Inspiration & canonization

In answer to some questions from a correspondent (I've slightly edited the original questions):

“The doctrine of inspiration has come up in recent conversations within the circle of friends I am around, and a great many questions have arisen. First, is there any clear argument from the New Testament that their writings were on par as the Old Testament scriptures?”

1.Let’s guard against false expectations. The NT writers already have the OT as their paradigm. So we wouldn’t necessarily expect them to explicitly claim inspiration. And that’s because they’re already writing in a sacred genre. They’re picking up where the OT left off. They’re downstream in that canonical tradition. They don’t have to repeat everything about themselves that OT writers say about themselves. Rather, their inspiration is a given, for the genre is inspired.

These are Jews, often writing for a Jewish audience. Even when they’re writing for Gentiles, their audience is expected to know it’s way around the OT. And to recognize the literary cues in the NT counterpart.

2.The restoration of prophecy was associated with the Messianic age, viz. John the Baptist, Pentecost, Lk 1-4 (e.g. Zechariah, Anna, Simeon).

3.If the new covenant is greater than the old covenant, would we expect the record of the old covenant to be inspired while the record of the new covenant is uninspired? The new covenant is the culmination of the old covenant.

4. For some specific evidence, see the following:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield3.html

http://garyhabermas.com/articles/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture.htm

“1 Peter 3:16 seems ambiguous, as ‘scripture’ there, can be taken as ‘word’ in the Greek.”

In NT usage, it’s a technical term for “scripture.”

“Whether that was referring to the OT seems debatable.”

It usually denotes the OT, but that’s a matter of context. Here it has reference to some of Paul’s letters.

“Regardless, how do we know what Peter is talking about all of Paul writing?”

It may not be talking about “all” of his letters, but that’s irrelevant. What’s germane is the writer, not the writing—in the sense that the character of the writing derives from the character of the writer. If Peter is putting Paul on par with OT writers, then his past, present, and future writings will be inspired.

“Is he talking about those books that will later be canonized?”

It's unnecessary to be that specific. It’s sufficient that if a writing is Pauline, then it’s inspired. And if it’s inspired, then any surviving epistle of Paul’s should be included in the canon. Writings of a certain genre automatically merit canonicity.

“If so (as it has been argued, though, seemingly irrational) why would he not inform his readers of those specific letters and not other letters of Paul that would not be canonized?”

i) Peter wouldn’t merely allude to these letters unless his readers already knew what he was talking about.

ii) Any surviving letter of Paul’s should be canonized. But Peter is in no position to know which letters would survive. Indeed, he didn’t know, at the time of writing, whether Paul would be composing any more letters. This objection is a red herring.

“Furthermore is seems that we would also have to presuppose that Peter thought that his own writings are 'God breathed' if we take that he is recommending Paul’s letters as 'God breathed'."

And what’s the problem with that presupposition? He was an apostle. He was a recipient of the charismatic promise which Christ made to the Apostolate at the Last Supper (Jn 14-16).

“Furthermore, why do we accept the canon as it is? It seems that we impose extra biblical methodology to discovering biblical authority. Doesn’t that negate biblical authority?”

There are both internal and external lines of evidence for the canon. Scripture is not opposed to extrascriptural evidence.

For example, the Bible contains many prophecies. These refer to real world events. To appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy, you have to connect a Scriptural oracle with an extrascriptural event.

When we form critical judgments on the basis of external evidence, we are judging by the evidence that God as providentially left at our disposal. If the evidence is misleading, God could have preserved a more representative sample of evidence.

“It just seems unclear how one can make a case for the New Testament, much less individual books.”

You can make a case for the NT canon on both internal and external grounds. For the moment, let’s confine ourselves to internal grounds.

i) Authorship

Authorship alone can be a sufficient criterion where it applies. If a book is by a certain kind of writer (e.g. an apostle), then it automatically merits canonization.

I’m not saying that only apostolic writings are canonical. Rather, I’m saying that if a writing is apostolic, you don’t need to look for an additional reason to include it in the canon.

Based on internal (as well as external) evidence, that already gives you 21 of the 27 books of the NT, viz. Matthew, John, Romans-Philemon, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Revelation.

ii) Intertextuality

Don’t think of the 27 books of the NT as a miscellaneous collection of individual books. For there’s a great deal of cross-attestation in the NT. You can group various NT books in interlocking units or larger blocks of material:

i) Common authorship

Individual books by the same author obviously go together:

a) Luke-Acts

b) John, 1-3 John, Revelation

c) Romans-Philemon

d) 1-2 Peter

ii) Common speaker

A book by one author may refer to another author. Author B may be a speaker or historical figure in Author A.

a) Matthew-John>1-2 Peter; James; 1-3 John; Revelation

The gospels refer to Peter, James, and John. And we have writings by Peter, James, and John outside the gospels.

b) Luke>Paul

Luke refers to Paul.

c) Paul>Luke

Paul refers to Luke.

d) Paul>Peter, John

Paul refers to the Peter and John.

e) Peter>Paul

Peter refers to Paul.

f) Luke>Matthew

g) Mark>Matthew

h) Luke>John

i) Luke>Peter

j) Luke>James

k) Luke>Mark

l) Hebrews>Timothy

m) Paul>brothers of Jesus

(a)-(m) are forms of cross-attestation.

I’m not going to give you chapter and verse for all this. You can look it up yourself. I’m just giving you a way of thinking about how the NT writings are interconnected by writer, as one writer cross-references another.

iii) Common source

a) Matthew/Luke>Mark

According to the usual solution to the synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke made use of Mark. This is, among other things, a form of implicit attestation.

Different solutions to the synoptic problem are possible, but even if you rearrange the order of literary dependence, you still get a form of cross-attestation.

b) James>Jude

One is usually thought to be literarily dependent on the other. That’s a form of implicit attestation.

A lot of what I’ve said here could be amplified and fine-tuned. The main point is that the NT books bear witness to a close-knit social circle. You can trace that out in detail. Writings go with writers, and writers go with other writers.

“To perhaps flush out my question with regards to inspiration and canonization, it would seem to me that that apostles did not know that what they were writing was inspired.”

Why do you take that position? I’m not saying that inspiration can’t operate at a subliminal level. But your statement is rather sweeping.

“Though I agree that it was, it seems that part of the inspiration process was the canonization process in which certain books were approved and some were not.”

This statement is potentially misleading. On the one hand, there were probably some inspired books which were never canonized, not because they were rejected, but because they didn’t survive.

On the other hand, the surviving NT books are the only live options we have. The NT apocrypha is obviously pseudepigraphical, given their 2C (or later) date of composition.

“Now, let me clarify with a better question to not confuse you. Were the rough draft copies of Luke, for example, inspired? Or did he write a rough draft, scratched it, wrote another rough draft, scratched it, and then wrote what we have today and said ‘Ah ha! This is inspired.’ Do you understand my point?”

To take a real-life comparison, the Book of Jeremiah is an anthology of his oracles, and it includes earlier “draft” editions of his oracles. He would collate his oracles up to a certain point in time. Then, after he delivered another batch of oracles, he would incorporate these in a revised and expanded edition. I wouldn’t be surprised if Baruch compiled the final “collected prophecies” of Jeremiah.

So I see no reason why inspiration cannot or did not apply to an earlier edition—whether by Jeremiah or Luke.

“Were the other letters of Paul (those that we do not have) inspired as well?”

Inspiration is a property of a writing because it’s a property of the writer. So, yes, his “lost letters” would also be inspired.

“They seemed to have circulated to the church's. So was the understanding of the writings at that time different than our understanding today?”

You seem to be assuming that a writing wouldn’t survive because it wasn’t deemed to be inspired or worthy of canonization, in the estimation of the church.

But there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion. To survive, a letter would have to circulate in enough *copies* so that while a number of copies (as well as the original) would be lost to the ravages of time, a sufficient number would last long enough to be recopied, and so on and so forth.

The NT church didn’t have a printing press. Not every Pauline church would necessarily have a scribe on call.

The Pauline epistles are occasional writings, dealing with the particular needs of particular churches. Some of these letters would be of more enduring value to posterity than others. So, in the providence of God, some letters survived while others, due to their topicality, were allowed (by God) to perish.