Problems with (arguments against) Sola Scriptura

A portion of the Greek manuscript Codex Vaticanus containing 1 Esdras 2:1-8

Have been listening to the “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast series made available through Ancient Faith Radio. It is a series of lectures given by Father Andrew Damick at Saint Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in Emmaus Pennsylvania. It is largely a survey of Christian history and theology – comparing Orthodox Christian teaching to non-Orthodox teaching.

In the first podcast on the Classical Reformation he lists several problems with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone. The teaching that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

For a long time – perhaps since college – I have not subscribed to Sola Scriptura but something more like Prima Scriptura - Scripture First. The Bible is our primary authority for faith and practice. But we must interpret it. And so tradition and reason also guide how we understand Christian faith and practice – perhaps more precisely guide how we interpret the Bible which in turn determines what we profess and practice. In other words for years I have held to what is essentially the Anglican view. See Articles VI and VII of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

Some dear readers may quibble with this or that so far. This is a highly simplified presentation of the issue so far. And is background for what follows.

Father Damick addresses the relationship between Hebrew Bible and Greek Old Testament. Basically for centuries the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint was what Christians used. Not the Hebrew Bible. And Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers were wrong in several ways when they jettisoned the Greek Old Testament in favor of the Hebrew Bible.

• The Hebrew Bible is the product of the Jewish Council of Jamnia (90 AD) and was a reaction against Christian use of the Greek Old Testament. In other words Martin Luther used an anti-Christian canon to replace the traditional Greek Old Testament. (By the way there is some debate whether the Council of Jamnia actually took place.)
• Martin Luther was trying to get back to the source – perhaps continuing in the steps of Jerome. But the Hebrew Bible at the time of the Classical Reformation was based on manuscripts about 1000 years later than manuscripts for the Greek Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible is therefore in some sense less original than the Greek Old Testament.
• Even then the Hebrew Bible with which we are dealing is a consonantal text. There are different traditions concerning the vowels. The Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew Bible consonantal text is only one among several. Once again the Hebrew Bible is less original than the Greek Old Testament. Moreover since the consonantal text can be vocalized more than one way how can advocates of Sola Scriptura be sure that the Hebrew Bible they translate/interpret reflects the original reading (vocalization)?

It is possible I misunderstand some of these points.

The points concerning problems with Sola Scriptura are excellent. But I am less persuaded by the arguments for why the Greek Old Testament is more original(?) than the Hebrew Bible. (Trying to distinguish the Scripture issue from the academic questions.)

The point concerning the Council of Jamnia is a good one. I admit to having a bias for the Hebrew Bible partly because of my graduate studies and partly because many of my professors are Jewish. Eric Mason is a Baptist scholar of the New Testament – and a rising star in book of Hebrews studies – who once challenged me on this very point. Basically he said that the Greek Old Testament has more claim than the Hebrew Bible to be the Old Testament of the Christian church.

The manuscripts argument is weaker than it sounds. Just because the manuscripts for any given book x are later than for book y does not necessarily mean that x is less original than y. It fails to address the possibility that the Masoretic Text preserves – at least in its consonantal form – earlier readings than the Greek Septuagint. We could be dealing with the accident of discovery. Except for those books in the Greek Old Testament that were composed in Greek the Septuagint is a translation of a(?) Hebrew original. One must consider the possibility that Hebrew Bible we have today is closer to this Hebrew original. Frequently in the course of my graduate studies I came across articles demonstrating examples of how the Hebrew Bible preserves accurately an earlier/original reading that the Septuagint translators did not understand.

(And what do we do with the Qumran texts aka Dead Sea Scrolls? Granted that there are differences between biblical texts found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible – giving rise to several dissertations at Harvard University. We also need to consider Aramaic translations/interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.)

So the manuscript argument alone is not decisive. When the Septuagint diverges from the Masoretic Text – in meaning that is since the Septuagint is Greek and the Masoretic Text is Hebrew – one must make some minimal effort to show why the Septuagint reading is more original. Of course one could just as well argue the opposite – that we should make some minimal effort to show why the reading of the Masoretic Text is more original.

Different traditions regarding how to vocalize the Hebrew text. You do not need vowel pointing to have a pretty clear idea how to read the text. Just because you have a consonantal text does not mean you can insert any vowels you want. Otherwise speakers of Arabic would never be able to do something as simple as read a newspaper. And the different traditions do not – so far as I know – make much of a different in what the Hebrew text means. It is more correct to see the different traditions as different ways to pronounce the Hebrew text. But the meaning is still pretty much the same no matter which tradition one uses.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing with Father Damick. There was another Ancient Faith Radio podcast in which Father Thomas Hopko said something similar. Rather my intent was to use this opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the Greek Old Testament is indeed somehow more original than the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. But I am not sure that manuscripts and vocalization traditions are enough to establish that.