JFJ Forums

This past Spring, I had the joy of learning to chant Torah in Hebrew according to the Moroccan melodic tradition. I read the cantillation marks and vowels that the Masoretic scholars placed onto the consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1000 CE.

What a delight it is to chant Torah!

The experience made me consider how the written Hebrew text was passed down to us through all the long centuries from the time it was originally composed.

Originally, the Hebrew text consisted of only consonants (no vowels), with no spaces between words or spaces between sentences, and no punctuation. All of this information was passed down through the music of chant as part of an oral tradition.

Consider the following English sentence:

The doctor helped me with his CR. (Where CR is a word with vowels omitted.) What does it mean?

The doctor helped me with his CAR. (He gave me a ride?)
The doctor helped me with his CARE. (He made me comfortable in the hospice, but later I died.)
The doctor helped me with his CURE. (I'm better now, and likely to live into my 90s!)

How different are the meanings of these three sentences! And, actually it would have been written: THDCTRHLPDMWTHHSCR

What would this mean to someone who was reading it 3000 years after it was written?

So actually, there is no such thing as a written text of the Tanakh that exists independently of an authoritative interpretation passed down through Jewish tradition.

If there is NO SUCH THING as Sola Scriptura, then who is the authority to which we should turn? To Rabbi Akiba and the Masoretes, who were both very biased against the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah? These were the primary sources that fixed the current Hebrew Masoretic text we have today. The Dead Sea Scrolls often show readings at variance with the current MT. Did Akiba and the Masoretes alter/edit the MT to deliberately remove potential references that might point to Yeshua as Messiah? Ps. 22: 16 (17 in Hebrew) is such an example.

Are the Roman Catholics correct that doctrine rests upon three legs: the written text, authoritative tradition, and the Magisterium--authoritative interpretation?

This is a somewhat technical post. If someone is interested, should we discuss this in this forum? or perhaps we could discuss further examples of Jewish tradition leading towards the RCC offline via email?

Shalom!
H.

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue, “the Bible nowhere states that it is the ONLY authoritative guide for faith and practice.” While this is true, it fails to recognize a crucially important issue.

The true Christian knows that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for “sola scriptura,” it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed – the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

Traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem and papism abounds with unbiblical traditions.

DavidJ

Dear David,
From your response, it is quite clear that you did not understand the point I was making in my post.

Another reason to restrict my discussion to intelligent people.

Best regards,
H.

Much more importantly there are many biblical reasons including ....“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (1 Corinthians 1:19) which confims Isaiah 29:14, " Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
      Among this people,
      A marvelous work and a wonder;
      For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
      And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

DavidJ

In the total isolation you have placed it,  it would be totally meaningless. Of course this example has no scriptural inference at all but I assume you are relating your example to scriptural readings of the original text (thus your movement to papism).

An intelligent reader would only attempt to read its meaning  (as we must with scripture and even with Hebrew cantillations) within 'the conhesive whole Gospel of God', which is "The Gospel of God (Romans 1:-2) is the story of a Creator God who desires to establish a covenant relationship with people, whatever it costs Him, in order that He may bring them into an eternal life of incalculable blessing."

To intellegently and spiritually understand "The Gospel of God" in addition to understanding it within the 'cohesive whole' we must also understand other factors before we can truthfully understand it's message for us today.  These include, keeping the narrative in the canon and the canon within Divine Revelation.

Once that is understood we must understand how to read it in its 'supernatural dimension'. Then how to read it historically and Archaeologically. We must also learn to read the 'message' of the text. i.e. its theological and psychological  messages, its paradigms, parables, 'types' and etymology; the variety of cultures in which the text was written.  The Christian should understand and read all text as a Theodicy.  The text of scripture and all writings associeate with scripture should also be read Dialectically otherwise confusion creeps in.

I personally think this is a much more intellegent approach to understanding Hebrew and Greek text and Hebrew Cantillation and especially the Torah, indded the whole of the Old and New Testaments.

DavidJ

I can't chant, but I learned to read the Hebrew Scriptures when I did my theology degree. What a joy and privilege it is to read the words God actually spoke to Moses

I also have a copy of the New Testament (HaBrit HaKodesha) in Hebrew, it is LOVELY! (I have the edition published by The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures - I haven't been able to get hold of a modern copy.)

Some people say that the NT is a midrash on the Tanach, and I must say I agree with them. Also, some modern translators agree that Jesus actually spoke Hebrew, and He seems also to have understood Greek.

God bless you.

For anyone who is interested or wishes to study it is available on-line at http://dvar-adonai.org/hnt/HntHe_en.htm

DavidJ

Thank you for this link.

Henry and David,

I tend to agree with what Henry is saying.  My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that Jewish Rabbis believed that God gave Israel both a written and an ORAL Law.  After being transmitted through Rabbinic succession (kind of like Apostolic succession), the oral tradition was finally captured in documents such as the Talmud and Mishnah (hope I have these terms right).  My understanding is that most Jewish Rabbis will say it is impossible for an authoritative interpretation of the written tradition without taking into consideration the oral tradition.

I believe this is how God formed the New Testament.  A Jewish Rabbi taught and lived an oral tradition of the Law that was perfectly fulfilled in Himself.  God inspired Jesus’ disciples to write some of these teachings down.  For several centuries, many of these letters were read in assembly.  Teachings were based on O.T. scripture, the oral tradition taught by Jesus and handed down to his apostles, and by these letters (many of which are not in the canon of scripture today).  It was through these oral traditions, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1Tim3:15) was able to decide which of these letters would comprise the canon of the N.T..

Now the argument may be made that relying on an oral tradition will lead to improper, legalistic, interpretation of scripture much like Jesus accused the Pharisees of.  But praise God that Jesus did not leave us orphans!!!!!!  He sent his Holy Spirit to be with us always and to safely guide the Kingdom he established.  How fitting that this should come up as we approach the celebration of this awesome gift from God!!!!!!

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with ONE accord in ONE place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” (Act 2:1f).

Just to make it very clear, the Catholic Church (CC) believes that scripture is the inspired word of God.  In our liturgical celebration, we acknowledge this with the words:  “The Word of the Lord:  Thanks be to God!”.  You can read about it in articles 101-141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).  (This link will take you right there: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#101 ) When I was considering entering into the CC, I was bombarded with anti-Catholic literature.  I found out later that most of it was based on what non-Catholics think the CC teaches and not on what it actually does teach.  I found the CCC to be one of the few sources I could trust to accurately present CC teachings.

So we are in agreement on the nature of scripture.  Where we depart is on your claims that it is the sole, authoritative source of God’s revelation to us.


Shalom,

Bill

well if you look in The NT jesus has harsh words for the writtings of the rabbis  basic there jewish tradition.


Jesus even said you follow your elder tradition   but you make the word of God void?



I found out later that most of it was based on what non-Catholics think the CC teaches and not on what it actually does teach.


Then you prove that point can you answer My Challenge thread?