What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?

A rephrase of Peter's admonition about Paul is in order.

Recall that Peter and Paul did not always agree (their public shouting at each other about circumcision, Paul insisting it is mandatory, Peter insisting it is not, is one example). Calling Paul's letters "hard to understand" was diplomatic on Peter's part, but it was definitely an alert to the problem that Paul some times got in over his head, and that third-party readers were therefore to use caution.

Peter was saying (rephrased), "Paul writes letters in which he attempts to interpret Scripture. Unstable people twist those interpretations around, just as they do with the Scriptures themselves."

It is not logical to assume that the Apostles adopted our occasionally-used modern "short-hand" for the full Bible, (inaccurately and lazily) calling the whole collection "Scripture." The full collection of books was not yet in existence in their time anyway. To them, "Scripture" meant Old Testament, nothing more, nothing less. No one would have had access to all the apostles' epistles in any sort of assemblage anyway. That was compiled hundreds of years after they died. And it's doubtful each saw all of the other's writings anyway. It was not as though mailing a carbon copy in that era was routine.

Last and not least, there was a bit of mistrust on Peter's part toward Paul -- not without good reason. It is not logical to assert that Peter would have given Paul the sort of blank check approval that conferring the title "Scripture" upon Paul's letters would carry, especially as some of them were likely sight-unseen.

I believe Adam Clark is correct when in his commentary he says, "This sentence is not well translated; the original - πασα γραφη θεοκνευστος ωφιλιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc."

Notice there is no "is" between writing and Divinely inspired (or God-breathed) in any greek text and yet the greek ἐστιν ("is") appears in all other emphatic statements that I have researched. This completely changes the meaning of the sentence and it now makes sense. The "is" is not in the Wycliffe Bible (1395), Tyndale (1525) or Miles Coverdale Bible (1535). It first appears in the Bishop's Bible (1568) and is taken out in the Revised Version of 1885 which is the basis of the American Standard Version. see http://www.studylight.org/

γραφη is in context translated as "scripture" in most translations because the previous verse refers to sacred writings (ἱερὰ γράμματα). It would seem to have the same root as the modern Greek verb γράφω ("I write"). In 2 Timothy 3:16, translating it as "scripture" is misleading and does not make sense if we assume all scripture is Divinely inspired, which is probably why the non existent "is" was put in.

I don't know who made up the word "scripture" but it would not appear that the writers of any of the books of the Bible had a special word for sacred texts and γραφη, particularly in this instance, should have been left as the literal translation ("writing"), and probably in many others as well. Search 'scripture' on BibleHub and judge for yourself.

You can find Adam Clark's commentary on 2 Timothy 3 here (scroll down for verse 16).

Peter supports any letter submitted by Paul under his ministry, past or future, as scripture. The reason why there is no detailed argument for it in scripture is because it was obvious as his writings were the writings of an Apostle, which was greater than a Prophet.

There are some things in them that are hard to understand [i.e. Paul's writings], which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16, ESV, brackets mine)

The obvious argument is not directly from the text, nor is there to be expected a direct argument, but from the omission on can see the underlying assumption. Nowhere in the OT do we see in any book an argument that it is ‘scripture’ -- the nature of the book assumes it. In this instance we see the obvious assumption. In other words, Peter says that people twist Paul’s writings, in the same way that they twist scripture. Peter does not logically equate the two because he has no need to do that. He is not talking about canonicity. He is talking about twisting spiritual truths. Therefore, as twisting Paul’s letter or scripture is equivalent, Peter simply draws attention to it. It would be grossly irresponsible of Peter not to add a caution saying: 'I do not mean to say that Paul's writings are equal with scripture' -- if Peter actually did not assume the writings of an Apostle were less than that of a Prophet. Such an assumption would be bizarre and unexpected.

The degree in which Peter is confident that an Apostle’s letter is equal to a Prophet’s is clearly vindicated by his almost cavalier avoidance of the whole topic of canonization. True canonization had not occurred to many years later, but the idea of scripture was already settled among those letters written by prophets in the past and which were now currently being written. Canonization is simply a later formalization of what was already known. It became more important to formally do it simply because it became so very clear that no new scripture was ever to be written.

It seems then that to explore canonicity we must actually ‘look at the forest not the trees.’ We must sort out what it means to be one of the twelve Apostles or Old Testament Prophet and what that implies on their writings to the church as an infallible guide. It was obvious for early Christians that an Apostle was a messenger with the ‘word of the Lord’, even more so than a prophet. To read into the New Testament our more recent views of canonicity and even question the designation of scripture upon the very scripture of scripture, is eisegesis. Canonicity was not of large concern at the time, rather identification of who was a real Apostle was. The reason why the Devil attacked Paul’s apostleship was in part because we would love to remove his letters. Good exegesis must assume an Apostle speaks scripture, when it is written to the church as guide, just as a Prophet did in the Old Testament. There is no difference except that the Apostle is in a higher authority as builders of a superior covenant. If this assumption is not made we have the wisdom of a one eyed man among the blind, for we weaken the authority of half the Bible through our error. The New Testament endors*m*nt of the prophets actually establishes the conclusion that the Old Testament as scripture for it records the very words of the Incarnate God in the flesh. The warning in Revelation of ‘not to add to or remove from its content’ can be argued to be a warning symbolic of the whole Old and New completed canons. If one willingly and stubbornly tries to add to or take away from the canon of scripture, their desire and intention is good evidence that they do not know the Lord or his saving grace and can expect to suffer the ‘plagues’ described in Revelation so long as they continue upon that action.

On a technical note, looking at the tree, rather than the forest; the reason why Paul said 'all scriptures' is because 'the scriptures' would probably only refer to those already settled into the canon. ‘All scripture’ includes those not yet written. The New Testament was not finished and there was no clear indication when it ever would be, therefore while ‘the scriptures’ technically refer only to those that were already settled and widely known among the entire church. There was not yet enough time to really include any New Testament letters, per se into the settled and accepted letters. On the other hand 'all scripture' implies an open-ended quantity, not just the closed and recently completed section of the Old Testament. Even the closure of the Old Testament was only realized upon the introduction of the Messiah and creation of the new office of Apostle. The Old Testament at the time of the New Testament would have been better described as 'the' scriptures, already complete and settled in the minds of men. All scripture includes those not yet written, settled among a wide audience and identified under the New Testament church.

In fact, Paul always understood his message as being the world of the Lord, no less so than any other scripture:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man 's gospel. (Galatians 1:11, ESV)

That is why the gospel as delivered by Apostles is commonly called 'the word of the Lord'. In fact this is its most common title within the book of Acts. So it is quite obvious just as Prophets used to deliver (and record in as scripture) the word of God, so did the Apostles under the New Covenant. It is not by some weird coincidence that we have our Bibles arranged the way we do; God has ensured we have his word. It is the scripture per the original Biblical meaning. The New Testament is even more useful for correcting etc., as it is a fuller revelation. However this does not make the New Testament is more 'the scriptures' for it is all of them that are from God and therefore useful.

An interesting line of thought on the assembly of the NT from a liberal scholar, David Trobisch. In short, his thesis is that Paul selected some of his own letters to be published to the churches (cf. "Did Paul Himself Create the First NT Canon"). Some in the early church — notably Marcion — viewed Paul as in conflict with the apostles in Jerusalem (esp. Peter and James) on the matter of grace and works, and the NT itself was assembled and arranged as a collection (in a different order from what we’re used to, with the general epistles by Peter, James, Jude, and John intentionally before Paul’s) partly to refute this disagreement and show that the apostles ultimately represent a united front.

In this regard, he suggests that several books of the NT exhibit a “canon consciousness.” In his article making the case that Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of the apostle John, was the original compiler of the NT during the mid-100s, Trobisch says of Acts:

Like no other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts offers a view into the whole collection. Being the second volume of Luke’s work, it provides a link to the Four-Gospel-Book. In its first half, Acts introduces the authors of the General Letters: Peter, John, James, and Jude; in the second half, it introduces Paul, the author of the other New Testament letter collection. In addition, Acts provides information that makes it possible to identify Luke, the author of the Gospel, as the doctor who travels with Paul and to identify Mark as someone close to Peter and Paul.

And in his book on The First Edition of the NT (which has not one but two Amazon reviews apparently by the Anne Rice, and another nice review by someone else named Tom Dykstra that gives a fairly detailed summary of the argument of the book):

When 2 Peter is read as an integrated part of the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible, the apparent cross-references to the collection [of] units are quite astonishing. The Old Testament is quoted abundantly. Biblical prophecy is explicitly addressed, its relevance for the present time of readers id demonstrated, and it is related to a theology of divine inspiration formulated in a manner applied to other New Testament writers as well. The letter clearly refers to the canonical Gospel collection by pointing to John (Jn 21), Mark, and the synoptic account of the Transfiguration. The references to 1 Peter and Jude serve as links to the Praxapostolos. It presupposes that the readers have access to a comprehensive collection of Paul’s letters. In addition to these literary links, the treatment of Peter and Paul as equals is another trait 2 Peter shares with the editorial interest of the Canonical Edition. (David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament, 95).

Conservative NT scholar Michael Bird comments on Trobisch’s argument (emphasis mine):

I doubt Trobisch’s main contention that there was a single archtype “edition” of the NT that became exemplary for later compilations of the NT writings. Most of the inner-canonical unities that he finds look like incidental post-compilation observations, rather than deliberate editorial creations by the formulators of the first New Testament collection. That said, I think that Trobisch does show how 2 Peter gives us a virtual precis of the NT itself with interwoven OT themes, references to synoptic material, veneration of Paul’s letter collection, and incorporation of Jude.

Of course, one needn’t agree with all of Trobisch’s theories (including that Polycarp was the compiler or that the NT includes some forgeries) to find some value in what he says, and it’s nice to see a liberal giving an early date for the finished (or virtually finished) canon. An alternate theory to Trobisch's is, as mentioned above, that Paul himself was the compiler of the first NT canon.

So while it seems that Paul in 1 Timothy was primarily referring to the OT (and perhaps some subset of the gospels, maybe Luke-Acts) as "the scriptures," it is apparent from his letters he also has a high (shall we say, binding) view of apostolic authority, including his own in whatever medium. As he says in 2 Thess. 2:15: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." If in fact Paul assembled a collection of his own letters for the edification of the church, as suggested above, that would further solidify the collection of authoritative, apostolic documents that would become the NT.

Add to that the "virtual precis of the NT itself" along with the OT citations in 2 Peter, and you have a biblical summary of what was canonical.