You'd think that the answer would be an easy, "yes," but a startling number of people--including New Testament scholars--say "no."
I'm always taken aback when I'm reading along and suddenly encounter a statement like, "Of course, the authors of the New Testament didn't know that they were writing Scripture. Their writings only came to have this status later."
Huh?
How do you know that?
Let's take a look at the issue . . .
What Scripture Is
Today we often think of a particular book as Scripture based on whether it is in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it's Scripture. If it's not in the Bible, it's not Scripture.
This may be a practical test for us today, but it's not the way the New Testament authors thought of Scripture. Back when they lived, there was no book called "the Bible." Instead, there were a collection of books, which were originally written on scrolls, that they thought of as Scripture.
Only the invention of new forms of publishing technology allowed these to be put together as the single volume that we now call "the Bible."
Also back in the day--their day--the canon of Scripture was not yet completed, which means that it was still open. There was no closed canon, and so they also couldn't use the test "Is it one of the books of the (closed) canon?"
If you can't define what Scripture is by relating it to "what's in the Bible?" or "what's in the canon?" how can you define it?
The answer that the first Christians would have given if they had been asked "What is Scripture?" would probably have involved these concepts:
- A book of Scripture is a sacred book.
- A book of Scripture is an divinely authoritative book.
- A book of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
These provide important clues to whether the authors of the New Testament thought they were writing Scripture. Before we apply them, though, we should look at another way of approaching the issue . . .
What Scriptures Did the New Testament Authors Recognize?
When the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they overwhelmingly (around 80-90% of the time) quote from a particular version of it: the Septuagint. This was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was used internationally by the Jewish community.
When we look at the particular books that belonged to the Septuagint, we find that there are a number of different types, including:
- Foundational books: These tell about the founding of the Hebrew community (Genesis-Deuteronomy).
- Historical books: These tell the ongoing story of Israel's history under God's providence (Joshua-2 Chronicles, plus 1-2 Maccabees).
- Prophetic books: These contain oracles and visions given through the prophets (Isaiah-Malachi).
- Wisdom books: These contain divine wisdom on a variety of topics, written in several different forms including poetry (Job), songs (Psalms, Song of Songs), short sayings (Proverbs), meditations (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), etc.
It's not unreasonable to think that if we find the New Testament authors writing books of these types then they would have seen themselves as writing Scripture.
So if we apply that test, what results do we find?
The Book of Revelation
This one is so obvious that it's blinding. The book of Revelation present itself as a prophetic revelation like the prophetic books of the Old Testament, whose imagery and language it frequently uses.
How could John not think he was writing Scripture?
The only ways I could see a person writing a book of this sort and not think he was writing Scripture would be if he was a fraud who was writing to deceive people into thinking he was writing Scripture--or if he was some kind of fiction author who thought he was writing fiction in the form of a prophecy.
There is no evidence that John was doing either one of these things.
He comes across as straightforward and sincere--even ardent.
So Revelation is an easy "gimmie." Its author thought he was writing Scripture.
The Gospels
Also easy are the Gospels. They belong to the class of foundational books, just like the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) does in the Old Testament. They tell the story of how the New Israel (the Church) was born through the ministry of Christ, just like the Pentateuch tells the story of how the Original Israel was born through the ministry of Moses.
In fact, the Gospel authors directly parallel Jesus with Moses (Matthew does this in particular) and the Twelve Apostles with the Twelve Patriarchs of Israel.
Furthermore, the Gospel authors portray Jesus as greater than Moses. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ was regarded as the greatest event in God's plan of the ages--ever.
So anyone writing a Gospel to be read in the churches had to have the idea that he was writing Scripture.
As John Paul II said on one occasion:
Another "consolation" of the Holy Spirit for the Church was the spread of the Gospel as the text of the new covenant. If the books of the Old Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were already a source of consolation and comfort for the Church, as St. Paul says to the Romans (Rom 15:4), how much more so were the books which related "all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning" (Acts 1:1). Of these we can even more truly say that they were written "for our instruction, that by endurance and by the consolation of the scriptures we might have hope" (Rom 15:4) [General Audience, March 13, 1991].
We also have evidence in the epistles that the Gospels were regarded as Scripture.
The Brother Whose Praise Is "In the Gospel"
In 2 Corinthians 8:18-19, St. Paul writes:
18 And we have sent with [Titus also] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;
19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind [KJV].
I've quoted this from the King James Version because most modern translations render what verse 18 says dynamically rather than literally.
What Paul literally says is a brother "whose praise is in the gospel" and who, as revealed in verse 19, was a travelling companion of Paul.
Do we know any travelling companions of Paul who wrote a Gospel?
Sure! Luke!
And perhaps that's what he's referring to here. He's sending Luke along with Titus to visit the Corinthians.
Or maybe not.
The verse is ambiguous, and it could mean something else. It could mean, in keeping with modern, dynamic translations, "the brother whose praise is in the service of the gospel" or "in preaching the gospel."
Whether you think it means this kind of thing or whether you think it is a reference to Luke will depend on when you think Luke's Gospel was written.
Note that St. Paul speaks of "the brother" (singular), as if there is only one of his companions whose praise is "in the gospel." That would fit Luke well if we are talking about a written gospel, but it would be hard to see who he's talking about if we're not. Lots of Paul's companions (e.g., Timothy, Titus), could be said to have their praise in the preaching of the gospel, and all of them could have their praise in the service of the gospel.
(Note that Mark was also a companion of Paul who wrote a Gospel, but he is better known as a companion of Peter, and at one point Paul and Mark had a falling out, so Luke is the more likely choice.)
"The Worker Is Worth His Wages"
Less ambiguous is 1 Timothy 5:17-19, where we read:
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;
[18] for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
The command about not muzzling an ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the statement that the worker deserves his wages is Luke 10:7--the only other place in the Bible this statement appears.
So here we have a direct New Testament reference to Luke as Scripture.
We thus have a consciousness being displayed, in the New Testament age, that Luke--and, by extension, the other Gospels--were Scripture.
Acts of the Apostles
If Luke thought he was writing Scripture when he wrote his Gospel then he would have thought the same thing when he was writing Acts.
Acts is the direct sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it picks up where the Gospel left off, and it fits the same mold as the Old Testament historical books, which continued the story of Israel from where the Pentateuch left off.
Acts is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament historical books, filling in the history of the New Israel down to his own day (c. A.D. 62) from the point where the foundational document (the Gospel) stopped.
So we have good evidence that the authors of Revelation, the Gospels, and Acts knew they were writing Scripture. That leaves us with the epistles, which we will look at soon.
In the meantime, what do you think?
By the Way . . .
Incidentally, if you're interested in this type of information, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
Comments
Post a Comment
This makes a world of sense, Jimmy. Of course, there were many writers in the early Church who thought they were writing Scripture, but weren’t writing what we now consider to be canonical Scripture. I speak here of the apocryphal gospels, gnostic gospels, etc. Some of these, of course, may not have had the best intent behind them, but probably many did.
Honest question: is it more reasonable to assume that every single letter Paul wrote to the communities he established or visited is in the Bible, or is it more reasonable to assume that he wrote many letters over many years, and we only have some of them?
New letters appearing through, for example, archaeological discovery wouldn’t invalidate the revelatory nature of the ones in the Bible, nor would it mean these new letters contain new revelation—we know that’s not possible.
But if other letters from Paul or Peter do exist, how can we definitively say that they *knew* the letters they wrote that DID get collected into the Bible later were scripture, and the not-destined-to-be-collected-letters were not? And if they assumed that every letter they wrote was scripture, wouldn’t that cast doubt on their knowing?
Dunno. I think the Gospel writers probably thought they were writing inspired Scripture (though we should be careful not to project modern dogmatic categories onto them) but I couldn’t be sure about St.Paul. There’s a moment in one of the letters (you can tell I’m a Catholic) where he says he offers something under his own auspices- not as a commandment. And there’s one or two little things - like when he advises Timothy to take some wine for his stomach- which makes me doubt whether he believed that his letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit. If he thought that why would he bother including things like that in there?
Is it really that important?
WRT Revelation, I’m not convinced. Revelation was accepted early in the West as scripture, but not so in the East.
While John did want to reveal the mysteries of the Church in a way not expressed in the rest of scripture, other writings such as 2nd Clement (which is accepted as scripture by the Oriental Orthodox) and the Didache did also. Unlike the Didache and 2nd Clement, Revelation appears directed at the seven Churches and their internal issues and the dangers those Churches faced (both visible and invisible) and the blessings of the liturgy (both visible and invisible) rather than the Church universal.
It just so happens that the 7 Churches aren’t all that unique, and the theology is universal and the secular challenges are times so Revelation is applicable to the Church universal, so the Church in its wisdom ultimately discerned it to be scripture.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether John intended it to be scripture or not. Ultimately what counts is what the Church Universal decided since individuals, even the apostles are fallible, but not the Church. John or Matthew could very well written a letter (before the Council of Jerusalem) stating that all Christians have be be circumcised and intended it to be scripture. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel in particular was popular among the Ebionites (which believe that circumcision is required) and went so far as to use “J-S” rather than “Jesus” to avoid pronouncing the name of God, so it is plausible other Jewish/non-Christian theology went into it.
But ultimately, the Church chose the Greek Matthew as a standard, and even translated it back into Aramaic for the Aramaic liturgy rather than rely on the Hebrew translation.
The answer to the question whether the NT writers knew whether they were writing the Scripture (Word of God written) is many times “YES” and sometimes “No.” Read the following verse from 1 Thess.2:13: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”
This verse clearly says that Paul knew that it was indeed WORD OF GOD. However, we cannot absolutely say this for all the time they wrote. Sometimes it was only for a particular purpose, for instance, 1 Cori.chapter 7. However, it is today for us Word of God. One thing we can say with certainty: they were sure they wrote because God wanted them to write. In this sense, they directly or indirectly knew that they wrote Word of God.
Jesus said to his Apostles: Mt 10:20 ” for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
and
Mk 16:15 ” And he (Jesus) said to them, “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”
St Paul to the Corinthians - 1 Cor 9:16 “woe to me if I do not preach the gospel.”
They knew, because they were told by Jesus the Son, and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
ANNE: Fair point. But why can we not say the same of those early Christian writers whose texts are NOT considered canonical? For it seems that there were many perfectly orthodox writers who felt guided by the Holy Spirit and preached the Gospel - indeed, just because one does not write something canonical does not mean he does not speak truth.
Well Stephen, because Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His Church which must include the Pope (Peter was the 1st Pope).
Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:18.
It is important that we be able to explain things to others, but not to question the words of Jesus.
Here is my very long response as to why I think you are factually wrong in almost every assertion and why it does not matter whether the NT authors thought they were writing Scripture: http://www.biblejunkies.com/2012/09/did-authors-of-new-testament-know-they.html.
Do you think the first Christians would have attributed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on Old Testament scriptures with their understanding being that Jesus left so the HS could arrive at Pentecost? Did they think the HS did in fact assist int he writing of the OT?
I never saw anything like this. This certainly will influence how I read the New Testament.
Barney: I believe the Christians knew the HS wrote the OT. In the NT we read:
2 Peter 1:20-21 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
I think an important distinction to make is to consider what, exactly, is implied by calling something “Scripture”:
Do we mean merely correct, orthodox teaching from the apostolic tradition?
Do we mean readings which are fit for inclusion in the liturgy?
Do we mean readings which are especially God-breathed in a distinctive way? (In what way, specifically?)
Do we mean readings which are inerrant? (In what matters? All matters?)
Do we mean readings which have the authorship of an apostle, or of an apostolic companion whose work was directly approved by an apostle?
I think it is clear that some early opinions given about what constitutes “the canon” were including or excluding books for reasons not so much concerned with orthodoxy, generally, but for fittingness for being read aloud in the liturgy.
That is to say: Out of all the books which were available, certain ones were known by all to be spurious and heterodox and these were held to be fit neither for the liturgy nor even to be read, unless it were for the purpose of analyzing and refuting the writings of heretics.
But of the ones which were regarded orthodox, not all were held to be fit for regular reading in the liturgy. The Shepherd by Hermas, the various letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the (first) letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the Didache were all held to be orthodox and worthy of being read by Christians during their private study and devotional practices. That placed them on a “high shelf” of value; but not necessarily on the “highest shelf” of being formally included in regular readings at Mass.
It seems clear that in many cases, the question of “what belongs in the canon” was not, therefore, a question of “which books will we use as our religious authority for determining the correct doctrines of Christianity?” That is an anachronism, a superimposing of Luther’s late-stage invention Sola Scriptura on the Christians of the early centuries who knew no such conception of authority.
Instead, “what belongs in the canon” was a question of “which books have the honor of being included in that set of readings which are the preface to the Christian todah, the Eucharist, the holy and perfect sacrifice which, in union with Christ our High Priest, we lift up to God the Almighty Father?”
For a writing to meet that standard, it must have excellent credentials; and apparently, out of all the orthodox writings of the early centuries which were regarded to be profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, only those written by an apostle or directly associated with an apostolic ministry were admitted to the liturgy.
You know, this is essentially the same argument an old Mexican Jehovah’s Witness lady gave on my front porch the other day when I got into the canon/authority issues with her. Anyone who finds devotional inspiration in Jimmy’s reasoning here (and rightly so) needs to be prepared to hear it twisted into an argument in the line of sola scriptura/canon/authority from a Protestant and know where to go from there.
(And R.C.‘s comment just before mine is pretty much all you need to know if you hear Jimmy’s reasoning re-purposed as a Protestant argument.)
Great job Jimmy. I like this argument.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.