In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense

My point would be that no human intitutions would have handled this well enough.

Here is a very interesting article I found. It lists the dates that all of the New Testament books were probably written in the opinions of muliple scholars, some conservative and some liberal. Note the belief that all of them were actually written fairly soon after Jesus death.

There were not many years, even centuries of memorization going on here that probably was not accurate any more as has been implied above.

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

Here is another very interesting quote:

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, martyred in A.D. 156 after being a Christian for 86 years. Polycarp had been a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Irenaeus had often heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of Jesus received from John and others who knew Jesus.50 In Adversus haerese, III. I (ca. 180), Irenaeus writes:

Now these, all and each of them alike having the Gospel of God,–Matthew for his part published also a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul were at Rome, preaching, and laying the foundation of the Church. And after their departure, Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, did himself also publish unto us in writing the things which were preached by Peter. And Luke too, the attendant of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His Breast,–he again put forth his Gospel, while he abode in Ephesus is Asia.51
The high importance of this testimony of Irenaeus is demonstrated in the book, The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel: It’s Extent, Meaning, and Value, by Frank Grant Lewis.52

From here:

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/12date.html

Between the death of Jesus, and the appearance of many parts of the NT … is a generation or two in most cases; c. 55-97 AD.

Though that is for just the earliest versions; the texts were not finalized for many centuries … if ever.

Today translators are still coming out with new editions of the Bible, every few years.

Which one is certain? Which one is the final authoritative version? Which one reflects the originals?

Dr G,

All the NT books were written during the lifetimes of the apostles. Actually by or at least under the authority of the apostles. These guys heard Jesus speak every day for several years. They had ample opportunity to absorb his message and even his very words. Then, within a week after the resurection, they were out telling the story – they devoted themselves to teaching the gospel. Also, they had each other to keep them in check. If one mis-remembered an event, the others could correct him.

IOW, the gospel was not spread by some guy who heard Jesus once in a big crowd while munching on miraculous fish and bread.

As far as Luke collecting stories, there are clear indications he spoke to those involved. I think verses like Luke 2:19 are based on a personal interview with Mary. Do you think she remembered the events of Jesus’ birth? It’s not every day that an angel shows up to chat.

I was 7 when Kennedy was shot, but I still remember how and where I heard the news. I remember the Beatles on Sullivan. I remember hearing the news about RFK and MLK. I remember Armstrong on the moon. I clearly remember how and where I found out about the space shuttle Challenger blowing up and I’ll never forget the first news about 9-11 and the images of those towers falling.

The point is that life-changing and world-changing events are forever burned into our minds. Those who walked with Jesus, heard his teachings, saw him die and then saw him alive again are reliable witnesses. I think they had his teachings fully committed to memory ( I figure Jesus taught pretty much the same stuff wherever he went, so the disciples heard it over and over again) and the image of the cross was always on their minds. Then they wrote it down. There was no oral transmission over generations, at least regarding the NT. It is first-hand, eyewitness testimony.

Dr G, in post 55, you’re comparing translations to an original text. Apples and oranges. Regarding the certainty of the original text, that’s where textual criticism comes in. Dan Wallace (who contributes to this blog) has tremendous stuff on that, including an exercise where he has students intentionally corrupt a text, then through principles of textual criticism, has other students reconstruct the original. There really is very little doubt about what the writers originally wrote.

“Original” texts vary.

And very early complete ones, can’t even be found.

So textual criticism is now perfect? Glad to hear it.

If schoars are reliable: note that most scholars now suspect that the Apostles themselves were not the authors; most could not read or write, they say. Rather, things were written in the name of, or tradition of, this or that apostle.

So scholars now say.

I find it very interesting indeed that scholars now say the apostles were not the authors of the books themselves, when Iranaeus who was born in AD 70 asserts they wrote them themselves. Seems to me like he may have had a lot more first hand knowledge on the subject than today’s scholars!

G,

I am curious, from the sound of your posts on this and other threads. Do you believe the Bible is the word of God or not? If so why, and if not why not?

C: Did the Apostles write these books of the Bible themselves?

See Iranaeus’ own comments in the blog intro, above; that’s not quite what he says.

MBaker: I accept the Bible as the word of God. By way of an extended process, not necessarily relflecting infallible fidelity to any original document.

G,

Would you mind expanding upon this:

“I accept the Bible as the word of God. By way of an extended process, not necessarily relflecting infallible fidelity to any original document.”

I’m not necessarily understanding if you mean it evolved over time or is based upon second hand information? Also if you think the information is not accurate do you believe the crucifixtion could have taken place as reported in the gospels, and the resurrection? I’m just interested in what you base your Christian beliefs on, and what school of thought you identify with.

Thanks.

Another thing is this that we often forget, what about people who lived in areas that did not have the Bible in book form? We know that the Catholic church was very good in evangelism early on, but did not reach all areas until much later. It was still isolated to Europe and the middle East during the Crusades, and not in Asia until the 1600s.

There is something viable about a book that takes hold of people the way the Bible does, and it actually ended cultures that were pre-Biblical acceptance. Like the Vikings. We know the Viking culture ended as Scandinavians began to convert.

Two important legends arise from Irish history, Connal Cearnach and Cuchulain. Both of those legendary heroes do indeed mention Jesus Christ and the crucifixion. Connal Cearnach was a gladiator fighting in Jersusalem and apparently according to legend went back to Ireland with this fantastic story of a Jewish man hung on a cross. This was at a time when Ireland was still Druidic pagan.

The veracity of the Bible is evident in history, legend, eyewitness and martyrdom of believers. If it were not based in truth, why at that time did none of the converts from farther away from the original source ever challenge it? We are talking about cultures who had very sophisticated faith systems, not ignorant fools who didn’t know anything like we supposedly do today.

Dr. G,
The Gnostic Gospels were written by original authors, are they valid?
The I Ching was written by original authors, is it valid? Why debate the accuracy of the Bible and never challenge any other faith system?

How about the Maya Calendar that says the world is ending in 2012? Is it really going to? And the quatrains of Nostradamus…are they accurate?

Let’s put all religious books on the table and examine them all. Sola scriptura is a phrase meaning “by scripture alone” so all books are in some regard scripture to the believer in said book, so sola scriptura could apply to all faith systems with a religious book.

How about the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Can we have faith in it also?

“God’s progressive revelation”?

Note that many have questioned – and changed – the dominant Bible. Note that Protestants threw out six or seven whole books from the Bible as it was, before 1515. (Baruch; Tobit; Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, etc.? SP?).

The Catholic Bible today is bigger … because they kept many ancient books in it … that Protestants later questioned, and threw out.

Many people question all faith systems in fact. Whether the texts are by original authors or not.

In the case of “God’s progressive revelation,” in fact, it might be argued that it is not even necessarily important to have fidelity to any original text; since God reveals himself better, over time. Or more appropriately for us, in our own time, by more contemporary statements.

Dr G. Not to be unkind, but did your doctorate come in a box of cereal?

I have never argued for absolute certainty in the transmission process because it simply doesn’t matter. If we read the ancients we have to accept what they give to us in the form that they understood it. Among the curious features that frustrates the more retentive among us is their cheerful indifference to precision. Accurate recall of an event or speech was to convey the general gist of what happened.

How do we know that people misunderstood Jesus? Because they managed to not only convey what he said, but also their confusion about it. Compare that to copiers who themselves cannot read, but simply replicate the letters that they see on the page. Many of our ancient documents rely on those illiterate scribes, yet I don’t see scholars throwing up their hands and saying that those documents are worthless.

Your attempt to claim that memorisation is unreliable, firstly makes the assertion that it is and then try to support your claim by referring to my memories of what I may have read 40 years ago (I was -6 then so I wasn’t reading much). You show no ability to deal with the importance of memory to an oral culture, rather you simply beg the question.

The Church in Rome was established in the forties (Paul was writing letters to them in the fifties) so we’re talking a couple of decades at most and a time when most of the witnesses were still alive.

Memorisation/Gutenberg/printed screen? Elephant hurling is a disgusting habit. I haven’t said memorisation was perfect, only that it was good enough for the ancients.

You keep throwing out this “300 years” as though it means something. It doesn’t. The canon may not have been firmly established but by the second century it was accepted that the four gospels, Paul’s letters, and a handful of other books, were authoritative for the Christian community. They were what was referred back to when confronted by a heretic like Marcion.

As for your response to Dave, you again don’t show the ability to differentiate between what scholars believe, and what they can achieve. What they can achieve is the reconstruction of an ancient text like the New Testament to a confidence level of 99% through comparison of the numerous extant manuscripts (far more numerous and closer to the originals than any other ancient document). Belief about who wrote the Biblical books and when cannot be so firmly established. It is true that the scrolls that the gospels would have been first copied onto were not named, because the name would have been on the case they were carried in, much like Torah scrolls today. Literacy in the ancient would may not have been widespread, but Jewish men were lettered enough to read Torah, as Jesus did, and there were scribes available (Silus for example). Basically there’s no reason to dispute the traditional authorship.

Basically your objections are those of a very sub-standard sceptic who reads the Biblical texts with the kind of fundamentalist (no disrespect to the original believers in Christian fundamentals intended) wooden literalism that judges the ancients by modern standards.

Kara, I said the ancients were non-literate, that is literacy wasn’t given the same status it is today. Certain groups, like Jewish males, would learn to read for religious or political reasons, others would simply go to a scribe to get their letters made and read.

Dr. G, please read the rules.

It appears our present sub-topic – biblical inerrancy or authority – might be regarded as somewhat off topic?

Sorry therefore; I cannot respond to questions/insults not relating more directly to “sola scriptura.”

G,

But how we know what the difference in what is the real progressive revelation of God and how the Bible shows it was revealed, regarding sola scriptura, if we can’t identify any source as accurate?

Wouldn’t that put the story of Jesus Himself into some question? Could you be more specific about just where (authors, denominational beliefs, creeds, statement of faith, philosophers, theology books, etc;) you are drawing your own material and/or conclusions from, such as CMP has given?

Otherwise, it is really hard to specifically follow your line of reasoning.

Jason C,
What is literacy? Does it mean the ability to communicate via the printed medium? And by saying that today’s standard of literacy is more relevant and more respectable is in my estimation a wrong statement.

Nachmonides…or Rambam as he is commonly known as, proposed through his own scientific study there are 10 dimensions to the universe…and scientists now are beginning to accept it. And to infer that we have greater knowledge is not right. Think of the Baghdad battery, same principle is used in making batteries today.

The ancients were very literate, even more so than today. The difference is that now it is on more of a wider scale of population. We do not possess all the knowledge today. And regarding the Bible, sola scriptura, what was the basis for their scientific methods? Creation. And if you read the Bible you clearly see there is science mentioned in many parts.

The Bible itself can be a model of civics, civil engineering, sociology, anthropology, archeology, construction of massive scale, geography, agricultural sciences, astronomy, physics, medicine, tactical warfare, weapons manufacturing, economics, statistics, navigation by sea and land, and many more things we think were understood in the Renaissance.

All these sciences are found in the clear forward message, so if there should be a Bible code…just think what that would entail. All the knowledge to do anything in a productive society is found there, and what not to do in a non-productive society. All we have to do is read it.

I don’t know if this thread has veered off-topic or not; the trustworthiness of scripture seems like a valid sub-topic of sola scriptura, but I do think that Jason’s post, while making very good points, contained some inappropriate snide remarks in spite of starting off with “not to be unkind…”

Let’s remain respectful.

The nice thing about “sola” scripture (as I understand it, having scanned the prompt above for two minutes), is that it acknowledges both Scripture and Tradition as part of how we approach religion.

But what happens once we see that “Tradition” is everywhere? We learn the Bible for example, through teachers often … who are teaching a certain “tradition” of how to read it. So that Tradition is even part of our Bible “itself.”

When we see – by the way, usually subjective – Traditions everywhere, then what should we do?

Maybe we need to look at “Traditions” a little more closely. And decide whether we want to honor this or that tradition … or not. No matter how often it poses as objective fact.

Dr.G,
Please provide me with an example of tradition so I know whose traditions you are referring to. Clearly as an Arminian I would not hold exactly to the same traditions as Calvinists.

Perhaps Christmas on Dec. 25 is one example, we do not find Christmas in the Bible, but we do find a God ordained celebration of the birth of Jesus. We do see presenting gifts as a tradition.

But I personally do not mention Santa Claus as part of my tradition, neither do I celebrate the Easter Bunny and do not partake in Halloween trick or treating…I have no children anyway, but I do not pass candy out.

Aside from those shared traditions though in Christianity, what examples do you find unique to Christianity, and specific to my church?

For example, being an “Arminian” would be one tradition.

The idea of “sola” scripture seems to be that we acknowledge the importance of both 1) scripture, and 2) church traditions and so forth, as part of our religion.

But the problem here, is that … there are many traditions; and they all say different things. They therefore seem subjective; they can’t all be right. So which one do we trust?

And furthermore, traditions seem to be deeply imbedded, even in the way we see the Bible and truth.

So when “sola scriptura” accepts both 1) scripture and 2) tradition, as authority, is that a good thing? (Cf. “oral tradition”)

Dr. G
To be honest though, I was never called Arminian until I came to Parchment and Pen. I never heard the phrase, so that’s not a big issue of identifying for me.

Even though it might be subjective, does not necessarily make it invalid. The question should be more like, can we fit sola scriptura into our culture? Traditions seem to be more cultural rather than religious, but all cultures identify with a religion.

We all realize the American culture is infused with varying traditions that are not all set in stone. So having something solid does give people something to hold close.

Sola scriptura, more properly, seems to want to say that it acknowledges both 1) Scripture and 2) Tradition … but feels, to be sure, that Tradition must always be subservient to Scripture.

But to be sure, it seems as if our traditions are always intermingled with our idea even of scripture “itself.” Few of us can learn to read the Bible without help; others teach us how to read it. And they teach often, according to different traditions; church doctrines and so forth.

And in fact, therefore, there seems to be a rather subjective traditional element inside our most “objective” idea of the Bible itself (cf. the Kantian “thing-in-itself”).

And this seems acknowledged in CMP’s “sola scriptura”: “Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the accepted, albeit fallible, regula fidei of the early church as represented in the early creeds and councils.”

Thus, even if the Bible was infallible … still we only see it, through the lens of our fallible subjectivity. (Specifically, the “fallible, regula fidei” of the early Church).

So even when we look at the Bible, we still see it through a fallible tradition. We are indeed surrounded by fallible traditions. That may prevent us from seeing the Bible as it really is.

Or even … maybe the Bible itself, in various translations, might have been infected by fallible translators and so forth? Especially in its Catholic origins: the “early church”?

If that is the case, then how might we resurrect the true, right idea of Jesus and God? In part it would seem, by taking a critical look at what traditions might have infected our vision of Truth and God.

KK: Traditions do indeed, “seem more cultural than religious,” as you say. So maybe we don’t really need them? So let’s see where subjective, cultural traditions are found; and how they infect our vision of God. How they change even our vision of the “Bible itself.”

CMP made a distinction in his ariticle (right towards the end) in tradition and interpretation.

It seems to me like maybe the two are being confused in the current conversation. Is any one else seeing that?

G. (he ain’t no doctor if he can’t write proper sentences) seems to be questioning the doctrine of sola scriptura for some of the same reasons that Bart Ehrman does. That is, how can it be our final and highest authority if we cannot trust in its accuracy.

However, the tradition of the New Testament canon is quite clear. There never was a time when other books were considered for the canon, such as books by gnostics. There is no canon list in existence that has other books. Even Marcion didn’t include extra books in his list. So it’s not as if the bishops met to decide what was in; that was always clear. Any discussion was about keeping stuff out, or deciding what theological concepts were consistent with the existing accepted scriptures.

Now some books were read in some churches–e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas–but those books were theologically and christologically consistent with the accepted canon. The key canon criteria were settled in the second century (101 to 200) during the controversy over the Gospel of Peter: These key criteria were: apostolicity (written by apostles) and 2) eyewitnesses or co-workers of eyewitnesses. That forces the canon back into the first century, when such people were still alive.

G. appears to speculate that there was a long enough chain of oral tradition that involved people who were not eyewitnesses, which eventually led to the writing down of these traditions by others who were neither eyewitnesses nor in touch with eyewitnesses. And this leads him to question our trust in s.s. However, given the canon discussion above, it is prima facie evident that such could not happen, as there were eyewitnesses living until the end of the first century, people that could say, “hey, that didn’t happen that way” or write their own book. Take, for example, Luke, who writes that he observed things of which he wrote “have happened AMONG us” and he also notes that others have compiled other written accounts, and he indicates that he consulted eyewitnesses. Luke is saying, “hey, I’ve checked my story and you can too”.

Papias writes that Mark wrote down the things that Peter (eyewitness) told him, “Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements”

One could go on with further examples, but it is by now clear that there was no game of telephone going on. Moreover, note the stress that both Luke and Papias laid on accuracy, and tracing of sources. This stress on, and early belief in, the accuracy of scripture is one reason that other, and later, church fathers could look to the written word as a final and sufficient authority.

Which brings us back to CMP’s points about why it’s sola scripture.

regards,
John

(good series, CMP)

Tradition is deeper; it might be the “paradigm” or model through which we see things; but in the CMP quote above, it would be related to interpretation:

“Scripture is always to be interpreted according to the accepted, albeit fallible, regula fidei of the early church as represented in the early creeds and councils.”

Here note, scripture is “interpreted” indeed, by .. the (note “fallible”) regula fidei; which is in turn, itself the body of early church doctrine/Tradition, as defined by the early church councils and so forth.

[Hey! How do we get quotes with those nice green bars next to them, anyway?]

Dr.G,
Chinese Catholics…Native American Baptists…Ethiopian Jews…Charismatic Koreans….

All those peoples that have clearly defined traditions, and yet transcend those traditions in favor of sola scriptura. It seems to me then tradition is more than Tevye says it is…traditions make us know who we are, and what God expects from us…hence the shawl with the tzitzits. But, tradition changes and even more so if you move farther away from the source of tradition…when in Rome, do what the Romans do.

As far as skewing our vision of God, it is only when one tries to mix religions that causes our vision to fail. In other words, one can’t be a Buddhist Christian, a New Age Christian or a Wiccan Christian because all those are completely opposed ideas. Calling ourselves Calvinist or Arminian is not infecting our vision at all because even though they might oppose each other, they are still confined in Christian teaching from the Bible. And we have consistently pointed each other toward scripture in all our debates.

Note that in CMP’s (phenomenalistic?) sola scriptura, it seems that “fallible” Traditions interpentrate with all our perceptions; even of the Bible itself.

So CMP is repeating, building into Protestantism, the classic philosophical observation: just as philosophy says we see the objective world through the lens always of our merely human and subjective minds, now Protestantism adds that … we see the “Bible” through the subjective lens of Tradition.

Dr. G,
I would take pause though with the authority solely of the early church fathers as some did indeed breed anti-semitism among the early church, that continues today. Sola scriptura means the Bible is the final authority…regardless of who says it is.

Even if Ireanius or Justin Martyr or Polycarp never wrote anything about it, the Bible would still be the final authority, and in that final authority with God as the author, He also is the Revelator. It is learning by Him that we should understand the Bible.

Dr.G,
I am not sure, but perhaps you are asking do we believe sola scriptura because we have been told to through tradition, or do we have the ability to believe on our own?

Sola Scriptura…means “only scripture” then by default it is the only written authority in itself, kind of like God. God exists therefore by default all discussions of Him are able to occur.

By the way: check early implied canons. Or lists of texts known to and referred to by the earliest Church fathers. There are many such lists today; nearly a) all have far shorter lists than our current canon. Some leaving out key texts. Some are only a few books long. And b) there are some of which have books not in the present Bible.

Indeed, the Catholic Bible dominated Christiandom for many centuries … and had six or seven more books than we do.

(Can’t cite my reference; I’m away from the library at present. But do a better check of early canons)

KK:

Careful: “solo” scriptura means “only” scripture; sol”a” scriptura – which CMP is advocating – means roughly … primarily scripture. It acknowledges the interpenetration of our best idea of scripture “itself,” by traditions.

The Bible is the final authority. And yet how do we see and understand the Bible? Except through our own fallible human eyes and mind (and traditions).

John CT:

“Co-workers of eyewitnesses” were enough to validate a text? Isn’t that getting a little remote from the real thing?

“Shepherd of Hermas” was read in some churches … and was therefore part of their implied canon. So that some churches had a different canon, indeed.

Kara,

I don’t think “primarily scripture” is accurate either. CMP said,
“I believe that I have represented a compelling case both biblically and historically that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible source in matters of faith and practice”

I think the words “final and only infalible source” sums up the doctrine much better.

By the way; if you look closer to see what the Bible itself calls a “witness”?

There, it could be someone who himself with his own eyes witnessed to the “power” of God (John?); which might not mean having seen God himself at all; but only the power of faith in him, in a generation or two after all real witnesses are gone.

And if we are questioning the veracity of scripture … is it fair to cite scripture as your authority that scripture is true? Isn’t that circular or something?

But in any case, to stay on point: the interesting thing here is CMP’s “Sola Scriptura”; which again, seems to … admit an explicitly “fallible” element in our view of the Bible.

Dr. G,

I think you are the only one here, at the moment anyway, that is seeming to question the veracity of Scripture!

Or our perception of it.

Those interested in the (off topic) issue of the canon can read this excellent series: http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=540

One might also look at the shorter article at http://www.bible.org/qa.php?topic_id=87&qa_id=378

One can infer from some of the writings of the fathers that the four gospels were accepted as scripture and that the Pauline epistles were circulating as a group, but the first “canon” was that of Marcion, which one reads about in Justin Martyr. So G’s contention is inaccurate, unless he has a different understanding of what constitutes a canon. I’m referring, of course to the development of the new testament canon, because the Old Testament was already settled. As for the apocrypha, that’s a different matter, but one that need not concern us in relation to G’s arguments regarding the trustworthiness of what we use for sola scriptura. The extant canon lists clearly deal with those works that were compiled in the first century by eyewitness or in consultation with eye witnesses.

regards,
John

BTW, neither “By the way: check early implied canons.” nor “Or lists of texts known to and referred to by the earliest Church fathers.” are complete sentences. I realize this is a blog, but some attempt at decent communication would be appreciated.

C:

A point of semantics: “If we” are doing something, indicates … 1) a hypothetical allowed for purposes of discussion only. It does not imply definitely doing this thing. But only speaks “as if” for a moment. While 2) “we” implies … only the editorial “we.”

The point here is to reconstruct the (Kantian? Derrida-ian) phenomenological point (hypothetically again): whatever “Bible” we see, is seen though fallible eyes. Even our best most objective Bible. Therefore “The Bible” we have, is not true. Given this perspective.

Or to put it in simpler, straighter language: you’re not seeing the Bible right. Look at it a little closer. About what its “witnesses” are really saying, for example.

G,

Re:#70.

I repeat the question – would you please provide specific sources from which you are drawing what you seem to believe are factors which suggest a different point of view? You are simply re-quoting CMP, when it suits to agree, yet your arguments seem to suggest an entirely different, but very emphatic point of view.

I believe that more specific facts and sources like others here are providing would go a lot farther in helping all of us understand the points you are trying to make, and keep the discussion from getting bogged down in endless repetition.

In all due respect, simply throwing around a few rhetorical questions on every comment to avoid giving direct answers to anyone else’s questions does nothing to advance the thread. In fact, if anything, it sabotages it.