It is near impossible to engage in Biblical debate for any length of time without someone dredging up 2 Timothy 3:16
But the problem doesn't stop here. In fact, no one is quite sure who wrote 2 Timothy. The Catholic New American Bible, in its Introduction to 1 Timothy, notes:
And so we are left with ...
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
as if such an appeal was anything other than worthless. This is particularly absurd when those like AV1611 seek to buttress 1 Corinthians written by Paul with a vapid and irrelevant claim which he would no doubt argue was also written by Paul. The apologetic therefore reduces to: A) "Paul is to be believed because Paul says that Scripture is inspired by God".
Clearly, there can be few more obvious examples of circulus in demonstrando.But the problem doesn't stop here. In fact, no one is quite sure who wrote 2 Timothy. The Catholic New American Bible, in its Introduction to 1 Timothy, notes:
From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.
If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.
So, the apologetic further reduces to:If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.
B) "Paul is to be believed because some unknown apologist says that Scripture is inspired by God."
But, wait: what's inspired by God? Scripture? What could be meant by 'scripture' (i.e., 'graphe')? Thayer's Lexicon makes clear that the term refers to "the sacred books (of the O.T.)" - i.e., the Tanach!And so we are left with ...
C) "Paul is to be believed because some unknown apologist says that the Old Testament books are inspired by God".
And that is about as worthless and as inane an argument as one can imagine - a circle dance which truly leads nowhere.
Maybe the world is mad and all the gods are illusions. Maybe we're just a really crazy specie. Or not. Who knows?
