2 Tim 3:16 - what Scriptures are included in "ALL"

[fisherman_carl]

Josephus, writing in the late 1st century, says this in Against Apion (1.8):

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.

He is our earliest reference to a ‘fixed’ collection of Jewish Scriptures. Per this quote, his ‘canon’ consisted of: (1) the Torah ("[Moses’] laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death"); (2) the Prophets (Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, Job, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther); (3) the “four books” (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs). This is almost identical to the later rabbinic categorization of twenty-four books (counting Ruth and Lamentations separately from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively) into the tripartite category of Law-Prophets-Writings. There might also be a reference to the tradition of reckoning twenty-four (as opposed to Josephus’ twenty-two) books in a near-contemporary apocryphal work known as 2 Esdras (aka 4 Ezra):

And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, “Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink.” Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory; and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed. And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.

And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.” And I did so.

Are you claiming that the Hebrews had a closed canon? Because this idea is addressed in 'Why Catholic Bibles are bigger", by Gary G. Michuta, which i have a copy of. Some Protestant apologists will claim a pre Christian closed Hebrew canon to undermine the deuterocanonical books as scripture.

Gary writes, “Finally, the idea that the Jews possesed a canon identical to modern day Protestantism is entirely gratuitious; there is simply no contemporary evidence to support this claim. For one thing, bibles were not bound together between covers in New Testament times; they existed as loose collection of scrolls stored in individual synagogues and the precise collection varied from place to place. Secondly, Judaism was comprised of as many as twenty-four distinct parties or “denominations”, as it were, in the first century AD and each of these parties seems to have had its own distinctive theology and its own preferences in matters of canonicity. Most students of the New Testament already know that the party of the Sadducees had the narrowest views in this regard, accepting only the Pentateuch as indisputably sacred. The borders were equally indistinct on the other end of the spectrum, with some Jewish groups willing to use a canon larger than that received by today’s Catholics. So, even if some Jewish listing from Paul’s era were to be discovered in the future, it would still only represent a canon – a canon of the Pharisees, a canon of the Essenes, and so forth – never the Jewish canon, for no one at that time spoke for all the Jews and the precise mix of scrolls in each synagogue varied widely. Indeed, the Jews of Jesus day were shocked to hear Jesus teach authoritatively and not like the scribes.”
(WCBAB, pg 13-14)

 

[fisherman_carl]

In addition Fr. Mitch Pacwa in his CD about where the bible comes from mentions that we see the Pharisees discussing in the Mishna just which of the writings were to be accepted into their canon. If i remember correctly i think one of the books they talked about was Sirach. Obviously, there would be certain core books that would be shared but there was no absolute standard set of books that would be under the term the ‘law, the prophets, and the writings’ as correspoding to the modern Jewish canon which is really the Pharisaical canon of the 2nd century.

 

[fisherman_carl]

interesting read about the Sadducees
catholic.com/quickquestions/please-explain-the-difference-between-the-sadducees-and-the-pharisees-in-the-gospels

 

[po18guy]

Couple of points: Paul was forced to set aside the OT scriptures regarding the circumcision question in Acts 15. All extant post-Abrahamic scriptures maintained that circumcision was absolutely ncessary, yet Paul chose the decision of the Church over the scriptures. From our vantage point, we can say that it was obvious, but it was not to Paul.

Secondly, consider the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12), another case that is improperly used in support of sola scriptura. The Bereans, for all of their love of scripture, and searching of the scriptures, had no idea - zero, zip, nada, that Jesus of Nazareth was their Savior - even while He walked the earth teaching in the synagogues. It took Paul’s oral teaching via the Apostolic Tradition to alert them to the identity of the Messiah.

Scripture, apart from the Church, was of no help in either of these cases.

 

[patrick457]

That’s really interesting but i wouldn’t say the idea has no foundation. Fr. Mitch Pacwa and many other Catholic apologists teach this idea that the Saducees accepted only the Torah. I’m sure they wouldnt teach it if it had no basis.

So do many scholars even today. The point is, that the only contemporary quote from Josephus usually offered as supporting the idea of the Sadducees accepting the Torah alone actually does not address the issue, if you read it carefully. As I mentioned earlier some patristic sources do allege that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, but aside from their late dates there is also the matter as to whether they may have confused the Sadducees with some other Jewish sect (say, the Samaritans - which do accept only the Torah). The point is, we could not make a definitive statement as to whether the Sadducees did accept the Torah only or not: there is still so much that we do not know about Second Temple period Judaism.

I like to compare this with the issue of the supposed ‘Council of Jamnia’ defining the Jewish canon. Ever since Heinrich Graetz had expounded his idea in the late 19th century a whole generation of academics had accepted it and repeated it as gospel truth. It was only during the 1960s-70s that Graetz’s sources began to be reevaluated and doubts cast upon his original conclusions as a result. But even after an increasing number of scholars began to abandon the idea of a formal ‘Council of Jamnia’ as Graetz defined it there are still a few people (yes, including some Catholic apologists) who continue to invoke it even today.

In this particular case, it is only fairly recently that the idea of “Josephus records Sadducees as accepting only the Torah” began to be reevaluated (perhaps around the 1990s-early 2000s; Chapman’s book was written in 2000), so I’ll expect that it will take years for it to finally sink in.

 

[patrick457]

Are you claiming that the Hebrews had a closed canon? Because this idea is addressed in 'Why Catholic Bibles are bigger", by Gary G. Michuta, which i have a copy of. Some Protestant apologists will claim a pre Christian closed Hebrew canon to undermine the deuterocanonical books as scripture.

No. I would agree with Gary here (aside of course from the statement about the Sadducees ), although I would formulate my idea slightly different from his. Josephus’ and 4 Esdras’ statement could be taken as evidence that the protocanon is already more or less fixed (although a few books are still up for grabs, like Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes) by the 1st century, but IMHO that doesn’t mean that this de facto canon was closed (contrary to what some scholars think). I think that theoretically one could consider other books to be of some authority as well (something which the Septuagint tradition attests to).

Tim McLay (The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, p.138ff.), however, argues that Josephus’ mention of twenty-two book does not necessarily imply the existence of a Jewish tripartite canon at that time.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If you are looking for a more scholarly opinion then I recommend ICSB (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible). If we back up a bit to verse 15 it says, “…from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings.”

"3:16 All Scripture is inspired: .

There were rather a lot of writings that could have been included, the Septuagint had a variety of lists of writings included in various versions over the centuries. Obviously, not all are included in our Canon but would have been included in these references.

 

[patrick457]

interesting read about the Sadducees
catholic.com/quickquestions/please-explain-the-difference-between-the-sadducees-and-the-pharisees-in-the-gospels

Very good link!

 

[minkymurph]

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (2 Tim 3:16)

This is a rather famous and “well worn” verse in apologetic conversations and I am curious.

Is there a scholarly consensus on what Paul was including in the term “ALL”…

For instance - Paul was a Pharisee…what would a Pharisee consider “ALL” Scripture?

Paul was writing to Timothy - who was ministering to believers in the Greek Speaking cities outside of Palestine and so likely used the Septuagint - So was Paul referring to the Septuagint?

Would Paul be including the various letters that were beginning to circulate among the Churches - written by well respected Churchmen such as himself, Peter, James and others?

What do the Biblical Scholars think it most likely he meant when he told Timothy that
All Scripture is useful…"?

Peace
James

This is a good question. In my view, the honest answer would have to be we can’t be certain.

Another way this question could be phrased is what did Paul mean by ‘Scripture?’
Paul was a Pharisee, but became Christian. As such, what he determined to be Scripture may have changed. As I understand it, the Pharisees were Jews and the Jews did not accept the New Testament was inspired. So, I suppose the question is what books of the Bible did the early Christians think were inspired? As we know, this is hotly disputed. Therefore, what Paul meant by ‘all’ largely depends on ones point of view regarding the Canon of Scripture.

One thing can’t be disputed and I believe another poster may have addressed this. Paul is believed to have died around around 67AD. According to Bible scholars, the Gospel of Matthew was written around 70AD, and the Gospel of John around 90AD. As such, they were written after Paul’s death. The question then is at it the time of writing, was it Paul’s intention to include these books and other books of the New Testament written after his death in his statement ‘all scripture?’ And - on what basis could one conclude he intended to include books of the New Testament that had yet to be written?

 

[patrick457]

This is a good question. In my view, the honest answer would have to be we can’t be certain.

Another way this question could be phrased is what did Paul mean by ‘Scripture?’
Paul was a Pharisee, but became Christian. As such, what he determined to be Scripture may have changed. As I understand it, the Pharisees were Jews and the Jews did not accept the New Testament was inspired. So, I suppose the question is what books of the Bible did the early Christians think were inspired? As we know, this is hotly disputed. Therefore, what Paul meant by ‘all’ largely depends on ones point of view regarding the Canon of Scripture.

I should just point out the early Christians (the first generation, anyway) were Jews. Christians was originally just like Pharisees or Sadducees or Essenes: a group within Second Temple Judaism.

 

[down_under]

my original post was about the fact that all scripture is inspired by the holy spirit and therefore has one author. one doubted this the other told me this was not the point. okay recently I was reading Covenant and communion by Scott Hahn, this is where Scott presents the current Popes theology in it was a direct quote that blew my mind (small explosion but there you go) Given the direct revelance to the discussion I thought I would give it here.

Its thick you may need to read it twice (or 3 times if your me) to get the full impact of what he is saying.

the citied work is Theology, 93-95:

The faith of the church does not exist as an ensemble of texts, rather, the texts–the words–exist because there is a corresponding subject which gives them there basis and there inner coherence. . . . in this regard, the basic tension between the old and new testaments already indicates to what extent the truth of the faith can become accessible in language only within the inner coherence of the whole, and not in separate propositions. If one strikes out the continuity of a subject which organically traverses he whole of history and which remains one with itself throughout its own transformations, nothing is left beyond contradictory speech fragments which cannot subsequently be brought into any relation. The tendency to search for what is most ancient and original behind present developments is the logical conclusion of the loss of the binding element which holds history together and unifies it in the midst of its contradictions. Theology becomes archaeology and busies itself with exhuming the authentic ideal behind what really appears before our eyes as Christianity. Such reconstructed Christianity, however, is always a selective Christianity, which loses the tension and the wealth of the whole. The disjointed pluralism of subjectively minted selective Christianities comes to replace the inner plurality of the symphony of the faith.

its deep in another place he seeks to explain that the historical critical method is great and workable, but right now misguided in that it takes a book by itself (without the eyes of faith) and examines it in its original environment without the proper context of all the other books.

My take is he is saying that you can’t take one book and only apply it in its historical context, because now that book is God who is its author talking to his people about all of scripture irregardless of the fact that what we consider scripture now may not have been considered scripture by them in there time. and again

the foot note reads principles, 321

Properly speaking, God himself must be the subject of theology. Therefore, Scripture alone is theology in the fullest sense of the word because it truly has God as its subject; it does not just speak of him but IS his own speech. It lets God himself speak. But Bonaventure does not thereby overlook the fact that this speaking on the part of God is, nevertheless, a human speaking. The writers of Holy Scripture speak as themselves, as men, yet, precisely in doing so, they are “theologoi,” those through whom God as subject, as the Word that speaks itself, enters into history. What distinguishes Holy Scripture from all later theology is thus completely safeguarded, but, at the same time, the Bible becomes the model of all theology, and those who are the bearers of it becomes the norm of the theologian, who accomplishes his task properly only to the extent that he makes God himself his subject.

God is the subject and even though there are human speaking it lets God himself speak “the word that speaks itself” deep stuff please respond and tell me what your take is.

 

[minkymurph]

I should just point out the early Christians (the first generation, anyway) were Jews. Christians was originally just like Pharisees or Sadducees or Essenes: a group within Second Temple Judaism.

You’re absolutely right. I was using the term ‘Jew’ in the sense of Jews that did not accept Jesus was the Messiah and who had not become Christian. However it could be argued the NT didn’t exist prior to Paul’s conversion, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Mark? But I stand to be corrected as I can’t remember when Luke was written and I’m too lazy to look it up. As such, it could be argued Paul was referring to the OT, (and then we can dispute the Deutero-canoninical books) possibly the Gospel of Mark and his own writings as inspired scripture?

 

[JRKH]

The Sadducees accepted only the first 5 books of the bible - the Torah- because they were sad-u-see.

The Pharisees accepted more books. What they accepted is still debated to this day but in the writings of the Mishnah in the 2nd century we see them still debating or discussing which books should be accepted. So, they had no set canon, so it would be difficult to know exactly what Paul was referring to. There would have been those books that would have been accepted without question of course. But, also there were variances among which books would have been accepted in different areas.

Paul was a Greek citizen so he may have been referring to the Greek Septuagint. Over 300 quotes of the OT in the NT are from the Septuagint. So it is possible.

Thanks Carl…this is more what I was looking for. So it was the Sadducees that tended to have the more “reduced” canon.

Also thanks to Patrick and others who have posted. It’s easier to see now why there are so many opinions out there about the matter.

It appears that there is no “scholarly” consensus on the matter…Too many variables and too little firm evidence.

Peace
James

 

[COPLAND_3]

What Paul meant when he wrote it, and what the Holy Spirit intended when inspiring Paul’s hand while he wrote is obviously what is canonical to the Christian reader at the time. More than likely Paul meant what was Apostolically canonical at his time which was the Old Testament and maybe some New Testament writings that may have been circulated then, but now, since the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul in that letter is the same that guided the Church to determine the canon that we have today, then that passage with "all"applies to our Bible for us.

 

[JRKH]

What Paul meant when he wrote it, and what the Holy Spirit intended when inspiring Paul’s hand while he wrote is obviously what is canonical to the Christian reader at the time. More than likely Paul meant what was Apostolically canonical at his time which was the Old Testament and maybe some New Testament writings that may have been circulated then, but now, since the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul in that letter is the same that guided the Church to determine the canon that we have today, then that passage with "all"applies to our Bible for us.

So what does one do with the fact that there are at least 4 different OT canons in circulation? The protestants have the smallest - and (I think) the Ethiopians have the largest.
Was it the intent of the early councils that the Bible contain ALL inspired books?
It would seem not since there was no fight or schism over the variations in the canon between East and West.

Don’t get me wrong - I am perfectly content with both the Canon of the Bible (RC) and with Church teaching. I was just curious on the subject because as we all know - we run into this verse in conversation with our non-catholic christian brothers and sisters.

It seems pretty obvious that, even though there may not be a lot of scholarly consensus on the matter, that there is enough evidence to shoot down the protestant assertions (usually used by KJV only types)

Peace
James

 

[pocohombre]

Is not n.t. scripture ? Was Paul oblivious to any current or future writings, even his own, to be inspired ? Did OT have a Revelations (last book ) that said no more could be added ? Why did God stop at Revelations ? Why would it be a “stretch” for Paul to be referring beyond OT ?

 

[HouseUponRock]

He was referring to the Septuagint Old Testament, since New Testament was not canonized yet. However, the principle applies to all books that are in the Bible.

 

[Julia_Mae]

my original post was about the fact that all scripture is inspired by the holy spirit and therefore has one author.

This is not how I would characterize inspired writings. Human works always have a human as author, or creator. Those inspired by God may be only of the Spirit in that God wished them to exist or be retained: that is, He wanted the history to be available to future generations. They may be of the Spirit in that actual words and phrases are put into the writer’s mind, yet, the whole, the vehicle of the matter comes from the person.

God and Eternal Truth cannot possibly be known and grasped in it’s entirety by any human alone. So, inspiration through individuals gives us pieces of a whole we can grasp, even if that whole is not the complete Truth impossible for us to grasp.

The faith is not in the writings, the writings exist as a result of Faith and it is what they have in common, even as each is a unique whole unto itself.

Who is the author of each human person? We are each willed to exist by God. We are also formed by human “authors” and circumstances and so, are each different. We are all carrying that spark of the Holy Spirit God puts into us and so, humanity exists because of that corresponding holiness. But for One notable exception, no single human being can reveal God. No writing can do so, either. Or reveal all Truth, or even what Truth we are able to know.

We cannot, IMO, even begin to understand anything from writing if we believe God wrote all of it. He didn’t, although a few words and phrases may be directly inspired. Humans wrote it. The historical critical method looks at that, at the humans who wrote through the words that appeared. But Scripture is like the ocean. You can study a reef and the tropical fish and plants that live there and see how it was formed or you can find a frozen depth under Arctic ice or a rift of boiling lava on mid-Atlantic the floor, but in fact, without the mass of water that is the basis of all, you can’t grasp ocean, because it’s one thing.

You have to start with the water, the Faith, that which allows all else to exist in the way it does through human agency. The human agent is just longitude and latitude, Scripture is a function of Faith, as all environments are a function of ocean. But Scripture is not Faith, as tidal currents and pods of whales are not ocean.

That’s what I think he said.

 

[COPLAND_3]

So what does one do with the fact that there are at least 4 different OT canons in circulation? The protestants have the smallest - and (I think) the Ethiopians have the largest.
Was it the intent of the early councils that the Bible contain ALL inspired books?
It would seem not since there was no fight or schism over the variations in the canon between East and West.

Don’t get me wrong - I am perfectly content with both the Canon of the Bible (RC) and with Church teaching. I was just curious on the subject because as we all know - we run into this verse in conversation with our non-catholic christian brothers and sisters.

It seems pretty obvious that, even though there may not be a lot of scholarly consensus on the matter, that there is enough evidence to shoot down the protestant assertions (usually used by KJV only types)

Peace
James

A canon is something of a development as the need came about. Obviously the Apostles would have wrote up a list of the canon if it was necessary at the time, but authority was apparently what most people relied on. The Jewish sects had their figures of authority, and the Church had its Apostles and their appointed bishops as leaders. As time went on it became necessary to define a canon as doctine developed and a growing Church needed boundries to stay unified.

I imagine that the Apostles understood what was canonical, but the need for a list was not needed at the time. Judiasm was not unified like some people might assume, and when Jesus established the Church and it began growing, the Pharasic Jews began to define themselves. As the Church grew and also having to defend their Messianic teachings against the Jews, the develoment of a canon became more and more needed.

My point is that a list of a canon was probably not even on the radar for the Apostles since it was not something that they needed. It was certainly a need for later generations, which the Church did work out through the Holy Spirit. What exactly Paul had in mind when he said “all Scripture” is only a matter of assuming.

The concept of Christians not carrying around Bibles but being led by Church authority is much easier for us Catholics to grasp then it is for Protestants who have been taught that the Bible is the complete authority to their faith.

 

[JRKH]

You ask a number of good questions here and while I do not really want to derail the thread into what is really a well worn path of discussion…Since you are new the boards (Welcome) I’ll provide you with some answers.

Is not n.t. scripture ?

Certainly the NT is scripture. However that fact does not clarify what Paul might have meant when he was writing to Timothy.
Remember that just a couple of verses above this Paul refers to the things that Timothy had learned as a youth…Which would not have been NT writings.

Was Paul oblivious to any current or future writings, even his own, to be inspired?

Most certainly Paul would not be oblivious to this fact…He would also not be oblivious to the fact that there were those who were already teaching errors. He alludes to this in his writings. Likewise he would not be oblivious to the fact that some of this erroneous teaching could/would wind up getting written down.
So then one comes up against the problem of how one determines what is and is not “God Breathed”.

Did OT have a Revelations (last book ) that said no more could be added?

You know that it did not…but this reference in the book or revelations does not apply to the canon. It applies to the book in which it is contained, that is the book of “Revelation”.

Why did God stop at Revelations ? Why would it be a “stretch” for Paul to be referring beyond OT ?

The reason it would be a stretch is because of what I mentioned earlier. That
A) In the previous verse it says…* " from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."*
Since the “writings” that Timothy had “since childhood” would have been OT writings, it is highly unlikely that Paul is talking “inclusive” of any NT writings in this passage.
**B) ** That Paul does not know who is going to write what as the NT era proceeds. It is highly unlikely that Paul is going to endorse things that have not yet been written.

Peace
James