I thought the same thing, considering the fact they didn’t even have a solid canon until after Christ’s ascension.I’m no expert, but all those prophets and revelations made ancient Judaism a fluid, changing faith. Sola Scriptura can only be plausible (even if still false) in a faith where the revelation has ceased. So it seems that in the period leading up to the coming of the Messiah, Judaism was the furthest thing from sola Scriptura possible.
as the reason to use only the first five books as Scripture. I think they rejected all development from that.You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
to reject Tradition.I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
I would tend to agree with this statement. I would also add that the oral Torah, especially prior to being committed to writing, made Judaism even more flueant and evolving. Judaism is a long conversation between sages of different centuries that really does not end. Scripture is the springboard, not the wall.I’m no expert, but all those prophets and revelations made ancient Judaism a fluid, changing faith. Sola Scriptura can only be plausible (even if still false) in a faith where the revelation has ceased. So it seems that in the period leading up to the coming of the Messiah, Judaism was the furthest thing from sola Scriptura possible.
I don’t think the Saducees rejected other books, such as prophets, psalms, etc., although they only considered the five books of moses as being authorative and they rejected (I think) the oral Torah. But other than the Karites, I don’t know of any tradition in Judaism that did not rely on the Tanakh and the Oral Torah.Note that the Saducees used Deuteronomy 4:2 as the reason to use only the first five books as Scripture. I think they rejected all development from that.
This seems to parallel those who use Revelation 22:18-19
to reject Tradition.
The Wisdom of the Rabbis
havurahshirhadash.org/wisdom.htmlHillel said, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor – that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof. Now, go and study it.”
Here is an excerpt to support my thinking on this matter; although I am not a scholar nor a professor of theology, I have studied: From evidence in the New Testament, it is obvious that the Jews had a canon—a group of accepted scriptures—that included the Law and the Prophets (see Matthew 5:17-18; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21). In one passage, Jesus mentioned the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms (part of the Writings) together (Luke 24:44), showing that at some point before the time of Christ, the Jews had codified a group of literature into Scripture. History supports this view. Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote (c. A.D. 90) of twenty-two books “which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine….” Five of these were written by Moses (the Torah), thirteen books were written between Moses and Artaxerxes, King of Persia (the Prophets and part of the Writings using a different order and enumeration), and four books contained hymns and moral precepts (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon) [Against Apion, 1:38-40]" apologeticspress.org/articles/1972Sometimes some Protestants try to defend their pillars of faith, mainly Sola Scriptura by saying that Jews have always done that. How true is that? I’m pretty sure it’s a crock, but some get emotional about it. This is especially a kind of thing that many Messianics I’ve talked to defend, thought I’m sure it’s not mainstream in their theology.
Thoughts?
In Pax Christi
Andrew