Paul's Epistles and the Gospel

[John Goddard]

POWELL:
Yes. However, there are significant differences. For one thing, if the worker gets his wages the next morning then he also gets them (period).

On the one hand, to support the N.T. claim that the worker deserves his wages does NOT imply support for the O.T. claim that the employer should pay up before morning. All the N.T. is claiming is that the worker deserves to be paid. What the O.T. states is the time frame in which the employer should pay.

I don't see that it needs to be spelled out that he "deserves" payment for work, that's just common sense isn't it.

POWELL:
There is something very relevant there, in fact those passages seem to be the basis on which the N.T. claim was made, but the O.T. does not claim that "He shall be called a Nazarene."

John Powell

You know what Jesus said about parables.

[Tladatsi]

My point is that the Bible, Paul's letters, the Gospel of Luke, or Acts in this case, do not claim that the Luke of Col 4:12 is the same Luke as GoL or Acts.

Col 4:12

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

That is all Paul ever says about anyone named "Luke". He does not say "Luke was my traveling companion and I told him a bunch of stuff which he wrote down". Nothing like that.

Likewise, the Luke of the GoL says nothing about knowing Paul or being a friend of Paul.

Luke 1:1

Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

As you can see, this "Luke" says nothing about having learned anything from Paul, much less even knowing Paul.

I am simply reading what the Bible says about Luke and Paul - nothing.

for someone who claims to be a bible literalist, you sure change your tune when the bible directly contradicts your preconceptions.

The bible IS historical. various church traditions dating from the time period also confirm the facts. So if you want to deny them it is up to YOU to prove that Luke or Paul didn't write what they did.

[Tladatsi]

These ARE exactly the same! The [greek]gar[/greek] is a postpositive, so it need not be part of the quote (note that when Paul quotes the OT, the gar is introductory and rarely part of the quote) as the word is used to grammatically link with the preceding clause. just as the [greek]kai[/greek] functions in 1 Timothy. So yes, they are exactly the same and no scholar denies this.

But the text itself does deny this.

I believe I also mentioned that this could not have been Paul quoting a saying of Jesus he heard since it has identical form to the Lucan version. One must needs explain how Matthew had a different version, and the way even critical scholars deal with this is to say both were translating from Aramaic. And yes, we can say with sure knowledge that Jesus knew Aramaic and likely Greek and Hebrew.

Even if it were identical, what would that prove? It was just a common saying among Christians. Luke and Matthew differ in almost every quote is some way or another. That does not prove that Paul was quoting Luke's Gospel - moreover Paul does not say he was quoting any Gospels - by anyone, it just says "it is written" - not where it was written or by whom it was written.

It might more easily be argued that Luke had read Paul's letter and was was quoting Jesus. Luke says he used he read earlier accounts of events and complied them. Why not take Luke at his word and include Paul's letters in Luke's sources?

[Sparko]

My point is that the Bible, Paul's letters, the Gospel of Luke, or Acts in this case, do not claim that the Luke of Col 4:12 is the same Luke as GoL or Acts.

Col 4:12

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

That is all Paul ever says about anyone named "Luke". He does not say "Luke was my traveling companion and I told him a bunch of stuff which he wrote down". Nothing like that.

Likewise, the Luke of the GoL says nothing about knowing Paul or being a friend of Paul.

Luke 1:1

Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

As you can see, this "Luke" says nothing about having learned anything from Paul, much less even knowing Paul.

I am simply reading what the Bible says about Luke and Paul - nothing.

The author of Luke several times uses "we" in reference to traveling with Paul. He most definitely knew Paul and traveled with him. He was the same Luke as Paul writes about as his companion. It is the most logical explanation.

[Sparko]

But the text itself does deny this.

HUH?? are you just being contrary?

Even if it were identical, what would that prove? It was just a common saying among Christians. Luke and Matthew differ in almost every quote is some way or another. That does not prove that Paul was quoting Luke's Gospel - moreover Paul does not say he was quoting any Gospels - by anyone, it just says "it is written" - not where it was written or by whom it was written.

It might more easily be argued that Luke had read Paul's letter and was was quoting Jesus. Luke says he used he read earlier accounts of events and complied them. Why not take Luke at his word and include Paul's letters in Luke's sources?

Paul doesnt say it is a "saying" he says he is quoting SCRIPTURE.

you are grasping at straws to keep from just admitting you are wrong and your desperation is showing.

[Jaltus]

But the text itself does deny this.

First, this doesn't make sense.

Second, I am an expert in Biblical Greek. The text says exactly what I said it does, the two are the same.

Even if it were identical, what would that prove? It was just a common saying among Christians. Luke and Matthew differ in almost every quote is some way or another. That does not prove that Paul was quoting Luke's Gospel - moreover Paul does not say he was quoting any Gospels - by anyone, it just says "it is written" - not where it was written or by whom it was written.

No, Luke and Matthew do not differ in every quote. In fact, there is so much overlap that a hypothetical document that contains the overlap has been invented in order to make sense of the incredible amount of overlap! Do you know anything about Biblical Studies? Seriously, you sound like you know very little.

If Paul says "it is written," it does mean he is quoting someone. He also says that "Scripture says" (rather than it is written, which you erroneously state) meaning what he is quoting is either from the OT or else something else he considers on par with it. Since the only document that fits what he said is Luke, it must be Luke. Since Luke was possibly written by the Luke that traveled with Paul, this makes the most sense.

It might more easily be argued that Luke had read Paul's letter and was was quoting Jesus. Luke says he used he read earlier accounts of events and complied them. Why not take Luke at his word and include Paul's letters in Luke's sources?

This in fact cannot be the case. Nowhere in history has the word [greek]grafh[/greek] (which is what Paul calls the quote) been used for something oral, it MUST mean something written. Therefore your contention cannot be correct. You are redefining words in order to make your argument. Give up, you lost this round, and move on. Your argument is nonsensical and makes a mockery of language and Biblical Studies.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Yes. However, there are significant differences. For one thing, if the worker gets his wages the next morning then he also gets them (period).

On the one hand, to support the N.T. claim that the worker deserves his wages does NOT imply support for the O.T. claim that the employer should pay up before morning. All the N.T. is claiming is that the worker deserves to be paid. What the O.T. states is the time frame in which the employer should pay.

John Goddard:
I don't see that it needs to be spelled out that he "deserves" payment for work, that's just common sense isn't it.

POWELL:
Yes. The problem here is NOT that the saying is unwise, rather I concede that it is wise. The problem here is that the O.T. didn't say it so no one (such as Paul) should claim to be quoting the O.T. when they repeat it. My argument is that Paul did NOT get it from the O.T. but that probably he got it from someone else saying it (such as Jewish sages of his day or Jewish teachers expounding on what the O.T. did say, that the employer should pay up before the next morning.) but Paul mistakenly attributed it to the O.T. I do this to argue against the position that Paul is quoting Luke and Paul considered the Gospel of Luke to be scripture.

POWELL:
There is something very relevant there, in fact those passages seem to be the basis on which the N.T. claim was made, but the O.T. does not claim that "He shall be called a Nazarene."

John Goddard:
You know what Jesus said about parables.

POWELL:
"Those who seek deserve to find"?

John Powell

[Tladatsi]

The author of Luke several times uses "we" in reference to traveling with Paul. He most definitely knew Paul and traveled with him. He was the same Luke as Paul writes about as his companion. It is the most logical explanation.

Luke is a very common name. Is everyone named George president of the United States?

Where is the text? What verses from Acts says that the author was the same Luke as in Col 4:14 and 2Ti 4:11? What verses in Acts says that the author new Paul.

I already pointed out that the author of GoL and Acts does not agree with Paul on the most important point of Paul's, that Paul was an apostle. That alone shows that they were not pals.

[Tladatsi]

Paul doesnt say it is a "saying" he says he is quoting SCRIPTURE.

I said he wrote that "it was written", i.e. something written down. Of course "sayings" can be, and routinely are, written down. That something is written down does not mean it is not a "saying". That two sources report the same saying does not mean one copied the other, much less in any particular order.

My point is that Paul does not say that this written saying is from a Gospel written by someone named Luke, much less that that Gospel was written by his friend the physician Luke. He only says here is saying which was written down.

It is just as possible that the author of GoL read the letters of Paul and used it as a source. The author of GoL explicitly says in Acts 1 that that is how he wrote in GoL he consulted existing written sources.

Luke 1:1

Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

The author of GoL explicitly states that his sources are written. He claims no personal knowledge of the events described. Had the author consulted with Paul, why he not say so?

[Jaltus]

The author of GoL explicitly states that his sources are written. He claims no personal knowledge of the events described. Had the author consulted with Paul, why he not say so?

Because this is the introduction to the story of Jesus, and Paul did not witness any of it.

[Tladatsi]

First, this doesn't make sense.

Second, I am an expert in Biblical Greek. The text says exactly what I said it does, the two are the same.

OK, you are an expert in Biblical Greek. I will defer to your expertise on this matter. They are exactly the same.

No, Luke and Matthew do not differ in every quote. In fact, there is so much overlap that a hypothetical document that contains the overlap has been invented in order to make sense of the incredible amount of overlap!

If what you say is true, it supports my point. If Matthew and Luke don't differ on many quotes, does that mean they copied each other? Does that mean Paul copied from Luke, or that Paul copied from the same source that Matthew and Luke both copied from? Simply because two books use the same language to quote the same person (Jesus in this case) does not mean that they copied from each other. This is certainly not evidence that Paul copied this saying from the GoL.

If Paul says "it is written," it does mean he is quoting someone. He also says that "Scripture says" (rather than it is written, which you erroneously state) meaning what he is quoting is either from the OT or else something else he considers on par with it. Since the only document that fits what he said is Luke, it must be Luke. Since Luke was possibly written by the Luke that traveled with Paul, this makes the most sense.

What is scripture but something that is written down? What else does "grafe" mean? Maybe he was quoting from Q? Maybe he was quoting from another source of saying like the Gospel of Thomas?

If there were a GoL available to Paul, something written by his friend the physician, why would Paul not say so. Paul never says that his friend wrote anything much less a biography of Jesus. Paul only mentions his friend Luke twice and both times in passing (Col 4:14 and 2Ti 4:11). If his good friend had written scripture, why would he not mention it, especially when quoting it.

Paul rarely ever references anything in Jesus' life, His birth, His ministry, His miracles, or even, for most part, His sayings. Had he had access such a document, why did Paul only use it once? Why be so sparing in its use?

This in fact cannot be the case. Nowhere in history has the word [greek]grafh[/greek] (which is what Paul calls the quote) been used for something oral, it MUST mean something written. Therefore your contention cannot be correct. You are redefining words in order to make your argument.

The canonical Gospels are full of sayings, which are written down. That a saying is written down does not mean it is not a saying. Likewise, it is possible to read something and pass it along orally. The two modes of transmission are not mutually exclusive.

The author of the GoL says in GoL 1:1 that he used written sources in the preparation of the GoL, and presumably Acts as well. There is no reason that Paul could not have had access to those same written documents - grafe if you like.

[damienl]

What is scripture but something that is written down?

It is a necessary condition of scripture that it be written down, not a sufficient one. A text must be regarded as authoritative to be considered part of `scripture'.

Maybe he was quoting from Q? Maybe he was quoting from another source of saying like the Gospel of Thomas?

IIRC, the scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century. As for Q, it's possible, but I'm not sure it's likely.

why would Paul not say so

You know what arguments from silence are worth...

why would he not mention it, especially when quoting it.

Maybe because his writings don't focus Luke? Because his readers already knew who Luke was and what he had done. Do you always provide a complete biography of everyone you ever mention in passing in your letters, especially if they are well known?

Why be so sparing in its use?

Because he's writing to Christians who already know about such matters? Because he's writing them letters for very specific reasons (give them instructions about important matters, answer questions,etc.) and not to tell them about the life of Jesus, which they already know?

There is no reason that Paul could not have had access to those same written documents - grafe if you like.

They would have to have been regarded as equally authoritative as the OT to be quoted alongside it.

It's all a matter of what is more likely:

1) that the Luke Paul mentions is also the author of Luke and Acts, that Paul quotes from his work, and that the Church got it right
2) that there are two Lukes (or rather a `Luke' and the unknown author of `Luke' and `Acts'), that Paul quoted from Q or another source which he regarded as authoritative but is lost to us (why the Church would have lost a text that was on par with the OT is anybody's guess), and that the Church got it all wrong.

I think 1) is more likely.

[Tladatsi]

Because this is the introduction to the story of Jesus, and Paul did not witness any of it.

The author of Acts does not introduce Acts by saying - "Oh, in the previous book I went off of written sources but now I am going to base this on what I learned from Paul". He makes no indication that he using a different set of sources for GoL as opposed to Acts.

[Tladatsi]

Here is Paul's version of the Last Supper. You will not that he does say that "it is written in scripture" but as he received it.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it." For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord's death until he comes again.

Now here is the version of the story for the GoL.

Luke 22:17-20

Then he took a cup of wine, and when he had given thanks for it, he said, "Take this and share it among yourselves. For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come." Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, "This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you-an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.

Now obviously Paul did not copy GoL here. While the gist the same, the language is completely different. I could put in Greek but the differences are so great that it quite apparent even in English translation. Now why would Paul quote his good friend's biography of Jesus (GoL) for one very small quote in Tim but ignore it completely for this much longer and theologically more important quote in Corinthians? He makes no reference to any scripture here at all but a received oral tradition.

You will note Paul leaves out completely the bit about not drinking any more wine until the Kingdom of God is here.

Luke 22:19 και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

1 Col 11:24καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

So, I would argue that if GoL were written while Paul were alive and he had access to it, there is no reason that he would quote it (without citation) in Tim but not quote it all but report oral tradition in Corinthians.

The author of Luke several times uses "we" in reference to traveling with Paul. He most definitely knew Paul and traveled with him. He was the same Luke as Paul writes about as his companion. It is the most logical explanation.

[damienl]

Now why would Paul quote his good friend's biography of Jesus (GoL) for one very small quote in Tim but ignore it completely for this much longer and theologically more important quote in Corinthians?

When was 1 Cor written? When was 1 Timothy? What is the earliest date Acts could have been written? Think about it...

Seriously, pick up an introduction to the NT before challenging the authorship of one of its books.