I’d like to thank AlertStatusRed [from now on ASR] for participating in this debate and I hope this can be a learning experience for us both.
I’m going to try and convince you that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is improbable. I’ll understand the Catholic interpretation of these words to be that through them Jesus founded the papal office [1], naming Peter as its first occupant.
Now, if this was the correct interpretation and Jesus instituted the papacy through these words, then this institution would’ve been recorded by Jesus’ other biographers who in fact record parallel accounts of this same event at which Matthew attributes these words to Jesus. More to the point, since Luke’s Gospel is ancient historiography, the contents of which are recorded to verify the truth of beliefs about Jesus’ sayings and deeds [2], Luke would’ve done all but failed to record such a teaching in his parallel account of Matthew 16:18, if he was aware of it. But, we observe nothing of the like. Therefore, if the Catholic interpretation is correct, then the Lukan silence resonates into a deafening shock. How could the author who toiled to interview witnesses, scrutinize the available accounts of Jesus, discerning their reliability, striving to form the best of the accounts yet produced, all to record an historical biography of Jesus of Nazareth, fail to note such a vital teaching of Jesus!? Since Luke’s Gospel contains a parallel account to Matthew 16:18 [Lk. 9:20], we’d expect Luke to describe this teaching as the meaning of those words of Jesus here. So, let’s try and formalize this objection:
Main Argument:
(1) If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [Premise]
(2) If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]
(3) Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]
(4) Therefore, these words were not understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [(2), (3), M.T.]
(5) Therefore, Jesus did not institute the papacy through his words in Mat. 16:18. [(1), (4), M.T.]
The argument is logically valid, meaning if its premises are true then its conclusion(s) must also be true. So, all that matters is whether the premises are true. We can reasonably believe a premise is true if it’s more plausibly true than its contradictory. Let’s check the premises to see whether the argument is sound.
Premises:
Premise (1): The Catholic will argue that the papal dogmas taught in Matt. 16 were present in seed-like form and would develop over the course of many centuries culminating in Vatican I’s teachings [although, perhaps the growth isn’t finished…?]. So, all premise (1) is asking you to believe is that if Jesus had instituted the papacy here, the seed of the papal dogmas would've existed within the Christian community. (1) isn't saying the Christian community knew of ex cathedra statements or universal jurisdiction etc. I can't imagine what the papal dogmas would've looked like in seed form if they weren't at the very least understood to be something concerning ecclesiology! Note Vatican I claims its interpretation of Matt. 16:18 “has always been understood by the catholic church.” [Cf. Vatican I, Sess. 4, chapter 2, n. 4.]
Premise (2): "Clearly already in the third decade of the Christian movement, many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Urban Christians traveled (1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carrying letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25). They also relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15 passim) and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15)." [3]
Given such interconnection between the Christian communities and Luke’s extensive travels and labors in compiling material for composing his Luke-Acts work; he would’ve encountered an understanding of Jesus’ words held by Christians for half a century on a weighty ecclesiological doctrine. Further, given Luke's purpose in composing his works (i.e., Lk. 1:4, "so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught"), an ecclesiological doctrine like this would've been exactly what Luke wanted in his Gospel.
Premise (3): Cf. Lk. 9:20
So, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that we have a sound argument against the claim that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18.
I'll do the bayesian calculations in my closing statement, that way we can be sure to weigh the evidence carefully.
[1]
The papacy is that ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is the delegate of Jesus Christ, receiving the powers of universal jurisdiction, and infallibility by virtue of said occupation.
[2]
“Just as most scholars today recognize the Gospels as biographies, the dominant view concerning Acts today, earlier argued by Lukan scholars such as Marian Debelius and Henry Cadbury, is that it is a work of ancient historiography. Luke Timothy Johnson in the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that most scholars today accept this assignment of genre for Luke-Acts as a whole. Indeed, Hengel and Schwemer contend that those who deny Luke-Acts as acceptable first-century historiography need to read more ancient historiography “and less hypercritical and scholastic secondary literature.”” – Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 86.
“The preface to his gospel (1:1-4) most demonstrably makes the case for Luke’s ability to use the conventions of Greek historiography, both the linguistic (as it is a single, periodic sentence with a balanced, hypotactic structure) and the topical (as it references preceding writers on its subject and the author’s own investigation, claims to be a narrative, purports a didactic purpose, etc.)” – Loney, Alexander C. “Narrative Structure and Verbal Aspect Choice in Luke.” Filologia eotestamentaria 28 (2005): 10. As cited by Culy, Martin M., Mikeal Carl Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: a Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor Univ., 2010., p. 1.
“Although Greek historians usually referred to only one or two predecessors and quoted them uncritically…their primary research was often superior to that of modern historians: they relied to a large degree on ‘autopsy’ and their own experiences, collected and examined the oral transmission, questioned eyewitnesses and sources, and visited the scenes of the events in order to gather their information on the spot.” – Meister, Klaus. “Historiography: Greece.” 421, in Brill’s New Pauly. As cited by Keener, ibid., p. 89
“Luke’s affinity with Hellenistic literature is historiographical as well as biographical. Luke self-consciously sets his work in a tradition of research which supplies the meaning of the facts recorded (1.1–4).” Knight, Jonathan. Luke's Gospel. London: Routledge, 1998. p. 7
[3]
Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 92-93
No comments:
Post a Comment