2 Timothy 3: 16 Is the Bible really inspired?

by Bryan 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  As has often been pointed out, ironically this mention of "inspired Scripture" closely follows a "scriptural allusion" (to Jannes and Jambres, v. 8f) which happens not to be found in our OT canon...

  As far as Jewish scripture was concerned, the early Christians were never very picky. Defining the Hebrew Bible (the Christians' OT) canon was the emerging rabbinical Judaism's business, partly against 2nd-century Christians who were only too glad to quote any Jewish text which seemed to float the Christian boat. The Christians' concern was rather to define a NT canon suitable to the emerging orthodoxy, by rejecting other Christian texts. This is not yet the point of 2 Timothy 3:16f, whose inclusive expression (all scripture, not all the Scripture) refers broadly to Jewish literature. Of course the rejection of Gnostic teachings is also an important issue in the Pastorals, but there is not yet a clear discussion of a Christian canon (this will come a little later in 2 Peter 3).

  That the OT canon was still an open question among Christians is clear from the very existence of the 16th-century debate, which brought about the first dogmatical decisions on this issue (the Reformers aligning themselves on the rabbinical Hebrew canon, the Catholic council of Trent deciding for a wider canon including the "deuterocanonical" books from the Greek Septuagint tradition).
• 

  Forscher

  I don't buy the reasoning that places the authoring of many Biblical books much later. By "scriptures" Paul was more than likely talking about the books that were accepted by the Jews and Christians of his day. That would've been the books attributed to Moses and certainly the ones mentioned by Jesus during his ministry. As for Matthew, the Gospel that was around when Paul was alive (it appears that two other Gospels were authored during his ministry by close aguaintances of his Luke,and Mark, and John clearly wrote his much later), there is no indication that it was considered scripture by paul in any of his letters.
• 

  the_classicist

  Given that Timothy was a Pauline Christian, it was, most likely, a reference to the Septuagint.

  (the Reformers aligning themselves on the rabbinical Hebrew canon, the Catholic council of Trent deciding for a wider canon including the "deuterocanonical" books from the Greek Septuagint tradition).

  I disagree the deuterocanonical books were accepted by the Third Council of Carthage (397 AD), but previously in the Festal Letter of St. Athanasius (367 AD), who did not consider them canonical, rather "there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." We see this vague idea here of inspired, but not inspired enough to be canonical. Likewise at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, the deuterocanonical books were accepted by Patriarch Damasus. Later on, the Decretum Gelasianum again stated the canon (~494 AD, possibly spurious, but later confirmed by another Roman bishop). Of course, later on in the ninth century we see the Eastern Church start to "officially" differ with the west on the matter of the canon. The Stiochometery of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, includes books that the Western canon do not, like 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

  In De Doctrina Christiana (Book 2 Chapter 8), St. Augustine gives the same Western canon as the others, but St. Augustine defines the canon as something which is fluid: following the books which have gained catholicity, or universal acceptance.
• 

  doogie

  I don't buy the reasoning that places the authoring of many Biblical books much later.

  there isn't really anything to buy. it's archaeology and textual analysis.

  As for Matthew, the Gospel that was around when Paul was alive (it appears that two other Gospels were authored during his ministry by close aguaintances of his Luke,and Mark, and John clearly wrote his much later),

  every indication points to Mark being the first gospel written (although there may have been fragmentary earlier documents) and even that wasn't around until long after Paul's writings. (BTW, i'm curious how you determine that 'John clearly wrote much later'. could you elaborate?) in any case, with a late writing of the gospels (including matthew), this makes perfect sense:

  there is no indication that it was considered scripture by paul in any of his letters.
• 

  the_classicist

  St. Iraeneus sums up what the "early Christians" viewed as Scripture (Adv. Hae. 3:1:1): " We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
• 

  Narkissos

  TC,

  Thanks for the additional data, but I never meant to say that the Council of Trent defined the Catholic canon ex nihilo. It was of course confirming an old tradition (from which the Protestant Reformers had departed). For the first time the "wider canon" was dogmatically defined for the whole Roman Catholic Church (the 3rd Council of Carthage was only regional, not ecumenical), and the deuterocanonicals were given equal authority (in opposition to Athanasius and Jerome for instance).
• 

  dorayakii

  it is inspired by god the way the song "Layla" was inspired by somebody named Layla. nothing more.

  very good and amusing point

  In fact it is for sure that Jesus had no such program for the spread of his message beyond his disciples. That came later from followers like Paul.

  i feel this to be true also. I think people like Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama have been special in being ones who only promoted love or enlightenment to relieve the burdens of the organised religious status quo of their respective time and place. As soon as Jesus died and maybe even before his death, people began to enshroud him in a mysterious aura of beliefs, rules, doctrine and dogma such as his ressurection, virgin birth, raising the dead and dramatically casting out demons into pigs who fell to their gory death (all pretty dramatic stuff, but that's what religion needs, drama). By doing this they turn a simple message of morals which was meant for close friends and relatives into an almost exact clone of that which he spoke out against (ie Pharisees, Scribes, Saducees).

  As i said on another thread, if you read the NT objectively, you can see this process taking place barefacedly from the first chapter of Acts, and clandestinely even in the four gospels. In these books you can sence what's supposed to be there, and which aspects of Jesus' life and words have been embellished or outright made-up. In fact, the only thing that is probably reasonably intact is the so called "Sermon on the Mount". (Probably)

  The people who had this agenda in mind wanted Jesus to be the Messiah so badly that they added these layers upon layers of dogma. The Pauline Christians added another layer, the Roman Catholics yet another and so on and so on through the Protestant movement right down to the Evangelical movement of which the WTS is just another layer.

  The morphing of the most simple message of morals to the largest worldwide denominational religion in history called Christianity is excelently shown in George Orwell's book "Animal Farm".

  Oops, sorry i went off on a bit of a rant...... what were we talking about?......

  Ah yes...... No in my opinion the bible is not inspired. When something or someone claims to be inspired by god, that is often a sign of the proud, and often delusional mind. The WTS claims to be the only proper channel of communication between god and men, the Pope claims the same thing as did Muhhamed. The writer of 2 Timothy was no different.
• 

  Bryan

  Thanks everyone!

  Great points!

  Bryan

  Have You Seen My Mother
• 

  the_classicist

  For the first time the "wider canon" was dogmatically defined for the whole Roman Catholic Church (the 3rd Council of Carthage was only regional, not ecumenical), and the deuterocanonicals were given equal authority (in opposition to Athanasius and Jerome for instance).

  Here's where you can easily find trouble with Papal Infallibility as a Apostolic Doctrine. Damasus and Gelasius made their declarations to the whole church. If the Catholic Church always believed in the infallibilty of the Pope, then why would they need to cover it in the Council of Trent? And if it were just a confirmation of it, why is there no reference to the authoritative decree of these Patriarchs?

  Thanks for the additional data, but I never meant to say that the Council of Trent defined the Catholic canon ex nihilo.

  Narkissos, I didn't think you need additional data as you're really well researched, I'm just an human encyclopedia sometimes.