Who quotes whom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
Concerning New Testament authors, does St. Paul quote St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, or St. John?

I am asking this question regarding the dating of the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament?

Does Acts quote the Gospels?

Do the Gospels quote Acts?

This is not homework. This is too much for me to do. I have five children and a job. I just do not have the time, energy, sanity, scholarly abilities.

Thanks!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Concerning New Testament authors, does St. Paul quote St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, or St. John?

I am asking this question regarding the dating of the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament?

Does Acts quote the Gospels?

Do the Gospels quote Acts?

This is not homework. This is too much for me to do. I have five children and a job. I just do not have the time, energy, sanity, scholarly abilities.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You should get and read Peter Kreeft’s “You can understand the Bible” It answers all these questions.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Concerning New Testament authors, does St. Paul quote St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, or St. John?

I am asking this question regarding the dating of the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament?

Does Acts quote the Gospels?

Do the Gospels quote Acts?

This is not homework. This is too much for me to do. I have five children and a job. I just do not have the time, energy, sanity, scholarly abilities.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The only possible quote I know of is 1 Timothy 5:18, which is possibly a quote from Luke 10:7:

1 Tim. 5:18 - “For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, and, The laborer deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7 - “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.”

That text doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Bible, so it appears that Paul was quoting from Luke’s Gospel. But he doesn’t say he is, he just says he is quoting Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 is another important passage because in it Peter says that Paul has already written several letters and he counts those letters together with “the rest of the Scriptures” (verse 16) which is the first time Paul’s letters are called Scripture.

Anyway I hope that helps. Those are the only “internal” references of New Testament books to other New Testament books that I know of. But there may be more that I don’t know about.
 
dmar198 said:
The only possible quote I know of is 1 Timothy 5:18, which is possibly a quote from Luke 10:7:

1 Tim. 5:18 - “For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, and, The laborer deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7 - “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.”

That text doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Bible, so it appears that Paul was quoting from Luke’s Gospel. But he doesn’t say he is, he just says he is quoting Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 is another important passage because in it Peter says that Paul has already written several letters and he counts those letters together with “the rest of the Scriptures” (verse 16) which is the first time Paul’s letters are called Scripture.

Anyway I hope that helps. Those are the only “internal” references of New Testament books to other New Testament books that I know of. But there may be more that I don’t know about.
Click to expand...
The Scripture that Paul is quoting is Deut. 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”
 
DaveBj said:
The Scripture that Paul is quoting is Deut. 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”
Click to expand...
Sorry to self-refer, but I got back to this too late to edit. St. Paul also cites oral tradition, as when he quotes Jesus as saying, “It is better to give than to receive,” a quotation which does not appear in the four Gospels.

OP, I can understand being busy. If you have other questions like these, post away, and I will try to help. The cool thing about these forums is that when people ask what seems to be a simple question, other people also learn from the answers 😃
 
DaveBj

I hold that the Apostles wrote early.

Is there evidence of that in the early Church?

I forget the details, but the Moritorium Fragment seemed to indicate that the Apostles got together before they went to the ends of the world.

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
DaveBj

I hold that the Apostles wrote early.

Is there evidence of that in the early Church?

I forget the details, but the Moritorium Fragment seemed to indicate that the Apostles got together before they went to the ends of the world.

THANKS!
Click to expand...
I don’t have any knowledge of whether the Gospels were written before the Pauline epistles or vice verse. The only thing I do know is that there are very, very few instances in Paul’s writings where he appears to quote from a Gospel, and in those instances he could have been quoting from the oral tradition that he received.
 
DaveBj said:
The Scripture that Paul is quoting is Deut. 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”
Click to expand...
Paul then adds, “and” and then quotes another part of Scripture. The one found in Luke’s Gospel.
 
The gospel writers, specifically “Mark” were familiar with Pauls letters…“Mark” seems to have been familiar with Pauls treaty on the eucharist any way. Paul’s early letters predate any of the gospels by 20-40 years…which would be “Mark”…the other gospels were written after Paul’s death…Matthew and Luke were written around 70-85 CE…John was written 95-125 CE.

The gospels were not intended to be read outside of the liturgical year of the Jewish calendar as a “supplement” to scripture readings which coincided with the 8 Jewish Feasts. Only after the fall of Jerusalem and the division between a growing Gentile influence and the Diaspora Jewish Christians has the “meaning” and structure of the gospels been “forgotten”…the gospels are not biographical stories of Jesus of Nazareth, but liturgical “retellings” of the great stories of the Hebrew scriptures with Jesus as the main character instead of Moses, Joshua, Elijah or other notable Hebrew characters.
 
dronald said:
Paul then adds, “and” and then quotes another part of Scripture. The one found in Luke’s Gospel.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it (d’oh on me!), Paul was traveling with Luke about the time he wrote I Timothy, so he may well have been familiar with Luke’s gospel account.
 
DaveBj said:
Come to think of it (d’oh on me!), Paul was traveling with Luke about the time he wrote I Timothy, so he may well have been familiar with Luke’s gospel account.
Click to expand...
Obviously none of the New Testament writings were date-stamped, but scholars have generally agreed that several of Paul’s letters are the earliest documents included in the canon, that Mark’s Gospel (which is Peter’s account) is the earliest of the four, followed by Matthew and Luke and then, years later, by John.

Also Paul didn’t need to quote the written gospels, he had plenty of opportunity to hear the words of Jesus from the eyewitnesses. (It’s kind of ironic that neither Paul nor Luke was an eyewitness, since between them they wrote most of the New Testament!)

Luke, of course, opens his gospel by explaining that his intent is to set down the most accurate account he can: you can imagine him, as he traipsed back and forth across the empire with Paul, taking the opportunity to talk to everyone he could who had known Jesus, maybe making notes at the end of the day, and then, after Peter and Paul and most of the other Apostles had been killed, putting down in writing what he had learned.

Sally
 
Publisher said:
The gospel writers, specifically “Mark” were familiar with Pauls letters…“Mark” seems to have been familiar with Pauls treaty on the eucharist any way. Paul’s early letters predate any of the gospels by 20-40 years…which would be “Mark”…the other gospels were written after Paul’s death…Matthew and Luke were written around 70-85 CE…John was written 95-125 CE.
Click to expand...
Your dating is way off. The Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, and no mention of the outcome. And it certainly doesn’t mention his martyrdom in AD67. So it was written before this happened, or Luke, his companion, would have written about it. It also contains no reference to the destruction of the Temple in AD70. And the book of Acts was written after the Gospel of Luke. So Luke must have been written AT LEAST by AD65.

And honestly, they were probably written earlier.

Mark and Matthew also give no indication of the destruction of the Temple.
 
zz912

I, too, hold the hypothesis that the Gospels were written early. The Moritorium Fragment seems to indicate that all of the Apostles got together and St. John was chosen to write for all of them.
 
NHInsider said:
snip

Luke, of course, opens his gospel by explaining that his intent is to set down the most accurate account he can: you can imagine him, as he traipsed back and forth across the empire with Paul, taking the opportunity to talk to everyone he could who had known Jesus, maybe making notes at the end of the day, and then, after Peter and Paul and most of the other Apostles had been killed, putting down in writing what he had learned.

Sally
Click to expand...
👍

Luke’s Gospel always reminds me of the ultimate research paper. One could almost expect to flip to the back and find a bibliography and index 😃
 
zz912 said:
Your dating is way off. The Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, and no mention of the outcome. And it certainly doesn’t mention his martyrdom in AD67. So it was written before this happened, or Luke, his companion, would have written about it. It also contains no reference to the destruction of the Temple in AD70. And the book of Acts was written after the Gospel of Luke. So Luke must have been written AT LEAST by AD65.
Click to expand...
Why MUST it have been? Luke chose to end his narrative where he did, on a note of triumph, with Paul holding court in the capital of the empire. If he chose not to go on to talk about the Neronian persecutions and the execution of Peter and Paul, that doesn’t mean he had to have finished the book before they happened.
zz912 said:
Mark and Matthew also give no indication of the destruction of the Temple.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the point of including this observation is. All the Gospels describe Jesus’ prophetic statements about the destruction of the Temple, none of them include a description of that event (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, John 2). John’s Gospel describes the structures of the Jerusalem temple complex in the present tense and I am comfortable with a pre-70 date for at lease some portion of that gospel although when I was at school the general agreement was that it was written in the mid 80s. (Clearly the ending was added after the death of the Apostle.)

I am not, by the way, one of those people who argues for “late dating” of the New Testament writings, of the sort which presumes that nothing was actually recorded by eyewitnesses and the Church massaged the contents of the NT to support the mythological trappings they were rapidly hanging on the memory of Jesus. I am much more convinced by the opinions of the Early Fathers than I am by those of modern skeptics. (I am also a great believer in the stability and reliability of oral chronicles in ancient cultures.) But Luke’s own introduction seems to indicate that he wrote, not in the heat of his journeying with Paul, but later, and in an intentional and methodical way - and in response to the “many” accounts others had put out. If there were “many” accounts circulating in the 40s and 50s we certainly don’t have any evidence of them.

Sally
 
Dei Verbum emphatically states that the four canonical gospels are “of Apostolic origin.” It refers to “the sacred authors.” It does not state dogmatically whether the sacred authors are the four traditionally-named evangelists. (And it is perhaps worth observing that only 2 of the 4 Evangelists were Apostles . . . )

Just to be clear, I do not doubt that the gospels are the accounts of the men whose names are appended to them (well, except that it has been traditionally accepted that Mark is Peter’s account). But with the exception of Luke, those names are not themselves part of the inspired Scripture, and the teaching of the Church allows for the possibility that the actual putting of words on parchment was the work of disciples or amanuenses.

Sally
 
One major problem that I experienced in graduate school: the professor would teach that we cannot say that the Gospels were inspired. That was not allowed!

Benedict said that we books, professors and historical-critical method does that, it is not theology, but the study of literature and history–nothing more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top