![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/06\/Fathers7.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[originally posted on 1-18-10]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up discussion (Round Two) to my previous four-part critique<\/a> of a\u00a0post by Jason Engwer<\/a>. Jason is now starting to counter-reply, with\u00a0preliminary remarks<\/a>\u00a0and the beginning of more substantive response, in his latest post,\u00a0Papias, Apostolic Succession, Oral Tradition, And \u201cRelativism\u201d<\/a>. Near the end I also reply to his article,\u00a0\u201cWhere Are \u2018Apostolic Succession\u2019 And \u2018Authoritative Tradition\u2019 In Papias?\u201d<\/a>.\u00a0His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. Past comments of mine that he cites will be in\u00a0green<\/span>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Yesterday, I posted\u00a0some introductory remarks<\/span>\u00a0[link<\/a>]\u00a0about a series of posts by Dave Armstrong that was written in response to an article I posted in 2008. What I want to do today is address some comments Dave made about one church father in particular, Papias. I do so for a few reasons. For one thing, it was in response to something I said about Papias that Dave issued some of his harshest criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n True.<\/p>\n And some of his other comments about Papias are relevant to his claims to \u201ccopiously document everything\u201d and his objection that I\u2019m not offering enough documentation for my own views. His comments on Papias also illustrate just how misleading it can be to use terms like \u201capostolic succession\u201d and \u201coral tradition\u201d to describe the views of a father.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, we\u2019ll see about that as we go along.<\/p>\n In the course of his series of posts responding to me, Dave repeatedly accuses me of \u201crelativism\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s because his position on this business of the rule of faith in the fathers\u00a0entails<\/em>\u00a0it, as I will be happy to elaborate upon and clarify. I don\u2019t make any serious charge lightly, and readers may rest assured that when I do, that I have very good reason to do so: a rationale that I can surely defend against scrutiny and\/or protest (as indeed I am doing presently).<\/p>\n I said that if I were in the position of somebody like Papias, I wouldn\u2019t adhere to sola scriptura. I went on to comment that \u201cIf sola scriptura had been widely or universally rejected early on, it wouldn\u2019t follow that it couldn\u2019t be appropriate later, under different circumstances.\u201d Dave\u00a0responded:<\/span><\/p>\n And he is employing the typical Protestant theological relativism or doctrinal minimalism\u2026.After having expended tons of energy and hours sophistically defending Protestantism and revising history to make it appear that it is not fatal to Protestant claims (which is a heroic feat: to engage at length in such a profoundly desperate cause), now, alas, Jason comes to his senses and jumps on the bandwagon of fashionable Protestant minimalism, relativism, and the fetish for uncertainty. He resides, after all, in the \u2018much different position\u2019 of the 21st century. He knows better than those old fuddy-duds 1500 years ago. What do they know, anyway?\u2026Why are we having this discussion at all, then, if it doesn\u2019t matter a hill of beans what the fathers\u00a0en masse<\/em>\u00a0thought?<\/span><\/p>\n What Dave claims I \u201cnow\u201d believe is what I had been saying for years, long before I wrote my article in 2008.<\/span><\/p>\n That comes as no surprise. But my \u201cnow\u201d was primarily intended in a rhetorical \/ logical sense, not a chronological one, anyway. But in a larger sense it is part of Jason\u2019s overall approach (which is not without self-contradiction, which I was partially alluding to there): what I call the \u201cslippery fish\u201d or \u201cfloating ducks at the carnival sideshow\u201d approach. Protestants of a certain type (nebulous evangelicals, primarily: I still have no idea even what denomination Jason attends; perhaps he will be so kind as to inform me) reserve the right to criticize Catholicism endlessly; yet if we dare to dispute their arguments and ask if they have anything superior to offer, it\u2019s often the moving or unknown target runaround. Or there is the retreat into obfuscation: Jason\u2019s own specialty.<\/p>\n First, we hear from these circles that the fathers believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, period (I will have more on this below). Then we are blessed with a more clever, subtle argument: that they didn\u2019t believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0per se, but that, nevertheless, what they did believe (whatever it was, in many variations), is definitely closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. This has been Jason\u2019s general approach through the years, as I understand it. Now we enter into a third phase, so to speak: the fathers didn\u2019t always believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, but it doesn\u2019t matter, because times were different, then, and different times demand a changing rule of faith. The moving target . . .<\/p>\n And I didn\u2019t say or suggest that \u201cit doesn\u2019t matter a hill of beans what the fathers en masse thought\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Mostly what matters to Jason is how he can poke holes in what he (sometimes falsely) believes to be Catholic belief.<\/p>\n Anybody who has read much of what I\u2019ve written regarding the church fathers and other sources of the patristic era ought to know that I don\u2019t suggest that they\u2019re \u201cold fuddy-duds\u201d whose beliefs \u201cdon\u2019t matter a hill of beans\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n He picks and chooses what he thinks will hurt the Catholic historical case. Jason\u2019s method is nothing if it is not\u00a0that<\/em>. But he\u2019s highly selective and the \u201cgrid\u201d that he tries to fit all of this data into is incoherent and changes to suit his polemical needs at any given moment.<\/p>\n My point with regard to Papias, which I\u2019ve explained often, is that God provides His people with different modes of revelation at different times in history, and there are transitional phases between such periods. For example, Adam and Eve had a form of direct communication with God that most people in human history haven\u2019t had. When Jesus walked the earth, people would receive ongoing revelation from Him, and could ask Him questions, for example, in a manner not available to people who lived in earlier or later generations. When Joseph and Mary could speak with Jesus during His childhood and early adulthood, but the authority structure of the New Testament church didn\u2019t yet exist, a Catholic wouldn\u2019t expect Joseph and Mary to follow the same rule of faith they had followed prior to Jesus\u2019 incarnation or would be expected to follow after the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics agree with many, if not all of these points. But how Jason goes on to apply this in his analysis will eventually involve a self-contradiction that isn\u2019t present in the Catholic view of history and development of doctrine.<\/p>\n Catholicism doesn\u2019t claim to have preserved every word Jesus spoke or everything said by every apostle. A person living in the early second century, for example, could remember what he had heard the apostle John teach about eschatology and follow that teaching, even if it wasn\u2019t recorded in scripture or taught by means of papal infallibility, an ecumenical council, or some other such entity the average modern Catholic would look to.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course. Both sides agree on that.<\/p>\n Because of the nature of historical revelation in Christianity (and in Judaism), there isn\u2019t any one rule of faith that\u2019s followed throughout history. And different individuals and groups will transition from one rule of faith to another at different times and in different ways.<\/span><\/p>\n This is where the differences emerge. Catholics believe there was one rule of faith that consistently developed. It is what we call the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d: Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession). There is a great deal of development that takes place over time: especially when we are looking at the earliest fathers (Papias lived from c. 60 to 130, so he was actually in the apostolic period for a good half of his life). But the rule of faith did not\u00a0change\u00a0into anything substantially or essentially different.<\/p>\n Papias had the Scripture of the Old Testament and he even had much of the New Testament even at that early stage, as the Gospels and Paul\u2019s letters were widely accepted as canonical, very early on. Therefore, Papias\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0indeed have lived by\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0as the rule of faith. There is no compelling reason to think that he could not have done so, simply due to his living in a very early period of Christian history.<\/p>\n The position that Jason is staking out: that Papias wouldn\u2019t have lived by\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, and indeed, that he didn\u2019t\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0to, for the Protestant historical position to make sense, entails not a consistent development, but an\u00a0essential break<\/em>: there was one rule of faith in the earliest periods, and then suddenly, with the fully developed canon of Scripture, another one henceforth.<\/p>\n Needless to say, this is merely yet another arbitrary Protestant tradition: a tradition of men: just as\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0itself is. There is nothing in the Bible itself about such a supposed sea change. The Bible teaches neither\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, nor this view of tradition at first, and then\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/em>after the Bible. But these are cherished Protestant myths, despite being absent altogether in Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n These complexities can be made to seem less significant by making vague references to \u201coral tradition\u201d or \u201cthe word of God\u201d, for example, but the fact remains that what such terms are describing changes to a large extent over time and from one individual or group to another.<\/p>\n There are complexities in individuals and exceptions to the rule (of faith), but there is also a broad consensus to be observed and traced through history, as we see with all true doctrines. Jason wants to assert both a radical change and the absence of a consensus. At the same time he denies the interconnectedness of all these related concepts having to do with authority, as I have noted in my previous critique.<\/span><\/p>\n In any event, he dissents from some of the allegedly best lights in Protestant research about the rule of faith in the fathers; for example, the trilogy of books about\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0by David T. King and William Webster (Vol. I<\/a>\u00a0(King) \/\u00a0Vol. II\u00a0<\/a>(Webster) \/\u00a0Vol. III<\/a>\u00a0(King and Webster), where it is stated:<\/p>\n The\u00a0patristic evidence for\u00a0sola<\/span>\u00a0Scriptura<\/span><\/em>\u00a0is, we believe, an\u00a0overwhelming\u00a0indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. Such statements manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture.\u00a0Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages.\u00a0(Vol. II, 84-85)<\/span><\/p>\n When they\u00a0[the Church\u00a0Fathers<\/span>]\u00a0are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that\u00a0they universally taught\u00a0sola<\/span>\u00a0Scriptura<\/span><\/em>\u00a0in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.\u00a0(Vol. III, 9)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sales pitches for the trilogy on a major Reformed booksite (Monergism Books) echo these historically absurd assertions:<\/p>\n It reveals that the leading Church fathers\u2019 view of the authority and finality of the written Word of God was as lofty as that of any Protestant Reformer. In effect, Webster and King have demonstrated that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0was the rule of faith in the early church.<\/p>\n \u2013Dr. John MacArthur, Pastor\/Teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA<\/p>\n William Webster and David King have hit the bull\u2019s eye repeatedly and with great force in their treatment of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. The exegetical material sets forth a formidable biblical foundation for this claim of exclusivity and the historical argument\u00a0illustrates how the early church believed it\u00a0and traces the circuitous path by which Roman Catholicism came to place tradition alongside Scripture as a source, or deposit, of authoritative revelation.<\/p>\n \u2013Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY<\/p>\n (on the\u00a0book page for Vol. I<\/a>)<\/p>\n [Description]: In this Volume, William Webster addresses the common historical arguments against\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, demonstrating that the principle is, in fact, eminently historical, finding\u00a0support in \u2018the unanimous consent of the fathers.\u2019<\/p>\n The authors show, with painstaking thoroughness, that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0is the teaching of the Bible itself and\u00a0was central in the belief and practice of the early church, as exemplified in history and the writings of the Fathers.<\/p>\n \u2013Edward Donnelly, Minister of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Newtownabbey, and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological College, Belfast, Northern Ireland<\/p>\n King and Webster have utterly destroyed that position by showing that\u00a0the consent of the fathers teaches the doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2013Jay Adams, co-pastor of The Harrison Bridge Road A.R.P. Church in Simpsonville, South Carolina, founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation of Laverock, Pennsylvania<\/p>\n In painstaking detail, Webster and King systematically dismantle the unbiblical and ahistorical assertions made by modern Roman Catholic apologists who all too often rely on eisegetical interpretations of the Bible and \u2018cut and paste\u2019 patrology.<\/p>\n \u2013Eric Svendsen, Professor of Biblical Studies at Columbia Evangelical Seminary<\/p>\n [The Forewords of this volume (II) and Vol. I were written by James White]<\/p>\n (on the\u00a0book page for Vol. II<\/a>)<\/p>\n [Description]: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the principle is illegitimate because, she claims, it is unhistorical. By this she means that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0is a theological novelty in that it supposedly has no support in the teaching of the early Church. Roman apologists charge that the teaching on Scripture promoted by the Reformers introduced a false dichotomy between the Church and Scripture which elevated Scripture to a place of authority unheard of in the early Church. The Church of Rome insists that the early Church fathers, while fully endorsing the full inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, did not believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. . . .<\/p>\n The documentation provided reveals in the clearest possible terms\u00a0the Church fathers\u2019 belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. By material sufficiency we mean that all that is necessary to be believed for faith and morals is revealed in Scripture. Formal sufficiency means that all that is necessary for faith and morals is clearly revealed in Scripture, so that an individual, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone, can understand the essentials of salvation and the Christian life. Page after page gives eloquent testimony to the supreme authority that Scripture held in the life of the early Church and serves as a much needed\u00a0corrective to\u00a0Rome\u2019s misrepresentation of the Church fathers and her denigration of the sufficiency and final authority of Scripture.<\/p>\n (for the book page of Vol. III)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the standard anti-Catholic-type boilerplate rhetoric about\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0and the fathers. At least it is consistent (consistently wrong). But Jason dissents from his colleagues and wants to play the game of having a relativistic rule of faith: not in play from the beginning of Christianity, but only set in motion later. This allows him to play the further game of denying that Papias\u2019 views are consistent with Catholic dogma and our rule of faith, while not having any responsibility of showing that it is consistent with a Protestant view.<\/p>\n He always has that \u201cout\u201d (which is rather standard Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics): \u201cbut that ain\u2019t me \/ us.\u201d It\u2019s like a wax nose that can be molded to any whim or desire. Papias ain\u2019t Protestant but (and here is the important part) he certainly ain\u2019t\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0(!!!) \u2014 so sez Jason Engwer. Yet I have shown (and will continue to demonstrate) that his views are perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith, taking into account that he is very early in history, so that we don\u2019t see full-fledged Catholicism. We see a primitive Catholic rule of faith: precisely as we would and should suspect.<\/p>\n Jason thinks he contradicts our view because (as I discussed in my Introduction to the previous four-part series) he expects to see the Catholic rule of faith explicitly in place in the first and second century: whereas our view of development, by definition, does not entail, let alone require this. Thus, he imposes a Protestant conception of \u201cfully-formed from the outset\u201d that he doesn\u2019t even accept himself, onto the Catholic claim.<\/p>\n I could agree with the vague assertion that we\u2019re to always follow \u201cthe word of God\u201d as our rule of faith, for instance, but that meant significantly different things for Adam than it did for David, for Mary than it did for Ignatius of Antioch, for Papias than it does for Dave Armstrong, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n It depends on what one means by different: different in particulars; different in time-frames (David had no NT or revelation of Jesus); difference in amount of development, etc. What was in common was that all accepted \u201cthe word of God\u201d (both written and oral) as normative for the Christian faith, but not in the sense of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n To accuse me of \u201crelativism\u201d, \u201cminimalism\u201d, and such, because I\u2019ve made distinctions like the ones outlined above, is unreasonable and highly misleading. The average reader of Dave\u2019s blog probably doesn\u2019t know much about me, and using terms like \u201crelativism\u201d, \u201cminimalism\u201d, and \u201cfetish for uncertainty\u201d doesn\u2019t leave people with an accurate impression of what a conservative Evangelical like me believes.<\/span><\/p>\n Jason can hem and haw all he likes. The fact remains that he has expressly denied that Papias would have believed in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. But the standard anti-Catholic historical argumentation is what I have documented:\u00a0\u201cScripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages\u201d (William Webster);\u00a0<\/span>\u201cthey universally taught\u00a0sola<\/span>\u00a0Scriptura<\/span><\/em>\u00a0. . . embracing . . . formal sufficiency of Scripture\u201d\u00a0<\/span>(David T. King and William Webster)<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>So which will it be? There are three positions to choose from:<\/p>\n 1) Papias was one of the fathers who \u201cuniversally\u201d held to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2) Papias didn\u2019t hold to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, but also didn\u2019t<\/em> espouse a rule of faith consistent with Catholicism.<\/p>\n 3) Papias didn\u2019t embrace\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, and his rule of faith was consistent<\/em> with Catholicism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n #1 is the standard boilerplate anti-Catholic Protestant position, as I have shown above. #2 is Jason\u2019s pick-and-choose \u201ccafeteria patristic\u201d view, that contradicts #1. #3 is my view and the Catholic view.<\/p>\n In some other comments about Papias, Dave\u00a0writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Jason will have to make his argument from Papias, whatever it is. J. N. D. Kelly says little about him, but what he does mention is no indication of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u2026When we go to Eusebius (III, 39) to see what exactly Papias stated, we find an explicit espousal of apostolic succession and authoritative tradition. He even contrasts oral tradition to written (as superior): \u2018I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice\u2019 (III, 39, 4).<\/span><\/p>\n I didn\u2019t cite Papias as an advocate of sola scriptura.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly. From what we can tell, James White wouldn\u2019t say that. Webster and King and Svendsen and John MacArthur wouldn\u2019t. Why is it, then, that they aren\u2019t out there correcting Jason? He disagrees with them (Papias doesn\u2019t teach\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>) just as much as he does with me (Papias doesn\u2019t hold to a primitive version of the historic Catholic rule of faith; he contradicts that). He\u2019s betwixt and between. He needs to go back to King\u2019s and White\u2019s and Webster\u2019s books to get up to speed and get his evangelical anti-Catholic act together.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t cite Papias as an advocate of sola scriptura. And we have much more information on Papias than what Eusebius provides. See<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thanks for the great link.<\/p>\n I referred to Richard Bauckham\u2019s treatment of Papias in\u00a0Jesus And The Eyewitnesses\u00a0<\/em>(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). See, particularly, pp. 21-38. Bauckham goes into far more depth than J.N.D. Kelly did in the work Dave is citing.<\/span><\/p>\n Cool. And what position did\u00a0he<\/em>\u00a0take, choosing from #1, #2, and #3 above? I was able to read pp. 21-38\u00a0on Amazon<\/a>, and discovered that Bauckham tries to make a big deal of the distinction between oral history and oral tradition, with the former directly relying on eyewitness accounts (of the sort that Papias tried to collect). Bauckham\u2019s stance, then, is a subtler version of #2. He seems to be trying (by repeated, almost mantra-like emphasis) to undermine a Catholic notion of oral tradition without saying so in so many words.<\/p>\n But he doesn\u2019t prove at all that Papias\u2019 approach is inconsistent with the Catholic three-legged stool rule of faith. Of course we would expect Papias to seek eyewitness accounts, since he lived so early. How in the world that is construed as somehow contrary to Catholic tradition is, I confess, beyond me. The following distinctions must be made and understood:<\/p>\n View of Tradition I:<\/strong><\/p>\n I. 1) Legitimate tradition relies on eyewitness testimony only.<\/p>\n I. 2) Once the eyewitnesses die, then there is no longer true [binding] tradition to speak of.<\/p>\n View of Tradition II:<\/strong><\/p>\n II. 1) Legitimate tradition relies primarily on eyewitness testimony where it is available.<\/p>\n II. 2) Legitimate tradition after eyewitness testimony is no longer available continues to be valid by means of [Holy Spirit-guided] unbroken [apostolic] succession, so that the truths originated by eyewitnesses continue on through history.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jason and Bauckham appear to be asserting I. 1. But I. 2 does not necessarily follow from what we know of Papias\u2019 views. We know that he collected eyewitness testimony. We don\u2019t know that he would say that was the\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0tradition that was legitimate. In other words, it is the claim of\u00a0exclusivity<\/em>\u00a0that involves the prior assumption brought to the facts. The Catholic view is Tradition II, which is perfectly consistent with what we know of Papias, or at the very least not\u00a0ruled out<\/em>\u00a0by what we know of him.<\/p>\n The biggest problem with Tradition I is that it is not biblical. It contradicts what the Bible teaches. St. Paul, after all, was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (though he did have a post-Resurrection encounter with him that remains possible to this day). Yet he feels that he can authoritatively pass on Christian apostolic traditions (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, 14). Thus, whoever learned Christian truths from St. Paul did not receive them from an eyewitness. Paul had to talk to someone like Peter to get firsthand accounts (or Bauckham\u2019s \u201coral history\u201d).<\/p>\n He was passing on what he himself had \u201creceived\u201d from yet another source (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13). He even specifically instructs Timothy to pass on his (oral) traditions to \u201cfaithful men,\u201d who in turn can pass them on to others (2 Tim 2:2). So just from this verse we see four generations of a passed-on tradition (Paul: the second generation, Timothy, and those whom Timothy teaches). This tradition is not even\u00a0necessarily<\/em> written by Paul or anyone else (Rom 10:8; Eph 1:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; cf. Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 1:25). There is no indication that the chain is supposed to\u00a0end<\/em>\u00a0somewhere down the line.<\/p>\n Secondly, even Papias, according to Eusebius, didn\u2019t claim to talk to the apostles, but only to their friends:<\/p>\n 2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the\u00a0doctrines\u00a0of the faith from those who were their friends.<\/p>\n 7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, . . .\u00a0(Ecclesiastical History<\/em>, III, 39, 4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That makes Papias a third-hand witness; not even second-hand (someone who talked to apostles).<\/p>\n Contrary to what Dave claims, there is no \u201cexplicit espousal of apostolic succession\u201d in Papias. And the \u201cliving and abiding voice\u201d Papias refers to is a reference to proximate and early testimony that was soon going to die out.<\/span><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t rule out apostolic succession; to the contrary, it is a perfect example\u00a0of<\/em>\u00a0it. He talked to people who knew the apostles. His testimony was third-hand. He \u201creceived the\u00a0doctrines\u00a0of the faith from those who were their [the apostles\u2019] friends.\u201d What is that if not succession? It is more or less independent of Scripture. Papias\u2019 rule of faith was:<\/p>\n Apostles and apostolic doctrine \u2014> friends of the apostles \u2014> Papias<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But the Protestant methodology and rule of faith is:<\/p>\n Apostles and apostolic doctrine \u2014> Scripture \u2014> Papias and everyone else<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The theme Papias is referring to is taken from, among other sources, the historiography of his day. As Bauckham notes, Jerome\u2019s rendering of the passage in Papias indicates that he understood Papias as Bauckham does (pp. 27-28).<\/span><\/p>\n He says that Jerome understood Papias\u00a0as referring to access to living witnesses as his preferred mode of collecting information.\u00a0But as I have already shown, I think, this in no way is inconsistent with Catholic tradition. It\u2019s plain common sense. What Jason doesn\u2019t mention, however, is Bauckham\u2019s observation right after citing Jerome, translating Papias:<\/p>\n Jerome here seems to take Papias to mean that he preferred the oral communication of eyewitnesses to the written records of their testimony in the Gospels.\u00a0(p. 28)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And that sounds distinctly\u00a0un<\/em>Protestant and contrary to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, doesn\u2019t it? If we\u2019re gonna mention one aspect of St. Jerome\u2019s thought (even if it is falsely thought to bolster some anti-Catholic line of reasoning), why not the other\u00a0also<\/em>, even if it doesn\u2019t fit in with the game plan? Get the\u00a0whole picture<\/em>, in other words.<\/p>\n Here are some of Bauckham\u2019s comments on the subject:<\/span><\/p>\n Against a historiographic background, what Papias thinks preferable to books is not oral tradition as such but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events \u2013 in this case \u2018the disciples of the Lord.\u2019 He is portraying his inquiries on the model of those made by historians, appealing to historiographic \u2018best practice\u2019 (even if many historians actually made much more use of written sources than their theory professed)\u2026.What is most important for our purposes is that, when Papias speaks of \u2018a living and abiding voice,\u2019 he is not speaking metaphorically of the \u2018voice\u2019 of oral tradition, as many scholars have supposed. He speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant \u2013 someone who has personal memories of the words and deeds of Jesus and is still alive\u2026.Papias was clearly not interested in tapping the collective memory as such. He did not think, apparently, of recording the Gospel traditions as they were recited regularly in his own church community. Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants. (pp. 24, 27, 34)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, the trouble with this is that Eusebius specifically says (twice) that Papias only knew\u00a0friends\u00a0<\/em>of the apostles: not they themselves. So one of is key premises is unfactual. And then we have Paul espousing authoritative fourth-hand tradition in Scripture. In any event, Bauckham appears to contradict himself:<\/p>\n Bauckham I:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cwhat Papias thinks preferable to books is not oral tradition as such but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events \u2013 in this case \u2018the disciples of the Lord.\u2019 . . . when Papias speaks of \u2018a living and abiding voice,\u2019 he . . . speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant \u2013 someone who has personal memories of the words and deeds of Jesus and is still alive . . . \u201d<\/p>\n Bauckham II:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cEven in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Which is it?: Eyewitnesses or those who\u00a0knew\u00a0<\/em>eyewitnesses? Once one starts going down the chain to third-hand, fourth-hand or later generations of witnesses, one is squarely within oral tradition. It\u2019s something other than eyewitness testimony. Protestants have been rejecting, for example, St. Ignatius, as too \u201cCatholic\u201d (therefore corrupt), for centuries. They thought the books with his name weren\u2019t even\u00a0authentic<\/em>\u00a0for a long time, till they were indisputably proved to be so. Now they are authentic, but still disliked by Protestants because they are already thoroughly Catholic.<\/p>\n In other words, the traditions that he teaches are rejected, no matter how proximate they are to the apostles. St. Ignatius (c. 35 \u2013 c. 110) was born a generation earlier than Papias. He may possibly have known St. John, or known of him through St. Polycarp (c. 69 \u2013 c. 155). But does that impress Protestants? No; not if they are intent on rejecting any doctrine that has the slightest \u201cCatholic\u201d flavor in it. Anti-Catholicism is the driving force: not some great goal of getting close to apostles via those who talked to them or to those who knew them.<\/p>\n Bauckham goes into much more detail than what I\u2019ve quoted above. He gives examples of Polybius, Josephus, Galen, and other sources using terminology and arguments similar to those of Papias. He emphasizes that Papias is appealing to something more evidentially valuable than, and distinct from, \u201ccross-generational\u201d tradition (p. 37).<\/span><\/p>\n It is more valuable, in evidential or strictly historiographical terms. But this is no argument against Catholic tradition. It simply notes one special, early form of apostolic tradition.<\/p>\n As he notes, the sources Papias was referring to were dying out and only available for a \u201cbrief\u201d time. The historiography of Papias\u2019 day, from which he was drawing, was interested in\u00a0early<\/i>\u00a0oral tradition, the sort we would call the testimony of eyewitnesses and contemporaries, not an oral tradition three hundred, a thousand, or two thousand years later. He got it from individuals and his own interpretation of their testimony, not mediated through an infallible church hierarchy centered in Rome. It wasn\u2019t the sort of oral tradition Roman Catholicism appeals to.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure it was. This is apostolic tradition. Much ado about nothing . . . Jason will try to kill it off by his \u201cdeath by a thousand qualifications\u201d methodology, but it won\u2019t fly. Nothing here (in the case of Papias) causes our view any problems whatsoever. The only problems are whether (in the Protestant paradigms) one wants to claim Papias as one of the fathers who supposedly \u201cuniversally\u201d believed in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, or to deny that he did so, as Jason does. The contradiction arises in\u00a0Protestant<\/em>\u00a0ranks, not between Papias and Catholic tradition.<\/p>\n Modern Catholics aren\u2019t hearing or interviewing the apostle John, Aristion, or the daughters of Philip and expecting such testimony to soon die out.<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for that valuable information.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not their notion of oral tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s perfectly consistent with our notion, and we continue to think oral tradition is authoritative, whereas Protestants have ditched it: in direct contrast to what the fathers thought about such things.<\/p>\n And it won\u2019t be sufficient for Dave to say that he doesn\u2019t object to that other type of oral tradition that we find in Papias.<\/span><\/p>\n It will do just fine!<\/p>\n He\u2019s accused me of \u201crelativism\u201d for making such distinctions.<\/span><\/p>\n No. Jason was accused of that because he arbitrarily decides that\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/em>kicks in later on and not from the first (itself a wacky Protestant tradition, and not biblical at all). He has a \u201cjerky,\u201d inconsistent view of Church history. But the Catholic view is a smooth line of development.<\/p>\n (It\u2019s not as though Papias would disregard what he learned about a teaching of Jesus or the apostle John, for example, until it was promulgated in the form of something like papal infallibility or an ecumenical council.<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly. More truisms . . .<\/p>\n Rather, the oral tradition Papias appeals to makes him the sort of transitional figure I referred to above. He didn\u2019t follow sola scriptura, but he didn\u2019t follow the Catholic rule of faith either.)<\/span><\/p>\n He followed the latter in a primitive form. What he believed is no different in essence from what Catholics have believed all along, and from what I believe myself, as an orthodox Catholic. But it\u2019s sure different from what Protestants and Jason believe. Even he concedes that, and is half-right, at least.<\/p>\n And Dave\u2019s appeal to \u201coral tradition\u201d in a dispute with an Evangelical is most naturally taken to refer to the common Catholic concept of oral tradition, not the form of it described by Bauckham.<\/span><\/p>\n Which is a species of ours . . .<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n If Dave agreed all along that Papias\u2019 oral tradition was of the sort Bauckham describes, then why did he even bring up the subject?<\/span><\/p>\n My goal was to show that Papias is not a counter-example to Catholic tradition. I think I have succeeded in showing that, if I do say so.<\/p>\n It\u2019s at least misleading to refer to Papias\u2019 view as \u201coral tradition\u201d in such an unqualified way in a dispute with an Evangelical.<\/span><\/p>\n One doesn\u2019t have to go through every fine point and distinction at any given time. There is an oral element here that is different from\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. The Jason method won\u2019t work (i.e., note any distinction or exception whatever to be found, and then thrown that in the Catholic\u2019s face as a supposed disproof). It hasn\u2019t worked in the past, and it is failing again now.<\/p>\n How many of Papias\u2019 oral traditions, such as his premillennialism, does Dave agree with?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe in that (used to), but the Catholic Church has not proclaimed many eschatological beliefs as dogma. Our position is not to uncritically accept any given father\u2019s view on anything, but to look at the consensus.<\/p>\n In response to my citation of Bauckham in my article in 2008, Dave wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not gonna go read all that. I\u2019ve spent enough time on this as it is. Whatever Jason\u2019s argument is involving Papias, can be presented anew, if he thinks it is worthwhile to consider.<\/span><\/p>\n The point being that if Jason wants to drop scholars\u2019 names, then he can at least cite some of it rather than making his readers go look up everything. He didn\u2019t even link to the Amazon book, where, fortunately, I could read the section he referenced. He cites it\u00a0now<\/em>; but that bolsters my point. He could have done that\u00a0before<\/em>, rather than just dropping names.<\/p>\n Yet, in his articles responding to me he frequently links us to other articles he\u2019s written, without \u201cpresenting anew\u201d what he said previously.<\/span><\/p>\n I didn\u2019t know it was too hard for Jason to click on a mouse (take all of a third of a second to do that \u201cwork\u201d) or to do a simple word search within articles. I am providing instant access to support for some point I am making if I cite past articles and link to them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Catholics believe there was one rule of faith that consistently developed. It is what we call the \u2018three-legged stool\u2019: Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession).<\/span><\/p>\n When Papias spoke with the daughters of Philip (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39), for example, were they giving him information by means of \u201capostolic succession\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\n I would think that was a manifestation of it, yes: transmission of firsthand apostolic information through another party (in this case, daughters of an apostle).<\/p>\n Dave hasn\u2019t given us any reason to think that Papias attained his oral tradition by that means.<\/span><\/p>\n What\u00a0<\/em>means? If he was talking to Philip\u2019s daughters, that\u00a0was<\/em>\u00a0part of the tradition. What\u00a0else\u00a0would it be? Homer\u2019s\u00a0Odyssey<\/em>? Betting on chariot races? It\u2019s primitive Christian apostolic tradition being passed down: \u201cdelivered\u201d and \u201creceived,\u201d just as St. Paul uses those terms. Jason can\u2019t get out of the obvious fact by nitpicking and doing the \u201cdeath by a thousand qualifications\u201d game that he has honed to a fine art.<\/p>\n To the contrary, as Richard Bauckham documents in his book I cited earlier, Papias refers to the sort of investigation of early sources that was common in the historiography of his day, and we don\u2019t assume the involvement of apostolic succession when other ancient sources appeal to that concept.<\/span><\/p>\n The two are not mutually exclusive at all. Now, routine historiographical investigation (because of historical proximity to the apostles), is pit against tradition, as if one rules out the other. The NT is good history; it is also good tradition. The twain shall meet: believe it or not.<\/p>\n Why should we even think that what Papias was addressing was a rule of faith?<\/span><\/p>\n He demonstrated the rule of faith in how he approached all these matters. This is how he lived his Christianity: his standard of authority. That\u2019s the rule of faith. Nothing about\u00a0Scripture Alone\u00a0<\/em>here: even Jason admits that, because he accepts a \u201cherky-jerky\u201d notion of the rule of faith being one thing early on and then magically transforming into something else later on. That\u2019s not development; it is\u00a0reversal<\/em>: the very\u00a0opposite<\/em>\u00a0of development.<\/p>\n When he attained information about a resurrection or some other miracle that occurred, for example, why should we conclude that such oral tradition became part of Papias\u2019 rule of faith once he attained it?<\/span><\/p>\n Why should any Christian believe\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0that he hears (from the Bible or whatever)? Why should Papias believe Philip\u2019s daughters or other close associates of the apostles? Why should Jason question everything to death? Why can\u2019t he simply accept these things in faith? Why does he have to play around with every father he can find, to somehow make them out to be hostile to Catholicism (if not quite amenable to Protestantism)? Why can\u2019t he see the forest for the trees?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Why does he keep arguing about Papias, when even\u00a0he<\/em>\u00a0admits that he didn\u2019t abide by\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>? Why doesn\u2019t he then explain why the rule of faith supposedly changed? Why doesn\u2019t he show us from Scripture that it was to change later on? If he can\u2019t do that, then why does he\u00a0believe<\/em>\u00a0it? Would it not, then, be a mere tradition of men? If Protestants can arbitrarily believe in extrabiblical traditions of men, then why do they give Catholics a hard time for believing traditions that are documented in the Bible itself?<\/p>\n See, I can play Jason\u2019s \u201cask 1000 questions routine: to muddy the whole thing up beyond all hope of resolution\u201d game. I came up with twelve rapid-fire questions. I\u2019m proud of myself! It\u2019s kind o\u2019 fun, actually, but you do have to type quite a bit and strain your brain to come up with a new hundred questions for any given topic at hand, so that nothing can ever be concluded, as to any given Church father believing anything. Of course I rhetorically exaggerate, but I trust that those who have been following this, get my drift.<\/p>\n Cardinal Newman himself describes Jason\u2019s overly skeptical methodology, hitting the nail on the head:<\/p>\n It seems to me to take the true and the normal way of meeting the infidelity of the age, by referring to Our Lord\u2019s Person and Character as exhibited in the Gospels. Philip said to Nathanael \u201cCome and see\u201d\u2014that is just what the present free thinkers will not allow men to do. They perplex and bewilder them with previous questions, to hinder them falling under the legitimate rhetoric of His Divine Life, of His sacred words and acts. They say: \u201cThere is no truth because there are so many opinions,\u201d or \u201cHow do you know that the Gospels are authentic?\u201d \u201cHow do you account for Papias not mentioning the fourth Gospel?\u201d or \u201cHow can you believe that punishment is eternal?\u201d or, \u201cWhy is there no stronger proof of the Resurrection?\u201d With this multitude of questions in detail, they block the way between the soul and its Saviour, and will not let it \u201cCome and see.\u201d\u00a0(Letter of 11 January 1873, in Wilfred Ward\u2019s\u00a0The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Vol. II,\u00a0chapter 31, p. 393<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not saying Jason is skeptical of\u00a0\n
\n(Vol. I, 266)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n[Part II]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n