Pages

Sunday, September 16, 2007

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.

4 comments:

  1. To expand on some of Steve's comments, we can have more than one reason for concluding that a book is canonical. Fulfilled prophecy gives us reason to believe in the inspiration of Isaiah, for example, but we could also accept the book for other reasons, such as its inclusion in a Jewish canonical consensus and the references to Isaiah as scripture by Jesus and the apostles.

    Though we don't need one criterion that would lead us to the entirety of the 66-book canon, an argument can be made for accepting that entire canon on the basis of apostolicity. The apostles' acceptance of a Jewish canonical consensus would lead us to an Old Testament. A Christian canonical consensus would lead us to a New Testament, if we have reason to believe that the Christian consensus was arrived at by means of a reliable application of the standard of apostolicity.

    There's widespread acceptance of apostolic documents as scripture among the early post-apostolic Christians, which confirms Steve's reading of passages like John 14-16. It does seem that there was an early recognition that the apostles were expanding the canon.

    Some of the early Christians refer to Luke and Hebrews as Pauline or Mark as Petrine, for example, and James can be considered an apostle (Galatians 1:19), with implications for Jude. Even if we didn't trust the early references to Luke as a Pauline gospel or we interpreted Galatians 1:19 differently, for example, we would still be left with the question of why there was such widespread acceptance of documents like Luke and James as canonical. At the same time, there was widespread rejection of documents written by other men who were believed to be disciples of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Papias, etc.). Why would the writings of Luke, for instance, be accepted while the writings of Polycarp are rejected? On the basis of internal and external evidence, it seems that documents like the writings of Papias and Polycarp were written after the time of the apostles, whereas documents like Luke and Hebrews were written while the apostles were still alive. The best explanation of why Luke's writings would be widely accepted as canonical, whereas Polycarp's wouldn't be, seems to be that Luke's had apostolic approval, whereas Polycarp's didn't.

    The evidence isn't as explicit as we'd like it to be. But a 51% probability is better than a 49% possibility. We have to make judgments according to the information we have, not what we'd like to have. The large majority of the canon is relatively easy to justify. A small minority of the books, such as Luke and Hebrews, are more difficult to argue for, but even they have more going for them than against them.

    It's not as if only those who accept the canonicity of such books have to answer for their position. Anybody who would propose rejecting a book like Luke would have to address issues such as why the book was so widely accepted as scripture and the early evidence for its association with Paul. Anybody who would decide to reject a book like Luke anyway would still have a canon that's mostly the same as ours, with all of the same foundational doctrines, and he'd still have to let documents like Luke inform his view of early Christianity. Even if the document wasn't canonical, it would make little sense to not highly regard a biography of Jesus written by a close companion of Paul who had been in contact with at least one member of Jesus' immediate family (Acts 21:18). I'm not saying that the canonicity of Luke isn't important. It is. But some people overestimate the significance of doubts about the canon, as if removing a book like Luke or 2 Peter would have far more significance than it actually would. Some Christians have had a canon that was different from ours. They were wrong, but they still agreed with us on the large majority of issues. We need to keep these canonical issues in perspective. When somebody claims that he's considering abandoning Christianity or converting to Roman Catholicism, because he doesn't know how to make an objective argument for the canonicity of Hebrews, for example, his priorities are out of order.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting post. Especially because one of the arguments I often hear raised is along the lines of "give me a good reason why the epistle of barnabas/shepherd of hermas/1 clement/etc. shouldn't be in the canon."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve--

    Can you spell out in more detail the underlying reasons for Jude's inclusion in the canon on a Protestant framework?

    ReplyDelete
  4. MG said:
    Steve--

    Can you spell out in more detail the underlying reasons for Jude's inclusion in the canon on a Protestant framework?

    **********************

    1. As a half-brother of Jesus, he would have much the same high standing in the early church as his brother James—who headed the Mother Church in Jerusalem, and whose own letter is part of the NT canon.

    2. If Peter is using Jude's letter in 2 Peter, then that would also be a form of apostolic attestation.

    But the order of literary dependence is a matter of ongoing dispute.

    ReplyDelete