Sola Scriptura: thoughts on Eastern Orthodox view
Posted on Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Church & Theology
Recently, I’ve become more and more attracted to the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Scripture, that is, Scripture is a part of Tradition rather than a separate entity from it. Where this differs from the Roman Catholic view is that the RCC sees Scripture and Tradition to be two pillars of the faith.
The questions this creates:
- If we see Scripture as part of Tradition, what do we do with individual interpretation? Does it cease to exist?
- Also, what do we do with language, historical, and scientific developments? Are they to be ignored if Tradition has yet to deal with them?
- How does this handle the idea of experience (as in the Wesleyan belief)?
These are some questions I have for the EOC view. If you are Orthodox, could you assist me with these questions?
The problems this solves:
- It seems that the New Testament authors were, at many times, working within a particular interpretive tradition. They would often quote Scripture with no regard for historical context and reinterpret it to prove a specific Christological point. For instance, interact with Matthew’s use of Hosea 11. Matthew clearly interprets this to be a futuristic prediction of Jesus the Messiah. However, Hosea clearly is referring to a past event, that is, exodus, without any futuristic content. Matthew changes the text because his interpretive tradition, at that time, did so. Thus, it seems that the EOC continues such a tradition, in that it reads Scripture within a certain tradition rather than separate from it.
- The EOC view, also, answers the question I raised before, “How did Christians handle issues of the faith for 300 years or so without a canonized Scripture?” Well, apostolic tradition, of course.
- It also keeps from wild (even unbiblical, unchristian) interpretations since EOC members learn to submit to the authority of the community, the Church.
- Lastly (and by no means does this exhaust this section), everyone relies on Tradition, whether they’d like to admit it or not. For instance, rapture theorists rely on a tradition, even though it’s only a 200 year-old, American tradition. So, when the question comes, “What does First Thessalonians 4 mean?” These Christians would say, “Well, it’s talking about the rapture.” But the majority of global Christians would say something else, perhaps like, “Well, Paul is using Caesar language there, making Jesus the ‘better Caesar.’” Denial one’s own reliance on tradition is naïve. We all do it, at least, the EOC admits it.
I would like to hear what people have to say about this, especially, those of you from the RCC or EOC, though I’d love to hear from you, Protestants, too. If you could offer some insight, please comment below.
I am not sure if there is individual interpretation in the EOC. We have more than 3000 years of commentary on scriptures from the Church Fathers and apostolic (Holy) Tradition to affirm the Church’s interpretation. When Orthodox Christians speak of Holy Tradition, we mean the handing on of the good news of the Kingdom to those who are willing to receive it. The living Tradition was imparted from person to person, and place to place, long before the Church came together as a whole to establish the canon, which was and continues to be confirmed in the writings of the church fathers, in the ikons, in the Divine Liturgy, and in the whole life of the Church.
For Orthodox Christians, Holy Tradition is holistic. It belongs to the whole Church, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It cannot be reduced to the printed words of the Bible alone, or the pronouncements of one man. The Bible without the Church is a mutilation of Holy Tradition, ripping it from its context. This is why Orthodox Christians do not accept the slogan “sola scriptura” (which is in any case itself an extra-biblical tradition). To the EOC, what matters is not so much what we decide about the Bible, but rather that in the Bible we read what Christ has decided about us.
The tradition of the Church is therefore not the idiosyncratic visions of the few. If people express a particular interpretation, individual if you will, they must be tested against Holy Tradition. If people produce written documents that purport to proclaim revelations of God, they too are tested against Holy Tradition. The EOC emphasis on individual experience since scriptural interpretation rests within the Church. The Church, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition - they are eternally fused together, with little distinction where one begins and the other ends.
The function and nature of EOC worship is the imparting of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture through Tradition. You can see this through the structure of the EOC church year. The EOC experiences the fullness of the Kingdom through the dance of the Church year with its daily, weekly and annual cycles. (the church year is also broken up into 8 week cycles with repeated tones, various feast and fast days and seasons, etc.).
The Divine Liturgy is the ultimate experience of God’s Kingdom on earth. The entire church year is experienced with an eye to Christ’s body - the Eucharist. All cycles of the Church are an eye to the Eucharist, with the ultimate Eucharist being Christ’s death and resurrection.
Side note re: the cannon - In the EOC, the authorized version of the canon is the Septuagint in the Old Testament, and the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. The Orthodox Study Bible uses the revised standard as its basis, but with much re-examination.
Some books worth reading:
- The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kalistos (Timothy) Ware, he is a convert from the Church of England (He is a wonderful man, truly a God-bearer!)
- Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West by John Behr
- Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion by Aristotle Papanikolaou (I have heard really good things about this book and can’t wait to read it)
- The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky (among one of the first books I read before I converted to the EOC)
- Tradition Alive by Michael Plekon
I hope this made some sense?!
Personal interpretation exists in the Eastern Church. Even within the writings of the Fathers there are disparities. However, they are largely of two kinds and both stem from the same source. The first are passages that particular writers are giving for pastoral reasons. Forgetting this is the great flaw in the interpretations of many who read the Fathers. If we read them like our modern theologians are read (talking into the air or at some idea or other) then we lose perspective. The Holy Scriptures are written in much the same way. Some may understand this intrinsically, but it has only become more real to me as I hear them read in the Church. The second type of disparity is on Scriptures that are really too ambiguous to interpret a la Revelation. For instance, I had a conversation with a friend at Church who thinks that the thousand years was the Byzantine Empire. He wouldn’t die in that ditch but he also isn’t just making things up. Revelation is the prime example of this in that most of the Fathers didn’t comment on it and it is not read in the services because no one knows what to do with it except look to it as a model for our worship.
As far as scientific advances related to the field of biblical scholarship go, I have yet to encounter any view of the Scriptures that is seriously damaging to Holy Tradition. However, we should be in dialogue with it as there is much to learn and many whom we can minister to when we can answer false claims. Just as Kevin is much better suited to comment on this aspect, so make sure that you get him on here (he finished his thesis so he has no excuses!).
Science, technology, etc in general are to be treated much the same way. I try to be familiar with the current debate surrounding evolution so that I can at least mark out territory. Also, as much as I prefer Eastern philosophers (Lao Tzu was probably as close to Christ as Plato was) I make it my task to understand the postmoderns and nihilists so that I can speak to the people around me in a way they understand. (I should probably read some of the existentialists as well, but they are so whiny.)
In this way Tradition is a living thing: it grows and lives in the heart of the faithful and adapts to speak to the culture the faithful are in so that they may be called to the true teachings of Christ in the Church. To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that the Tradition adapts but that the language in which it is expressed changes. Father Arseny (I highly recommend the biographies of him out there) read Marxists and atheists in order to combat the ideas and minister to the people of Russia because he recognized that arguing in a neo-platonic way would not mean anything to them. So the American Orthodox should be.
I’m not familiar with the Wesleyan view of experience as it relates to Scripture. I will just add that when you stand before God and all your friends and listen to Ephesians 5:20-33 you, if only for a moment, completely see how Paul views the Scriptures and how Christ used them as communicated through the Apostles. It nearly the same whenever they are read in the services.
I’ll leave a list at the end of mine, but it will be podcasts to check out. One last note before that, though. Most of the people I know who have had formal training in biblical scholarship have learned to read the NT in light of the OT. I would put forth that the OT should be read in light of the proper understanding that the NT gives us and the Gospels should be held in regard above all the other books.This is still hard for me to remember to do but is, in the end, the best way. There is more to say on that, but this is already too long.
List of podcasts to check out:
The Illumined Heart
Our Life in Christ (My personal favorite.)
Steve the Builder (more devotional but still amazing)
Faith and Philosophy
More are at Ancient Faith Radio (ancientfaith.com) and from Icon New Media (iconnewmedianetwork.com).
Ben
I forgot to mention that OLIC has at least one series on Sola Scriptura and the Orthodox answer to it.
[...] promiseandpeace » Blog Archive » Sola Scriptura: thoughts on … [...]
[...] Curry just blogged a one-two punch with "Sola Scriptura: thoughts on the Eastern Orthodox view" and "Will the Antichrist be an actual [...]