Did Paul know he was writing Scripture?

[Dan Z]

I often wonder if Paul knew his letters would be used for theology 2000 years later, I bet he would have reworded a few things too.

Robert said this in another thread, and I thought it was an insightful observation.

Sometimes the words of the apostles get treated as "holy writ", dictated without error, perhaps verbatim, by God for all generations. Yet I wonder what the apostles thought when they were writing their letters of encouragement and admonishment to the churches? How would they have understood their own writings?

[ohio jones]

When Mom and her sisters left home and moved to various states and countries, they set up a system to make sure they kept in touch. Every week they would mail a handwritten letter to Grandma, and she would type them and send carbon copies to all the others. Every week we would get an envelope from Grandma with a letter from her and one from each of the aunts. Now it's an email group, but they still write each week. I'm sure they wrote with a sense that the letters would be read by others in the family, but did not often think about people who had not yet been born who would read those letters 50 years later. It's interesting to look back at some of the old ones.

It's interesting to look back at some of the old posts from MD, and slightly less old posts from MN, as well. How often do we think about how our posts will be thought of in the future, and what they reveal about us?

Similarly, Paul expected his letters to be circulated among the churches, a wider audience than those he was specifically addressing. I suspect he didn't think much about us, though. How many other letters did he write that didn't survive and become part of the canon? I'm glad God preserved the ones he knew we needed.

[MaxPC]

I often wonder if Paul knew his letters would be used for theology 2000 years later, I bet he would have reworded a few things too.

Robert said this in another thread, and I thought it was an insightful observation.

Sometimes the words of the apostles get treated as "holy writ", dictated without error, perhaps verbatim, by God for all generations. Yet I wonder what the apostles thought when they were writing their letters of encouragement and admonishment to the churches? How would they have understood their own writings?

I agree, quite insightful. These are the kinds of things that we sometimes overlook in our efforts to "get it right" with the dogmatics.

In my opinion, Paul was focused upon giving sound and Godly direction to each church according to their situations. These letters addressed human behaviors and human foibles that are part and parcel of the human condition, timeless and therefore applicable to Christians of any age, any era. I would hazard to say that their timeless direction and advice for all ages warranted their place in the canon of Scripture.

[Mennogal]

I think that Paul probably wrote with a bit of an historic bent, that he on some level realized his writings would survive generations to be used by generations.... Just the feeling I get from reading the de facto founder of the Church (IMO)

[Joy]

Might this Scripture have a bearing on the question?

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
II Peter 3:16

[KingdomBuilder]

Words of Apostles were inspired by the spirit of the Almighty God for the proclamation and advancement of the Gospel as was fit for the audience and setting, which is why we have some seemingly contradictory/ opposing views set forth about a few different areas across the NT writings. They were never intended to be looked upon as some homogenized perfection of revelation.

[MaxPC]

Might this Scripture have a bearing on the question?

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
II Peter 3:16

Amen and amen

[Judas Maccabeus]

The important point is, perhaps, is that God knew he was writing scripture.

J.M.

[Abraham]

Might this Scripture have a bearing on the question?

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
II Peter 3:16

Amen and amen

The problem is: there is near unanimity among bible scholars that 2nd Peter was NOT written by Peter the apostle. The evidence for that is quite strong (and I say that as a believer, the internet is full of ref material to investigate that). So quoting 2 Peter 3:16 doesn't really help in trying to proof that the NT writers knew they were writing infallible verbatim revealed material.

On top of that - we have to realise the English word 'scripture' is Christianese days (archaic word with a comtempary meaning possibly not carried by its original use). 'Graphe' (greek) means just 'writings' - I could write a set of letters, and these could have been called writings as well in NT times. The term 'writings' doesn't magically imply that its contents are infallible or verbatim inspired. It's just something that has been written down.

Think of the OT books; by the Israelites, Jesus and current day Jews referred to as 'Law, Prophets and Writings'. With a clear diminishing authority between the three. In some instances Jesus even leaves out the 'writings' category and refers only to the first two.

When looking at the genuine writings of the early apostles there is nothing in the text that forces the reader to assume the authors claim infallibility (with the exception of Revelation which itself is a fairly literal report of a vision/prophecy). We can just read them as genuine letters by clearly God guided disciples willing to risk their lives for their faith. That is, I take them extremely seriously but assuming infallibility is unnecessary and creating more problems that it solves.

[MaxPC]

Might this Scripture have a bearing on the question?

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
II Peter 3:16

Amen and amen

The problem is: there is near unanimity among bible scholars that 2nd Peter was NOT written by Peter the apostle.

Maybe I missed the post, but I didn't think Joy was saying that Peter was the author. It was more in response to the thread's title. "Bible scholars" are also on a learning curve. They draw conclusions based on evidence (we hope) but their personal biases and perspectives will affect those conclusions. Most certainly those conclusions will have to be revised if and when new evidence arrives. One good example is the fluster and repositioning of opinions among Bible scholars when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and translated.

The important point is, perhaps, is that God knew he was writing scripture.

J.M.

Amen and amen.