Did the NT authors know that they were writing scripture?

[Strength & Honor]

Were they aware, at the time of writing, that their letters were scripture, or was "scripturality," if you will, placed upon them later? If so, does that detract from, add to, or effect their validity?

 

[Firstborner]

I believe the Apostles were very aware. Peter describes Paul's writings as scripture even as he was alive, and Paul in several places gave his judgement, and claimed that the Spirit moved him to do so.

 

[Otherright]

Probably not. The original intent wasn't even a canon in the beginning. They were just teachings. But it gets so complicated as it goes on. Certain books were only available to certain groups in certain areas. It took 300 years to form the canon. Books that were sacred to earlier groups weren't to others, and so on. As the Church became more established, certain books became heretical, so were excluded.

A big problem isn't in that per sae, but in what they were saying, and how that has changed.

 

[Renji]

Perhaps they are. However, there are some books in the NT that were not written until after their death.

 

[outhouse]

Were they aware, at the time of writing, that their letters were scripture, or was "scripturality," if you will, placed upon them later? If so, does that detract from, add to, or effect their validity?

Its all theology and they knew this. They knew what they were writing.

they were all individual pieces at first that were used in small villages to large citys for religious purposes.

even as early as 150ad marcion was pulling pauls letters and lukes letters combining them.

different communities collected what they could get their hands on if "if" it was their sect or type of material that met their religious needs. If it didnt they wrote their own in some cases based on the oral tradition going around.


take into account where these early pieces were put together was highly illiterate, everything we have was passed on from oral tradition. These religious story's were told here and there and the better storys if they met enough approval would finally get to a scribe where they could be recorded because of their importance

Hell yes they knew they were writing scripture

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps they are. However, there are some books in the NT that were not written until after their death.

could you expand on that, im not following you.


who is "their"

 

[sojourner]

Were they aware, at the time of writing, that their letters were scripture, or was "scripturality," if you will, placed upon them later? If so, does that detract from, add to, or effect their validity?

No. The gospels were written forms of earlier, oral stories. The letters were simply that: Letters. They became important as more and more people read them and realized that what they were reading was the theology of the church.

In some cases, canonization places more emphasis on the writings than they deserve, in that we now tend to view them as "the truth as spouted by God." Whatever truth they contain is due to the inspiration of the writers, and, while I believe they do represent the theology of the church, I'm not at all convinced that they ought to receive the abject worship that they receive in some quarters.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would say absolutely not... and furthermore, I think that they would be horrified to learn that Christians place their writings alongside the "Old Testament."

 

[SageTree]

I think if it said "They were not written until after 'their' deaths", would make more sense.

In personal understanding of who some writings are attributed to, but not necessarily by.

But not sure if that is what Lawrence means.....

me $.07

 

[outhouse]

I think that they would be horrified to learn that Christians place their writings alongside the "Old Testament."

I agree on this 100%

paul would be a example of someone who would roll over in his grave if he knew what happened to his letters.

I would agree that Paul never intended for his work to be scripture, but not the cannonical gospels

 

[sojourner]

I agree on this 100%

paul would be a example of someone who would roll over in his grave if he knew what happened to his letters.

I would agree that Paul never intended for his work to be scripture, but not the cannonical gospels

Why? The gospels are quite likely oral stories and, as such, not "scripture" by definition.

 

[outhouse]

Why? The gospels are quite likely oral stories and, as such, not "scripture" by definition.

what part of the gospels besides pauls letters dont fit this description???? please, dont sidetrack it, just answer the question as it pertains to the OP's question.


scripture [ˈskrɪptʃə]
n a sacred, solemn, or authoritative book or piece of writing [from Latin scriptūra written material, from scrībere to write]


Scripture [ˈskrɪptʃə]
n 1. (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) Also called Holy Scripture Holy Writ the Scriptures Christianity the Old and New Testaments
2. any book or body of writings, esp when regarded as sacred by a particular religious group

 

[sojourner]

The question was: Did the writers think they were writing scripture?

I posit that they did not! Paul wrote letters to various congregations and individuals. Letters -- even ones with theological themes -- are not "scripture." The gospels began life as oral stories. by definition, scripture has to be written down. Even at the time of writing them, I doubt (due to the early date) that the authors had "scripture" in mind. It just doesn't fit with the timeline of development. I think that the texts in question became included as scriptural after the fact.

 

[earlwooters]

I believe you are right in all cases except the Gospel Of John. It was written much later, is different in tone and style, and is similar to some of the gnostic texts. I think it's writer was hoping it would become scripture when it was written.

 

[sojourner]

I believe you are right in all cases except the Gospel Of John. It was written much later, is different in tone and style, and is similar to some of the gnostic texts. I think it's writer was hoping it would become scripture when it was written.

Interesting thought, but even at the time it was written, I don't think the church had any idea of adding to the sacred texts. There is much about the Johannine community that suggests they did not intend to write scripture.

 

[Firstborner]

I agree on this 100%

paul would be a example of someone who would roll over in his grave if he knew what happened to his letters.

I would agree that Paul never intended for his work to be scripture, but not the cannonical gospels

He might roll over in the way they are twisted and abused, but he surely did intend them to be scripture. He wrote letters to congregations and then told them to share the same letters with others. He claimed apostolic authority and that his commands were with the weight of the Savior behind them. He knew that his constant writing would give the congregations a method to fight heresy in his absences.

The question was: Did the writers think they were writing scripture?

I posit that they did not! Paul wrote letters to various congregations and individuals. Letters -- even ones with theological themes -- are not "scripture." The gospels began life as oral stories. by definition, scripture has to be written down. Even at the time of writing them, I doubt (due to the early date) that the authors had "scripture" in mind. It just doesn't fit with the timeline of development. I think that the texts in question became included as scriptural after the fact.

The gospels was spread orally at the first, that is normal even of stories today, someone has to inform a modern day reporter of current events and he writes them down while the witnesses remain. The first three gospels were all written a fair time before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD and even before Paul's and Peter's deaths in the early 60s while there were still many witnesses to the life of Christ. Matthew's gospel was written initially for the Jews in Jerusalem as he knew they would be short of witnesses in the near future, and he was being called to another field. Luke wrote his as an apology and history of both Christ and the Church . Mark wrote for Peter as he knew his time was coming as well. But all the gospels were written either by witnesses or those who could report what the witnesses said, so it should not have been viewed as an oral history.

Interesting thought, but even at the time it was written, I don't think the church had any idea of adding to the sacred texts. There is much about the Johannine community that suggests they did not intend to write scripture.

Peter during his and Paul's life reckoned that Paul's writings were next to scripture, and seeing as he wrote himself letters that were expected to be forwarded to all the churches it should be assumed, being an Apostle himself, that he intended them to carry the same weight as scripture.

John in the Revelation declared his texts could not be added to or subtracted from without incurring a curse. Sounds like he considered direct revelation from God in written form, scripture.

 

[earlwooters]

"Paul's writings were next to scripture".

Lets say that I want to read writings that ARE scripture and not "NEXT TO IT".
Any suggestions? Paul was not an Apostle. Where in the Gospels is there any mention of Paul being an Apostle?

 

[outhouse]

He might roll over in the way they are twisted and abused, but he surely did intend them to be scripture. He wrote letters to congregations and then told them to share the same letters with others. He claimed apostolic authority and that his commands were with the weight of the Savior behind them. He knew that his constant writing would give the congregations a method to fight heresy in his absences.



The gospels was spread orally at the first, that is normal even of stories today, someone has to inform a modern day reporter of current events and he writes them down while the witnesses remain. The first three gospels were all written a fair time before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD and even before Paul's and Peter's deaths in the early 60s while there were still many witnesses to the life of Christ. Matthew's gospel was written initially for the Jews in Jerusalem as he knew they would be short of witnesses in the near future, and he was being called to another field. Luke wrote his as an apology and history of both Christ and the Church . Mark wrote for Peter as he knew his time was coming as well. But all the gospels were written either by witnesses or those who could report what the witnesses said, so it should not have been viewed as an oral history.



Peter during his and Paul's life reckoned that Paul's writings were next to scripture, and seeing as he wrote himself letters that were expected to be forwarded to all the churches it should be assumed, being an Apostle himself, that he intended them to carry the same weight as scripture.

John in the Revelation declared his texts could not be added to or subtracted from without incurring a curse. Sounds like he considered direct revelation from God in written form, scripture.

You do realize the gospel authors are unknown.

some of what you say follows a little in line with what is known, but your still off.




There was a very high illiteracy rate in that time and in that area, before pen ever hit paper these stories grew through oral tradition.

You have Q possible first and then shortly after M, both m and l used Q and M as a source. Once you see even how M came to be you see quite the evolution just in M.


because of oral tradition and how well many of the early stories were preserved you know they were of theological importance to those that told the stories. Thus they knew dang well this was religious in nature and once a scribe got a hold of these stories they were written down.


J may have been multiple people and or groups of people over quite the long period before it was ever finished. This is obvious scripture as is the rest of the synoptic gospels.

 

[Firstborner]

"Paul's writings were next to scripture".

Lets say that I want to read writings that ARE scripture and not "NEXT TO IT".
Any suggestions? Paul was not an Apostle. Where in the Gospels is there any mention of Paul being an Apostle?

I didn't mean next to scripture as in next behind scripture, I meant it as in an equall category.

 

[sojourner]

He might roll over in the way they are twisted and abused, but he surely did intend them to be scripture. He wrote letters to congregations and then told them to share the same letters with others. He claimed apostolic authority and that his commands were with the weight of the Savior behind them. He knew that his constant writing would give the congregations a method to fight heresy in his absences.

Letters, encyclicals and encouragement are a far cry from scripture. Even modern bishops, who carry the same authority as Paul, engage in these activities on a regular basis.

The gospels was spread orally at the first, that is normal even of stories today, someone has to inform a modern day reporter of current events and he writes them down while the witnesses remain. The first three gospels were all written a fair time before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD and even before Paul's and Peter's deaths in the early 60s while there were still many witnesses to the life of Christ. Matthew's gospel was written initially for the Jews in Jerusalem as he knew they would be short of witnesses in the near future, and he was being called to another field. Luke wrote his as an apology and history of both Christ and the Church . Mark wrote for Peter as he knew his time was coming as well. But all the gospels were written either by witnesses or those who could report what the witnesses said, so it should not have been viewed as an oral history.

You need to go back to school and study some more. Your dates, authorship, literary critique and places of writing are waaaaay off.

Peter during his and Paul's life reckoned that Paul's writings were next to scripture, and seeing as he wrote himself letters that were expected to be forwarded to all the churches it should be assumed, being an Apostle himself, that he intended them to carry the same weight as scripture.

If I stand next to you, that doesn't make me "the same" as you. It doesn't even make me "the same weight" as you.