What internal evidence is there in any of the books of the New Testament that would indicate the writer’s view of the status of the book he was writing? (I’m thinking in relation to the “inspiration” issue.) Certainly they saw the Old Testament as “inspired by God” in some sense, like the later work of 1 Timothy (3:16)…or like when Jesus refers to the Law, Prophets, Psalms per the Gospels.
But maybe more specifically the Pauline letters or the Gospels: are there any indications how the writer viewed the status of their writing? Did the author of “Luke” simply view his book as an orderly account about Jesus and nothing more (not some inerrant, infallible part of Scripture)? Or did Paul view his letters as just writing a letter to correct a church and nothing more?
(It’d be fascinating to take a rabbit trail to discuss what was meant specifically about the OT being inspired. Surely it didn’t mean inerrancy or modern rationalizations/theologizing).
Are there any good books that talk some on this type of issue? Thank you!
Just my opinion here, but the early church fathers certainly didn’t think the writings of the NT were inspired so looking backwards why should we think the authors themselves thought that? I’m out of town at the moment so I can’t provide specific examples from my books, but when an Apostolic Father would reference the OT there was a formulaic introduction given something like “As it is written” and reference the book by name, e.g. Isaiah or the Psalms. When something from one of the gospels or Paul’s letters was mentioned you wouldn’t have the authoritative “it is written” or however else it was introduced and early on even the title of the work was omitted (assuming it was even known, see the issue with the anonymity of the Gospels). If a saying of Jesus was being mentioned the closest you’d get would be “the Lord said”, again with no reference to the book or letter from the NT.
So, from that perspective, in my opinion, the authors certainly didn’t see their works as inspired because those who came after them just a generation later didn’t. This would occur later of course, but not in the first few centuries.
Bruce Metzger covered this issue of how the NT books were originally viewed. If you want specific examples and what he says about it I can quote it in a couple of days.
gmatthews said
Just my opinion here, but the early church fathers certainly didn’t think the writings of the NT were inspired so looking backwards why should we think the authors themselves thought that? I’m out of town at the moment so I can’t provide specific examples from my books, but when an Apostolic Father would reference the OT there was a formulaic introduction given something like “As it is written” and reference the book by name, e.g. Isaiah or the Psalms. When something from one of the gospels or Paul’s letters was mentioned you wouldn’t have the authoritative “it is written” or however else it was introduced and early on even the title of the work was omitted (assuming it was even known, see the issue with the anonymity of the Gospels). If a saying of Jesus was being mentioned the closest you’d get would be “the Lord said”, again with no reference to the book or letter from the NT.So, from that perspective, in my opinion, the authors certainly didn’t see their works as inspired because those who came after them just a generation later didn’t. This would occur later of course, but not in the first few centuries.
Bruce Metzger covered this issue of how the NT books were originally viewed. If you want specific examples and what he says about it I can quote it in a couple of days.
It is at least pretty obvious that Luke and Matthew did not consider Mark as “unerring”, since they did not hesitate to correct or modify Mark, as they incorporated Mark into their own gospels. Most likely then, they considered their own gospels to be better in some sense, but most likely not as perfect or infallible.
gmatthews said
Sure I agree with that. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t seem like they would think their gospel was “inspired”. No one else did at first.
But not long after, the early fathers considered them inspired. The author of Revelation must have considered his book as “inspired” in some sense. Even non-canonical writings were seen as inspired in some instances.
During the emergence of the NT Canon, the criteria used were Dogmatic Correctness, Apostolicity, and broad acceptance in posterity, according to Metzger. Thus, Inspiration was not a primary criterion, nor could it be, but a conclusion based on the three former criteria. It is hard to say what the gospel authors themselves though of their work. Any early important Christian would probably continuously hope for guidance by the Spirit in all activities. This is attested by the importance the authors put on the reception of the Spirit, like in Acts or John 20:22.
NW ask a very interesting question about INTERNAL evidence that the authors considered the New Testament to be Scripture. Prof. Ehrman touched on this topic in “Forged.” On page 201, he discusses how the author of 2 Peter refers to Paul’s letters and “other” Scripture. This is internal evidence that the author of 2 Peter considered Paul’s letters to be Scripture. However, Prof. Ehrman also explains that 2 Peter was forged by someone pretending to be Peter.
It would seem to me that if the forger considered letters by Paul to be Scripture, then he would probably consider a letter by Peter to be Scripture. If so, the forger intended that other Christians would believe his forgery to be Scripture. Might it be true that forgeries are the only books in the New Testament that the authors wrote with the intent that the writing be accepted as Scripture?
Prof Ehrman goes a little further in “Forgery and Counterforgery”. From p. 224:
“…this author [the forger of 2 Peter] already knows of a collection of Paul’s letters … and that he is living at a time when Christians were already considering these letters to be Scripture (3:15-16). It is hard to imagine any such situation before the end of the first century, at best.”
The bold is added by me.
I can’t find where he gives his opinion on the dating of 2 Peter, but in his textbook he says that Jude is dated near the end of the 1st century and since chapter 2 of 2 Peter incorporates a lot of Jude then it has to be at least shortly after that. A lot of scholars date it to the middle of the 2nd century, but apologists date it much earlier of course.
So, Prof Ehrman is saying that if the author of 2 Peter is telling the truth about Paul’s letters being called Scripture then it can only be into the first part of the 2nd century at least. I’d have to go check my Metzger book to see what he says about when the canonical books were first called Scripture.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert