ichabod crane

Hello, everyone!

I have read in some respectable conservative evangelical writers the claim that in I Tim 5:18b the statement (which is explicitly labelled "scripture") that "The laborer deserves to be paid." is a quote from Luke 10:7. Since I Timothy is presumed to have been written late 1st century or early 2nd century, this would make it I think the earliest reference in existence to the gospel of Luke, and therefore it has some significance for the whole Jesus myth debate. So here are the facts:

Lk. 10:7: "axios gar ho ergates tou misthou autou"
I Tim. 5:18: "axios ho ergates tou misthou autou"

The Greek is virtually identical - only the word in italics (gar, meaning "for") is missing, and it's obvious why that would be omitted in context to make the quote flow. Furthermore, I Tim. 5:18 explicitly states that this reference is from "scripture", which generally refers to the Old Testament, but in the late writing II Peter 3:16 at least has come to include Paul's writings.

The problem I have is that the concept that the labourer deserves to be paid is found in Deuteronomy 24:14-15, even though not in the same wording as in I Timothy. The idea that this is a reference to Deuteronomy, rather than Luke, is supported by the fact that the quote that immediately precedes it in I Tim. 5:18 is also from nearby in Deuteronomy (25:4). So the question is, is this a quotation from Luke, or is this an independent allusion to a concept in Deuteronomy - perhaps a summary of Deuteronomy's teaching that was a well-known saying? It would be interesting to search for the phrase in question in extra-Biblical material, but even in the absence of such a search, the argument seems difficult to resolve. The problem with a reference to Luke is that it would be highly unusual. The problem with a reference to Deuteronomy is that although the concept is present, the wording is completely different in Deuteronomy, but is virtually identical in Luke. But it's only six words - how likely is it that two people would independently write the same six-word phrase?

What do you think, esteemed colleagues? Is this the earliest existing reference to Luke in Christian writings?

funinspace

It would be a faint reference at best. Paul was supposed to have been executed in 66-67 A.D. Some have dated 1 Timothy to 58-59 AD. While some of the Fundy's will claim Luke was written that early, most Xians do not agree with this early of a date. Most Xians date Luke to 70-90 AD. There are several verses that give credence to the argument that Luke knew of the distruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Now I think most of this dating is a major fudge (aka best guess) effort. So in reality it's hardly evidence of anything. Especially since Luke was most probably written later than 1 Timothy.

DK

RRK

How odd, this was the reading from the gospels in Catholic masses yesterday.

So how do they know Timothy wasn't referencing Deuteronomy, and Luke didn't borrow Timothy's wording? Or that both of them weren't quoting a third source?

Bede

Philologically it is certain that these two sayings are related. I assume the LXX does not have the same Greek so it didn't come direct from the OT.

So either: 1 Tim knows Luke, Luke knows 1 Tim or they both quote from a common source. As we dion't like inventing documents, the first two are to be preferred. 1 Tim is not considered to be by Paul and dates late first century. So does Luke.

Pick whichever you prefer...

B

Intelligitimate

Checking the LXX for myself, it appears to have some similar wording, though I'm not sure since the Greek is transliterated here and not at blueletterbible.org. Perhaps someone who actually knows Greek could comment on whether the LXX wording is similar or not.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...1-3799.html#15

Roland

Toto

I have read the theory that Luke-Acts was intended to be a three volume set, and that the third volume consists of the Pastorals - that the final redactor of Luke-Acts also wrote the three Pastorals, which were intended to be a finale to the dramatic narrative of Acts. If this is true, the author of Luke was quoting himself in one of those places.

source: Jerome D. Quinn, "The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation fo Luke-Acts to the Pastorl Episles" in Perspective on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbot. Richard Pervo states that this theory has few adherents today (here) but it makes sense to me.

ichabod crane

No way. Practically everybody agrees that I Timothy is not Pauline, and the evidence (such as anti-gnostic rhetoric) suggests that it is dated late 1st century or early 2nd century.

If this is true, and on the Jesus Myth hypothesis it is, then that makes a lot of sense of the evidence. I Timothy can be seen as paraphrasing Deuteronomy, and, as a number of posters above have suggested, Luke could have borrowed from I Timothy. If this is true, and it certainly seems credible, then, the evidence I presented originally may be evidence for a late date for Luke, rather than an early date as I'd first assumed. The argument would run as follows:

(a) The first quote in I Tim. 5:18 is from Deuteronomy, therefore the second quote is likely to be so also. In addition, both quotes are said to be from "scripture", and that invariably refers to the Old Testament. Therefore the second quote is unlikely to be derived from Luke.

(b) I Timothy is late.

(c) The identical wording in Luke suggests that it is derived from I Timothy.

(d) Therefore Luke is later than I Timothy.

The Greek of the LXX is actually quite different. Neither the word "worthy" (axios) or ergates (labourer) occur, and misthos (wages) occurs only in the accusative, not in the nominative. So they're about as different as you can get when you're expressing the same kind of idea.

That certainly explains the evidence, but it's a radical theory that would need to be tested more thoroughly (e.g. linguistic analyses).