Latin Sola/Solo Scriptura

[CharlieJ]

The Latin slogan sola scriptura means "by Scripture alone," not "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura).

Now, I'm not sure the Latin there is valid. Scriptura is a feminine word. So, I don't think you could ever put "solo" with it. That's just bad Latin. "Sola" can be either nominative or ablative depending on the length, which usually isn't marked in written texts. So, couldn't "sola scriptura" be either "Scripture alone" or "by Scripture alone"?

Any confirmation?

 

[Zimon]

You are absolutely right in my opninion, "solo" is just for neutrum and masculine words, it is "sola" since "scriptura" is feminine, it can be either ablative or nominative.

 

[CharlieJ]

Argg. I quoted Horton wrong. He was saying that "Scripture alone" would be solo scriptura. There is no such Latin expression.

 

[MW]

The slogan is in the ablative, "by Scripture alone," which intends to state the fact that Scripture alone is the norming norm, but also assumes that there is a normed norm in the confession of the church.

The abuse of the slogan has been labelled "solo scriptura" because it taken the Scripture alone as the norm without any confession of the church.

 

[CharlieJ]

The abuse of the slogan has been labelled "solo scriptura" because it taken the Scripture alone as the norm without any confession of the church.

I guess this is the part that I don't understand. At least in classical Latin, you can't say "solo scriptura." It's nonsense. Why would someone make up a grammatically incorrect phrase?

On another note, how do we know that it was originally in the ablative? Is it drawn from somewhere in Luther's writings?

 

[Zimon]

The abuse of the slogan has been labelled "solo scriptura" because it taken the Scripture alone as the norm without any confession of the church.

So it is meant to be a pun or something like this? I asked my Latin prof today and she confirmed me that is grammatically incorrect.

On another note, how do we know that it was originally in the ablative? Is it drawn from somewhere in Luther's writings?

As far as I know, Luther used it for the first time in his "Assertio" against pope Leo X in the year 1520, where he somewhere wrote "solam scripturam regnare“...

 

[discipulo]

The abuse of the slogan has been labelled "solo scriptura" because it taken the Scripture alone as the norm without any confession of the church.

I guess this is the part that I don't understand. At least in classical Latin, you can't say "solo scriptura." It's nonsense. Why would someone make up a grammatically incorrect phrase?
On another note, how do we know that it was originally in the ablative? Is it drawn from somewhere in Luther's writings?

Charlie, I heard Horton saying: Sola Scriptura is not Scriptura Solo (ipsis verbis )

Now seriously, that's what I remember, but I may have misunderstood it, it was some years ago when I heard it.

At that time I thought Horton made a great point as he went on to explain how the Reformers saw as perfectly coherent and necessary both to proclaim Sola Scriptura and to write Biblical doctrinal statements.

That is why and how I remember it and use the expression.

So the context of Sola Scriputa vs Scriptura Solo was pretty much what Rev. Winzer is explaining on the quote.

 

[CharlieJ]

I understand WHAT people mean by saying that. I don't think it's an appropriate use of language. I think someone who doesn't know Latin very well just made an unfortunate slip-up. The Latin phrase "scripture alone" is sola scriptura, spelled identically to "by scripture alone" (sola scriptura). There isn't a solo scriptura; it doesn't exist. It would be like saying in French, le petite homme. "Petite" can only be used with feminine words.

So, I think that they should find another way to make the same point. Imagine them saying that to a Roman Catholic priest who has studied Latin from the age of 8. It loses credibility.

Also, while I don't deny it, I have yet to see any proof that sola scriptura was intended to be read as ablative. I really would like to know the source of this common phrase. Also, I'm not sure that whether it's read in the ablative or nominative really establishes the point these authors are trying to make. Surely the relationship between Scripture and other potential sources of authority cannot be expressed by the case of the phrase.

 

[MW]

I guess this is the part that I don't understand. At least in classical Latin, you can't say "solo scriptura." It's nonsense. Why would someone make up a grammatically incorrect phrase?

On another note, how do we know that it was originally in the ablative? Is it drawn from somewhere in Luther's writings?

From memory (which doesn't seem to be as quick as it used to be), it was Mathison who first published the phrase, and he somewhere credits it to Douglas Jones. The phrase serves as a contrast. The irregularity may have arisen (a) intentionally, as an Anglicism; or (b) unintentionally, by borrowing from "solo Christo." Irregularities are things one has to bear with in terminology. Especially irritating to the purist is the collating of Greek and Latin derivatives in one term. I think I have heard "intertrinitarianism" criticised as literally misleading but it is the common term in the older literature.

On the ablative, I believe the solas are a modern way of representing the underlying concerns of the reformation as a theological movement, and not necessarily tied to specific statements made in space and time. Other solas are more easily identifiable as ablative.

 

[MW]

In an email from Keith Mathison it was clarified that the term “solo scriptura” was created by Douglas Jones as a tongue-in-cheek neologism and was understood both by Douglas Jones and Keith Mathison to be improper Latin.