Sola Scriptura in the Old Testament?

Sola Scriptura in the Old Testament?

Sometimes Protestants will argue that the Old Testament presents, or at least implies, a Sola Scriptura epistemology.  We know that there were Scriptures in Old Testament times (like the Law of Moses), but we have no evidence, they say, of any infallible Tradition or infallible Magisterium.  When Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, and when the early Christians argued that Jesus was the Messiah, they appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures without any reference to any authoritative Tradition or Magisterium.  So it would seem, they say, that Sola Scriptura was the rule up to the time of Christ.

But this argument falls apart pretty quickly once we begin to look at it more closely.  For one thing, even if it were true that Sola Scriptura was the rule in Old Testament times, this would not prove that Sola Scriptura is meant to be the rule in Christian times.  There are many changes between the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations.  This is an important observation because, usually, the argument that the OT practiced Sola Scriptura is meant as part of a larger argument trying to establish that Sola Scriptura is the practice we should have today rather than the Catholic three-legged stool view of Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium.  But even if the Sola Scripturist could prove his case regarding the entire subject of this article, this would fall short of establishing the Protestant epistemology vs. the Catholic epistemology as being correct.

But another problem with the argument is that there is simply no evidence that Sola Scriptura was the rule in OT times, and there is a good deal of significant evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.  Old Testament Judaism existed a very long time ago, and there is a lot we don't know about it historically.  This can make it difficult to work out precisely how Scripture, Tradition, and authority worked in Old Testament times (or even in later times, such as during the days of Jesus).  Also, I am not an expert on ancient Judaism, so I have a lot to learn myself about what we do know about this subject.  But over the past few years, I have become impressed with some of the evidence pointing to a richer view of Tradition and Magisterium in ancient Judaism than I had ever thought about previously.  Perhaps one of the best ways to convey some of this is to construct a story illustrating a theory of authority from the earliest times of Judaism through the times of the early Church based on the evidence available (or at least the relevant evidence that I am aware of).  Some of this story seems pretty clear from the facts; other parts of it are a bit speculative and hypothetical, but plausible.  If someone wants to argue that Sola Scriptura was practiced in OT times, they will need to show that this rendition of events (as well as others which could be given) is not plausible or possible, and that they can construct a Sola-Scripturish account of OT epistemology that adequately accounts for all the facts.

So here's my narration:

Old Testament Times

In the earliest days of human history, judging from the early books of the Old Testament, there was no Scripture at all.  The laws of God, the truths of the faith, and the stories of God's interaction with the human race and with his people in history were passed down by means of unwritten Tradition.  This would apply to the whole period from the creation of the world, through the Fall, the Flood of Noah, the Tower of Babel, the lives of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's sons, etc.) through the days of Moses and the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai.  The giving of the Law appears to be the earliest example of God's Word being given by means of Scripture.

The Law was written, but it required interpretation and application.  God appointed a Magisterium to authoritatively interpret and apply the Law.

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.  (Deuteronomy 17:8-13; see also 31:9; 33:10; Jeremiah 18:18; Malachi 2:7; II Chronicles 19:8, 11; 31:4; etc.)

God appointed Moses, of course, as a prophet to teach his Word to the people.  And he also appointed regular interpreters and appliers of his Law to authoritatively interpret and apply it - a court made up of priests, Levites, and judges.  It is not up to the individual Israelite to interpret the Law for himself.  He must follow the authoritative Magisterium.  The rulings of the Magisterium will thus become a Tradition to be passed down alongside the written Law to provide an authoritative context for understanding and applying that Law.

God did not simply give his people in the Old Testament a single revelation at one time, but he continually sent new revelation to his people (Hebrews 1:1).  He did this through several means.  He gave Israel the Urim and the Thummim, which seem to have been some kind of supernatural means by which God would sometimes communicate with Israel (see here for more on this).  Especially, he sent prophets regularly who would give new revelation to his people.  Sometimes these prophets would add new information as to how Israel was to worship God.  (For example, David, as a prophet, revealed much about the plan for the Temple in Jerusalem and about the worship of the Temple, including lots of information about music that the Law of Moses said nothing about.)  These prophets seem to have been extraordinary, occasional messengers from God, in addition to the regular, ongoing interpreters of God's Law in the court of Levites, priests, and judges I mentioned earlier.  Israel was required to listen to both the ordinary and the extraordinary messengers of God.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.  (Deuteronomy 18:18-22)

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.  (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

God will send prophets regularly.  If they are true prophets, they are authoritative and must be followed.  If they are false prophets--that is, they claim to be messengers from God but aren't--they should be rejected.  But how are the people of God to know whether or not someone is a true prophet or a false prophet?  There are two tests.  If the prophet gives some supernatural sign, like foretelling the future, and his sign is proven false, he's a false prophet.  However, even if his sign comes true, it does not necessarily follow that he is a true prophet.  He must also not lead people astray to false religion.  A false prophet can have deceptive signs, at least to some degree.  (cf. Exodus 7:11, 22, etc.; Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 13:11-15.)  But if a person comes, claiming to be a prophet, and he both has supernatural signs that are fulfilled and also encourages the people to continue in the true religion, that person is to be accepted and followed as a prophet.

So there is this interplay between the ordinary interpreters of God's law and the extraordinary messengers of God.  The Old Testament is replete with condemnations for Israelite ordinary leaders who would not listen to the words of the prophets.  Sometimes the people of God will await prophets to tell them things the ordinary leaders cannot tell them.  (See, for example, 1 Maccabees 4:44-46.)

New Testament Times and the Pharisaic Tradition

This state of affairs continues throughout Old Testament history, all the way up to the time of Christ.  It is well known that during the time of Christ, the Jews are split into a few competing traditions--Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.  These disagreed with each other on a number of points, including authority.  Pharisees and Sadducees, for example, seem to have disagreed with each other concerning the canon of Scripture, the nature of the afterlife, the existence of angels, the resurrection, and apparently the authority of the Pharisaic Tradition.  The Pharisaic Tradition emphasized a three-legged stool of authority, including Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.  They held that, in addition to the written Word of God, there was an unwritten Tradition that was passed down from Moses to their own time, consisting of some things from Moses's time, as well as elements of interpretation of the Law that had been added authoritatively by the later teachers of the Law.  This Tradition was equal in authority to the written Scripture, because it was authorized by God and guided by him.  As for who the official, authoritative Magisterium is, they looked to the court made up of priests, Levites, and judges we mentioned earlier.  After the return from the Babylonian Captivity, we see this court renewed in the tradition of the scribes and rabbis starting with Ezra, who was priest and scribe.  (We can see Ezra acting as official interpreter of the Law in Nehemiah 8.)  The Pharisees saw their own Tradition as faithfully maintaining this authoritative Magisterial tradition.  In their view, then, Scripture is infallible, but there is also an infallibility granted by God to the authoritative Magisterium as they interpret and apply the Word of God in the unwritten Tradition.

Jesus seems to have accepted the Pharisaic Tradition.  There are lots of reasons to think this is the case.  For one thing, he seems to say so pretty much straight out in Matthew 23:1-3:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses's seat.  That is, they are heirs of Moses's authority.  Therefore, the people of God are obliged to follow their teachings.  Their teaching is authoritative.  And we see that wherever the Pharisaic Tradition disagrees with, for example, the Sadducees, Jesus and the early Christians go with the Pharisaic Tradition.  They agree with that Tradition about the canon of Scripture, the resurrection and the afterlife, the existence of angels, etc.  St. Paul calls himself a Pharisee both before and after becoming an apostle of Christ (Philippians 3:5; Acts 23:6).  The early Christians seem to have accepted some of the unwritten traditions of Judaism handed down outside of Scripture, such as the tradition of the rock following the people of Israel in the desert, Jannes and Jambres as the names of two of the Egyptian magicians of Pharaoh, stories about Moses's death and burial, prophecies from Enoch, etc. (see, for example, John 4:5-6; Luke 11:47; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Jude 1:14-16; Jude 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:8).

A question might arise at this point:  How can Jesus and his disciples have arisen within the Pharisaic Tradition, when Jesus spent so much time criticizing, attacking, and arguing with the Pharisees?  They seem like "bad guys" in the gospels.  Well, in-family disputes can often be more intense than out-of-family disputes.  When groups are more closely-related, oftentimes their conflicts are intensified.  The Pharisaic Tradition seems to have been a somewhat large tradition that wasn't entirely monolithic.  There was agreement on some core things, but there were lots of disagreements as well and different Pharisaic schools of thought and practice.  After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, all forms of Judaism pretty much died out except for two--the Christians and the more mainstream Pharisaic Tradition, which evolved into Rabbinic Judaism, or historic Orthodox Judaism.  Within Rabbinic literature, which itself arose out of the Pharisaic Tradition, we see criticisms of certain groups of Pharisees.  There is a well-known passage in the Mishnah which describes a "plague of Pharisees" who help bring destruction to Israel.  (See here and here.)  The commentary on this passage in the Talmud talks about seven different groups of Pharisees.  There are a couple different lists of these seven, and in both of these lists all or all but a couple of the types of Pharisees are criticized.  The criticisms in some cases echo criticisms Jesus made in the gospels--like accusations of avoiding doing good deeds by making up an excuse that some other commandment needs to be done, and doing good deeds ostentatiously in order to be praised by men.  So it seems that criticism of "Pharisees" is not something uncommon in the Pharisaic Tradition.

But didn't Jesus specifically criticize the Pharisees for passing down "traditions of men" without authority by means of which they would undercut obedience to the genuine Word of God?  Doesn't this imply that he rejected the whole Pharisaic concept of an authoritative Tradition outside of Scripture?  No, it doesn't necessarily imply that.  For one thing, Jesus did not make an argument rejecting Tradition as such in his arguments with the Pharisees.  He only objected to "traditions of men" put in opposition to the Word of God.  This does not rule out the possibility that he accepted a more fundamental concept of "Tradition" as having authority for interpreting the written Word.  It should also be noted that, in the Pharisaic Tradition, it seems that not all traditions were of equal weight.  The Jewish Encyclopedia's article on the "Oral Law" (in the section entitled "Contents of Oral Law") lays out eight different categories of traditions in the "oral" (that is, the unwritten) Tradition.  The first five of these categories have authority equal to the written Law, but the last three do not.  And there were arguments among schools of rabbis about some of the traditions.  It is quite natural, then, to see Jesus as opposing some of the Pharisees who were inventing man-made traditions and using them to trump the Word of God.  In doing this, Jesus was doing only what others in the Pharisaic Tradition commonly did as well.  So there is no need to read any of this as implying that Jesus rejected the whole, fundamental idea of "Tradition" in the Pharisaic Tradition.  Well then, why didn't Jesus refer to that Tradition in his teaching?  Why did he quote only the written Word?  Well, why should he have quoted traditional sources?  The main purpose of the unwritten Tradition--and this is true both for traditional Judaism as well as for later Catholic Christianity--is not to provide a host of new doctrines not found in Scripture.  Its purpose is primarily interpretive in nature.  It is not intended so much to add to the Scriptures as to provide an authoritative interpretive context for them.  So, in later Catholic tradition (from the early Church up to the present day), we find Catholic theologians often appealing to Scripture to show the foundation of their doctrines, but they understand the Scripture to be properly interpreted in the context of the Church's Tradition (rather than by means of individuals interpreting it for themselves in opposition to the Church's Tradition).  This sometimes confuses Protestants reading the Church Fathers.  The Fathers will say things that sound, to Protestant ears, somewhat Sola-Scripturish.  Protestants read their own epistemology into these quotations from the Fathers, because they are not used to thinking about an appeal to Scripture involving a broader trust in an interpretative tradition surrounding and contextualizing the Scriptures.  The same can be said for why Protestants tend to read Jesus as affirming Sola Scriptura in his arguments with the Pharisees, even though Jesus never articulates such a position.  (And the same thing happens with other parts of the New Testament as well.  See here for more on this.)  And in telling the people to follow the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-3), Jesus was in fact telling them to follow the ordinary Magisterial authority and Tradition along with the Scriptures.  Also, Jesus seems to have wanted to make a point of speaking in such a way as to indicate that he himself had the highest authority to interpret the will and the Word of God, even above the ordinary teachers appointed by God.  He was not simply another scribe or rabbi, but the very Word of God himself.  (Matthew 7:28-29:  "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.")  Therefore it is not surprising that he tended to use his own authority as his warrant for his teachings rather than appealing to the ordinary interpretive Magisterial authority.  He assumed the validity of that authority and explicitly commanded people to follow it, but he also emphasized his own transcendence of it.

The Transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament Dispensation

So, during the times of the Old Testament before Jesus came, there was an infallible Scripture (frequently being added to), and there was an infallible Tradition of interpretation and application of Scripture handed down by a God-guided and thus infallible Magisterium--the Levites, priests, judges, scribes, and rabbis, supplemented frequently by occasional prophets, rulings from the Urim and Thummim, etc.  The fundamental Tradition was infallible (and necessary to understand how to implement aspects of the written Law, how to understand various teachings, how to know which books were in the canon, etc.), but underneath that fundamental Tradition there were human traditions which were not infallible, and which could be erroneous and even contrary to the Word of God and which thus required opposition.

How do we understand the transition from this Old Testament system to the New Testament system of Jesus as the Messiah, head of the people of God, and under him apostles who represent him, who later appoint bishops to succeed them, headed by the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, etc.?  There is certainly a break that occurs here.  Jesus himself indicates a rough transition here in his Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46).  If the Old Testament people of God had leaders with infallible Magisterial authority, how could the early Christians have been justified in breaking away from this Magisterium and forming a new Magisterium under Christ?  Perhaps the answer is built into the very Old Testament system itself.  We've seen that the Magisterium of the Old Testament had two components to it--an ordinary component consisting of the regular court of interpretation of the Law, and an extraordinary and occasional component consisting of God's occasional messages to individuals, especially to prophets who would then speak the Word of the Lord to the people.  Both components were authoritative, and neither had authority to negate the other.  A prophet who negated the Law would be rejected as a false prophet by the very criteria of the Law.  Priests, Levites, judges, scribes, etc., who would reject the word of a proven prophet are condemned as well.  Also, we remember that, according to the Pharisaic Tradition, there was full authoritativeness and infallibility only with regard to the fundamental Tradition of the oral law; there was not infallibility or full authoritativeness with regard to all the traditions of the different groups and schools.

When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Old Testament signs for being a true prophet and, indeed, the Messiah.  He gave supernatural signs which came true and which showed he had supernatural power, and his message did not lead to provably false religion (that is, to anything that could be proved to be contrary to the previously-given Word of God).  There were those who accused him of false teaching and of blasphemy, but they could not prove their charges by reference to the Old Testament or to the fundamental, unanimous Tradition of the people of God.  So Jesus comes, providing sufficient evidence to warrant acceptance of himself and his message.  Some follow him, some don't.  From this point on, the Jewish people are divided over Christ, and the Pharasaic Tradition itself is divided over him, for many among the Pharisees follow Christ, while many others don't.  The Sanhedrin--which seems to have been something like the Jewish Supreme Court--rejected Christ, condemning him to death as a blasphemer.  But the decision was not unanimous, even though a majority of the Jewish leaders rejected Christ.  Nor could they justify their rejection of him, considering the signs he had done to show himself a true messenger from God whom they were thus bound to accept and follow.  And this was before his death.  After his death and resurrection, more and more evidence for Jesus's claims continued to be added.  So the rejection of Jesus by the majority of Jewish leaders cannot be established as having had infallible and authoritative Magisterial authority, even by Old Testament or Pharisaic standards.  Therefore, he should have been followed as a true prophet and as the Messiah, and he was fully authorized as such to judge the Jewish leaders and transfer authority from the Synagogue to the Church.  Just as God had the authority to institute the Law and to add to it and change it from time to time by means of his messengers (during Old Testament times), so God had authority to make the overall transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation, with all that that entailed, by means of his Son and his Son's apostles.

Conclusion

So there is no basis for claiming that a Sola Scriptura epistemology was operative in Old Testament times.  There is simply no evidence that requires such a position, and the existing evidence seems to point plausibly and with a significant degree of probability in the opposite direction.  There is also no basis for claiming that a Sola Scriptura epistemology was operative in New Testament times.  The New Testament never teaches Sola Scriptura, but instead presents a picture including authoritative Scripture, authoritative traditions passed down, and an authoritative Magisterium.  And the early as well as subsequent Christian (Catholic) Church after the time of the apostles did not teach Sola Scriptura either, but rather the same three-legged-stool epistemology of Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium.  (However, I cannot go into making further arguments for these things here, as it would take me beyond the scope of this particular article.  For some arguments relative to claims of Sola Scriptura in the New Testament, see here and here.  For relevant information having to do with the Church Fathers, see here, here, and here.  See here for a more general fictional debate between a Catholic and a Protestant on the merits of the two positions overall, involving a lot of discussion over the merits of the Catholic vs. the Protestant epistemology in Scripture and in Church history.  Also see here for a short, humorous, fictional dialogue showing what things would have been like if Sola Scriptura had been the practice of the Church during the time of the Book of Acts.)

For further reading (in addition to sites linked to in the midst of the article above), see here and here.