A simple, fundamental argument against hermeneutics

[reggieM]

The OP wants to show that the use of scripture alone is not enough to understand what scripture says.

I appreciate the clarification and it’s good to reframe the argument.

I would add more precision and say that scripture alone is not sufficient for a fully correct interpretation.

He points out that language changes mean it is impossible for us to get a solid idea of what they mean.

Here’s how I see it:

Look, we don’t have the writings of the first century. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John DID write their own gospels with their own hand, all we have are copies. Yes, these copies would have been meticulously copied to prevent error because of how important they were. But even the English translations, as good as they are, are difficult to understand at times because the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin used carry certain cultural connotations in their meaning that unless you actually live in that culture and understand the language in that particular way, you will not fundamentally understand what is being said. I am a student of Russian, and I understand far more culturally than I could ever explain properly to someone without any background in Russian, but I can at least offer some information. In this way, we rely on the Church Fathers because they did understand and speak these languages, and if they didn’t, they had access to people who did. Nobody today speaks these languages the way they were spoken at the time (ie, lived their lives speaking them). Sola Scriptura will always be flawed because of this,

I think the bolded phrase can help. The Fathers had access to those who knew even more than they did. As an analogy, we have the Catholic Tradition – where teachings are handed down in an unbroken linkage from the apostles.

The argument is directed at 21st century readers who would claim to have enough information to interpret scripture correctly through use of scripture alone - without any intermediary. So, jumping back (and over the Fathers) 21 centuries, with no additional support – in violation of the apostolic succession (so to speak) of the doctrines, supposedly gives the same certainty of interpretation as the body of teaching handed down (and made understandable for each successive generation) would offer.

This is like trying to understand the works of Shakespeare without knowing anything about Elizabethean England, or even of how the English of his day was used. Additional resources, beyond “Shaekspeare alone” are required. Commentators from the Elizabethean era who (if they existed) knew Shakespeare and could explain his motives and the world he lived in would have extremely high value in the interpretation of his work.

But we don’t go from 21st century to 16th century. Instead, we’re able to understand 19th century English easier than Shakespeare (take a sample of English written in the 1800’s for example). We also understand English from the 1700s better than of the 1600s – because we’re less far removed from it. We have national documents in America written in 18th century English, but none in Shakespearean. So, our commentary on the Declaration of Independence has that advantage over English-speakers of the 24th century (if any even exist).

But if his initial premise is true, it means that the Fathers commentaries would also be impossible for us to understand as their languages are also not the same ones used now!

If the teaching of the Fathers was handed down, just as they could “look back” to those who knew the apostles, then it could be very much correct that we can’t fully understand the Fathers using a 21st century perspective alone. The consensus of Fathers is authoritative (but not alone) because of their proximity to the events and the status given to them by the Early Church.

This line of argument says nothing about Sola Sriptura at all, unless you also want to admit the unreadability of the Fathers.

The Fathers give essential information on how the Scriptures were interpreted in the apostolic era.

The counter argument seems to be: The Fathers had no advantage in understanding over a 21st century person who reads the Bible alone.

So, why would the Fathers have an advantage in understanding correctly?

In part, because they lived in the culture and knew how the language was used, better than a 21st century person with nothing but the Scriptures (in translation) does.
They also knew the apostles or those who were taught by them.
They also lived in the very communities that received the Scriptures and later codified them.
They preserved and fought for the correct interpretations of those same Scriptures.

So, why does this give them an advantage and make their testimony necessary?

Witnesses that are closest to the event have greater authority. The Fathers were closer than we are.
Knowing how the language was actually used is more advantageous than not knowing.

Again, we don’t propose “the Fathers Alone” either, by jumping back 21 centuries to them with no intermediary handing down their doctrine (and translation of their language).

But the Fathers have an essential status that renders Sola Scriptura incomplete and inadequate.

 

[Polycarp1]

Christ established His church upon a foundation as solid as a rock, and declared that the gates of hell, or forces of evil, would not prevail against it. This implies the perpetual retention of the truth taught by Christ, forbidding its corruption. He commanded her to teach all nations, “all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Matt. XXVIII., 20. His presence guarantees that she will ever teach a doctrine identical With His own principles. He promised that the Holy Spirit would abide with the Church forever, undoubtedly a pledge of perpetual infallibility. Jn. XIV., 16. St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine by his words, “Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” I. Tim. III., 15. The early Fathers insist upon the infallibility of the Church, and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she could fail in her teaching of the truth; her very holiness forbids heresy; her catholicity demands expansion without loss of the self-same teaching; whilst her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine. Finally, if the Catholic Church be not infallible, then there is no Church on earth which is such as Christ predicted.