Another entry for the list of extra-biblical traditions in the New Testament.
"For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you." - 2 Corinthians 2:4
Here St. Paul references the so-called "Severe Letter" which he wrote to the Corinthians. The descriptions of the contents of this letter here and in his reference to it in 2 Corinthians 7:8-9 below match with neither the contents of the canonical 1 Corinthians nor the extra-biblical 3 Corinthians. Some textual critics have posited that 2 Corinthians is a composite letter (that is, that it is not a single continuous letter itself, but a later compilation of multiple letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians), and that the "Severe Letter" is in fact found in 2 Corinthians itself, in chapters 10-13. Most, though, find this unlikely. The most likely theory is that St. Paul's "Severe Letter" is lost.
This isn't a tradition at all. No one has access to it and no one knows what it said.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing we know about it is what Paul refers to in the psg you listed. But that part is in the Scripture.
This post thus leaves me doubly nonplussed - not only is the entire argument of your "extrabiblical tradition" series asinine, but also this one isn't even an extrabiblical tradition.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteGood point. I'll try to make myself clearer: I'm not necessarily restricting myself only to extra-biblical traditions as such, but to extra-biblical references in general. Basically, any time that the New Testament quotes or references a work not contained in Scripture.
I stated in my first post in the series what my purpose in doing the series was. If you have any criticisms of these two reasons, I'd like to hear them. Here's the quote from my original post:
"The great amount of extra-biblical citations to be found in the New Testament significantly undermines the claim of Sola Scriptura because, amongst other reasons, it 1. demonstrates that the Apostles themselves didn't practice Sola Scriptura and 2. demonstrates that they didn't teach Sola Scriptura, either, as they direct their readers to writings and oral traditions outside of the canon of Scripture even they would have known."
I'm being honest here; if the logic behind these arguments is lacking, I'd enjoy hearing why. Thank you.
Actually, if you'll recall from my opening statement, I happily grant that the apostles didn't practice SS, b/c there was no Scriptura.
ReplyDeleteBut they certainly taught it. And so what if they direct ppl outside it? The direction itself is authoritative, but it doesn't mean the referent is necessarily, it just means they're using it as an illustration. No one's claiming that the Scr contains all knowledge. Might as well say that "Jesus said that Pilate mingled some Jews' blood with their sacrifices! Sola Scriptura is false!" I'm just shaking my head, asking so what?
It's as if I were to argue that Sacred Apostolic Tradition of EOC is invalid if even one Church Father refers to some writing (say, Plato, or Celsus) outside of the corpus of S.A.T. Badabing, EOC's rule of faith is demolished.
I just fail to see what the point is of this series; you're acting like it's supposed to be some weapon against Sola Scriptura.
>>I happily grant that the apostles didn't practice SS<<
ReplyDeleteWhich leaves us with more problems than we began with, as you essentially make the Apostles hypocrites. Not practicing what you preach; isn't this the very thing that Christ accused the Pharisees of?
>>But they certainly taught it."
Where? You have yet, either in our debate or elsewhere, to present us with a verse where the Apostles actually teach Sola Scriptura.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"I happily grant that the apostles didn't practice SS, b/c there was no Scriptura."
If there was no Scriptura then what do you call the Old Testament?
ICXC NIKA
David,
ReplyDeleteI've read some of your posts on extra-biblical tradition and I'm not able to connect the dots. I'd have to agree with Rho on this one, although I would use a milder tone. :)
If you want to find problems with Sola Scriptura, there are other ways to do it imo. Have you listened to Fr. Andrew Damick's podcast titled "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" on Ancient Faith Radio? He addresses some of the problems within the Classical Reformation, SS being one of them.
I think there are times when you go to the extreme of trying so hard to disprove SS that the result is removing Scripture from the highly exalted place where it rightly belongs. This is just my mere opinion for what it's worth.
In Christ's Immeasurable Love,
Darlene
Hypocrites? Not at all, they simply looked fwd to when God would provide a completed testament that would fulfill the first one. They DID have a precedent in the OT, you know.
ReplyDeleteYou have yet, either in our debate or elsewhere, to present us with a verse where the Apostles actually teach Sola Scriptura.
In my opening statement. Let the reader judge.
If there was no Scriptura then what do you call the Old Testament?
Scripture, but not the complete Scripture, obviously, since much of the apostolic teaching they were giving would be preserved.
This whole "apostles taught it?" question is a non-question. What did GOD intend?
Darlene,
I'd have to agree with Rho on this one,
Haha, once you start, it's hard to stop!
:-D
Darlene,
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I know that it's a very weak argument against SS. I think it's still an argument because it forces the SSist to admit, as Rhology has, that the Apostles didn't practice SS -- which, unless you try to dodge the logical conclusion, as Rhology does, forces the SSist to admit that they were inconsistent and/or hypocritical.
That said, the biggest reason I'm doing this is that I enjoy doing the research and I think it's very informative about both history and Scripture to take a look at the influences, historical, cultural, traditional, linguistic, etc., on the Apostles.
I think there are times when you go to the extreme of trying so hard to disprove SS that the result is removing Scripture from the highly exalted place where it rightly belongs.
I definitely recognize that I run the risk of being interpreted in that way sometimes. That is not my intent at all, though; I think that looking at Scripture from a non-SS perspective in fact exalts it much more highly in many ways. I will try to be more careful with what I say on the subject in the future. Thank you.
they simply looked fwd
ReplyDeleteYou've said it yourself several times in our discussions: we have nothing to look forward to but the second coming. Did the Apostles, then, have two things to look forward to?
to when God would provide a completed testament
As this "completed testament" didn't come about until well after the deaths of the Apostles, would you say that the Apostles had things incomplete? And, come to think about it: when, according to you, did God "provide a completed testament"?
You mean two things like the completion of the Scr and the Parousia?
ReplyDeleteIf not, sorry, could you please clarify?
Hmm, I don't know if they had things incomplete, but I don't see why one would have to say either way. God is the one who knows it all, and He's the source of the Bible's authority. The apostles are not. Besides, the last time the apostles were together in one place was probably Pentecost or a little after, and they didn't have email or Twitter back then. God is the ultimate responsible party for His self-revelation.
God provided the complete testament when the last biblical writing was completed, but that doesn't mean every local ch automatically had immediate access to all of it.
God provided the complete testament when the last biblical writing was completed,
ReplyDeleteWhich was well after the deaths of all but one of the Apostles, so you answer my question in the affirmative: the Apostles' Faith was incomplete.
but that doesn't mean every local ch automatically had immediate access to all of it.
The earliest that we know of that ANY local church had access to all of it (if we assume that it is entirely and exclusively contained in our current 27 book New Testament) is 367 AD. So -- what you're saying is that the faith of all Christians up until 367 was incomplete and a great many (perhaps a majority) for some time afterward.
I'm not sure whether you have misinterpreted my meaning when you characterised what I said as meaning "their faith was incomplete"... Hmm.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can't make up my mind right now, so I'm just going to refer you back to the last comment I made. Since I have cast the issue in terms of GOD as source, not apostles as source, I think your criticism is at least meaningless.
If I'm mischaracterizing or misinterpreting your meaning, I apologize. I think, though, that I'm just following your statements through to their logical conclusions.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "God provided the complete testament when the last biblical writing was completed."
My inference from this statement is: any and all Faith before the complete testament was, by definition, incomplete. As the majority of the Apostles (all but one actually) had died before the last biblical writing was completed, then 11 of the 12 Apostles had an incomplete Faith.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.