An Initial Review of Some Problems in the
Newly Published Book,
Jesus, Peter & the Keys
By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David
Hess
It has been a long time coming. I've been hearing about
this book for quite literally years. It finally made its
appearance at the end of 1996, to the cheers of such individuals
as Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Mitchell Pacwa, and Patrick Madrid-quite a
spectrum of the Roman Catholic apologetics community. I knew the
book was coming, because I have had frequent contact with one of
the authors, Scott Butler. He had been speaking about the project
for years, and I had seen a lot of the information in
type-written format as early as 1994, and had heard much of it
presented in a debate I did against Butler and his colleague,
Robert Sungenis (who is cited as the books "Greek
expert" many times) in February of 1995 at Boston College.
I won't go into a lot of detail regarding my interactions with
Scott Butler over the years. Let's suffice it to say that he was
involved in my very first debate (against then-Catholic
Answers staff apologist, Gerry Matatics, in Long Beach,
August, 1990). He and Catholic Answers got into a fight
over who would have rights to the video of the debate, and as a
result, the debate was never offered by CA. A few years
later, when I traveled to Toledo, Ohio, to debate Dr. Art Sippo
(a debate arranged through the offices of Patrick Madrid of CA),
another incident took place illustrating the strain that existed
between CA and Butler. When I entered the auditorium, I
found a video crew setting up their equipment. Shortly thereafter
Patrick Madrid came in, and was noticeably surprised at the
presence of the videographers. He asked them who had paid for
them to come. "Scott Butler" they replied. Madrid
disappeared, came back about fifteen minutes later, having called
CA and talked to Karl Keating, and asked the men to leave.
Ironically, CA has later disavowed any sponsorship of that
debate, and Butler, not to be outdone, flew Rob Zins into Toledo
just a few weeks later to debate the same opponent on the same
topic, only this time, since he was paying, the video folks got
to stay! As a result, I am wondering how Karl Keating and James
Akin will respond to this newly published work.
Until I read a recent e-mail message from Patrick Madrid
endorsing the book (which I read the day before my copy arrived
in the mail), I was unaware that anyone but Scott Butler was
involved in writing the book. Consistently Butler had spoken of
it as "my book," and had never mentioned
"co-authors." The only indication I had received of any
assistance was the mention of some folks who, to use Butler's
words, "work for me" doing some research and
translation. I am unfamiliar with Norman Dahlgren, other than to
understand he is a public school teacher. David Hess has
contacted me recently by e-mail, and seems to be a pleasant
correspondent. Hess has indicated that he is a Byzantine Catholic
rather than a Roman Catholic. It is my understanding, however,
that the group to which he belongs is still in subjection to the
Roman Pontiff, and accepts claims to Papal Infallibility and
universal jurisdiction.
Initial Appearance
To any person unfamiliar with New Testament theology,
backgrounds, Greek, and early church history, this book seems
to be impressive. It is well type-set, with only a few
typographical errors here and there. The lay-out is quite
readable, and though at times it seems to chase after some rabbit
trails that are not overly relevant, by and large it communicates
its message with sufficient clarity.
It should be remembered that the issue of Papal authority and
infallibility is the single most important epistemological
concern in the debate between Roman Catholicism and
Protestantism. Once a person has accepted the need for an
infallible interpreter, an infallible Church, an infallible
authority outside of Scripture, the rest will fall in place with
time. Butler and his co-authors recognize this. Their goal is
transparent: the conversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism.
This is not an attempt at "ecumenical dialogue."
Indeed, Butler has made it quite clear in times past that the
only reason that exists for so-called "ecumenical
dialogue" is to bring Protestants back to "Mother
Church." He well knows Rome's position cannot, by
definition, change. Hence, dialogue is meant only to convert
Protestants, not to bring anyone to a "greater
understanding" of some other position. Indeed, my greatest
criticism of Scott Butler as a writer or debater is just this: he
has no concern whatsoever for either accurately knowing, or
accurately representing, the "other side."
Unfortunately, this tendency comes through loud and clear in Jesus,
Peter & the Keys.
Butler's work is intended to be used to "push"
Protestants over the precipice into the arms of Rome. Hence,
there is a strong effort to make it look like Protestant scholars
are in fact supportive of the viewpoint being presented.
Citations are multiplied (often out of context, or lacking very
necessary caveats) from well-known Protestant scholars so that it
looks like the authors have done their homework, and that
anyone who disagrees is really out of step with even the majority
of Protestant scholarship. As a result, the book makes it
seem like there are only a few marginal, right-wing radicals out
there who haven't come to the same conclusion: Peter is the rock
of Matthew 16, Peter is the first Pope, and this has always been
the Christian faith. Disagree with this, we are led to believe,
and you are simply flying in the face of reality itself.
The Deeper Reality
Unfortunately, initial appearances are very often misleading.
I could wish that there would be voices raised from the Roman
Catholic side questioning the validity of the arguments and
conclusions of this book, but I learned a while back not to
expect such things. As long as it tends toward the promotion of
the Papacy and the Mother Church, it is deemed
"useful." Scott Hahn's words, "this veritable
compendium is simply staggering," is itself a staggering
claim, in light of the simple fact that the book fails, badly, in
three major areas:
- It presents the most strained and biased exegesis of the
New Testament, engaging in tremendously unbalanced
interpretation of the text, syntax, and grammar, all the
while either ignoring, or giving shallow replies to, the
mountain of evidence that can be cited against the
position it takes.
- It falls into the "Peter Syndrome" over and
over again: that being the tendency on the part of Roman
Catholics to interpret all of the Bible (including the
Old Testament) as well as all of Church History in the
light of modern Petrine claims on the part of Rome. The
result of this is that any mention of Peter, be it in the
NT, or in the writings of an early Father, is automatically
transferred in the thought and conclusions of the writer
to the person of the Bishop of Rome. Despite the fact
that there is no logical or historical reason to make
such a huge leap, Butler, Sungenis, Madrid, Matatics,
Hahn, and just about every other Roman Catholic apologist
known to this writer, has fallen victim of the Peter
Syndrome. I made this point in my debate against Butler
and Sungenis (see our catalog for
the tapes of this debate).
- Its use of patristic sources is tremendously biased,
quite surface-level, and shows no familiarity with the
actual writings of the Fathers themselves, but rather a
familiarity with secondary sources (most notably, the
compilation of William A. Jurgens-a source referred to constantly
and often uncritically by Roman apologists). While
at least some attempt has been made to respond to some
of the criticisms that can be raised by the student
of history, most of the strongest arguments and
counter-citations are ignored.
It is my intention to provide more in-depth analysis of these
problem areas in future articles. But for summary purposes, let
us provide one example of each of the above errors.
Strained New Testament Exegesis
Jesus, Peter & the Keys attempts to present a
"scholarly" air through the citation of numerous Protestant
sources. The problem is, most of these citations do not fully
appreciate the issues at hand, and do not fairly acknowledge the full
positions of the scholars cited. Important points are often based
upon a very strained and stretched exegesis of the text (Sungenis' comments on Acts 15, the use of such terms as
echgeomai, egw krinw,
and sigaw,
for example, would fall in this category,
and will be treated much more fully in another article). But one
glowing example of the kind of argumentation that fills Jesus,
Peter & the Keys is found on pp. 158-159, where Dr. D.A.
Carson is cited with reference to Matthew 23. A little background
is necessary. Matthew 23 is often used by Roman Catholic
apologists as a basis for asserting that Jesus bowed before
"oral tradition," in this case tradition passed down
through the Jewish hierarchy. David Palm, another convert to
Catholicism (who has endorsed this work as well) points to
Tractate Aboth in the Mishnah as an example of the Jewish
claim that their traditions were passed down orally from Moses.
In this he is correct, but this proves too much, as this would
include such traditions as the Corban rule, which the Lord Jesus
specifically attacked. Be that as it may, in a 1993 type-written
work, copyrighted by "S. Butler, N. Dahlgren, & D.
Hess," we find the following comments about Matthew 23:2-3:
To what are
they morally bound here? To the seat of Moses, which Christ
passes to Peter. The seat of authority and interpretation is in
the seat of Moses, which was assumed by Jesus Christ and passed
on to Peter, the rock, until the end of time.
Little is changed in the new book, which follows the
typewritten materials I have had in my possession for nearly four
years:
161 To what
are Christians morally bound in Matthew 23:1-3? Christians are
bound to the magisterial seat of Moses, which Christ passes
singly to Peter and corporately to Peter and the Apostles acting
together. The seat of authority and interpretation symbolically
is in the seat of Moses, which was assumed by Jesus Christ and
passed on to Peter and the Apostles until the end of time.
Evidence exists that the Popes know of this potent symbol of
authority. (p. 159)
Let's look closely at this example, as it is quite revealing
as to the technique and methodology used throughout the
book.
Immediately preceding the claim put forward in question 161 on
page 159, Dr. D.A. Carson is quoted in the following form:
"These
leaders [of Matthew 23:1-31] 'sit in Moses' seat.' E. L. Sukenik
(Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece [London: OUP, 1934],
pp.57-61) has shown that synagogues had a stone seat at the front
where the authoritative teacher, usually a grammateus ('teacher
of the law'), sat. Moreover, 'to sit on X's seat' often means 'to
succeed X' (Exod. 11:5; 12:29; 1 Kings 1:35, 46; 2:12; 16:11; 2
Kings 15:12; Ps 132:12; cf. Jos. Antiq. VII, 353[xiv.5]; XVIII,
2[i.1]. This would imply that the 'teachers of the law' are
Moses' legal successors, possessing all his authority---a view
the scribes themselves held (M Sanhedrin 11:3; cf. Ecclus
45:15-17; M Aboth 1:1; M Yebamoth 2:4; 9:3).
"The
astounding authority conceded 'the teachers of the law and the
Pharisees' in [Matthew 23] v.2 becomes explicit in v.3. Even if
the emphasis in v.3 falls at the end, where Jesus denounces the
Jewish leaders' hypocrisy, the beginning of the verse gives them
full authority in all they teach, even if they do not live up to
it. Panta hosa ('everything') is a strong expression and cannot
be limited to 'that teaching of the law that is in Jesus' view a
faithful interpretation of it'; they cover everything the leaders
teach, including the oral tradition as well (Garland, pp. 48f.;
contr Allen; Plummer; Schlatter; Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew,
pp 196f.; and others). Nor does the test say their authority
rests in their roles but not in their doctrine; on the contrary,
v.3 affirms their doctrine but condemns their practice." D.
A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The
Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke),
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 471-472 [additional editors
include Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. of Trinity Divinity School; Bruce
K. Waltke of Regent College; James Montgomery Boice, Pastor of
Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Merrill C. Tenney of Wheaton College].
Two items about this citation. First, it seems obvious that
our authors are keying upon the statements regarding the teachers
of the law being Moses' legal successors as well as the phrase
"oral traditions." On its face, separated from its
context, it seems to lend at least some credence to the position
being presented. Of course, nothing in the quote can quite
prepare one for the giant leap in the conclusion we have cited,
but that is another issue. Secondly, note the proliferation of
unnecessary names in the citation under "additional
editors." What is the purpose for this, if not to
"pad" the impression that the authors' viewpoint is in
line with "mainstream" evangelical scholarship?
The main problem with the citation of Carson is that it is not
representative of his conclusions about the passage. It is
a wonderful example of selecting only what you wish to quote so
as to promote your own idea, while ignoring the conclusions drawn
from the data by the author you are citing. If you continue on in
reading Carson, he says:
The only way
to make sense of the text is to follow Jeremias (Theology
p. 210) and see in vv. 2-3 an instance of biting irony, bordering
on sarcasm. This position is self-consistent and does not weaken
the strong statements in vv. 2-3. Moreover it is strengthened by
the verb ekastithen ("sit") in v. 3. The aorist
is not normally translated as a present. In response many point
out that the same aorist verb is used in Mark 16:19; Hebrews 1:3;
8:1; 10:12; Revelation 3:21---all of which refer to Jesus as
still sitting. But that misses the point. The emphasis in each of
these instances is not that Jesus is still sitting, though that
is doubtless presupposed, but on the fact that as a result of his
triumph he sat down. The aorist does not require that the action
be at one point in time; it is the context that in each of these
instances presupposes it. Moreover the gnomic aorist in the
indicative mood (which is how NIV's "sit" takes the
Greek in v.2) is so rare in the NT that it should not be our
first option. But if vv. 2-3a are ironic, then the aorist can
have its natural force: the teachers of the law and the Pharisees
sat down in Moses' seat (cf. NASB's "have seated
themselves," which may be overtranslated but has the right
idea). The Jewish religious leaders have "presumed" to
sit in Moses' seat (so Adalbert Merx, Das Evangelium Matthaeus
[Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1902]; Moulton, Prolegomena, p.
458; Zahn). It is, of course, of no help to say that such a
translation must be followed in v. 3a by "therefore, pay not
attention to what they say" (contra Plummer; Banks, Jesus,
p. 175; Garland, p. 48); for v. 3a continues the irony. . . .Thus
the first two elements are ironic, and the last two reveal in
reverse order the painful futility of following the teachers of
the law. Jesus warns the crowds and his disciples in the sharpest
way possible. The reluctance of many scholars to admit that vv.
2-3 are biting irony overlooks the tone of much of this chapter
(e.g., vv. 23-28) and superb parallels elsewhere in the NT (e.g.,
1 Cor 4:8a, 10).
Citing Carson's conclusion that Jesus is using biting irony to
attack the Jewish leaders, and that he is in fact stating that
they "have seated themselves" in the seat of Moses but
do not, in fact, belong there, but are presumptuously arrogating
the position to themselves, would take the focus off of what our
authors want people to believe about Matthew 23. The Lord Jesus
is not introducing an extra-Scriptural, infallible authority by
making mention of the popular concept of Moses' seat, anymore
than He was establishing the canonicity of the Apocrypha by
making reference to a celebration related to events recorded
therein. Carson's interpretation, in point of fact, completely
undercuts the common usage of the passage by Roman apologists,
both with reference to "oral tradition" as well as here
in our current work, the idea of a seat of infallible
interpretive authority being passed on through Christ to Peter.
Obviously, Carson has no such concept in his thinking, and would
never accept the use of his words in support of such a thesis. In
any case, admitting that Carson believes the passage under
consideration to be an example of "biting irony"
removes its worth to our Roman Catholic apologists, yet, by
leaving out the very conclusion Carson makes, they avoid this
problem.
Of course, the entire concept presented by our authors goes
far beyond anything supportable by the text itself. If one
believes in sola scriptura rather than sola ecclesia,
one will allow the text to define itself. In this case, we
discover that at the very most, the Lord Jesus is seen here to be
counseling against the overthrow of the synagogue worship at this
particular point in time. Is anyone going to argue that Paul
should have submitted himself to the Jews in Acts 19:8-9, for
example, so as to stop preaching the Gospel? Of course not. Why,
then, do Roman Catholics have to utilize passages such as these
to lay a foundation for such a fundamental doctrine as papal
authority? Because the Bible knows nothing of such a concept to
begin with, and hence they are left with nothing but eisegesis.
First, where does the passage speak of the "magisterial
seat of Moses"? It doesn't. This is interpolation and
anachronism, coming from the desire to find in this passage a
foreshadowing of the "magisterial" claims of Rome.
Where does the passage say Christ controls this seat, or can pass
this seat to anyone else, or even desires to do so? It doesn't.
Where does the passage say anything about Peter at all? It
doesn't. Where does it speak of Peter or the other Apostles
receiving this "seat"? It doesn't. Where does the New
Testament speak of such a thing? It doesn't anywhere else,
including in those passages that one would expect to see speaking
of such issues of authority (such as the Pastoral epistles).
Indeed, I would like to challenge our authors: where did anyone
in the first five hundred years of the Church make the connection
they make here? The earliest example they can give is from a Pope
arguing in his own cause (hardly a representative view of the
entire church), and that in the middle of the ninth century! A
scan of the 38 volumes of the Eerdman's set of Church Fathers
reveals only five citations of the passage, and not one of
them is in any way related to the bishop of Rome. Quite simply,
the conclusions presented in question 161 of this book are
wishful thinking, both from an exegetical standpoint, as well as
an historical one.
The Peter Syndrome
Throughout Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Butler,
Dahlgren, and Hess fall headlong into the Peter Syndrome
over and over and over again. I first coined this phrase
when defining one of the common errors made by Roman Catholic
apologists in my debate against Robert Sungenis and Scott Butler
at Boston College in 1995. Here is how I defined this error that
day:
Error #2:
"The Peter Syndrome." This refers to the propensity on
the part of many Roman Catholic apologists to find any statement
about Peter in the writings of an early Father and apply this to
the Bishop of Rome. There are many exalted statements made about
Peter by men such as Cyprian or Chrysostom. However, it does not
follow that these statements about Peter have anything at all
to do with the bishop of Rome. The Roman apologist must
demonstrate that for such statements to be meaningful that the
Father under discussion believed that the bishop of Rome alone
is the sole, unique successor of Peter, so that any such
exalted language about Peter is to be applied in that Father's
thinking to the bishop of Rome alone. If such a basis
is not provided, references to Peter are irrelevant.
One even finds the Peter Syndrome infecting the exegesis of
our authors of biblical passages as well. This is easily
understood: our authors belong to religious systems that demand
they believe certain things about Peter and Peter's alleged
successors. These systems claim extra-scriptural authority, and
hence, it is hardly surprising to find that people who hold to
such systems do not practice sola scriptura, and hence do
not engage in fair exegesis of the text itself. Instead, since
they hold to sola ecclesia (the idea that the Church alone
has supreme and final authority, which is illustrated so clearly
by Rome's claim to define the canon of Scripture as well as the
interpretation thereof, and to define the extent, and
meaning, of "Tradition" as well, leaving her as the
sole functional authority), they will find in the text exactly
what the ecclesia tells them to find.
Examples of the Peter Syndrome are to be found on almost every
page of the work. Citations are often given that only speak to an
exalted view of Peter in a particular Father, and no attempt is
made at all to connect the citation to the bishop of Rome. The
fact that the cathedra Petri (chair of Peter) in Cyprian
and other North African Fathers specifically referred to the entire
bishopric of the Church, so that Cyprian viewed all
bishops as fulfilling Matthew 16:18 (not just the bishop of
Rome), is seemingly not understood by our writers. Passages from
Fathers are listed under such grand titles as "Primacy of
the Pope and the Roman Church" that have nothing
whatsoever to do with either the Papacy or the Roman Church.
Citations are given without any thought of accurately
representing the entire thought of that writer on a particular
topic. For example, the first citation provided under the chapter
title just mentioned is from Origen. Here is how it reads:
"Peter,
the Prince of the Apostles." (Origen, In Lucarn, Horn. xvii.
torn. iii. p.953), and "More honour than the rest." (Origen, Tom. xxxii in Joann. n. 5 tom. iii. p.413), both
in Charles E B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri--The Titles and
Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879),
48.
Here we have a single phrase, "Peter, the Prince of the
Apostles," isolated from any meaningful context, placed
under the rubric of the primacy of the Pope. This is not
meaningful historical research or writing, it is pure rhetoric
driven by faith in a system that demands the writers see these
historical sources in a particular fashion. The other phrase,
"more honor than the rest," is likewise not provided to
us with any meaningful context. Do our authors really think that
Origen believed as they believe about the bishop of Rome? In the 600
books written by him in his lifetime, they can only come up with
a few phrases about the subject, and even then, they can't
provide any meaningful bridge between a high view of Peter and
the bishop of Rome as the Pope? Such seems to be the case, for
the second citation from Origen they give isn't even quoting Origen, but someone talking about
Origen:
[Origen] on
the words in Matt. xvii. 26 [27] he remarks, that the disciples'
considered that this was a very great favour to Peter on the part
of Jesus, as having adjudged him greater than the other
disciples."' (Origen, Tom. xiii. in
Matt. n. 14, tom.
iii. p.588), in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri-The Titles and Prerogatives of St Peter,
(London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 48.
Why our writers cited this passage is beyond me: they give the
original, inside a quotation from Lindsay, on page 144. Possibly
they did so because as they give the conclusion of the citation
on page 145, we read from Linday, "Whether Origen's
reasoning is sound may be a question. . . ." Even their own
sources question Origen's interpretation of the passage!
The final citation from Origen is taken from a compilation of
sources (i.e., another quote-book) that I have found to be far
less reliable and trustworthy than even Jurgens: The Faith of
Catholics compiled by Berington and Kirk. I was given this
work a number of years ago by a Traditionalist, and have had
occasion to refer to it many times. Unfortunately, my edition is
a single volume edition, and I cannot locate the single sentence
cited in my source. But from all of Origen's writings, the most
our authors can manage in support of the primacy of the Pope is:
"There is one baptism, and one Holy Ghost, and one Church,
founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, for (or from) an original
and principle of unity." And finally, "To the seven
children there is evidently conjoined their mother, the origin
and root, which afterwards bare seven churches, herself having
been founded first and alone, by the voice of the Lord, upon
Peter." What are these citations supposed to mean,
seriously? In their context, was Origen speaking about papal
prerogatives? What does "founded upon Peter" mean?
Given the sources used (secondary), it's hard to find out.
Earlier in the book (pp. 218-220), citations from Origen are
given in a collection allegedly designed to tell us how the early
Fathers interpreted Matthew 16. Unfortunately, the real character
of the research that went into this book is plainly seen by the
sources used. Over and over again we find Allnatt being used as
the primary source of patristic materials in Jesus, Peter
& the Keys. He is cited for five of the seven quotes on Origen, Berington and Kirk providing the other two (i.e., not a
single original source work used). Yet, even at this, we find
that the single longest, plainest passage on the topic is
nowhere to be found in the "presentation" of
Origen's "view." Instead, we have to turn to William
Webster's fine work, Peter and the Rock, to find out what
Origen had to say about Matthew 16 specifically. Webster provides
the citation Origen's commentary on Matthew as follows (pp.
29-30):
And if we
too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto
us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in
our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by
the Word, 'Thou art Peter, 'etc. For a rock is every disciple of
Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock
which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word
of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each
of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and
thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by
God.
But if you
suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by
God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one
of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against
Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but
that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the
perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the
case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will
build My Church?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given
by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed
receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall
not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are
subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
'Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If any one says this to
Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the
letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the
Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.
For all bear the surname 'rock' who are the imitators of Christ, that
is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being
saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But
these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as
members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called
Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the
saying of the Savior might be spoken, 'Thou art Peter' etc., down
to the words, 'prevail against it. 'But what is the it? Is it the
rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church?
For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the
Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for
neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor
against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the
gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a
rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church
built by Jesus upon the rock.
Use of Patristic Sources
I have been informed by Scott Butler that his next
"tome" (this is the term he used to describe the
current work, and the upcoming one) will be on the patristic
evidence. I can only hope that between now and then he takes the
time to learn the early Fathers in their original contexts.
What I mean is this: if a person is forced to learn the Fathers in
their full context, outside of the battle ground of
"apologetics," one has a much firmer foundation upon
which to stand in interpreting their statements about any one
particular issue. The sources used by the authors of Jesus,
Peter & the Keys indicate that their study of the Fathers
has been limited primarily to secondary collections, like Jurgens, rather than to full collections, either in the original
tongues, or in English. Nothing in the book suggests that any of
the authors have lectured on Church History in general. Why is
this important? Because it is easy to import very unbalanced
contexts into the Fathers if you are not familiar with
them in a more general way. If all you know of the Fathers is
derived from reading biased collections in "quote
books," you won't have any chance of fairly representing
them on any one particular topic.
Jesus, Peter & the Keys provides us with a glaring
example of how the "Peter Syndrome" can cause one to
develop massive blind spots when it comes to historical data. One
of the great problems that has faced Roman Catholic apologists
over the centuries is found in the 6th Canon of the
Council of Nicæa. This canon specifically limits the
prerogatives of the bishop of Rome: an action utterly contrary to
Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. To the honest or unbiased
student of history, this canon tells us that three centuries into
the Christian era the bishop of Rome held a high position in the
Church's view. However, it was a limited position, one
commensurate with the political and geographical factors that
gave rise to the prominence first of the church at Rome,
and eventually to the bishop of the Church itself. At this
time the transition from the importance of the church to
the bishop is taking place, but the church still
holds the primary position. In any case, there is no Papacy
functioning in the modern sense at all, despite all of Vatican
I's claims to the contrary, and it is plain that the Christian
Church as a whole sees no need for a monarchial leader in the
bishop of Rome.
Many centuries after the Council of
Nicæa, long after the
rise of the Papacy into prominence (and just before its fall into
the Pornocracy), supporters of this institution began the process
of changing history through the use of forgeries. Documents like
the famous Donation of Constantine began to circulate. The
very fact that men had to create such documents tells us
something very important: the belief they wished to substantiate
in history could not be substantiated any other way. That is, if
people had always believed in the Papacy as it was developing in
later centuries, there would be no need to create forgeries to
make it look otherwise. One of the forgeries that can be traced
to this period involves an expansion in the canons that were
passed at the Council of Nicæa. Originally the council passed
twenty canons, including the famous 6th canon. Yet,
centuries later, other collections began to appear. There is no
question that these other canons are forgeries-fakes. Yet,
amazingly enough, Scott Butler and his co-authors cite from these
forgeries in an attempt to substantiate their position! They are
not alone here, and in fact, as the quotation below shows, they
at least admitted that these canons are not part of the
"generally accepted" list. I have heard other
apologists, such as Tim Staples, quote Canon 39 of the Arabic
canons as if it were a part of the original Council of Nicæa, a
tremendously dishonest thing to do. On page 308 of Jesus,
Peter & the Keys, we find the following:
(From the Arabic
Canons of the Council of Nicaea):
"[CANON
XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the
bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy
of the Bishop of Rome over all.
"Let the
patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by
them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order
it, as seemeth him fit; for he is the father of all, and they are
his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishop as an
elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom
they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is
to all those who are under this power, just as he who holds the
seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch
as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all
Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the
Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod. [While not a part of the generally
accepted canons of the Council of Nicæa, these canons
promulgated from the Eastern Church give a mind's eye view of the
thinking of Eastern Christianity.]" Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers--The Seven
Ecumenical Councils, vol.14, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994), 48.
The reader should note a few things. First, in the interest of
charity, we will assume that the placement of the closing
quotation is a simple error: the material enclosed in the
brackets which states, "While not a part of the generally
accepted canons of the Council of Nicæa, these canons
promulgated from the Eastern Church gives a mind's eye view of
the thinking of Eastern Christianity" is not a part
of what is found in Schaff and Wace. It is, instead, the
editorial comment of the authors of Jesus, Peter & the
Keys. We only note that such a statement flies in the face of
the Eastern Church's resistance of Papal claims over the
centuries. We also note that the authors did not include the
footnote attached to the canon in the source they themselves use:
"I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader
will judge of its antiquity." It should be noted that in
context, the author is indicating that the canon is not
ancient.
But much more importantly is what the citation of such a
source tells us about the mindset of the authors and their drive
to find anything in history that seems to be
supportive of their claims. Allegiance to Papal authority seems
to create a blind spot in this area. It seems rather obvious, to
those who are not committed to such an allegiance, that the
quotation of forgeries that date from half a millennium after the
fact is hardly helpful to one's cause, but is, in fact,
detrimental. But to those who seek any positive mention of
Peter or Rome, it fits the bill, despite its lack of historical
credibility. The Peter Syndrome functions in full here, for if
one has to include materials with no more historical basis than
the Donation of Constantine in one's work, it seems clear
that the real sources of real history do not
provide much in the way of meaningful support for one's thesis.
For those interested in the issue of the Arabic canons, we
provide, appended to the end of this article, an entire
discussion of the subject, taken from the very same source (Schaff and Wace) used in Jesus, Peter & the Keys.
It is striking to note, however how the book handles a far
more relevant and important historical fact, that being the 28th
canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Note the words of this
ecumenical council:
Following in
all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging
the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree
the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church
of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly
granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the
royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops,
actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the
most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which
is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal
privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical
matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.
Note that here we have the real view of "Eastern
Christianity" as expressed in a Council of the Church. This
appears in the records centuries before the Arabic canons.
We know who promulgated this canon (we don't know who
created the Arabic canons). Yet, Jesus, Peter & the Keys
does everything it can to down-play the canon from Chalcedon,
while presenting the Arabic canons as being relevant! Such an
action shows that this book is not, as Patrick Madrid has said
(citation below), an evenhanded or complete iteration of
historical facts. It is anything but. Note the contrast in the
following chart:
| 28th
Canon of Chalcedon |
Arabic Canons |
| Promulgated by a
recognized Council |
Unknown origin |
| A.D. 451 |
Unknown date---eighth
century? |
| Downplayed by JP&tK |
Presented as relevant by JP&tK |
In Conclusion
I have read a number of messages, written by Roman Catholic
apologists, attacking William Webster's book, Peter and the
Rock. None have been very specific or pointed. All have
generally attempted to do little more than throw mud. There seems
to be an inherent belief amongst Roman Catholic apologists that
to be Protestant is to be ignorant of Church history. Didn't
Newman say that very thing? For example, Patrick Madrid wrote the
following concerning this issue:
I'm familiar with these works, especially
Rivington's (he was a convert from Anglicanism, his dad was the
archbishop of Caturbury) and Webster's. Rivington's book is well
done in its goal of presenting a comprehensive survey of the
patristic texts on this subject. Webster's book, on the other
hand, is a mishmash of pseudo historical "research,"
highly tendentious, and superficial. But since any reader's
opinion of a book is largley (sic) subjective, I suggest
anyone interested compare the two and see what they think.
But there's an even more up-to-date work on the
and biblical patristic evidence that bears on the papacy.
"Jesus, Peter, & the Keys," is a newly-released
430-page work co-authored by Dave Hess, Norm Dahlgren, and Scott
Butler. I recommend this book to any Orthodox, Catholic, or
Protestant who's interested in a calm, evenhanded and *complete*
iteration of the biblical and patristic evidence.
One is forced to wonder, if in fact this book is a "complete"
iteration of the biblical and patristic evidence, or is in fact a
"veritable compendium," as Hahn puts it, at the lack of
substance that marks the grand claims of Rome. I can personally
state that yet again I have been confirmed in my acceptance of
the biblical view of authority, Scriptural sufficiency, and
resultant rejection of Roman claims, by my examination of the
"facts" that are put forward in this work. As the Lord
prospers and allows, we will be providing even more in-depth
responses to particular issues raised in this, and other, works
in the near future.
Regarding the Arabic Canons of
Nicæa:
Let us see first what is the testimony of those
Greek and Latin authors who lived about the time of the Council,
concerning the number.
a. The first to be consulted among the Greek
authors is the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after
the Council of Nicæa. He says, in his History of the Church: "After
the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled once more,
and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical discipline."
b. Twenty years later,
Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much research into the most ancient documents,
wrote a history of the Nicene council Gelasius also says
expressly that the Council decreed twenty canons; and, what is
more important, he gives the original text of these canons
exactly in the same order, and according to the tenor which we
find elsewhere.
C. Rufinus is more ancient than these two
historians. He was born near the period when the Council of
Nicæa was held, and about half a century after he wrote his
celebrated history of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin
translation of the Nicene canons. Rufinus also knew only of these
twenty canons; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth
into two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly
the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians.
d. The famous discussion between the African
bishops and the Bishop of Rome, on the subject of appeals to
Rome, gives us a very important testimony on the true number of
the Nicene canons. The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa,
having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Rome. Pope
Zosimus (417-418) took the appeal into consideration, sent
legates to Africa; and to prove that he had the right to act
thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nicæa, containing
these words: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly
deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman
bishop shall have the business decided by judices in
partibus." The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong
to the Council of Nicea, as he affirmed; it was the fifth canon
of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version).
What explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient copies
the canons of Nicæa and Sardica are written consecutively, with
the same figures, and under the common title of canons of the
Council of Nicæa; and Zosimus might optima
fide fall into an error-which he shared
with Greek authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons
of Nicea with those of Sardica. The African bishops, not finding
the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or in their
Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council of
Nicæa,
had brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared
that they did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send
to Alexandria and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of
these two cities for authentic copies of the canons of the
Council of Nicæa. The African bishops desired in their turn that
Pope Boniface should take the same step (Pope Zosimus had died
meanwhile in 418)-that he should ask for copies from the
Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Cyril of
Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and
faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nicæa; and two
learned men of Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even
translated these canons into Latin. Their translation has been
preserved to us in the acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and
it contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It might be thought
at first sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on closer
consideration we see, as Hardoum has proved, that this
twenty-first article is nothing but an historical notice appended
to the Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived
in these terms: "After the bishops had decreed these rules
at Nicea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the
ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity of
faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is
what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to add
according to the history of the Church.'
The bishops of Africa dispatched to Pope
Boniface the copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria
and Constantinople, in the month of November 419; and
subsequently in their letters to Celestine I (423432), successor
to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents.
& All the ancient collections of canons,
either in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite
certainly at least in the fifth century, agree in giving only
these twenty canons to Nicea. The most ancient of these
collections were made in the Greek Church, and in the course of
time a very great number of copies of them were written. Many of
these copies have descended to us; many libraries possess copies;
thus Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotheca
Coisliniana. Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the
copies in his Bibliotheca Graeca to those found in the libraries of Turin,
Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these
copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those of
the most ancient councils. The French bishop John Tilius
presented to Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of these Greek
collections as it existed in the ninth century. It contains
exactly our twenty canons of Nicea, besides the so-called
apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Elunger published a
new edition at Wittenberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was
found at Augsburg; but the Roman collection of the Councils had
before given in 1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicea. This text of the Roman editors, with the exception of some
insignificant variations, was exactly the same as that of the
edition of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his
coadjutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in
preparing this edition; probably they were manuscripts drawn from
several libraries, and particularly from that of the Vatican. The
text of this Roman edition passed into all the following
collections, even into those of Hardoum and Mansi while Justell
in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici and Beveridge in his Synodicon (both
of the eighteenth century), give a somewhat different text, also
collated from MSS., and very similar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, compares
the two texts. Now all these Greek MSS. consulted at such
different times, and by all these editors, acknowledge only
twenty canons of Nicea, and always the same twenty which we
possess.
The Latin collections of the canons of the
Councils also give the same result-for example, the most ancient
and the most remarkable of all, the Prisca, and that of
Dionvsius the Less, which was collected about the year 500. The
testimony of this latter collection is the more important for the
number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Graeca auctoritas.
f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we
may further mention Photius, Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in
his Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as
well as the two other writers in their commentaries upon the
canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and know only twenty
canons of Nicea, and always those which we possess.
g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also
acknowledge only these twenty canons of Nicæa. We have proof of
this in the celebrated Spanish collection, which is generally but
erroneously attributed to St. Isidore (it was composed at the
commencement of the seventh century), and in that of Adrian (so
called because it was offered to Charles the Great by Pope Adrian
I). The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the first
canonist of the ninth century, in his turn attributes only twenty
canons to the Council of Nicea, and even the pseudo-Isidore
assigns it no more.
|
