Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Cullmann on Kerygma, Gospel, Tradition and Apostolic Authority

And beginning with Moses an all prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And their eyes were opened and they knew him. They said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us . . . while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:27, 31, 32).
Thus begins Cullmann’s account of “The Tradition,” from which I’ve cited several times now, and which, I have heard from someone reliable, is probably the best account of the relationship of “scripture and tradition”. As I work through this, of course, I’ll check Cullmann’s analysis against other writers on the topic, and of course, against the witness of Scripture.

Last time I cited Bryan Cross’s view of succession (in contrast to Sullivan’s). In the recent Catholic Answers thread that bore my name, some of the folks there were a bit saddened that I didn’t stay and answer all their questions. Of course, I answered a number of their questions, but there ended up being more than 400 comments and I just didn’t get to read all of them, much less respond to them. One of the writers there, Pete Holter, a (as I understand it) former Reformed believer, provided this account (somewhat abbreviated):
God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.
This “passing on,” in the Roman Catholic account, takes a similar flow as that given in shorthand form by many Roman Catholics. In many of these accounts, indeed, in the official account, the words “authority” and “tradition” and “succession” sort of get muddled together until, in the Roman Catholic mind, there is just one thing: and the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings and Magisterium have the very authority of God on earth. It’s been that way since the muddling, and that’s good enough for us!

I think Cullman’s “The Tradition” admirably isolates those threads – authority and tradition and succession – he defines them well, and he talks about what genuinely gets “handed on” from God, what just sort of gets picked up along the way, and what gets distorted.

My copy of this article is found within Cullmann’s 1956 collection of essays, “The Early Church” (London: SCM Press Ltd). In his own words:
Firstly, I shall try to prove that the New Testament regards the Lord exalted to the right hand of God as the direct author of the tradition of the apostles, because he himself is at work in the apostolic transmission of his words and deeds. Secondly, by examining the conception of the apostolate, I shall attempt to determine the connection between the apostolic tradition and the post-apostolic tradition, and the difference between them. Thirdly, I shall enquire whether this distinction is confirmed by the history of the early Church, and whether, in creating the canon, the Church itself deliberately separated apostolic from ecclesiastical tradition, so as to make the former the norm of the latter (pg. 59)
Over the next couple of posts, I'd like to follow Cullmann's account, bringing in other information as I go. Christ, of course, is the final and perfect Revelation of God. As the writer to the Hebrews begins by saying, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me (John 14:8-11).
But God does not give an unclear view of himself in the Old Testament, and it is this God we see when we see Christ.

6 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

I have taken a bit of a hiatus from the internet during the month of March, refraining from posting not only on my blog, but also other blogs that I check in on from time to time. Tonight, after my language studies, I felt an 'urge' (the HS?) to check in on Beggars All, and read your last two posts. Without getting into the scholars who disagree with the assessments of Sullivan and Cullman (BTY, I own, and have read both of the works you cited from these authors), I would like to ask but one question: why do you accept their assessments on early church history, and yet reject their view of Scripture?


Grace and peace,

David

James Swan said...

I would like to ask but one question: why do you accept their assessments on early church history, and yet reject their view of Scripture?

This is a general answer, since I'm not familiar with the fine details of these authors.

Simply because one is wrong in one area does not mean they're wrong in all areas. Simple because one is right in one area does not mean one is right in all areas.

John Bugay said...

why do you accept their assessments on early church history, and yet reject their view of Scripture?

I would also accept my doctor's assessment of my physical condition without necessarily taking into account his view of Scripture.

To be sure there is some overlap between a doctrine of Scripture and history, but a failure of one of these individuals to have the same view of Scripture that I hold does not necessarily (if at all) negate their ability to understand or write about history.

These posts address to some degree the objections you have raised in the past:

The role and misuse of Authority

Biblical Interpretation 1

Biblical Interpretation 2

Ratzinger Part 1

Ratzinger Part 2

David Waltz said...

Hello John,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>I would also accept my doctor's assessment of my physical condition without necessarily taking into account his view of Scripture.>>

Me: A good point for sure, however, you must know that the skills/tools required for competence in the medical field are much different than the skills/tools required for competence in Biblical and Patristic studies. The skills/tools and importantly, the method that Cullman and Sullivan bring to their Biblical studies, are the same set that they bring to their Patristic studies, speaking to their consistency in their approach to both related fields.

>>To be sure there is some overlap between a doctrine of Scripture and history, but a failure of one of these individuals to have the same view of Scripture that I hold does not necessarily (if at all) negate their ability to understand or write about history.>>

Me: I suspect much more "overlap" than most realize—a gifted teacher of calculus surely has the ability to understand and teach algebra, and if a gifted teacher of English critiques the calculus teacher's reflections on algebra, I would view such a critique with concern.

Those who approach early Patristics with a different set of critical methods and/or skills than they approach their Biblical studies will be much more prone to grave inconsistencies than the individual who approaches the two fields with the same method.

>>These posts address to some degree the objections you have raised in the past...>>

Me: Unfortunately the general approach in those threads is to start from the more obscure and contested issues, rather than beginning with that which is clear and uncontested.



Grace and peace,

David


P.S. Ooops, I noticed a typo in my first post: change BYY to BTW.

John Bugay said...

David: Unfortunately the general approach in those threads is to start from the more obscure and contested issues, rather than beginning with that which is clear and uncontested.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Can you give some specific examples of what I started with that is "obscure and contested", and maybe some examples of what is "clear and uncontested"?

I'm at work now, but I have a couple of other things to ask you.

I don't have the ability to edit comments.

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

Once again, thanks for responding; you posted:

>>Not sure what you're talking about here. Can you give some specific examples of what I started with that is "obscure and contested", and maybe some examples of what is "clear and uncontested"?>>

Me: I would point to the statements that you have culled from Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that, if they stood alone, COULD (but not necessarily) be read as pantheistic; yet the same Ratzinger/Benedict has unambiguously delineated his basic/core theology (i.e. his doctrine of God) that CANNOT be construed in any sense as pantheistic.

>> I'm at work now, but I have a couple of other things to ask you.>>

Me: Please feel free to take your time, I have guests arriving this afternoon who are planning to stay until Sunday, so I do not know exactly when I will be able to head back here, other than it will be no later than Monday.

>> I don't have the ability to edit comments.>>

Me: I did not mean for you to actually change my post, but rather for all to do so mentally; and I see my attempt to correct the typo was another typo!!! So much for my tying skills [grin].


Grace and peace,

David