The concern in this chapter is with the relation between the symbolic coherence of Scripture, effected by the word of the Cross, and the appeal to canon and tradition – the key elements in the self-identification of orthodox or normative Christianity.
I think in St. Irenaeus' day, it was likely much more difficult to distinguish between tradition and scripture, since for him, tradition was so closely linked with the direct teaching and epistles of the Apostles of Christ.
The apostles interpretation of the Gospel is also Scripture, right? If so, do you consider that "tradition" or something prior to "tradition"? If prior to, then when does the tradition come in?
I would say anything outside the 73 books of the Roman Canon, is to be considered part of tradition rather than scripture. For instance, the Golden Legend, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, Book of Enoch, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, etc.
The way Behr uses the word "Scripture," he always (or almost always) is referring to what we call the Old Testament - this is the "Scripture" that the apostles knew. Yes, I would (and I would say that all Christians do) refer to the apostles interpretation (as reflected in their writing, which we know as the New Testament) also as Scripture - and the right way to understand the "Scripture" of the Old Testament.
I personally consider the apostles writing to be something prior to tradition - accepting it as the straight line from which both the straight and the crooked could be determined.
When does tradition come in.... that's a bit tough. In these first couple of centuries, it is clear that the Church is trying to understand, or work out, what the apostles witnessed. They are required to develop practices and governance methods for a church that has grown far beyond the twelve, or the seventy, etc.
Is the Nicene Creed "tradition"? Or is it a proper summarizing of Scripture (both OT and NT)? Is the formation of bishops heading local churches "tradition" or a continuation of the practice first established by Paul and the other apostles when they went out into the world and the church growth that resulted (as recorded in the NT)?
The answers to the questions in this prior paragraph have for me been a blur. It isn't so cut and dry where clarification of Scripture (hence, a proper understanding of Scripture) ends and tradition begins. It is easy to identify the two extremes, but the gray area in the middle? For me...it isn't clear...at least so far.
On the question about the Nicene creed being tradition or a summary Scripture. I would say those things are one and the same. But as we have seen not all churches agreed to all the creeds and there were big breaks over a word here or there. So to me it is difficult to say "this" is pure tradition vs. "that" being pure tradition. That is gray to me.
On the New Testament being Scripture, Peter considers apostolic writing as Scripture from 2 Peter 3:15-17.
"15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
On bishops heading local churches, Paul commanded it in Titus 1:5. It is an apostolic command in Scripture. It wasn't one bishop or elder per city church. But multiple bishops per city church.
"5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you"
I think in St. Irenaeus' day, it was likely much more difficult to distinguish between tradition and scripture, since for him, tradition was so closely linked with the direct teaching and epistles of the Apostles of Christ.
The apostles interpretation of the Gospel is also Scripture, right? If so, do you consider that "tradition" or something prior to "tradition"? If prior to, then when does the tradition come in?
I would say anything outside the 73 books of the Roman Canon, is to be considered part of tradition rather than scripture. For instance, the Golden Legend, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Didache, Book of Enoch, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, etc.
Sure. I would include 6 of the 73 books not in the Protestant Bible and the Shepherd of Hermas to the list.
I've not read the Shepherd of Hermas or even heard of it. How interesting!
The way Behr uses the word "Scripture," he always (or almost always) is referring to what we call the Old Testament - this is the "Scripture" that the apostles knew. Yes, I would (and I would say that all Christians do) refer to the apostles interpretation (as reflected in their writing, which we know as the New Testament) also as Scripture - and the right way to understand the "Scripture" of the Old Testament.
I personally consider the apostles writing to be something prior to tradition - accepting it as the straight line from which both the straight and the crooked could be determined.
When does tradition come in.... that's a bit tough. In these first couple of centuries, it is clear that the Church is trying to understand, or work out, what the apostles witnessed. They are required to develop practices and governance methods for a church that has grown far beyond the twelve, or the seventy, etc.
Is the Nicene Creed "tradition"? Or is it a proper summarizing of Scripture (both OT and NT)? Is the formation of bishops heading local churches "tradition" or a continuation of the practice first established by Paul and the other apostles when they went out into the world and the church growth that resulted (as recorded in the NT)?
The answers to the questions in this prior paragraph have for me been a blur. It isn't so cut and dry where clarification of Scripture (hence, a proper understanding of Scripture) ends and tradition begins. It is easy to identify the two extremes, but the gray area in the middle? For me...it isn't clear...at least so far.
On the question about the Nicene creed being tradition or a summary Scripture. I would say those things are one and the same. But as we have seen not all churches agreed to all the creeds and there were big breaks over a word here or there. So to me it is difficult to say "this" is pure tradition vs. "that" being pure tradition. That is gray to me.
On the New Testament being Scripture, Peter considers apostolic writing as Scripture from 2 Peter 3:15-17.
"15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
On bishops heading local churches, Paul commanded it in Titus 1:5. It is an apostolic command in Scripture. It wasn't one bishop or elder per city church. But multiple bishops per city church.
"5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you"
Thank you, RMB.