Nielsen’s Nook

Commentary

[1] ἑλίξεις (ἑλίσσω) to roll up. Metzger notes two manuscripts (א* D*) read ἀλλάξεις, while all other text times read εἱλίζεις. ἀλλάξεις is what is present in Psalm 101:27 LXX which means to change in the sense of alter.

[2] ὡς ἱμάτιον is not present in Psalm 101:27 LXX and is inserted here to give clarity to the argument the author of Hebrews is making, alerting the reader that the metaphor is the same. Metzger comments, “The absence of the words from most witnesses is the result of conformation to the text of the Septuagint.”

In exploring trans-tradition hermeneutics, trying to get at where interpretive authority lies in a span of traditions, I did a little reading on the Roman Catholic Church from their own Vatican II documents. So what follows is a concise summary of what I understand the Roman Church to be saying about interpretive authority in their context.

Apostolic Succession through Bishops

The Roman Church has and asserts an unbroken apostolic succession in which “the apostles left bishops as their successors” to whom they gave “‘their own position of teaching authority.’” As such, this tradition of apostolic succession is said to function as a mirror in which the church contemplates God. [1]

A Single Composite Sacred Deposit

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) precedes the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum). This subtle logical priority is worked out practically in Dei Verbum as the tensions represented in the hermeneutical continuum are worked out. “Tradition and scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church,” appears to capture the practical effect succinctly.[2]

Correlatively, as Roman Christians adhere to this single deposit united to the pastors of the church they are said to continue in the trajectory of the “teaching of the apostles” (τῇ διδαχῇ), the “communion of life” (τῇ κοινωνίᾳ), the “breaking of bread” (τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου) and the “prayers” (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) established in Acts 2:42. Consequently, in maintaining such trajectory, a “unique interplay” exists between bishops and the faithful.[3]

Magisterial Interpretation

“Authentic interpretation” of this single sacred deposit has been “entrusted to the living teaching office of the church alone.”[4] Dei Verbum goes on to explain:

This magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is rather its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it [ostensibly from the apostles and prophets]. … It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the magisterium of the church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.[5]

Summary

In short, the “single sacred deposit” of the word of God is composed of two component parts: scripture and tradition. This deposit requires interpretation and it is the magisterium alone, composed of bishops, serving the church and the single sacred deposit that gives “authentic interpretation.” In other words, if the reader of scripture wants to know if her interpretation of it is correct she must only see how the Magisterium has interpreted it.

[1] Austin Flannery, “Dei Verbum,” in Vatican II the Basic Sixteen Documents : Constitutions Decrees Declarations (Northport, NY: Costello Pub., 1996), II.7.

[2]Ibid., II.10.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

I am using the new WordPress 2.5 engine for my blog and really like the new interface in the control panel. One of the bonuses was that I found a post from my Colossians series that should have definitely been public. I lost about 150 sermons and all my seminary papers and notes last summer when my hard drive crashed so I am delighted that some of that work still endures here at Nielsen’s Nook.

Sorry for the anachronistic nature of this Colossians post, but here’s the link to the now public bit from Colossians 2:8-15.

I know the translation of Hebrews has been slow out of the gate. I am not abandoning it; however, I have a paper due on May 1. The thesis of the paper is to underscore how, generally speaking, the historic/traditional Anglican hermeneutic provides a via media between the hermeneutical (and epistemological) problems of private interpretation in Protestantism and unresolvable parity given to Tradition and Scripture in the Roman Church.

If you have any good articles you might suggest that are engaged with contemporary primary sources ¹ please leave a comment and let me know about them. I appreciate the help.

__________

¹ For example, articles dealing with how Roman Catholics, Protestants or Anglicans deal with Tradition and Scripture today would be helpful. However, articles about Tridentine formulations and polemics are a bit removed for much relevant discussion.

Commentary

[1] κατʼ ἀρχάς is not a direct quote of the Creation account in Genesis 1:1 LXX (Ἐν ἀρχῇ); however, this is clearly what is in view conceptually.

[2] The use of metaphor (foundations) and anthropomorphism (preincarnate hands) underscore the incarnational nature of scripture in which God demonstrates with iterative mercy his love for us in condescending to us. He is not beyond even mythic language to reveal himself to the world. In other words, we don’t believe that God took out a divine trowel, after pouring cosmic concrete, and smoothed out the bottom layer of a flat earth. Scripture is not teaching that. What scripture is teaching is that 1) the Triune God made all  that is, and 2) as such, He (specifically here - the Son) has ultimate authority, lordship, over all things. For an engaging discussion of the nature of God’s loving condescension to us in scripture see, Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation.

Commentary

[1] σου ὁ θεὸς See note in Metzger’s Textual Commentary. To summarize, there is early and good support for αὐτοῦ instead of σου (P⁴⁶ א B). However, the great external witness to σου and the internal difficulty that αὐτοῦ presents both syntactically and grammatically left Metzger’s committee and most scholars to believe that σου ὁ θεὸς was the more likely original.

[2] διὰ τοῦτο would seem to indicate that on account of Christ’s love for righteousness and hatred of lawlessness he was exalted in the way that is being discussed by the writer of Hebrews. Righteousness the likeness of God and that likeness is described in the Law of God, namely the Decalogue. Lawlessness (ἀνομία) would then be the antithesis, the unlikeness of God. Human beings, created as the image of God to be the likeness of God, walking in fellowship with him, chose a course that was unlike God and consequently destroyed fellowship with him. The Son has been exalted because he has as the image of God (i.e., a human being) loved the likeness/righteousness of God and hated the willful unlikeness of God and in his exaltation his people are restored to fellowship with God (c.f., Colossians 1:15-21).

[3] παρὰ when used with the accusative of person may be employed in a comparative sense (BAGD, 611). Luke 13:2 gives another scriptural example of this use of παρὰ. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους ἐγένοντο, ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν; And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were sinners more than all Galileans because they have suffered these things?” (author’s translation)

[4] This is a direct quotation from Psalm 44:7-8 LXX.