Nomad

Michael

The point both you and Toto appear to be missing is that the author of Timothy never claims that both sentences are from Scripture, and as the first sentence IS from Scripture, then he has done his quote, so to speak. I am still looking for evidence that the author is attributing the second passage to Jesus. Have you found anything yet?

Well, since any reasonable definition of Q requires that the passage be found in both Matthew and Luke (that IS, BTW, the definition of Q), and the saying is found only in Luke, I would not be so quick to ascribe it to this malleable and nebulous hypothetical document.

To me, the best that can be made from this passage is that Luke may have authored it in both GLuke and 1 Timothy. As I have not yet decided if the evidence for such a belief is sufficient, I have reserved judgement at this point. Do you belief Luke authored both works?

Right. What he does not do, however, is link the second sentence to either "scripture" or to Jesus. Or do you have good evidence that the author of 1 Timothy knew GLuke? If you do, that would definitely interest me a great deal, as this is what I am investigating most closely myself.

First, the saying in Matthew is in such a different context, and verbiage, that no reasonable link can be made between the two sayings. If you want to argue this one, be prepared to look at the Greek, as the case is so bad that connecting it to an hypothetical Q saying is dubious to say the least.

Second, please do not use unproven assertions as evidence. We have been through the links of Josephus an GLuke before, and you never once offered an argument of your own in favour of such a link, nor did you rebut any of my arguments against such a link. If you wish to resurrect that argument, then please do so and we can continue the discussion. I dropped it only because no one seemed the least bit interested in the topic, and I was pretty much talking to myself once Peter Kirby exited the stage. I do not have time for one sided dialogues, especially as nothing I say is likely to shake your faith one way or the other.

What I will say at this point is that no scholar I am aware of, including Steve Mason, accepts that Luke used Josephus (especially Jewish Antiquities) as a source. So far that belief seems to be limited to you and Richard Carrier, and I would not rank Richard as an authority in this matter.

You are letting your conclusion drive your search for evidence. First, establish that the author of 1 Timothy knew any of the NT (especially the Gospels). One sentence is not enough. Then establish that he thought it was scripture. Finally, establish that GLuke is earlier than 1 Timothy. After all, if GLuke and 1 Timothy were written by the same man, it is entirely possible that he wrote the epistle first, and the Gospel later.

I am not sure what your distinction between the words "extremely unlikely" and "improbable" happen to be Michael. For me they are interchangeable. My examination of the evidence has not brought me to a final conclusion yet, so I have relied on the evidence that shows it could have been authored in the 1st Century or the 2nd. Based on the evidence, it is not possible to rule out a 1st Century dating.

Further, I have offered positive evidence for 1st Century authorship in that the soteriology and ecclesiology found in the Pastorals is clearly earlier than in early 2nd Century documents like the Didache (c. 100 AD), and Ignatius (c. 110 AD).

No Michael, you have established that after the Pauline Corpus, including the Pastorals, had been accepted as Scripture, authors found them worthy of being copied. Your evidence of incidental details no more proves that the Pastorals are forgeries (or pseudonymous) because they include personal details, than does it prove that Philemon, 2 Corinthians, Philippians or Galatians were pseudonymous because they include personal details. The simple fact is that Paul often included such details in his letters.

Interestingly, in Ephesians, the most strongly disputed letter after the Pastorals, there are no such personal details.

You must not be reading my posts, including the parts you include in your own posts. As I showed above, Paul used the word faith (PESTEI) in the same manner in Romans (an undisputed Pauline letter), as well as Ephesians and Colossians (of which, the most likely to be pseudonymous is Ephesians).

No. I have honestly not reached a conclusion in this manner. To be candid, the time frames involved for authenticity is proving to be the most problematic issue for me.

Assuming Paul did have a second imprisonment in Rome (itself unproven from any evidence outside of the Pastorals), his period of freedom could not have been very long. As he needs to have at least 18 months, and probably closer to 24, to get free, travel to Macedonia and winter in Nicopolis (as well as a potential stopover in Crete), then be arrested and returned to Rome for final imprisonment (and trial? Remember, Paul was a Roman citizen, and even Nero would have probably had to try him before killing him) and execution strikes me as unlikely at best. Acts has Paul still in prison in 62 AD He almost certainly died in 64 or 65 AD. The time frames are very tight for him to have done all the things he claims to have done, and to have authored all three letters. And, of course, all of this presupposes a release from the first imprisonment, something that cannot be treated as a given.

Finally, the linguistic and stylistic similarities to Luke/Acts are very striking. If Luke penned these letters, it would be nearly impossible to know how freely he was allowed to insert his own style and theology into the letters. In the case of Romans and 1 Corinthians (both written with the help of an assistant), neither show as great a deviation from Paul's traditional style (even given the use of hapaxes). It is hard to argue that Luke was given greater leeway in this case without resorting to special pleading.

Though I not finished my final essay, I think that I will end up concluding that the Pastorals were late 1st Century documents, probably written shortly after Paul's death (c. 70-80 AD), though the possibility of genuine authenticity cannot be ruled out, it seems less likely, especially if we wish to treat the Pastorals as a unit. The evidence is not good enough to go further at this point.

Nomad

Nomad

Toto

I am going to make one last stab at this, then we are done. Believe what you will.

The NIV is reporting scriptural links that exist for us TODAY. They do not tell us what was scripture for the author of 1 Timothy WHEN HE WROTE. Sigh.

As an aside, the existence of a KAI (and) in the text often indicates moving on to a new thought or saying. Remember again, original Greek does not have punctuation, nor did the text have chapters and verses in them. All of these were later additions. The reading has 1 Timothy quote from the Torah and call it scripture. That is all we can determine from the text.

In my view the evidence that 1 Timothy even knew of GLuke, let alone other Gospels (like GMark for example) is weak at best. To me this particular passage, linked to Luke 10:7 serves as part of the larger evidence that Luke himself wrote the Pastorals. I am still researching this question however, and have not reached a final conclusion.

So this is just your way of saying you don't know if Paul was a misogynist or not. Fair enough.

As for your belief that the letters were heavily edited by the church, I would not mind seeing your evidence for such a belief, just move it to another thread please, as that assertion is beyond the scope of this thread, and it is my hope to stay focused on the Pastorals. When you make that case, please try to show the evidence for actually removal or changes of important parts of the Pauline texts. I have no interest in debating unsupported assertions.

Actually, it is the only way serious study of the texts can proceed. If every person with a theological axe to grind can dismiss problematic texts as "probable interpolations," with no more supporting evidence than his/her personal opinion, then one of the best controls we have over those texts vanishes into thin air. Personally I would love to see women in the pulpits, but the Bible seems to be as clear as it can be on this point. I will not resort to special pleading to remove Biblically commanded prohibitions given to the Church from our own Scriptures, nor do I think that others should do this.

Yes he would probably have been consistent. As a Jew, and especially as a Pharisee he would have known that women were not allowed to speak in the synagogue. I see no reason to expect him to have abandoned this practice for the Christian church, especially as all evidence from that early church points to male only priests, elders and bishops.

Had Paul been more radical, and actually in favour of women ministers, I believe he would have said so. Paul was not the type to hide his opinions.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

The point both you and Toto appear to be missing is that the author of Timothy never claims that both sentences are from Scripture, and as the first sentence IS from Scripture, then he has done his quote, so to speak. I am still looking for evidence that the author is attributing the second passage to Jesus. Have you found anything yet?

The NIV is reporting scriptural links that exist for us TODAY. They do not tell us what was scripture for the author of 1 Timothy WHEN HE WROTE. Sigh.

The passage says:

NIV
1 Tim 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[1] and "The worker deserves his wages."[2]

DARBY
1 Timothy 5
18 for the scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox that treadeth out corn, and, The workman [is] worthy of his hire.

YOUNG
1 Timothy 5
18 for the Writing saith, 'An ox treading out thou shalt not muzzle,' and 'Worthy [is] the workman of his reward.'

WE
1 Timothy 5
18 The holy writings say, 'You may not tie the mouth of a cow when it is walking on the grain to beat it out.' And also, 'The man who works should be paid for it.'

KJV21
1 Timothy 5
18 For the Scripture saith, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and, "The laborer is worthy of his reward."

RSV
1 Timothy 5
18 for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

AMP
1 Timothy 5
18For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain, and again, The laborer is worthy of his hire.(1)

NKJV
1 Timothy 5
18For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,"[1] and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."[2]

KJV
1 Timothy 5
18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

NLV
1 Timothy 5
18For the Scripture says, "Do not keep an ox from eating as it treads out the grain." And in another place, "Those who work deserve their pay!"[1]

NASB
1 Timothy 5
18 For the Scripture says, "(1) YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "(2) The laborer is worthy of his wages."

NetBible
For the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,"5 and, "The worker deserves his pay."6

NOMAD: the author of Timothy never claims that both sentences are from Scripture, and as the first sentence IS from Scripture, then he has done his quote, so to speak.

Can you explain why, if the author of Timothy did not intend to link the first and second saying as scripture, every single translation links the two clearly? Are you seriously claiming that the author qualified only the first quote as scripture, and then randomly inserted the second quote? Imagine the following conversation:

MIKE: My mother always says "Don't stand around with your teeth in your mouth; get to work!" and "That was truly a wacky bummer."
NOMAD: What an interesting quote!
MIKE: Which one?
NOMAD: The one about teeth.
MIKE: So don't think the other quote of my mother's is unique?
NOMAD: What other quote?

Nomad, it is clear that the author of 1 Tim, wherever he got the quote, considered it scripture. That is the key point, that by his time, an idea of scripture that included early Christian writings was already evolving. This was not the case in Paul's time.

Do you belief Luke authored both works?

I don't know. I've never read a paper on the stylistic analysis of Luke-Acts and the Pastorals. Only the concensus that they are second-century forgeries with the possibility of Lukan authorship.

But the question of whether Luke authored them creates some puzzles for me, for Luke is very concerned with women, and accords them important status in his works. The author of the Pastorals, by contrast, seems more interested in reducing their status and limiting their role. I cannot reconcile the differing treatment of women in the two bodies of work, and thus my instinct is to reject Lukan authorship of the Pastorals.

However, I have great faith in stylistic analysis, which is very much a science, and if it indicates Lukan authorship, then I will bow to its conclusions.

I just bopped over to the Holding site, which is erratic but has some solid moments. He likes the Luke-Pastorals connection. It says:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_05.html
"The chief proponents of this view are Moule and Wilson, the former of whom has suggested Luke as the scribe for the Pastorals, noting a commonality of vocabulary between Luke/Acts and the Pastoral letters; while the latter has compiled a significant case for complete Lukan authorship [WilsS.LkPE]. This evidence includes:

The language and style of the Pastorals. Luke/Acts (L/A) and the Pastorals (PE) share 37 words that are not found elsewhere in the NT, which considering the brevity of the Pastorals is rather significant. Certain stylistic quirks (Latinisms, turns of phrase, and use of parts of speech) are also common only to the two works. An interesting contribution is also made on the particles question (see below): Some of the particles lacking in the Pastorals are of the sort that L/A use for narrative contexts, which obviously makes them not usable in the PE.
Similarity in thought. Wilson offers a detailed analysis showing common perspectives in terms of eschatology, salvation, and christology."

If you want to argue this one, be prepared to look at the Greek, as the case is so bad that connecting it to an hypothetical Q saying is dubious to say the least.

I don't want to argue anything! I was merely disposing of possibilities. It is possibly from Q, and that was all I said!

I appreciate your candor on the question of Paul's authorship of the Pastorals. I have no real objection to a date of 70-80, but I suspect that the whole corpus of early Christianity, with the exception of Paul's letters, and perhaps Mark's gospel, the Didache and Gospel of Thomas, all date to between 90 and 140.

Michael

Kosh

Well there it is then. I suppose we can expect
to see you published in all the main stream
journals of biblical criticism soon?

Then maybe the cover of Time magazine?

Toto

I knew it. "It depends on what you mean by 'KAI'".