1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7

[NormanMcIlwain]

Well, I think few doubt that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy and, as these two texts are a perfect match, it would seem highly likely that Paul had access to Luke's Gospel or had heard directly from Luke himself. It would be interesting to note how many other correlations can be found that might indicate Paul's knowledge of Luke's Gospel (and possibly those of Matthew and Mark).

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, I think few doubt that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy and, as these two texts are a perfect match, it would seem highly likely that Paul had access to Luke's Gospel or had heard directly from Luke himself. It would be interesting to note how many other correlations can be found that might indicate Paul's knowledge of Luke's Gospel (and possibly those of Matthew and Mark).

Authorship of the Pauline epistles:

Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether Ephesians and Colossians are the letters of Paul; however, the remaining four—2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles—have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

....

The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus are often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles and are the most disputed of all the epistles ascribed to Paul.

[NormanMcIlwain]

Well, I think few doubt that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy and, as these two texts are a perfect match, it would seem highly likely that Paul had access to Luke's Gospel or had heard directly from Luke himself. It would be interesting to note how many other correlations can be found that might indicate Paul's knowledge of Luke's Gospel (and possibly those of Matthew and Mark).

Authorship of the Pauline epistles:

Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether Ephesians and Colossians are the letters of Paul; however, the remaining four—2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles—have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

....

The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus are often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles and are the most disputed of all the epistles ascribed to Paul.

Thanks Ben. It just shows how impressions can be reinforced according to the fellowship one keeps and how necessary it is to be challenged by others who do not share the same view.

[gmx]

Thanks Ben. It just shows how impressions can be reinforced according to the fellowship one keeps and how necessary it is to be challenged by others who do not share the same view.

If the final form of Luke has an AD150+ origin (not referenced by name until Ireneaus), and the pastorals are also AD150+ (they are missing from P46), the possible citation of Luke's gospel by 1 Timothy is not in itself problematical.

The real question is... what does it imply about Christian origins that cornerstone canonical documents could have emerged so late, and be credibly ascribed to key figures known from earlier traditions?

It seems like the whole problem space of the timeline of Christian origins needs to be re-evaluated from first principles, not by a set of people convinced that the last two centuries of scholarship has been a waste of time, but by a core group of first-rate scholars who represent the broadest range of views, who are then locked in a subterranean chamber for 5 years and forced to confront the problem from the ground up, dealing with the evidence on its merits.

The status quo seems to favor crackpot ideas by non-scholars who (blissfully) ignore the entirety of modern scholarship on the subject, and those serious scholars who show too much reverence for the scholarship and in the process only pick at the edges of the "consensus understanding". Neither approach seems likely to provide any significant leap forward in understanding.

[MrMacSon]

If the final form of Luke has an AD150+ origin (not referenced by name until Ireneaus), and the pastorals are also AD150+ (they are missing from P46), the possible citation of Luke's gospel by 1 Timothy is not in itself problematical.

The real question is... what does it imply about Christian origins that cornerstone canonical documents could have emerged so late, and be credibly ascribed to key figures known from earlier traditions?

We have (i) Robert Price suggesting that "Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion of Pontos, Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and the iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul" and "His letters were actually written and edited by other people, including Marcion, and an early Church Father, Polycarp of Smyrna ..." and (ii) several people arguing some or all of the synoptic gospels are post Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

And here is a recent case that "the earliest theologies (Marcion, Johannines, Ebionites) all held Docetic views and inherited the Book of Revelation" -

In his 2nd century work “Refutation of All Heresies“, Hippolytus (who probably didn’t actually write this text) refers to a 2nd generation Marcionite, named Appeles

• "But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities … And (Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself, But he devotes himself to the discourses of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess…). And (he asserts that Jesus) was not born of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh."

Hippolytus earlier wrote:

• "But this heretic is in the habit of devoting his attention to a book which he calls Revelations of a certain Philumene, whom he considers a prophetess.

In other words, a 2nd generation Marcionite, who held remarkably similar views to both Marcion and Cerinthus, relied not only on portions of some Gospels, but also on a book called Revelations."

These details, when put together, amplifies the case that the earliest theologies (Marcion, Johannines, Ebionites) all held Docetic views and inherited the Book of Revelation.

https://timsteppingout.wordpress.com/20 ... rcionites/

[NormanMcIlwain]

Thanks Ben. It just shows how impressions can be reinforced according to the fellowship one keeps and how necessary it is to be challenged by others who do not share the same view.

If the final form of Luke has an AD150+ origin (not referenced by name until Ireneaus), and the pastorals are also AD150+ (they are missing from P46), the possible citation of Luke's gospel by 1 Timothy is not in itself problematical.

The real question is... what does it imply about Christian origins that cornerstone canonical documents could have emerged so late, and be credibly ascribed to key figures known from earlier traditions?

Are you asking the right question? Sometimes we need to go back and re-examine the basic premises, believed to be established facts. The logic may be perfectly sound, but if the basic cornerstones are flawed upon which argument is based, the conclusions drawn will not have validity.