What Is Scripture?

Paul's Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy

L. Timothy Swinson

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781630875282
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Études bibliques

Analysis of the literary scheme of the letters to Timothy suggests that graphe, as it is employed in each letter, may legitimately be understood to include some of the apostolic writings that now appear in the New Testament. In affirming the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, Swinson argues that a form of the Gospel of Luke stands as the source of the second referent of graphe in 1 Tim 5: 18. Second, Swinson contends that pasa graphe in 2 Tim 3: 16 includes the apostolic writings extant in Paul's day, specifically Luke's Gospel and some of Paul's own writings. These parallel lines of analysis demonstrate that Paul ascribes to his own writings and to those of his coworkers an authoritative standing equal to that of the sacred writings (ta hiera grammata) found in the Old Testament. While many questions surrounding biblical authority and the biblical canon remain, Paul's use of graphe in 1 and 2 Timothy nevertheless advances a high view of both Old Testament and New Testament Scripture.

Chapter 1

What Is γραφη? Thesis and Introduction

With regard to Paul’s letters to Timothy, analysis of exegetical and historical data suggests that γραφή, as it is employed in each letter, legitimately should be understood not as a reference limited strictly to the Law, Prophets, and Writings, but as a term that includes at least some of the apostolic writings that now appear in the NT. Specifically, this study argues that a written version of the Gospel of Luke stands as the source of the second referent of ἡ γραφή in 1 Tim 5:18, while it also argues that πᾶσα γραφή in 2 Tim 3:16 includes as its referent the apostolic writings extant in Paul’s day, most especially Luke’s gospel and Paul’s own letters. The findings of these parallel lines of analysis will indicate that Paul, the writer of record, ascribes to his own teaching and to that of his apostolic coworkers an authoritative standing equal to that attributed to the sacred writings (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα)1 found in the OT.

In 1 Tim 5:18,2 the second of two quotations appears to offer a citation of Luke 10:7 as Scripture, though many dispute such an assessment, typically accounting for the apparent correlation with Luke by positing a Logion source. In 2 Tim 3:16–17, Paul comments directly upon the merits of “all Scripture.”3 A significant minority of interpreters maintains that in this second passage, Paul views the apostolic writings of his day, including his own writings, as Scripture alongside the OT writings. However, the majority opinion insists that whoever the writer may be, he would refer only to the OT writings as “Scripture.”4 The question regarding the referents of these occurrences of γραφή, along with the possibility raised by some interpreters that they designate writings of both the OT and NT as “Scripture,” knits these two texts together in this study, the significance of which emerges against the backdrop of the scenario outlined below.

Skepticism Regarding the Canon

Over the past two centuries, Christianity’s high view of Scripture, along with the very notion of a NT canon or a true Christian orthodoxy, has endured persistent opposition from those skeptical of the Bible’s divine origins and normative function. Increasingly, the legitimacy of a list of “inspired” NT books is dismissed.5 What premises and observations typically lay behind such disbelief, and are there data that might challenge them? In order to assess these questions, it may prove constructive first to consider briefly the positions of three representatives of this canonical skepticism: namely, James Barr, Lee McDonald, and Bart Ehrman.

In 1983, James Barr offered the observation that there exists “no scriptural evidence to decide what were the exact limits of the canon.”6 Essentially, Barr argued that if Scripture were the final authority and arbiter of theological truth, then we would expect to find an explicit assertion of such authority within the scope of Scripture itself. Since we do not, according to Barr, whatever authority we may ascribe to Scripture must derive from outside the Bible, he external sanction of which functions as the real or practical authority over theology and doctrine. Accordingly, Barr maintained,

It requires no great insight to see that in many cases it is ‘conservatism,’ or ‘Calvinism,’ or ‘evangelicalism’ that is the actual authority, and that the authority of the Bible is used and maintained simply because it is supposed to provide the necessary support for the doctrinal authority which is the real dominant power.7

Consequently, according to Barr, the entire Protestant edifice rests ultimately not upon biblical authority, but upon a self-authenticating Protestant tradition regarding biblical authority, thereby rendering the principles of biblical authority and sola scriptura meaningless (a fair inference, if his premise is correct).

In a parallel analysis, Lee McDonald seems to suggest that the relative scarcity of explicit first-century data attesting to a broad recognition of the apostolic writings as Scripture necessarily implies the absence of such recognition.8 He further supports his position against an early sense of the New Testament as Scripture by pleading that the New Testament writers had few scruples about altering OT teaching.9 Indeed, he writes,

Several statements made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) contrast his teachings with—and show their superiority to—those from the OT Scripture, especially the Law of Moses (e.g., “you have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you . . .”).10

With respect to the apostolic writings, McDonald adds,

The core of the OT Scriptures was the Mosaic Law. The Law, however, appears to be at variance with much of the NT focus on grace . . . The problem of how to live free in Christ and yet be subject to the legal codes of the Law was a critical issue for the early Gentile Christian community, and it dealt with this problem . . . by emphasizing the faith principle that preceded the Law (as Paul did in Gal 3–4 and Rom 3–4), which in effect created a “canon with the canon.”11

McDonald’s point, assuming that Jesus viewed his own teaching as superseding that of Moses, and that Paul also considered the Law, Prophets, and Writings as temporary, lies in highlighting the implication that the very idea of “Scripture” as a fixed and authoritative point of reference did not exist either for Jesus...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: What Is γραφη? Thesis and Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Authorship and Unity of the Letters to Timothy
• Chapter 3: 1 Timothy: Tracing Discourse and Semantics Relative to γραφή
• Chapter 4: Γραφη With Reference to the Immediate Literary Context of 1 Timothy
• Chapter 5: 2 Timothy: Tracing Discourse and Semantics Relative to γραφη
• Chapter 6: Γραφη with Reference to the Immediate Literary Context of 2 Timothy
• Chapter 7: Γραφη in Philo, Josephus, the LXX, the New Testament, and the Apostolic Fathers
• Chapter 8: Conclusion: γραφη in the Letters to Timothy
• Bibliography