Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[Barney2.0]

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.

Most men were illiterate in those days, the majority of authority had its origins in oral tradition, Jews themselves did not use the Tanakh by itself as a rule and authority of the faith. The fact we now have scripture doesn’t mean we should use scripture alone for the faith.

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

Besides the Old Testament the early Church had no scripture the Gospels were for the most part orally taught until they were eventually written down in the mid or end of the first century. The early Church based most of its common everyday teachings on Jewish oral traditions and Apostolic tradition and scripture most likely became more widely used after most of it was written.

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

As common day Jews of the day they would memorize both oral tradition and scripture, yet it would be impossible for them to derive their teachings from scripture alone.

 

[redleghunter]

As common day Jews of the day they would memorize both oral tradition and scripture, yet it would be impossible for them to derive their teachings from scripture alone.

Apparently in their own writings they only taught and exhorted from what was written . Just like Jesus did. I already pointed out Luke 24.

 

[Barney2.0]

Apparently in their own writings they only taught and exhorted from what was written . Just like Jesus did. I already pointed out Luke 24.

They taught by what was written, that’s very different than saying they taught only by what was written.

 

[redleghunter]

They taught by what was written, that’s very different than saying they taught only by what was written.

Of course the apostles as directly taught by Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit proved their claims to truth by word, deed and Power (miracles). We know this because they actually wrote it down.

Having thousands of illiterate (in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) German barbarians come to Christ hearing the Gospel and hearing the words of Christ and His Apostles and not reading one book is what truly happened and still happens. However, as others have pointed out this Truth they hear by ear is what has been taught and was written. Luke 24 makes this clear. Jesus opened their minds and souls to the Holy Scriptures. And we see the Apostles actually do this in the NT history books and epistles.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Apparently in their own writings they only taught and exhorted from what was written . Just like Jesus did. I already pointed out Luke 24.

Protestantism claims we should follow the Jews and use their Masoretic (M) text.

If the Jews are such role models of righteous authority...

then why not admit the authority of Oral Torah, which the Jews meticulously record in their Talmud, because they view it as (essentially as) authoritative as Scripture itself ?

 

[redleghunter]

Protestantism claims we should follow the Jews and use their Masoretic (M) text.

If the Jews are such role models of righteous authority...

then why not admit the authority of Oral Torah, which the Jews meticulously record in their Talmud, because they view it as (essentially as) authoritative as Scripture itself ?

Probably because Jesus and His Apostles did not teach from the oral law.

Jesus did say "it is written" quite often.

Not to mention highly attested to in both the OT and NT

It is written

 

[Erik Nelson]

Probably because Jesus and His Apostles did not teach from the oral law.

Jesus did say "it is written" quite often.

Not to mention highly attested to in both the OT and NT

It is written

yes, and Jesus and the Apostles also taught from the LXX textual variants, not the M variants

 

[redleghunter]

yes, and Jesus and the Apostles also taught from the LXX textual variants, not the M variants

I would not doubt that as the NT was written in Koine Greek. Makes sense.

However, the DSS show the Masoretic Text was faithful as well.

Lawrence Schiffman of New York University, co-editor of Oxford’s ‘’Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls,’’ thinks that for Judaism, Ulrich’s theorizing is ‘’irrelevant. No other Bible besides the Masoretic Text has any authority.’’ He says flatly: ’’There’s nothing in the scrolls that could possibly have any interest’’ in terms of revising the biblical canon.p. Schiffman is an Orthodox layman, but says his attitude is shared by more liberal Jews. He sees the variant editions as an issue only in Christianity, where scholars try to reconstruct the best text from whatever source.p. In addition, he’s convinced the Bible Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries knew was Masoretic, substantially the same as ours.p. If the Masoretic version is the one and only true Old Testament, then the Dead Sea Scrolls are extremely good news for Bible believers, Jewish or Christian. The Masoretic manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls are astonishingly similar to the standard Hebrew texts 1,000 years later, proving that Jewish scribes were accurate in preserving and transmitting the Masoretic Scriptures.
"Dead Sea Scrolls" yield "major" questions in Old Testament understanding | News | Notre Dame News | University of Notre Dame​

Not seeing where your comment on the oral law has to do with comparing the LXX with the M texts. Plus the Talmud came long after 70AD and the end of 2nd Temple period.

 

[redleghunter]

yes, and Jesus and the Apostles also taught from the LXX textual variants, not the M variants

I guess the question is which LXX manuscript tradition did the Apostles quote from? I don't think even St Jerome knew and why he insisted on using the available Hebrew manuscripts of his time to translate the OT into Latin.

 

[Barney2.0]

Of course the apostles as directly taught by Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit proved their claims to truth by word, deed and Power (miracles). We know this because they actually wrote it down.

Having thousands of illiterate (in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) German barbarians come to Christ hearing the Gospel and hearing the words of Christ and His Apostles and not reading one book is what truly happened and still happens. However, as others have pointed out this Truth they hear by ear is what has been taught and was written. Luke 24 makes this clear. Jesus opened their minds and souls to the Holy Scriptures. And we see the Apostles actually do this in the NT history books and epistles.

It doesn’t mean the Apostles only taught according to scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

It doesn’t mean the Apostles only taught according to scripture.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Barney2.0]

Can you give me an example?

Can you give an example that they taught only according to scripture or held scripture as the only authority in matters of faith?

 

[Man on Fire]

Sola Scriptura is blinding.

Prophet Ezekiel was a Seer. He saw or had visions of the spiritual. In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel has a vision of angels. How do those angels work? What exactly do they do?

Angels have functions. Satan was known as an accuser. Arch Angel Michael was known as mankind's advocate. In Revelations 1/3 of the angels were kicked out of heaven. What did they do? What were their functions in heaven?

Context is important. Many people who support Sola Scriptura have taken the context out of how certain scriptures work. It may blind people to how God actually works, and what the spiritual is. It may have helped "occult" away certain knowledge.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Masoretic text is only relatively faithful. On important points relevant to Christians, it differs from citations and allusions we find in the New Testament, as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and Aramaic texts.

Of course a Jew would find the Masoretic text faithful, it contradicts nothing relevant to Jewish religion. But Christianity is not Judaism.

 

[Athanasius377]

you're favoring Josephus over Saint James the apostles

Um, actually I am not. This is a straw man. Josephus is a historical contemporary or at least within a decades or so of the Apostles. Since James and the other Apostles never directly address what constituted the books they consider the OT Scriptures it makes sense to see what other Jews thought was scripture. So to say that I am favoring Josephus over the Apostles is a straw man since it misrepresents what I said.

My issue in posting is the inclusion of the before mentioned disputed books and not the LXX itself. Yes, I realize it is that edition of the OT that is being quoted by the NT. Yes I understand that scholars believe that it represents an older textual tradition that the Masoretic text. The OP has to do with the inclusion of said books since he was alluding to 2 Macc chapter 12.

 

[Athanasius377]

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

um, ok.

 

[Athanasius377]

Besides the Old Testament the early Church had no scripture the Gospels were for the most part orally taught until they were eventually written down in the mid or end of the first century. The early Church based most of its common everyday teachings on Jewish oral traditions and Apostolic tradition and scripture most likely became more widely used after most of it was written.

No one is arguing against a period of time in which inscripturation was taking place. What we (Protestants) are arguing against is that unwritten tradition as it is now known is on the same level as Scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

Protestantism claims we should follow the Jews and use their Masoretic (M) text.

If the Jews are such role models of righteous authority...

then why not admit the authority of Oral Torah, which the Jews meticulously record in their Talmud, because they view it as (essentially as) authoritative as Scripture itself ?

You are confusing two issues here. First that Protestants should use the Masoretic text as the textual basis for the OT. That is not what we are saying at all. That is a separate issue. What are saying is that about a dozen or so books that were included in editions of the LXX are or are not Scripture.

The fact that some some Jews put the Tradition of the Elders on par with Scripture is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is what constitutes the OT canon and how do we know this?

Another point I would make is no one has tried to refute the obvious error the books themselves contain.