This is my reply to an article by Jason Engwer entitled
That's right. If Paul is quoting Luke, then Luke is just as late as the Pastorals. Not a shocking horror to bible critics.For example, the passage has significant implications for the canon of scripture, the dating of the Synoptics and Acts,
Not at all; if you expand Paul's approval of a single verse from Luke so it becomes Pauline approval of the entire gospel of Luke, then you must also expand Jude 14's approval of a single verse from 1st Enoch so it becomes Jude's approval of the entire book of 1st Enoch, since the latter is also a case of exact literary parallel.whether Paul agreed with concepts affirmed in Luke's gospel (the virgin birth, the empty tomb, etc.),
Perhaps Timothy joined himself to a more Jesus-sayings oriented group like the original apostles. Paul's arguments were not powerful enough to prevent his ministry-apostle Barnabas from rejecting Paul's view for an opposing viewpoint (Gal. 2:13), so skeptics are hardly required to believe that because Timothy was part of Paul's ministry, there was no disagreement between them on gospel stuff.and how widely accepted the beliefs in question were (e.g., since Paul expects his audience to accept what he's saying without further explanation).
Not really, you'd still be stuck with a Paul's incriminating screaming silence on a virgin-birth story that otherwise would have promoted Paul's high Christology no less than did the stories of Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul just "chose" to leave those bullets laying around? I don't think so. He doesn't fire such guns because he doesn't think they exist, which is plausible given Paul's infamous near-total apathy toward anything the historical Jesus die or said beyond crucifixion and resurrection.And much of what I just mentioned is applicable to some extent even if Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy is rejected and the document is dated later than Paul's lifetime. For example, if the passage reflects widespread acceptance of the virgin birth, then that's significant even if Paul wasn't involved.
I don't see the problem with thinking Paul was willing to give the appearance to others that he believed the words of Jesus were important for doctrine, just like he was willing to give the appearance that he believed himself under the law, when in fact he believed precisely the opposite, 1st Corinthians 9:20-21. Paul probably saw the value of such political rhetoric because he knew there was no holy spirit power in his preaching, hence, the need to employ psychological persuasion techniques, such as pretending to believe things his opponent's believed.In fact, if the initial audience was much wider than one individual (Timothy), as it presumably would be under a pseudonymous authorship scenario, then the implications of the passage are more significant accordingly.I've sometimes cited Michael Kruger's work in support of the conclusion that 1 Timothy 5:18 is citing Luke's gospel as scripture.
The data can just as easily be explained as a case of Paul changing his gospel views later in life, and deciding that what the historical Jesus said and did, beyond dying and rising, was more important to the gospel than he previously thought. And again, skeptics don't really suffer much at all by granting that Luke was the author of the gospel bearing his name and that it was published some time before the pastorals.In a book published late last year, he provides a lengthier case for that conclusion. It's on pages 680-700 of Lois K. Fuller Dow, et al., edd., The Language And Literature Of The New Testament (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2017). If you don't want to pay the large price for the book, you can get it at a library or through interlibrary loan, as I did. Kruger's chapter is well worth getting and reading. He goes into a lot of detail, but here are some highlights:Given that we have an exact match with a known source (Luke 10:7) - and exact matches are quite rare when tracing the words of Jesus during this time period - this raises the question of why we would prefer an unknown source to a known one.
And there is another advantage of preferring the known source, namely that we know that (at some point) Luke actually acquired the scriptural status that 1 Tim 5:18 requires, whereas we have no evidence that any sayings source ever acquired such a scriptural status….
That's not saying much, given the late-date of the pastorals. And I don't see any obvious problem with accepting that Luke wrote Luke and published it around 60 a.d. Apologists gain nearly nothing by such admission.
If it is too early for Luke to be regarded as Scripture, why is it not also too early for a written sayings source [a hypothetical alternative to Luke] to be regarded as Scripture? After all, one might think that Luke's purported apostolic connections (Luke 1:1-4) might allow his Gospel to be regarded as Scripture even more quickly than an anonymous sayings source….
Let's not get carried away: Luke was a liar because though he declared eyewitnesses to be his source, most scholars correctly believe he depended to a large extend on Mark's version of Peter's preaching. It's not eyewitness testimony if it only comes to you through a non-eyewitness. Unless Luke thought second-hand information could be correctly classified as "eyewitness" reporting. Luke's harmful bias as an author for a cause comes out clearly in Acts 15, 99% of which is all about how the apostles dealt with the Judaizers, and only 1% of which tells the reader the Judaizer side, and then, not the arguments, but only a summary statement of their position. I won't be waking up in cold atheist nightmare sweats any time soon over the pastorals quoting Luke's gospel.
He [John Meier, a New Testament scholar who's not a conservative and rejects Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy] states, "The only interpretation that avoids contorted intellectual acrobatics or special pleading is the plain, obvious one. [1 Timothy] is citing Luke's Gospel alongside Deuteronomy as normative Scripture for the ordering of the church's ministry." (689-91)Then Jude 14's quote of a single verse in 1st Enoch to make a theologically important point must be expanded to constitute Jude's belief that the entire book fo 1st Enoch was inspired.
Here's a Protestant Evangelical inerrantist scholar who denies that 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting the gospel of Luke:
Other conservative inerrantists are open to the possibility that "scripture" here extends only to the Deuteronomy quote, not the quote from Luke:The second reference resembles the words of Christ in Luke 10:7.132 It is not likely that Paul was quoting the Gospel of Luke, a document whose date of writing is uncertain. Paul may have been referring to a collection of Jesus’ sayings, some of which appear in Luke’s Gospel. It is notable that Paul called both statements Scripture, and it becomes clear that such a collection of Jesus’ sayings “was placed on an equality with the Old Testament.”Lea, T. D., & Griffin, H. P. (2001, c1992).Vol. 34: 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (electronic ed.).The New American Commentary (Page 156).Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
18. the scripture—(De 25:4; quoted
before in 1Co 9:9).
the ox that treadeth out—Greek, An
ox while treading.
The labourer is worthy of his
reward—or “hire”; quoted from Lu 10:7, whereas Mt 10:10 has “his meat,” or
“food.” If Paul extends the phrase, “Scripture saith,” to this second clause,
as well as to the first, he will be hereby recognizing the Gospel of Luke, his
own helper (whence appears the undesigned appositeness of the quotation), as
inspired Scripture. This I think the correct view. The Gospel according to Luke
was probably in circulation then about eight or nine years. However, it is
possible “Scripture saith” applies only to the passage quoted from De 25:4; and
then his quotation will be that of a common proverb, quoted also by the Lord,
which commends itself to the approval of all, and is approved by the Lord and
His apostle.
Jamieson,
R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997).
A
commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.
On
spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (1 Ti 5:18).
Oak Harbor, WA:
Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Catholics are pretty confident that Paul is not quoting Luke as scripture here:
(George A. Denzer) "The second quotation is found in Lk 10:7 as a saying of Christ. The author is scarcely referring to canonical Lk as recognized Scripture; he probably knows the quotation from an oral tradition or from one of the written accounts that preceded canonical Lk (cf. Lk 1:1-4). The introductory phrase “Scripture says” applies properly only to the first quotation."
5:18. To support his point—that elders should be paid, and certain ones paid double—Paul quoted two Scripture passages: (1) Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain (Deut. 25:4; cf. also 1 Cor. 9:9). (2) The worker deserves his wages probably refers to passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15, or perhaps to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Himself (cf. Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). Though Paul reserved the right not to receive support from a congregation (cf. 1 Cor. 9:15-23; 1 Thes. 2:9), he clearly believed and repeatedly taught that a congregation did not have the right not to offer it (cf. Gal. 6:6; 1 Cor. 9:14).Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).The Bible knowledge commentary :An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
If both Catholic and Protestant scholars, who by their Christian persuasion have more to gain by saying Paul quoted Luke as scripture, nevertheless deny or are open to denying that Paul was quoting Luke or classifying that gospel as "scripture", then skeptics have rational warrant to toss the matter aside and insist that apologists are irrational to expect spiritually dead atheists to figure out which theory held by spiritually alive people is correct. Skeptics lose very little by agreeing Luke wrote Luke, Luke knew Paul and that Paul quoted Luke's gospel and viewed it as scripture. Paul's duplicity explains just find his sometimes caring nothing for Jesus' saying when they were most appropriate to this subject, and quoting Jesus even when he didn't need to.
