Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
If you believe this to be true, where in the Bible do you find it taught? Personally, I don't believe it's there. Yes, the Bible does say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." but that's not saying that the Bible is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. That's kind of like saying that "all grapes are fruit" is comparable to saying, "Grapes are the only fruit."
|
Hi Katzpur
Like you, I have deep reservations about the creation of the doctrine of "sola scriptura". This is partly because it is a theory which, in reality, is impossible to apply (at least I've never seen evidence of it).
As a historian, I see other problems with it. For examples :
1) Which Scriptures do we use as a source authority?
Do we use a “Modern” western bible or the Bible of the early Centuries (e.g. c. Sinaiticus). These are different in text and in canon.
If we use an ancient source text then Do we use the Samaritan pentateuch or the Masoretic pentateush or the Septuagint (the Dead Sea Scrolls versions of these books show readings from all of them)
If we chose a more "modern" bible, Do we use a version of a Protestant bible or a Catholic bible (as they differ in text and canon)?
Do we use a modern Western Bible with its 66 books or Eastern Orthodox such as the Ethiopic with its 81 books?
Do we use a modern Translation of or ancient language as our authoritative source?
If we use a modern translation, do we use a Literal or historical contextual translation?
Who decides which historical context? Which interpretation when context differs among translators? Do we use a Paraphrased bible and sacrifice readability for accuracy?
It all becomes very complicated historically
2)A comment on the problem of translation. 2 Tim 3:16 as an example.
I am not criticizing the reference to 2 Tim 3:16, but merely using it as an example of poor translation and translational difficulties scholars have pointed out for years.
Katzpur quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 as rendered by the King James Translators : "
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,..."
However, Scholars and Greek readers have long noted that this translation is incorrect and has multiple translational problems.
The source greek T.R. text is
“ Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,....” (The N.A. 27 critical and GN-4 only shows only two Greek variants to this verse, neither are important or relevant to my points)
Forum Greek readers will note
there is no verbs for the English words “is” nor for the word “given” that appear in the KJVs erroneous version of this text.
Regarding the lack of the verb for “is” :
While the source Greek lacks this verb, a translator
must make his best contextual guess and in this case placed "is" as a verb in his English translation. Such guesses must occur since the English translation requires some sort of a verb. I don’t think a translator is to be faulted for this specific guess.
However :
Regarding the addition of the word "given" :
There is NO verb in the Greek source text for the word “given” and none was needed to be added to the Greek source text.
It is unknown why the English word “given” was inappropriately added but it is obviously inappropriate for this word to appear in any authentic translation and this is why many of the later translations do not have this word in this verse (e.g. ASV, etc al).
The famous Dr. Adam Clarke (b 1762), speaking of 2 Tim 3:15 and 16 pointed out :
“This sentence is not well translated; the original (Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,....” should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.”
I agree with Dr. Clarke that the text in 2 Tim 3:16 should be rendered differently than it’s found in the King James. But I think his rendering is clumsy.
Clark renders it :
“Every writing divinely inspired is profitable…”
though I think :
“Every divinely inspired writing is profitable…” is better.
The second version above reads more logically and is more clear; more understandable and better reflects the way one speaks in vernacular english (and is thus a better translation).
Differences in word order is a common difference between Greek manuscripts, (partly because word order is not as important in Greek as it is in English) I’ve thought that perhaps Clarke was thinking "in greek mode" when he offered his correction to 2 Tim 3:16.
I disagree with Dr. Clarke in his opinion that the Christian Paul, in vs 16 is simply referring to the Jewish Old Testament.
I think Paul is saying just what the sentence seems to be saying.
“Every - divinely - inspired writing - is - profitable…”.
I believe Paul is purposefully contrasting the old testament (a specific set of writings) of verse 15 with EVERY writing (i.e. ANY writing that is inspired of God) in vs 16.
The source greek in the reference to the inspired Writings of verse 15 uses a significantly different term for the “writings”of vs 16.
"Γραμματα" is used in verse 15 versus "γραφη" (Graphe) in vs 16.
"Γραφε" was a much more generic term for many, many different types of “letters” and “writings” (If anyone needs examples of this point from ancient Greek papyral usage, let me know).
These two verses are not both referring to the same set of divinely inspired writings.
Verse 15 does seem to be referring to Old Testament writings (archives) and verse 16 is referring to the principle underlying the scriptures, i.e. divine inspiration, as the qualifying characteristic of “scripture”.
I believe that Paul is saying that it is not simply Old divinely inspired writings that have profit for learning, but that he is teaching that Divine Inspiration makes EVERY divinely inspired writing profitable.
This makes more sense in historical context.
This point was important to make to the early Judeo-Christians. Many early Christians did NOT immediately accept the new letters and writings of the apostles as “holy scripture” on the same basis as they had accepted the Old Testament.
For example, the apostolic Father Bishop Ignatius says
“For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ,...” (“the archives” are now called Old Testament) Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2.
This attitude that "old is better" is also reflected in other early Christian texts.
For example, In the diary of Vibia Perpetua (a Christian Convert from paganism - approx. 200 a.d.), the writer describing the diary makes the same point, that is, that later miracles and divine gifts are just as evidential in Perpetuas' day as they were at the time of Christ. The antiquity of a revelation does not bestow any additional value to divine revelation.
No one has actually ever seen anyone be able to use “sola scriptura” as a principle since all of us are biased and ignorant of original context and cannot help using our personal opinions and bias and personal characteristics in our interpretations. This affects translators as well.
For example, Martin Luther, when creating his wonderful and wildly popular first vernacular bible, changed the 10 commandments themselves due to his personal bias. His 1522 bible removed the second commandment altogether (the prohibition against graven images) due to his personal opinion..
This is why European protestants had a different set of 10 commandments than the Catholics had for a time. Luther simply felt that the prohibition against graven images was a “judishes sachenspiegel” (a law that applied to a special case involving the jews) and this is the reason he purposefully left this commandment out of the bible he created.
Luther then split the commandment involving coveting so that the number of commandments remained 10.
This is not meant as a deep criticism of Luther. All translators are like the rest of us. We all have bias and personal characteristics which affect our worldviews.
Another example of controversy Luther caused with his creation of his translation of his biblical text is when Luther added “allein” (eng "alone") to a verse in Romans to support his theory of being saved “through faith alone”, rather than “through faith” (durch glauben).
Thus, by adding a single word, Luther creates a New Theology theory of salvation by "faith alone" that may not have existed prior to adding it.
New religious theories and entire doctrines can originate by such simple origins.
My point is that all of us make these sorts of mistakes in “translation” and in “interpretation” and that we should not take our own interpretations too seriously but should have enough humility to realize that we have errors in our theological models.
No, I do not think "Sola Scriptura" works and I have never seen it in action nor have I ever met anyone who has seen it work.
I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful Katzpur
Clear
νενεφισιω
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
