Tradition Tradition Tradition Tradition!

Discussing ECFs, we get into their position on tradition. An excerpt from an email just sent off -

In an earlier e-mail, you [Mickey] also commented:

. . . [I] wonder if he uses "tradition of the Apostles" as shorthand for the Gospel and the Scriptures.

Athanasius sets up this dichotomy between Scripture and what has been heard from the Fathers several times in the quotes that I gave you. I can't prove that every time he or another ECF uses the term "tradition," he doesn't just mean Scripture itself; however, I can provide a long list of quotes from ECFs in which they do explicitly distinguish between Scripture and tradition, suggesting that, in the common vocabulary of the time, tradition meant what it still means today--an authoritative oral teaching handed down apart from Scripture. Whether or not the material content of that teaching entirely overlaps with the material content of Scripture is to this day an open question. Like Catholics today, some ECFs seem to lean one way and others in the opposite direction. But, either way, the oral teachings are a critical component of the deposit of faith; at the very least, they represent the correct understanding of the truths contained in Scripture, and thus Scripture cannot stand alone as the sole rule of faith without them.

I sent several of these before, so sorry for the repeat; but I think all of them clearly show that the ECFs did not habitually use "tradition" as shorthand for Scripture:

Ok, so you say each of these usages of the word "tradition" has defniite content apart from Scripture. What is it? The assumption of Mary, purgatory, or what? To quickly examine two of your quotations, I think it's clear that their content of tradition is not what you claim it is.

Irenaeus: "It comes to this, therefore, that these [heretics] do now consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition . . . . Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings [on this question]? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3:2:2, 3:4:1)

To take this as one example. What does Irenaeus mean by tradition here? A little searching finds that this passage comes from book 3 -

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

In which he clearly establishes his authority upon apostolic tradition, I agree.

But what is apostlic tradition for Irenaeus? It is sacred Scripture, as can be seen in his introduction and first chapter. (I find it interesting that he refers to Matthew as being written in Aramiac btw). Emphasis and commentary added:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ²

He begins his first section by saying what we have learned from the Apostles has been handed down in the Scriptures. I think this clearly implies formal sufficiency, as clearly if the Apostles also taught a manner of interpreting the Scriptures, he wouldn't make such a broad claim that the Scriptures is the "ground and pillar of our faith."

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews³ in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Mark hands down what was preached by Peter. Luke record's Paul's preaching. No secret traditions here.

And what is the content of all this preaching, the tradition that he appeals to finally?

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Simply that Christ is God!

So if you want to establish your point that the fathers are in your favor, you have to give the content of your tradition that these people are quoting as well. In his preface he makes clear what he's doing with this book that you are quoting from -

Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood.

This whole book is Scripture proofs, which undermines your entire point if an appeal to tradition is necessary (or sufficient). He is making a Scriptural case for Christ being God here, and he appeals to tradition by tracing it back to Scripture.

Next case, and I bet I could keep searching too

Tertullian: "If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted . . . . If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer" (De Corona 3-4).

What is Tertullian talking about here? He's talking about pious and optional traditions. What you deleted here is critical! The text in full, emphasis added.

-And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week . We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4)

So here's the question. If you appeal to Tertullian for authoritative tradition, then you must also disown the Roman Catholic Church, for it does not follow any of these traditions. People aren't immersed three times, they are sprinkled. People don't refrain from bathing for a whole week. People don't cross themselves (on the forehead!) every step.

He doesn't appeal to this tradition as authoritative and binding upon your conscience, he appeals to tradition as setting forth something beneficial for one's piety. Which is certainly something I can agree with!

This is not to say that "tradition" and "Scripture" were always mutually exclusive concepts for the ECFs. Sometimes, "tradition" seems to encompass the totality of truths handed down by the Apostles, in writing and otherwise. Also, "tradition" is arguably occasionally used just to mean Scripture; I was reading Gregory of Nyssa, and I saw him say "the Gospel tradition" apparently referring to Scripture itself. However, when the meaning of "tradition" can be divined from the text, it is usually presented as something complementary to but apart from Scripture. Thus, when we see ECFs emphasizing the importance of "tradition," the default conclusion must be that they are speaking of something in addition to Scripture.

I think that still remains to be proven, as a quick search on google has shown with the two quotes I've given.