Who originated sola Scriptura?

[Shibboleth]

I did bring in two man made works but only to use them as support or clarification. I mentioned Genesis and the Bible in my comment.

For the most part I am on your side, the words of Jesus did not fall out onto paper. The Holy Spirit kept them alive passing them on verbally until they were written down.

 

[martino]

Shibboleth, its important to remember that the Scriptures are not the product of the writers of Scripture writing down what they had heard as best that they could remember. This is what separates Scripture from the other books that you mentioned. It had nothing to do with memory or how well kept the oral teaching were. It was the Holy Spirit that moved the writers of Scripture to write what they wrote and nothing else.

 

[chris138]

It is my understanding that the church had many books to choose from when the canon was put together in the 4th century??? And that most people would not have had a copy until fairly recently when the printing press was invented(1440?). Not to mention most people could not read until recently, and while most can read here, there are still many people in other countries who can not read today. How are they saved in light of “sola scriptura?” chris

 

[Les_Richardson]

Aris:

Why are still so many convinced of Sola Scriptura?

Because they have never heard or read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. These writings are not commonly available to the ordinary man.

This was our connection to how the Apostles lived.

It was only through reading and researching that I came across these writings, in part my journey in the search for Truth.

In this case I think we can be thankful for the internet. Despite the plethora of garbage on the web, there are vast resources available too, thanks to the people and organizations who do the work of putting them up there.
That is how I discovered and studied the early church fathers, all in the public domain by the way, my eyes were opened and I had a sudden shift in my whole worldview. When I realized who and what the early church was I knew I had to be a Catholic, I could be nothing else and call myself Christian.

 

[Pax]

Shibboleth:

Inserting “alone” as you say did not come out of a void or frustration. He was following in the footsteps of other Catholic individuals before him, and I am not talking about “Huss”. His was a translation so he was not adding words to the original text, he was translating it in what he thought and others also that the passage was trying to state.”

Shibboleth,

A point of clarification is needed here. Please note that by the time Luther’s German New Testament appeared in 1522 there were 14 complete printed editions of the Catholic Bible in German. Parallel with this in time were 11 Italian translations, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Flemish, and 1 Russian.

None of these translations had the word “alone” inserted into the text of Romans as did Luther’s German translation. This was an outright attempt on Luther’s part to change the words of scripture. It’s one thing to believe that a verse means something by way of interpretation, but it is another thing entirely to deliberately change the words to suit your interpretation.

 

[Sirach14]

…" The ’ Bible alone’ theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only since the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a ’ tradition of men’ that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established ( Mk 7:1-8).’
( Pillar of Fire--Pillar of Truth. Pg. 12)

 

[Katholikos]

Melchior:

. . . So while I will agree that the Church put the Canon together it was the Apostles who gave us the Bible. Those who wrote the books and letters of the Bible gave it to us.
. . .

There was oral tradition but there was never a time where there was Sola Traditiana.

Mel

Although the “books” of the NT have existed since the day they were written (and copied), and they and many other writings were indeed circulated to the local Churches, no one knew definitively which were “Scripture” and which were not until the Church set the canon. For example, Clement I was accepted early on, but did not make the final cut. Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are included in Codex Sinaiticus. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed up until Council of Rome when the Church decided in their favor (Eusebius, History of the Church).

The Apostles wrote very little of the New Testament and St. Paul was not one of the Twelve. So to say that the “Apostles gave us the Bible” is not accurate. Most of the NT was written by disciples of the Apostles.

Oral tradition alone existed until the first letter of the NT was written (about A.D. 52), and continued to prevail until the NT writings were complete and canonized when the Church was about 400 years old. ***The Bible itself is oral tradition reduced to writing. Some of the Sacred Apostolic Traditions got written down and became Scripture and some did not. ***

It is true that Jesus and the Apostles gave us the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that the Catholic Church canonized and named the Old Testament at the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397 + 419), at the same time the NT was canonized and the Bible was formed.

The Bible as a complete entity was not available to the local Churches, and the Gospel was preached from oral tradition and was supplemented by the writings that were available.

“At first a local church would have only a few apostolic letters and perhaps one or two gospels.” Introduction to the New Testament, RSV.

JMJ Jay