, not scripture.
Rev. 1:2, 9, 6:9, 17:17 are non specific.
Rev 19:13 refers to Jesus as the word of God.
Rev. 20:4 is non-specific.

The similar phrase λόγος τοῦ κυρίου occurs 11 times in the NT.
Acts 8:25 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:44 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:48 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 13:49 is probably oral teaching.
Acts 15:35 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 15:36 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 16:32 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 19:10 refers to oral teaching.
Acts 20:35 makes reference to an oral tradition concerning Jesus.
1Th. 1:8 refers to oral teaching.
2Th. 3:1 is non-specific.

In my last answer I quoted Athanasius' application of the Mt 15 / parallel Mark 7 incidents, in his 2nd Festal letter of 330AD. In it, he applies those interpreting scripture outside the church as the group Jesus condemns as following the "traditions of men". He equates the "opinions of the saints" with the teachings of Paul and the apostles. i.e. the word of God.

My question is, can you prove absolutely from scripture alone that Jesus' commentary in the Mt15/Mark7 incident has anything to do with Jesus condemning oral teachings over and against praising written teachings, since scripture never connects the dots between tradition must equal oral tradition, and "word of God" must equal written teaching?

Can you prove that the traditions of men or the traditions of the elders, isn't differentiated from the word of God, not because of the oral/written distinction, but because of the distinction that these teachings weren't passed down and accepted by all the people of God as the authentic word of God, especially given that they are explicitely referred to as the traditions of the elders which implies they weren't accepted by all the people? If it does refer to this, it would exactly parallel the Orthodox doctrine that a teaching must be accepted by all the people, not just any sub-group, even if it is the leaders, in order to be authentic.

Given that the passage doesn't actually say explicitely one way or the other, is it possible your understanding is coloured by your own protestant traditions? Can you see how someone with different pre-suppositions regarding the distinction between the word of God and the traditions of men, could legitimately interpret this passage differently to protestants? (e.g. Athanasius).