Did Jews follow "Sola Scriptura"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LuciusMaximus

Guest
The Christian denomination that I belong to follows a Sola Scriptura mindset: the Bible is the sole word of God, the highest authority, and nothing that is not plainly and explicitly taught in Scripture can be true (the Marian doctrines, communion of saints, purgatory, etc.) This is the root of most of the objections against Catholicism within my church. Naturally, it’s hard for me to break out of this mindset while exploring Catholicism.

I’ve been wondering, though - did the Jews themselves follow this kind of Sola Scriptura theology? I know there were a few different sects around the time of Jesus, such as the Pharisees, Sadduccess and Essenes. From what I’ve read, the Sadducees did basically follow Sola Scriptura (I could be wrong), but the others didn’t. That’s about the extent of my knowledge, but I am very interested in learning more.

My thought is that if the Jews themselves did not understand God’s revelation as coming solely through the written word, but following an oral tradition that was just as authoritative, why should it really be supposed that that’s what He intended for Christianity?
 
Last edited:
In Judaism (as in Christianity), Scripture takes the primary place because it is our record of God’s actions in the past. However, we know that the Jews did not limit themselves to just what was within those scrolls. From the Commandments of Moses, we know that the Jewish people began to observe 613 at some point, and what these were, were generally extensions of the 10 (but also interpretations of other commands and prohibitions). Just as we today try to apply the teachings of Jesus to our own lives, in responding to false teachings as well as measuring what our position should be on new things in the world (human cloning, stem cell research, etc.), the Jews wanted to know what they must and mustn’t do in all of the circumstances of their lives. Scripture was their resource for the past and their guide for the future, but because Scripture isn’t constantly being added to, something else is required for us to be able to judge on new things. In Christianity, that is the Magisterium.
 
From earlier threads on the same subject, I have the impression that it’s not even known for certain which books were already in the Jewish canon , in the time of Jesus. It may not have been until after the year 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Titus’ legions, that the rabbis settled the final canon in its present form.
 
From what I’ve read, there were some major differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in the afterlife, in angels, but they didn’t believe in sola scripture. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were the ones who believed in sola scripture.
 
Read Nehemiah 8:5-8. Ezra and the scribes had authority to interpret - authority from God. No writing can grant such authority. Even our Lord was found, at age 12, seated among the teachers and doctors of the law - not the street corner preacher who had his own ideas.
 
In short: no.

In the first century, there was no Jewish Canon in the sense that there is today. The Torah was, and is, the primary scripture, but there were a large number of “supplemental” books (the prophets, etc.). It was not until the second century that we can say there was a definitive Jewish Canon.

A good example of this would be the Essenes that you mentioned. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that had a large number of religious texts that were likely unique to them. There is no reason, in my mind, to think that other Jewish sects were not similar.

The same is true, incidentally, of Early Christians. For the first few centuries of Christianity there were local or regional books that remained unknown in other areas. Examples would be books such as the Gospel of Thomas, or the Hebrew Gospels. More widely known non-canonical Christian books would include the Gospel of James. For various reasons these all ended up being rejected by the Church and they mostly vanished into obscurity for centuries (except James, oddly enough, which remained at least somewhat well known throughout Christian history).
 
The Sadducees claimed to only accept the Pentateuch, not the prophets and writings (psalms). Pharisees followed all three divisions and developed the Oral Law…later written down…that expands on and interprets the written laws. It’s the old problem of a law states to honor the sabbath day and keep it holy. How is that done? The oral law explains this…it’s the catholic version of the Magesterium and Tradition. Catholicism developed out of Pharasitic Judaism more so than Sadducee and Essenes though you can find traits of those, too. Monasticism seems distantly related to Essenes. Any new religion develops from its roots. The Mass and an Orthodox service have some striking parallels. People have a culture of how they worship and any new faith emerging will pull worship elements from one into the other.

The closest to sola scriptura found in Judaism is probably the Sadducee but even they followed Tradition as well. The Protestant version is unlike any Jewish practice that we know of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Let’s keep it simple: Did Jesus teach that the faith - the New and eternal Covenant - should be propagated by consulting writings?

No.
 
No. The thing that gives me pause, besides that being the tradition handed on to me from my own church, is the number of times Jesus refers to what “is written”, along with Paul and the other writers. Although, that should be done for its own sake as the recognized Word of God, and they never said to only refer to what is written. I’ll definitely grant you that.

The other thing I worry about is the command to hold fast to tradition, whether oral or written (2 Thess. 2:15), might be taken out of context to assume that what was orally taught somehow included “extra-biblical” truths like the ones I mentioned earlier (Marian things, purgatory, communion of saints), even though we just don’t know, and used as a free pass on any random - possibly blasphemous - “truth” that crops up over the years.
 
If “Sola Scriptura” was intended to be the proper form of theological interpretation then how come Jesus didn’t write a single document during his life?

Because he knew interpretation was inherently flawed not because he couldn’t write something perfect, but because we ourselves are flawed (and make interpretations based on personal motives). That’s why he gave us the Apostles who were men who lived with him. That is why he made Peter the Rock and gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The keys are a reference to the authority of the King’s Steward back in the Old Testament. Whenever the King was temporarily gone or asleep (like Jesus is not present bodily with us now) the King’s Steward would open the gates to the Kingdom (whatever you open none shall shut and whatever you shut none shall open, etc.) He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against him (Peter and the Church of Christ) and that the Holy Spirit would lead them to Truth.

The Early Church Fathers are pretty clear on this. Here is a good website: https://www.churchfathers.org/
 
Thanks - I’ve been all over that website and it is one of the main reasons I’m practically dipping my toes in the Tiber. I’m really just rounding out my knowledge as best I can before considering jumping in.
 
I think It was Cardinal Newman who said “to be deep in history is to cease being protestant” (he was originally Anglican I believe.

the Great Cardinal Fulton Sheen once said “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

There is nothing wrong with discovering the truth and pursuing it. What is important is once you have found truth to decide to live it. My point with saying these things is that there is SO much misinformation out there about the Catholic Church which has been fostered by people who neither have the time to research nor have been exposed to what Catholics really believe. I don’t know your personal reservations for feeling a little hesitant for making the next step, but I truly believe that if people knew the shear magnitude of evidence in favor of the Catholic Church and were able to dispose of their false presuppositions about the Catholic faith then quite frankly Catholicism would be 1 of the 2 religions out there, next to atheism (because those who don’t want to believe are far different from those who don’t know what to believe).
 
Last edited:
LuciusMaximus said:
The thing that gives me pause, besides that being the tradition handed on to me from my own church, is the number of times Jesus refers to what “is written”, along with Paul and the other writers.
Click to expand...
Jesus repeatedly taught using the form “It is written that” …“but I say to you”.
It is written that you should love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemy. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who do you harm.
Jesus taught new things. Things not found in the Old Testament.

John 21: 25, Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Are we to think the early Church ignored all those other things? That nobody made any effort to perverse the memories? No. Sacred Tradition also preserves truths.
ColoradoCatholic said:
If “Sola Scriptura” was intended to be the proper form of theological interpretation then how come Jesus didn’t write a single document during his life?
Click to expand...
And why, when He gave the Apostles the Grreat Commission— go into all the world and make disciples-- why did He not tell them to bring copies of the Scriptures and teach from those?
 
Last edited:
Yet, that is Old Testament and used to convince doubters! He first used scripture against the devil! “IF you are son of God…” and the same was dais to Christ as He died on the cross “IF you are son if God…” and His reply was to quote the Psalms (2 and 30).

Doubters.

Examine the context. Those around Him doubted - doubted that He was the Messiah, doubted His learning, doubted His teaching authority, virtually everything about Him.

He had to use OT scripture to show that He was the long-awaited Messiah. Ever after, He sent Apostles to teach - this is explicit in the formation and function of the Church - and explicit in the scriptures that resulted from that Church. Church first, then scriptures. How many have this backward?

Nowhere and no one suggested easily twisted words on papyrus (no matter how inspired) as a “sole” anything. It was solely oral apostolic teaching. Saint Peter warned about the dangers of ego+scripture, both in 2 Peter 2:20 as well as 2 Peter 3:16. If we listen to the bible Christians posting here, neither of these passages applies to them! They apply only to those who disagree with therm - huge caution flag!

Read the Didache - written during the life of Saint John (and possibly others), for but one example. It describes the teaching and function of the early, Apostolic Church. Not a single peep about writing of any kind! Did it lament the lack of scriptures to hand out and argue over?

No! There was unity.

Not a jot of this is meant to undermine or diminish the scriptures - only to place them in proper usage, with proper interpretation, as the early Church intended. If we practice something - anything - that differs in teaching (or method of teaching) from the early Church, we have departed into novelty and that is very dangerous territory.
 
What do you make of 1 John 4:1, in which John says that many false prophets have gone out into the world - I’ve seen this used as an attack on Sacred Tradition, and how it shows that it’s possible that the church’s teachings could’ve been corrupted at the very outset, and that’s why we have Scripture to set the record straight. I wasn’t quite sure how to counter that argument when seeing it.

Aside from that, and this is totally a tangent: would that passage (telling us to test the spirits) along with Paul’s exhortation to disregard every Gospel other than the first one he preached, even if given by him or an angel, apply to things such as Marian apparitions? I’ve often wondered if these could be demons masquerading as Mary or other familiar things in order to twist the Gospel.
 
I would agree with both Cardinal Newman and Fulton Sheen on those accounts. What’s preventing me, along with familiar pressure, is the fact that I’m in a Pentecostal church that claims that the Holy Spirit is operating within the church (Assemblies of God). I’ve posted about this once before, but I’ve seen pretty convincing evidence that it’s the case.

The Azusa Street revival that started Pentecostalism is looked at as God’s doing, I guess to begin a reawakening of the Gospel Himself, and viewed in this light, it pretty much validates Pentecostalism - and even Protestantism to a degree (otherwise, why would He be doing that?) It’s hard to leave a church that has some palpable evidence of a modern-day origination from God. I realize it has no historical connection to the church founded in the New Testament other than using Scripture and trying to emulate the day of Pentecost and what’s found in 1 Corinthians. Trying to either discredit that through research (without "blaspheming the Holy Spirit), or justifying a move beyond that to another church, has been a difficult thing for me to do, mentally.
 
LuciusMaximus said:
I’ve been wondering, though - did the Jews themselves follow this kind of Sola Scriptura theology?
Click to expand...
Sola scriptura is not a theology. It is a hermeneutical principle.
po18guy said:
Read Nehemiah 8:5-8 . Ezra and the scribes had authority to interpret - authority from God. No writing can grant such authority. Even our Lord was found, at age 12, seated among the teachers and doctors of the law - not the street corner preacher who had his own ideas.
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
 
Right, I don’t know how long that movement has been going, on but do you really think that a church started 1500+ years after Jesus death is now suddenly the true church?

I know I don’t have to tell you this but guess what? Every. Single. Person. who starts his own religion because he had problems with his last church makes the claim that his church is the new church and that this is how God wanted things to be etc. Well, are you going to trust and commit to what Jesus said or are you going to say, um I’m uncomfortable with that because that’s not what I think it means. (And not specifically you)

You are absolutely right that it is hard to do. But maybe you should start bringing these questions up to your family/close ones. You don’t have to do this alone. The thing is, if that religion is the true religion that the questions you ask will have answers that make sense.

The Catholic Church’s unofficial motto is “Faith and Reason” and that second part is important. God wants you to have faith, but I’m almost positive He doesn’t want you to have blind faith.
 
But then John would be condemning himself and the other apostles! As to 1 John 4, which apostle, which pope, ever “dissolved” Christ? None. Which ever denied that He had come in the flesh? None.

You cannot separate this from Paul’s exhortation that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, or Christ’s teaching that the Church has final authority in all disputes. The reform has mandated the invention of a million excuses or reasons for division. Who is it that incites division? A good one to ponder. His first appearance was in Genesis 3.

The European rebellion effectively alleges that the gates of hell really did prevail against Christ’s Church. No, they were never so truthful as to say that, but they called the sitting Pope the antichrist - when did he ever deny Christ? Not a single one ever has or ever will.

No, the reform was driven by individual egos who would not humble themselves and obey. Take note that the Church was reformed from within - by the true heroes of the faith - who remained faithful, who suffered for their faith and who did not argue and divide, but united so that we might have the Church today.

Try to find a reform communion which today holds 100% to the founder’s beliefs. Good luck with that! The European “reform” introduced theological entropy into the faith.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top