Have you ever played that game?

[Ainesis]

Okay, quick question. I am hoping this will be the less volatile place to post this question and hopefully I am addressing folks who have insight into this.

It seems that some say the writings of the early church fathers which help form the foundation of holy tradition were taught by those who had been taught by the Apostles themselves. However, the position of the orthodox churches in some areas seems at odds with what I see in Scripture. This is not the point of the question, so I will not get into that here. But here is my delimma.

1. It is compelling that orthodox teachings can be traced back to the early days of the church. This offers much credibility for the doctrines they teach. It would be a very reckless to completely disregard this.
2. If my understanding of Scripture is at odds with their position on some things, then either my understanding is wrong or I am assuming that a majority of the early church fathers were wrong in these areas.

It occurs to me that my problem might stem from the childhood game I think most of us may be familiar with. Have you ever played the game where one person says something in another's ear, and they in turn repeat the same in another's ear, and so on and so on until what the last person has been told is completely different from what was originally stated?

I find it hard to put trust in the "they were taught by those who were taught by the apostles" argument because that is no guarantee that the "truth" is being preserved. Neither am I comfortable saying that the "truth" had gotten perverted so quickly and so broadly.

So, are there any writings by the apostles that exist apart from Scripture? Was everything that was deemed to be of apostolic authorship included in the canon? I think it would give me great insights if there were other writings by the apostles that support some of these positions.

Thanks!

 

[Momzilla]

Ainesis, can you give a specific example or two?

This is not a direct answer to your question, since I don't know what conflicts you're seeing, but I think it's important to remember that the Church Fathers were struggling with some very difficult questions in the Apostolic, and immediately post-Apostolic, era. As they argued out things in their writings, you are not seeing a conclusion but a process, so the writings of a given father at a given time may not reflect where the Church ultimately ended up.

The best example I can think of right now concerns the use of the term "homoousious" (of the same essence) to describe the relationship of Christ to the Father. When this term was coined, several church fathers rejected it; eventually, however, it became accepted.

 

[Ainesis]

Ainesis, can you give a specific example or two?

This is not a direct answer to your question, since I don't know what conflicts you're seeing, but I think it's important to remember that the Church Fathers were struggling with some very difficult questions in the Apostolic, and immediately post-Apostolic, era. As they argued out things in their writings, you are not seeing a conclusion but a process, so the writings of a given father at a given time may not reflect where the Church ultimately ended up.

The best example I can think of right now concerns the use of the term "homoousious" (of the same essence) to describe the relationship of Christ to the Father. When this term was coined, several church fathers rejected it; eventually, however, it became accepted.

Hi Momzilla!

I understand your point and you raise a valid concern in that it is hard to address issues of differences without knowing what those differences are.

Perhaps I was not very clear in my post. What I really want to know is whether there are any apostolic writings we have that were not put in the canon or was all apostolic writings that could be authenticated placed in the canon?

My problem is that I am trying to address a perceived disconnect between the teachings of the Apostles and the teachings of orthodox churches. So, if there are other writings by the Apostles ouside of Scripture, then I can study them for insights in this area. Otherwise, I am left with the "taught by ones who were taught by ones who were taught" problem. If no such documents exist, then I guess I will have to go back to the drawing board.

BTW, in terms of my particular issues with certain elements of orthodox faith, I am inquiring into those specific areas in other forums for clarification.

I appreciate any help you can offer!

Thanks!

 

[linden branch]

All known apostolic writings are in the canon. The New Testament canon is essentially a collection of the apostolic writings, that was the intent in compiling the list. The only other authorship allowed in the canon were those writers believed to be under the direct influence or guidance of an apostle (Luke=Paul and Mark=Peter), and hence were believed to have apostolically approved (if not commissioned) content.

As for your first question, one reason one looks to the early church fathers is indeed proximity, since even if it is possible for them to go astray, this possibility is less than someone who was not under the direct teaching of an apostle, since this formative process would modify propensity for some errors. Thus, if we encounter two people who have access to the same sources of information, but one also had additional interaction, which one ought we grant greater weight to in testifying regarding the matter? To my mind, if all other factors are equal, our considerations should be weighted in favor of the one with more resources to draw upon.

However, this isn't the main reason one looks to the ECF. The principle argument for their influence is the continuous and ubiquitious acceptance of their writings by the Church, which is presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is identified in the Scriptures as the ground and pillar of truth.

These early writings comprise only one facet within a much larger network of sources in which the Church draws Tradition. And Tradition itself is only one element within the triad of Scripture, Tradition, and the Episcopacy. These together capture the three features of apostolic continuity, that is, apostolic writing, apostolic teaching, and apostolic ordination.

I would argue then that it is not hearsay (which is the results of the game you mentioned), but rather a process in which each element is continually confirming and being confirmed by the other componets of Christian epistemology.

 

[Reader Nilus]

St Paul talks of Oral tradition inside of his letters, so it is safe to assume there was such a body of teachings. It is also a reasonable conclusion that the letters that we have that form the New Testament, Only the 4 Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are not letters, that they were written to address events that were not going right, so a letter was written to address that concern. Now what about the great deal of life in the apostolic church that we do not hear about? There would have been no reason for a letter to be written to a church if there was no major problems. Next we have the witness of the Sub Apostolic Fathers such as St Polycarp, St Clement, St Ignatius of Antioch, and others. St Ignatius wrote his letters in the New Testament time frame, St John the Apostle was still alive when St Ignatius was martyred! So his writings have almost the force of the New Testament itself.
Remember as well, that for almost 4 hundred years there was no official canon, no official proclamation of belief, a creed. The Apostle's Creed was a standard Baptismal Creed, and the Nicene Creed was not finished until around 384 AD, and was only pronounced as such because of heresy.
A good book to read is The Shape of the Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix. We have to rely on the witness of people like St Ignatius of Antioch.

Jeff the Finn

 

[Ainesis]

All known apostolic writings are in the canon. The New Testament canon is essentially a collection of the apostolic writings, that was the intent in compiling the list. The only other authorship allowed in the canon were those writers believed to be under the direct influence or guidance of an apostle (Luke=Paul and Mark=Peter), and hence were believed to have apostolically approved (if not commissioned) content.

As for your first question, one reason one looks to the early church fathers is indeed proximity, since even if it is possible for them to go astray, this possibility is less than someone who was not under the direct teaching of an apostle, since this formative process would modify propensity for some errors. Thus, if we encounter two people who have access to the same sources of information, but one also had additional interaction, which one ought we grant greater weight to in testifying regarding the matter? To my mind, if all other factors are equal, our considerations should be weighted in favor of the one with more resources to draw upon.

However, this isn't the main reason one looks to the ECF. The principle argument for their influence is the continuous and ubiquitious acceptance of their writings by the Church, which is presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is identified in the Scriptures as the ground and pillar of truth.

These early writings comprise only one facet within a much larger network of sources in which the Church draws Tradition. And Tradition itself is only one element within the triad of Scripture, Tradition, and the Episcopacy. These together capture the three features of apostolic continuity, that is, apostolic writing, apostolic teaching, and apostolic ordination.

I would argue then that it is not hearsay (which is the results of the game you mentioned), but rather a process in which each element is continually confirming and being confirmed by the other componets of Christian epistemology.

Oh Well. Thanks Linden Branch. Back to the drawing board I go.

 

[Ainesis]

St Paul talks of Oral tradition inside of his letters, so it is safe to assume there was such a body of teachings. It is also a reasonable conclusion that the letters that we have that form the New Testament, Only the 4 Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are not letters, that they were written to address events that were not going right, so a letter was written to address that concern. Now what about the great deal of life in the apostolic church that we do not hear about? There would have been no reason for a letter to be written to a church if there was no major problems. Next we have the witness of the Sub Apostolic Fathers such as St Polycarp, St Clement, St Ignatius of Antioch, and others. St Ignatius wrote his letters in the New Testament time frame, St John the Apostle was still alive when St Ignatius was martyred! So his writings have almost the force of the New Testament itself.
Remember as well, that for almost 4 hundred years there was no official canon, no official proclamation of belief, a creed. The Apostle's Creed was a standard Baptismal Creed, and the Nicene Creed was not finished until around 384 AD, and was only pronounced as such because of heresy.
A good book to read is The Shape of the Liturgy by Dom Gregory Dix. We have to rely on the witness of people like St Ignatius of Antioch.

Jeff the Finn

Thank you Jeff the Fin! Can I ask what you mean by "Sub Apostolic Fathers." I will certainly look into the book you suggest.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Sub Apostolic means the generation following the Apostles.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Ainesis]

Thanks!

 

[Peter]

The problem with the gossip game is that is only works in a western culture. Why? Because we do not have a highly developed oral tradition. We rely on books.

However there are cultures where there is no written history. In these places the oral tradition is just as strong and accurate as in cultures that must write everything down.

I've had missionary friends go into some of these cultures and come away very frustrated. Why? Because they tried to play the gossip game and it didn't work!

Like anything in life, oral tradition takes discipline and training. Realisticly, and sadly, Westerners are just too lazy to learn how to use it.

As my priest pointed out me, as choir director, music came first, the written expression of music came later. (I was all worried about getting the notes right and so forth)

Peace.

Peter

 

[ufonium2]

As others have pointed out, not even all of the New Testament was written by Apostles. So, if you won't believe it unless it was written by an Apostle, you're discrediting some of the New Testament. When it comes right down to it, Paul wasn't one of the 12 either, but I've never heard anyone (besides a Messianic or a Rasta) disregard his writings because of that.

I think the telephone game analogy doesn't quite work. In the telephone game you say something once, and that's the only exposure the receiver has to what you said. This would be the equivalent of an Apostle waiting until his dying breath to impart the Faith on the next generation. Of course that's not how it happened, since there were Sub Apostolics that studied longer with an Apostle than the Apostles were with Jesus. A more practical example is cornbread: My grandmother showed my mother how to make cornbread every week for years, and when I was a kid my mom did the same to me. I've never seen a recipe for cornbread, but I can make it just like my grandmother (she's still alive, and I'm sure she would let me know if it was inferior ) I'm sure if she had just blurted out her recipe once to my mom, and my mom had turned and done the same to me, that my cornbread would be inedible, but fortunately for us, oral tradition doesn't work like the telephone game.

 

[Ainesis]

As others have pointed out, not even all of the New Testament was written by Apostles. So, if you won't believe it unless it was written by an Apostle, you're discrediting some of the New Testament. When it comes right down to it, Paul wasn't one of the 12 either, but I've never heard anyone (besides a Messianic or a Rasta) disregard his writings because of that.

Hi Ufonium2,

You are of course correct here. I know that my post was probably over simplified (and maybe not very clear) because I struggled even while writing it to get acroos my concerns. My main point is that what we have in the early church fathers are those who assert that their understanding is what was the Apostles handed down. Yet, we have no evidence of this besides their witness.

For example, I do not know that the Apostles venerated icons. And, I would say they most likely did not based on Jewish prohibitions in the law about making images of the things in Heaven and paying tribute to them. Based on my understanding of the Scriptures this is something that I am very uncomfortable with. Please know that I am not trying to get into that discussion here nor do I wish to insult those who believe this, but am just using it to illustrate my point.

So, how do I correlate the discrepancy between what I believe Scripture is saying and what the early fathers supported as a reported practice handed down from the Apostles? It is this type of issue I am trying to address. Not saying that anything not written by an apostle or anything not in Scripture is invalid, but asking for a missing link so to speak between what I see in Scripture and what I see in orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it is just not enough for me to say "This is what they did and believed, so it must be right."

I think the telephone game analogy doesn't quite work. In the telephone game you say something once, and that's the only exposure the receiver has to what you said. This would be the equivalent of an Apostle waiting until his dying breath to impart the Faith on the next generation. Of course that's not how it happened, since there were Sub Apostolics that studied longer with an Apostle than the Apostles were with Jesus. A more practical example is cornbread: My grandmother showed my mother how to make cornbread every week for years, and when I was a kid my mom did the same to me. I've never seen a recipe for cornbread, but I can make it just like my grandmother (she's still alive, and I'm sure she would let me know if it was inferior ) I'm sure if she had just blurted out her recipe once to my mom, and my mom had turned and done the same to me, that my cornbread would be inedible, but fortunately for us, oral tradition doesn't work like the telephone game.

This is probably true as well. When I gave that illustration, it was not to degrade the relationship that early fathers had with the apostles or those they taught. I was not describing the way it was so much as I was trying to identify the problem I see. Whether this was repeated interactions or a death-bed statement, my problem still is that we are left with their understandings of what was taught. If one assumes that they were right, then there is no problem. But for me, I can't square certain things with Scripture, so that poses a problem (for me).

Thanks for your help.

 

[prodromos]

For example, I do not know that the Apostles venerated icons. And, I would say they most likely did not based on Jewish prohibitions in the law about making images of the things in Heaven and paying tribute to them. Based on my understanding of the Scriptures this is something that I am very uncomfortable with.

Jewish Temple Icons

The Orthodox church possesses three icons that were painted by Saint Luke. Two are in Greece and one is in Russia.

John.

 

[Ainesis]

Jewish Temple Icons

The Orthodox church possesses three icons that were painted by Saint Luke. Two are in Greece and one is in Russia.

John.

That is very interesting John. Do you know more or is there a resource you could direct me to?

Thank You!

 

[Peter]

The catacombs also contain icons from the first century. Inscribed with these images of the apostles are prayers asking for their intercession.

As for Biblical evidence, we have the account of Acts 19 which shows the use of secondary relics. We also have the OT example of secondary relics when the dead man was placed on top of the bones of the prophet and the dead man was raised to life. (Not to mention the woman who was healed by merely touching the garment of Jesus.)

Veneration, the act of kissing a relic or icon, does seem strange to us in this country. In spite of our openess toward things sexual, we still feel very uncomfortable with initmacy. Middle eastern custom, as well as some western custom, calls for the act of kissing as a greeting. (St. Paul instructs us to "greet one another with a holy kiss.") The Psalms also reference this custom, "Kiss the Son lest He become angry."

As Orthodox, we reverence the icon because we don't have the original. And in so doing, we give witness to our belief that life is enternal, and earthly death only separates us by sight.

This thought should not be that difficult to understand, as I've been to the grave of many Protestant Christians only to find fresh flowers. This, too, is a form of veneration. And no Protestant would ever say they are worshipping the grave by placing the flowers there. And no Orthodox makes the claim that they are worshipping the icon.

Peace.

Peter

 

[prodromos]

That is very interesting John. Do you know more or is there a resource you could direct me to?

Unfortunately Phil Thompson's site (the one in the link above) is the only one I know of with information regarding Jewish temple icons. I have personally seen one of the icons painted by Saint Luke, known as Panayia Soumela as it was brought from the monastery of the same name in the heart of Turkey during the population exchange after Greece's war of independance. It is difficult to make out the image on the icon as the pigments have all darkened greatly over the centuries, however it and the other two are icons of Mary holding the Christ child, which testify to the incarnation, that is, God became man.

 

[prodromos]

The other icon by Saint Luke in Greece is kept at the Great Cave Monastery (Mega Spilion) which was first constructed in the 4th century and is known as Panayia Chrisospiliotisa. The monastery now looks quite modern as it has been rebuilt after being almost completely destroyed by fire.

 

[Ainesis]

Peter & Prodromos,

Thank You!!

 

[Ainesis]

Okay. I started to get excited about the connection between Luke and he veneration of icons, but it seems as if this is really more of a traditional belief than a historical fact. In fact, one article linked below states explicitly that this is not a historical fact.

So again, I am left with beliefs of the early church that just do not seem consistent with Scripture and there remains no historical documentation to provide the "missing link" to this type of issue.

The fact that people in the first century used icons is not evidence that this is biblical or even what God wants us to do. There were many errors being practiced in the early church, even as illustrated in Scripture.

I don't have any problem with greeting others with a kiss and tend to be pretty affectionate myself. But we are never instructed to kiss inaminate objects. That doesn't in and of itself necessarily prove this practice to be wrong, but...

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you again. Guess I'll keep looking for that missing link to tie the Apostles teachings with what I see in some of orthodoxy.

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/avrilmai/stluc.htm

http://www.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq142.html
God Bless!

 

[ufonium2]

The fact that people in the first century used icons is not evidence that this is biblical or even what God wants us to do. There were many errors being practiced in the early church, even as illustrated in Scripture.

I don't have any problem with greeting others with a kiss and tend to be pretty affectionate myself. But we are never instructed to kiss inaminate objects. That doesn't in and of itself necessarily prove this practice to be wrong, but...

I have no problem with folks saying "I'll only do something if Scripture says so" or with you wanting to see proof of an Apostle doing something before you'll do it, as long as you are consistent. By that I mean there are probably lots of things you and your church do that don't fit either of those criteria. Do you have Sunday School? An organ or piano in your church? Those things aren't Biblical, nor do we have video tape of an Apostle doing them, but I don't see anyone getting worked up over them.

There's no instruction manual that lays out exactly what we're supposed to do to worship God. Some people say they only do what the Bible says. These are the same people who invented Sunday School and altar calls, so you can see that the logic is flawed.

Our Church is comprises four Apostolic Sees. So, when we say Christians were doing something in the first century we're not talking about random offshoot groups or individuals, we're talking about churches that were headed by Apostles. These Apostles and those who came after them met synodally (this actually is Biblical, the first synod is recorded in Acts) to ensure agreement on all doctrine, and nobody had a problem with icon veneration until 700 years after the Apostles. You would think that if the practice had sprung up out of nowhere in one See, that the others would have rejected it. Since the practice was approved by all five Apostolic Sees (including Rome) and nobody thought anything could be wrong with it until hundreds of years later, that would seem to indicate that there was a universal tradition of veneration from the get-go.