TedM

How close is it?

EDIT: It was pointed out that I overlooked Luke 10:7--a pretty bad oversight. I responded to that in post #6, and by changing the thread title

1 Timothy 5:18 (Young's Literal Translation)


Some possible interpretations:

1. It is quoting Matthew 10:10
2. It is quoting Deut 24:14
3. It is quoting Lev 19:13
4. It is quoting some other work
5. It is paraphrasing
6. It isn’t quoting writing at all.


Each, in order:

1. It is quoting Matthew 10:10

The wording is more similar than in Deut and Lev, and the concept of worthiness is directly stated instead of implied. However, the wording isn’t in the same order, and the payment in Matt is specifically mentioned as ‘nourishment’, or food. There is no attribution to Jesus, or that the nature of its source was very different than that of the first writing (the ox treading), nor that it is to be exalted. However, in 6:3, just 10 verses later, the author writes “If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness�., so certainly teachings of Jesus were in Jesus’ mind. Yet, he writes “scripture� and not “teachings of Jesus� . Nor is there a suggestion anywhere else in 1 Timothy of knowledge of Matthew.


2. It is quoting Deut 24:14

The wording is not at all similar, with a time element, though the concept of paying a hireling his due is evident. Again, there is no attribution of the writing. Just 11 verses later however we do have Deut 25: 4`Thou dost not muzzle an ox in its threshing, which is the source for the first quotation. The next 2 verses in 1 Timothy are with regard to accusations by 2 or 3 witnesses and are similar to wording in Deut 19:15.


3. It is quoting Lev 19:13

The wording again is not real close, and has a time element, though the concept of paying a hireling his due is evident. Again, there is no attribution of the writing. I don’t see evidence of allusions to Leviticus elsewhere in 1 Timothy.


4. It is quoting some other work.

This is possible given that it doesn’t match either of the 3 above exactly, and that our current OT is not all that was considered scripture in that day. Jude for example quotes a prophecy from the book of Enoch.


5. It is paraphrasing.

If it is basing it on a writing, since it doesn‘t match exactly it is a paraphrase. The paraphrase of Matt is closer, but it doesn't seem a stretch to me to derive this phrase from either Deut or Lev--not necessarily from a direct reading, but from oral tradition/teachings regarding the passage.


6. It isn’t quoting writing at all.

The most common way to read the sentence without quotations is to assume two quotations. However, it is possible that the writer was being sloppy and meant something on the order of:

“18for the Writing saith, `An ox treading out thou shalt not muzzle,' and we are all aware of the saying `Worthy [is] the workman of his reward.'

Or

“18for the Writing saith, `An ox treading out thou shalt not muzzle,' and we all know that worthy [is] the workman of his reward.

I don't favor this interpretation based on the way the passage currently reads, although it is possible that the passage was modified slightly by someone who was familiar with Matthew 10:10


I cannot sort out the most likely explanation from the above. Given the context and lack of attribution I don’t see it as any more likely that it is based on Matthew than on a paraphrase of Deut, and I’m not ruling out the possibility that it is based on another writing that became a well-known enough phrase for Jesus and the author of 1 Timothy to both have used it, or a form of it. For all of these reasons I don't see this passage as providing strong evidence the 1 Timothy was written by a pseudo-Paul.


Other thoughts:

If Paul wrote this he likely was not referring to a written scripture from Matthew, a book that probably didn’t exist before Paul, and appears in places to be anti-Paul. It is possible Paul knew of a sayings book since he does indicate in 1 Cor 9 that “14so also did the Lord direct to those proclaiming the good news: of the good news to live.� But Paul never says he is quoting from a sayings book of Jesus. It is interesting that earlier in 1 Cor 9 Paul quotes the same passage about the ox, so the passage--like many others in 1 Timothy, reflects the thoughts of Paul. If Paul is the author of 1 Tim, this would argue either for the second ‘quote’ to be from another unknown scripture or a paraphrase of Deut, or an interpolation by a later editor who was aware of Matthew 10:10.

EDIT: the following comment is mistaken since it is in 10:7
If Luke wrote this it is curious that the gospel of Luke didn’t include this verse found in Matthew since it does include the surrounding verses.

If a pseudo-Paul wrote this it seems odd that he would not be aware that Paul never quoted from the gospel of Matthew, or directly from a Q source, and also that if he (the pseudo) quoted Matthew here he didn‘t quote Matthew or any other NT writing elsewhere in the book.



ted

Toto

Why do you discount this verse?

Luke 10:7 . . . the worker deserves his wages.

I think we have discussed this many times before in this forum, including here

Ben C Smith

I think it rather unlikely that 1 Timothy 5.18 is referring to Matthew 10.10. If anything, it is referring to Luke 10.7:

1 Timothy 5.18: ...the worker is worthy of his wage.
Luke 10.7: ...the worker is worthy of his wage.
Matthew 10.10: ...the worker is worthy of his food.

The correspondence is verbatim.

A possibility to explore is whether both 1 Timothy 5.18 and Luke 10.7 might be (Pauline?) paraphrases of Deuteronomy 24.14 and Leviticus 19.13.

Another possibility is common authorship; some think that the author of Luke and Acts also authored 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. That would certainly explain the similarity.

Ben.

(My post crossed with that of Toto.)

TedM

Ben and Toto, you are right. I thought it was in Luke but was looking at 9:1-6, which my Bible said corresponds with the passage in Matthew 10. I apologize.

This does change the picture. It still isn't exact based on YLT. I don't know about the Greek:

7`And in that house remain, eating and drinking the things they have, for worthy [is] the workman of his hire; go not from house to house,

It is very close, so strengthens the argument somewhat that I put forward for Matt 10:10. I'm not sure it is enough to change my overall opinion though.


Your 2 possibilities sound reasonable to me, although it sure sounds bold for Luke to refer to his own work as scripture..

thanks for the correction,

ted

Ben C Smith

In the Greek Luke 10.7 and 1 Timothy 5.18 are identical (in this phrase, the same 6 Greek words all in the same order) except that the former has a postpositive particle meaning for inserted, which does not affect the verbal identity (since it is, after all, postpositive and has to fall in that position in its clause).

Ben.

TedM

Thanks Ben. Given this new knowledge, I'd add the following alternative:

1. It is quoting Luke 10:7

The wording is exact. There is no attribution to Jesus, or that the nature of its source was very different than that of the first writing (the ox treading), nor that it is to be exalted. However, in 6:3, just 10 verses later, the author writes “If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness�., so certainly teachings of Jesus were in Jesus’ mind. Yet, he writes “scripture� and not “teachings of Jesus� . There isn't a strong suggestion anywhere else in 1 Timothy of knowledge of Luke (although there are some brief references to the rich and widows which Luke might have favored), so it isn't clear that this author used Luke 10:7. Perhaps both this author and the author of Luke 10:7 (or Jesus himself) paraphrased Deut, Lev, or some other writing. In other words, the original source for both is probably the same but the source for 1 Timothy 5:8 need not have been Luke 10:7.

And, I'd remove my comment about Luke at the bottom. Thanks again,

ted

TedM

Thanks Toto. I read through that thread the other night, and it seemed to me that the passage could be explored further, as Layman (I think it was him) primarily focused on the alternative that it wasn't a quotation at all and was more of a comment by the author that a worker deserves to be paid.

ted

Toto

That was Layman's buddy, Nomad.

I'm not sure how much you can wring out of this phrase. It sounds like a common saying used to justify paying the preachers - there's nothing especially theological about it otherwise. It is attributed to "Scripture" and not to Jesus, which could be a sly case of Luke quoting him or herself as Scripture, in tandem with a quote from the Hebrew Bible. Ot it could be a number of other things. It could be a later editor making sure to emphasize the point that preachers need to eat too.