Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Athanasius377]

written about 55 AD, 40 years before the Rabbinical school at Jamnia began debating (and ultimately redefining) their accepted canon of those oracles

i.e. written one Biblical generation before the modern Masoretic text was conceived

Perhaps I misread you or perhaps even what you mean so I apologize in advance if I am refuting a position you do not hold.

Two issues here, what was thought to have been debated was whether Esther and Song of Songs was to be included in the canon and not whether the Apocrypha was to be included. Perhaps that is what you meant though I'm not sure. Although it was widespread play there is no evidence the issue of the apocrypha was taken up by the council/academy.
Second the Masoretes would not appear for another four or five centuries so I don't know what you mean by biblical generation. Also, I would not use the word conceive since they (the Masoretes) are working from an existing text. They were codifying and standardizing an already existing text.

H. Graetz first cautiously proposed and defended the theory in his Excursus to Qoheleth (1871:155–56), a theory later stated positively by F. Buhl, H. E. Ryle, Robert Pfeiffer, O. Eissfeldt, and others. By the hypothesis, based on an interpretation of m. Yad. 3:5, the OT canon was closed for all time by the specific religious authority of 72 elders when R. Eleazar ben Azariah became head of the Academy at Yavneh about A.D. 90. The hypothesis rendered yeoman service in turning scholars from earlier positions that the canon was fixed either by Ezra or by the Great Synagogue.
Despite the absence of significant support in ancient Jewish, Christian, or classical texts, the hypothesis enjoyed vogue in the 20th century by repetition rather than by proof. Various degrees of dogmatism are encountered in assertions about actions of the council such as the closing of the canon with one stroke and the exclusion of the Apocrypha.


Lewis, J. P. (1992). Jamnia, Council of. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 634). New York: Doubleday.

I think the above excerpt describes the predicament we find ourselves in rather nicely.

 

[Barney2.0]

By that reasoning none of Scripture should be considered authoritative, revelatory, or God's word given to mankind.

Scripture is authoritative, that reasoning just makes it obvious that scripture can’t be the only authority.

 

[Barney2.0]

That's correct but it still doesn't invalidate sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is more like a working principle of how the modern church should operate. It's an alternative to the idea that one man alone determines the deposit of faith.

The early Church wasn’t operating by Scriptura alone as there was no scripture at the time. Even Jews have historically never clung to Sola Scriptura.

 

[redleghunter]

Sola Scriptura is contrary to common sense, the literacy rate of the Greco Roman world was only 10 - 15%. Most of the average denizens of the Roman Empire we’re illiterate, even most of the Apostles were probably illiterate and had the New Testament written by their literate students.

A lot of ifs in the above.

The apostles as raise Jews would memorize most of the written Scriptures. These people are not as uneducated as some try to assert.

 

[redleghunter]

The early Church wasn’t operating by Scriptura alone as there was no scripture at the time. Even Jews have historically never clung to Sola Scriptura.

Sure there was plenty of Scriptures. Or was Jesus wrong? Seems Jesus focused on Scriptures Alone is where they could find Him fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies.



Luke 24:

25Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. 26Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?”27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

[...]

44Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

46And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

49And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you. But remain in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

 

[Albion]

The early Church wasn’t operating by Scriptura alone as there was no scripture at the time. Even Jews have historically never clung to Sola Scriptura.

Which really isn't the point. We now have Scripture, and every one of the mainline churches--Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant--considers the Bible to be divine revelation. The idea that God could not have inspired men of his choosing to record his will and intentions for mankind (as we read in Scripture was the case) so long as some men were illiterate just doesn't make sense.

 

[Albion]

A lot of ifs in the above.

The apostles as raise Jews would memorize most of the written Scriptures. These people are not as uneducated as some try to assert.

The premise seems to be that a largely illiterate populace could NOT be taught the contents of Scripture by trained leaders who were themselves literate...but the same kind of illiterates absolutely COULD be taught by word of mouth if the instruction were to come from alleged successors of the Apostles!

 

[Athanasius377]

Scripture is authoritative, that reasoning just makes it obvious that scripture can’t be the only authority.

You are absolutely correct. No one is making that claim rather that Scripture is the only infallible authority.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

I was always under the impression that Council of Nicaea decided this in 325 with some, such as the Eastern Orthadox church and the Catholic Church, holding fast to include what now consists of the Apocrypha. Majority ruled though and the 66 books of the Bible became Sola Scriptura.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Good question. The fact is the church there were two schools of thought regarding the inspiration (or canonicity to be consistent from me previous posts but I am using the words interchangeably) of these books. Perhaps the best argument can be made from the fact the Jews never considered these writings as inspired. I realize there are some who argue that Alexandrian Jews accepted a longer canon but evidence is rather sparse. What we do find is that the Jews of the 1st century already possessed a closed canon as evidenced by the writings of Josephus and even the Apocrypha itself as I have written in previous posts. Recall that during this time there were not even fresh copies of the existing Scriptures being laid up in the Temple let alone copies of new books. Nor were these books ever considered to make someone ceremonially unclean.

So then, what does one make of these books. To paraphrase the Anglican 39 artilces of religion and the Lutheran position is that the books are to be read and appreciated for example of life and instruction of manners. Perhaps to discern intertestamental Judaism in its approach to the world at its time but nothing more.

the NT authors quoted from the LXX

Joseph was a Jew who rejected Jesus as Christ

why and how do Christians base Christian theology on the tenants of non Christians who reject Jesus Christ?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Perhaps I misread you or perhaps even what you mean so I apologize in advance if I am refuting a position you do not hold.

Two issues here, what was thought to have been debated was whether Esther and Song of Songs was to be included in the canon and not whether the Apocrypha was to be included. Perhaps that is what you meant though I'm not sure. Although it was widespread play there is no evidence the issue of the apocrypha was taken up by the council/academy.
Second the Masoretes would not appear for another four or five centuries so I don't know what you mean by biblical generation. Also, I would not use the word conceive since they (the Masoretes) are working from an existing text. They were codifying and standardizing an already existing text.

H. Graetz first cautiously proposed and defended the theory in his Excursus to Qoheleth (1871:155–56), a theory later stated positively by F. Buhl, H. E. Ryle, Robert Pfeiffer, O. Eissfeldt, and others. By the hypothesis, based on an interpretation of m. Yad. 3:5, the OT canon was closed for all time by the specific religious authority of 72 elders when R. Eleazar ben Azariah became head of the Academy at Yavneh about A.D. 90. The hypothesis rendered yeoman service in turning scholars from earlier positions that the canon was fixed either by Ezra or by the Great Synagogue.
Despite the absence of significant support in ancient Jewish, Christian, or classical texts, the hypothesis enjoyed vogue in the 20th century by repetition rather than by proof. Various degrees of dogmatism are encountered in assertions about actions of the council such as the closing of the canon with one stroke and the exclusion of the Apocrypha.


Lewis, J. P. (1992). Jamnia, Council of. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 634). New York: Doubleday.

I think the above excerpt describes the predicament we find ourselves in rather nicely.

I'm not arguing for a single "council of Jamnia"

but everyone knows that Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai was allowed to set up a school there, where the surviving Rabbis gathered and GRADUALLY defined canon over the next century or two

excluding all those books that were not sufficiently purely Hebrew, hence rejecting everything written in Greek like the LXX

 

[Erik Nelson]

the OT describes Israel saving the 72 gentile nations

1+72=73

so 73 books has a powerful salvific and redemptive symbolism

whereas eliminating SEVEN (7) books to wind up with 6 6 books has what symbolic meaning?

 

[FireDragon76]

The early Church wasn’t operating by Scriptura alone as there was no scripture at the time. Even Jews have historically never clung to Sola Scriptura.

The early Church most certainly did have scriptures to draw from, even if they did not have modern Bibles.

Lutheran doctrines about the Scriptures are not dependent on having a closed, defined canon. We mostly distinguish between disputed and undisputed texts, whether they are of apostolic origin or attested to by Christ.

 

[Athanasius377]

the NT authors quoted from the LXX

Joseph was a Jew who rejected Jesus as Christ

why and how do Christians base Christian theology on the tenants of non Christians who reject Jesus Christ?

Easy, because we're not a new religion. And to say otherwise puts your position in the camp Marcion .

 

[Athanasius377]

the OT describes Israel saving the 72 gentile nations

1+72=73


so 73 books has a powerful salvific and redemptive symbolism
whereas eliminating SEVEN (7) books to wind up with 6 6 books has what symbolic meaning?

Um, nothing? Not sure what you're trying to say .

 

[Athanasius377]

I'm not arguing for a single "council of Jamnia"

but everyone knows that Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai was allowed to set up a school there, where the surviving Rabbis gathered and GRADUALLY defined canon over the next century or two

excluding all those books that were not sufficiently purely Hebrew, hence rejecting everything written in Greek like the LXX

Evidence? Can you quote from a relevant text? Please provide a footnote so we can check out your sources .

 

[Erik Nelson]

Easy, because we're not a new religion. And to say otherwise puts your position in the camp Marcion .

you're favoring Josephus over Saint James the apostles

 

[FireDragon76]

Personally, I think leaning on the Masoretic text, a Medieval Jewish text, as some Protestant scholastic theologians did, is embarrassing. Especially in light of the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, which are closer to the Septuagint.

We need to return to the idea of evaluating texts according to scholarly standards, and not according to traditionalism.

Given the increasing prominence of second-temple Jewish studies, and its impact on contemporary religion, I think its sensible to have a Bible that includes the intertestamental books, similar to what ecumenical translations of the Bible use, such as the RSV and NRSV.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Um, nothing? Not sure what you're trying to say .

the Christian Millennium is the SEVENTH biblical day from Creation (=5500 bc in the LXX)

 

[SolomonVII]

If you hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, meaning scripture alone as the source of all doctrines, when did it begin?

In 700 AD all Christians used the longer canon, meaning that the bible had in it what protestants call the apocrypha. In 700 AD a Christian would have prayed for the dead and given alms for the dead based on II Maccabees 12:42-44.

When did sola scriptura end that practice?

Sola Sciptura is a useful doctrine for Protestants, and it is a useful doctrine for people of ancient churches to communicate with Protestants through.
For Protestants, it is the 66 books that have been deemed to be authoritative scripture. Virtually any critical teaching of Christianity will be revealed in these 66.
The 66 is core teaching that binds Protestants to each other, and to the ancients in meaningful ways. The danger is that even these 66 are being discounted as Protestants enter a post-Biblical new modernist reality.Limiting oneself to 66 authoritative books in conversations with Protestants as the norm for a common faith is a means of keeping the doors of communication open.
The apocryphal works enriches the lives of those who have access to that faith by bridging the gap between the ancient Hebrew writings and Christianity with the continuing faith fonJews of the Diaspora and Second Temple times. It is a good bridge to have. it is not however a bridge to Protestants. Sola sciptura on the other hand may be.
The whole point is to use the bridges that are there for us in order to reach out.