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. 1 “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. 2 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; 3 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].