That is open to interpretation. Even if 2 Timothy is pseudonymous, and
therefore is using Paul in the same
way s/he would use a canonical document, it does not mean that Paul's
writings are therefore canonical
for the author or the community, although clearly authoritative. On the
other hand, depending on how
one dates both 2 Timothy and the beginning of what may be called a canon,
Paul's letters may be canonical.
Too many variables which go beyond the scope of this list to be truly
definitive, although I dare say
that most of us know what we think both about those 2 questions as well as
the pseudonymity of 2 Tim.
However, I would say that both the widespread technical usage of GRAFH to
mean the Hebrew Bible or
some components thereof and the context, as well as the fact that usually
Christian writings (those
deemed "orthodox" as well as the heterodox and heretical) are not referred
to as "GRAFH" at this
point in time would indicate that the author is looking to the Hebrew Bible
in some form-which again
raises an interpretative issue of just when we may truly speak of a Hebrew
Bible-my vote on that question
tends to be rather early.
Rocky Mountain College