Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 1 Timothy 5:18

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: 1 Timothy 5:18
  • Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:05:38 +0100


'The labourer is worthy of his hire' has the air of a proverbial saying,
which, in its original usage, may have more than one nuance. The most
obvious meaning is the one that fits the NT contexts in Luke, I Timothy and
Matthew 10:10 (a slightly varied form); i.e. a workman who has performed
his task deserves to have his due payment, which is true but rather obvious
(much more obvious than the possible sources in Leviticus 19:13 and
Deuteronomy 21:15 which are concerned not just with the right of a workman
to his pay, but with his right not to be kept waiting for it). Another
possible and less obvious meaning, however, in some other context, might be
'A person should receive reward according to the effort he puts into his
task' (e.g. a
handicapped person should receive more reward for performing a given task
than is allotted to a fit person, since he has to put more effort into
attaining the same result.). This latter meaning is found in the form of an
Aramaic proverb, lefum tza'ara 'agra ('according to the effort is the
reward'), found in a late source, Avot 5:23, but almost certainly a
traditional
proverb, relating to reward from God.

Hyam Maccoby

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dickson" <dicksonj AT bigpond.net.au>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:19 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: 1 Timothy 5:18


> Michael Abernathy writes:
> > 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes a saying found in Luke 10:7 referring
> > to it as "scripture."
> > 1. In your opinion is the author of 1 Timothy referring to Luke, to
> another
> > written source, or to an oral tradition?
> > If you believe he refers to an oral tradition, does the elevation of
oral
> > tradtion to the status of "scripture" have anything to do with
Christology
> > (Christ is God. Therefore, whatever he said, is the word of God.)?
>
> Michael,
> There are a number of uncertainties. First, does the saying in Luke 10:7
> originally stem from Jesus or from a well known proverb in some
> authoritative Jewish writing? Some scholars have argued that the saying in
> Luke does have the air of the proverbial about it. Hence, both Jesus and
the
> writer of 1 Timothy would be referring to another 'scriptural' saying.
> Secondly, let's assume v.18b is a dominical saying coined by Jesus
himself,
> does the KAI in the sentence mean that what follows is governed by LEGEI
GAR
> hH GRAFH at the beginning of the sentence? Perhaps. But it is also
possible
> that, having quoted Scripture (Deut 25:4) to commend his point, the writer
> seeks to confirm his use of the text by referring to a well known
dominical
> saying: "The Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox;' and (as Jesus
himself
> said) 'A worker is worthy of his reward.'
> Sections of the Mishnah appear to operate in an analogous fashion:
> Scriptural citation followed immediately by an authoritative quotation.
> Consider Megillah 3.3E-G:
> "And 'they do not make it [a destroyed synagogue] into a public shortcut.'
> For it is written, 'I will bring your sanctuaries to desolation (Lev.
> 26:31); and 'they remain sanctified even when they are desolated;' and 'if
> grass grew up in it, one should not cut it, because of grief'."
> I suspect that dominical sayings carried the same weight (psychologically,
> if not theologically) in Christian circles as Old Testament citations, but
> it is unlikely they were regarded as 'Scripture'.
> Noteworthy, of course, is the fact that a line of argumentation similar to
> that found in 1 Tim 5:18 is visible in 1 Cor 9:7-14. There, both Deut 25:4
> and a 'saying of the Lord' are cited in support of the contention that
> workers deserve to receive provisions. As with 1 Tim 5:18, the dominical
> tradition appears second (as the climax?). Most scholars regard 1 Cor 9:14
> as containing a reference to Luke 10:7/Matt 10:10 but it is interesting,
is
> it not, that Paul feels no need in 1 Cor 9 to quote the saying? Instead,
he
> merely refers to its content. Was the saying that well known?
> Anyway, in all this, I am saying that 1 Tim 5:18 does not, in my opinion,
> offer a secure case for the contention that the writer understood Luke
10:7
> as Scripture.
> Kind regards,
> John Dickson
> Department of Ancient History
> Macquarie University
> Sydney, Australia
> John Dickson
> Sydney, Australia
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/jdickson/
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page