Tuesday Scholarly Notes
4/24/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter Two: Tradition and Scripture." in Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition." (pp. 29-51). Harper San Francisco. (Personal Library)
The question of the source of Christian doctrine is an important one, in Kelly's estimation. At some point, probably by the end of the first century, principles to interpret writings and practices became evident. otherwise, it would not have been possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy (Kelly 1978, p.29). In his evaluation, Kelly considers the salient factors to be Scripture and Tradition. There was a clear identification of the authoritative apostolic writings as well as a known and continuous flow of traditional interpretation at a fairly early time (Kelly 1978, p.30). Kelly emphasizes that tradition as understood by the church fathers referred to the authoritative delivery of interpretations, something which would not be separated from and placed in opposition to Scripture.
Kelly's investigation into the interplay of Scripture and tradition focuses on the period up to the middle of the second century, when canonical Scripture and doctrinal orthodoxy can be seen as relatively well established (Kelly 1978, p.31). During this period, the Old Testament was recognized by Christians as a Christian book, testifying to the person and work of Christ (Kelly 1978, p.32). The exegetical practices which led to this conclusion were likewise accepted as normative. The methodology used can be traced to the apostolic witness, thus placing it as part and parcel of the Christian tradition. Kelly cites numerous examples of church fathers identifying the authority of the interpretive methods of the apostles. In Kelly's view, the early Church did not consider this authority to be limited to apostolic documents. Rather, the documents may well have been accepted because they were consistent with the interpretive models which came from the apostolic period (Kelly 1978, p.33). The "preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction" may well have carried as much weight as the documents of the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p.34).
As the ideas of gnosticism gained traction, Kelly observes that the distinctions between orthodoxy and gnosticism became more clear (Kelly 1978, p.35). Representatives of orthodoxy increasingly pointed to apostolic ideas. Meanwhile, purveyors of gnosticism made reference or claims to possessing secret apostolic gnosis. Kelly particularly notes this as shown in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Their claims, counter to gnosticism, were centered on a body of interpretive tradition derived from known apostolic teaching. Kelly describes Irenaeus' understanding of tradition as "'the canon of the truth.' Byu this he meant, as his frequent allusions to and citations from it prove, a condensed summary, fluid in its wording but fixed in content, setting out the key-points of the Christian revelation in the form of a rule" (Kelly 1978, p.37). The New Testament Scriptures, in Irenaeus' view, serve as a subsequent commitment of this teaching, produced in writing (Kelly 1978, p.38). The written documents then could be used as a reference to weigh the tradition which had previously been delivered to the Church (Kelly 1978, p.39).
The understanding of the interplay of Scripture and Tradition described in the second century above became further entrenched in the Church during the third and fourth centuries (Kelly 1978, p.41). Kelly notes two changes. First, as Gnosticism lost influence, authors became less involved in articulating doctrines on the basis of apostolic tradition, preferring to use the Scripture as authoritative documents. At the same time, interpretations of the content of tradition tended to become broader (Kelly 1978, p.341). Yet Kelly observes that works such as Hippolytus' Apostolic tradition still affirmed practice which was derived from the earliest days of Christianity and which cannot be found in the same terms within the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p.44). Kelly provides multiple examples of third and fourth century authors alleging that heretical interpretations of the New Testament could not have been made if the heretics had rightly understood the historic traditions (Kelly 1978, p.44-48).
By the fifth century, Kelly finds the practice of reference to past orthodoxy in order to clarify interpretation of Scripture or practices to become increasingly common (Kelly 1978, p.48). Teachers of the past were viewed as sources of authoritative interpretation. Kelly observes, though, that these past luminaries were not considered authoritative on their own, but by token of their rightly understanding both Scripture and tradition (Kelly 1978, p.49). This, I note, allows for embracing the sola scriptura of the Reformation.
4/24/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter Two: Tradition and Scripture." in Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition." (pp. 29-51). Harper San Francisco. (Personal Library)
The question of the source of Christian doctrine is an important one, in Kelly's estimation. At some point, probably by the end of the first century, principles to interpret writings and practices became evident. otherwise, it would not have been possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy (Kelly 1978, p.29). In his evaluation, Kelly considers the salient factors to be Scripture and Tradition. There was a clear identification of the authoritative apostolic writings as well as a known and continuous flow of traditional interpretation at a fairly early time (Kelly 1978, p.30). Kelly emphasizes that tradition as understood by the church fathers referred to the authoritative delivery of interpretations, something which would not be separated from and placed in opposition to Scripture.
Kelly's investigation into the interplay of Scripture and tradition focuses on the period up to the middle of the second century, when canonical Scripture and doctrinal orthodoxy can be seen as relatively well established (Kelly 1978, p.31). During this period, the Old Testament was recognized by Christians as a Christian book, testifying to the person and work of Christ (Kelly 1978, p.32). The exegetical practices which led to this conclusion were likewise accepted as normative. The methodology used can be traced to the apostolic witness, thus placing it as part and parcel of the Christian tradition. Kelly cites numerous examples of church fathers identifying the authority of the interpretive methods of the apostles. In Kelly's view, the early Church did not consider this authority to be limited to apostolic documents. Rather, the documents may well have been accepted because they were consistent with the interpretive models which came from the apostolic period (Kelly 1978, p.33). The "preaching, liturgical action and catechetical instruction" may well have carried as much weight as the documents of the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p.34).
As the ideas of gnosticism gained traction, Kelly observes that the distinctions between orthodoxy and gnosticism became more clear (Kelly 1978, p.35). Representatives of orthodoxy increasingly pointed to apostolic ideas. Meanwhile, purveyors of gnosticism made reference or claims to possessing secret apostolic gnosis. Kelly particularly notes this as shown in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Their claims, counter to gnosticism, were centered on a body of interpretive tradition derived from known apostolic teaching. Kelly describes Irenaeus' understanding of tradition as "'the canon of the truth.' Byu this he meant, as his frequent allusions to and citations from it prove, a condensed summary, fluid in its wording but fixed in content, setting out the key-points of the Christian revelation in the form of a rule" (Kelly 1978, p.37). The New Testament Scriptures, in Irenaeus' view, serve as a subsequent commitment of this teaching, produced in writing (Kelly 1978, p.38). The written documents then could be used as a reference to weigh the tradition which had previously been delivered to the Church (Kelly 1978, p.39).
The understanding of the interplay of Scripture and Tradition described in the second century above became further entrenched in the Church during the third and fourth centuries (Kelly 1978, p.41). Kelly notes two changes. First, as Gnosticism lost influence, authors became less involved in articulating doctrines on the basis of apostolic tradition, preferring to use the Scripture as authoritative documents. At the same time, interpretations of the content of tradition tended to become broader (Kelly 1978, p.341). Yet Kelly observes that works such as Hippolytus' Apostolic tradition still affirmed practice which was derived from the earliest days of Christianity and which cannot be found in the same terms within the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p.44). Kelly provides multiple examples of third and fourth century authors alleging that heretical interpretations of the New Testament could not have been made if the heretics had rightly understood the historic traditions (Kelly 1978, p.44-48).
By the fifth century, Kelly finds the practice of reference to past orthodoxy in order to clarify interpretation of Scripture or practices to become increasingly common (Kelly 1978, p.48). Teachers of the past were viewed as sources of authoritative interpretation. Kelly observes, though, that these past luminaries were not considered authoritative on their own, but by token of their rightly understanding both Scripture and tradition (Kelly 1978, p.49). This, I note, allows for embracing the sola scriptura of the Reformation.
RSS Feed