I have asserted that the writings of the apostles were immediately recognized as Scripture (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:15–16; 2 Tim. 3:16). And further, that Galatians refers to something like Matthew’s Gospel, which was “previously written” prior to Paul’s first visit to Galatia.
Here is my translation of Galatians 3:1:
“O foolish Galatians! . . . What was previously written (proegraphē) concerning Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was presented before your eyes.”1
In this context, I was delighted to recently encounter similar arguments from B. B. Warfield, that the apostolic writings were immediately recognized by the early church as Scripture. Originally published in 1892, Warfield claimed the following:
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles … imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves … Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (1 Thess. 4:2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (2 Thess. 2:15). … Inevitably, such writings … were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible”; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship—a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3). In the apprehension [or view], therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such [Scripture] they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”2
I do appreciate the way in which Warfield conceives of Scripture—not as a rigid OT canon which was well formed and finalized prior to the apostolic era, but as an ever growing collection of writings, of Scripture, to which the NT writings were gladly added by the infant churches.
The earliest Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.3
Only in passing does Warfield touch on the date of Matthew’s Gospel, as he defends the inspiration and integrity of Scripture against contemporary critics:
We ask nothing in declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. … Who does not know, for example, of the sustained attempts made to pack the witness box against the Christian Scriptures?—the wild denials of evidence the most undeniable,—the wilder dragging into court of evidence the most palpably manufactured? Who does not remember the remarkable attempt to set aside the evidence arising from Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew as Scripture, on the ground that the part of the epistle which contained it was extant only in an otherwise confessedly accurate Latin version; and when Tischendorf dragged an ancient Greek copy out of an Eastern monastery and vindicated the reading, who does not remember the astounding efforts then made to deny that the quotation was from Matthew or throw doubt on the early date of the epistle itself? Who does not know the disgraceful attempt made to manufacture,—yes simply to manufacture,—evidence against John’s gospel. (etc.)4
Despite the mere passing reference, I’ll happily claim that Warfield’s “early date” falls in-line with my early Gospel proposition!
Again, I must express a sense of wonder at being able to read from the writings of the stalwarts of the faith. In this case, my thanks to archive.org for access to copies of Warfield’s writings.
- Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024), 60. ↩︎
- Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948), 412. ↩︎
- Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 412–413. ↩︎
- Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 430–431. ↩︎
