New Testament internal references to the New Testament as scripture

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook
40s AD dating for first Gospel accounts - contra 60s-80s dating
(Paul quotes Luke as scripture)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/863192653772625/

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

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.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Go not from house to house.

Matthew 10:10
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats,
neither shoes, nor yet staves:
for the workman is worthy of his meat.

James 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
ye do well:

Matthew 22:39
And the second is like unto it,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses,
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
Doth God take care for oxen?

An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Volume 1 (1846)
On the Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament
Thomas Horne
https://books.google.com/books?id=SLg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA82

Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-02/17016.html
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
'my gospel'

apostolic understandings of NT scripture ! (40-65AD) - (2010, link no longer sound)
big two - 1 Timothy 5:18 2 Peter 3:16
similar - check wording - James 2:8
my gospel - Romans 2:16 Romans 16:25 2 Timothy 2:8 1 Corinthians 15:1

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

James 4:5
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain,
The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

MY GOSPEL - see other page

"my gospel" - Paul writing of Luke's gospel
[URL="https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.467[/URL]

Romans 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16:25
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel,
and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery,
which was kept secret since the world began,

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,
which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook thread covers a number of issues

Facebook thread
40s AD dating for first Gospel accounts - contra 60s-80s dating
(Paul quotes Luke as scripture)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/863192653772625/

Facebook
40s AD dating for first Gospel accounts - contra 60s-80s dating
(Paul quotes Luke as scripture)

This thread can look at the dating of the New Testament. Often false Bible text (and interpretation and forgery) theories rely on the bogus late dating popular in scholarship circles.

(Mark ending discussion, where false theory uses late dates)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...&offset=0&total_comments=34&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R4%22}

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.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire.

What I want to offer here first is some of the references discussing this clear simple fact that the Paul's epistles, written c.60 AD, were written long enough after the Gospel of Luke that his Gospel was already circulating as scripture. Thus falsifying all theories of the Gospels as having been written in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Note that in the thread above, James Snapp objected to the simple and clear understanding of the Timothy verse, which would deep-six even more his theories of the Mark ending, yet did not offer his alternative.

Note that Paul uses Lukes Gospel, since Luke was largely connected with Paul, rather than Matthew's:

Matthew 10:10
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats,
neither shoes, nor yet staves:
for the workman is worthy of his meat.

===============

And note that late dating will add other confusions, such as a quick pro forma rejection of the very solid Theophilus proposal, that Luke was writing his Gospel to Theophilus when he was the high priest. (c. 41 AD).

the Theophilus proposal
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/677573729001186/

Here I briefly discussed the connection:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...7&offset=0&total_comments=5&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22}

Granted, more should be done on Theophilus, but on this thread I want to discuss some of the more traditional evidences for early dating, starting with the Timothy verse.

==================

We may also add a general review of the NT dating issues, one thread touched on the eyewitnesses question:

NEW TESTAMENT - EYEWITNESSES (Bauckham, Williams)
The Elephant in the Living Room - late pseudo-evangelical NT dating
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/576823735742853/

Note how the supposed evangelicals will even support the ultra-support unbelieving idea of the Gospels being written in the 80s (a darling idea of the liberal Germans, since it makes the prophecy of the Lord Jesus about the Temple being written down AFTER the destruction.)

==================

background on Paul's citing Luke as scripture

========================

My discussions of this question go back to 2003 on Xtianity and 2005 on the Xtalk forum, with mostly liberal scholars and sketpics, which had a fairly comprehensive discussion:

[Xianity] NT Scripture - 27 books, responding to a Christian
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Xianity/conversations/topics/9990

[XTalk] Dating of Mark
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crosstalk2/conversations/topics/19565

There were about 40 posts involved, time permitting I will pull out the salient points made.

[Messianic_Apologetic] Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as "the scripture saith"
Steven Avery - Feb, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Messianic_Apologetic/conversations/topics/9271

========================

A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Acts-Romans (1874)
JFB
https://books.google.com/books?id=FdBHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA496

The labourer is worthy of his reward - or "hire" (Luke 10:7; whereas Matthew 10:10 has "his meat," or 'food.' Paul, if, as seems natural, "the Scripture" apply to the second quotation as well as the first, hereby recognizes the gospel of Luke, his own helper (whence appears the undesigned appositeness of the quotation), as inspired "Scripture." That gospel was probably in circulation then eight or nine years.

========================

The textual "scholar" Samuel Davidson (1806-1898) acknowledged the connection:

An Introduction to the New Testament: The Acts of the apostles to the Second epistle to the Thessalonians (1894)
https://books.google.com/books?id=z-4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA61

So he came to the reverse bogus conclusion that Timothy must have been written in the 2nd century!

========================

The "proverbial" idea was, somewhat surprisingly, given by Calvin and Gill, without much comment. This fails because Paul specifically says "the scripture saith" .. (and we have a direct link and hit, and there is no such proverb known.)

So we have a rare case where Benjamin Warfield is more sensible with scripture than those gentlemen:

Earliest Titles of the New Testament Books (1885)
Benjamin Warfield
https://books.google.com/books?id=b8waAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA549

...The simple fact is, however, that the Apostle cites two passages as Scripture, and one of them is found in Deuteronomy and the other in Luke. Had the second one been found in the Old Testament instead of the New, the proverb theory would never have been dreamed of; it is the child of preconception.

========================

For those who like to see something also defended by the modern scholars, we have a neat summary here by:

L. Timothy Swinson of Tennessee Temple University:
http://www.tntemple.edu/dr-timothy-swinson

What Is Scripture?: Paul's Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy (2014)
L Timothy Swinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=b84SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA93
p. 93-101
(then comes google blanks, then Wenham footnote on p. 107)

Including many references to other scholars who support the Luke scripture connection. In fact, the discussion is one of the themes of Swinson's book! With references throughout.

Here is the publisher summary:

"Analysis of the literary scheme of the letters to Timothy suggests that graphe, as it is employed in each letter, may legitimately be understood to include some of the apostolic writings that now appear in the New Testament. In affirming the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, Swinson argues that a form of the Gospel of Luke stands as the source of the second referent of graphe in 1 Tim 5:18 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . Second, Swinson contends that pasa graphe in 2 Tim 3:16 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] includes the apostolic writings extant in Paul’s day, specifically Luke’s Gospel and some of Paul’s own writings. These parallel lines of analysis demonstrate that Paul ascribes to his own writings and to those of his coworkers an authoritative standing equal to that of the sacred writings (ta hiera grammata) found in the Old Testament. While many questions surrounding biblical authority and the biblical canon remain, Paul’s use of graphe in 1 and 2 Timothy nevertheless advances a high view of both Old Testament and New Testament Scripture."

New Book on “Scripture” in the PE - R
Bryant J. Williams III (wrote the forward)
http://www.pastoralepistles.com/2014/10/27/new-book-on-scripture-in-the-pe/

This is all new to me, just learned of the Swinson book today, and we see that scholarship is catching up to scripture sense, in this one spot!

Over the last couple of years, I had noticed some blogs and articles and references that were solid on this (still looking for the best) however, I did not expect anything so comprehensive with an academy modern scholarship referencing approach.

As with the Theophilus proposal, you often end up with solid corroborative additional elements. Ones that you might not catch in the quick read and mild study. (That is one reason I set up a thread like this one, and bookmark it, so we have a place to place such notes!.)

===========================

Maybe the Swinson book (which may be a fine purchase in Kindle or handcopy, not expensive) can help James review his hand-wave dismissal :) .

Steven Avery
New Testament Gospels dating 40-45 AD.
(Eyewitnesses should == early NT dating)

This came up in an interesting thread, where Richard Bauckham makes his own position exceedingly difficult.

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide - 2016-04
Bart Ehrman Debates Richard Bauckham About the Gospels
https://www.facebook.com/groups/151949818157846/permalink/1161736490512502/
New Testament Gospels dating 40-45 AD.
(Eyewitnesses should == early NT dating)

This came up in an interesting thread, where Richard Bauckham makes his own position exceedingly difficult.

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide - 2016-04
Bart Ehrman Debates Richard Bauckham About the Gospels
https://www.facebook.com/groups/151949818157846/permalink/1161736490512502/
Here is a blog or two that really has some good Theophilus material, including in the comments.

Who is Luke's Theophilus - June 13, 2010 -6 comments
https://smoodock45.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/who-is-luke’s-theophilus/

Who is Luke's Theophilus - March 22, 2011 - 57 comments

Richard Anderson is on the second comments, four posts, I was surprised by his "most excellent" answer, in that it did not include the Maimonides reference.

Lots of urls in there.

This does go with the dating issues such as here:

NEW TESTAMENT - EYEWITNESSES (Bauckham, Williams)
The Elephant in the Living Room - late pseudo-evangelical NT dating
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/576823735742853/

Expansion on PureBibleForum is the plan.

Theophilus the high priest
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?66-Theophilus-the-high-priest

===========

The Theophilus the high priest understanding is quite a radical transformation. It basically trhows out a ton of modern junque. ")

===========

Steven

Steven Avery
All related:


Prologue and the eyewitnesses

Theophilus the high priest (Luke may be Acts 6 priest!)
superb historicity accuracy of Luke.
internal referencing (e.g. Paul refers to Luke as scripture)
early dating of the Gospels - c. 40-50 AD

A foundation of NT accuracy and perfection.

=================

Here I mention a bit about the historicity topic and pulled out an interesting quote where a somewhat liberal writer acknowledges that the Prologue (which is even a bit nuanced in the English of our pure AV) supports Luke's early connection with Jesus and/or the people close to the Lord.

BCHF
Luke's date for the crucifixion
Lukes superb historicity and the Prologue eyewitnesses
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=85890#p85890

=================

Need: a modest paper that integrates these topics. With the Theophilus proposal moving along, becoming wildly accepted in evangelical circles, we are in a good time. Btw, a little horn-tootin, I found and researched and wrote about the Hase-Michaelis history awhile back.

==================

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
2 Corinthians 8:18 (AV)
And we have sent with him the brother,
whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches;

Discussed as Luke again and again by Charles Dunster (these two books are the same):

Discursory considerations on the hypothesis of Dr. Macknight and others, that St Luke's Gospel was the first written (1808)
https://books.google.com/books?id=RyiXrCveDVoC&pg=PA141
Tracts on St. Luke's Gospel (1812)
Charles Dunster
https://books.google.com/books?id=1bhd10kTX8YC&pg=PA141

Charles Dunster (1750-1816) - DNB
http://books.google.com/books?id=7mtIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231

==================================

A new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament. To which is subjoined A vindication of the former part of st. Matthew's Gospel (1827)
Jeremiah Jones
http://books.google.com/books?id=pYUNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA74

Jeremiah Jones (1693-1724)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Jones_(tutor)

1616844383945.png

1616845068806.png

Origen, Jerome, Ignatius -
Senensis Grotius Hammond Cave Whitby
or Barnabas or Mark as Luke alternatives

==================================

The Higher Criticism and the Bible: A Manual for Students (1891)
William Binnington Boyce
https://books.google.com/books?id=S5LEmhMma_8C&pg=PA395

Good scholarship review

William Binnington Boyce (1894-1889)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binnington_Boyce

==================================

Modern writers are usually stuck with late dates, and thus are less receptive.
Here is a good example, from a writer who rejects the Mark ending, he does add good references.

Thomas Walter Manson (1893-1958)

Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (1962)
by Thomas Walter Manson
https://books.google.com/books?id=jSLpAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA48

Tertullian lays great stress on the fact that Luke was one of Paul’s followers. Clement of Alexandria mentions the theory that Luke translated the Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek. Origen tells us that Luke ‘made for converts from the Gentiles the gospel praised by Paul ’.1 This last statement is again an inference, and probably an illegitimate one, from the passage in 2 Cor. viii. 18 where Paul speaks to the Corinthian community of sending to them ‘ the brother whose praise in the Gospel is through all the churches.' The brother is not named and there have been many guesses at his identity ; but they remain mere guesses. The description given is quite ambiguous. What it means is that the brother in question has a great and widespread reputation as an Evangelist; but whether ' Evangelist ’ means a preacher of the Gospel or the composer of a gospel, we have no means of determining.1 It seems that Origen was the first to interpret II Cor. viii. 18 of Luke and his Gospel : he has had many followers in ancient and modem times—Chrysostom, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Jerome, Ambrose ; and in more recent days Rendall, Plummer, Bachmann, and others. But the identification remains no more than a guess.’

1 Cadbury, ibid., ii. 227.

2 For an excellent discussion of the problems raised by II. Cor. viii. 18, see E. B. Alio, Seconde Epitre aux Corinthiens (Etudes Bibliques), pp. 224 ff.

3 It may be remarked in passing that Origen here gives the four gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which he evidently regards as the chronological order of composition.

==================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/923430858502777/

Nick Sayers


======================

Concerning Luke, Paul and also Mark...

Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke and calls it Scripture, putting it on the same level as Deuteronomy (compare 1 Tim. 5:18; Deut. 25:4; Lk. 10:7). Luke's presence in Rome with the Apostle Paul near the end of Paul's life was attested by 2 Timothy 4:11: "Only Luke is with me".

In the last chapter of the Book of Acts, widely attributed to Luke, there are several accounts in the first person also affirming Luke's presence in Rome, including Acts 28:16: "And when we came to Rome... ." See also plural "we" and "us" verses: Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–37; 28:1-16.

Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from a first-person perspective. These "we" sections are written from the point of view of a traveling companion of Paul: e.g. "And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.", "Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia" Such passages would appear to have been written by someone who traveled with Paul during portions of his ministry. and this points to Luke. Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, nor of the events prior to Paul's arrival in Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first "we" passage is only two verses later in Acts 16:10. The preface of Luke is clear he didn't see Jesus firsthand:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke and Acts make up 27.5% of the New Testament. 28% of the New Testament was written by the Apostle Paul if we included Hebrews. So about 55.5% by these two guys alone. In this verse below, Paul mentions both Luke and Mark in the context of parchments and books. These three guys wrote two-thirds of the NT and hung out together...

2 Tim 4
11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

And a bit more

I bring this up every time a catholic says that "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3.16-17 only refers to the old testament.
Also, the mere fact that Paul DOESN'T explain anything about luke 10.7 to timothy, assumes that the gospel of Luke had already been circulated by this point, and Paul already expects Timothy to know what he's talking about
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
1 Timothy was in circulation in the early part of the Second Century and quotes directly from the Gospel of Luke (10:7), referring to the passage as “scripture.”

Ulrich Luz notes the catchwords ἐργάζομαι (1 Cor 9,6.13), μισθός (9,17–18), and ἐργάται (2 Cor 11,17) to suggest the possibility that Paul (not even deutero-Paul) knew the saying in its Q form. Davies & Allison think that Paul definitely knew the Lukan form.

Bart Ehrman blog
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-new-testament-gospels/did-luke-borrow-from-josephus/#p18784
 
Top