While the Jews had their canon within a canon, what about the early church? The Jews emphasized the Torah above the other scriptures? What about early Christians? Specifically, how did they see the New Testament writings?

I would argue that the stratifying of authority took place during the years when the canon was in flux. That is, writings seen to be of lesser authority were not included as part of the New Testament. There were highly respected books like the Didache or 1 Clement that were read regularly, but not seen as part of the authoritative scriptures of the church.

There was debate about some of the accepted books, like 2 Peter or Jude. But for the most part, the books we use today were seen as holy scriptures. (And yes, I’m greatly simplifying decades and decades of study and debate)

I don’t place the epistles over the gospels nor vice versa. I do read the varying literary sections in different ways, which helps explain why I don’t take Revelation literally (Jesus isn’t a slain lamb with seven horns and seven eyes)

I guess the huge difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament had books that were expected to be read as law; that’s why the Torah was/is seen differently. The New Testament lacks such legal code. There are commands and instructions throughout the New Testament writings, but there is nothing similar to what we find in the laws of the Torah.

That’s where I ended up on this mental side trip. How about you?