Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Michael Kruger: 10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #3: The NT Authors Did Not Think They Were Writing Scripture


Michael Kruger has posted the third of 10 blog posts on “misconceptions about the NT Canon”. And it is evident from what he writes that the writers of the New Testament were indeed aware that what they were writing was Scripture:

1 Thess 2:13.  In perhaps Paul’s earliest letter, he is explicit about his own authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ when he reminds the Thessalonians, “You received the word of God, which you heard from us, and accepted it not as the words of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (2:13). By the phrase “word of God” (λόγον θεοῦ), Paul is no doubt referring to the authoritative “apostolic tradition” which they had already passed to the Thessalonians through their oral teaching and preaching. But, if Paul’s apostolic instruction bears divine authority, are we to think that the instruction contained in 1 Thessalonians itself does not?  Is this letter somehow exempt from that very authority? Paul acknowledges elsewhere that the mode of delivery for his apostolic instruction is secondary, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess 2:15).

1 Cor 14:37-38.  This passage is one of the most explicit about Paul’s apostolic authority, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.  If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Cor 14:37-38).  Most noteworthy about this passage is that Paul directly addresses the precise nature of his writings and declares that they are a “command of the Lord” (κυρίοu ἐντολη,).  Such a phrase is common throughout the Old Testament as a reference to either the commands that come directly from God himself or to the commands he has given to Moses. So confident is Paul of his authority to speak for the Lord that he declares that anyone who does not recognize the authority of his writings is himself “not recognized.”

Luke 1:1-4.  Luke makes express claims to be passing down apostolic tradition. In his prologue, Luke claims that the traditions included in his gospel have been “delivered” to him by those “who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.”  Most scholars view the “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” as a clear reference to the apostles. And the term “delivered” is a standard reference to the way that authoritative apostolic tradition is passed along. Thus, Luke understood his gospel to be the embodiment of the authoritative apostolic “Word” that had been delivered and entrusted to him. Craig Evans comes to the same conclusion about the prologue, “Luke does not see himself primarily as a biographer, nor even a historian.  The Lukan evangelist is a writer of Scripture, a hagiographer who is proclaiming what God has ‘accomplished among us.’”

Rev 1:1-3. The most explicit claim for a book’s authority no doubt comes from the author of Revelation.  The opening line of the book directly claims that it is the inspired prophecy of Jesus Christ delivered to John by an angel (1:1).  Consequently, there is a divine blessing attached with this book: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near” (1:3).  Moreover, the authority of this book is heightened by the inclusion of an “inscriptional curse” at the end, warning the reader not to add nor take away from this document lest they suffer divine judgment (22:18-19). 

My contention here is simple: the NT authors show evidence that they understood their writings to contain authoritative apostolic tradition.  Since the apostles were commissioned by Christ to speak for him, and were empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so, then these writings would have borne the authority of Christ himself.  Thus, whether we call these books “Scripture” is a bit beside the point.  To the earliest Christians, they were “the word of God.”

Roman Catholics are fond of citing verses like Matt 10:40 and similar verses as evidence of “apostolic succession” in the church: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me”. Richard Bauckham notes:

For this same message the disciples must have employed the same sayings in which Jesus himself had crystallized his teaching [paragraph break]. In that sense a formal transmission of Jesus’ teaching by authorized tradents, his disciples, began already during Jesus’ ministry. … Only when formulated and transmitted by the eyewitnesses and especially, though not exclusively, by the Twelve after the resurrection of Jesus would the narrative traditions about Jesus have become more formal, in the sense of tradition authorized by an acknowledged competent tradent and formally delivered to others. (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, ©2006, pg 285).

So there were “authorized representatives” who spoke and wrote with the authority of Scripture. But the later generations of Christian writers clearly recognized themselves as NOT having anything like the authority that the Apostles had. Clement, writing in 96 AD, is clearly cognizant of a certain impotence in his address to the Corinthians. Writing in 58:2, he says “accept our advice” (συμβουλήν, or “symboulen”). Michael Holmes notes this was “a ‘symbouleutic’” (or “deliberative”) letter, a category widely discussed by ancient rhetoricians and to which 1 Clement closely conforms” (“The Apostolic Fathers”, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, © 2007, pg36). Clement knows that he must reason with them; he may not order them. As well, Ignatius writes clearly in multiple places that “as a bishop he, unlike the apostles, is not in a position to give orders or to lay down the precepts or the teachings (δόγματα), which come from the Lord and the apostles alone (see his letters to the Magnesians 13; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 3:1 etc. Citing John Behr’s introduction to Irenaeus of Lyons “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching” Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pgs 9-11).

For reasons like this, Oscar Cullmann (“The Tradition”, in “The Early Church”, “London: SCM Press Ltd, © 1956), writes:

We shall insist on the fact that the infant Church itself distinguished between apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition, clearly subordinating the latter to the former, in other words, subordinating itself to the apostolic tradition (pg 87).

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the early church understood this distinction, the Roman Catholic Church puts “sacred Tradition” on the same level of Scripture (in its “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” otherwise known as “Dei Verbum”), with both “sources” “flowing from the same divine wellspring,” “merging into a unity” and “to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence”:

there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

The authors of Scripture knew they were writing Scripture. The early church, following them, knew that they were subordinate to it. It is the Roman Catholic Church which is out of step with both “apostolic tradition” and “ecclesiastical tradition”. It is the church of Rome which, though it had been invited to a place at the table, claims without warrant to speak with the authority of Christ, and chose to “sit in the first place” without having been asked to do so. We pray for the day when the master bids them “go and take a lower seat”.

Previous entries:

No comments:

Post a Comment