Page History

Scanned PDF Version of this Document

1.The old alternative between "scripture alone," on the one hand, and "scripture and tradition," on the other, is obsolete. Ever since the Enlightenment, when the Bible came to be considered from a consistently historical standpoint, it has become ever clearer that the New Testament itself is a work of tradition. So instead of saying "scripture," one must say "early tradition," and instead of saying "scripture and tradition," one must say "early and later tradition."

2. But why can't the confessions agree in appealing to early tradition as norm? Because early tradition – ie-- i.e., the New Testament – -- is not unified enough to function as a norm. Far from grounding the unity of the church, it is really the basis of the plurality of the confessions (Käsemann).

...

4. But, then, what is the right method of using the New Testament? The wrong method is to use it as a recipe book with whose help one can immediately answer dogmatic or ethical questions. Critical study of the New Testament – -- often represented as criticism of the New Testament – -- is, in fact, criticism of this (wrong) method of using it. But the right method is not something still waiting to be discovered; the right method is the method already laid down in the New Testament itself. The New Testament writings are one and all to be taken as sermons or proclamations – not in our situation and to us, but – -- in specific situations in the past and to persons in those situations. As such, they are not immediately practicable for us today.

...