A simple, fundamental argument against hermeneutics

[IHeartAquinas]

In my ongoing dialogue with two Sola Scriptura non-denominational coworkers, we ended up in a (more than usual) heated debate that came down to hammering out the issue of Apostolic Tradition. We were originally going over a commentary I had written and then they had written notes (mostly “This isn’t biblical!” and “Wrong!” etc.), and the conversation kept coming back to Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition.

Finally, I uttered what I thought was going to end the dialogue altogether and was terrified that I had suddenly become polemical in my approach–something I never want to have happen. What I said was this:

“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, and therefore, hermeneutics is ultimately an invalid way of reading scripture.”

The response I received?

That they had never thought of it that way and could think of no way to refute that observation. I immediately jumped in trying to explain I wasn’t meaning to be polemic, but they were given reason to pause, and for the first time, I think, they had something they couldn’t refute with scripture alone. I find it strangely appropriate because I had just written (with help from the CAF members! ) A purely sola scriptura defense of utilizing the Church Fathers, which they also took home with them.

Though this is an exciting moment of evangelization, I am mostly concerned with bringing that argument to CAF because it’s a purely logical argument against Sola Scriptura that cannot be refuted utilizing Sola Scriptura. In fact, from a logic standpoint, it can’t be refuted at all. Not saying it’s the ace-in-the-hole against Sola Scriptura, but I think it’s an argument that we as Catholics need to be aware of simply because of the profound impact it had. My friends have my copy of my catechism and pages upon pages of Catholic theology and defense thereof, and it’s this one observation that I think had the greatest impact on them.

 

[reggieM]

Superb argument. It’s definitely irrefutable on logical and historical grounds. It’s also surprisingly simple for anyone who knows the complexity of translating different languages – not to speak of translating across centuries of time and the changes in culture that occur over time.

 

[Polycarp1]

“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, and therefore, hermeneutics is ultimately an invalid way of reading scripture.”.

My wife has a degree in Linguistics and you are absolutely right. The meaning of language can change very quickly. For example, today the Cree people of Canada cannot clearly understand the Cree language spoken only 150 years ago. They refer to it as high Cree and only the very old people and linquists can make sense of it. I love nautical fiction and I sometomes read english books written in the 1800s and they are difficult to understand unless you study the culture of the times. Many of the terms they used then, if still in use, have completely different meanings now.

 

[Contarini]

“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, and therefore, hermeneutics is ultimately an invalid way of reading scripture.”

I’m not sure what you mean by attacking “hermeneutics.” Hermeneutics just means your method of interpretation. I think what you mean is that no contemporary scholarly study of the text will give us a reliable interpretation? It’s certainly true that there will always be gaps in our knowledge. And any scholars worth their salt will look at early non-canonical writings (and Jewish and pagan texts of the same era) to help them interpret the NT text. But you can’t use this argument to give a carte blanche to the Fathers, precisely for the reason IHeartAquinas gave (though it was offered in support): language changes fast. We can’t be sure that someone like Ignatius is using language in the same way Paul did. We can’t even be sure that all the NT writers are using language in the same way. By the time we get to, say, the fourth century, the fact that someone like Chrysostom or Athanasius is using the same language as the NT writers may actually hurt them, because they would naturally assume that the language still meant the same things, and it might not.

I don’t think there’s any way around appealing to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to get the kind of confidence in Tradition that Catholicism requires.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

If this is true, than we are also unable to correctly interpret the Fathers.

 

[Contarini]

If this is true, than we are also unable to correctly interpret the Fathers.

Actually, if this is true, then only the modern Greek Orthodox can say what either the NT or the Fathers meant! So it’s not an argument Catholics should use. . . .

Jews and Aramaic-speaking Christians could also use this argument–indeed I’ve seen members of the “Church of the East” (traditionally labeled "Nestorian) use it to say that because they use the language of Jesus (actually a dubious claim) therefore they must have the purest understanding of the NT.

Edwin

 

[Jon_Hus]

If this is true, than we are also unable to correctly interpret the Fathers.

That’s exactly right.

 

[Nicea325]

In my ongoing dialogue with two Sola Scriptura non-denominational coworkers, we ended up in a (more than usual) heated debate that came down to hammering out the issue of Apostolic Tradition. We were originally going over a commentary I had written and then they had written notes (mostly “This isn’t biblical!” and “Wrong!” etc.), and the conversation kept coming back to Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition.

Finally, I uttered what I thought was going to end the dialogue altogether and was terrified that I had suddenly become polemical in my approach–something I never want to have happen. What I said was this:

“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, and therefore, hermeneutics is ultimately an invalid way of reading scripture.”

The response I received?

That they had never thought of it that way and could think of no way to refute that observation. I immediately jumped in trying to explain I wasn’t meaning to be polemic, but they were given reason to pause, and for the first time, I think, they had something they couldn’t refute with scripture alone. I find it strangely appropriate because I had just written (with help from the CAF members! ) A purely sola scriptura defense of utilizing the Church Fathers, which they also took home with them.

Though this is an exciting moment of evangelization, I am mostly concerned with bringing that argument to CAF because it’s a purely logical argument against Sola Scriptura that cannot be refuted utilizing Sola Scriptura. In fact, from a logic standpoint, it can’t be refuted at all. Not saying it’s the ace-in-the-hole against Sola Scriptura, but I think it’s an argument that we as Catholics need to be aware of simply because of the profound impact it had. My friends have my copy of my catechism and pages upon pages of Catholic theology and defense thereof, and it’s this one observation that I think had the greatest impact on them.

Well Sola Scriptura is also a tradition founded by men.What gets me how so many advocates of SS cannot acknowledge that they themselves follow all sorts of traditions.Furthermore, I have had many advocates of SS tell me the early church fathers believed and taught SS? Oh Really? Funny how not one advocate of SS has ever produced the overwhelming writings of any church father defending SS or let alone even entertain the notion.

 

[Big_Dummy]

With all respect your argument against hermeneutics is a poor one because:

Hermeneutics means the science of interpretation which includes studying the history, culture and languages of the scriptures. If you were to say that the earily church fathers were taught by the apostles or were at least taught by those who were taught by the apostles, then you would have an vaild argument.

hermeneutics ˌhɜːmɪˈnjuːtɪks]
n (functioning as singular)

1. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) the science of interpretation, esp of Scripture
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the branch of theology that deals with the principles and methodology of exegesis
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy
   a. the study and interpretation of human behaviour and social institutions
   b. (in existentialist thought) discussion of the purpose of life
   [from Greek hermēneutikos expert in interpretation, from hermēneuein to interpret, from hermēneus interpreter, of uncertain origin]
   Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

thefreedictionary.com/hermeneutics

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Grace perfects nature, an Aquinas-Scholastic determination that may also play a part in our reading of the scriptures. Contarini seems right in the need of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church has that guidance. Tradition though is that which was handed down and “that they may be one” is seemingly to indicate that all are one when they don’t go off the reservation of unified thought with the Holy See. God’s Grace leads individuals to this Tradition when they don’t turn away by rejecting it. All are one when they agree within that Catholic authority, although this is easier said than definitively defined.

In the Scholastic tradition of commentary, I see the Fathers as commenting on scripture, within that Sacred Tradition and within the times current to them. If we know that word meanings change then so did they and took that into account in that commentary with a very pious acceptance of Grace from the Holy Spirit.

We judge the past by what we know in the present but we may be seeing the wholesale rejecting of the Holy Spirit and grace today, leading to a view of scripture based on reason devoid of grace, as in the Jesus Seminar, search for the “Historical” Jesus, “Jesus as a Radical”, and literalism. Our view must not be influenced by this but it serves to make distinct the true Gospel by contrast. The light is made brighter in the darkness.

To pull this together, I would say that God’s Grace is needed for all man’s endeavors including hermeneutics. Most “Sola Scriptura” is personal interpretation within some sort of tradition, Baptist, Methodist, “Me, Myself, and I”, etc., with differing levels of rejection of the Church’s authoritative Traditional thought and I would think that this rejection is what Mr. IHeartAquinas’ well reasoned refutation of “Sola Scriptura” should, and would, lead to.

 

[reggieM]

On the responses starting “if this is true …”

It may be correct to point out that some consequences follow, but only after conceding that the first, most important consequence is …

… “then Sola Scriptura is false”.

That’s the proposal in this thread.

 

[Bluegoat]

On the responses starting “if this is true …”

It may be correct to point out that some consequences follow, but only after conceding that the first, most important consequence is …

… “then Sola Scriptura is false”.

That’s the proposal in this thread.

Yes, but what those posts were saying is the premise leads to ridiculous conclusions. It seems likely then that the premise is false, and proves nothing.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, but what those posts were saying is the premise leads to ridiculous conclusions. It seems likely then that the premise is false, and proves nothing.

Well I think there is a difference between the conclusions and the consequences.

The premise is that Sola Scriptura is flawed for reasons given. The conclusion is that Sola Scriptura is a false means of interpreting Scripture.

Now to say that there are consequences for that conclusion which affect Catholic theology is to open up a different argument and different topic. It’s not defending Sola Scriptura at all but shifting the argument. The fact is, Catholic theology has a different approach to Scriptural interpretation anyway – but that’s not the initial point raised.

The way to show that the premise and argument are wrong is to defend Sola Scriptura on its own merits.

In other words, the argument doesn’t follow to say:

“Since one also needs an understanding of language and culture to interpret the Fathers, therefore Sola Scriptura is correct”.

 

[Polycarp1]

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian
revelation. It’s doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian
revelation. It’s doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so.

The same arguement can be made about unwritten traditions and the very fact that there is no extant record would be a a good reason to reject it as authoritative when compared to the written word. Where did these traditions come from and how do you know that they are unchanged? These are questions that the individual must ask themselves as you have already done and are satisfied that the RCC has the correct answer, other are not so sure.

Individual soul liberty allows for this difference of opinion.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

f this is true, than we are also unable to correctly interpret the Fathers.

You do not need to ‘interpret’ them just as you do not need to ‘interpret’ a commentary on a novel written a hundred years ago.

Hermeneutics implies an ongoing, endless re-interpretation. For Catholics, the interpretation of scripture is primarily set in stone by big-T Tradition, handed down by the Apostles, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, etc.

The way to show that the premise and argument are wrong is to defend Sola Scriptura on its own merits.

Which one can not possibly do, as scripture itself contradicts Sola Scriptura. I utilized Sola Scriptura to defend Apostolic Tradition because I knew that we were coming from different sides of the fence with different foundations from which to argue (my non-denominationals and I) and I wanted to show that I could make an argument that they could absolutely understand. They cannot use Sola Scriptura to defend Sola Scriptura, for the simple reason of Phillip and the Ethiopian. Sola Scriptura is fundamentally wrong, and the science of hermeneutics is inherently flawed when applied to it. I don’t know of any Catholic theologian that proudly states “Catholics practice hermeneutics all the time!” the way that my non-denominational friends do. Personal interpretation is not verifiable against anything except that which is closest to the original source material–the Church Fathers.

If the Holy Spirit is essential to understanding scripture, and you verify your personal hermeneutic interpretation because you are “filled” with the Holy Spirit, then you fall into circular logic.

I’m reading scripture! Here’s what it means!
How do you know for sure?
Because I’m filled with the Holy Spirit.
How do you know?
Because I follow exactly what the Bible tells me to do.
How do you know you’re doing what the Bible really says?
Because I’m reading scripture! Here’s what it means!

One of the prime contradictory examples I gave was thus:

Church X: believes in Trinitarian God, salvation through grace, baptism, Sola Scriptura. Claims they are the sole truth and any other group are going to hell.

Church Y: believes in Trinitarian God, salvation through grace, baptism, Sola Scriptura. Claims they are the sole truth but other groups can find their way to heaven.

Both groups, by definition, HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. But they contradict each other on who goes to heaven. One of them, obviously, under the only verification Sola Scriptura has, must be lacking the Holy Spirit completely.

However, if they look at the Church Fathers, they can reconcile their deeply flawed interpretations with what is true, and come to realize that Apostolic Succession and the Tradition that carries with it is essential in recognizing the true Church. Then it becomes a matter of nailing down which Apostolic Tradition actually contains the fullness of faith, which, in reading what the Church Fathers have to say about the See of Peter, it’s obviously the Catholic Church.

Hermeneutics is a term invented by Protestants to explain their method of studying and interpreting the Bible. I understand that there are many dozens of different hermeneutics out there, but the different forms are moot for a Catholic. The entire system is invalidated because we have Tradition.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

The same arguement can be made about unwritten traditions and the very fact that there is no extant record would be a a good reason to reject it as authoritative when compared to the written word. Where did these traditions come from and how do you know that they are unchanged? These are questions that the individual must ask themselves as you have already done and are satisfied that the RCC has the correct answer, other are not so sure.

Individual soul liberty allows for this difference of opinion.

Actually, every tradition within the Catholic Church WAS written down. They were written by the Church Fathers, who, in answering early attacks against “non-scriptural” practices, were able to find ample support in Scripture for these traditions. The “argument” you posit is moot because the Catholic Church does not follow any traditions without a historical and scriptural basis to back it up.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Polemic is a valid form of rhetoric. It is constructing an argument that is directed at a particular point of view. In a sense, it is the opposite of an ad hominem attack. Jesus made use of polemic in a number of disputations with the Pharisees and the leadership of the Temple.

Now, as a Lutheran, I would make this polemic in reaction to your argument. A triangular argument is no better than a circular one, only more complicated. How do you justify Magisterium or Sacred Tradition but by quoting Scripture? Can you justify Scripture in the same manner? If not, then Scripture is the basis for the other two. Therefore, even your teaching relies on Sola Scripture, as it is the pre-eminent one of the three.

And after that, we could go out and have a beer, or as I usually do with my most frequent Catholic debator, drink some more of his wine, since he owns a vineyard and winery. “Le plus de boir est le vin libre” — My uncle Gerard in Burgundy.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Actually, every tradition within the Catholic Church WAS written down. They were written by the Church Fathers, who, in answering early attacks against “non-scriptural” practices, were able to find ample support in Scripture for these traditions. The “argument” you posit is moot because the Catholic Church does not follow any traditions without a historical and scriptural basis to back it up.

Yes, and for this reason, I purchased the complete 38 volumes of the ECFs and refer to them often. One thing that I have noticed is that it is easy to find one father who contradicts another father with respect to traditions outside of clear Biblical teaching.

It may be that this doesn’t concern you and this is your right however your decisions (practical as they may be) are not binding on others, especally those who dilligently search the scriptures for their spiritual guidence.

The other consideration is that the ECFs writings are not inspired. I see their writings as an indication of the spiritual condition of the particular writer at the time, or the spiritual condition of the subject of the writers letters, not the instruction of God. You may see it differently which is again your right.

take care,
Jon

 

[Bluegoat]

Well I think there is a difference between the conclusions and the consequences.

The premise is that Sola Scriptura is flawed for reasons given. The conclusion is that Sola Scriptura is a false means of interpreting Scripture.

Now to say that there are consequences for that conclusion which affect Catholic theology is to open up a different argument and different topic. It’s not defending Sola Scriptura at all but shifting the argument. The fact is, Catholic theology has a different approach to Scriptural interpretation anyway – but that’s not the initial point raised.

The way to show that the premise and argument are wrong is to defend Sola Scriptura on its own merits.

In other words, the argument doesn’t follow to say:

“Since one also needs an understanding of language and culture to interpret the Fathers, therefore Sola Scriptura is correct”.

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

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

He concludes that we therefore need the interpretation of the Fathers, who lived closer to the time the texts were written.

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!

Which would simply lead to the conclusion that there is no way to understand scripture at all, which I doubt the OP would agree with.

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

The only way to rehabilitate this would be to show that the Church can undersand despite language and usage changes. How would they do this - by the Holy Spirit.

But the advocate of Sola Scriptura would simply insist that the HS mediates through individuals, or Christians as a group, or the local Church, or whatever.

So you are back to the crux of the argument, and the idea in the OP has really not helped at all, one way or another.