Did authors of NT wrote their writings as a part of NT?

[atefa]

Hi.

Did each Author of each part the New Testament wrote his book/letter as part of the a bigger book(New Testament)? Did they want make a part of what we have as New Testament?

If yes, Please give me some reasons of it.

(Sorry for grammatical errors, my language is not English)

 

[RKS89]

Everything I’ve read says no, the Early Church was not anticipating relying on new Scriptures to hand the faith down. If you want a good treatment of the subject check out “Early Christian Doctrine” by JND Kelly.

 

[po18guy]

The Gospels were written to preserve the message and confirm the teaching that Christians had already received. Read the Prologue to Luke (Luke1:1-4). We see that Theophilus learned nothing at all from the Gospel that he had not already been taught orally.

The epistles were letters sent to various individuals and communities admonishing them to remain faithful. They were written and sent because the evangelists could not physically be there to preach and correct. It is the Church that recognized the value of those scattered and individual writings and collected them into what we know as the New Testament.

However - and this is crucial: the “New Testament” is not a book! It is the Holy Eucharist. Christ used those exact words to describe Holy Communion at the last supper. “New Testament” is Christ’s blood. It is the Eucharist.

 

[jas84173]

No. Some books which were considered scripture by the early church didn’t ultimately make the Canon. Some disputed writings did.

There’s lots of New testament apocryphal books. I own the M.R.James and J.K. Elliot translations. Some interesting stories actually. It’s interesting because even though most are pseudiographical aka they were written by someone claiming to be someone they weren’t such as an Apostle, you still do get a picture of what the early Church may have thought of as traditions . But no. The formal New Testament wasn’t created until the mid to late fourth century and mainly was a reaction to thwart heresies which Arianism had really been a scare. The Church had some councils, I’m sure heated ones at that, to decide which books were inspired and which weren’t.Before that there was a general consensus but say the Muratoroan Fragment which is a list of scripture from the end of the second century, contains most books we have now but is missing a few such as the epistles of Peter and also James I believe and adds the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter as well.
They are interesting reads. Obviously I recommend the Canon books to read first but if you have time and are strong in faith because some of these texts can confuse people especially the Gnostic stuff, but it is some interesting stuff.

 

[commenter]

. Some books which were considered scripture by the early church didn’t ultimately make the Canon. Some disputed writings did.

Rather, some individuals in the churches regarded some books referring to Jesus as more or less authoritative, or holy. They did not, in the earliest centuries, have the idea that a “New Testament” ought to exist at all. Later, the Magisterium determined that a New Testament ought to exist; which books should be in it; and that the Hebrew Scriptures would still be considered inspired, though sometimes superseded by the NT.

In hindsight it seems obvious there would be an Old Testament, and a New Testament, but not at the time. I am sure that if a city had an epistle attributed to an apostle, that book would be considered scripture for them, but the concept of a single, universal canon for everyone was probably not in place at first.

 

[RKS89]

but the concept of a single, universal canon for everyone was probably not in place at first.

It definitely wasn’t. The really early writings we have show no inclination towards a “new” set of Scriptures. They were more concerned with what we call the OT, combating heretics and preserving the teachings of the Apostles which had been handed down already.

 

[jas84173]

What I meant was , not necessarily scripture in the way we see it but texts that were cited by early church fathers.
A great resource is
Ntcanon.org

 

[rcwitness]

Well, Peter recognized St Paul’s writings as Scripture. And i believe he did so based on the fact that he acknowledged Paul as a genuine Apostle.

What would have always been assumed, is for the Church to judge and officially declare a writing to be Scripture before local Churches relied on it as such.

In any case, Scripture was never the only rule of faith, yet Scripture (approved by the Church) was never subject to the Church, but an expression/revelation of God through the Church.