Implications of 1 Timothy 5:18 for the Canon of the New Testament

Presented to the 60 th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Providence, Rhode Island, November 19-21, 2008 by Myron C. Kauk Liberty University

Scholarly opinion variously places the origin of the New Testament canon in the first, the second, or the fourth century. 1 In part, the differences in scholarly opinion are a matter of definition. If by canon, one means a fixed and unalterable list of authoritative books, it may readily be acknowledged that the earliest use of the term kanw,n in this technical sense and the earliest list of such books which corresponds exactly to the present New Testament come from the fourth century.2 Consensus recognition within the church of the precise limits of the New Testament canon was a process that was played out over time. But it is equally certain that the ecclesiastical declarations of the fourth century merely reflect what had been the operating procedures in the churches for some time. As Aland notes,

“this Canon grew, in fact, from the bottom upwards, in the communities, among the believers, and only later was officially legitimized from the top.” 3

On the other hand, if one accepts that recognizing a New Testament book as Scripture and ascribing to it the same authority as the Scriptures of Israel is tantamount to considering the book

1 See the summaries in Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 37-66; Harry Y. Gamble, “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis,” in The Canon Debate , eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 267-294; John Barton, The Spirit and the Letter (London: SPCK, 1997), 1-34. 2 Peter Balla, Challenges to New Testament Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 88-89; H. W.Beyer, “kanw,n ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromeily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:601. 3 Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1962), 18.

“canonical,” 4 whether the precise limits of such canon have been delineated or not, then it is possible to push the origin of the New Testament canon to a much earlier time.

This immediately raises the question of when the canon of the Old Testament was recognized in a fixed and unalterable form. While this question cannot be engaged in full here, Meredith Kline has suggested that the earliest books of the Old Testament were considered “canonical” almost immediately upon their composition, 5 and Roger Beckwith has argued that the three divisions of the Hebrew Canon were recognized as complete by the middle of the second century. 6 For the purposes of this study, it will be accepted that the earliest Christians inherited from Second Temple Judaism the concept of an authoritative list of inspired Scripture, and it was natural that they should place alongside of this the record of God’s final revelation in Jesus Christ. 7

B. B. Warfield has argued that the books of the New Testament were intentionally written as

Scripture and were immediately recognized as such by those who received them. 8 Thus, the New

Testament canon was effectively complete when the last New Testament book was written, although circulation and universal acceptance of these books was a process that took time. Still, the authors of the New Testament wrote as eye witnesses, 9 as those who purported to present the “exact truth”

4 Balla, Challenges , 89. 5 Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 21-44; Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1987), 35-40. 6 Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); Cf. Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), 149-150. 7 Balla ( Challenges , 98-106), who takes a more cautious appraisal regarding the closing of the OT canon, nevertheless, argues that a “process of canonization” was underway among the Jews and that this encouraged the Christians to undertake a similar process in regards to their own writings. 8 B. B. Warfield, “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament,” in Revelation and Inspiration , 451-456 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000); Cf. Wilber T. Dayton, “Factors Promoting the Formation of the New Testament Canon” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 10 (1967): 28-35; Ridderbos, Herman, “The Canon of the New Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible , ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 192-195. Contra Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 18. D. Moody Smith, (“When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?” JBL 119 [2000]; 3-20) has argued that at least Matthew and Luke, and probably Mark and John were written intentionally as Scripture. 9 Jn 21:24; 1 Jn 1:1-4.

concerning Christ, 10 as those sent by God with apostolic authority, 11 as those who record God’s final revelation in Christ, 12 and as those who record prophecies that are not to be altered under pain of a curse. 13

In this paper it will be argued that the earliest stages of the canonical process are visible within the pages of the New Testament itself, specifically in 1 Timothy 5:18. Four questions must be considered. First, does 1 Timothy 5:18 include the phrase a;xioj o` evrga,thj tou/ misqou/ auvtou/ along with bou/n avlow/nta ouv fimw,seij under the designation grafh,? Second, if so, what is the source of the citation a;xioj o` evrga,thj tou/ misqou/ auvtou ? Third, what is the date of 1 Timothy? Fourth, what is the date of the citation source?

How many “Scriptures” does 1 Timothy 5:18 cite?

In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul makes the case that elders who rule well deserve double honor. In 5:18, he supports this contention by an appeal to Scripture. He begins with a fairly common introductory formula for him, le,gei ga.r h` grafh,, then quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4, bou/n avlow/nta ouv

fimw,seij , differing from the LXX only in the order of the words. Immediately following the citation from Deuteronomy, separated only by kai,, is the phrase a;xioj o` evrga,thj tou/ misqou/ auvtou/, which is not found in the OT, but matches the text of Luke 10:7 except for the absence of a connecting ga.r .

The most natural reading of the text suggests that the designation grafh, applies to both clauses, but Fee objects to this on the grounds that “Luke’s Gospel had almost certainly not yet assumed written form” and “the term Scripture meant only the OT for Christians until the end of the second century.” 14 The dating of Luke’s Gospel will be considered below, but there is ample evidence that

10 Lk 1:1-4. 11 Rom 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1-5; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tm 1:1; 2 Tm 1:1; Ti 1:1; 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. 12 Heb 1:1-2. 13 Rv 22:18-19. 14 Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 134; Cf. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 364; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Nashville;

Christians were beginning to recognize NT writings as Scripture much before the end of the second century. The Epistle of Barnabus , dating from the beginning of the second century, quotes Mt 22:14 with an introductory formula, “it is written.” 15 Polycarp, also dating from the early second century, quotes Eph 4:26 and refers to it as Scripture. 16 The Second Epistle of Clement , perhaps dating also from the beginning of the second century, joins a quotation from Isa 54:1 with a quotation from Mt 9:13, referring to both as Scripture. 17 Finally, 2 Peter 3:15-16, another passage from the NT, equates the writings of Paul with “the rest of the Scriptures.” So there is no historical obstacle to viewing 1 Timothy

5:18b as a reference to “Scripture” if the grammar supports this.

Multiple quotations from OT Scripture are connected with kai, in Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10; Acts 1:20; 2

Tm 2:19; Heb 1:10; 1 Pt 2:8, which suggests that this second phrase also is being subsumed under the heading grafh,.18 Knight mentions that two proverbs, one biblical and one not, are joined together by kai, in 2 Pt 2:22, 19 but since the introductory formula in this case refers not to “Scripture” but to a “true proverb,” all that can be concluded is that both sayings are considered proverbs. Mounce refers to Mk

1:2-3 as an instance where a conflate quote is introduced with a formula ascribing it to Isaiah when only one portion of the quotation comes from Isaiah and argues from this that perhaps the designation

Thomas Nelson, 2000), 311; Gleason L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 45; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 126; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon , trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.). http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.vii.v.html [accessed November 14, 2008]. 15 Barn . 4:14; Cf. Allert, A High View , 42-43; I Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 615; Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 100; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 122. 16 Pol. Phil. 12:1; Cf. Bruce, Canon , 122. 17 2 Clem. 2:1-4; Cf. Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles , 615; Bassler, 1 Timothy , 100; Bruce, Canon , 121-122; Ridderbos, “Canon,” 198. 18 Cf. Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles , 616; George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 234. 19 Knight, Pastoral Epistles , 234.

grafh, is only intended to refer to the first citation in 1 Tim 5:18. 20 Still, the most natural reading applies the designation grafh, to both citations.21

What is the source of the citation?

Granted that the phrase a;xioj o` evrga,thj tou/ misqou/ auvtou/ is regarded as Scripture, what is the source of this citation? Several possibilities have been suggested. The designation grafh, suggests that a passage from the OT might be in view. Leviticus 19:13, “The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning” or Deuteronomy 24:15, “You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets” have been suggested. 22 Numbers 18:31, “You may eat it anywhere, you and your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the tent of meeting” or 2 Chronicles

15:7, “But you, be strong and do not lose courage, for there is reward for your work” have also been suggested. 23 Any of these might be considered as a conceptual background for the idea expressed in 1

Timothy 5:18, but because none of them gives the precise wording represented there, better possibilities are available.

It has been suggested that 1 Timothy 5:18b represents a dominical saying known to the author of 1 Timothy from an oral source, 24 or perhaps that this is even a proverbial saying which was later attributed to Jesus by the early church. 25 Against either of these proposals is the fact that the citation is identified here as grafh,. It may readily be accepted, as Ellis says, that “[t]he sayings of Christ were

20 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles , 311. 21 This is accepted by Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles , 615; Bassler, 1 Timothy , 100; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 278; Knight, Pastoral Epistles , 234; Lea and Griffin, 1 Timothy , 156; A Duane Litfin, “1 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary , eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 744; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1980), 105. 22 Litfin, “1 Timothy,” 744. 23 Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy , 278. 24 Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy , 234; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus , 134; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), 62-63. 25 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus , 134; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles , 79; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles , 126.

regarded as the Word of God by Paul,” 26 but there is a difference between the spoken Word of God and

Scripture. According to Marshall, “A written source is surely required, and one that would have been authoritative.” 27

1 Corinthians 9:9-14 also speaks against the possibility of an oral source for this citation. In 1

Cor 9:9, Paul also cites from Dt 25:4, although the text form differs from that found in 1 Tm 5:18. 28 After explaining the point he wishes to make from the OT passage, Paul concludes his argument in v 14 by appealing to the teaching of Jesus, “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” This is apparently a reference to the same saying cited in 1 Tm 5:18, except that in Corinthians Paul cites it indirectly while in Timothy it is cited directly as Scripture. Clearly a written source is intended in Timothy.

Next, it has been suggested that the citation in 1 Timothy 5:18b comes from a written collection of Jesus’ sayings.29 Matthew 10:10 has a similar saying, except that Matthew has th/j trofh/j “food” where Luke and Timothy have tou/ misqou/ “wages,” and it has become common to attribute such passages from the double tradition to the hypothetical gospel source Q. Thus, Towner states, “if a written source is required by the exact verbal correspondence, surely it is sufficient to posit that by this time various written collections of the sayings of Jesus had begun to circulate, and that Paul had access to the version that Luke eventually consulted.” 30 But this really will not suffice. There is no need to doubt that Luke had access to sources. He says so plainly in his prologue. But to think that one of Luke’s sources was regarded highly enough to be placed next to a passage from the OT and designated

“Scripture” and yet that source was ultimately not preserved as a part of the NT Canon is incredible.

26 E Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), 36 27 Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles , 616. Cf. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles , 105-106 28 Where 1 Tm 5:18 has bou/n avlow/nta ouv fimw,seij 1 Cor 9:9 has ouv khmw,seij bou/n avlow/nta . 29 Towner, Timothy and Titus , 366-367; Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles , 615-616; Bassler, 1 Timothy , 100; Lea and Griffin, 1 Timothy , 156; Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles , 105. 30 Towner, Timothy and Titus , 366-367.

The only remaining option, and certainly the best, is to regard the second citation in 1 Tm 5:18 as coming from the canonical Gospel of Luke. Knight summarizes the situation well.

Since, however, grafh, usually refers to what is written and recognized as scripture and since the words quoted are found verbatim in Luke’s Gospel, Paul’s dependence on that Gospel is the only alternative that fits all the data. 31

The chief difficulty with this position is the relative dating of 1 Timothy and the Gospel of Luke. 32 1

Timothy can hardly quote from the Gospel of Luke if the Gospel had not yet been written when 1

Timothy was composed, as is assumed by many. 33

Issues Related to the Date of 1 Timothy

Evangelical and critical scholarship can be said to be at something of an impasse concerning the date and authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The traditional view posits that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment sometime around AD 62, wrote 1 Timothy and Titus while traveling in the east and 2 Timothy during a second Roman imprisonment, and was martyred sometime before the death of Nero in AD 68. Critical scholarship objects that this reconstruction does not fit the historical record presented by Acts, the rest of the Pauline Epistles, and other sources and that there are linguistic and theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and the rest of the Pauline Epistles. For this reason, critical scholarship generally assigns the composition of the Pauline Epistles to a later Paulinist who perhaps utilized some authentic Pauline fragments and consulted the authentic Pauline Epistles anywhere from the later first century to the middle of the second century. 34 This study will not presume to reproduce or add to the many fine defenses of the traditional view, 35 but needs to address briefly certain aspects of this question that relate directly to 1 Timothy 5:18.

31 Knight, Pastoral Epistles , 234. 32 Bruce, Canon , 120. 33 Lea and Griffin, 1 Timothy , 156; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus , 134; Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles , 105-106. 34 For a recent survey of literature, see Mark Harding, What Are They Saying About the Pastoral Epistles (New York: Paulist, 2001), 9-27. 35 Cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles , lxxxiii-cxxix; Knight, Pastoral Epistles ,

Critical scholarship has been more willing to accept that the author of 1 Timothy is actually quoting from Luke’s Gospel and using it as Scripture. Indeed this is sometimes adduced as evidence of the late date of the letter. 36 Bassler suggests that “the author of 1 Timothy probably knew Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth and borrowed his warrants from it.” 37 Supposedly, the author of 1 Timothy retained Paul’s reference to Dt 25:4, stripped Paul’s explanation of this text, which was well accepted by this time, and substituted a quotation from the Gospel of Luke, which was available to him but had not been to the historical Paul, for the indirect reference to Jesus’ teaching in Corinthians. But a direct borrowing from 1 Corinthians seems unlikely in light of the different text form used for the quotation from Deuteronomy. It seems more likely that the mind of Paul himself has constructed a similar argument to one he has used in the past and either independently translated Dt 25:4 from the Hebrew or used whatever Greek manuscript was available to him at the time. As for the reference to Luke 10:7, it seems clear that Paul was aware when he wrote 1 Corinthians that Jesus had taught on this subject, but did not yet have the teaching of Jesus reduced to writing. By the time Paul writes 1 Timothy, the

Gospel of Luke has apparently been written and Paul now has the teaching of Jesus available in a written text that he considers Scripture.

Meier is amazed that the Gospel of Luke would be so quickly accepted as Scripture in the

Pauline churches in the scant 20 years he allows between the composition of the Gospel (AD 80-90) and the composition of 1 Timothy, yet he finds this conclusion inescapable. 38 But why is this surprising?

What would be surprising is if a Gospel written by the travelling companion of Paul were not immediately accepted by Timothy, Titus, and the churches which they served.

36 John P. Meier, “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts As Scripture?” Mid-Stream 38 (1999): 76-78; Bassler, 1 Timothy , 100; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles , 78-79. 37 Bassler, 1 Timothy , 100 38 Meier, “Inspiration,” 77-78.

Issues Related to the Date of Luke’s Gospel

But can the Gospel of Luke be dated this early? The Gospel of Luke is commonly dated anywhere from the beginning of the Jewish war in the late sixties to approximately AD 90 based on an assumption of Marcan priority and the argument that Luke betrays an awareness of the siege of

Jerusalem in passages such as Lk 13:35; 19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31.39 Mark’s Gospel is usually dated in the mid-sixties based on the testimony of Irenaeus that it was written after Peter’s death during

Nero’s persecution, 40 and it is argued that Luke must be written after that. Furthermore, it is suggested that Luke has modified Mk 13:14 “But when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION standing where it should not be ” to Lk 21:20 “ But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near ” and this reflects his knowledge of the siege. Conservative scholars are careful to avoid calling this a prophecy after the event, but nevertheless insist that it reflects the writer’s vivid memory of accomplished events. Arndt responds,

The believer in the deity of Christ is not influenced by such an argument for one minute. Jesus is the great God, and because of His omniscience His prophecy may well have included all manner of minute details. 41

Besides, the language does not exceed the kinds of things normally expected in war at that time and, as

Bock has noted, the language mirrors OT language concerning God’s previous judgments on Jerusalem.

Bock states, “the prediction of Jerusalem’s fall is one that Jesus was capable of making solely on the basis of his knowledge of how God acts to judge covenant unfaithfulness.” 42 Once the predictions of

39 Robert H. Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 24-26; John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (Dallas: Word, 1989), xxxvii-xxxix; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 33-35; E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1977), 55-60. 40 Haer 3.1.1. Cf. R. A. Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 514-515. 41 William F. Arndt, The Gospel According to St. Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 22. 42 Darrel L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 17.

Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem are recognized for the prophecies which they are, “the most important argument for fixing the date of the writing of Luke as after A.D. 70 falls away.” 43

Those who argue for an earlier date for Luke rely primarily on the necessity of placing it prior to the Book of Acts. 44 The date of Acts, it is argued, can be fixed by its conclusion which leaves Paul imprisoned in Rome after two years. It is argued that the narrative ends here because that is as far as events have progressed. There is no mention of Paul’s release, or his execution. There is no mention of the persecution under Nero or the destruction of Jerusalem, and the attitude towards Rome remains positive throughout the book of Acts, which is difficult to imagine had these events taken place. Thus

Acts can be confidently dated AD 62, give or take a year. The Gospel of Luke must be dated prior to this.

But all of this is subject to the complaint that it is an argument from silence. Acts could conceivably be dated at any point subsequent to these events without mentioning them. Thus, those who insist on a later date for Luke have no difficulty in positing a later date for the book of Acts as well.

Here is where the evidence of 1 Tm 5:18 becomes so important. It provides positive evidence that the Gospel of Luke not only existed in written form but was considered Scripture by the early to middle sixties. The implications of this are far reaching. Those still committed to Marcan priority will need to consider an earlier date for Mark’s Gospel as well.45 The date for Matthew may need to be reconsidered as well. Once an early date for Luke is accepted, the primary obstacle to a more natural dating for the book of Acts has also been removed.

Conclusion

1 Timothy is best understood to present an argument based on two passages of Scripture, one from Dt 25:4 and the other from the NT in Lk 10:7. On the assumption that Paul wrote 1 Timothy

43 Norval Geldenhuys, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 33. 44 Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 , 16-18; Geldenhuys, Luke , 30-35; Arndt, St. Luke , 21-23. 45 Cf. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament on CD-ROM [Pradis, 2002]; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 84-89.

sometime in the early to mid sixties, this means that the Gospel of Luke was also in writing at this time and was already accepted as Scripture. Thus, the beginnings of the NT Canon can be traced to the pages of the NT itself. It is obviously impossible to speak of a completed canon at this point since it is still in the process of being written, but it is arguable that the books of the NT were recognized as “Scripture” and thus as canonical almost immediately upon their production.