Talk about "Solo Scriptura."
11/14/24
This is a difficult issue. Honestly, I've only actually encountered the phrase three times in my life and in two of them it seemed it was used in a pejorative sense. However, I'm an older guy and not a digital native. I suspect that it might be used with some particular context in some online environments. So I quizzed a friend of mine who is not only half my age and a digital native, but who is also very perceptive.
The phrase "solo Scriptura" is not Latin. I know that much off the top. Last week I briefly discussed a little bit of Latin grammar in terms of the five sola statements of the Reformation. I'll do the same here, trying not to lose anyone. In Latin, the suffix on a word tells about its use in the sentence. As is the case in many languages, an adjective "solo" needs to agree with its noun "Scriptura" in gender, number, and case. This doesn't mean the suffix has to be the same. However, "solo" is masculine or neuter in gender, is singular, and is in the ablative case. "Scriptura," the noun, is feminine gender, singular, and could be in the nominative or ablative case." The two words don't agree in gender, number, and case. So my initial thought is that it isn't a Latin phrase. "Solo" might be an English word, indicating "alone" or, more likely, "only." "Scriptura" is a self-conscious Latin usage, apparently playing on the "sola" statements of the Reformation.
As the phrase is used, it indicates Scripture and nothing else is to be used. My digital native friend confirmed that for me. In opposition to the Reformation's "Sola Scriptura" which indicates that Scripture is sufficient and is our only definitive revelation of God in Christ, this phrase indicates that Scripture is sufficient and is the only thing which would contribute to our understanding of God. In other words, the phrase indicates that you should discount other supplementary sources such as church history, logical analysis, or tradition. They don't matter at all, and are possibly harmful to attempts to understand Christianity.
I asked my digital native friend if the phrase was ever used favorably. The first two times I encountered it I found it was being used to criticize those who rejected historical practice. The third time I encountered it the usage was unclear. My friend said he found it in use by those who would endorse the view or those who would reject the view. So it is not one of those phrases which is only used to insult others.
How do we think about "solo Scriptura" then? I would find it a problematic view, as well as one which should be rephrased. It is problematic because in indicating that tradition and historical interpretation are of no use it can also urge rejection of historic interpretation of the Scripture. If we reject historic interpretation we have immediately discounted all people in all other generations. Some of those people have been downright correct and insightful. We need to gain from them. It is possible even to go so far as to say that anyone who came before us is, by token of being not us, wrong. That throws our biblical interpretation and theology solidly into the camp of postmodern philosophy and makes the individual current interpreter the only one who could be correct. It further indicates that if we thought the Bible meant something in particular in the past, when we re-evaluate it we are forced to come to a new conclusion. The logical implications are horrendous!
As to the need to rephrase it, I would suggest avoiding the macaronic cluster of English and Latin. In English we are saying "the Bible alone is what we need and can't be informed by anything else." That's cumbersome. However, if we want to say it in Latin, a potentially more expressive language than English, we could say "Scriptura nuda." That also serves to capture people's interest.
One of the key developments of Christian thought in the Reformation was "Scriptura scripturam interpret." Scripture interprets Scripture. We use the Bible to understand the Bible better. In short, we cross-reference ideas. However, for the most part, Reformational thought always took historical understandings of Bible passages into account. In general, if nobody has ever understood a passage of the Bible in a particular way that you are seeing, you should assume that you are probably going astray. There is good reason to give a lot of credence to the brilliant people in the past who have dedicated their lives to studying and understanding the Bible. Don't go Scriptura nuda.
11/14/24
This is a difficult issue. Honestly, I've only actually encountered the phrase three times in my life and in two of them it seemed it was used in a pejorative sense. However, I'm an older guy and not a digital native. I suspect that it might be used with some particular context in some online environments. So I quizzed a friend of mine who is not only half my age and a digital native, but who is also very perceptive.
The phrase "solo Scriptura" is not Latin. I know that much off the top. Last week I briefly discussed a little bit of Latin grammar in terms of the five sola statements of the Reformation. I'll do the same here, trying not to lose anyone. In Latin, the suffix on a word tells about its use in the sentence. As is the case in many languages, an adjective "solo" needs to agree with its noun "Scriptura" in gender, number, and case. This doesn't mean the suffix has to be the same. However, "solo" is masculine or neuter in gender, is singular, and is in the ablative case. "Scriptura," the noun, is feminine gender, singular, and could be in the nominative or ablative case." The two words don't agree in gender, number, and case. So my initial thought is that it isn't a Latin phrase. "Solo" might be an English word, indicating "alone" or, more likely, "only." "Scriptura" is a self-conscious Latin usage, apparently playing on the "sola" statements of the Reformation.
As the phrase is used, it indicates Scripture and nothing else is to be used. My digital native friend confirmed that for me. In opposition to the Reformation's "Sola Scriptura" which indicates that Scripture is sufficient and is our only definitive revelation of God in Christ, this phrase indicates that Scripture is sufficient and is the only thing which would contribute to our understanding of God. In other words, the phrase indicates that you should discount other supplementary sources such as church history, logical analysis, or tradition. They don't matter at all, and are possibly harmful to attempts to understand Christianity.
I asked my digital native friend if the phrase was ever used favorably. The first two times I encountered it I found it was being used to criticize those who rejected historical practice. The third time I encountered it the usage was unclear. My friend said he found it in use by those who would endorse the view or those who would reject the view. So it is not one of those phrases which is only used to insult others.
How do we think about "solo Scriptura" then? I would find it a problematic view, as well as one which should be rephrased. It is problematic because in indicating that tradition and historical interpretation are of no use it can also urge rejection of historic interpretation of the Scripture. If we reject historic interpretation we have immediately discounted all people in all other generations. Some of those people have been downright correct and insightful. We need to gain from them. It is possible even to go so far as to say that anyone who came before us is, by token of being not us, wrong. That throws our biblical interpretation and theology solidly into the camp of postmodern philosophy and makes the individual current interpreter the only one who could be correct. It further indicates that if we thought the Bible meant something in particular in the past, when we re-evaluate it we are forced to come to a new conclusion. The logical implications are horrendous!
As to the need to rephrase it, I would suggest avoiding the macaronic cluster of English and Latin. In English we are saying "the Bible alone is what we need and can't be informed by anything else." That's cumbersome. However, if we want to say it in Latin, a potentially more expressive language than English, we could say "Scriptura nuda." That also serves to capture people's interest.
One of the key developments of Christian thought in the Reformation was "Scriptura scripturam interpret." Scripture interprets Scripture. We use the Bible to understand the Bible better. In short, we cross-reference ideas. However, for the most part, Reformational thought always took historical understandings of Bible passages into account. In general, if nobody has ever understood a passage of the Bible in a particular way that you are seeing, you should assume that you are probably going astray. There is good reason to give a lot of credence to the brilliant people in the past who have dedicated their lives to studying and understanding the Bible. Don't go Scriptura nuda.
RSS Feed