The Problem
of Luke’s Gospel (1 Tim. 5:18)
If 1 Timothy is authentic, then
Timothy was located in Ephesus when this letter was written, and Paul had at
some time in the relatively recent past changed him to stay there as he set out
for Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:1). This could correlate well with Acts 20:1, where
Paul does indeed set out for Macedonia from Ephesus. As argued above, this
departure should be dated to 56. By early 57, Timothy was apparently back with
Paul in Greece (cf. Acts 20:4). The narrow window between Paul’s departure from
Ephesus in perhaps early 56 through to his departure from Greece in early 57 is
by far the best range within which to situate 1 Timothy, if it is to be
situated within Paul’s career as known from Acts. Indeed, it is virtually the
only place within Paul’s career in Acts that we should place the composition of
1 Timothy. Robinson dates the letter at this point in Paul’s career, for
exactly this same reason (Redating, 82-83). There is, however, some
difficulty in doing so.
First Timothy 5:18 reads, “For the
scripture reads, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the
grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves to be paid.’” The first quote is from
Deuteronomy 25:4, and the latter is found verbatim only in Luke 10:7. Yet we
have already argued that Luke’s Gospel should be dated to sometime after Paul
and Luke travel together to Jerusalem in 57. As such, a ca. 56 date for 1
Timothy would place the letter prior to Luke’s gospel. Can Pauline authorship
of 1 Timothy during Paul’s career as known from Acts be reconciled with our
already proposed date for Luke’s Gospel? . . . One possible path forward is
found in Matthew 10:10 which is close to but not quite identical with Luke
10:7. For explicative purposes, we quote these first in Greek and second in an
awkward translation that seeks to be as word for word as possible.
axios gar ho ergatēs tēs trophēs
autou (Matt. 10:10).
For the worker is worth the food
of him.
axios gar ho ergatēs tou misthou
autou (Luke 10:7).
For the worker is worth the pay of
him.
The two passages are virtually
identical, except Matthew has tēs trophēs (the food) where Luke has tou
misthou (the pay). We have already dated Matthew’s Gospel as early as 45.
Yet it is hardly impossible that someone might quote Matthew’s Gospel while
using a form that is in face a Lukan variant. This is especially the case with
someone like Paul, whom we know was a companion of Luke. Under such a scenario,
Paul would be quoting Matthew 10:10, but reflecting the same variant of the
tradition that we see in Luke 10:7. Along similar lines, we might suggest that
Paul is quoting neither Matthew’s Gospel nor Luke’s but a now-lost source text
(for which Q would present as the best candidate). The reference to “the
writing” (i.e., hē graphē, “the Scripture”) in 1 Timothy 5:18 makes it
unlikely that the writer has oral tradition in mind, although a reference to a
now-lost oral tradition is for our purposes functionally indistinct from a
reference to a now-lost written tradition.
Although we certainly cannot rule
out a reference to either Matthew 10:10 or a now-lost tradition in 1 Timothy
5:18, it seems much more parsimonious to conclude that 1 Timothy 5:18 is
quoting Luke 10:7. With that granted, we could consider dating Luke’s Gospel
earlier than 57-59, as did John Wenham (Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke,
229-38). Yet Wenham places too much weight upon 2 Corinthians 8:18, which
refers to “the brother whose praise is in the gospel” (translation follows
Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 230). Wenham identifies this
brother with Luke, arguing that this fame came from his composition of the Third
Gospel. He thus argues that Luke’s Gospel must date prior to 55. Though I admit
that this is possible, I am less than inclined to think it sufficiently prior
to 55. Though I admit this is possible, I am less than inclined to think it sufficiently
probable as to justify lowering the date of Luke’s Gospel. And insofar as the
Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is disputable, I am also not inclined to
date Luke’s Gospel earlier in order to better accommodate 1 Timothy. As such, I
think it preferable to date 1 Timothy later than 59, and thus to situate it
within Paul’s hypothetical second career. (Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the
Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2022], 172, 173-74; Bernier dates 1 Timothy, if Pauline,
to 63-64; if pseudo-Pauline, 60-150)
