The Raw Data (1)

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.  2 Timothy 3:16-17  NASB

All Scripture – The meaning of “all Scripture” in this verse has certainly been debated.  Christians tend to expand Paul’s words to cover the anticipated apostolic writings while Jews would read Paul’s word to include what we now call the “oral Torah.”  Perhaps you’ve dipped into this debate a few times.  But today I’m not going to add to its lengthy discourse.  Instead, I want to ask a different question.  What is the raw data contained in the word “Scripture”?  In other words, my question is not about the “inspiration” of the text but rather about the text itself.  Just how are we to determine what was inspired by God when we say, “All Scripture”?

This question comes about because of the insight of Lawrence Schiffman.  He writes:

“Behind the continuity so often asserted by the tradition there is a complex development that we seek to uncover.  The existence of such a history should in no way be taken as a challenge to the affirmation of continuity made by the Jewish tradition.  On the contrary, continuity can only be achieved in a tradition which adapts and develops.  In the case of Judaism, stagnation would have led to an early epitaph.”[1]

“Interpretation—more technically, exegesis—constitutes one of the basic patterns of development in the history of Judaism.  The Bible itself shows evidence of internal interpretation, what scholars now call inner-biblical exegesis.  For example, Deuteronomy may be seen, to a great extent, as a recapitulation and interpretation of the books which precede it.  Ezra and Nehemiah reveal pronounced tendencies toward exegesis of the type later called midrash.”[2]

Schiffman’s comments on the development of the Jewish tradition can be equally applied to nascent Christianity.  In both religions, the development of traditions, whether theological or practical, was essential in order to keep the religion from ossifying and disappearing.  This means that “all Scripture” by the time of Paul was already infused with traditional interpretation, powerful enough to affect the reading—and the understanding—of the text.  We have seen this in the qere/ketiv instances in the Tanakh, but it is no less the case when we compare the theological paradigms of the early Church fathers.  Scripture does not come to us as raw data.  It comes as already adjusted by the tradition.  Schiffman continues this thought with a telling insight: “Ultimately, the schism between Judaism and Christianity was expressed in terms of exegetical issues pertaining to the Hebrew Scriptures.”[3]  But those exegetical issues arise from traditional paradigms, paradigms that are still in place today.  Perhaps the fact that all the apostles embraced Jewish tradition and practice should weigh much more heavily on the claim that Christianity has Jewish roots.  It seems to me that Christianity is a deliberate attempt to birth a new religion, not an evolution from a more ancient faith.

Topical Index: tradition, Scripture, Schiffman, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[1] Lawrence H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism (Ktav Publishing House, 1991), p. 3.

[2] Ibid., p. 12.

[3] Ibid.