CMI made a response post* about claims of NT being Scripture in the sense of Sacred Scripture.

The person writing them finished, without this nuance being noted:

There is NOT one passage in the Greek "Bible" where the "writer" of a book in the NT Greek writings claims to be speaking the inspired words of YHWH.

Perhaps he should note that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, YHWH (or JHVH, as one writes in German or Swedish) is given with a circumlocution, "ὁ κύριος" (like the usage of reading Adonai in Hebrew).

But the answer has a very important and somewhat elusive formulation:

The books accepted by the church have the ring of truth and divine authority and are entirely consistent with prior revelation, unlike the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon, for example.

Like the OT books were collected twice over by Kohanim, first by Ezra, then in the Maccabee period (and the Pharisees and Judaism took Ezra's canon, confirmed as exclusive at Jamnia, the Church took the later canon), so the NT books were also collected by someone. By "the church" - well, what Church?

Now, the CMI has a habit of not referring to the authority by which Christ invested His Catholic Church, and as a result, they take cross referencing between Scriptures as important. To me it is so, and that because it confirms the books were accepted by the Catholic Church in stages, as they were written.

One item they give is certain:

For example, Peter recognized Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15–16),

Indeed. But they omit:

in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

A warning against taking just any and every interpretation that passes through one's mind without sooner or later checking with the Church - over the centuries, may I add (some apparent "Catholic authorities" today contradict the teaching of centuries).

The other item, I am less sure:

and Paul quoted Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 together, calling them both Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18).

Here is the verse:

For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

When I searched synonyms for the latter, "The worker deserveth his wages" I found four OT passages that can be resumed so or as The labourer is worthy of his reward.

"And I will come to you in judgment, and will be a speedy witness against sorcerers, and adulterers, and false swearers, and them that oppress the hireling in his wages; the widows, and the fatherless: and oppress the stranger, and have not feared me, saith the Lord of hosts."
[Malachias (Malachi) 3:5]

"If any man hath done any work for thee, immediately pay him his hire, and let not the wages of thy hired servant stay with thee at all."
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:15]

"And every excellent work shall be justified: and the worker thereof shall be honoured therein."
[Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 14:21]

"Thou shalt not calumniate thy neighbour, nor oppress him by violence. The wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until the morning."
[Leviticus 19:13]

If St. Paul had said here verbatim "it is written" one could not suspect this, since this would clearly indicate a verbatim quote, perhaps composite, but not reduced to resumé, but he said "the scripture saith" - however, it is still probable that it means a verbatim quote, and that the Gospel of St. Luke was already available. Even so, the wording could have been an already traditional resumé of the given teachings, so it was used both by Our Lord in St. Luke, and by St. Paul.

It is also possible that Timothy personally knew Luke and knew of what he was writing, while in progress.

Of him S. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Cor. viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Coloss. iv.) and, only Luke is with me. 2 Tim. iv. Some are of opinion that as often as S. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of S. Luke.

This is from the Haydock comment Preface to the Gospel of St. Luke. Nevertheless, here are dates from Haydock comment for St. Luke and for 1 Timothy, the first same source as above:

This evangelist did not learn his gospel from S. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, (autoptai) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that S. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of S. Matt. and S. Mark.

Here is the Preface to 1 Timothy:

S. Paul passing through Lycaonia, about the year 51, some of the brethren at Derbe or Lystra recommended to him a disciple, by name Timothy, who from his infancy had studied the Holy Scriptures. S. Paul took him, making him his companion and fellow-labourer in the gospel: and not to offend the Jews, who could not be ignorant that Timothy's father was a Gentile, he caused him to be circumcised. Afterwards he ordained him bishop of Ephesus. Wi. — S. Paul writes this epistle to his beloved Timothy, to instruct him in the duties of a bishop, both in respect to himself and to his charge; and that he ought to be well informed of the good morals of those on whom he was to impose hands: Impose not hands lightly upon any man. He tells him also how he should behave towards his clergy. This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch. — After his epistles to the Churches, now follow those to particular persons; to Timothy and Titus, who were bishops, and to Philemon. Timothy was the beloved disciple of S. Paul, whom he frequently styles his son; but it is not certain that they were at all related. After having accompanied the apostle in many of his travels, the latter at last ordained him bishop, and fixed him permanently at Ephesus. Shortly after he wrote him this epistle, to instruct him in the episcopal duties, as he was but young for those great functions. He might be then about thirty-five. He mentions, likewise, in short the chief heresies which were then making mischief at Ephesus, and gives regulations and instructions for different states of persons in the Church. S. Timothy, who had been so long the disciple of S. Paul, and who never left him except when ordered by his master, could not be ignorant of his duties, but it was destined for the use of bishops of every age. Hence S. Austin says that such as are destined to serve the Church, should have continually before their eyes the two epistles to Timothy and that to Titus.

So, St. Paul and St. Timothy came to know each other in AD 51, before the Gospel of St. Luke was ready, but this epistle is much later, I'll cite it again so you don't miss it:

This epistle was written about thirty-three years after our Lord's ascension; but where it was written is uncertain: the more general opinion is, that it was in Macedonia. Ch.

Ch = Challoner. 33 + 33 = 66. The epistle was written around a decade after the Gospel, and therefore, yes, St. Paul is giving an actual quote from it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Scholastica of Monte Casino
10.II.2023

Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

* Does the New Testament claim to be God’s Word?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2015
https://creation.com/new-testament-gods-word