Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Athanasius377]

Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word.

Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it is clarified in several other places in scripture.

The point is ..... the differences are minor, extremely minor.

Sola Scriptura

God Bless.

Good point. I would also mention that the translation quality differs depending on which part of the OT one is looking at. The Torah, typically very solid translation. Other books, not so much.

 

[redleghunter]

Good point. I would also mention that the translation quality differs depending on which part of the OT one is looking at. The Torah, typically very solid translation. Other books, not so much.

Some good and not so good copies of Isaiah in the Qumran caves. The FF Bruce book highly recommended.

 

[HTacianas]

No, the Jews did. This is the Old Testament after all.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Rom 3:1-2 ESV

A holy synod of bishops chose the Christian canon. I'm gonna have to go with them.

 

[Athanasius377]

A holy synod of bishops chose the Christian canon. I'm gonna have to go with them.

Of course. You are Orthodox so you have to. But recognize that down through the centuries there have been disputes regarding the canonicity of these books even from Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Great, Jerome to name a few. Even Luther's arch enemy Cardinal Cajetan agreed that these books were spurious and didn't belong in the canon. So to say that in 700 AD the books now known as the apocrypha was universally thought of as Scripture simply isn't true.

A good treatment of the subject is Roger Beckwith's work The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, and its Background in Early Judaism.

 

[Vicomte13]

Well, surely you agree that we are free to ask God for anything, even silly things like for our team to win the game and, also for things that are impossible. I have the feeling that the praying for the dead which you are thinking about assumes that the dead will be benefitted by the prayers--loosed from their sins, as the Jews described in Maccabees sought.

The Jews in Maccabbees thought right.

 

[HTacianas]

Of course. You are Orthodox so you have to. But recognize that down through the centuries there have been disputes regarding the canonicity of these books even from Church Fathers such as Melito of Sardis, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Great, Jerome to name a few. Even Luther's arch enemy Cardinal Cajetan agreed that these books were spurious and didn't belong in the canon. So to say that in 700 AD the books now known as the apocrypha was universally thought of as Scripture simply isn't true.

A good treatment of the subject is Roger Beckwith's work The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, and its Background in Early Judaism.

If what I've said weren't true, the Eastern Churches would have no canon of scripture. They do.

 

[Not David]

Or did you mean the Eastern schismatics?

You don't know much about history if you call the Orthodox schismatics.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Looking at the theologians at or near the time of the eight century we gain a glimpse into their idea of scripture and authority during that time of the Church's history. I have two figures in mind:

Saint Maximos the Confessor about 100 years or so before the 8th century wrote a commentary on the words of Saint Gregory Naziansus and Pseudo Dionysus. Maximos would put Gregory on level very close to canonical scripture, in the words of Nicholas Constas speaking of Maximos' opinion of Gregory:

"Gregory's words have a sacred, indeed inspired, character, not unlike the words of Scripture... As the very "mouth of Christ," Gregory the Theologian's words are an extension of the words of Christ the Word, for "Christ Himself is manifest in all his deeds, words, and thoughts, by which one is persuaded that the passages under consideration were authored, not by him, but by Christ, who by grace has exchanged places with him"..."

On Difficulties in the Church Fathers (The Ambigua), Introduction XIII-XIV, Nicholas Constas.

Gregory never made it into the canon even at the time. This attitude of Maximos' is at odds with a strict or even loose association with Sola Scriptura. He was never condemned for holding these views, but was condemned for his Christological position and died as a Confessor (His Christology becoming the Orthodox position after his death). There doesn't seem to have been a rigid enforcement of a Sola Scriptura like belief at this time.

John Damascus is the next prominent figure I can think of. He affirms the use of the scripture and mentions we should not overstep the ancient boundaries or pass beyond the divine tradition associated with it (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 1). He is also deeply indebted to the theology which proceeded him in the ecumenical councils, appealing to the voice of the Fathers in explicating the theology of the Church time and time again. Protestants might find more in John they can agree with than with Maximos concerning the authority of Scripture and of the Fathers, since he isn't nearly as extreme as Saint Maximos was. At least according to my limited knowledge of John.

Any attempt to read Sola Scriptura as expounded by Luther (It's first proponent) is going to seem anachronistic. I have no idea how the authority the ancient Church claimed to have could be maintained should the idea of Sola Scriptura had been accepted. The Fathers at many points exceeded the bounds of scripture alone especially when it came to formulating a theological vision and mandating it through councils for the entire Church.

Also, regarding the canon, does anyone know of any 8th century manuscript that includes only those books accepted by Protestants and Jews that was used by any Church we might call Orthodox or Catholic at the time? If they contained extra books, like the Maccabees, what does this imply?

 

[redleghunter]

You don't know much about history if you call the Orthodox schismatics.

Well they left their Pope. What do you call that? The first Protestants?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well they left their Pope. What do you call that? The first Protestants?

What do you mean the Orthodox left their Pope? Are you in favour of the view that the Pope had a universal Jurisdiction during the time of the great schism? I don't think so. Obviously the Orthodox were not subject to the Pope's authority and so never left him. Communion was broken between the Orthodox and the Pope but we did not assert an authority for ourselves we did not already possess. The Orthodox were subject to their particular Patriarch, as is the case today.

 

[Athanasius377]

If what I've said weren't true, the Eastern Churches would have no canon of scripture. They do.

So which Holy Synod gave us the Canon? Does the Church have the authority do any such thing? Generally Protestants will say that the Church merely recognizes that certain books were God Breathed Scripture and others were not. The later councils (local councils by the way and not binding on the whole Empire) later codified what the church had already known. If this were not the case how is that we have early church fathers appealing to these texts as authoritative and binding on all christians. The ECF are replete with such pleas.
It has been my experience that EO and RC in order to defend their dogmas have to push the date of the canon out as far as possible so a church council no matter how localized or even minor is seen as defining the canon. Then because certain practices and dogmas are not found in the canon then one must appeal be to some unwritten tradition that arose in this time that only the church clergy get to define. If our position is Sola Scriptura then the yours by admission must be Sola Ecclesia.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So which Holy Synod gave us the Canon? Does the Church have the authority do any such thing? Generally Protestants will say that the Church merely recognizes that certain books were God Breathed Scripture and others were not. The later councils (local councils by the way and not binding on the whole Empire) later codified what the church had already known. If this were not the case how is that we have early church fathers appealing to these texts as authoritative and binding on all christians. The ECF are replete with such pleas.
It has been my experience that EO and RC in order to defend their dogmas have to push the date of the canon out as far as possible so a church council no matter how localized or even minor is seen as defining the canon. Then because certain practices and dogmas are not found in the canon then one must appeal be to some unwritten tradition that arose in this time that only the church clergy get to define. If our position is Sola Scriptura then the yours by admission must be Sola Ecclesia.

This sort of begs the question. If the Church before Protestantism recognized books that Protestants don't even without the need of an ecumenical council, why doesn't that count?

The charge of Sola Ecclesia is interesting because I think it is an overreaction to the traditional position of ecclesiastical authority. Do we in maintaining the authority of the Church deny the authority of Scripture as implied int he term "Sola Ecclesia"? Since the Historic Church has always relied on Scripture this seems to be dubious, yet we don't let the individual interpretation of scripture supersede the entire Church's witness, not often at any rate.

 

[Athanasius377]

You don't know much about history if you call the Orthodox schismatics.

That's what Rome has called the Eastern Churches for centuries.

 

[Athanasius377]

This sort of begs the question. If the Church before Protestantism recognized books that Protestants don't even without the need of an ecumenical council, why doesn't that count?

Strange you bring up begging the question fallacy when your response is in itself and example of said fallacy. We recognize the books as not being inspired for the reasons I have posted earlier. My premise is that the church recognized some books as God Breathed and not others. The church didn't make the books Scripture, the church merely recognized what was already intrinsically there. The proof I offered was that these texts were cited as being authoritative in some cases almost two centuries before any council would take up the issue. That's not begging the question. Your statement however is begging the question. Namely the assumption that the Church (catholic, or entire church) recognized the apocrypha as scripture. Since I have provided you with names that makes the statement not true. In order for it to count you have to assume the entire Church Catholic thought these books were indeed inspired apart from a council. It is this point you cannot prove since it demonstrably false.

At best you have to admit they were disputed.

 

[Athanasius377]

The charge of Sola Ecclesia is interesting because I think it is an overreaction to the traditional position of ecclesiastical authority. Do we in maintaining the authority of the Church deny the authority of Scripture as implied int he term "Sola Ecclesia"? Since the Historic Church has always relied on Scripture this seems to be dubious, yet we don't let the individual interpretation of scripture supersede the entire Church's witness, not often at any rate.

I make the charge because when the church gets to decide what is scripture and what is not and what is tradition and what is not the ultimate authority is the Church.

The last part of your statement is the real rub. Sola Scriptura is the position that the only infallible rule of faith and practice is Scripture. That does not mean that there is no value in the historic witness of the church or even a place at the table for tradition. As Lutheran I wholeheartedly agree there is a place and even a need for tradition. But. . . it is not infallible. Furthermore individual interpretation does not take precedence over the historic witness of the church. That's something more akin to the heirs of the radical reformation and not to historic Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed traditions.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Strange you bring up begging the question fallacy when your response is in itself and example of said fallacy. We recognize the books as not being inspired for the reasons I have posted earlier. My premise is that the church recognized some books as God Breathed and not others. The church didn't make the books Scripture, the church merely recognized what was already intrinsically there. The proof I offered was that these texts were cited as being authoritative in some cases almost two centuries before any council would take up the issue. That's not begging the question. Your statement however is begging the question. Namely the assumption that the Church (catholic, or entire church) recognized the apocrypha as scripture. Since I have provided you with names that makes the statement not true. In order for it to count you have to assume the entire Church Catholic thought these books were indeed inspired apart from a council. It is this point you cannot prove since it demonstrably false.

At best you have to admit they were disputed.

What do you mean when you say Church here? Do you mean Protestant Church, in which case I agree with you, the Protestant Churches didn't accept these books. If you mean the historic Church the claim is false since by the time of the reformation such books had been incorporated into the bible, were recognized and used (most importantly) in liturgical celebrations.

I have no problem recognizing the the disputed nature of these books, i also have no problem recognizing they are of a lesser status than those books we all agree upon, yet I also recognize that as time went on, long before the reformation they also became accepted by the Church only really being challenged in one part of Christendom.

So why isn't it an obvious question to ask that as the longer canons became gradually accepted this wasn't his people recognizing his words? Is it only Protestants who have this privilege?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I make the charge because when the church gets to decide what is scripture and what is not and what is tradition and what is not the ultimate authority is the Church.

You previously said this: My premise is that the church recognized some books as God Breathed and not others. The church didn't make the books Scripture, the church merely recognized what was already intrinsically there.

My question would be, why is what your doing considered recognition and what the historic Church is doing is deciding? You have an argument with regards to the canon that you find persuasive and presumably decided upon that as satisfactory to the question of canon. So your characterization of the Church just deciding to add these books, seems hypocritical. Ultimately we both have made our decisions based on various factors but we would both claim we are both recognizing God's canon. My previous question still stands unanswered. The Church before Luther, whether we're talking eastern or western Church gradually came to include more books than in the Protestant canon.

Why did this happen if God wasn't in the Church helping his people hear his voice?

The last part of your statement is the real rub. Sola Scriptura is the position that the only infallible rule of faith and practice is Scripture. That does not mean that there is no value in the historic witness of the church or even a place at the table for tradition. As Lutheran I wholeheartedly agree there is a placed and even a need for tradition. But. . . it is not infallible. Furthermore individual interpretation does not take precedence over the historic witness of the church. That's something more akin to the heirs of the radical reformation and not to historic Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed traditions.

The language of infallibility regarding these things is not something I typically use, so I wouldn't say the Fathers or the councils are infallible. I would say they are authoritative and that you are bound to accept them, that there is more to the Fathers just 'value' in whatever degree you classify that value as. This is because as a Church we are not entities to ourselves but are accountable to others and God has not left as as solo agents. He has put people in authority over us to guide us in the right direction. This is the concert of Church in general which I believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura neglects when it insists on the sole authority of scripture. There are times when our readings of the scripture are right against the majority, but there are also times when we are wrong and it would be right to submit ourselves to another's authority.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Or did you mean the Eastern schismatics?

If we are schismatics for excommunicating Rome for trying to grab more and more power constantly, when there was a clear equality between the pentarchs of the church up to that point, then so be it. But your blatant disrespect shows your ignorance on the topic.

 

[☦Marius☦]

That's what Rome has called the Eastern Churches for centuries.

And what we've called Rome for centuries. They are also heretics.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Well they left their Pope. What do you call that? The first Protestants?

Also there were more than one "Pope" in the pre schism church. Pope means father, and Patriarch the same.