"image" and "likeness" = same or different? Septuagint vs. Hebrew

[Theophorus]

"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. 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." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

It appears that for Irenaeus, the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar" of faith and hence have higher authority than the church. I don't doubt that he was alluding to 1 Timothy 3:15, but instead of making the church the ground and pillar, he makes the Scriptures, since they are the repository of the Apostolic Gospel, and that this should be so was, according to him, the will of God and the Apostles in handing them down to the church.

Chapter three talks about how they pervert the scriptures. Here is a quote about the truth, in context.

"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it."

 

[gzt]

If you are going to quote Irenaeus, please do him the favor of reading at least the first three chapters of book III before you do so - context is important. I'm not going to interpret them for you, but it would be very hard to read Irenaeus as supporting any typical method of "sola Scriptura" [perhaps it isn't impossible and you're welcome to find a way to do so]. He is very concerned with the Church's being the "sole depository of apostolical doctrine", how the bishops of the Church have visible succession from the apostles, both in their ordination and in their teachings, how the tradition of the apostles which is not only written [though the written part is extremely important] is the canon of faith.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Oops, let's try this again...

"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. 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." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

Irenaeus says that we learned the plan of salvation, which I will refer to as Apostolic Teaching (the good news!). They proclaimed the teaching in public, and later wrote it down. The TEACHING is the ground and pillar of our faith, as be it is also written down in Scriptures. The bolded parts are how the Apostles taught, and the red parts link the referential clauses of the writing together. He then goes on to say that some say the teaching was not complete and try to say they improve upon what the Apostles taught (in open declaration and in writing). The whole passage, read initially by me, someone who never really dealt with Sola Scriptura, is understood completely differently than how you interpreted it. The Gospel has come through the Apostles (Apostolic Teaching, aka Tradition) and according to Irenaeus, has NOT come through the Scriptures. Rather, the Scriptures are the writing down of the Apostolic Teaching. If one interprets the Scriptures wrongly, how is the Apostolic Teaching being upheld in them? For a silly example, when Christ says He is the door, if there were ppl out there who took this literally and started worshipping doors (but only handcrafted wooden ones such as would have existed in Jerusalem), would they be hearing, living, and doing the Good News as preached by the Apostles and later written down? Of course not.

Keeping the Apostolic Teaching (present in the written Gospels) as was preached by the Apostles is the key, not making it some Gnostic secret teaching that the Apostles were not privy to, but that later teachers say is an improvement upon them.

I'd need to see the Greek to see what "to be the ground and pillar of our faith" refers to - the English translation is a bit confusing; unfortunately, I don't have access the the Greek text. Can anyone help with this?

Same book, III, XI, 8:

8. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds,142 while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground"143 of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

Against Heresies Book III

This is on my list of books to read.

 

[Theophorus]

Also in this book Irenaeus repeatedly and repeatedly cites and refers to the Scriptures in support of what he is writing, not to the Apostolic teaching: Against Heresies Book III

Of course he does. The heretics are perverting the scripture. He is transmitting the apostolic interpretation of them, the Churches interpretation.
One point that should be gleaned from this is the importance of the Church in interpreting scripture, not a validation for individual interpretation.

The scriptures are part of the fulness of the Church, not the other way around; the Church being the fulness of scripture.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Also in this book Irenaeus repeatedly and repeatedly cites and refers to the Scriptures in support of what he is writing, not to the Apostolic teaching: Against Heresies Book III

Of course he does. The heretics are perverting the scripture. He is transmitting the apostolic interpretation of them, the Churches interpretation.
One point that should be gleaned from this is the importance of the Church in interpreting scripture, not a validation for individual interpretation.

The scriptures are part of the fulness of the Church, not the other way around; the Church being the fulness of scripture.

I edited and deleted (but too late!) that part of my post because a further skim-through of the book shows I was in error to say this. He does indeed cite support from the Apostolic Tradition. Mea culpa!

 

[choirfiend]

8. It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds,142 while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground"143 of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

Indeed, the contents of the 4 accounts of the Good News are of utmost importance. If we did not know what it contained in the Gospels, what faith would we have? Thankfully, even as Irenaeus said, we had the teaching even before the Gospels were written down, as the Apostles spread it.

Again, check the quote. Even the part you bold says that the pillar is the Gospel AND the Spirit....and he's not even mentioning the Epistles, the Psalms, the OT...If you're looking to take this literally, he says that the Gospels (and the Spirit) and nothing else is the founding of the Church. The importance of the Scriptures and the contents thereof is not at all in question! For the Orthodox, the Gospels are always on the altar, and during the Liturgy, the small entrance is bringing the Gospel out to be heard by all us "who may be accounted worthy of hearing it." We venerate the Gospels during Matins. The teaching therein certainly is the foundation of our faith. It is wholly consistent to say this, because nothing that we teach or believe is NOT contained therein.

 

[choirfiend]

Haha, I just realized the Irony of appealing to the Church Fathers as proof of Sola Scriptura.....lol!

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Haha, I just realized the Irony of appealing to the Church Fathers as proof of Sola Scriptura.....lol!

cf: No irony in this, as I'm not arguing for Sola Scriptura. I was countering a statement about the church being the revealer of all truth

The bible is not the revealer of all truth, but as the scriptures say, the Church is.

with these quotes from Irenaeus where he makes the 1 Tim 3:15 claim for something other than the church.

In fact, it was other posters who used the term "Sola Scriptura" in this thread. My original question had to do with which Scriptures to use (i.e., the Hebrew or the LXX), and not the issue of Sola Scriptura. I.e., which Scriptures should the Tradition appeal to when there are conflicts between the Hebrew and the LXX, or when it appears that a tradition or teaching is based on a less-than-best Greek rendering of the Hebrew.

 

[choirfiend]

No, what hes saying is that the Gospel is the basis of what the Church teaches, that the teaching contained therein is what the Church appeals to (as the revealer of Truth) when contronted with false teachings (like of the heretics in his time.) Nothing in Tradition, the Teaching, can/does contradict Scripture, because Scripture is the good news, the teaching of the Apostles, which is what the Church is founded upon. He is against trying to add things that are inconsistent with the testimony of the Apostles to the teaching of the Church, but he has not yet even addressed the proper understanding of Scripture (other than to admit that it is what the APostles teach that is the truth.)

Saying that a teaching would have been derived from Scripture (which may have been interpreted incorrectly, as you posit) and not also existant and taught by the Apostles as the revealed truth of God is to play with the idea that the Apostles were teaching error (or that additions were made). It is, in essence, a sola-scriptura-derived argument.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

No, what hes saying is that the Gospel is the basis of what the Church teaches, that the teaching contained therein is what the Church appeals to (as the revealer of Truth) when contronted with false teachings (like of the heretics in his time.) Nothing in Tradition, the Teaching, can/does contradict Scripture, because Scripture is the good news, the teaching of the Apostles, which is what the Church is founded upon. He is against trying to add things that are inconsistent with the testimony of the Apostles to the teaching of the Church, but he has not yet even addressed the proper understanding of Scripture (other than to admit that it is what the APostles teach that is the truth.)

Saying that a teaching would have been derived from Scripture (which may have been interpreted incorrectly, as you posit) and not also existant and taught by the Apostles as the revealed truth of God is to play with the idea that the Apostles were teaching error (or that additions were made). It is, in essence, a sola-scriptura-derived argument.

It of course depends on what one means by "Sola Scriptura." I read somewhere that the man-in-the-pew's (and often the man in the pulpit's) understanding/use of the term is not quite what the Reformers meant.

Also, what I was trying to say in my original post and subsequent remarks was not exactly what you seem to alude to when you write what I underlined above. I'm referring to teachings that cannot be proven to have been taught by the Apostles, e.g., teachings/interpretations/Scripture-applications of the Church Fathers or others that are based on a LXX rendering which can be shown to be a faulty or flawed rendering of the Hebrew original.

To give a poor analogy/example: Because the King James Bible has Jesus say that in His Father's house are many "mansions," we have this whole group of Christians thinking that there are "mansions" in heaven - according to the present-day understanding of the word "mansion." When one knows that 1) "mansion" in the KJ days did NOT mean what it means to us today and 2) the Greek word being translated does not mean a palatial residence, then one knows that the "mansion" theology/teaching is a wrong one, based on both a wrong understanding of KJ English and a wrong supposition about the Greek original behind the English. In this case, the English translation needs to be rejected for either the original Greek or a different English word that better conveys the Greek to today's readers.

I'm similarly asking if the same should be done if a teaching is based on the LXX and it can be shown that the LXX is a not-so-good interpretation/translation of the Hebrew and hence has led someone to promulgate a somewhat-erroneous teaching.

 

[icxn]

... To give a poor analogy, because the King James Bible has Jesus say that in His Father's house are many "mansions," we have this whole group of Christians thinking that there are "mansions" in heaven - according to the present-day understanding of the word "mansion." When one knows that 1) "mansion" in the KJ days did NOT mean what it means to us today and 2) the Greek word being translated does not mean a palatial residence, then one knows that the "mansion" theology/teaching is a wrong one, based on both a wrong understanding of KJ English and a wrong supposition about the Greek original behind the English.

Interesting that you've mentioned μονή. Did you know that monasteries are called that way too? Also that the same word is used in Jn. 14:23. Also what is more interesting is that the word is synonymous to ησυχία from which the word Hesychasm derives. And since it denotes a state of stability (=/= movement), it can also be used to describe Sabbath (rest). Of course it is also used to mean abode, since an abode is a stable place where people abide in quietude.

 

[Theophorus]

Also what is more interesting is that the word is synonymous to ησυχία from which the word Hesychasm derives. And since it denotes a state of stability (=/= movement), it can also be used to describe Sabbath (rest). Of course it is also used to mean abode, since an abode is a stable place where people abide in quietude.

St. Maximos defending St. Gregory mentions this state of non movement and rest. The created soul is in a constant "movement" until it travels back to its origin, which is found in Christ. Since we are the logi of the Logos.

 

[choirfiend]

I'm referring to teachings that cannot be proven to have been taught by the Apostles, e.g., teachings/interpretations/Scripture-applications of the Church Fathers or others that are based on a LXX rendering which can be shown to be a faulty or flawed rendering of the Hebrew original.

I'm similarly asking if the same should be done if a teaching is based on the LXX and it can be shown that the LXX is a not-so-good interpretation/translation of the Hebrew and hence has led someone to promulgate a somewhat-erroneous teaching.

I would have to say that answering the question has to come from first addressing the assumptions/assertions in the system in which the question is placed.

The first of which is: What are teachings which cannot be proven to have been taught by the Apostles? Which ones would you claim are proved? Which ones are not? By what criteria are you "proving" teachings as having been taught by the Apostles or not?

Whether or not the LXX may even be a faulty rendering of something different in Hebrew is a secondary topic.

 

[icxn]

St. Maximos defending St. Gregory mentions this state of non movement and rest. The created soul is in a constant "movement" until it travels back to its origin, which is found in Christ. Since we are the logi of the Logos.

YOU MEAN THAT THE MEANING OF LIFE IS REST?!!! **



______________
** That was my impression when our religion teacher taught us what you said, and yes they do teach us St. Maximus in high-school.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

What are teachings which cannot be proven to have been taught by the Apostles? Which ones would you claim are proved? Which ones are not? By what criteria are you "proving" teachings as having been taught by the Apostles or not?

Whether or not the LXX may even be a faulty rendering of something different in Hebrew is a secondary topic.

That's for YOU to do! I.e., if you or the church claim that something was taught by the Apostles, I would expect there to be a "paper trail" of some sort - e.g., references to such in the NT and/or the Church Fathers.

And, the Hebrew vs. LXX issue is to me the primary, not the secondary question, as that was my primary question on this thread and the reason I started this thread.

 

[choirfiend]

Your question can only be primary if, in said example, theosis as doctrine is in fact not something the apostles taught, and therefore came about as error based on a translation (which you claim may be imperfectly worded or imperfectly interpreted by later Church Fathers...) Which is why I think the other questions need to be addressed first.

 

[gzt]

ifthat's your primary issue, i believe i've fairly well answered it.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

If you are going to quote Irenaeus, please do him the favor of reading at least the first three chapters of book III before you do so - context is important. I'm not going to interpret them for you, but it would be very hard to read Irenaeus as supporting any typical method of "sola Scriptura" [perhaps it isn't impossible and you're welcome to find a way to do so]. He is very concerned with the Church's being the "sole depository of apostolical doctrine", how the bishops of the Church have visible succession from the apostles, both in their ordination and in their teachings, how the tradition of the apostles which is not only written [though the written part is extremely important] is the canon of faith.

I retracted/deleted my comment (with explanation) re: Irenaeus appealing to Scripture vs. Apostolic tradition. And ... as I also explained, I did not bring "Sola Scriptura" into this discussion, nor is that my issue/question.

Yes, I intend to read all of Irenaeus. I like his style. (Unfortunately, I find I do not care for John Chrysostom's style as much as others do, so I'm not as enthusiastic about reading him.)

 

[Theophorus]

YOU MEAN THAT THE MEANING OF LIFE IS REST?!!! **



______________
** That was my impression when our religion teacher taught us what you said, and yes they do teach us St. Maximus in high-school.

Be still, and know that I am God;

(nice school)

 

[gzt]

Sorry, you retracted your statement after I posted that comment. I'll gladly retract it. Still, my comments on the LXX and the Hebrew haven't been addressed. I don't mind that they haven't, but they're quite relevant to your concerns.

By the way, Irenaeus was possibly the first to make a distinction between "image" and "likeness" in thattext. But in his writings, despite the fact that it starts as an exegesis of Genesis, does not really need Genesis, it really depends on that what we were made to become in God is not what we are now becuase of our sin, but we have been redeemed and can be transformed,healed,recapitulated because of the incarnation of Christ the God-man. The anthropology is pretty basic across Chrhistianity and the point of it all doesn't depend on the image/likeness distinction, though it drawsheavily on it. It depends rather onthe Incarnation.