Duck

There's a similar passage in a very similar context in Matthew 10: take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

And in Deutoronomy 24: Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy ... Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it.

Steven Avery

No problem. Is was an understanble jump to contusion. I put Zorba in hesitatedly, at times I have used Greekazoid, but that really does have a disparaging ring.

In a nutshell, a belief that the assertions and statements within the NT text are reliable. As a thread it should be another place and, daresay, another time. Here I need to find that textual thread, with the deep discussions of inerrancy and Received Texts and historic Reformation Christendom and all, and I am a bit on the zonked, tired, stretched and extended side, much as I do enjoy a lot of the ideas and threads. Its been a nice run, now I have to find a way to tone it down gracefully and still learn stuff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

dost

Hi

A while ago I got this book: the Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. In an essay, Christopher Tuckett and Andrew Gregory discuss methodology - that is, how do we determine that a document is quoted/alluded in another document? How do we establish the presence of one writing in another? The discussion is quite thorough, in short, they state that introductory formulas do not necessarily show that one writing is being quoted or alluded to in another. Often, although writers include introductory formulas, what follows may not have been derived from the introduced source. Agreement in wording also does not necessarily show that one text is being quoted in another. Both could be dependent upon a similar source, or even an oral tradition. The authors go on to discuss a number of other issues that one needs to keep in mind when assessing the presence of one writing in another.

Over a year ago I looked at a number of commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles to see how scholars explain 1 Tim. 5:18. Most, it seems to me, agree that it is not necessary or probable that the author of the Pastorals, be it Paul or whoever, quoted the passage from a copy of Luke, despite the similarity between the wordings and the introductory formula. Many argued that the word "kai" (and) seperates the two sentences...thus the later sentence, which is to be found in Luke, may not necessarily be meant to be included by the author as part of scripture. Some argued that Paul did quote from a copy of Luke, whereas a few others argued that the pseudonymous author, writing something in the late first or the early second century, quoted from a copy of Luke.

If the Pastorals are by Paul, then I think it becomes rather far-fetched to suppose that Paul quoted from a copy of Luke simply because the gospel of Luke was most likely authored after Paul's death. If Mark is placed between 65-70 AD, and we agree that Luke took much material from Mark, then Luke has to be placed even later....a time by which Paul was dead.

Therefore, I am left with two possibilities: 1. pseudonymous author quoted Luke. 2. the author did not quote from a copy of Luke.

Currently I am more inclined towards option 2.

FatherMithras

Praxeus, if you could please not call skeptics or "The people who use the burden of proof" arguments, derogatory names. I'd appreciate it. I try not to comment on the bias of people who believe in inerrancy and then try to "prove" innerancy. If we're going to talk about biases, please respect our side or don't expect any for yours.

Vorkosigan

No, most of us put them in the second century, where the mainstream does. "Super-late" isn't a term normally used in dating the texts.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Hi Dost,
In a more balanced and sensible scholarship world, (than eg. some of the modern commentaries you would have referenced in your earlier study) the verses above would themselves be used as an extremlely strong counter-argument against this view of Luke being post-Paul.

The verses really allow for one simple and clear explanation. All other explanations are at best tortuous and un-Occamish, as well as involving a number of presups that that the simple 1st person statements of the NT authors are lies.

Those of us who don't have such presups can see the verse relationship quite clearly.

Shalom,
Steven Averyhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

dost

Hello praxeus,

Well, if all other interpretations and explanations would be "at best tortuous and un-Occamish", then I wonder why most scholars, that is, modern scholars, still do not believe that Paul quoted from a copy of Luke (because GLuke was composed after Paul's death)? The alleged "extremely strong counter-argument" against Luke being post-Paul is clearly not the view endorsed by most scholars. I wonder why? Perhaps, the "extremely strong counter-argument" is not so "extremely strong"?

I am not sure which "1st person statements" you have in mind, in anycase, I am open to other ideas, but I am not yet convinced that Luke was authored during the life-time of Paul. I think there are good reasons to believe that both Luke and Matthew are based on Mark, and if Mark is placed between 65-70, then Luke cannot have been composed during the lifetime of Paul.

If the Pastorals are pseudonymous, thus 80-110 AD ish period, then I suppose there is a possibility that the pseudonymous author quoted a line from Luke. But after reading the problems and issues discussed by Tuckett and Gregory, I am not sure that we can strongly argue if even the pseudonymous author "quoted from" a copy of Luke. You can check the paper here:

http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926782-0.pdf

Personally, I find it odd that the author wouldn't even name the gospel, or make a general statement such as: I am quoting from the gospel etc. And quote just one line? He couldn't think of quoting other material from Luke?

Steven Avery

Hi Dost, Probably not, today. The various scholars bring their presups and glasses about the NT text with them to the table, and today its likely the majority of folks getting credentialed in NT scholarship have various degrees of quite liberal, agnostic, humanist, skeptic baggage with them when they get their letters, and write their Journal articles. That is one reason why one has to be very wary of the 'majority scholarship' and 'dueling scholars' approarch.

In general, it is especially funny, a bit disengenuous, seeing this type of appeal from the skeptics, who themselves will ignore big majority of scholarship if it would mean closing up the mythicist shop, as e.g. on the "James, brother of Jesus" quote. However, Dost, I grant you sound earnest and sincere in the appeal, so please let the last comment go around you.

To start.. Paul saying he was writing to Timothy, the statements that connect Luke with Paul in Acts, the multiple 2Peter first person statements, including the one about the scripture epistles of his beloved brother Paul. As some scholars realize (usually agnostic and atheist and skeptic) these statements are either truthful or they are lies, fabrications and forgeries. Any supposed middle ground is a chimera.

Since I don't place any of the Gospels or even Acts by Luke, his later book, as late as 65-70, I will pass on most of that. I will point out though before 70 AD you are still allowing for a prophetic element in Mark 13, more than many on this forum will acknowledge.

Then I have no real discussion, time to move on, the Bible has already lost any strong claim to spiritual speciality.

Well that is the irony of the skeptic position on this thead. Some even want Luke quoting Timothy, despite the logical difficulty with graphe/scripture and despite the fact that they like a very late date for the Pastorals. Playing two or three ends against the middle.

buzz.. reality check. An assumption that colors the whole discussion. If you believe Paul didn't write the Pastorals, as your presup, then there is little point in the further arcane discussion of what a later forger might have known from other fabricated books. I certainly wouldn't care.

However it IS a quote, it is not an allusion, citation, reminiscence or echo. We see that in multiple ways all at the same time.
1) The words match..
2) "grammar, wording and content".. per the Lindemann reference
3) There is a doublet quotation involved.
Both are accurate quotes
4) Combined with the introductory formula...
"For the scripture saith..."

Tis a nice little paper, and if anything it shows a strong contrast how clear this Timonty / Luke quotation connection is compared to various echos and allusions that come from the early church writers back to the scriptures.

This is the type of 'analytical gotcha' that I find pretty amusing, and that I compare to the winebibbers and publican discussion of Jesus and John the Baptist. If Paul quoted five distinct quotes in various places, and said "as written by the beloved writer Luke in his Gospel account of the life of Jesus...." .. then the skeptical analysis would bring a whole different set of objections.
Why only Paul, why not Jude, Matthew, Revelation?
This is a stilted artifical construction, not representing a letter to a friend.
This shows the same author quoting himself.
This demonstrates a late redaction.
Yada and a yada.

In a certain type of pseudo-scholastic environment, it is almost a game to see what type of objections can be made, and whatever the reality is, it will get an objection.

As another example, look at the wide-ranging set of objections to Peter's more specific citation naming of Paul's epistles as scripture. Quite specific, naming Paul, naming the type of writings, and not accepted in skeptic and liberal analysis for whatever reasons they can come up.

Thanks for the article reference.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

SaintCog

Heh, wow.

Praxeus, it's odd that you can't seem to discuss a simple Biblical question without bringing your beef with "liberal schlarship" into the mix, unprompted I might add. You could barely get passed one sentence without taking a rhetorical shot at whomever it is you conceive your ideological opponents to be. It's almost as though your interest in Bible study is limited solely to polemics and apologetics. Do you have any genuine sense of curiosity that is not colored by your rhetorical crusade?

Steven Avery

Hi Cog, I call's them as I sees them, and on this particular forum.. that is what I sees, lots of presups, and then muddy logic produced therefrom, lots of unexamined baggage unpacked with dirty laundry-lists (to mix a few metties), often justified by falling back on ultra-selective usage of scholarship support.

In other forums, and even in some discussions here (Jesus and the Talmud/ToldetYeshu/Celsus, TR vs alex), those issues don't come up, or at least not in the same way as when the skeptics are defacto assuming that all NT history is a lie, and then turn around and using that assumption to 'prove' some particular ancillary point.

In a sense I'm just trying to point out that some reasonable for consideration skeptic arguments against the believers (unexamined presups being one) are really a two-way street.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic