Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Paul quotes Luke as Scripture?

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    ... the first century meant anything other than Moses and prophets? But then again, Paul did say in 2 Cor 8:18: With him we are sending the brother who is
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 16, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Richard H. Anderson said:

      >>Do we have any indication/evidence that someone quoting scripture in
      the first century meant anything other than Moses and prophets?

      But then again, Paul did say in 2 Cor 8:18: "With him we are sending
      the brother who is famous among all the churches for the preaching of
      the gospel;"

      So maybe, Paul was in fact quoting this brother, many believe to be
      Luke. Or maybe Luke wrote 1 Tim and was quoting himself.<<

      There are a couple of questions that need to be asked here.

      Firstly, how are we defining the term "scripture"? Do we mean, as I
      think Kyle Dillon did, "sacred text"? If so, also as Kyle stated,
      could Luke's gospel have been considered sacred text in the time that
      1 Tim was written?

      That brings up the other question, which is implied in Kyles' earlier
      posts and Richard's response quoted above: Was 1 Tim written in Paul's
      own time? <I only say this in order to win my own nickel bet>

      There is considerable critical consensus that 1 Tim was written in a
      later period than Paul's but *as if* written by Paul (perhaps as a
      form of tribute to him by his immediate disciples or an even later
      school of disciples). Not everyone shares this opinion, as much of it
      rests on relatively subjective issues of style, but direct evidence
      such as "scripture" quotations that have strong literary relationships
      with NT books (and there are others in the Pauline corpus) also come
      into play. Still, these apparent quotations or allusions to other NT
      books can be explained in a number of ways (e.g., scribal glosses or
      alterations, etc.). I think that 1 Tim 5:18b is such a case.

      You will note that the other quote, in 1 Tim 5:18a, is from Deut 25:4.
      That is why I think 5:18b is from Deut 24:15. "Paul" was then loosely
      quoting two passages from Deut to emphasize that, as the ox and the
      hired laborer should both expect immediate rewards for their labor
      (eating of the grain for the ox and receiving wages the same day as
      the work was performed for the hired laborer), so should those who
      labor as leaders of God's faithful.

      Logically. any relationship between texts is due to a) Independent
      coincidental use of similar material, b) One text borrowing from
      another, or c) Both texts drew on a common tradition. If you think
      about it, within each of these sub categories, several more scenarios
      can be envisioned.

      Regards,

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    • Richard Anderson
      On Sept 15th I asked? ... I looked at how Luke designates the OT in part or in its entirety for the explicit citations to the OT: the scripture(s) 4:21; 24:32,
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 17, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sept 15th I asked?

        > Do we have any indication/evidence that someone >quoting scripture in the
        > first century meant anything other than Moses and >prophets?

        I looked at how Luke designates the OT in part or in its entirety for the
        explicit citations to the OT:

        the scripture(s) 4:21; 24:32, 45
        all things written 21:22
        the law as a reference to the whole OT 16:17; the law of Moses 2:22; the law
        of the Lord 2:27, 39
        the prophets 18:31; 24:25
        the law and the prophets 16:16; Moses and the prophets 16:29, 31: 24:37
        the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms 24:24

        I stand corrected.

        How does Paul designates the OT in part or in its entirety for the explicit
        citations to the OT?

        Richard H. Anderson
      • Richard Anderson
        To the comments of Kyle, David and Leonard I would like to add that the first part of Lk 10:7 is based upon Ex 18:31 and you may eat it in any place, you and
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 17, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          To the comments of Kyle, David and Leonard

          I would like to add that the first part of Lk 10:7
          is based upon Ex 18:31 "and you may eat it in any place, you and your
          households; for it is your reward in return for your services in the tent of
          the meeting."

          The Lucan Jesus in combining two verses of OT scripture was acting
          consistent with his role as a prophet like Moses and consistent with Jewish
          exegetical methods and expositions of scripture.

          Richard H. Anderson


          1Timothy 5:18
          For the Scriptures say, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the
          grain," and "THE WORKER DESERVES HIS WAGES."

          Luke 10:7
          [Jesus says to the 72 disciples] "Stay in that house, eating, drinking
          whatever they give you, for THE WORKER DESERVES HIS WAGES."



          > dhindley@... writes:
          >
          > << The form is very close to that used in Mt 10:10 ("for the worker is
          > worthy of his support") and especially Lk 10:7 ("for the laborer is
          > worthy of his wages"). This similarity to Luke's quotation of the same
          > passage in Deut could be accidental. I am almost certain that Deut
          > 24:15 was intended as the "scripture" here.>>

          Leonard Maluf wrote:

          >
          > May I suggest that Luke was basically following Matt 10:10 here, and, as
          he
          > quite regularly does, he allowed his text to be contaminated by a key term
          > (sometimes terms) from a thematically parallel OT text (in this case,
          MISQOJ
          > very likely from Deut 24:15). When this happens, though, Luke generally
          > compensates for the resulting omission (in this case, the omission of a
          > reference to food in Matt 10:10). Thus, in the following verse, Luke adds
          a
          > reference to eating not found in Matthew: " when you enter a city and they
          > receive you, EAT WHAT IS PUT BEFORE YOU". This reference to eating, and
          > indirect reference to food, also conforms Luke's text to 1 Cor 9:5-14
          which
          > also speaks much specifically about food as recompense for labor. 1 Tim
          may
          > be from the hand of a Paulinist who knew Luke's Gospel.
          >
          > >
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/17/2000 1:22:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, randerson58@home.com writes:
          Message 4 of 15 , Sep 17, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/17/2000 1:22:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            randerson58@... writes:

            << To the comments of Kyle, David and Leonard

            I would like to add that the first part of Lk 10:7
            is based upon Ex 18:31 "and you may eat it in any place, you and your
            households; for it is your reward in return for your services in the tent of
            the meeting."

            The Lucan Jesus in combining two verses of OT scripture was acting
            consistent with his role as a prophet like Moses and consistent with Jewish
            exegetical methods and expositions of scripture. >>

            Thanks Richard for this. You meant Num 18:31, though. Luke evidently did
            recognize this verse too as a thematic parallel to the idea of food as a
            MISQOJ for labor in the related texts of Matt 10:10 and Paul (1 Cor 9:4-14).
            Matthew, Paul, and Moses are among the "many", in Luke's view, who have
            written about things "which have been brought to fulfillment in our midst".
            In my post, I had failed to notice the beginning of Lk 10:7 which already
            introduces the theme of eating (and drinking: cf. 1 Cor 9:4!), anticipating
            his replacement of the term TROFHJ from the text of Matt 10:10 with the
            vocabulary of MISQOJ, in order to effect an allusion to the texts of Paul
            (and Moses).

            Leonard Maluf
          • Kyle Dillon
            I m afraid I don t quite understand what your conclusion is. Are you saying that Matthew and Paul are both paraphrasing Numbers 18:31, and that Luke is simply
            Message 5 of 15 , Sep 18, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your conclusion is. Are you saying
              that Matthew and Paul are both paraphrasing Numbers 18:31, and that Luke is
              simply using Pauline style over against Matthew? If that is the case, one
              must assume that the similar renderings found in 1 Tim 5:18 and in Matt
              10:10 are purely coincidental. It stretches credibility in my opinion, since
              the text in Numbers is so far removed from Matthew's and Paul's text. Num
              18:31 says nothing of an AXIOJ ERGATHJ (and on top of that, Matthew says
              nothing of MISQOJ, thus completely removing a relationship between his text
              and Num 18:31).

              There are only three plausible conclusions that I can come up with.
              1) There was a variant rendering in a 1st C. LXX passage, which is no longer
              extant (but Matthew generally quotes from the Hebrew OT anyway, so this
              wouldn't make sense)
              2) Paul is quoting Luke (or a Lucan source)

              Kyle Dillon

              Leonard Maluf wrote:
              > Thanks Richard for this. You meant Num 18:31, though. Luke evidently did
              > recognize this verse too as a thematic parallel to the idea of food as a
              > MISQOJ for labor in the related texts of Matt 10:10 and Paul (1 Cor
              9:4-14).
              > Matthew, Paul, and Moses are among the "many", in Luke's view, who have
              > written about things "which have been brought to fulfillment in our
              midst".
              > In my post, I had failed to notice the beginning of Lk 10:7 which already
              > introduces the theme of eating (and drinking: cf. 1 Cor 9:4!),
              anticipating
              > his replacement of the term TROFHJ from the text of Matt 10:10 with the
              > vocabulary of MISQOJ, in order to effect an allusion to the texts of Paul
              > (and Moses).
              >
              > Leonard Maluf
            • Kyle Dillon
              (Sorry, I meant *two* plausible conclusions) ... longer ... Kyle Dillon
              Message 6 of 15 , Sep 18, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                (Sorry, I meant *two* plausible conclusions)

                I wrote:
                > There are only three plausible conclusions that I can come up with.
                > 1) There was a variant rendering in a 1st C. LXX passage, which is no
                longer
                > extant (but Matthew generally quotes from the Hebrew OT anyway, so this
                > wouldn't make sense)
                > 2) Paul is quoting Luke (or a Lucan source)

                Kyle Dillon
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 9/18/2000 3:57:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kyledi@fidalgo.net writes:
                Message 7 of 15 , Sep 18, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 9/18/2000 3:57:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  kyledi@... writes:

                  << I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your conclusion is. Are you saying
                  that Matthew and Paul are both paraphrasing Numbers 18:31, and that Luke is
                  simply using Pauline style over against Matthew? If that is the case, one
                  must assume that the similar renderings found in 1 Tim 5:18 and in Matt
                  10:10 are purely coincidental. It stretches credibility in my opinion, since
                  the text in Numbers is so far removed from Matthew's and Paul's text. Num
                  18:31 says nothing of an AXIOJ ERGATHJ (and on top of that, Matthew says
                  nothing of MISQOJ, thus completely removing a relationship between his text
                  and Num 18:31).>>

                  No, not quite. My idea is that Matthew is basically quoting Jesus in 10:10.
                  Luke has Matthew's text in front of him when he writes, and as usual when
                  reproducing the words of Jesus, takes fewer liberties with the text than he
                  would if the words were Matthew's own. However, Luke is also aware that the
                  statement of Jesus in Matthew belongs to a topos that is treated in several
                  OT texts, and, to some extent in dependence on these texts, in Paul (1 Cor 9,
                  to be precise). It is simply Luke's normal practice to rewrite a text of
                  Matt, even one involving the words of Jesus, showing in his version the
                  influence of his research on the theme of that text as treated in parallel
                  passages of Matthew, in the LXX OT, and in Paul. This phenomenon occurs, and
                  can be verified, throughout the Gospel of Luke (though the three elements:
                  parallel passages in Matthew, LXX OT, and Paul are not all necessarily
                  involved in each case of Luke's re-writing of a gospel pericope). The author
                  of 1 Tim was simply aware of the words of Jesus as given in the Gospel of
                  Luke (if it was not indeed Luke himself who wrote 1 Tim). I hope this is
                  clearer now.

                  Leonard Maluf
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... In this connection, I would recommend the following book: David S. New, OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, AND THE TWO-DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS
                  Message 8 of 15 , Sep 18, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 12:58 PM 9/18/00 -0700, Kyle Dillon wrote:
                    >1) There was a variant rendering in a 1st C. LXX passage, which is no longer
                    >extant (but Matthew generally quotes from the Hebrew OT anyway, so this
                    >wouldn't make sense)

                    In this connection, I would recommend the following book: David S. New,
                    OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, AND THE TWO-DOCUMENT
                    HYPOTHESIS (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 37; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993).

                    New argues that all of Matthew's quotes are from the LXX with only
                    occasional influence from the Hebrew form. Thus, New contradicts
                    Holtzmann's view that Matthew is Septuagintal in the quotations
                    shared with Mark and Massoretic in the quotations not shared with
                    Mark.

                    >2) Paul is quoting Luke (or a Lucan source)

                    Several people have already taken David Hindley's nickel bet about
                    the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, but I would like to focus on
                    another issue: are we sure that the second part of the verse is
                    intended to be a quotation? Clearly the first part is intended to
                    be a quotation of scripture, but is the second part? It could be
                    just the author's own juxtaposition of a common saying to a well-
                    known scripture. I.e. something like, "For the scripture says:
                    'do not muzzle a threshing ox' -- and worthy is the worker of his
                    reward."

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.