Posted on 09/30/2013 6:42:42 PM PDT by Gamecock
One of the most controversial issues in the study of the New Testament canon is the date when these books were regarded as Scripture. When were these books first used as an authoritative guide for the church? Critical scholars will argue that these books were not written to be Scripture and were not even used as Scripture until the end of the second century.
But one of the most basic facts that Christians should know is that some New Testament writers actually quote other New Testament writers as Scripture. This demonstrates that the concept of a new corpus of biblical books was not a late development, but one that seems to be present in the earliest stages of Christianity.
The most obvious example of this phenomenon is 2 Pet 3:15-16 where Peter refers to Pauls letters Scripture on par with the books of the Old Testament. It is noteworthy that Peter mentions multiple letters of Paul, indicating that he was aware of some sort of collection. And, even more importantly, he assumes his audience is aware of this collection as well. There is no indication that the scriptural status of Pauls letters is a new or novel ideaPeter mentions it quite casually and naturally.
The implications of Peters statement should not be missed. It shows that apostolic letters (in this instance Pauls) had a scriptural status in early Christianity. If so, then it hard to imagine Peter would not have expected his own letter to be received with the same authority. After all, just a few verses earlier Peter made it clear that the teachings of the apostles were on par with the Old Testament itself (2 Pet 3:2).
Another example of this phenomenon is found in 1 Tim 5:18 which says: For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain and the laborer deserves his wages. While the first quote comes from Deut 25:4, the latter quote is an exact match with Luke 10:7. Although one might suggest that Paul is citing oral Jesus tradition, that option is precluded by the fact that he introduces the saying with the Scripture says.
Although Paul might be citing some unknown apocryphal gospel (that just happens to have the exact same wording of Luke 10:7), why should we prefer an unknown hypothetical source over a known source? We know that Luke actually was used as Scripture in the early churchthe same cannot be said of this hypothetical apocryphal gospel.
Of course, because these two passages seem to cite other NT books as Scripture, scholars have argued these books are forgeries, having a late date probably around the turn of the century (c.100). We cannot delve into these academic debates here, but it should be noted that these debates are by no means settled. Moreover, even if one concedes the late date for these books (for the sake of argument), that still puts the date of the canon at a remarkably early time.
If the NT writers were citing other NT writers as Scripture, then that suggests the canon was not a later ecclesiastical development, but something early and innate to the early Christian faith. And that is a basic fact that all Christians should know.
1. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
2. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
3. The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books
I remember hearing in a Philosophy class in college about a scholar who argued that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name! ;-)
The most obvious example of this phenomenon is 2 Pet 3:15-16 where Peter refers to Pauls letters Scripture on par with the books of the Old Testament. It is noteworthy that Peter mentions multiple letters of Paul, indicating that he was aware of some sort of collection. And, even more importantly, he assumes his audience is aware of this collection as well. There is no indication that the scriptural status of Pauls letters is a new or novel ideaPeter mentions it quite casually and naturally.
The implications of Peters statement should not be missed. It shows that apostolic letters (in this instance Pauls) had a scriptural status in early Christianity. If so, then it hard to imagine Peter would not have expected his own letter to be received with the same authority. After all, just a few verses earlier Peter made it clear that the teachings of the apostles were on par with the Old Testament itself (2 Pet 3:2).
Thanks for posting this, Gamecock! Very timely!
Thanks for posting this. Well-argued!
It makes eminent sense that a writer like Paul would have that self conscious realization that he was writing Scripture when he made a point of distinguishing between his own personal opinion and what he had received from Christ. Paul had dreams, visions, performed at least one resurrection, and more.
Why would he not view his own works as inspired by God and therefore Scripture?
I don,t really know what difference it would make.
Mathew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
It happened.
Thanks.
Another point of fact against frequent stumbles of humans into churcholatry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.