When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?

Abstract

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Foreign text omitted ... In teaching NT Introduction, I am fond of saying that authors of NT books would have had no inkling that their writings would become part of something called New Testament or Christian Bible, which did not reach exactly its present form until fourth century. Matthew did not know that his Gospel would begin NT, although he would be happy to discover that it does. It is well suited for that position and purpose. John did not know that his Gospel would stand in NT alongside three other, Synoptic Gospels, and that it would be fourth, presumably to be read after others. Some exegetes believe that John was actually written with others in view, but that premise creates as many problems of interpretation as it resolves.l However that may be, presumption of a historical distance, and consequent difference of purpose, between composition of NT writings and their incorporation into a of is representative of our discipline. The question When did Gospels become scripture? is certainly not a new one. Understandably, it is ordinarily construed as a question about formation of canon, in this case particularly four-Gospel canon. The latter question is important, interesting, and subject of recent, relevant discussions. For example, in his 1996 S.N.T.S. presidential address Graham Stanton argued that four-Gospel was formed sooner rather than later in second century.2 More radically, David Trobisch has proposed that entire NT as we know it was actually assembled, redacted, and published in latter half of second century.3 John Barton has argued that by that time principal elements of NT were already functioning as if not referred to as such.4 Needless to say, any discussion of or stands on shoulders of such contemporary figures as James Barr, Brevard S. Childs, and James A. Sanders, not to mention Bruce M. Metzger.s Their contributions and such proposals as I have just mentioned are significant as well as fascinating to me, but I want to pursue a somewhat different tack. For purposes of our discussion I accept distinction between and (as set out, for example, by William A. Graham and now widely accepted).6 Obviously canon presumes scripture, that is, recognition of certain writings as possessing peculiar status or importance. Scripture means texts that are revered as especially sacred and authoritative.7 Canon refers to delimitation of such texts. Significantly, canon (...) is not used of sacred writings in NT, but scripture (...) of course is. In most, but not all, cases, scripture clearly refers to what Christians call Old Testament. The existence of as well as implies existence of a religious community that accords status and authority to certain texts. It goes without saying that community in question believes that such status and authority actually belong to, adhere in, text because of its subject matter, God in relation to human beings. The authors of NT books refer to but we have assumeddo not think of themselves as writing scripture. We are accustomed to thinking of Gospels as well as Epistles as occasional documents generated in specific times and places to address issues of such times and places.a Of course, one generally acknowledges that letters of apostle Paul were means of his apostolic presence among his churches, in which they would have been read aloud (1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16; cf. 2 Cor 10:9-10). 2 Peter 3:15-16 suggests that they were regarded as before there was a NT. The same may also be true of Gospels, although that is more difficult to document. From Justin Martyr (First Apology 67) we learn that at least by mid-second century the memoirs of apostles (i. …