Did the New Testament writers know they were writing Scripture?

Introduction

The New Testament, together with the Old, is the inspired Word of God. However the question of what inspiration entails and by what method the writers were inspired is not clear cut. In what way is Scripture ‘breathed out’ by God (2 Tim 3:16)? What does it mean to be ‘carried along’ by the Spirit (2 Pet 1:21)?

In this essay I want to explore a related question, which may suggest an approach that begins to answer these questions. I wish to examine the question of to what extent the NT writers were cognizant of the fact that they were writing Scripture, by which I mean, the written words of God. D. Moody Smith suggests that “the authors of NT books would have had no inkling that their writings would become part of something called the New Testament or the Christian Bible, which did not reach exactly its present form until the fourth century”.[1] In contrast, S. Voorwinde writes “at times the New Testament writers seemed plainly aware that they or others from amongst themselves were writing Scripture”.[2]

Of course, the NT writers are not available to be interrogated and they did not leave behind a running commentary on their process of composition. The only sources available to us are the NT books themselves, supplemented by a few historical notices in other early Christian texts. In this essay I do not intend to examine every NT book, but rather to explore how one might go about deciding whether a NT writer knew he was writing Scripture.

Modes of Inspiration

Before turning to the NT books themselves, it will be useful to outline some possibilities for the mode of inspiration and in each case, whether the inspired writer would be cognizant (or not) of that inspiration. What are described below are hypothetical modes of inspiration—speculations about how inspiration might work in practice.[3]

• Dictated Messages – It might be that God, through the Holy Spirit, specifies directly the words that are to be used (perhaps analogous to an executive dictating to his secretary). In this case the writer is conscious of receiving a message from God and writing it down.
• Delegated Messages – It might be that God, through the Holy Spirit, gives the writer instructions about what is needful and the writer conveys that message to the best of his ability, though in his own words. In this case the writer is conscious of writing on behalf of God, though is also mindful of his own input.
• Prompted Messages – It might be that God, through the Holy Spirit, provides a spark of genius or a moment of clarity that gives the writer the prompt to write something. In this case the writer is, perhaps, less aware of the direction of God (and consequently may be freer in what he writes).
• Telekinetic/Ecstatic Messages – It might be that God, through the Holy Spirit, overtakes the conscious functions of the writer and causes him in some unconscious state to write. In this case the writer would be entirely unaware of what he was writing when he was writing it (but, presumably, would recognise the intervention of God afterwards).
• Samesayer Messages – It might be that God, through his foreknowledge, knows that a certain person, in a certain circumstance, will freely choose to write a certain message. In this way writer could write a message that is the same that God would have chosen for him to write; God by choosing that individual and those circumstances has chosen that message. The writer would not be aware of receiving a message (because he would not have received a message) and nevertheless would write the words of God.

This seems to me to be an adequate representation of the spectrum of possibilities for inspiration, though no doubt further nuances and variations could be put forward. These hypothetical scenarios demonstrate that inspiration can be conscious or unconscious, whilst still being directed by God.

Definition of Scripture

In his article, “When did the Gospels become Scripture?”, Moody Smith explores the question of whether the gospel writers knew that they were writing Scripture. One aspect that significantly hampers his analysis is that he does not work with a fixed definition of Scripture. Whilst stating clearly that he does not regard ‘Scripture’ to be the same as ‘canon’ (i.e. the list of books recognised by any particular church), he oscillates about what constitutes writing Scripture, whether it be writing with liturgical purpose, or intending to continue the biblical narrative, or writing in an authoritative manner. This lack of clarity hampers his attempts to examine whether the gospel writers were aware that they were writing Scripture.

I hope to avoid this same methodological problem by starting with a clear definition of Scripture as the written words of God. For my purposes it is not strictly relevant whether a book was written for use in liturgy or was written with authority; the determining factor is whether the author intended to write down (what he considered to be) words of God.[4]

Explicit Statement

Clearly it would be helpful for our purposes had the NT writers included a statement in their texts to the effect “I am writing Scripture” (or indeed, “I am not writing Scripture”). Whilst such a statement occurs in no book of the Bible, many OT books say something similar. For example, the book of Haggai begins “In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel …” This leaves us in no doubt that the author (or the editorial scribe, amanuensis, etc.) intends to make a record of the words of God and thus, by definition, write Scripture.

As far as I can see, only one NT writer is explicit in this way about his intention to write Scripture. In Revelation, John clearly believes that he is a recording a revelation from God (Rev 1:1). He records a vision he has received (Rev 1:10), which includes instructions from Jesus to write the book (Rev 1:19). He describes the book he is writing as a prophecy (Rev 1:3; 22:7, 18-19). John is profoundly aware that he is writing a book of divine revelation in response to a divine command; John believes he is writing Scripture. None of the other NT writers are explicit in this way.

Another indicator we might look at is the stated purpose of a text. If a writer had been prompted to write by divine command or by special revelation then we might expect this to be explained in any statement about the purpose of the book. Whilst not all NT books disclose their stated purpose, there are some clear examples.

Luke begins both Luke and Acts with a preface, which seems to disclose his purpose in writing. In Luke 1:1-4, he addresses a certain Theophilus, stating that he has undertaken to write “an orderly account” for Theophilus, that he might “have certainty”. Whether Theophilus was a real person (of some dignity) or “Theophilus” is pseudonym for God-fearers in general (I favour the former option), Luke’s stated purpose is to provide an account of Jesus that will corroborate the information already received. Luke also details his method, explicitly mentioning “eyewitnesses” and those who preached the word; Luke, having investigated these sources, is compiling his account from those testimonies. Acts 1:1-3 seems to reinforce this conclusion, where Luke, again addressing Theophilus, writes of the “many proofs” by which Jesus demonstrated that he was alive; Luke seems intent on providing substance to the Christian claims. In both prefaces Luke discloses only mundane motivations for writing; he does not mention any super-mundane prompt.

As a second example, we might consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. It is written in response to reports from Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) and to a letter he has received (1 Cor 7:1), and written in anticipation of a visit he intends to make (1 Cor 4:19-21; 11:34; 16:5). It is not intended as his final and complete word to the Corinthians, but as sufficient to their needs until he comes and resolves their other problems. Again, only mundane, not super-mundane, motives are acknowledged.

External Testimony

We have a few early testimonies regarding the writing of the NT books, primarily from Papias though only fragments of his works are extant. For example, Papias records that Matthew “composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability” (Papias, fr.3 = Eusebius, HE 3.39.16). Two (relatively late) testimonies to the work of Papias mention that it was Papias who wrote the gospel as John’s dictation (Papias, fr.15 = Catena of Greek Fathers commenting on the Gospel of John; Papias, fr.16 = Codex Vaticanus Alexandrinus 14).  Neither of these testimonies reveals what Matthew or John thought of the works they were composing are scripture.

Testimonies regarding the gospel of Mark are a little more forthcoming. Papias writes that “when Mark was the interpreter of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order” (Papias fr.3 = Eusebius, HE 3.39.15).[5] This testimony represents Mark’s intention as giving an accurate record of Peter’s memories of the Jesus. Papias describes Mark as Peter’s hermeneutes, usually translated “interpreter” but could mean “translator” or even “secretary”.[6] A more detailed version of the story is relayed by Clement (quoted by Eusebius, HE 2.15) who says that Mark was prevailed upon by his fellow Christians to write down what Peter had taught them orally. He continues that the Spirit revealed to Peter that Mark had written his gospel and Peter authorized the gospel to read in the churches. If this latter story were true (and that may be reasonably doubted) then it would suggest that Mark wrote under his own direction but his work was later confirmed as Scripture by Peter, moved by the Spirit.

Textual Criticism

Moody Smith raises an apparent problem with the scriptural status of Mark caused by the commonly accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem. If, as is commonly accepted, Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark (and a hypothesized source, known as Q) does that mean that these evangelists sought to replace Mark? And if so, does it follow that Matthew and Luke did not regard Mark as scripture? Now this problem can, of course, be avoided if one denies this source hypothesis but even if one accepts this hypothesis it is not an obvious consequent that Matthew and Luke denied the scriptural status of Mark. Overlap of material is a feature of the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. 2 Sam 22 / Ps 18; Isa 36-39 / 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19; Jer 52 / 2 Kgs 24:18-30). Indeed the books of Kings and Chronicles represent an Old Testament synoptic “problem”. So we need not suppose that Luke sought to replace Mark, as though it was not Scripture.

Internal Indicators

In the absence of explicit acknowledgment of inspiration, either internally or externally, one might look to internal indications as to how the writer understood the text he was writing. However, it is not immediately clear what those indicators might be. For example, scholars have sought to classify the genre of Luke mainly as either Jewish historiography or Greek biography, [7] but it is not clear that writing either of these genres would be an indicator of writing Scripture or not. Josephus wrote Jewish historiography and yet considered himself to be (in some sense) inspired.[8] A. Perry points to many examples of literary conventions in the OT, concluding that “the inclusion of common forms of writing within the Jewish Scriptures did not exclude a genre assignment of ‘Scripture’ in Luke’s day”.[9]  The use of a genre, or literary conventions, does not imply a purely human authorship.

A more reliable basis might to be look for indications that the writer was emulating previous Scripture (i.e. the OT). Perry believes there are such indications that Luke is writing Scripture, or more specifically, Jewish scriptural history. These indications include: continuing story elements, imitating scriptural episodes, adopting a Jewish scriptural (Septuagintal) style and writing theological history.[10] Assuming these examples stand up, they would suggest that Luke was intentionally attempting to continue the scriptural narrative.

One might point to similar indicators in Matthew, such as his opening lines, “the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ”, which intentionally mirror the Genesis record (Gen 5:1; cf. 2:4; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27). The inclusion of a genealogy in itself, particularly one from Abraham tracing the history of Israel, seems another element characteristic of Hebrew Scripture.[11] The narrative elements selected by Matthew, from the death of the innocents to the flight to Egypt to the temptation in the wilderness might be seen as a recapitulation of the history of Israel, presenting the life of Jesus as a scriptural narrative. And likewise John, opening his gospel “in the beginning …”, appears to intentionally frame his narrative as a creation narrative to complement the Genesis narrative.

Nevertheless internal indicators would seem to cut both ways. Just as one might write in such a way to emulate existing Scripture, one might also write in a mundane way seemingly inconsistent with the writing of Scripture. For example, Paul uses his letters as an opportunity to convey personal messages, such as greeting his kinsmen (Rom 16:7), confirming his travel plans (1 Cor 16:5-8), requesting his left-luggage (2 Tim 4:13) and booking a room (Philem 1:22). These are hardly divine pronouncements neither are they consonant with OT scriptural writing.[12]

Authority

It may be, however, that the NT writers did not state “this text is Scripture” because the original readers would have assumed it to be authoritative because of who was writing it. For example, Paul believes that he writes with authority. He thinks that any true prophet would recognise within (some of) his writings are the commands of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37). When giving instructions about marriage, he thinks he has the Spirit of God (1 Cor 7:40). He believes that his initial preaching of the gospel was assured by the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 1:5). He believes that, in some sense, the Holy Spirit witnesses to his truthfulness (Rom 9:1). And, most importantly, he believes that in some sense the Spirit has revealed things to the early Christians (including himself; 1 Cor 2:10) and that the Sprit will continue to reveal things (Eph 1:17).  Whilst nowhere does Paul explicitly ascribe any of his letters to inspiration, he does believe that the Lord is working through him.

Paul considers himself to be an apostle (1 Cor 15:9; 2 Cor 11:5). Paul says the apostleship was received from Christ (Rom 1:5). Mark records that Jesus specifically appointed the apostles “that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach” (Mark 3:14), and their preaching was confirmed by miracles (Mark 6:7-13; cf. Matt 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6).  Similarly, Luke records that following the ascension, the apostles preached and their testimony was confirmed by miracles (Acts 4:33). He says that the apostles were directed by the Spirit (Acts 1:2). Paul believes God has appointed apostles before any other spiritual service (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11; cf. Eph 2:20), that they have received a special revelation (Eph 3:5). Luke associates apostles with the prophets as those sent by God (Luke 11:49), Jude says they issue prophesies (Jude 1:17) and the early churches considered their teaching to be authoritative (Acts 2:42; 15:23; 16:4). Peter writes that the apostles deliver the commands of the Lord (2 Pet 3:2). The NT conception of apostleship was as a divinely appointed and divinely guided role, carrying with it divine authority to make prophecies, pronouncements and commands.

This same conception of apostolic authority is found in early non-canonical Christian texts. The Didache equates apostles with prophets, using the terms interchangeably (11). Ignatius takes the doctrines of the apostles to be authoritative, on a level with commands of the Lord (Ign. Mag 13). Though he is writing letters as a bishop to other churches, he rejects the idea that he has authority to issue authoritative teaching himself; “should I issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?” (Ign. Tral 3; cf. Ign. Rom 4).

This being the case, an apostle would not need to explicitly state that he was writing Scripture, because when writing as an apostle he was known to be writing with authority. Eight of Paul’s letters are explicitly addressed as from an apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1), and readers would no doubt have assumed as much for his other letters. Similarly, the two letters of Peter are explicitly from an apostle (1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1). James was an apostle (cf. Gal 1:19) and would have been known as such to his readers; this is presumably the same for his brother Jude (though unstated). Our earliest testimonies (see above) attest that Mark wrote his gospel on behalf of an apostle (i.e. Peter) and the beloved disciple, whether the son of Zebedee or the Elder, also carried apostolic authority (cf. Papias, fr.3.4). Luke is almost certainly referring to the apostles when he writes of those “ministers of the word” upon whose testimony he bases his gospel (Luke 1:2).

The Way Forward

Muslims have a very straightforward conception of Scripture; an angel dictated the Koran to their prophet Mohammed. The Koran attests to its own scriptural status (and stands or falls on the accuracy of those claims). It seems impossible to take a similar ‘dictation view’ of the New Testament; it simply strains credulity to believe that an angel dictated to Paul “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas”. If we are going to reach a better understanding of the process of inspiration then we need to found it on a better conception of what Scripture is, and that means a better conception of what the New Testament claims to be.

My proposal is that the New Testament claim to be Scripture rests on the apostolic authority of its authors. Just as Peter was moved by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and gave his testimony to the good news to those gathered in Jerusalem, in the same way the NT writers gave an enduring testimony through the books they authored. Just as Peter could give authoritative witness to the resurrection, ascension and lordship of Jesus, so the NT writers can give authoritative witness to the gospel message. Having received the Spirit from on high, the apostles were directed and guided by it in all their works for the sake of the gospel, including authoring NT texts.

We can now return to the titular question. Did the NT writer know they were writing Scripture? The NT texts do not self-reference themselves as Scripture (except possibly Revelation); they do not necessarily parallel other scriptural genres and manifest apparently mundane reasons for writing. However, a number of the NT writers—Paul, most overtly—seem conscious of writing with apostolic authority and the NT conceives of apostleship as being directed by the Spirit. In this sense the NT writers, inasmuch as they were apostles or wrote on behalf of apostles, knew they were writing authoritative texts.

This suggests a way forward for future research on the subject of inspiration and the authority of Scripture. For example, by exploring the way the Spirit worked through the apostles in their ministries we may discover suitable analogues for the way the Spirit worked in their writings. Did the Spirit reveal secrets to the apostles, as it revealed the crime of Ananias and Sapphira to Peter (Acts 5:1-11)? Did the Spirit speak directly to the apostles in words (Acts 8:29; 10:19)? Or direct them non-verbally (cf. Acts 16:7)? Did the Spirit supplement their own wisdom (Acts 6:10)? It is these sorts of examples that will provide a better understanding of the mechanism of inspiration.

Apostolic authority may also provide the clue to how the canon of Scripture was decided. As discussed, the early Christians made a distinction between the writings of the apostles and those of other Christians. Similarly those in later years who sought to fabricate scriptures (e.g. Gospel of Peter) did so under the name of an apostle. The Church may have rubber-stamped the list of NT books, but the contents of this list were already determined de facto by the criterion of apostleship.