Sola Scriptura: Scripture's Final Authority in the Modern World

by Ben Witherington III

In modern times, evangelical Protestants have advocated for the belief that the Bible is the only real standard of truth and true Christian praxis for the church. But is this how the early Jews and Christians, who wrote the biblical books , viewed their sacred texts? And what counted as those sacred texts? Furthermore, there is often a lack of clarity as to what is meant by the famous phrase that became a motto of the German sola scriptura . Does it mean that the Bible is the only authority for Christian faith and practice, or does it mean the Bible is the final authority , allowing non-biblical traditions, human reason, and perhaps even experience to have some authority in the church? With this magisterial study, Ben Witherington III invites readers to go back to the time of the writing of the Bible and look at what is said about the sacred texts with a specific focus on how the authority of such texts was viewed. Witherington then walks through Christian history until the point where the phrase sola scriptura actually appears as an authority claim of some kind. Surprisingly, it does not show up until the fourteenth century A.D. and not in the writings of a Protestant. From there, Witherington examines how the phrase continued to be used in the various Reformations and into the modern era. The story of Sola Scriptura also involves the rise of science, the effect of the Enlightenment, and changes in views about human sexuality that have affected the discussion of the Bible’s authority in various ways. Students of Scripture, budding scholars, pastors, and laity alike stand to benefit from this book as Christians of all stripes are confronted by the same a profound historical amnesia that is affecting even churches that are bibliocentric; the general chaos in Western culture that has further alienated younger generations from the church and angered the older generations who still attend church; and the increasing biblical illiteracy in the church, including in its pulpits, which has led to churches taking their signals and sense of direction from the culture rather than the biblical witness itself. Such crises will not be overcome without a serious coming to grips with the Bible, its history, and its authority for the Christian life.

230 pages, Hardcover

Published October 15, 2023

About the author

Ben Witherington III (PhD, University of Durham) is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and is on the doctoral faculty at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. He is the author or coauthor of more than thirty books, including The Jesus Quest, The Paul Quest, and The New York Times bestseller The Brother of Jesus. He has appeared on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.

Reviews

[David Rodriguez · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I just had false expectations of what the book was supposed to be. I suppose a more fair rating would be 2.5? I thought the Witherington was going to give a conceptual defense of the doctrine of sola scriptura (woven in with some historical stuff). But it was a historical-thematic exploration of the doctrine, It was too short to be a detailed exposition and defense of it historically. So even if i had the right impressions, I didn’t think it did as good of a job as it could have. Seemed more cursory.

For instance, some of his claims regarding sola scriptura being present prior to the reformation were just presented without extended discussion or evidence. Just felt unsubstantiated. Maybe his goal was to give us a brief overview? If so, I came away with more questions and pondering.

The book DID do a good job of examining historical trends and how often these acted as clarifications of the Protestant position of sola scriptures, for instance instance, his discussion of the Chicago statement on inerrancy. He raised some good questions about some ambiguity with the statement. I appreciated that. But overall I felt sort of let down, and I really like Witherington! His historical walk was just way too short.

[Nyameye Otoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short book by Ben Witherington III is a brilliant introduction to how Christians have thought about the uniqueness of the Bible and it's centrality to Christian practice. It's relatively short (170 pages - read on a Kindle the actual content ends 62% of the way through the book), but packs loads of content in - it's probably a little too short to adequately cover what it raises, but it would be obscenely long if it did.

What the book is not (explicitly) is an exegetical dive into defining and defending the concept of  "Scripture Alone" (Sola Scriptura) including authority and infallibity - Witherington states that he has done this in his "The Living Word" (2007). It also is not a guide on the correct "interpretation method" (hermeneutic) and how it should be applied - that's covered in his (over-the-top titled) "The Problem With Evangelical Theology" (2005, 2nd Ed. 2015, of which review pending). Instead, this book is a whistle-stop historical (diachronic) look at the development (or, foundation) of the historic Christian belief that would eventually be called Sola Scriptura.

Somewhat unfortunately, this isn't actually particularly well defined early on in the book, but can be summarized in the quotes below:

"Sola Scriptura meant and means Scripture alone only for some Christians at and after the Reformation and into the modern era. De facto, what it normally means even in those circles is that Scripture is supposed to be the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, on things the Bible actually teaches." (p159)

"What was meant by the term [Sola Scriptura] was that the Bible was the final authority, the litmus test on all other claims in the church about authority, even those of popes and patriarchs or councils. What it did not actually mean before the Reformation is that the Bible was the only authority the church and Christians in general should recognize. “Orthodox” Christian tradition and praxis had some authority, as did the use of reason to understand the world and Scripture. The term was coined by Catholics upset with papal abuse of power." (p144)

I understand the book needed brevity, but I think it loses a star for not having a fairly short, biblical argument chapter / introduction. Although maybe Witherington would've thought it wouldn't do it justice considering his other volumes on the topic. It would've been nice.

In addition, at times it felt a bit haphazard, which I imagine would be felt moreso for those who know don't know loads about the topic. There are also the occasional somewhat-general statements that are a bit unclear that are left undeveloped. This and the idea that he seems at points to be saying "sola scriptura" is both synonymous with "prima scriptura" (emphasising finality of authority) but also "solo scriptura" (emphasizing ONLY authority), which are opposites, is just confusing. Those things lose it points for me - but other than that it's a great great book I would recommend for a getting a broadly evangelical view of what "scripture alone means.

The book is in a number of key sections, moving through history, beginning with the biblical period(s), through the very early witnesses and apostolic fathers, into the medieval period, German and Swiss Reformation, Wesley, and into modernity and beyond. Various tangents are given along the way, and these are very helpful given Witherington's background and expertise in: classical studies, social and rhetorical criticism (focusing on orality or the Bible as spoken and heard) and biblical theology. All this combined with an evangelical Wesleyan spin provides at bare minimum food for thought. I would have no issues recommending this to anyone!

For a slightly more detailed opinion / summary - carry on at you own peril. You're better served just getting the book;

In the first section, covering the early church and apostolic Fathers, Witherington surveys Polycarp (69-155AD), Bishop Serapion of Antioch (191-211 AD), Irenaus (130-200AD), Tertullian (155-220AD) and Origen (184-254AD), the last of which is seen as an anomaly in terms of his acceptance of "mistakes" in the text of Scripture. One highlight is Witherington's arguments that authoritative sources were used and accepted far earlier then Marcion, it appears.

Another is the analysis of Polyarp's "Letter to the Phillipian"'s biblical references. This concludes - in one text - that the following source material is used:

• Matthew, Mark, and Luke (16x)
• Acts (3x)
• 1st and 2nd Thessalonians (3x)
• 1st and 2nd Timothy (7x)
• Hebrews (2x)
• 1st and 2nd Corinthians (8x)
• Galatians (4x)
• Ephesians (4x)
• Philippians (5x)
• 1st Peter (14x)
• 1st and 3rd John (3x)
• Jude once (p11)

Witherington summarizes this section as follows: 

 "We do not really find [...] the idea of Sola Scriptura, as if other Christian traditions had no authority at all. In short, we find prima Scriptura in these early documents, but not a clear articulation of Sola Scriptura, such that other traditions had no authority or weight at all in settling disputes over important matters. As it happens, we don’t really find the concept of Sola Scriptura clearly and persuasively articulated and argued for another eight hundred years of church history." (p27)

This is a little confusing because it seems like what is termed "Prima Scriptura" seems to be what the reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura" properly understood actually meant - as opposed to "Solo Scriptura". This prima scriptura sense of Sola Scriptura also appears to be what's advocated by the book. The key point being Scripture has a unique authority over and against subsequent fallible traditions, which can still be valuable, even if not absolutely.

Witherington argues that one must wait until the 14th Century to get a proper discussion of the concept of "Sola Scriptura", and this is not first from Protestants, but from Roman Catholics! Witherington argues that Marsilius of Padua (1270-1342) is the first to actually use this phrase in one of his treatises - specifically in the context of the (lack of) authority of the Pope. The same goes for William of Ockam (1287-1347). The more well known John Wycliffe (1328-1384) gets included in the discussion of pre-reformation, Catholic critiques of Papal and Concillar authority as it relates to the Bible.

As an ordained Methodist minister, Witherington III devotes an entire chapter to the views of Scripture of the "Anglican Reformer" John Wesley. This section is absolutely loaded with primary source quotes to make the point that Wesley held to a strong, strong view of Sola Scripture, even if experience, reason and tradition could testify to that final authority. This is particularly important for those who want to identify as Wesleyan (i.e. Methodism). It seems one cannot be a faithful (historical) Methodist and reject that, which seems to be happening wholesale today in Methodism, argues Witherington. This seems to be a key personal impetus for this book: 

"This is important because it demonstrates that this very high view of Scripture did not depend on a Calvinistic view of biblical theology or a deterministic view of human history. Neither sola Scriptura nor “without error” should be called an invention of Reformed theology. It was held by early church fathers, Catholics before the Reformation, and both Calvinistic and Arminian Protestants thereafter, including in this case John Wesley. This is precisely why we have spent considerable time on Wesley’s views in this chapter." (p88)

The section(s) on the enlightenment, modernity and  sciences influence on this development surveys J.B Lightfoot (1828-1889), G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) and C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). There is some fascinating discussion of C.S. Lewis' views of the Bible here -  both Chestron and Lewis are described as holding to a fairly light view of Prima Scriptura. Lewis says some surprising things given his general popularity in circles which hold to quite particular views about Scripture:

“The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.”

 And then when discussing the Psalms:

“The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naïvety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not the ‘Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.” (p100)

This seems to arise from Lewis' extremely interesting "incarnational" view of Scripture, namely that:

“we are taught that the Incarnation itself proceeded ‘not by the conversion of the godhead into flesh, but by taking of (the) manhood into God’; in it human life becomes the vehicle of Divine life. If the Scriptures proceed not by conversion of God’s word into a literature but by taking up of a literature to be the vehicle of God’s word, this is not anomalous.”

[...] 

"The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field-preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preached in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense an irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the World in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorised Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly King."

Witherington states although different, this is "in some ways like the analogy of the Reformers, in particular that of Luther, about how the Bible is rather like the rough-hewn manger in which the perfect Christ was lain." (p101).

Witherington responds to the errors in Lewis' application of this however, with an often missed clarification on the nature on what it means to apply the notion of Sola Scriptura - saying that Lewis as well as many others:

" [Complaining] about the Bible not giving us impeccable science or modern historiography can only be called yet another example of the 'sin' of anachronism—reading the Bible as if it were written today, rather than in its own contexts and situations. Again, the distinction between what the Bible actually teaches (namely theology, ethics, salvation history, spiritual formation) and what it touches (reflecting all sorts of human thoughts and assumptions) is a key to understanding the Bible."

This is a point which he argues throughout the book, and continues to argue essentially for the rest of the book as the best meaning of Sola Scriptura both historically, for today and for the future.

Finally, applying this methodology understanding of "scripture alone, alongside the Biblical Theology which he's known for, Witherington argues in an appendix that - no - the Bible does not support Slavery, not least because the "Slaves Bible" used in the Antebellum South removed up to 25% of relevant verses in order to attempt to justify it. (p170).

Lots of other great discussions in the book.