The Fathers on the Eucharist P. 2

In our first post^[1] we surveyed some of the earliest Catholic Fathers on the meaning and understanding of the Eucharist in the early Church^[2]. Thus, the earliest Regula Fidei on the Eucharist understood it as the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord. Tonight we will continue in the Patristic attestation and the understanding of the Eucharist in particular.

· St. Irenaeus writes in his great Adversus haereses on the literalness of the Body and Blood of Christ in the elements of the bread and wine even pointing out the change that occurs through the Eucharistic Prayer,

"For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation from God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity" (Ibid. 4, 18, 4).

And again,

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh in increased and supported" (Ibid. 5, 2, 2).

Tertullian could not be clearer when he refutes Marcion's misunderstanding of the Eucharist,

"Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, "This is My Body" - that is, the "figure of My Body." A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body...Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jermemias: "They have devised against Me, saying, 'Come, let us throw wood unto his bread'" - the cross, of course, upon His Body." (Adversus Marcionem. 4, 40, 3).

St. Cyprian is in agreement with the Catholic understanding,

"Also in the priest Melchisedech we see the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured...And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when He offered sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same which Melchisedech had offered, namely bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood." (Letter of Cyprian to a Certain Cecil. 63. 4).

So real is the presence of Christ in the elements that Origen warns,

"You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence." (In Exodum homiliae. 13, 3),

And in another place Origen states,

"Formerly, in an obscure way, there was mana for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the Flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says; "My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink (John 6:56)." (In Numeros homiliae. 7, 2).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem exclaims,

"Do not therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but - be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worth of the Body and Blood of Christ." (Catecheses. 22, 6).

Aphraates the Persian,

"But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink." (Demonstrationes. 12, 6).

St. Ephraim the Syrian,

"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and he blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit...He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand. He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which my Word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called my Body, that it is needed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands...But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread...if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body." (Sermones. 4, 4).

One of the Cappadocian Fathers - St. Gregory of Nyssa states,

"Rightly, then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place...the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer" (1 Tim 4:5)." (Oratio catechetica magna. 37).

Epiphanius of Salamis records,

"We see that the Savior took something in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said; "This is really Me."...and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior." (Ancoratus. 57).

Theodore of Mopsuestia,

"He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body and My Blood," (Matt 26:26, 28) teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." (Commentarii in Matthaeum. ad loc).

St. Athanasius,

"So long as the prayres of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ...This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been set forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus is His Body confected." (Sermo ad nuper baptizatos).

St. Hilary of Poitiers,

"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we sould be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and my Blood is truly Drink. He that eats my Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt." (De Trinitate. 8, 14).

Hence we see as the centuries pass the historical Christian understanding of the Eucharist remains like all other Catholic dogma, the same. These bishops and theologians stood fast in unison on the apostolic understanding of the Eucharist against the heretics and schismatics.

___________________

[End Notes.]

[1]. Which can be found here - http://regulafide.blogspot.com/search/label/On%20the%20Holy%20Eucharist

[2]. Including St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius and even a cry of anguish by Luther against those who reject a literal understanding of the Eucharist.

Calls for Contributions.

In view of the talent and great insight of many people across the internet I have decided to start official calls for contributors willing to post full length posts on any issue on this blog site. A few guidelines must be followed;

· Send posts in basic formats (PDF, etc) to e-mail, Omegan6xpg@hotmail.com
· Contributors accepted will be added to the official Regulafide contributor list.



- Tolle Lege! Tolle Lege!

Textual Criticism: A Catholic Introduction.

This will be a brief introduction to the discipline known as Textual Criticism in general and textual criticism of the New Testament in particular from a Catholic perspective. The ultimate end of biblical textual criticism is to get as close as possible to the original text, using various tools such as different methodologies and the comparison of ancient manuscripts.



Philosophy of Criticism

First let us consider the noticeable difference between Catholic (at least conservative Catholic) and Protestant textual critics. In the mind of the Protestant critic, to begin with, the early church (and consequently her writings) are not of a monolithic nature and thus flux, contradictory, and myriads upon myriads of textual families, text-types and the like are to be expected. In contrast, for the Catholic, uniformity and a general single text type that has a wide geographical distribution and consensus especially as displayed in Patristic Fathers is to be preferred. In my opinion textual criticism is not the same as general theology, it calls for much more breathing room. In other words even if one holds an eclectic methodology in textual criticism this does not presuppose an eclectic theological methodology. The fact that single small textual variants exist in the manuscript tradition does not at all call into question the monolithic nature of the Regula Fidei.

In Search of the Autographs: Manuscripts.

The term autograph in textual criticism refers to the original writing itself. Not a single autograph of the New (or Old) Testaments exists, however, it is the task of the textual critic to study and examine the existing ancient manuscripts and try and re-build the closest model to the original. The intricacies that are involved are immense, here I can only refer the reader to the classical introductory texts.^[1] The earliest of the Greek manuscripts are found to be written on papyrus leaves and are given titles such as P¹, meaning "Manuscript Papyri 1."^[2] All of these papyri manuscripts have been variously dated some earlier than others and thus more important (among the earliest are P⁵² which is dated from the beginning of the second century). In time (starting around the third century) the majority of manuscripts were starting to be written on vellum rather than papyri and these are known as Uncial type manuscripts (these are designated by alphabet lettering, such as "A" for Codex "Alexandrinus," some by Greek alphabetical lettering and a few in numbers such as "0220.") Yet another manuscript type is known as the "minuscule" because of it's cursive letter form, this became the popular mass issue under the Byzantines (these are usually designated by numbers such as "2344".) These are the major text types, there are several minor types that I won't bother to go into at this point (see the introductions below).

Critical Methodology

So we have given a very brief outline of the manuscript types of the New Testament. Now the question is how does one read these text types and make sense of the evidence in favor of one reading over the other? Several major textual critical methodologies have been championed by one critical scholar or the other as the "best" way to understand the manuscripts and see past through the plethora of scribal errors that have crept into the manuscripts^[3].

Among all the different approaches I concur with the overwhelming majority of text critical scholarship that the best method to read the evidence is a form of "Reasoned Eclecticism." The maxim of this view is, "we read the manuscript evidence with two eyes, one on the external manuscript evidence and the other on the internal evidence or the scribal tendancies."^[4] Within this camp are two divisions, those who give greater weight to the external evidence and vice versa.

An Example

Again I stress, this has been but a thumb nail sketch of biblical textual criticism. Any of the works cited below would give a far greater introduction to the issues. This field is a fascinating quest that profits much if done with the proper respect and attention it deserves. As Catholics however we must keep in mind words such as these by Pope Pius X in his Oath Against the Errors of Modernism,

"Equally I reject any way of judging and interpreting Holy Scripture which takes no account of the Church's Tradition, or the analogy of faith and the norms laid down by the apostolic See: which adheres to the theories of the rationalists, and presumptuously and rashly accepts textual criticism as the only supreme rule." (143/9).

Now let us inaugurate a new series on difficult textual critical passages and see if we can shed some light on the problems.

John 1:18

The RSVCE renders the text in question as, "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."^[5] However, there exists strong arguments against the originality of "only-begotten Son" in favor of the reading, "No one has ever seen God; the only-God, who is at the Fathers"^[6]

Internal Evidence: As to how the "Son" reading came into existence it can be explained that early scribes assimilated to other familiar Johannine texts of this type, (i.e., 3:16, 1 John 4:9). Therefore, it is much more probable that an early scribe "fixed" the perceived scribal error that introduced "God" to the much more common Johannine "begotten-Son" than to suppose that an early scribe would go against Johannine usage and introduce the "God" reading. So then, this θεὸς reading has gained the wide support of the critical consensus from scholarship from all the theological traditions.^[7] Moreover, Craig Keener in his recent mammoth commentary on John (2003, Vol 1. 424) argues that the "Son" reading came naturally from the parts of Egypt embroiled in the Arian controversy since the title with "only" brought to mind "only begotten Son" which would have fit nicely for the heretical Arians who denied the full divinity of Jesus. The best internal argument for the originality of the "Son" reading is that θεὸς derived from a visual error of the original Greek abbreviation, OC for YC (on this point see especially F. H. A. Schrivener (A Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament. 1894, 358), followed by A. Wikgren's notation in Metzger's (Textual Commentary. 2005, 198) ). On the other hand this particular contention was answered as long ago as F. J. A. Hort (Two Dissertations. 1876, 10) and B.F Westcott (St. John. 1880, 33) who both convincingly argue that if OC was erroneously changed to YC how does one account for the omission of the article in μονογενὴς θεὸς ? If however the opposite took place and "Son" replaced the original "God" the article would have been naturally added in full agreement with Johannine usuage.

External Evidence: Some of the earliest manuscripts that contain this section of John support the θεὸς reading; P⁶⁶, P⁷⁵, as well as the best of the Uncials; Sinait, B, C, L and Patristic support; St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Basil, The Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus The Blind, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome. The "Son" reading has the inferior attestation with; A, and a host of the later minuscules and the Majority Text type (while wide spread geographically they are dated much later in comparison).^[8]

_____________________

[1]. Eberhard Nestle, (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. 1901), Kenneth Clark, (A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America. 1933), William H. P. Hatch, (The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. 1939), Frederic G Kenyon, (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 1958), Ernest Colwell, (Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 1969), Eldon J Epp, (New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. 1981), Kurt and Barbara Aland, (The Text of the New Testament. 1988), Philip W Comfort, (The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament. 1992), Bruce Metzger, (The Text of the New Testament. 1992), Jacob H Petzer, (New Testament Textual Criticism. Exegesis, and Early Church History. 1994), David A. Black, (Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. 2002), among others.

[2]. The earliest Greek manuscripts also display certain features in common such as scriptora continua (or no spacing between words in the text). Certain lectoral markings, slash marks to prepare for oral readings, Nomina Sacra and so on. A distinct field of expertise has arisen focused on the dating and chronology of manuscripts called Paleography.

[3]. A few examples of common scribal errors are; "conflated readings" or when a scribe attempts to resolve a textual problem by simply including more than one of the variants, "interpolation" or when a scribe attempts to solve a difficult textual problem by "smoothing out" the difficult Greek.

[4]. For a strong defense of this position see Michael W Holmes, (Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. 77-100) or any of the works of Metzger.

[5]. This textual decision is also followed by KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, ERV, NEB, NJB, REB, and others.

[6]. Which is seen in the NIV, NAB, NASB, ESV, ISV, and others.

[7]. In line with this internal reasoning to support the θεὸς reading see; F. J. A. Hort (Dissertations. 1876, 14-15), B.F Westcott (St. John. 1881, 32), T. Zahn (Johannes. 1908, 94), J. H. Bernard (St. John: ICC. 1929, 31), M. J. Lagrange (Jean. 1947, 26-28), K. Rahner (Theological Investigations. 1961, 136-37), Raymond E Brown (John 1. 1966, 17), L. Morris (John. 1971, 113), B. Lindars (John. 1972, 98-99), C.K Barrett (St. John. 1978, 169), R. N Longenecker (The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. 1981, 137), F.F. Bruce (John. 1983, 44-45), J. R. Michaels (John: GNC. 1984, 9), G.R Beasley-Murray (John: WBC. 1987. 2), D. A Carson (John: PNTC. 1991, 139), B. Metzger (Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2005, 169-70), Philip Comfort (Encountering the Manuscripts. 2005, 328).

[8]. Despite the enormous consensus in critical scholarship for the θεὸς reading a few still hold for the originality of "Son" cf. F. Godet (St. John. 1877. 378), E. C. Hoskyns (The Fourth Gospel. 1947, 152), M. E. Boismard (St. John's Prologue. 1957, 66), R. Bultmann (John. 1971, 81), E. Haenchen (John: Hermeneia. 1984, 1. 121).

St. Luke 2:35, Mary the Doubter?

Moving on in my reading of Luke's Gospel Simeon moved by the Holy Spirit (v. 27) noted about St. Mary in his blessing the following,

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2: 34-35, RSVCE).

What draws our attention tonight is the meaning of "and a sword will pierce your (Mary's) own soul also." For at least since the time of Origen¹ some commentators have argued that ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία is speaking of St. Mary's "doubting" at the crucifixion of her Son. Some employing this interpretation have argued against the "Sinlessness" of Mary (or that she remained free from actual sin by a special act of God) by stating that in the act of doubting a certain sinful presupposition must exist. However we ask, is this (doubt) interpretation of the text a mandatory reading?

Far from it. Much lies on the translation of the nominative noun ῥομφαία which can be a literal or figurative (depending on context) type of sharp blade, broadsword or spear. Hence the flow of the Greek is clear, "also (Mary's) soul will be pierced by a blade." The play on words is unmistakable, as Christ will be pierced by a blade so also in a manner Mary. Thus the view that takes ῥομφαία as a metaphor for doubting is rather stretched and it is far more natural to understand ῥομφαία as a metaphor for the shared anguish of both the Son and the Mother at the crucifixion.² This is further highlighted by the juxtapositioning of the external trials (v. 34) with the internal trials (v. 35). The Mother will also partake internally the external sorrows. ³

____________________

[End Notes.]

1. (Hom. in Luc. 17, 6). This interpretation of the Lukan text is followed by St. Basil (Letter of Basil to Optimus. 260, 9) and St. Chrysostom (Hom. in Matt. 44, 2). Basil writes that this doubting is common to all sinful man that is in dire need of the Holy Propitiation of the world, "Since, therefore, every soul was, at the time of the Passion, subjected, as it were, to a kind of doubt, in accord with the Lord's word when He said, "You will all be scandalized in Me," (Matt 26:31) Simeon prophecies also of Mary herself that, standing beneath the cross and seeing what was happening and hearing His words, even after the testimony of Gabriel (Luke 1:32-33), even after her secret knowledge of the divine conception (Luke 1:35), and after the great showing of miracles, - she too, he says, will experience a certain unsteadiness in her soul. For the Lord must taste of death for the sake of all; and to become a propitiation for the world, He must justify all men in His blood. "Some doubt, therefore will touch even you yourself, who have been taught from above about the Lord." That is the sword. (Luke 2:35)." Jurgens notes on Basil here, "This is Basil's highly questionable interpretation, in which he but follows Origen...Another of Origen's wretched opinions accepted by Basil." (The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 2, 11).

2. As A. Plummer (St. Luke: ICC. 71) correctly notes. The preferred understanding is "extreme anguish" rather than "doubt" Plummer argues.

3. Many a Catholic exegete has seen Ezekiel (14:17) as the background motif for our Lukan text and have argued based on this that Mary is to be seen as the embodiment of the daughter of Zion, or in other words the nation of Israel. Mary is thus understood ῥομφαία as a divine instrument for the testing of people. However, this entire thesis is rather stretched and runs counter to the idea of the Lukan pericope which rather has the child Jesus and the reactions of people to Him in view.

Book Review: "A Pocket Guide to the Bible"

"A Pocket Guide to the Bible" written by Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Scott Hahn, published by Our Sunday Visitor, 2008 is an insightful and compact (79 p.) work introducing the various facets that make up the Bible.

Apparently written with the layman in mind (not a single footnote or reference is found) Pocket Guide however delivers much for it's slim size. Hahn begins with a foundational discussion on how the Bible is to be conceptionalized, namely a book not for it's own sake but rather a book that is formed out of a particular historical community and for preperation in this particular community (the Church). The Bible is living in that it is part of a greater organic whole not to be viewed as a stand alone literary composition.

In easy to understand language Hahn explains the blueprint of the Bible, it's divisions, and compartments. A helpful discussion on the formation of the canon of Scripture is given along with an explanation of why Catholic and Protestant bible's differ. Hahn's Pocket Guide is already leaps and bounds ahead of other small popular introductions of the Bible in that it gives a cogent presentation of the Church's role in the correct interpretation of Scripture. Tradition has been safeguarded by the Holy Spirit for this task writes Hahn.

Professor Hahn then gives us a safe navigation through the often muddy channels of biblical hermeneutics (the process of reading and understanding the Bible in it's proper literary context). All the major genre's are covered (i.e., Poetic, Narrative, etc). He then discloses what I found to be a great tip for those looking for a guide or plan for reading the Bible throughout the year.

The concluding chapters gives us brief but helpful outlines of every book of the Bible and a fantastic topical index of the major themes and events in Scripture. In conclusion, Pocket Guide while being much too basic for the advanced student of the Bible is perfect as a compact hand-out to anyone that you find asking basic questions of the Bible and wants a tool that will help them go to the next level in understanding the Christian Bible and where it comes from.

This review was written as part of The Catholic Company product reviewer program. Visit The Catholic Company, - http://www.catholiccompany.com/ to find more information on A Pocket Guide to the Bible, - http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1111242/Pocket-Guide-to-Bible/

St. Luke 2:7, On the Virginity of St. Mary.

Continuing on through our reading of St. Luke's gospel we read the passage in discussion tonight as follows;

"And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7, RSVCE).

The problem tonight is the question over the so-called "perpetual virginity" of St. Mary. Or in other words, did Mary have other children after Jesus? It is not rare to find some polemically driven material that holds just that position and is drawn from this very text. However, is this stance tenable in light of the proper principles of biblical hermeneutics here or is this just plain old eisegesis?

First let's deal with the Greek. The accusative adjective πρωτότοκον is straight forward in translation as "firstborn" and can be literal or figurative depending on context. Here it is manifestly literal since it is dealing with a historical birth, a birth of a firstborn male. Thus it would be misleading to argue from the Greek alone that it demands a sense of "first born with the idea of others coming later^[1]." Nothing in the immediate nor larger context demands this idea - furthermore, this would have been a great place if such a notion was true to be added to give a fuller backdrop to the family of Jesus.

It is much better to understanding the meaning that St. Luke is trying to drive home here. The entire pericope has a clear Jewish motif, one that is steeped is the LXX^[2]. The birth of Jesus Christ is unfolded in continuity with the promise to the Patriarchs not divorced to the Old Covenant but intrinsically attached too it and fulfilling it. The original audiences of Luke's time would have immediately understood the Jewish import of this first-born of Mary. The infant is then circumcised and divinely named, two acts with incredibly large Jewish significance.

The motif of "first-born" in the Old Testament designates possession over the right of inheritance as texts such as (Exo 13:2, Num 3:12-13, Deut 21:15-17) make clear. Surely in light of the genealogies in the other synoptic gospels the inheritance that belongs to the Jewish Messiah is the Davidic Kingdom^[3]. The note in the RSVCE here hits the nail on the head when it notes,

"first-born: The term connotes possession of certain rights, privileges, and obligations; cf. Ex 13:1-2, 11-16. The word is used even in modern times without necessarily implying subsequent births." (p. 50).

Perpetual Virginity of St. Mary in the Fathers.

Is very strong and well attested. A brief selection of some of the Fathers makes this pellucid. Origen states,

"I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Comm. Matt. 2, 17).

St. Hilary of Poitiers makes the point that if Jesus had siblings the words that He spoke at His crucifixion to the Apostle John do not make sense,

"If they (the brethren of the Lord) had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion (crucifixion) to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ (John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Comm. Matt. 1, 4).

St. Athanasius,

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Adversus Arianos orationes. 2, 70).

Epiphanius of Cyprus,

"And to holy Mary, the title ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies. 78, 6).

St. Jerome states at length,

"Helvidius produces Tertullian^[4] as a witness to his view and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he Victorinus spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. By discussing such things we are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against the heretics Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Contra Helvidius. 19).

Didymus the Blind agrees with the Regula Fidei,

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ (Matt. 1:25); for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (De. Trinitate. 3, 4).

Ambrose that ancient bishop of Milan records,

"Imitate her (Mary), holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children than Jesus, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters. 63, 111).

St. Augustine notes that it is soley the heretics who deny the perpetual virginity,

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Haeresies, 56).

So strong and unified is the Patristic Voice on this dogma that some of the Protestants Reformation leaders held and sternly defended it; Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to name a few.


______________________
[End Notes.]

[1]. Cf. G. Schneider (Lukas: OTZNT. 1. 66) who convincingly argues that it is misreading the passage to think of Luke's intention to speak of siblings of Jesus. Rather, the message of the text is clear, πρωτότοκον here has a clear Jewish precedent, a relationship to God. See also Bovon, "As such, the adjective πρωτότοκον could not furnish a decisive argument for the existence of brothers of Jesus according to the flesh" (Luke 1: Hermeneia. 85).
[2]. In fact πρωτότοκον is very rare outside the Bible and it is then only found most frequently in the Old Testament LXX. Cf. the article in TDNT. 6. 871-76.
[3]. Cf. rightly on this understanding of the inheritance here, J.B Green (Luke: NICNT. 128).
[4]. Tertullian already falling into the Montanist heresy toys with the idea that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus. Jerome rebukes Tertullian on this matter claiming that he went against the "entire world" on this tradition.

Eusebius, The Fathers and the Nature of the Church.

Eusebius Pamphilus's¹ Ecclesiastical History2 is one of the few books that I consistently re-read every year. The reason is clear to anyone that has plunged headlong into this magnificent account of the history of the early Church, starting from Jesus and His Apostles and ending with the events and personages surrounding the Council of Nicea. Besides the treasure of information on early patristics, theology and ecclesiology what I find stunning is the testimonies of the early martyr's, how they gave up their lives for Jesus Christ.

What caught my attention today was the following discussion on the nature of the sects by

Eusebius,

"Indeed, the machinations of its (the orthodox truth) enemies were almost immediately extinguished by the power of truth; one sect rising after another, the first always passing away, and one in one way, and another in another, evaporating into speculations of many modes, and as many forms. But the splendour of the universal and only true Church constantly advanced in greatness and glory, always the same in all matters." (p. 134)

Thus Eusebius teaches us that the nature of the sects is that of schism. As soon as one branch comes into existence through the mind of an innovator another branch dies out or fades into obscurity. The opposite of all this is the nature of the One, Universal (Catholic) Church. It exists through time and space, from it's humble beginnings in the small stone houses of Jerusalem to it's ever growing branches that will house all the birds of the field. The blessed and ancient bishop of Antioch St. Ignatius wrote,

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistulae ad Smyrnaeos. 8, 2)

St. Clement of Alexandria in like manner can state that the Church is inseparable since it has as it's guardian and fountain the indivisible Trinity (Paedagogus. 1, 4, 10). The "Catholic Church" alone holds the true apostolic doctrine, since it houses the predestined elect of God (Stromata. 7, 17). For Tertullian the Catholic Church is led under the banner of One God and One Christ, one hope under one baptism, held by the whole world unanimously, she is the very bride of Solomon's Song, domina matter ecclesia (De Virg. vel. 2, 2). The Bishop of Carthage - St. Cyprian agrees with the Regula Fidei and warns to separate oneself from the Catholic Church is to separate oneself from the truth (Letter of Cyprian to Stephen of Rome. 68, 1). St. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts us,

"And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is, - for others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord, - Nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God." (Catecheses. 18, 26).

The historic, orthodox faith is monolithic, one in nature in contrast to the schismatics who cannot agree even on the little issues. St. Augustine of Hippo records that the Catholic faith unlike the schismatics promulgates the entire council of God not just selected portions to fit erroneous theologies (Ep. 92, 23). Furthermore, her validity is based on her world wide accepted extension (Ib. 49, 3) in contrast to the single localities of the sects (Serm. 46, 18).

____________________

[End Notes.]

1. Famous bishop of Caesarea who was active in the late third and early fourth centuries. Best known for this early history of the Catholic Church from the time of Apostles up too the Council of Nicea. He took the name Pamphilus in honor of his teacher and mentor. Embroiled in the Arian battles he is sometimes looked upon with suspicion for showing kindness to Arius and other times accused of holding a neo-Arian understanding of the Divinity of Jesus. It seems however that perhaps these labels have been politically motivated by his detractors. I have not read anything in his surviving writings that confirms Arian tendencies but have witnessed just the opposite, very Orthodox. He was made perfect in 310 A.D. under the Diocletian persecution.

2. Currently using Baker's 13th print edition, 1989. Not the prettiest edition and weak notes much better editions exist.

St. Luke 1:6: Righteousness Before God.

Continuing on in my devotional reading of St. Luke's gospel we read these introductory passages on the larger pericope concerning the birth and events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist,

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly." (Luke 1:5-6, RSVCE)¹

To the observant eye an important question comes to mind. What is the righteousness spoken about here in context? That this passage sounds foreign and alien to modern "Evangelical" ear is evident. For when is the last time in a Protestant funeral have you heard the pastor exclaim, "Bob was an excellent Christian, righteous before the Lord. He walked always in good works, his life is a testament of his faith, he was righteous because he followed all the commandments of God always." Yet here in Holy Scripture and in the New Testament no less we find this very concept.

Protestant commentaries uneasy with this understanding of the text are quick to point out that this δίκαιοι here in Luke refers not to our current righteousness before God through the death of Jesus the Messiah but to some nebulous outdated Old Testament form of righteousness which has been now overridden by Jesus.² However, a clear unbiased reading of the Lukan text teaches that Zechariah and Elizabeth were δίκαιοι because of their walking (πορευόμενοι) in all of His commandments blamelessly (ἄμεμπτοι).

Surely the motif is drawn from the Old Testament but the soteriological conception is one and the same, the saints of the Old Testament were deemed righteous just as the saints of the New and the saints of today. There are not multitudinous ways to be counted δίκαιοι but rather only one way that when rightly considered is monolithic throughout redemptive history. A cursory glance at Old Testament texts such as Gen 18:19 (where the way of the Lord is described as doing righteousness), Deut 6:25 (where again righteousness is described as being gained by closely following God's commandments) makes this clear enough.

In the mind of St. Luke (who is mirroring the larger view of the early Church, v. 1:3) God's law is Holy and when powered by the Holy Spirit (who applies faith to it) is able to justify (Cf. Luke 2:25, 23:50).³ What is "new" of the righteousness of Christ via the gospels is His bringing back into focus the original spiritual meaning of the righteousness of the law. The Jews have lost the original meaning being transfixed on the outward ceremonial aspects of the law, they have failed to see the true intent of the law and the prophets. When the law and the prophets are properly understood this manifests itself properly in one's life. This was the teaching of Jesus' parables, the law and the prophets not done away with but now revealed in their fullest sense through the teaching and life of Jesus Christ.

__________________

[End Notes.]

1. The Greek text reads, "ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι."

2. Some Protestant circles called "Dispensationalists" go so far as to claim that there was multiple ways of attaining righteousness/saving justification, namely the 'dispensation' of the Old Testament saints which included a neo-works righteous system and then other 'dispensations' after the time of Christ which involve righteousness purely by faith alone with absolutely not a single work involved whasoever.

3. Cf. A. Plummer (St. Luke:ICC. 9-10) who argues that δίκαιοι here when combined with ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ is a Hebraism which gives righteousness here it's full soteriological import. Bovon agrees, "In the same biblical tone, Luke describes (v. 6) the righteousness of both parents (Bovon then cites the LXX Num 36:13, Deut 4:40, Gen 26:5) as imagery in the Lukan passage) for Luke, God works togather with those who love him." (Luke 1: Hermeneia. 33).

Book Review: Roots of the Reformation, Karl Adam.

Roots of the Reformation was written by the late German Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the infamous University of Tubingen in the first half of the twentieth century. It is a small work but prodigious in learning, extremely well written and free from logical fallacies. It reaches a happy medium in the state of discussion between Catholicism and Protestantism, it is not severely polemical nor blindly ecumenical.

What we are given by Adam is a masterful presentation of the roots (philosophical and cultural), the reasons for the Protestant Reformation. The very first chapter "Weakness in the Church" gives the main origin for the reforms, namely corruption, abuses and underhanded tactics by some not all of the Catholic clergy,

"The Pope's yearly income was greater than that of any German Emperor. John XXII, for instance, died leaving three quarters of a million gold coins in his treasury: a figure so high, considering the values and conditions of the time, that it was bound to have a catastrophic effect on the believer when he pictured against this background the poor tent-maker Paul, or the still poorer fisherman Peter, coming with dusty sandals to Rome and bringing nothing with them but a deep and noble desire to preach Christ and to die for Christ."¹

Or in another example Adam notes,

"Innocent VIII, in his bull Summis desiderantes (1484), gave the Dominicans in Constance plenary powers in the matter of witch-burning, and threatened with ecclesiastical punishment anyone who opposed the prosecution of witches. He thus did all that the highest ecclesiastical authority could do to encourage and legalize the obsession. Christ had healed those possessed by devils, but now, in the name of the same Christ, they were to be burnt."²

In chapter two "Luther" Adam records the rise of the German reformer and his quest to his particular understanding of Christian theology. A fascinating psychological reading of Luther is given as well as his dependence on Ockhamism for his novel ideas on justification and the nature of the church. Luther's departure was not (contrary to popular belief) a careful study of the Greek Scripture in one hand and the slogan of ad fontes on the other but rather was primarily driven by subjective-esoteric epiphanies of Christian truth,

"it was not the objective spirit of the Church's tradition speaking and witnessing in the Church's teaching which interpreted this objective word of revelation, but his own spirit alone; not the We of the members of Christ inspired by a common faith and love, but his own unique, individual I. In this formal, though not material, sense Luther was always a subjectivist."³

Adam then gives a thorough defense of the Catholic doctrine of Sola Gratia - and that it was not originated by Luther but was already held and defended by Catholics for 1500 years. Moreover, Luther viciously attacked the Papacy, Adam must be quoted on this in full,

"It was night indeed in a great part of Christendom. Such is the conclusion of our survey of the end of the fifteenth century: amongst the common people, a fearful decline of true piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and neglect of duty; and amongst the very Shepards of the Church, demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion...Had Martin Luther then arisen with his marevlous gifts of mind and heart...had he brought all these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of the time...had he remained a faithful member of his Church...then indeed we should today be his grateful debtors. He would be forever our great Reformer...comparable to Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint of the German people...But - and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation and of German Christianity - he let the warring spirits drive him to overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church Herself, founded upon Peter, bearing through the centuries the successio apostolica; he let them drive him to commit what St. Augustine called the greatest sin with which a Christian can burden himself; he set up altar against altar and tore in pieces the one Body of Christ."⁴

The Catholic Church due to all this reformed herself. Abuses have been cut away and the focus of Christ and Apostolic teaching has been re-emphasized. It is the conclusion of professor Adam that had Luther come today, he would not protest the Church as violently as he did.
_______________________
[End Notes.]

1. Roots of the Reformation. 14.

2. Ibid., 25.

3. Ib., 42, Adam's emphasis.

4. Ib., 25-26.

Blessed are these...

I just finished watching the documentary that EWTN¹ just ran on the Christians in Iraq. What a beautiful and moving piece of work! Bravo EWTN. This film traces the history and roots as well as the modern problems faced by the Catholic and Orthodox Christians who still remain in the region today².

It is films such as these which brings to my mind the sharp contrast between the lives of Christians in the "developed" West and the turmoil and tumultuous lives that are lived by Christians in the so-called third world. From my comfortable temperature controlled living room with all the amenities that America has to offer, my conscience cries out against me as every minute unfolds the powerful drama that these our brothers and sisters in the faith endure day by day for the simple label of being called "Christian." My heart broke and I could not help from breaking down watching and hearing the small crowds of the courageous children, women and men walk down dirty streets singing hymns of praise, not knowing if a blast could take out dozens of families at any moment. In the face of the tired and depressed young widow who recalls the story of how her young husband told her to get back in the house when accosted and then shot I see the face of my wife. In the faces of the old gathered at holy day celebrations I see my grandparents. In the faces of the little girls dancing at a wedding I see the faces of my daughters.

Beloved, what does our King and Master promise us in His Holy Scripture?

"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:11-12).

This same promise is recorded by St. John (John 15:20), St. Paul (1 Cor 4:12) as well as the testimony of the early Catholic Church which was violently persecuted by the Roman Empire, and the Jews. Eusebius the historian records all these events in his Ecclesiastical History.

The Patristic Fathers as well tell us how in the hour of death even the "weaker sex" and children never showed fear or pain despite the most inhumane forms of torture and death, for they were convinced that Jesus Christ would manifest himself and give them the grace to endure these things in a supernatural way.

On the other hand we are called to help our brothers and sisters in the faith in times of need for they along with us are the Body of Christ. We are commanded in Scripture to feed, clothe and give aid too eachother, especially in desperate times of need. Please pray for our brothers in the middle-East and if anyone knows any links to legitimate sites that offer services/donations to help our brothers feel free to add through comment.

_______________

[End Notes.]

1. Catholic television network whose programs can be viewed on-line here, - http://www.ewtn.com/

2. Due to the immense persecution of Christians there has been a sort of mass exodus. Details can be read here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270377,00.html

Logical Consistency.

I must admit, I love logical consistency. There is nothing I despise more than equivocation. So then, when I read the writings of atheist's such as Richard Dawkins - it drives my mind up the wall. Grand moral claims are made with absolutely no basis to draw from¹. Dawkins and his cohorts would lead us to believe all kinds of moral truisms without giving us any substantiation to follow their particular views other than "ok children play nice."

In other words, if what Dawkins and company put forward as the moral law for humanity be true, and if their atheistic evolutionary paradigm be true as well, what is the grounds for their fastidious claims? In the final analysis there are no objective grounds. The best defenses that can be presented are ultimately subjective, esoteric, best guesses, moral hypothesis' and the like. Since there is no one ultimate eternal standard but temporal, relative, in a constant state of flux micro-standards, who says the rules can't be changed or bent?

Such is not the case with consistent (atheistic) thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche of yesterday and to a certain extant, William Provine today. For Nietzsche God was dead and thus led to his nihilistic philosophy². No pretensions, no equivocation, Nietzsche was at least logically consistent and his logic led to it's rational conclusion, namely a dark, godless world where what dominated was the "super man" or the man with the will to take the bull by the horns and be the master of his own destiny. The super man can face this nihilistic reality with bravery. The weak, crushed by the futility of it all, are doomed to depression and suicide³.

Professor William Provine⁴ in stark contrast to Dawkins plays no word games. There is no God and we should not pretend to understand nor pontificate on moral absolutes. Here is a short video of Provine (part of a larger multi-series debate between Provine and Phil Johnson) in action and I will comment on some remarks he makes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI

1. Provine claims the supposed God Designer is surely a fool since the extinction record is a dismal account of the majority of animal life dying out, the survival rate being low. This point fails on two counts, first it can be countered that this apparent dismal rate of death is actually God's intelligent design par excellence, giving us today critical fossil fuels and molding the world best suited for human life. Secondly, we say that the pinnacle of God's creation is mankind and thus claiming that the recurring cycle of animal extinction runs counter to an intelligent designer is void. The age of humanity is the ultimate reason for prior extinction.

2. Provine must be a gutsy gambling man. He states with tongue in full cheek that if he is right his opponent (Johnson) will be pleasantly surprised too see that there is nothing beyond the great beyond, but utter annihilation. But Provine remarks, if Johnson is right, at least he will be in hell "without those Sunday morning preachers grinning at him" (greeted by laughter and applause from some audience members). I can't really imagine what type of tortured soul can make comments such as these. The stakes are incredibly high, face temporal destruction or face an eternal torment such as has not entered the human mind or imagination? Why not "play it safe?" That is what I mean by being an incredible gambler if you (with all knowledge and consent) reject the possibility of an eternal consequence over a temporal one.

3. Provine then treats us with a little projector page entitled "Summary of implications of modern evolutionary biology." The points of our interest today being; "No ultimate foundation for ethics," and "No ultimate meaning of life." Points anticipated and explained by Neitzsche. Provine goes on to assure the crowd that the bad part of "Christian Humanism" is that one has too "suspend his rational mind." Apparently, Provine ignores two thousand years of the best and brightest minds of academia, logic, philosophy and theology as theistic and formidable indeed⁵.

4. Atheistic Humanism in contrast Provine asserts, is intellectually satisfying having given up the "fairy tales" of his Christian youth. The Christian idea of "free will" has been one of the most destructive ideas of history, "since it treats people like crap if they do something wrong in our society." This myth of free will gives the judicial powers that be a rational justification to exact vengeance on the offender. It takes little intelligence to detect the strawman's that are set up by Provine then viciously knocked to the ground.

On and on the parade of consistent nonsense goes on. "If you're an atheist" remarks Provine, "and you know you are going to die what matters most is friendship." Utter nonsense, but at least he's consistent.

____________________
[End Notes.]

1. Dawkins has been answered in a number of different ways. In literary form David Berlinski has been on the forefront refuting aggresive atheism most recently in his work, (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and it's Scientific Pretensions, Crown Forum Pub. 2008). In audio debate Professor John Lennox has been one of the strongest devastations of Dawkins, - http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/ as well as giving able published responses to atheist's such as his (God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Lion UK. 2007).

2. Including a psychological attack on Christianity, (The Antichrist). Neitzsche tells the sarcastic story of the death of the gods; the pantheon of heathen gods died of laughter when hearing the exclusive worship claims of Yahweh. Later this god of the Jews died of pity.

3. Neitzsche died in an infirmary in a state of madness, signing autographs as it were as "The Crucified One," believing he was Jesus Christ. Some say it was due to syphilis, others, that Neitzsche was finally overcome by his own nihilistic worldview.

4. Distinguished professor at Cornell University.

5. The large majority of the best thinkers of human history being Catholic.

St. Luke, Bearer of Tradition.

In my private devotional reading time of Sacred Scripture last night I started reading the gospel according to St. Luke¹. I have always been fascinated by Luke's "dedication to Theophilus" passage (V. 1-4). It has the ring of a most formal and academic venture by a mind no doubt immersed and influenced by such genre's²,

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed³."

Hence we are told the objective in the clearest manner by St. Luke in composing his gospel. In one way or another, there is a strong motivation for Luke to try his hand at a διήγησιν writing⁴. St. Luke now sets down in writing the oral traditions concerning Jesus and the events surrounding his life as precisely as he can. Notice the flow of thought, many have written but now I will write - all of us depending on the oral traditions for our material. St. Luke's gospel like all of Scripture is drawn and depends upon revelation from God, be that directly from His mouth or from the mouths of prophets and apostles as safeguarded and preserved in tradition. In Luke's case he states it was the latter that he depended upon and received.

St. Luke tells us he now has a unique contribution to make in the literary history of Jesus. Yet this uniqueness does not subtract from the reality that Luke follows closely the regula fidei as it were, the interpretive tradition. Luke tells us that "many have undertaken" thus tying himself further to a traditional thematic genre⁵. Again Luke employs another highly nuanced term, pregnant with meaning, - παρέδοσαν, this content about Jesus Christ was "delivered, handed down" to us⁶. In other words, it is not sloppy or careless accounts that Luke depends upon but rather the carefully guarded and well memorized apostolic tradition as it is handed down to him from word of mouth from eye witnesses themselves. This form of handing down was very special in the ancient world having much precedent in both Jewish and Greek cultures⁷.

And so we have the backdrop of the gospel of St. Luke. Luke's first century contemporaries would have understood the impact and specific nuance that this introductory dedication pericope conveyed. Luke is not an innovator but rather part of the tradition of early Christian interpretation, all stemming from oral tradition.

______________________

[End Notes.]

1. And this inaugurates a series of small posts I will be writing as I go through Luke.

2. The prefaces of Josephus, Herodotos, Thucydides, Polybius and other such classical works immediately come to mind. Luke was well read in the classics.

3. (Luke 1:1-4, RSVCE).

4. Much has been made over this presumed insufficieny of the prior narratives that Luke sought to eclipse. What can be said with caution is that whichever of the other gospels that already existed at the time of Luke's composition these were looked upon as positive contributions and/or sources to draw from.

5. Cf. J. Bauer, (NovT. 4, "πολλοὶ") where Luke uses πολλοὶ as a rhetorical device to fall in line with the widespread practice of oral beginnings not necessarily implying a large number.

6. Cf. Buchsel in TDNT. 171-73 for a lengthy background on παρέδοσαν and it's technical meaning as "transmission of tradition."

7. Cf. BAGD on the Greek usage of this verb. Among the Jews see for example Ep. Arist. 148, 196. In Christian usage, 1 Cor 11:23, 1 Thess4:1-2, etc. Cf. the excellent discussion in F. Godet (St. Luke. 1.60-61).

St. Paul and Tradition.

The claim is often made in popular literature that Jesus and the New Testament in general and St. Paul in particular, are hostile to tradition and the inference is then made - that they believed in a sole source of faith and morals, namely Scripture alone.

In this post we will stick to Scripture references since it is needless to marshal the Catholic Patristic Fathers who manifestly teach and defend a unified source of faith and morals, namely Sacred Tradition (oral kerygma) and Sacred Scripture (the oral teaching encapsulated in written form)¹.

We read in Holy Sacred Scripture from St. Paul to the Thessalonians,

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess 2:15, RSVCE)².

As the context makes clear (starting from verse 1) contra those who wished to lead the Thessalonian saints into eschatological heresy³ St. Paul exhorts them to stand firm, something which they were already being known for (1:3). It is on account of those blessed gifts from God (2:13-14) that the Thessalonians can even begin to stand firm⁴.

"καὶ" here is surely explicative, the way to stand firm is to hold to the traditions. The Thessalonians are to hold fast to both the oral tradition (λόγου) and to the "written letter" (ἐπιστολῆς). St. Paul would never say, "by us, the letter," as if the early Christians should only live and practice the Written Scriptures⁵. But rather, oral tradition is the foundation for the later encapsulation of it in written form as St. Irenaeus so eloquently stated. This is because the two "sources" are simply two voices of the same teachings of Jesus Christ. A distinction between the two is purely modern and a false dichotomy.

In another place this is made again clear by the same author, he writes,

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast - unless you believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:1-2, RSVCE).

A pericope that rings familiar to our reading in 2 Thessalonians. It is the oral proclamation which the Corinthians are to hold fast to. This point becomes even sharper if we are to believe the strong scholarly consensus that there was an earlier "lost" Corinthian letter that was written to them. Either way, St. Paul does not lift up the Scriptures nor his earlier letter but instead points to his living voice which is still ringing in their ears, the oral tradition as the measuring rod of salvation. St. Paul is not inventing a new trick but following the established apostolic norm, he continues on,

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received..." (1 Cor 15:3, RSVCE).

This was a common tact of Paul, to pass along doctrine via word of mouth (1 Cor 4:17). And to uphold Christian tradition is supremely commendable,

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2, RSVCE).

In these and many other texts it is the παραδόσεις which is highlighted. It is this oral tradition which is the gauge with which the earliest Christians were to compare all doctrinal claims⁶.

_____________________

[End Notes.]

1. A small selection of the earliest Fathers; St. Papias (Hist. Eccl. 3, 39, 3-4), St. Irenaeus (Adversus haereses. 3, 1, 1), St. Clement of Alexandria (Misc. 1, 1 ), Origen (Fund. Doct. 1, 2), Tertullian (De praescriptione haereticorum. 21, 3-7), St. Athanasius (Serapion. 1. 28).

2. The Greek reads, "ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν." Most Protestant translations (literal) read similar to the RSVCE cited above.

3. And we could say Paul's entire argument in 2 Thessalonians could be used against any heresy that threatens the Church. Moreover, notice the close relation of the wording of V.2, "λόγου μήτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν" to our text in question, "λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν." Already at the start of chapter 2 St. Paul has given us the argumentation of v.15 in fuller detail.

4. Hence, the "ἄρα οὖν."

5. Not to mention that at this time in Christian history the New Testament as we know it today was hardly known by all the early Churches. The majority of the citations in the earliest fathers and in the New Testament to the Scriptures refers to the Old Testament. The descriptions for the New Testament writings are usually made clear, such as Justin calling them "the memoirs of the Apostles." Here in our target text in Paul he is likely referring to 1 Thessalonians.

6. Wolfgang Trilling (Der zweite Brief and die Thessalonicher: EKKNT. 128-29) followed by much of the higher critical school that sees 2 Thessalonians as non-Pauline finds this idea of παραδόσεις so forceful and developed here that he holds that it was "clearly" written by a later redactor that tried to fit in later Catholic ecclesiology, vis a vis, the importance of oral tradition.