St. Paul Quotes Luke

  • Thread starter Thread starter StAugustine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StAugustine

Guest
Often times we Catholics like to tell protestants that the verse-

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture (γραφὴ) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”
2 Timothy 3:14-16

-is not sufficient to refer to the New Testament inclusively, because Paul would have understood “Scripture” to mean OT only.

Well, that’s false.

I found out that in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 Paul writes-

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves to be paid.”

That phrase- “The labourer deserves to be paid” does not exist anywhere in the OT, neither the Canon nor the Deuterocanon. It DOES exist here though-

" “Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid.” Luke 10:7

This makes sense, given Luke was Paul’s travelling companion, so his gospel would be known to Paul, and it was apparently considered scripture.

So when Paul tells Timothy that scripture is sufficient to complete him in every good work (like teaching and dogmatics for example) he is including the gospels.

Interesting, no?
 
No, not really. It just suggests that Luke was in circulation when Paul wrote to Timothy. The New Testament is much bigger than that. Clearly Timothy wasn’t raised on the Bible from childhood, or he would’ve wondered why parts of the Scriptures were addressed to him personally.
 
Yes, but after reminding Timothy he has known the scriptures (The OT) from his youth he then says ALL scripture, which from his own perspective is inclusive of the gospel of Luke, that’s my point.
 
StAugustine said:
Yes, but after reminding Timothy he has known the scriptures (The OT) from his youth he then says ALL scripture, which from his own perspective is inclusive of the gospel of Luke, that’s my point.
Click to expand...
Right. So a Protestant relying on this argument to prove that all they need is the Bible and their own brain would have to remove from it (A) 1 Timothy; (B) 2 Timothy; (C) Titus; (D) 1 Peter; (E) 2 Peter; (F) 1 John; (G) 2 John; (H) 3 John; (I) Jude; (J) Hebrews; (K) Revelation; (L) Matthew; (M) Mark; and (N) John. That is literally just more than half of the New Testament.
 
My only point is that we need to offer Protestants better answers than one-stop-shop one-liners.

Paul references Luke as Scripture. Thats significant because Paul means not only the OT but the Gospel itself is capable of making you wise unto salvation and fully equipping you for every good work, inclusive of the spiritual work of mercy, instructing the ignorant.

Again, we just need to avoid cliche thoughtless answers.
 
Well, we’re in agreement there. But it’s still valid to point out to a Protestant that the verse can’t possibly mean to describe all of the Bible, because it’s in it.

And that could lead to a fruitful discussion of how the Bible came to be written, and who did the writing and preserved the Bible for all.
 
And the question they pose is this-

How did the fathers, prior to any council, compile authoritative canons of scriptures? How did Athanasius? And at the FIRST council to determine a regional variant of the Canon, what was the criterion of judgment?

Their point will be- if it is possible for they who were saintly to follow such criterion before any church ruling, why can’t we?
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
And the question they pose is this-

How did the fathers, prior to any council, compile authoritative canons of scriptures? How did Athanasius? And at the FIRST council to determine a regional variant of the Canon, what was the criterion of judgment?

Their point will be- if it is possible for they who were saintly to follow such criterion before any church ruling, why can’t we?
Click to expand...
http://www.ntcanon.org/
 
It still could have been a common saying of Jesus that His early followers used. So even if Luke wrote it first that doesn’t mean Paul didn’t already know the saying.

The oral sayings all came before the written Gospels, so I don’t think this makes much of a point to be honest.
 
Local Bishops offered their selections of Scripture and eventually the council’s became wider (more inclusive).

Hippo and Carriage (I forget if one or both) acknowledged that the decision was still awaiting ratification from Rome.

I’m not sure when Rome first responded to those Councils.
 
Did “the Gospel of Luke” as a written thing exist in Paul’s iifetime? The Gospels are usually dated later than Paul’s letters. (Then again, Luke’s “sequel,” the Acts of the Apostles, doesn’t cover Paul’s death, and the letters to Timothy are among those not certain to have been written by the genuine Paul, so it gets confusing on both ends.)
 
StAugustine said:
Paul quotes Luke as “Scripture” therefore written.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you that we need to have more than one line pat answers for Protestants (like me) who desire to know a better version of the faith. I might also point out that the principle involved here; the laborer being deserving of his pay, is espoused in the third chapter of Malachi, verse 5; And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages…

So it is likely that this is the source of the quote in Timothy, since the gospel of Luke, according to the majority of both Catholic and Protestant scholars, did not appear in written form until after Paul died.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but we are talking direct quotation as scripture, not an allusion to a concept.
 
StAugustine said:
we are talking direct quotation as scripture, not an allusion to a concept.
Click to expand...
StAugustine said:
Paul quotes Luke as “Scripture” therefore written.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? You might want to read Mt 10:10… 😉

Of course, this would seem to strengthen your argument – that is, that Paul is quoting a Gospel (and one that is earlier than Luke, at that!). Yet, many scholars doubt the Pauline origin of the Pastoral Letters; some say it’s not Pauline in style, and still others claim that the style is the same, but penned by a later follower. If either of these are true, then you’ve got a simple anachronism: an author/editor inserted a phrase that came into common usage later, into the mouth of an earlier character. (It would be like quoting George Washington asking, “where’s the beef?” 😉 )

So, the best we can give you on this is a big “maybe.” 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Its more likely Luke was quoting Paul, not Paul quoting Luke, since Luke was a follower of Paul, and Paul’s letters pre-date the Gospels.
 
Hereiam said:
Its more likely Luke was quoting Paul, not Paul quoting Luke, since Luke was a follower of Paul, and Paul’s letters pre-date the Gospels.
Click to expand...
The point @StAugustine was making, though, is that Paul appears to be calling it “Scripture”. If there’s no extant evidence that this line was used prior to the NT, and if Paul is the first to write it down, how could it already be “Scripture”?

(Besides which, it would seem that Luke is quoting Matthew. Same problem, though.)
 
But, is the Greek word for scripture used in Paul’s writings pointing to any things written, but when translated into English “scripture” we are defining his word as coming from a canon (Hebrew or Christian)?

I’m barely equipped to ask the question, let alone answer it, so I’d be interested in your opinion.
 
StAugustine said:
Often times we Catholics like to tell protestants that the verse-

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture (γραφὴ) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”
2 Timothy 3:14-16

-is not sufficient to refer to the New Testament inclusively, because Paul would have understood “Scripture” to mean OT only.
Click to expand...
I see where you are going with this, and it is an interesting point. Although the OT only in his “childhood” argument is valid, it does only cause more argument.

So I would take it in a different direction, which will probably cause argument as well. :roll_eyes:

To me it all comes down to authority and I think Authority is key in this verse. Notice St. Paul states…
continue in what you have LEARNED.
knowing from whom you have LEARNED it.

I have no problem accepting that St. Paul is speaking about ALL SCRIPTURE here, old and new. AMEN I agree it’s all inspired by God and it is valuable.

However, there is only two ways something learned can be valuable.

We either have to be taught it and be told, by an authority, that we are correctly understanding it.
or
We can teach ourselves, apply what we learned and see if what we taught ourselves was correct when we get to the end.

Well here’s the rub non of us alive today have gotten to the end yet. Sure God gave us His inspired word but the last time I checked He didn’t put the answer key in the back of the book.

On a final note I would argue that the “sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation” portion of the verse is directly related to the “from childhood” portion of the verse. Children don’t teach themselves, they are taught by an authority.

That is why St. Paul also says in Romans that faith comes from what is heard, not what is read. And why Jesus says unless you become like children you cannot enter the kingdom.

The key to this verse is learning, not teaching yourself, and knowing whom you learned it.

This verse screams authority to me.

God Bless
 
StAugustine said:
Yeah but we are talking direct quotation as scripture, not an allusion to a concept.
Click to expand...
I do understand what you’re saying. However, in my ongoing attempts to cast off my Protestant, cultic traps this falls into an essential category; the need to cite chapter and verse to support all things. I think in this instance we need to be cognizant of the scriptures we have at hand. Namely a document in English that has been translated a minimum of three times. Not everything is going to be found reflected verbatim. In other words, as an example, the Catechism is based on scripture but not every entry is going to have a specific verse referred to.

So let’s go back to Paul in this topic. I can’t say with certainty, but I suspect he did not feel the need to quote directly when referring to what is taught in the scripture of his day. The entire book of Amos would support the idea of the laborer being worthy of his hire. A very apt quote comes from the first century Jewish teacher, Rabbi Hillel. He was asked to define the whole of the law and the prophets. His answer was succinct and revealing; Love God and love your neighbor, all the rest is commentary. If Paul were from the same school of thought, he would not feel the need to do anything other than summarize principle.

Again, my friend, these are just my own thoughts. I am most indebted to your bringing the subject up in the first place. It is proving to be an edifying conversation. Blessings to you, always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top