Currie's Argument Concerning Scriptural Authority

[Caedmon]

Grace and peace to all.

I’ve been reading David Currie’s excellent book, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. I would like to ask some questions here about chapter 2, concerning his arguments about scriptural authority.

He opens his argument by suggesting that “no one could have established or maintained Judaism in the way God desired from the data found only in the Bible”. He returns to this point repeatedly, and it appears to be the major premise of his argument. One of the questions I have for him is, “How do we know the way God desires something to be done if not from scripture?”

Currie (and others) assert, without sufficient cause as far as I can tell, that there was some necessary oral tradition in Judaism. I don’t see any good reasons to believe such a thing as opposed to the opposite claim, that no such oral traditions are essential.

Perhaps you can help.

Thank you.

 

[PhilVaz]

Caed << Currie (and others) assert, without sufficient cause as far as I can tell, that there was some necessary oral tradition in Judaism. I don’t see any good reasons to believe such a thing as opposed to the opposite claim, that no such oral traditions are essential. >>

Well apparently you’ve never read Not By Scripture Alone by Sungenis and company. You can try to explain the text below, a text brought up many times in the Sungenis book, and totally ignored in the 1100+ pages of the Webster/King Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith volumes, which is probably the most exhaustive defense of “sola scriptura.” If there is a “sola scriptura” response to this text, I would think Webster/King would have mentioned it. They ignored the text. Keith Mathison I think also ignores it. Here is the text (I’m not sure if Currie uses it in his book)

2 Chronicles 29:25

“He [King Hezekiah] then stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with harps and with lyres, according to the command of David and of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for the command was from the LORD through His prophets.” (NASB)

“And he [King Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.” (KJV)

“He [King Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the temple of the Lord with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the Lord through his prophets.” (NIV)

My commentary:

What we can conclude from this text is this:

(1) First, David, Gad, and Nathan were dead about 250 years at this point;

(2) Yet, they passed on a “commandment of the Lord” which was prescribed by God’s prophets on how worship was to be conducted in the temple;

(3) That prescription and commandment of the Lord is nowhere found in the Old Testament Scriptures.

So what we have here is a clear OT refutation of the Sola Scriptura principle. Other OT texts refer to the non-canonical written and non-inscripturated oral tradition of prophets and seers: 2 Chron 35:4; 9:29; 12:15; 33:18-19; 1 Sam 9:9; Isaiah 30:10; Jer 26:18; Zech 1:4-6; 7:7; 8:9; etc.

From an (unfinished) article I wrote Discussion on Sola Scriptura

As for your statement “no such oral traditions were essential” you mean essential to what? The above “commandment of the Lord through his prophets” passed on for at least 250 years by “oral tradition” was essential for worship. But it might not be essential for other things. The Liturgy in the Catholic Church was passed on similarly. While its there in “essential” form in St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), it also developed.

BTW, the first time I heard this text used in the context of a sola scriptura debate was by Gerry Matatics in his Feb 1992 KKLA debate with Greg Bahnsen, then Greg Krehbiel (evangelical at the time, now Catholic) picked it up later that year in a paper I think, then it found its way into the Sungenis book (1997). I think Matatics originated the argument from 2 Chron 29:25. Its a pretty good refutation of sola scriptura from the OT.

Phil P

 

[Exporter]

The old testament Jews did have an oral tradition. It was set to writing about 200 BC. I read this last week. I wish I had the reference. From memory I think the oral tradition is now called the Torah.

 

[mayra_hart]

i read his book an i found it so good. i learned a lot from him an sometimes his book help me with the different threads. iam a catholic but thank to him as well as scott hahn i know more of my faith now than i used to know.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Caedmon:

. . .

Currie (and others) assert, without sufficient cause as far as I can tell, that there was some necessary oral tradition in Judaism. I don’t see any good reasons to believe such a thing as opposed to the opposite claim, that no such oral traditions are essential.

Perhaps you can help.

Thank you.

I have been told, and it seems true, that oral traditions without a Magisterium tend to deteriorate. When the Temple was destroyed the Jews lost their Magisterium. Fearing, rightly, that their oral traditions would deteriorate through the coming ages, and believing them essential, the rabbis recorded as much of them as they could in the Talmud.