Paul uses the word "Scripture" in I Timothy 5:18 showing that the apostles regarded the apostolic writings selected for the Christian Scriptures to be in addition to the Hebrew Scriptures and not a replacement of them. Peter also, in II Peter 3:16, wrote of "the rest of the Scriptures" in reference to both Hebrew and Christian writings. Paul's quotation in I Timothy 5:18 from Luke 10:7 demonstrates Paul�s access to, if not his inclusion in his private manuscript collection, the gospel of Luke, or less likely the gospel of Matthew, or both. He refers to this quotation as Scripture.

This means that the source document, understood herein to be the gospel of Luke, had apostolic sanction equally as authoritative as the writings comprising the Hebrew Scriptures. In the same verse Paul used the term "Scripture" to quote both from the Hebrew Scriptures well as from the apostolic compendium. He thus unequivocally confirms that Luke�s gospel was, at the writing of I Timothy in ca. CE 62, on par with the Hebrew Scriptures. His quotation from "the Torah," specifically Deuteronomy 25:4, not only placed the gospel of Luke equal with the Old Testament but with "the Torah," which was its most revered part, containing as it does the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. From this John R. W. Stott sensed that Paul foresaw at least the possibility of a compendium. He wrote:

In addition, it seems evident that Paul envisaged the possibility of a Christian supplement to the Old Testament because he could combine a quotation from Deuteronomy (25:4) with a saying of Jesus recorded by Luke (10:7) and call both alike �Scripture� (I Tim. 5:18). (Stott 1973:101.)

By quoting from Luke�s gospel, without reference to its identity except its citation as Scripture, Paul implies that Timothy would recognize the source. His familiarity with Luke's writings should come as no great intellectual shock. As Timothy was one of Paul�s principal aides, as was Luke, Timothy certainly would have been expected to know and to have access to Luke�s writings.

The decision to set aside the gospel of Luke as Scripture did not rest with the apostle Paul. He did not announce the fact nor did he proclaim that Luke�s gospel work had been made Scripture.^F1 He simply referred to it, thereby suggesting that Timothy was aware that the source was Scripture. 

From the information collected from the New Testament, it is not apparent whether Luke�s gospel account or Matthew�s gospel account, or both, had apostolic sanction as Scripture by the time Paul wrote I Timothy. It is plausible that the editing, that is its redaction, and approval of the gospel of Luke as Scripture, together with the gospel of Matthew, occurred some time prior to when Paul wrote I Timothy ca. CE 62.

Presumably Peter, Paul, and possibly John, again conferred, either in person or through correspondence, in order to deal with two manifestly important matters: 

1. the situation regarding the resurrection and return of Jesus at the close the present age and 

2. the necessity of assembling an entire collection of apostolic writings to become Scripture along with the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels of Matthew and Luke.^F2

This likely would have occurred following Paul�s ca. CE 63-66 travels to Spain and the West.^F3 As a result, they initiated the full apostolic complement to the existing Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels of Matthew and Luke which the apostles had previously sanctioned as Scripture.

__________

^F1This implies that Paul wrote I Timothy after having conferred with Peter and John resulting in Luke�s gospel being authorized as Scripture. For Paul to have unilaterally advanced Luke�s gospel as Scripture would have been outside the scope of his authority, quite presumptuous, and unlikely.

^F2The New Testament portrays the apostles relationship with God as one of trust, faith, and divine guidance. Indeed, the appearance of a leadership vacuum in the early church may be quite illusory as the apostles appear as looking to God to reveal to them direction in the conduct of the business of the Church through prophets, visions, or the action of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the decision to assemble selected apostolic writings into a full compendium, seems to be the result of classic "crisis management" wherein the project was put off until circumstances forced the apostles to deal with it. God, of course, can also work quite effectively in that way. Moreover, the book of Acts and the epistles read in a generally "responsive" style. In the apostolic management style detailed planning and the setting of objectives appears minimal. As reflected in their writings their mind set seems more reactive than proactive. The assembling of the compendium was likely a last minute crash project that was put off as long as possible. Interestingly, this same thinking, or management style, has characterized most of the nearly two thousand year history of the church perhaps in part due to clerics waiting for God to show them what to do.

^F3Eusebius holds that Paul resumed his travels following his release from Roman custody. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.22, Boyle 1955:74.

Taken from The First Christians by Michael P. Germano and edited for the worldwide web.
Copyright �1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000 by Michael P. Germano. All Rights Reserved.

Page last edited: 01/26/06 07:12 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often