James White has now supplied a current description of his thought on the korban passage and sola scriptura, so let’s look at what he says.
His basic assertion seems clear. Referring to the korban passage, Mr. White refers to
Jesus’ plain teaching that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of God’s Word, even those that claim to be divine in origin.
By "God’s Word," Mr. White means "Scripture," and "even those that claim to be divine in origin" is subsumed by "all," so his claim is that
Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture].
If Mr. White’s claim is not that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture, I am open to correction on this point.
Now, claiming that the above principle is Jesus’ "plain teaching" is a pretty strong claim. In order for a teaching to be plain, there must be (a) an act of teaching and (b) this act must have the quality of plainness–meaning that its meaning is easily ascertained.
A common way that teaching a principle is done is by stating a principle forthrightly. When Jesus gives the great commission he states forthrightly that the apostles are to baptize the nations (Matt. 28:19).
This is not the only way that teaching can occur. One can, for example, teach by stating a principle in a veiled manner. Jesus did this when he used parables, such as the Parable of the Sower and the other kingdom parables (Matt. 13).
By stating matters in a veiled manner, however, the teaching no longer enjoys the quality of plainness, since the veiled nature of the teaching prevents its meaning from being so easily ascertained.
It is also possible to teach without stating a principle at all. This happens when one "teaches by example," as when Jesus himself is baptized even though he has no intrinsic need of it himself (Matt. 3:13-14).
A difficulty for obtaining "plain teachings" from situations that involve "teaching by example" is that there is no explicit statement of principle, meaning that–while it is possible to determine something from the example, the precise extent to which the example is to be followed (or avoided) is often unclear.
This constitutes a difficulty for Mr. White since in Mark 7′s passage on the korban custom, Jesus does not state forthrightly that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture. Neither does he state this in a veiled manner such as with a parable. Instead, the most that can be said is that he is teaching a principle without a statement of principle, simply by his example.
Since it is very difficult to obtain "plain teaching" from instances of teaching by example, Mr. White will have a difficult time establishing the idea that "we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]" from this passage.
So what kind of argument does he use to support his claim?
He restates his argument several times, but perhaps the most concise and focused formulation is this one:
The argument is plain: Jewish tradition about the Corban
rule made it a tradition that had a divine pedigree, though passed down
outside of Scripture. Jesus specifically subjugated it to Scripture,
hence, to follow His lead, we, too, would have to test all traditions
by the higher standard of Scripture.
"To follow His
lead" is another way of saying "to follow his example," so here Mr.
White acknowledges that he is appealing to Mark 7 as a passage in which
Jesus is teaching by example, and thus he must be able to find in this
passage a "plain teaching" that "we are to examine all traditions by
the higher standard of [Scripture]."
A difficulty for this claim is the one faced by all instances of
trying to derive "plain teaching" from teaching by example: The extent
to which the example is to be followed is often not clear.
It is too easy to improperly minimize or maximize the extent to which the example applies.
E.g., many (including myself) would say that the example of Jesus’ example of holiness and self-sacrifice was being improperly minimized if it were maintained that only he needed to be holy and self-sacrificing and that, because of what he did, we are free to be unholy and selfish.
Similarly, many (including myself) would say that the example of
Jesus was being improperly maximized if it were maintained that
individual Christians–like he–should assert that our relationship with God is so close that "No man comes to the
Father but by me" (John 14:6).
Those are clear cases, but they make the point: Examples can be improperly minimized or maximized.
In view of this fact, we must ask what Jesus may have meant to teach by his example in the korban incident.
And here I need to introduce a clarification of the issue: The issue
is not whether a tradition can be followed if it does not contradict
Scripture. In his blog post, Mr. White acknowledges that "*if
[traditions] do not violate the Word of God,* they can be followed and
practiced" (emphasis his). Mere followability or non-violation of
Scripture is not the real issue, though. Having pews and pulpits in churches does not violate Scripture and so can be done,
but the custom of having these fixtures in churches is not
the kind of tradition we are talking about.
What we are interested in is authoritative tradition–which
is what the Pharisees were asking about when they asked why Jesus’
disciples didn’t wash their hands. They had the idea that the
handwashing tradition was normative for the life of the Jewish
community, just as they had the idea that the korban tradition was
normative (not in the sense of being obligatory but in the sense of
being authoritatively permitted).
The real question is whether extrascriptural traditions can be
authoritative in the way Scripture is, not whether they are merely consistent with Scripture.
Being inconsistent with Scripture is an indicator that a tradition is
non-authoritative, but it is the question of authority that is in focus
at present.
It seems clear that Jesus considers the korban tradition
non-authoritative because it conflicts with one’s obligations under the
Ten Commandments, but to what extent is the non-authoritativeness of
this tradition generalizable?
Here are some hypothetical possibilities, ranked from minimum to maximum:
1) It is only the korban tradition which is non-authoritative.
2) It is those Pharisaical traditions which conflict with Scripture that are non-authoritative.
3) It is Pharisaical traditions in general that are non-authoritative.
4) It is those pre-Christian Jewish traditions that conflict with Scripture that are non-authoritative.
5) It is pre-Christian Jewish tradition in general that is non-authoritative.
6) It is oral (as opposed to written) tradition in general that is non-authoritative.
7) It is any tradition at all (including written) that is non-authoritative.
This list is non-exhaustive. There
are other possibilities as well, and not all of the ones listed above are
plausible ones.
In particular, I think #1 and #7 are very
implausible.
#1 contradicts Mark 7:13′s statement that–in addition to
violating Scripture by korban–there are also "many such things you
do."
#7 is particularly implausible because it would undercut the
authoritativeness of Scripture, since Scripture is itself something
that is handed down to us and thus is tradition (from the Latin, traditio "the act of handing on/over"; cognate of tradere,
"to hand on/over").
Given his conclusion that "Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to
examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]," Mr. White would presumably
argue that by is example, Jesus is "plainly teaching" us something
along the lines of option #6 (though he might want to swap out the term
"non-authoritative" for something else, like "non-divine"; this would not affect the structure of the argument).
The fact that we have a range of possibilities here, some of which are not completely implausible, means that it is not plain that #6 is what Jesus means to teach by his example. There are other options for how far he might intend his example to be pressed.
So there is a logic problem with Mr. White’s argument.
The fact that Jesus can be shown to have regarded one tradition as
non-authoritative (because it conflicts with the Ten Commandments) does
not mean that he regarded all traditions as non-authoritative.
That would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.
In fact, we can show not only that it is a hasty generalization but that it is a false generalization.
It is clear that Jesus gave certain teachings and practices to his
apostles, who he commissioned to preach and teach these to others.
Though the apostles made use of the Old Testament Scriptures,
distinctive Christian teaching and practice went beyond what could be
proved from the Old Testament. This did not stop it from being
authoritative for the first generation of Christians. The preaching of
the apostles apart from Scripture was still endowed by Jesus with
authority and was normative for Christian faith and life.
Jesus himself–so far as we know–wrote no books (though there is
that one reported letter to the ruler of Edessa, which is considered
apocryphal), yet his word was (a) meant to be handed on to others and
(b) was authoritative and (c) went beyond what was found in the
existing Scriptures of his day.
It therefore counts as (a) Tradition, which was (b) authoritative and (c) not found in Scripture.
This constitutes a problem for Mr. White if he wishes to maintain
that Jesus’ example at the korban incident means that all
extrascriptural tradition is to be regarded as non-authoritative.
It is scarcely likely that Jesus considered his own extrascriptural
(meaning: not found in the Scripture of his day) teachings to be
non-authoritative.
It thus would seem that–however far Jesus meant those who saw his example to follow it–he did not have in mind option #6 listed above. At a minimum, they were expected to regard Jesus’ own oral teachings not found in the Old Testament as authoritative.
And since he gave these teachings to the apostles to hand on to others, meaning
them to be authoritative for the Christian community, they therefore
constitute authoritative oral tradition as well. Regardless of how
other streams of tradition are to be regarded, the oral teachings
beyond the Old Testament that Jesus committed to the apostles to
proclaim to others must be regarded as authoritative oral tradition.
So Mr. White is wrong about what Jesus was teaching his audience with his
example in the korban incident. He wasn’t saying that all traditions
apart from Scripture are non-authoritative; he was excepting those that
he himself would pass on to the Church–i.e., apostolic or sacred
Tradition.
We know that in time the apostles and their associates wrote
Scriptures that recorded many of these teachings, but if Mr. White
wishes to maintain that sacred Tradition is not binding on us today
then he will have to find a different basis to argue this than the
korban incident.
That one doesn’t prove what he wants. Jesus simply was not setting an example whereby he expected the people of his day to reject as non-authoritative all unwritten traditions, for if he had meant this then it would have undercut the authoritativeness of his own oral teachings that went beyond what could be proved from the Old Testament.
Now let me address a few remaining points:
1) Mr. White appears to think it significant that the Pharisees he
spoke with regarded korban as a divine tradition. I don’t know that
these Pharisees did think this (they may have just thought it was a permitted
inference rather than something actually passed down from Moses), but
suppose they did.
If so, this shows that some traditions can be erroneously regarded as divine.
So what?
The fact that some traditions of the Pharisees were erroneously regarded as divine does not mean that all traditions are erroneously regarded as divine. (That would be the hasty generalization fallacy once again.)
If one happens upon a genuinely divine tradition (like those Jesus handed onto the apostles) then it will be divinely authoritative.
2) Mr. White refers in his blog post to Scripture being a "higher standard" than the traditions to be compared to it, but here we have another mistake in logic.
It does follow from the fact that a non-authoritative tradition contradicts Scripture that the non-authoritative tradition is on a lower level. Unlike the false tradition, Scripture is true and authoritative and thus is on a higher level. But it does not follow from this that all traditions lack truth or authority relative to Scripture.
If one has a genuinely authoritative Tradition–e.g., Jesus’ own oral teachings–then it is not non-authoritative compared to Scripture.
3) It is true that any genuinely divine tradition will not
contradict what is in Scripture, making it possible to compare the two
and see if they conflict. If there is an irresolvable conflict then the
tradition in question must not be divine.
But the same thing is true in reverse. Put yourself in the position
of a Christian before the formation of the canon: a genuine scripture
cannot contradict the faith as handed down from the apostles.
Therefore, any scripture that genuinely does contradict tradition must
not be a genuine scripture. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that
Marcion’s Gospel and the Gnostic gospels were rejected.
It is also true among written works: What is said in one book of
divine Scripture cannot contradict what is written in another, so if
there is a genuine, unresolvable contradiction between two proposed
scriptures then at least one of them must be false.
And it is true among unwritten traditions: Sacred Tradition cannot
contradict Sacred Tradition, so an irresolvable conflict means one or
both is not a genuine Tradition.
The first century Church was faced with a collection of true Scriptures and
true Traditions that were surrounded by a mass of false scriptures (like the fake letters circulated under Paul’s name) and
false traditions. The consistency test was of some use in future centuries in sorting out
the true from the false in that you could use the items you were most
confident of (be they oral or written) to disqualify items that
conflicted with them.
But this does not allow you to appeal to a case of consistency-with-Scripture being used to identify a false tradition as a proof that
Scripture is superior to Tradition. It is equally true that consistency
with Tradition was used to identify false scriptures.
4) You’ll note that I have referred to unresolvable contradictions between elements of scripture and tradition. This is because there are apparent contradictions that can ultimately be harmonized. These occur between Scripture and Scripture, between Scripture and Tradition, and between Tradition and Tradition. We therefore must not be too quick to declare a scripture or a tradition to be inauthentic based on an apparent contradiction. In his providence, God has allowed these tensions to exist, and he expects us to work through them.
5) Earlier I pointed out that the real issue was not whether a
tradition fails to contradict Scripture (as with the modern custom of
having pews and pulpits in churches). As an alternative,
I suggested that the real issue was whether there were unwritten
traditions that were authoritative. By this, I meant divinely
authoritative in the way Scripture is (not just authorized by a human authority acting
independently of God’s authority).
Because I went beyond the language used by Mr. White in recasting
the discussion this way, he might wish an alternative formulation of
what the underlying issue is–though if I read him correctly he would
agree that it is not enough for a tradition to be merely consistent
with Scripture. If he wishes to propose an alternative formulation to
the issue being whether extrascriptural traditions can be (divinely)
authoritative then I am open to this, but it will not affect the
conclusion of the argument: The korban incident does not establish that extrascriptural traditions lack the divine authority that Scripture enjoys.
There are, of course, other aspects to the subject of how Scripture and Tradition are related and how we can know which proposed scriptures and traditions are authoritative, but these are separate questions.
The point has been established that the korban incident does not show that all extrascriptural traditions are non-authoritative: If it did, Jesus would have been undercutting his own teaching.
