IITim.2:15, "Cutting the Word of Truth Straight"

[Nomad]

If Peter thought of Paul's writings as scripture he would have used the word. He didn't. He used writings/letters for Paul's works.

The word translated "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3:16 below is "graphe." It's plain to see that Peter does in fact refer to Paul's writings as "Scripture."

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 καὶ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν,
2Pe 3:16 ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.

 

[StanJ]

am

The word translated "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3:16 below is "graphe." It's plain to see that Peter does in fact refer to Paul's writings as "Scripture."

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 καὶ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν,
2Pe 3:16 ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων, ἐν αἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.

and you should know that the word Peter used to define Paul's letter is NOT that word. Pretty simple actually, unless you have a particular agenda.
The fact that you never address anything I write and just post the same old RT rhetoric is pretty telling Nomad.

 

[Nomad]

It's amazing how you suddenly develop a reading comprehension disorder when Scripture refutes your point of view. Peter plainly says that there are some things in Paul's letters that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. What part of this simple thought progression don't you get? I'm just glad that others are finally weighing in on your obvious dishonesty.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

 

[StanJ]

It's amazing how you suddenly develop a reading comprehension disorder when Scripture refutes your point of view. Peter plainly says that there are some things in Paul's letters that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. What part of this simple thought progression don't you get? I'm just glad that others are finally weighing in on your obvious dishonesty.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

now you're going in circles Nomad. All the ad hominems in the world won't prove you right, just reactive and hostile to the truth.
Simple is as simple does Nomad. I have no intention of having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

[Wormwood]

StanJ,

Perhaps the word that needs more clarification is λοιπὰς. This word means "other, the rest of, pertaining to part of the whole." So when Peter speaks of the "other Scriptures" he is clearly implying that Paul's writings plus other sacred writings make up the whole. Apart from Paul's letters/epistles, the "Scriptures" are incomplete or only a part of the body of inspired work. There is really no other way to understand this that I can see. Every scholar I have ever read makes this clear. I have not found a single commentary on this text that would say that Peter is not implying in this sentence that Paul's epistles comprise part of the "Scriptures." I wont belabor the point anymore or argue about it...I just am trying to bring a little clarification on my end.

Hammerstone,

Based on my above arguments on illumination vs. inspiration, I would argue the focus should be on the critical texts. The aim is to understand and live by what was inspired. The church throughout history has based traditions on many things, whether it was an area in which the TR was translated poorly, a prevalent philosophy, or some particular theologians questionable interpretation. Certainly the Holy Spirit works through the life of the church, but I think that when a practice or tradition runs contrary to what we understand to most likely be what was in the inspired autograph, then we need to side with the inspired text. As you know, Jesus always sided with what was written over and above any particular tradition of his day.

 

[shturt678]

Thank you folks for caring again!

Probably bad timing regarding shaking the bushes, however let's look at another non-scholarly view of an "Epistle":

Not the 13 "Letters" ("Epistles") are addressed and directed to certain readers/hearers, ie, those that have a genuine saving faith effected through repentance. The other N.T. Book's readers/hearers contain the former combined with unbelievers, make-believers, sometime-believers, and etc.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

Perhaps the word that needs more clarification is λοιπὰς. This word means "other, the rest of, pertaining to part of the whole." So when Peter speaks of the "other Scriptures" he is clearly implying that Paul's writings plus other sacred writings make up the whole. Apart from Paul's letters/epistles, the "Scriptures" are incomplete or only a part of the body of inspired work. There is really no other way to understand this that I can see. Every scholar I have ever read makes this clear. I have not found a single commentary on this text that would say that Peter is not implying in this sentence that Paul's epistles comprise part of the "Scriptures." I wont belabor the point anymore or argue about it...I just am trying to bring a little clarification on my end.

Thanks Wormwood....yes I recognize that, but the point remains that we are referring to Peter and Paul in two different books/epistles/letters. It may be that is what Peter meant in terms of γραφή (graphē), but then we have to assume that Paul meant the same thing in his wording, which I can't do. The OP is about what Paul was writing Timothy and in THAT context he is clearly talking about the OT/Torah. Of course I can't get into Peter's head and have no idea why he would use ἐπιστολή (epistolē) to refer to Paul's writings, and then γραφή (graphē) to refer to other writings. To accept what you say here as plausible, means Peter was not talking about Holy Scriptures as Paul was to Timothy, but simply writings as the word conveys.
I may write to Douglas Moo to see if he can shed some light on this.

 

[Wormwood]

Ok. I was just addressing the conversation about 2 Peter as it relates to what Scripture refers to when it deals with "inspired Scriptures."

but then we have to assume that Paul meant the same thing in his wording, which I can't do.

Yes, we cannot assume when Paul spoke of his writings that he was including them as part of the Scriptures. But I think it is clear that he viewed them as authoritative, important for circulation among the churches, and containing direct commands from God.

Of course I can't get into Peter's head and have no idea why he would use ἐπιστολή (epistolē) to refer to Paul's writings, and then γραφή (graphē) to refer to other writings.

I don't know that this matters. Epistle is the genre and Scripture/graphe refers to its inspiration as a holy writing. A text can be both an epistle and Scripture...and I think that is clear in this text.

To accept what you say here as plausible, means Peter was not talking about Holy Scriptures as Paul was to Timothy, but simply writings as the word conveys.

Either I am reading you incorrectly or you are not understanding my point. I think both Peter and Paul use the term "Scriptures (graphe)" to refer to inspired writings. Perhaps Paul and Peter had different concepts of what were to be included in that collection of inspired writings. We do not know if Paul viewed his own letters as inspired writings (internal evidence seems to indicate that he did), but we do know Peter viewed Paul's letters to be inspired writings. That is the point I was making.

I would be interested to hear Douglas Moo's take as well.

 

[StanJ]

Ok. I was just addressing the conversation about 2 Peter as it relates to what Scripture refers to when it deals with "inspired Scriptures."


Yes, we cannot assume when Paul spoke of his writings that he was including them as part of the Scriptures. But I think it is clear that he viewed them as authoritative, important for circulation among the churches, and containing direct commands from God.


I don't know that this matters. Epistle is the genre and Scripture/graphe refers to its inspiration as a holy writing. A text can be both an epistle and Scripture...and I think that is clear in this text.


Either I am reading you incorrectly or you are not understanding my point. I think both Peter and Paul use the term "Scriptures (graphe)" to refer to inspired writings. Perhaps Paul and Peter had different concepts of what were to be included in that collection of inspired writings. We do not know if Paul viewed his own letters as inspired writings (internal evidence seems to indicate that he did), but we do know Peter viewed Paul's letters to be inspired writings. That is the point I was making.

I would be interested to hear Douglas Moo's take as well.

OK, I've sent the email so I'll pick this up after he responds to me.
Thanks.

Oh, BTW, I have Bill Mounce's book on the Pastoral Epistles, so I will look this up in there and see how he exposits this.

 

[Nomad]

I may write to Douglas Moo to see if he can shed some light on this.

All you had to do is look at his commentary.

"The implicit point Peter is making emerges from his claim that the false teachers distort Paul’s letters “as they do the other Scriptures.” The word “other” (loipos) shows that Peter considers the letters of Paul to belong to the category of “Scripture.”19 Some scholars think that this means no more than that Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative.20 But the word “Scriptures” (graphai) always refers in the New Testament to those writings considered not only authoritative but canonical—in a word, it refers to the Old Testament (see “Bridging Contexts” section, below). Peter therefore implies that the letters of Paul have a status equivalent to that of the canon of the Old Testament itself. Here again, scholars object that such a view of Paul’s letters is impossible as early as A.D. 63 or so, when 2 Peter must have been written if the apostle Peter is its author. But we have other evidence at about this time that some New Testament material was beginning to be viewed this way. In 1 Timothy 5:18, for instance, Paul introduces as “Scripture” a verse from the Old Testament and a saying of Jesus.21 And there is no doubt that the authors of the New Testament claimed from the first to be speaking from God in a way that put their writings on a par with the Old Testament."

Moo, Douglas J. (2011-02-22). 2 Peter, Jude (The NIV Application Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4932-4935). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

 

[StanJ]

Oh, BTW, I have Bill Mounce's book on the Pastoral Epistles, so I will look this up in there and see how he exposits this.

Mounce does support that γραφή (graphē), refers to OT, whenever it is used in the NT. He also believes that the Words of Jesus would be considered "inspired" even though they are not written. Page 568 of Word Biblical Commentary / Pastoral Epistles. He uses 1 Tim 5:18 as an example of Paul quoting from the OT scriptures. He does comment about Peter, but only on 2 Peter 1:20-21 where his use of γραφή (graphē), clearly refers to the OT.
Although Paul did KNOW his ministry and position in Christ, and no doubt knew his letters carried authority, his use of γραφή (graphē), was not inferring to his own letters, and neither would Peter's.
Today of course we accept the entire Bible as scripture in the sense of the OT, but at that time it was apparently not the case. By 400 AD, we had what we now recognize as our Holy Scripture.

 

[shturt678]

IIPet.3:16, "as also the rest of the Scripture," After going over all again, I'm concluding we are compelled to take "the rest of the Scripture" in the obvious sense [not just 'writings'] as "the rest of Scripture," and we cannot escape the conclusion that the epistles of Paul (recipients being the "elect," genuine believers compared to the Gospel's "elect," composed of also make-believers) are classed with them.

The intention of the author of IIPeter seems to be to regard the Pauline epistles, or those of them that he knew, as "Scripture" because they were read in the early churches along with the lessons from the O.T.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[StanJ]

All you had to do is look at his commentary.

"The implicit point Peter is making emerges from his claim that the false teachers distort Paul’s letters “as they do the other Scriptures.” The word “other” (loipos) shows that Peter considers the letters of Paul to belong to the category of “Scripture.”19 Some scholars think that this means no more than that Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative.20 But the word “Scriptures” (graphai) always refers in the New Testament to those writings considered not only authoritative but canonical—in a word, it refers to the Old Testament (see “Bridging Contexts” section, below). Peter therefore implies that the letters of Paul have a status equivalent to that of the canon of the Old Testament itself. Here again, scholars object that such a view of Paul’s letters is impossible as early as A.D. 63 or so, when 2 Peter must have been written if the apostle Peter is its author. But we have other evidence at about this time that some New Testament material was beginning to be viewed this way. In 1 Timothy 5:18, for instance, Paul introduces as “Scripture” a verse from the Old Testament and a saying of Jesus.21 And there is no doubt that the authors of the New Testament claimed from the first to be speaking from God in a way that put their writings on a par with the Old Testament."

Moo, Douglas J. (2011-02-22). 2 Peter, Jude (The NIV Application Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4932-4935). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Thanks, but I prefer to get it from the horses mouth so to speak. Seems his findings are very similar to Mounce's.

IIPet.3:16, "as also the rest of the Scripture," After going over all again, I'm concluding we are compelled to take "the rest of the Scripture" in the obvious sense [not just 'writings'] as "the rest of Scripture," and we cannot escape the conclusion that the epistles of Paul (recipients being the "elect," genuine believers compared to the Gospel's "elect," composed of also make-believers) are classed with them.

The intention of the author of IIPeter seems to be to regard the Pauline epistles, or those of them that he knew, as "Scripture" because they were read in the early churches along with the lessons from the O.T.

Old Jack's opinion

Again Jack, despite your use of the Holeman version of this verse, the point is whether Peter is using γραφή (graphē), in the same connotation as Paul is in 2 Tim 3:16. It would appear that scholars accept that Paul was talking about the OT, not his own letters, so in that regard, that is how γραφή (graphē), is used.

 

[Chopper]

Agreed, and being bilingual (English/French), I can attest to that. I tend to appreciate modern English translation as they are done by credentialed scholars who know much more than I do about this skill. J.B. Phillips translated the way I understood and talked. His is still my favorite translation. I do like the ESV and use it more these days than ever before. Just don't like the language of the KJV, and I also don't like Shakespeare!

Shakespeare? A translater?

 

[StanJ]

Shakespeare? A translater?

He wouldn't have needed to be to understand the KJV....would've been second nature to him IMO. ^_^

 

[StanJ]

As indicated above here is a direct response from Dr. Moo.

[SIZE=medium]I take the reference to graphe in 2 Tim. To be a generic one: e.g., Paul is affirming that whatever belongs to the category of “graphe” bears the qualities he lists here. Clearly, for him, this would be the OT; but his claim is ultimately applicable to any other books (e.g., the NT) that would be deemed to belong to Scripture. Peter reflects a similar focus, in which he intends to speak mainly about OT books but, implicitly and perhaps even somewhat unconsciously, he indicates the beginnings of the movement to think about NT books, such as the letters of Paul, as “Scripture” also.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Douglas J. Moo[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Chair, Committee on Bible Translation[/SIZE]

 

[Wormwood]

As indicated above here is a direct response from Dr. Moo.

[SIZE=medium]I take the reference to graphe in 2 Tim. To be a generic one: e.g., Paul is affirming that whatever belongs to the category of “graphe” bears the qualities he lists here. Clearly, for him, this would be the OT; but his claim is ultimately applicable to any other books (e.g., the NT) that would be deemed to belong to Scripture. Peter reflects a similar focus, in which he intends to speak mainly about OT books but, implicitly and perhaps even somewhat unconsciously, he indicates the beginnings of the movement to think about NT books, such as the letters of Paul, as “Scripture” also.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Douglas J. Moo[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Chair, Committee on Bible Translation[/SIZE]

Thanks StanJ.

 

[HammerStone]

Again Jack, despite your use of the Holeman version of this verse, the point is whether Peter is using γραφή (graphē), in the same connotation as Paul is in 2 Tim 3:16. It would appear that scholars accept that Paul was talking about the OT, not his own letters, so in that regard, that is how γραφή (graphē), is used.

Not trying to be difficult, but the Holman (HCSB) translation would seem to suggest that its translators felt that to use the phrase (rest of the Scriptures) that they did, then it would imply at the bare minimum that both the OT and the writing that it was contained in fit the definition of Scripture.

With that said, I think we all would agree that γραφή (graphē) would all but definitely denotate the OT. "Rest" in the sense of the HCSB would suggest that the letter was numbered with the translators as part of the same designation.

From there, it would not be a difficult leap of logic to go from the letters of Peter to the letters of Paul. We would make the assumption that Peter (and ultimately Paul) had some sense of a developing canon. I would submit that this is where my doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture would come into play, so I don't know that it's entirely able to be proven in the academic sense, but I don't think it to be a fickle leap.

Regardless, thanks for going directly to the horse's mouth in this instance. He is a wise thoroughbred in my book.

 

[StanJ]

Not trying to be difficult, but the Holman (HCSB) translation would seem to suggest that its translators felt that to use the phrase (rest of the Scriptures) that they did, then it would imply at the bare minimum that both the OT and the writing that it was contained in fit the definition of Scripture.

With that said, I think we all would agree that γραφή (graphē) would all but definitely denotate the OT. "Rest" in the sense of the HCSB would suggest that the letter was numbered with the translators as part of the same designation.

From there, it would not be a difficult leap of logic to go from the letters of Peter to the letters of Paul. We would make the assumption that Peter (and ultimately Paul) had some sense of a developing canon. I would submit that this is where my doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture would come into play, so I don't know that it's entirely able to be proven in the academic sense, but I don't think it to be a fickle leap.

Regardless, thanks for going directly to the horse's mouth in this instance. He is a wise thoroughbred in my book.

I agree Hammer. This is the conclusion I came to about the HCSB, and I like to read it. From their perspective and our perspective today, these manuscripts are scripture, but from the perspective of Paul and Peter their writings dealing with Jesus might have been but not in the same vane as they thought of the OT. There is no doubt in my mind that the entire NT is scripture and falls within the words of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 now.

 

[HammerStone]

I agree Hammer. This is the conclusion I came to about the HCSB, and I like to read it. From their perspective and our perspective today, these manuscripts are scripture, but from the perspective of Paul and Peter their writings dealing with Jesus might have been but not in the same vane as they thought of the OT. There is no doubt in my mind that the entire NT is scripture and falls within the words of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 now.

I can agree with this. I don't mean to imply that they had the canon from Matthew through Revelation (as we know it), but I am willing to wager some level of understanding that certain writings were elevated (inspired) above others. I don't think we want to tread the path of all of their writings being Scripture, but I do recognize my case is not immediately academically verifiable.

We use the HCSB for a reason, but never imply perfection.

Thanks!