jakejonesiv

To get back to the original question, the Pastorals are so late that even if the quote is (for sake of argument only) from the gospels, it has no bearing on any alleged first century apostle.

Jake

Steven Avery

We are wasting time here.

The argument is made that the early church was not particularly concerned with authorship claims, that it was ok to them if somebody stuck their name on a writing as an apostle long after their death and fabricated personal experiences and relationships.

And this is the major basis for claiming that the Pastorals and 2 Peter would get by folks concerns, and become scripture.

Yet, multiple evidences show that they were precisely concerned with authorship, (details on the Glenn Miller article and other previous references, they don't need to be repeated every post, and no counterarguments offered) even disciplining false authors and rejecting books with spurious claims.

Clearly this acts as a strong counterweight, daresay a clear refutation, of the view that the early church was blase and unvigilant about authorship issues, and that pseudonymity was an accepted practice. The claim is simply wrong and demonstrated false.

You call those evidences and argumentation "unsubstantive", "appeal to authority", etc.

Amaleq, you simply are having a completely different discussion than the thread. You are welcome to repeat the same hackneyed phrases a dozen times, it only demonstrates you don't understand the discussion.

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

Steven Avery

Even in this theory, would you then agree that Luke was considered scripture, most authoritatively, by about 100 AD- 125 AD ? That the Timothy verse is extremely strong evidence of Luke accepted as scripture before the time of Justin Martyr ? (why would a non-Pauline author risk such a reference, and rejection, if the acceptance was not widespread at that time ?)

(And if Timothy was earlier, then of course the same early church view exists at the earlier time for Luke, a 60 AD Timothy requires Luke accepted as scripture by 60 AD)

Can we agree on this significance of the Timothy/Luke correlation? Since, 'for the sake of argument', there really is no other sensible reading of the text.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Julian

Just to preempt any points on the conjunction issue:

The two conjunctions are και (and) and γαρ (for) which are both Coordinating conjunctions, i.e. making both halves of the sentence of equal syntactic importance. I would conclude that the difference is negligible.

Julian

BenefitOfTheDoubt

Negligible? You've got to be kidding--it's NONEXISTENT. If you tell me "I like swords. And, oh, by the way: Go to the store, for we need some toilet paper" and then I go and quote you, I might say "Julian said 'I like swords,' And, 'we need some toilet paper.'" Is there a difference between what you said and what I said? Did I change what you said? No. (Well I didn't give your full quotation, but as for what I quoted, I did not change it.) There is NO difference.

Jack the Bodiless

Nice sleight-of-hand there. There IS no "Timothy reference to Luke as scripture" (as Luke is not named).

You seem to have the strange belief that the existence of multiple alternative possibilities weakens the skeptical case, rather than strengthening it. I have not endorsed what you call "Theory 2": I've merely listed it as one of the various possibilities.

There is nothing here which contradicts the established skeptical position. With BOTH Luke AND the Pastorals regarded as being of late authorship, it doesn't matter which one copied from the other (or if they both copied from an earlier source).

As for the source being "regarded as scripture": of course it's scripture! Deuteronomy was undoubtedly regarded as scripture by then, and that's the source of the reference which directly follows Timothy's "scripture says" remark. And the following phrase is also something said in Deuteronomy (more or less). Now, even if we assume that both authors did indeed share the same source of the paraphrase of Deuteronomy (the original was, of course, in a different language: Hebrew), they are still quoting "scripture", just as you'd be quoting "scripture" by posting something from the KJV or any other translation. Technically you'd actually be quoting the translator rather than the original source: but it would be petty to deny that you'd be relaying "what the scripture says".

There are numerous examples of NT authors more-or-less quoting the OT but not as a perfect translation: it appears that they didn't necessarily have the modern desire to directly quote the actual words.

Your interpretation of the reference to "scripture" stems from your preconceptions. You've already decided that Paul was quoting Luke, and that Luke is "scripture". This appears to be blinding you to the possibility that the original "scripture" being referred to is Deuteronomy, and that both NT authors believe this (even the one who's copying the phrase coined by the other): that they both regard OT "scripture" as the source.

Julian

Contradicting the obvious won't get you far. There is obviously a difference, it is simply that the difference is not important. Do try to be more exact in your posts.

Julian