Justin Martyr
. . . the word
[tradition] occurs in the New Testament with a favourable sense. The opening of
Luke’s Gospel is relevant here; his intention is, he says, ‘to compile a
narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they
were delivered (παρεδοσαν) to use by those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word’ (Lk. 1:1-2). Here ‘tradition’ has the general
sense, later found, for instance, in a writer like Papias, of the accounts
handed down of episodes in the life of Christ, which it is the task of a
historian to collect and organise. In Paul, however, the term has quite a
different meaning. For him it signifies the teachings (I Co. 15:1) or
rules of conduct (II Th. 3:6) which Paul has ‘received’ (παραλαμβανειν), whether directly
from the Lord, or from the Apostles, and which he passes on (παραδιδοναι); and these
traditions are to be faithfully observed. It should be noted that this
transmission may equally be oral or written (II Th. 2:15) . . . It is fairly
clear that in the second century catechetical instruction was based more on a
living tradition than on a canon of Scripture. That this is true for the
Apostolic Fathers is patent from the liberty, for example, which they took with
regard to the Old Testament. One element in their corpus of tradition comprised
the collections of testimonia, organised to a greater or lesser degree
in a christological pattern. Indeed, their own transmission of the sayings of
Christ in their writings is based on a catechetical tradition, and not on the
written Gospels as found in the New Testament today. These sayings were thus
handed down in the Church by a double channel of communication.
In Justin, the only
one of the Apologists whose writings contain portions of catechetical teaching,
the situation is in many respects the same. He makes use of testimonia,
the form and grouping of which is dictated by the tradition from which he has
inherited them. His descriptions of the rites of baptism and the Eucharist are
derived not from Scripture, but from the liturgical tradition—indeed, it is particularly
in this connection that he uses the term παραδοσις. He is heir to Jewish Christian
traditions, especially in the matter of millenarianism. Finally, when repeating
the words of the Lord, in particular with reference to moral catechesis, he
never reproduces the exact text of the Synoptics, though he does come closer to
it than do the Jewish Christian writers. His teaching is apparently based on a
traditional scheme of instruction more or less harmonised with the Synoptic
Gospels. As regards the catechesis all these points testify to the existence of
a living tradition alongside the apostolic writings.
Finally, Justin supplies
one valuable piece of evidence concerning the importance of oral tradition as
the normal method of transmitting the faith: ‘Among us you can hear and learn
these things from those who do not even know the letters of the alphabet—uneducated
and barbarous in speech, but wise and faithful in mind—even from cripples and
the blind. So you can see that these things are not the product of human
wisdom, but are spoken by the power of God’ (I Apol. LX, 11). This brief
passage contains in embryo some extremely important ideas which Irenaeus was to
develop. In addition to emphasising the oral character of the transmission of
the faith, it declares that the authority which guarantees that is transmitted
it not that of culture or talent, but the power of God. Here already is the
outline of a theology of tradition. (Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic
Culture: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea,
Volume 2 [trans. John Austin Baker; London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1973], 140, 141-42)
Irenaeus on “Tradition” being en par with
the Authority of Scripture
Irenaeus records the
names of those who made up the Gnostic chain of succession—Simon Magus,
Ptolemy, Satornil, Basilides, Valentinus (Adv. haer. III, Pref.);
but this line of descent he naturally rejects. There is indeed a tradition
deriving from the Apostles, but it might be sought elsewhere: ‘But when we call
them back again to that tradition which is from the apostles, and which is
preserved in the churches by the successions of the elders, they oppose the
tradition, saying that they, who are wiser not only than the elders but even than
the apostles, have discovered the whole truth’ (Adv. haer. III, 2, 2).
The crucial term here
is ‘succession’ (διαδοχη). It is of little significance that its first appearance should be in
Ptolemy. It serves to underline the essential nature of tradition, namely
transmission from person to person. This is a more important feature than its
oral character, for it highlights the fact that the Apostles passed on the
teaching of the Lord to persons whom they chose for this specific purpose. It
is thus a matter of an institutional continuity within which the deposit of
faith entrusted to the Apostles is preserved, thus underlining the fact that
the Apostles did not rely for the safeguarding of their message on the
Scriptures alone, but also on living people. A new feature of the Tradition now
emerges: handed down by the Apostles, it is preserved as a deposit by the chain
of succession. . . . All that remains is to discover the actual details of
these lines of succession; and in fact nothing could be simpler: ‘All those who
wish to behold the truth may contemplate throughout the Church the tradition
of the Apostles made manifest in all the world; and we can enumerate those who
by the Apostles were instituted as bishops in the churches, and their
successors down to our down day’ (Adv. haer. III, 3, 1). This interest in
the lists of episcopal successions does not begin with Irenaeus; twenty years
earlier Hegesippus, after visiting the churches, had written: ‘In every succession
and in every city that which the Law and the prophets and the Lord preach is
faithfully followed’ (EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl., IV, 22, 3). Even at this
date it is in the episcopal successions that the teaching of the Lord is handed
on in its purity. In the same way Irenaeus speaks of the church at Ephesus as a
‘true witness to the tradition of the Apostles’ (Adv. haer. III, 3, 4).
Such churches are,
however, mentioned only briefly. For Irenaeus lays real stress on one church
only, the only one for which he goes to the trouble of actually setting down
the succession list—the church of Rome. This is a remarkable fact at such an
early date, and testifies to the importance which from the time onwards the
Roman church manifestly possesses as a guardian of the apostolic tradition. The
relevant passage has often been quoted: ‘Since it would take too long in a book
such as this to list the successions of all the churches, we shall take that of
the very great and ancient church, founded at Rome by the two most glorious
apostles Peter and Paul, which is known to all men, tracing that tradition
which she holds from the Apostles, and the faith proclaimed to mankind, as it
comes down through the successions of bishops even to our own day’ (Adv.
haer. III, 3, 2).
The passage
immediately following this quotation has always attracted attention as possibly
providing confirmation of the primacy of the Roman church; the critical phrase
speaks of ‘that church with which it is necessary for every church to be in
agreement.’ The word ‘church’ here, can, however, be interpreted either as
referring to the church of Rome or the universal Church, and the context does
not permit of a conclusive decision on this point. In either case, there can be
no doubt that the passage does stress that the church with which it is
necessary to be in agreement is the one ‘in which the Tradition which comes
from the Apostles has always been preserved’ . . . Irenaeus then goes on to recount
the origin of the four Gospels; the form of words used in his well-known
statement about Mark is especially relevant here: ‘Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, he too handed down (παραδεδωκε) to use in writing
the things preached (κηρυσσομενα) by Peter’ (III, 1, 1). It is clear that
the tradition is not necessarily oral.
It is therefore
precisely correct to say that the Gospels are the fixation of the apostolic
tradition. But Irenaeus does not stop there. When the Gnostics set up
tradition against Scripture, he does not send them back from their own
tradition to the apostolic tradition as fixed in the New Testament. ‘And so it
has come about,’ he writes, ‘that they now agree neither with the Scriptures
nor with the tradition’ (Adv. haer. III, 2, 2). There is, therefore,
a tradition which exists alongside the Scripture; and this tradition, which is
contrasted with the false tradition of the Gnostics, is that which has been
preserved in the Church by the succession of bishops. That is why ‘one
ought not to go on seeking form others the truth which it is easy to acquire
from the Church, since the apostles brought into her, like a rich man into his
storehouse, everything in abundance which pertains to truth; so that everyone
who wishes may drink from her the water of life . . . That is why one ought . .
. with the utmost zeal to love everything to do with the Church, and to lay
hold on the tradition of truth’ (Adv. haer. III, 4, 1).
The proof that the episcopal
succession is an authentic source of apostolic tradition is the fact that, if
the worst came to the worst, their teaching would suffice without the
Scriptures: ‘But what is the Apostles had not even left us the Scriptures, would we
not have had to follow the order of the tradition which they handed on to those
to whom they committed the churches? It is to this order that many nations of
those barbarians who believe in Christ assent, having salvation written in
their hearts by the Spirit without paper or ink, and carefully preserving the
ancient tradition’ (Adv. haer. III, 4, 1-2). This passage is decisive.
It shows that, in Irenaeus’ view, the Apostles passed on the teaching both in
the form of Scripture and by word of mouth to their successors, and that the
latter mode, which constitutes the Tradition in the passive sense of the word,
has an authority equal to that of the former, since not only can it suffice by
itself, but there are in fact occasions when it does.
It follows from this
that Scripture and Tradition have the same content, namely the tradition
received from the Apostles. Is it, nevertheless, possible to draw a distinction
between them? Irenaeus concludes his train of thought on the subject of the
Tradition as distinct from Scripture by giving an account of its content:
They preserve with
care the ancient tradition, believing in one God, maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things therein, through Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who in his exceeding
love toward his creation submitted to be born of a virgin , thus through
himself uniting Man to God, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again
and was received in glory, and in glory will come as the Saviour of those who
are saved and Judge of those who are judged, and will send into eternal fire
those who distort the truth and despise his Father and his own Coming. And
those who have believed this faith without the written word are, in our
terminology, barbarians; but, as afar as their opinions and conduct and way of
life are concerned, because of the faith they are exceedingly wise and pleading
to God, walking in all righteousness and chastity and wisdom. (Adv. haer.
III, 4, 2). (Ibid., 146-47, 148-49, 151-53)