The First Century Jews and Sola Scriptura

[TER]

Below is my meager attempt to explain to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters why the saints of the early Church did not hold to any beliefs of Sola Scriptura or predeterminism as expressed by some modern Protestants and Calvinists. What I have written below is the reasons why I do not ascribe to such beliefs as well as why neither the Churches which trace themselves back to the Apostles nor any of the earliest Christian leaders and writers (also known as the 'Church Fathers') do not ascribe to such doctrines as Sola Scriptura and predeterminism. In a few places, I have copied word for word from certain sources and these sources are listed at the end for reference. Also is included a short video. I hope and pray this is a satisfactory apology and that those who spend the time to read it go out and do their own research on it to confirm to themselves the things written below.

The First Century Jews and Sola Scriptura​

In the days of the Incarnation of the Word of God, it was a peculiar time in history. One also destined to be world changing according to the Prophets many centuries before who foretold of the coming of the Messiah. Even down to the very year was His coming predicted by Prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27) for such is the greatness of God.

In light of this knowledge and for other reasons, many messianic cults grew in those days, for the people knew a change was coming and were looking for divine assistance and for salvation. And the children of Israel needed it. Indeed, sitting in the throne as King of Israel was an usurper named King Herod, the half-Jew who was the puppet of Rome, and the first king of Israel not from the lineage of David since Solomon was born. The desolation in the state had been made complete, and the Jews were indeed slaves to a foreign power.

But that was merely a symptom of the greater tribulation, namely the corruption of what was once sacred. For in the days of Christ, rampant was the defilement of the Temple and the abuses in the priesthood and those given power and responsibility as leaders over others.

One such example is that the usurper Herod knew the people would not tolerate him serving as high priest in addition to being king (as had occurred in the past), so he began appointing high priests at his pleasure. Eusebius, in the 4th century wrote:

“When Herod was appointed king by the Romans, he no longer nominated the chief priests from the ancient lineage, but conferred the honour upon certain obscure individuals. . . . Herod was the first that locked up the sacred vesture of the high priest, and having secured it under his own private seal, no longer permitted the high priests to have it at their disposal. (Ecclesiastical History p. 31, ch. VI, pop. ed.)”

Herod's decision to appoint the high priest had a major impact on the operation of the Temple. British historian Paul Johnson writes:

“By downgrading the importance of the high-priest, a hated Sadducee, Herod automatically raised in importance his deputy, the segan, a Pharisee, who got control over all the regular Temple functions and ensured that even the Sadducee high-priests performed the liturgy in a Pharisaical manner.” (pp. 117-118, A History Of The Jews)

The harmony and the link between the people Israel and God was defiled to the core, politically but even worse with regards to their worship of God, and all on account of pride and all the passions and sins that stem from it. Similarly, the corruption of the general populous was also as bad as the leaders who ruled over them.

In those days, there were three traditions of the Jews, namely the Essenes, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Much can be learned about studying these three traditions which can give us insight into the life and worship of the early Church. And by learning the life and the worship of the early Church, we might better understand the Christian faith as lived, taught, and died for by the Apostles.

* * *​

So to start off, we look at the Essenes who held certain radical beliefs. They were an interesting sect though never mentioned once in the New Testaments. The information about them is provided by Philo and Josephus as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls which they hid, and this sect is described as having adopted a number of strikingly different practices and beliefs from the greater majority of Jews. This can also be seen in how they lived. They formed monastic type communities with communal property with an emphasis on community-focused activities. Their lives were ascetic, with much fasting and controlling of the passions and many remained unwed and as life-long virgins. They had strong views and beliefs with regards to the spirit and the spiritual realm of angels and they were highly apocalyptic, believing the Prophets were referring to their times and that they lived in the end times. They taught about an Armageddon-like end of the world conflict, indeed, the ancient roots of premillennialism.

The Essenes​

The Essenes (like the Pharisees and the early Church), believed in life after bodily death. This differed from the Sadducees who did not believe in either a spiritual realm of angels or of any life after death. The Essenes did not believe in a bodily resurrection however as the Pharisees did and the early Church did, but rather an eternal spiritual life after death. The Essenes also held the radical belief that men had no free will at all and that everything in life was strongly deterministic, ascribing everything according to its determination by the divine and that fate governs all things. This differed from the other two sects and later what the early Church believed.

The Sadducees, in complete contradiction to the extreme view of predeterminism of the Essenes, believed in absolute and total free will in man where God is neither personal nor involved (in fact, they were the Deists of their day). This also differed from what the Pharisees (as well as the early Church) believed which was rather a synergism where God is the ultimate authority over our destiny but that we are given freedom to choose or deny Him and to play an important role in our salvation.

When it came to religious authority, the Essenes ascribed to the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ who was a rabbi who was sole authority of the teachings about God in this world, a sort of divinely inspirited leader. Interestingly, 100 years before Christ, an Essene messianic figure name Judah arose and the Essenes held him as the ultimate authority of the law of God and the Scriptures. He was killed by the religious authorities and before his death said he would return in 40 years but never did. Christ, in contrast, returned three days later risen from the dead and in a resurrected body just as He said He would.

As for the Sadducees, the authority lay all upon the priests and the Temple to be the ultimate authorities of all matters of faith. This was beneficial to them because the majority of them were the elitists and upper echelon of powerful families, members of the Jewish aristocracy who had embraced hellinism, and they favored the status quo and the interests of the governing class. Though they were a small minority of the people, through becoming high level officials, they grew into a strong political power (not unlike the plutocrats we see in our day). And just as happens today in the political world, the general population of the people despised them.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states the following about the motivation of the Sadducees:

As a result of their high social status the Sadducees were dominated by political interests, and in these areas they were rigidly conservative, it naturally being in their best interest to maintain the status quo. Maintaining the status quo necessarily entailed collaboration with the Roman occupiers, by whom their power was delegated, and for this self-serving policy the masses despised the Sadducees. (p. 279, vol. 4, "Sadducees")

The Sadducees​

They were the Hellenistic liberals of their days and full deists and on account of their willingness to judge offenders of the law (especially against other Jews), they became leaders of the Temple and eventually the majority in the Sanhedrin. They become competitors and enemies to the Pharisees, and they believed only in the written law of the Torah, as it was written. In fact, they were literalists and denied any kind of traditional oral teachings or interpretations but simply what the literal word written down said. They premeditated the Sola Scriptura movement which would develop 1600 years later in the Christian Church by denying anything as authoritative other then the written law. This differed significantly with the Pharisees which like the early Church held the Two Fold authority of the Torah and of the Oral Law. For the Pharisees considered their Oral Tradition as completely binding, having derived from Sinai no less than the Written Law.

Paul Johnson describes this "oral law" of the Pharisees as follows:

They followed ancient traditions inspired by an obscure text in Deuteronomy, "put it in their mouths", that God had given Moses, in addition to the written Law, an Oral Law, by which learned elders could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it possible for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a realistic manner. (p. 106, A History Of The Jews)

Dr. Brad Young, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes of the oral law:

The Oral Torah clarified obscure points in the written Torah, thus enabling the people to satisfy its requirements. If the Scriptures prohibit work on the Sabbath, one must interpret and define the meaning of work in order to fulfill the divine will. Why is there a need for an oral law? The answer is quite simple: Because we have a written one. The written record of the Bible should be interpreted properly by the Oral Torah in order to give it fresh life and meaning in daily practice. . . . Moreover, it should be remembered that the Oral Torah was not a rigid legalistic code dominated by one single interpretation. The oral tradition allowed a certain amount of latitude and flexibility. In fact, the open forum of the Oral Torah invited vigorous debate and even encouraged diversity of thought and imaginative creativity. Clearly, some legal authorities were more strict than others, but all recognized that the Sabbath had to be observed. (p. 105, Jesus the Jewish Theologian)

The Sadducees, however, considered only the Torah as authoritative and that their exegetically derived traditions were ad hoc decisions commanding no authoritative value over and above their original intent and context. They were the 'Sola Scriptura' believers of the day.

It was those same Sadducees who indicted Christ and sent Him off to be crucified. They also became the group of Jews which most viciously attacked the early Church (Acts 4:1).

Along with the priests and the captain of the temple they arrested Peter and John and put them in prison. A little later, they arrested all the apostles and took counsel to slay them (Acts 5:17, 33). Their hostile attitude persisted throughout the rest of the Acts of the Apostles. They were the ones who called for the stoning of St. Stephen and according to Josephus responsible for the death of St. James, the brother of the Lord (p. 743, “Sadducees”). They differed from the Pharisees in certain ways which should be further elaborated.

While the leaders of the Pharisees considered Christ as their adversary, not all their interactions were indeed hostile. Pharisees asked him to dine with them on occasion (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), and Christ was warned of danger by some Pharisees (Luke 13:31). Additionally, it appears that some of the Pharisees (including St. Nicodemus) believed in him, although they did so secretly because of the animosity of their leaders toward Jesus.

Christ as a child teaching the Pharisees​

Whereas there is no record of a Sadducee being admitted into the Christian Church in the whole of the New Testament, this is in contrast with the Pharisees where the New Testament records that there were Pharisaic Christians in the early Church. Acts 15:5 shows some of the Pharisees who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah voicing their opinion on the circumcision question. Some commentators believe that the zealous Jews mentioned in Acts 21:20 were actually Christian Pharisees. And Pharisaic scribes on the Sanhedrin council stood up for the Apostle Paul when he was brought before them in 58 AD (Acts 23:9).

In fact, the man responsible for writing more of the New Testament than anyone else was unquestionably a member of the sect of the Pharisees. St. Paul affirms his affiliation in several places. In Acts 22:3, Paul states that he was a Jew brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, a leading Pharisee who had intervened for Peter and the apostles soon after the beginning of the Church (Acts 5:33-39).

In Acts 23:6, St. Paul publicly declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). It is very telling that more than twenty years after his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul still claims to be a Pharisee. This alone should be proof that, on a basic level, Pharisaism and Christianity did not conflict.

Regarding Paul's speech before the Sanhedrin, St. Luke depicts "Christianity and Pharisaism as natural allies, hence the direct continuity between the Pharisaic branch of Judaism and Christianity. The link is expressed directly in Paul's own testimony: he is (now) a Pharisee, with a Pharisaic heritage (23:6). His Pharisaic loyalty is a present commitment, not a recently jettisoned stage of his religious past (cf. Phil 3:5-9). His Christian proclamation of a risen Lord, and by implication, of a risen humanity (Acts 23:6), represents a particular, but defensible, form of Pharisaic theology " (p. 1111, Harper's Bible Commentary).

In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was "concerning the Law, a Pharisee." In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was "concerning the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless."

Regarding Paul's exultation in this Scripture, the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters says:

As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression 'as to the Law a Pharisee' refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law. (p. 504, "Jew, Paul the")

For Jesus Himself said:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (Matthew 23:2)

BUT WAIT! DIDN'T JESUS ACCUSE THE PHARISEES! DIDN'T HE REPRIMAND THEM!!

Concerning the primary cause of this conflict, Dr. Brad Young writes:

Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus' controversial ministry. Jesus' conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites . . . (p. 100, Jesus the Jewish Theologian)

Jesus strongly and frequently condemned the Pharisees for being self-righteous and hypocritical. Does this mean that all Pharisees at the time of Christ were self-righteous hypocrites? Regarding this question, Dr. Brad Young writes:

A Pharisee in the mind of the people of the period was far different from popular conceptions of a Pharisee in modern times . . . The image of the Pharisee in early Jewish thought was not primarily one of self-righteous hypocrisy . . . The Pharisee represents piety and holiness. . . . The very mention of a Pharisee evoked an image of righteousness . . . (Ibid., pp. 184, 188)

Dr. Young continues:

While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem . . . The rabbis offered nearly identical criticisms against those who teach but do not practice . . . Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity . . . The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought . . . (Ibid., pp. 184, 187, 188)

Addressing the character of the Pharisees, researcher John D. Keyser writes the following:

"As a result of the harsh portrayal in the New Testament of these teachers of Jewish law, the very name Pharisee has become synonymous with hypocrisy and self-righteousness."

He goes on to say that many modern scholars "have failed to realize that the Pharisaic religion was divided into TWO SEPARATE SCHOOLS - the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The group that Christ continually took to task in the New Testament was apparently the School of Shammai - a faction that was very rigid and unforgiving in their outlook" (p. 1, "Dead Sea Scrolls Prove Pharisees Controlled Temple Ritual!").

The formal end of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees came after the Romans quelled the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Pharisaism gradually died out. But the basic Pharisaic tenets lived on in an altered form, that of rabbinic Judaism. It also lived on in the early Church and in the basic tenets of Christian theology which shared many of the core beliefs of the Pharisees, namely with regards to the authority of the Oral Tradition with the Written Tradition, the belief in angels and demons and the spiritual world, the notion of our salvation being accomplished in synergy with God's will in conjunction with our free will, and the belief that while our ultimate destiny will be accomplished by God and is known by God Who is outside of time we will all be rewarded or punished according to our deeds and works and actions in this life. These were the beliefs of the early Christians and why St. Paul said 20 years after his conversion "I am a Pharisee" because while he rightfully casted away the hypocrisy and the prejudice and the more harmful traditions that had corrupted the faithful, he maintained those core beliefs which defined the Christian faith in many of its fundamental theological beliefs.

With regards to the Sadducees, with the Temple destroyed and the support of the Romans withdrawn, the Sadducees ceased to exist as a party. Some of their teachings listed above such as the idea of the written law as the sole authority would not arise again in the life of the Christian Church until 1600 years and be in contradiction to the Apostolic faith of the Christian Church since the earliest days of it existence.

​

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/pse.html

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/his...udaisms/Pharisees_Sadducees_Essenes.shtml?p=1

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Pharisees-Sadducees

 

[jmdrake]

Interesting read. But to me it underscores the danger of putting humans over other humans in spiritual matters and especially when the state gets invoked. The whole mess started, according to your article, when Herod picked his own high priest. Sounds like Constantine meddling with the church and persecuting dissenters to me. Also the article hold up the Pharisee practice of specifying how to keep the Sabbath through oral tradition as a good thing. But Jesus specifically criticized that by saying they had made the Sabbath a burden. And this is what Jesus said about their traditions.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matthew 15:1-9 ESV)

I don't want my worship to be in vain. It's great learning about church history. But I don't believe in putting burdens on my fellow man that I cannot support by written scripture. The Pharisees did that. Yes some of them joined the early church. And there was conflict between them and Paul as to what burdens to put on the new believers. And yes Paul did still acknowledge his pharisiac heritage and sometimes used it to his advantage. But he seemed worlds apart from it theologically.

Question though. What doctrine is missing from the Protestant Bible that you find essential for salvation? And how do you interpret Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 which both say that under the new covenant God will write the law on our hearts so that ultimately we won't need to teach each other because we will all know The Lord?

 

[TER]

Interesting read. But to me it underscores the danger of putting humans over other humans in spiritual matters and especially when the state gets invoked. The whole mess started, according to your article, when Herod picked his own high priest. Sounds like Constantine meddling with the church and persecuting dissenters to me. Also the article hold up the Pharisee practice of specifying how to keep the Sabbath through oral tradition as a good thing. But Jesus specifically criticized that by saying they had made the Sabbath a burden. And this is what Jesus said about their tradition....

....I don't want my worship to be in vain. It's great learning about church history. But I don't believe in putting burdens on my fellow man that I cannot support by written scripture. The Pharisees did that.

Jmdrake, Christ never criticized the Pharisees for having traditions, indeed He affirmed their traditions and lived by them, following the rituals and customs of the Jews. He even went so far as to say that they spoke in the seat of Moses, in other words, that their status as teachers and interpreters of Law through their oral traditions were authoritative and indeed that the Jews should 'practice and do everything they say'. What they shouldn't do, however, is to follow them and imitate them in their hypocrisy. For Christ did not tell them not to follow the traditions handed down to them, but rather not to follow them hypocritically and at the same time break the Commandments of The Lord.

The burdens the Pharisees placed was unfair to the laypeople because they themselves (the Pharisees) were sinners as well, though in their pride they failed to acknowledge this and thus show appropriate mercy. It is quite apparent that what Christ rallied against was the hypocrisy and the abuses and not the fundamental Pharasiacal doctrines and traditions they taught. Rather, how they carried out these traditions is what He rightfully scrutinized.

The point of this thread then is to show the continuity in relationship of certain beliefs of the Pharisees with the teachings of Christ and how they shared much in common with the earliest Christians doctrines of the faith. In addition, that these beliefs were in stark contrast to the Sadducees views of Scripture as the sole authority as well as the Essene view of predeterminism.

 

[jmdrake]

TER, sorry but I just directly quoted to you where Jesus specifically criticized the Pharisees for using their tradition to set aside the law, namely the 5th commandment. Also Jesus said their worship was in vain for teaching other men to follow the command of men as if they were doctrine. So yes, Jesus did criticize their traditions. And He also criticized their hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with tradition as long as it neither puts aside a clear command of God nor puts on your fellow man some new burden that God doesn't require. For example, Thanksgiving is a fine American tradition that many give religious significance. But if someone doesn't observe it I don't hold that against them. Speaking of Thanksgiving I've been seeing a lot of wild turkeys in my area and I'm getting pretty good with a bow and arrow.

 

[moostraks]

Interesting read. I believe that the traditions are important for those who grasp the value behind them. Some of them can become a hindrance when it leads the heart astray due to strict legalism. So one should always keep aware of the why of what they are doing. It is usually the converts who get this while a cradle believer seems to just go with the routine.

Now having said that, seeing others who rely on their own understanding and puff themselves up on their beliefs is rather comical while at the same time horrifying when you see them misinterpret what others here say to them. It requires one to believe they have an infallible reading comprehension and infallible historical understanding to go this route. I think this was an admirable leap of faith on the believers who sought to bring Love back to their worship, but has resulted in a tangled mess for those seeking to know the Truth.

 

[TER]

TER, sorry but I just directly quoted to you where Jesus specifically criticized the Pharisees for using their tradition to set aside the law, namely the 5th commandment. Also Jesus said their worship was in vain for teaching other men to follow the command of men as if they were doctrine. So yes, Jesus did criticize their traditions. And He also criticized their hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with tradition as long as it neither puts aside a clear command of God nor puts on your fellow man some new burden that God doesn't require. For example, Thanksgiving is a fine American tradition that many give religious significance. But if someone doesn't observe it I don't hold that against them. Speaking of Thanksgiving I've been seeing a lot of wild turkeys in my area and I'm getting pretty good with a bow and arrow.

Be careful you don't shoot your eye out!

But what you say is correct. Traditions are not in themselves bad as long as they are not against the commandments of God or done hypocritically as to add unfair burdens on others. This is what Christ taught in the Gospels.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm reading through your article describing 1st century Jewish thought about predestination and election, yet I see no discussion about Paul's (a first century Jew) very clear presentation of it in the books of Romans, Ephesians, Timothy, and Corinthians.

How am I supposed to take this seriously?????

What did PAUL say, TER? That is what matters in this discussion.

 

[TER]

I'm reading through your article describing 1st century Jewish thought about predestination and election, yet I see no discussion about Paul's (a first century Jew) very clear presentation of it in the books of Romans, Ephesians, Timothy, and Corinthians.

How am I supposed to take this seriously?????

What did PAUL say, TER? That is what matters in this discussion.

Sola, many things matter in this discussion, such as historical facts and correct interpretations of what has happened or has already been written. We should not blind ourselves to certain important facts simply because we don't like to hear about them. Whether you take the OP seriously or not is up to you. I wrote it in order to share something some may not have known or been introduced to in the past. I myself have only recently learned about these things in these past few days and my intention is to share it with my friends here so they might better worship and glorify God.

But before this thread moves into a discussion regarding the early Church's interpretation and understanding of predestination and election (which btw does not affect the sovereignty of God nor negate our synergism in salvation and our gift of free will, something already touched on in the thread called 'The Early Church Fathers and Free Will), why don't we further discuss the title of this thread which is with regards to Sola Scriptura and it's absence and denial in the theology of the Pharisaical sect of Judaism and later in the teachings of St. Paul and of the early Church.

 

[TER]

​

I would disagree with his statement about St. John the Baptist being an Essene which has been proposed by certain historians simply on account of St. John being an ascetic and nothing else. This is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church which is more reliable and accurate. The rest of the video however gives a nice short explanation of what the Pharisees believed was the way to salvation which is found also in the fundamental teachings espoused by Christ and the early Church.

 

[TER]

Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were much more “heretical.” They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, etc. The Sadducees were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees were regarded as heretics by other Jews. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many books that emphasize this point - the Dead Sea Scrolls are largely a collection of polemics against the Sadducees. This is because the Sadducees rejected all authoritative oral teaching, and radically believed in Sola Scriptura. So neither the (orthodox) Old Testament Judaism nor the early Church was guided by the principle of Sola Scriptura. The Pharisees (despite the corruptions and excesses of a few of them) were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this.

Many Protestants appeal to the Old Testament to “prove” their nonexistent case. Their hidden, unspoken, and false assumption is that the Jews of that period accepted Sola Scriptura as they do. But they did not. And this fact is clearly attested by reputable Protestant scholarly sources, for example [Myers, Tradition, pages 1014-1015]:

Because oral communication was more significant in biblical than in modern societies, oral tradition in the form of standardized forms of stories, sayings, and the like was part of the process toward the composition of every type of biblical literature . . .

While the Sadducees viewed the written text of the Torah as alone authoritative, the Pharisees cultivated an elaborate interpretive tradition . . . The resultant “tradition of the elders” (or “oral Torah”) was considered equal in authority to the written text elaborated by it. It represented simply the unfolding of what was implied in the written commandments, and was said to have been received by Moses from God on Mt. Sinai along with the written commandments and passed down orally from that time . . .

I expect Protestants to object that Pharisaical tradition was cited in the passages excerpted from Myers above, and that Jesus and the early Christians were totally opposed to this as hypocritical “traditions of men” - lock, stock, and barrel. But what must be understood was that the Pharisees were not entirely corrupt as a class. Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel. Finkel notes that Jesus adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies (Matthew 23:2-3, Mark 12:29-33, Luke 10:27-28), observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath (Mark 1:21, Mark 6:2, Luke 4:16, Luke 4:31, Luke 13:10), and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14). Finkel argues that Jesus’ condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel. Cecil Roth backs up this contention [Roth, Jesus, Volume 10, page 10]:

In general, Jesus’ polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks were, and not sharper than similar utterances by the rabbis quoted in the Talmudic sources.

Roth contends that Jesus’ beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to the Essenes in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.). The Sadducees were the liberals of Jesus’ time, and they believed in Sola Scriptura. But Jesus and the early Church did not follow their tradition; rather, they were much closer to the Pharisaical tradition.

Many people do not realize that Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. It was really the only viable option in the Judaism of that era. Since Jesus often excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy and excessive legalism, some assume that He was condemning the whole ball of wax. But this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Likewise the Apostle Paul, when referring to his Pharisaical background, doesn’t condemn Pharisaism per se.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, were much more “heretical.” They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestination. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees’ following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people. The Sadducees also rejected all “oral Torah” - the traditional interpretation of the written Torah that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:

• The Sadducees were obviously the elitist “liberals” and “heterodox” amongst the Jews of their time.
  
  [*]BUT the Sadducees were also the Sola Scripturists of their time.
  [*]
  [*]Christianity adopted wholesale the very “postbiblical” doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.
  [*]
  [*]BUT these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament Canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.

ERGO: The above facts constitute one more “nail in the coffin” of the theory that either Old Testament Judaism or the early Church was guided by the principle of Sola Scriptura. The only party which believed and practiced Sola Scriptura was that of the Sadducees, who were heterodox according to traditional Judaism, despised by the common people, and restricted to the privileged classes only. The Pharisees (despite the corruptions and excesses of some of them) were the mainstream, and the early Church adopted their outlook with regard to eschatology, anthropology, and angelology, and the necessity and benefit of binding oral tradition and ongoing ecclesiastical authority for the purpose (especially) of interpreting Holy Scripture.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

For no reason other than the title, I'll just drop this here:

 

[TER]

For no reason other than the title, I'll just drop this here:

I was hoping one of my Sola Scriptura friends here might want to comment about the OP, perhaps even come to their senses and admit that it appears Sola Scriptura was never the faith of the Apostles and the early Church, and indeed, it was the belief of those considered heretics of the time. But, I guess I'll take what I can get!

(BTW, that there is some haunting music!!!).

 

[TER]

Bump for our new member Traditionalist to review and critique. I would love to get your thoughts on the OP. I have an essay due at the end of the month for school regarding first century Judaism and a lot of it is based on the info I have listed in the OP and would be very appreciative if there are any glaring mistakes or omissions you can help me with!

 

[Traditionalist]

I've used the First Century Jewish argument before, not only pertaining to Sola Scriptura but religious matters in general. One could see how Traditional Christianity developed from its Jewish roots, maintaining a belief in hierarchy, authority, line of succession, Sacred Tradition, & authoritative rulings. The evidence for the Oral Torah is overwhelmingly convincing and I'd recommend watching Rabbinic vs. Karaite debates, the problems brought up are also difficult for Protestants to handle. How does one perform the kosher slaughter, a practice fundamental to Judaism? It's impossible to authoritatively say using the Bible alone, Deuteronomy seems to make it clear the ritual itself was an Oral Tradition. Is the tefillin being described in the Torah? If so, how does one wear the tefillin? Like a Sadducee or Pharisee/Rabbinic? What does this verse mean, how do we interpret it: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19) And importantly, which calendar system do we use? The evidence for an Oral Torah is convincing, and Jesus commandment to obey what they Pharisees teach is of significance, Christ did affirm the Pharisaic system.

And this is what Jesus said about their traditions.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matthew 15:1-9 ESV)

The problem is with the generalization. You're unfamiliar with how Pharisees were organized, the Rabbinic school which developed in the 2nd century was defined by their unity. Pharisees were defined by their sects & separate schools. They had common beliefs that made them a Pharisee of course, but they were sectarians following different schools such as Hillel. Jesus critiquing some of the traditions (which he specifies are "of man") of a particular school (perhaps a more legalistic one) isn't convincing to me, and it certainly doesn't prove any sort of anachronistic sola scriptura belief. If Christ had critiqued the Pharisees using the book of Enoch or Jubilees and proclaimed, "You're reading the scriptures of man" I doubt anyone would assume he's generalizing scriptures as man-based.

Tradition is also spoken of in a positive sense:
"I commend you because you remember me in everything andmaintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).


By the way, I'm of the opinion that Jesus referenced the Oral Torah throughout the New Testament and held it as authoritative. The Messianic Jews have written a great deal about it. But if memory serves me right, Christ's Sermon on the Mount seems to stem mainly from pre-existing oral traditions. Same with the Golden Rule (taught by Hillel).


---------


I have to disagree with the OP on some things, I don't believe there's enough evidence to really say for sure what the Sadducees believed. They might have held to the Oral Torah, albeit a different one than the Pharisees and later Rabbinics. People speculate that they were Sola Scriptura since Josephus and survivng Jewish sources claim they rejected the Oral Law, but they might have only been referencing their own oral law. It's quite possible Sadducees had their own set of traditions, hence why they were so particular about how they wore their teffilin


Also to TER: I would recommend this Messianic blogger: https://messianic613.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/the-oral-torah-and-the-messianic-jew/
And this guy is good too http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

 

[TER]

Great stuff. Thanks! Can I email you my finished work sometime next week so you can review it before I send it out?

 

[Traditionalist]

Great stuff. Thanks! Can I email you my finished work sometime next week so you can review it before I send it out?

Certainly thank you. I can send you my email in PM if you want. I'm really interested in ancient Judaism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Certainly thank you. I can send you my email in PM if you want. I'm really interested in ancient Judaism.

What makes you interested in it?