Second Temple Judaism did not assume a single pristine text.
At Qumran alone we find:
- Proto-Masoretic texts
- Texts closer to the Septuagint
- Samaritan-type texts
- “Rewritten Bible” texts (e.g., Jubilees, Temple Scroll)
No one panics. No one declares heresy. Variation is expected.
If "sola scriptura" were operative, Qumran would be a disaster zone. Instead, it’s a library.
The Septuagint itself is a theological critique
The LXX is not a neutral translation. It:
- harmonizes contradictions
- clarifies ambiguities
- occasionally corrects the Hebrew it received
- interprets theology (especially messianic and theophanic passages)
This means:
Greek-speaking Jews believed the meaning of Scripture could be truer than its precise wording.
That alone is fatal to strict "sola scriptura" logic.
Rabbinic Judaism institutionalized textual criticism
The Talmud preserves:
- disputes over wording
- notes that certain verses “ought not be read as written”
- acknowledgement of scribal changes (tiqqune sopherim)
- statements like: “The text says X, but it means Y.”
And here’s the kicker: authority does not collapse when the text is questioned.
The Church existed before the New Testament.
This is not a slogan; it’s chronology.
For decades:
- no NT canon
- no fixed Gospel collection
- no agreed textual forms
Yet the church:
- baptized
- celebrated the Lord's Supper
- taught doctrine
- condemned heresy
Authority clearly did not flow from a closed text.
Even the Church Fathers:
- compared multiple manuscript traditions
- acknowledged contradictions between texts
- warned against absolutizing any single manuscript
Historically, "sola scriptura" emerges:
- in the 16th century
- in reaction to late medieval abuses
- as a restrictive principle, not a metaphysical claim about texts
The problem is that it later hardens into:
- textual absolutism
- canon-as-oracle
- "the Bible says” divorced from history, language, or community
