TedM

My bible shows Lev 19:13 and Deut 24:14-15, which I agree seem to be pretty solid. Matthew 10:10 says the same kind of thing. What is different however about Paul's account is that he specifically says "the Lord commanded" and he also specifically references "those who proclaim the gospel" Clearly the OT citings don't say that. But, the author of 1 Timothy isn't as explicit as to say that the Lord commanded that gospel preachers be paid. What he does is says that there is scripture to support the idea that preachers should be paid. It's a subtle but perhaps important distinction.

If 1 Timothy is authentic to Paul we have fairly strong evidence that when Paul wrote "the Lord commanded" he was referring to commands in OT scripture, and applying it specifically to those who preach. However, we then also have Paul in 6:3 basically saying Jesus was a teacher: "If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching with accords with godliness.." AND a reference to Jesus "before Pontius Pilate".

If 1 Timothy is not authentic to Paul, then we have a later writer pretending to be Paul and using scripture to support payment to preachers and teachers but without a reference to "the Lord" specifically commanding that gospel preachers should be paid for preaching the gospel. Paul's reference is more specific, but I agree that the account in 1 Timothy strengthens the case for Paul taking liberties with scripture if "the Lord" really means God, since the author of 1 Timothy apparantly took liberties with it. In other words, it may have been a natural inclination to use this scripture to support payment for preaching. Another possibility though is that the author of 1 Timothy actually was referring to the gospel or Paul's writings when he says "scripture", in which case this testimony should be disregarded for our purposes.

I think it may be significant though that 2 of teachings in one passage in Mathew 10 match Paul's writings in 1 Cor 9 regarding the same subject (behavior of apostles), and 1 of the teachings matches Paul in the very next chapter, in addition to the fact that one of the teachings (to greet with a proclamation of peace) was what Paul did in each of his letters at the beginning. This seems to be some evidence of a link between Paul and the teachings attributed to Jesus. I don't think we find a cluster of the same kinds of teachings in the Hebrew scriptures, though it may be that the one you pointed out did originate from them.

ted

Toto

Timothy is almost universally considered to be "pseudo-Pauline", and some attribute it to the same author who wrote or did the final edit on Luke-Acts.

TedM

I know. Not sure I buy it though. Here is a good article looking at the various issues from the minority side: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1337 The biggest problem I have with pseudo is I can't find a good motivation for it--certainly not for 2 of them!

ted

andrewcriddle

One connection between Paul and the Synoptic tradition is that Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 refers to a command from the Lord forbidding divorce.

This has various parallels in the synoptics beginning with Mark 10:2-12.

The relevance of this to Paul-Q parallels is that many supporters of Q hold that although the parallel in Matthew 19:3-9 is simply based on Mark the passage in Matthew 5:31-32 is based on Q with Luke 16:18 conflating Mark and Q.

IE there was probably a prohibition of divorce in Q as well as Mark.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

I was wondering about that passage. I guess Mack doesn't think it belongs in Q1. If it does, Paul clearly teaches the same thing and maybe even attributes it to Jesus.

ted

Toto

Here is an old thread on The Pastorals in which Nomad attempted to show that they could have been Pauline. (I have cleaned up the formatting but not the language.)

As I recalled, there is no clear reference to "the laborer is worthy of his hire" in the Hebrew Scriptures (Leviticus 19:13 is a stretch - it calls on employers to pay wages on a daily basis) but does seem to be an instance of the author of Timothy quoting the gospel of Luke (possibly his own language) as "scripture".

TedM

If that is the case, the testimony of 1 Timothy should be disregarded for our purposes, correct?

ted

Chris Weimer

I have been leaning towards this for some time now, but I'm still waiting for Mr. Kirby until being certain. The self-referencing quote would make sense in the scenario that the author of Luke-Acts-Pastorals was starting his own church, sort of like Marcion did. Whether or not the rest of Paul was included is debateable, but I don't see why not?

TedM

Interesting thread. What happened to Nomad? He disappeared before completing his 'essay'.

I'm curious about the Acts and Pastoral travels, so will start another thread to ask some questions..

ted

S.C.Carlson

I'm curious about that too, so I look forward to your questions.

Stephen