Scripturism: Is the Bible Enough?

Scripturism is the view that everything a Christian needs to know is in the Bible (i.e., in the Scriptures).

More sophisticated versions of Scripturism avoid the claim that the Bible is “necessary.” This is because Christians lived and died for decades before the New Testament existed as the document we know today. This historical fact shows that it is possible to be a Christian without a Bible, so the Bible cannot be “necessary.”

Scripturism is best thought of as claiming that the Bible is “sufficient.” It is the view that if you have a Bible, then you do not need anything else. To put it another way, it is claiming that Christianity should be based on the Bible alone.

The idea that the Bible is “sufficient” raises several problems.

1. Problem of Definition

The problem of defining what should count as Scripture is also known as the problem of canonicity. It is a serious issue for Christians, as Protestant Bibles contain 66 books, Catholic Bibles contain 73 books, and some Orthodox Bibles contain more than 80 books. Which is the right Bible?

When we look at some of the oldest Bibles, we also find that they contain documents which are not in modern Bibles. For example, Codex Alexandrinus contains a letter of Clement. Codex Sinaiticus contains the Shepherd of Hermas. Should those documents count as Scripture?

If Scripturism is correct, so that the Scriptures contain everything a Christian needs to know, then the Scriptures should contain the piece of information which clarifies the contents of Scripture.

But the Scriptures do not contain a contents list. The “Contents page” placed at the front of modern Bibles is placed there by publishers; it is not part of the Scriptures.

This means that Christians must work out what should count as Scripture, using information from sources outside of Scripture. Some look at what early Christians did. Others consult their feelings, or appeal to inner illuminations for the answer. Some report that the Holy Spirit tells them the answer.

These sources of information may indeed solve the problem of what should be in the Scriptures. But they are sources of information which are “outside” of the text of Scripture, thus implying that Scripture alone is not sufficient.

2. Problem of Authenticity

Documents can be accidentally changed when they are being copied. When this occurs with Scriptural documents, it raises questions about authenticity.

For example, the end of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9–20) contains a section which cannot be found in some of the oldest manuscripts. It prompts the question of whether that piece of text is an authentic part of Scripture?

Similarly, the story of the woman accused of adultery (John 7:53–8:11) cannot be found in some early manuscripts. Should it be counted as authentic Scripture?

People who believe in Scripturism need to know which bits of the Scriptures are authentic. If Scripturism is correct, then the answer should be in the Scriptures, but the answer is not there. This means that the Scriptures do not contain everything a Christian needs to know.

3. Problem of Translation

The Christian Scriptures contain a New Testament written in Koine Greek. It consists of just over 138,600 Greek words, with a vocabulary of almost 5400 different words.

Some words are repeated often. So, it is possible to read around 80% of the New Testament by learning just 300 Greek words (and learning the grammar of the language).

This is only possible because there are many words in the New Testament which occur rarely. Almost 2000 Greek words occur only once (i.e., hapax legomenon) and around another 800 words occur only twice.

Translating “low frequency” words can be difficult. This is because we need to see a word used in multiple contexts to work out what it means. A famous example of this difficulty occurs in the Lord’s Prayer, with the phrase “give us this day our epiousios bread” (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3).

The word epiousios only appears in this context. There are no other contexts to help Christians work out what the word means. So Christians have been arguing for more than a thousand years whether epiousios is correctly translated as “daily” bread. Some think that “supersubstantial” (with Eucharistic overtones) would be a better translation, as it is closer to the etymology of the words epi and ousios.

When it comes to translating low frequency words in the New Testament, the Scriptures alone are not sufficient. It is necessary to look outside the Bible, at linguistics and the historical traditions of how Christians have previously understood words.

4. Problem of Understanding

Scripturism’s insistence upon the sufficiency of the Bible is a claim that nothing outside of the Bible is needed to understand the Bible. This means that one part of the Bible can be understood by looking at other parts of the Bible.

The question of whether claims in the Bible should be understood literally or metaphorically shows that this is not the case.

The Genesis account of Creation states that the world was made in seven days (Genesis 1). Are those literal days or metaphorical days of evolutionary epochs?

The book of Joshua records a battle where God increased daylight by making the sun stand still (Joshua 10:13). Is that a literal stopping of the sun (so that the Bible proves geocentricism, i.e., the belief that the sun moves around the earth). Or is it just a metaphorical way of saying that God miraculously extended the hours of daylight?

Traditionally many Christians assumed that everything in the Bible was literally true, unless there was a specific reason for thinking that it must be metaphorically true. This is why Creationists and Flat Earth Christians appeal to texts like those above as proof of their position.

But people could take the opposite approach to the Bible and assume that everything in the Bible is metaphorically true, unless there is a specific reason to think that it is literally true.

If the Scriptures alone were sufficient, then the Bible would tell us which approach to take. But it does not do so. In fact, Christians end up looking to information outside the Bible and then interpret texts on a case-by-case basis. For example, Christians may use astronomy to tell them that the earth goes round the sun (i.e., heliocentrism). Using this piece of information, they can then reach a view that the Joshua text should be understood metaphorically, not literally.

5. Problem of Application

Even when Christians can translate and understand the Scriptures, there is always a question of how to apply them.

There are well-known controversial biblical texts about slavery, homosexuality, racism, sexism (etc.), which have been used and misused by different Christians. Even Jesus’ rejection of divorce is considered by some Christians to be an aspirational ideal, while others see it as a command.

If the Bible were sufficient, then it would tell people how to apply its claims. It does not do so. This means that Christians must consult other sources outside of the Bible, such as their “conscience,” or their “pastor,” to decide how to apply the Bible.

Christians may consider approaches like this to be compatible with Scripturism because they are methodologies which can be found in Scripture. For example, the Scriptures state, “Obey your leaders” (Hebrews 13:17). So, obeying a pastor is a Scriptural approach.

This kind of approach is analogous to how countries deal with written constitutions. No country can follow a “constitution alone,” in the sense of following just a text. There is always a need for a separate constitutional court to decide how to apply the text. However, the constitutional court is defined within the constitution. So, there is an extended sense in which following the decisions of a constitutional court could be said to be following a “constitution alone.”

However, this analogy breaks down when it comes to Scripture. Yes, the Scriptures tell Christians to obey their pastors, but it also says that some pastors are bad (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:13). So Christians cannot just follow a pastor, they must first make sure that they are following a “good” pastor, or a pastor who is “correct.”

This means that trying to apply a Scriptural methodology always raises a new (meta) question about whether the application is being applied rightly. But there is no scriptural meta-methodology to address that meta-question. This means that Scripture alone is insufficient.

The insufficiency of Scripture is shown by how Christians have behaved historically. Whether it be Tradition, Councils, Popes, Synods (etc.), Christians have always ended up appealing to something outside the Bible to resolve disputes about how to apply the Bible.

Even the most fervent advocates of “Scripturism” tend to end up appealing to something outside of Scripture, i.e., their opinion about how to apply the Scriptures.

History shows that Scripturism does not work in practice.

6. Problem of Coherence

If Scripturism is correct and everything that a Christian needs to know is in the Bible, then Scripturism itself seems to be something which Christians need to know. If so, then it should be stated in the Bible.

There are statements which say that the Scriptures are useful (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16). But centuries of arguments amongst Christians have shown that there are no Scriptural texts which unambiguously state that “Scripture alone” is sufficient.

This raises a problem of coherence. It means that insisting upon Scripturism is essentially claiming that everything you need to know is in the Scriptures… except for the claim itself that “everything you need to know is in the Scriptures.”

If there is an exception to the claim that “everything you need to know is in the Scriptures,” then it is not true that “everything you need to know is in the Scriptures.”

So, Scripturism ends up insisting that something is true, which it also shows cannot be true, because it is a self-exception to its own claim. When a belief results in a person believing something to be simultaneously true and not-true, that is a sign that the belief is not coherent.

7. Problem of Importation

Insisting upon “Scripture alone” is a mindset which can be found in many different religions.

Mainstream Islam believes in the Scripture of the Quran. It also believes in an authoritative “tradition” (the Hadith) which is essential to interpreting the Quran. However, within Islam, Quranism insists upon “Scripture alone.” It believes that the Quran, and only the Quran, should be the ultimate authority.

Mainstream Judaism believes in the Scripture of the Tanak (and especially the Torah). In addition, there is the Mishnah which is an authoritative interpretation. However, Karaite Jews insist upon “Scripture alone” and believe that the Torah, and only the Torah, should be authoritative.

These issues within Islam and Judaism are far more nuanced and sophisticated than this simple summary can do justice. But it makes the point that Scripturism, appealing to “Scripture alone,” is not a uniquely Christian viewpoint.

This raises a question. We know that people can inadvertently distort religions by accidentally importing philosophical assumptions into them (see “What Has Philosophy to Do With Religion?”). Is Scripturism one of these philosophical assumptions which is being imported into, and thereby distorting, Christianity?

Conclusion

Scripturism can seem to be a plausible idea. There is an intuitive sensibleness in assuming that as the Bible is important to Christians, it must address all the issues which Christians are confronted with.

But intuitions can be misleading, and Scripturism turns out to be deeply problematic. It cannot resolve some of the most basic issues confronting Christians. History suggests that it does not work, and logic questions its coherence. It may even be a non-Christian philosophy which is distorting Christianity.

If there is no compelling reason for a Christian to believe in Scripturism, and if such a belief is deeply problematic, then why believe in Scripturism?