INTRODUCTION TO THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

PRELIMINARY

THOSE who propose to read this exposition of the Pastoral Epistles may find it convenient to be apprised at the outset of the conclusions assumed in it concerning the genuineness and integrity of the Letters. After a careful review of the arguments adduced by the traditionalists and the anti-traditionalists, and after the devotion of considerable thought to a minute study of the Epistles themselves, the present writer finds it easier to believe that St. Paul was the author of them, as they have come down to us, than that a Paulinist (assuming that there ever was a special school of Pauline thought), sometime between 90 and 120 A.D., worked up a few fragments of genuine letters of his master into 2 Timothy and Titus, and then composed 1 Timothy in imitation of his own style. This second alternative represents, broadly speaking, the theory of the anti-traditional school of critics.

The only serious difficulties which preclude an unhesitating acceptance of these letters, as they stand, as the composition of St. Paul, lie in (1), the style, which, although fundamentally not un-Pauline, presents undeniably certain obvious peculiarities which are not found in any of the ten other Pauline letters, and (2) in the writer’s outlook on religion—in particular, the relations of God and Christ respectively to man’s salvation, and the place of faith and works in the spiritual life—which seems to be that of one who had travelled on the Pauline road (assuming that there was a public highway that could be so described), further than we should have deemed it possible in the years—few at most—which separate the close of St. Paul’s life from the date of the Epistles of the first Roman captivity. The main features of the landscape are the same, but the distances are different.

On the other hand, this altered theological outlook, as well as the writer’s concern about Church institutions, is responsible for the peculiar religious phraseology in so far as it does indeed differ from features common to the earlier groups of letters; so that whatever considerations help us to account for the former change will also aid in the solution of the problem of style and vocabulary.

The other arguments against the Pauline authorship, based on: (3) the impossibility of fitting into the Acts of the Apostles the personal and local references in the Pastorals, (4) the alleged marks of the second century in the heresy which is combated, and (5) the allegation that the details of Church organisation reflect the policy of the dominant party of the early second century—are, it is believed, assumptions for which there is no foundation. And, in fact, (4) and (5) are not now insisted on by many of the anti-traditional school, and will not be dealt with in this introduction.

Before passing on to a brief discussion of the style and the historical setting of the Epistles, it will not be amiss to suggest some considerations which may help, not indeed to solve the problem before us, but to enable us to believe that it would not be a problem at all could we only know a little more about the personal history of St. Paul, and of the inner life of the Christian Church in the first century. In the first place, we must remember that it was a period of intensely vigorous and rapidly developing Church life. We are so much accustomed to regard as normal Christian communities in which ninetenths of the professed adherents are spiritually only half alive, that we find it difficult to realise what manner of thing Church life was when every one took a keen interest in his religion, and the spiritual life of every Church member was full and strong, even if not always consistent. The years that elapsed between Pentecost and 100 A.D. represent the infancy of the Church; and we all know how momentous in their after consequences are a child’s experiences during the first five or six years of its life. But the first century was even more significant for the subsequent history of the Church than is infancy in the case of a human being. The development of the Church, as we experience it, at least in Europe, is slow; looking back thirty years we can indeed perceive some change; but in the first century a year wrought what it now takes a generation to effect. What we know of the rapid development in applied science in our own day supplies us with an experience somewhat analogous to the growth of the Christian Church—doctrinally and institutionally—in the first century. We have seen in the space of ten, or even five, years a complete revolution in men’s notions as to what is possible and reasonable in the rate of travel on the high road or in the air.

It was while the Church was thus rapidly taking shape that St. Paul came into it; and, if we may judge from the extant evidence, he quickly became the most powerful constructive force in it. But there were other agencies at work, human, as well as Divine and divinely inspired, and St. Paul was himself wrought on and shaped as much, or more, than he shaped others. Always a student but never a recluse, he shared to the full the common life of the unexclusive early Church. He did not “dwell apart,” though always conscious that his innermost life was “hid with Christ in God”. And not only did his life move with the Church’s life, but it was brought into close touch with every possible human experience—except those of domestic life—to a degree rarely equalled by any other man. The label that correctly describes the contents of a given human personality to-day may be, in some cases, not misleading five or ten years hence; but St. Paul was not one of these constant quantities. His personality was not that of a Milton, self-determining, holding on its course “like a star,” unaffected by the storms of the lower atmosphere; he was as sympathetic, and therefore open to impressions from without, as if he had been a weak man. Of this impressionableness and craving for sympathy we have abundant evidence in the Epistles that are universally acknowledged to be genuine. Such a man is likely to undergo changes in mental outlook, to become possessed by fresh ideals and conceptions, so as to bewilder less agile minds; and, of course, new thoughts require for their expression words and phrases for which the man had no use before. In the case of St. Paul, this is no imaginary supposition. The difference between the Paul of Philippians and the Paul of 1 Timothy is not greater than, perhaps not as great as, between the Paul of Thessalonians and the Paul of Ephesians. The fact just noticed should put us on our guard against the easy assumption that the normal Pauline presentation of the relations between God and man is that found in the central group of his Epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians.

There is, however, a difference between the Pastorals and the earlier letters for which the lapse of time alone cannot account, and that is a diminution in force. The letters to Timothy and Titus are certainly of apostolic quality; the ordinary reader, and still more the student, who compares them with the best of the sub-apostolic literature, can at once perceive the difference between what is inspired and what is merely interesting, edifying, and even noble. Nevertheless, we miss in the Pastorals the exuberant vigour, the reserved strength of the earlier letters. The explanation of this may well be that before St. Paul wrote these letters he had ceased to be an elderly, and had, perhaps rapidly, become an old man. There is nothing impossible in this supposition. The surprising thing is that it has not been more generally recognised as a probable factor in the solution of the problem presented by the Pastorals. When we think of the intensity with which St. Paul had lived his life—always at high pressure—and what a hard life it had been, it would be a marvel indeed if old age with its diminished powers had not come suddenly upon him.

We hold then that the author of the Pastorals was Paul; but “Paul the aged”; much more aged, and more truly so, than when he penned his note to Philemon. We may observe, as a sign of old age, a certain inertia which makes him satisfied to express his meaning in habitual, almost stereotyped, words and phrases; words and phrases which are only open to the objection—in itself unreasonable—that we have heard them quite recently. The brain no longer responds to the will to utter “words that burn”; and it seems as fitful in the origination of “thoughts that breathe”. It is not that St. Paul is not truly inspired in the Pastorals. These letters satisfy the practical test of inspiration, viz., their yield of matter for thought is never exhausted by study. There are, moreover, several passages in them that have touched the hearts of Christians in every age as nearly as anything the apostle ever wrote. But even in these, perhaps more in these than in less striking paragraphs—for ordinary details of Church life must be dealt with in ordinary language—we detect a failing of power in comparison with the Paul of the earlier letters: the inspiration is as true, but it is not as strong; the heart and arteries and veins do their duty, but the blood does not course so quickly as in the days of youth. To put it quite plainly: the difficulties that meet the student of the Pastoral Epistles lie rather in the logical connexion of the paragraphs than in the profundity of the thoughts expressed in them; and whatever obscurity there may be in some of the expressions used is due in nearly every case to the meagreness of our information concerning the circumstances of the writer and of the Church.

In the earlier epistles, on the contrary, it often happens that the apostle’s thoughts and conceptions are too great for expression. He does not, indeed cannot, formulate them precisely; he gives them the most adequate expression he can; and the Holy Spirit has ever since been leading the Church to a constantly increasing comprehension of them. But in the Pastorals we do not meet any such struggles between thought and language. We are never conscious that we are present at the birth of some mighty principle which can reach maturity only at the end of time. Great theological statements concerning man’s salvation—not of the relation of Christ to the universe—are formulated, not daringly sketched; the conceptions of the mutual relations of God and man which are involved in these statements are not new to the author; he has mastered them completely, and presents them with a finished expression which leaves the reader satisfied. Take, for example, the statement of the wideness of God’s saving purposes in 1 Timothy 2:4-6; the summary of the working out of the Incarnation in 2 Timothy 1:9-10; the analysis of the saving process in Titus 3:4-7. Here we have theological principles in their classical expression; they do not need exegesis, they only demand to be “marked, learned, and inwardly digested”.

Again, the apostle, in these letters is not only not creative; he is displayed to us as receptive of the thoughts of other makers of Christian theology, his contemporaries. When St. Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, his own work as an originating constructive theologian had come to an end; and there comes into clear view—what had been hitherto veiled—the effect on him of the action of the religious life of the communities in which he lived. It is a truth, obvious when stated, yet sometimes ignored, that the thoughts about religion current in the Christian Society of the first century, had not been generated only by St. Paul, but by St. John and St. Peter and others whose names and achievements we can only conjecture. When we were young, we used to picture the Palestine of the patriarchs as a land in which no person or thing except Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their flocks were of any significance; they dominated the landscape as do the saints in medieval pictures. When we grew older, it was almost disturbing to one’s faith to realise that to the busy merchants and peasants of Palestine, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not persons of unusual importance. Yet, as always happens, the truer account, unpalatable at first, is found to be more suggestive and helpful than the older fancy. In like manner, a realisation that St. Paul did not dominate the Church of his time, as his history in the Acts and his epistles so largely dominate the New Testament, will be found a helpful consideration.

The Church is a greater thing than the greatest saint or theologian in it; and St. Paul could not have helped, even if he would, being influenced by the Christianity, as actually lived, of the men and women around him; and that in three ways at least. (1) His own theology came back to him not quite the same as it had come from his brain. It is not only the elements of matter that are subject to reaction in consequence of fusion; the same natural law operates in the interaction of the thoughts of a thoughtmaker with the minds of those to whom his thoughts are communicated. And, if we may carry on the same analogy, the Church of St. Paul’s time was unable to take up, to hold in solution, the whole of the Pauline theology; a considerable amount of it was held in suspension to be absorbed gradually by the Church in the course of the ages. (2) Again, as has just been pointed out, the religious thought of the Christian Society in which St. Paul lived was fed and stirred by other apostles, of whom we can name St. John and St. Peter. It is surely not unreasonable to suppose that these apostles spoke before they wrote, that what they published was the most perfect expression attainable by them of what they had been speaking about during the whole of their ministry; that, in fact, Johannine literature was, for the Church of the first century, the final presentation, not the origination, of Johannine thought and expression. Is it too much to expect that those who study the writings contained in the New Testament should cease to think of the authors of them as solitaries who had no other means but books of acquiring ideas or a vocabulary, and who, in turn, only influenced the thought and phraseology of the men of their time by books or treatises composed at the close of their lives. It is strange that men cannot see the Church, the Society which conditioned, was not conditioned by, St. Paul, St. John and St. Peter. This consideration is intended to prepare the reader to be not astonished or perplexed by the occasional Johannine turns of phrase that occur in the Pastorals, and which are noted in the course of the exposition. (3) Furthermore, it must not be thought strange that the Providence of God, the Holy Spirit Who guides the Church, should have called the apostle Paul almost wholly away from thoughts of the Church’s place in history and in the universe to the administration of, and provision for, the daily needs of the Church as actually experienced by man. Our own generation has not been without examples of men summoned from the library of the “great house” into less obviously inspiring chambers, which serve the more material, but not less necessary, needs of the household. Christians who think of the Church as a visible Divine Society with a life on earth continuous to the end of time, cannot think that St. Paul as reflected in the Pastorals is less worthy of admiration than St. Paul as reflected in Romans. Nor will they be offended if they find that his new preoccupation with ordinary Church life has left a trace on his idiom; if, it may be, he has caught some of the current phrases of ordinary religious society. He is not less intelligible to Timothy, or less truly himself.

THE STYLE OF THE LETTERS

It was noticed in the beginning of this Introduction that the consideration of most weight against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is the style of the composition, which differs from that of any of the groups of the other ten Pauline letters—the genuineness of which is here assumed—by (a) the recurrence in them of certain, almost stereotyped, forms of expression, (b) by a general difference in the structure of sentences, and (c) by the absence from them of alleged characteristic Pauline words. These three sorts of variation are here enumerated in the order of their importance. No fair-minded traditionalist will be disposed to minimise the gravity of the problem presented by these indisputable facts. On the other hand, these acknowledged peculiarities must not be allowed to obscure the equally undoubted fact that the Epistles present not only as many characteristic Pauline words as the writer had use for, but that, in the more significant matter of turns of expression, the style of the letters is, as has been stated before, fundamentally Pauline. This will be evident from an inspection of the references. Perhaps it is true to say that the positive stylistic peculiarities of the letters—the large number of unusual words,[1] the recurrent phraseology—deprive of its just weight the counter argument based on its admittedly Pauline element, just because this is normal, and does not strike the eye. It is at least a strong argument on the traditionalist side, that the un-Pauline style of the Pastorals was not commented on by the early Greek Christian critics, as was the un-Pauline style of Hebrews, and the un-Johannine style of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the peculiarities of expression are not such as a clever imitator of St. Paul’s style would introduce.

[1] Dean Bernard, Past. Epp., p. xxxvi., notes that the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα amount to 176, a number “proportionately twice as great as in any other of St. Paul’s letters.”

Taking up, in the first place, the recurrent words, terms and phrases, it will be convenient to divide them into three categories.

A. Terms, or phrases, of the religious life of the Christian Society.

B. Polemical phraseology in reference to false teaching.

C. Favourite terms, or expressions, of the author’s.

It is not pretended that this classification can be carried out consistently; but it seemed to be worth attempting. In particular it may deserve consideration whether we have not presented to us, in the style of the Pastorals, a new, but not the less true, aspect of St. Paul as a writer, no longer creating a Christian terminology, but freely making use of the phraseology he heard around him, towards the formation of which he had been a principal, but not the only, contributor. On the other hand, in so far as this supposition is true it precludes our making use of the occurrence of certain phrases and words in extant early writings, as proofs that the authors of those writings had read the Pastoral Epistles.

In the following list of terms and phrases, a = 1 Timothy; b = 2 Timothy; c = Titus; the numbers indicate the number of occurrences of the term or phrase in the epistle. When the term or phrase is not peculiar to the Pastorals, a reference is given to its occurrence elsewhere, or “etc.” is added.

TERMINOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY [2], [3], [4].

[2] 1 Timothy

[3] 2 Timothy

[4] Titus

ἡ ἀλήθεια, in [5] technical sense: [6], 3; [7], 4; [8] (2 Corinthians 4:2, etc.).

[5] 1 Timothy

[6] 1 Timothy

[7] 2 Timothy

[8] Titus

ἡ διδασκαλία: [9], The body of doctrine; absolutely, or with epithets (see ὑγιαίνουσα): [10], 4; [11], 2; [12], 3.

[9] Terms, or phrases, of the religious life of the Christian Society.

[10] 1 Timothy

[11] 2 Timothy

[12] Titus

ἡ διδασκαλία: [13], The act of teaching: [14], 3; [15], [16] (Romans 12:7).

[13] Polemical phraseology in reference to false teaching.

[14] 1 Timothy

[15] 2 Timothy

[16] Titus

ἡ πίστις, fides quae creditur: [17], 8; [18], 2; [19], 3.

[17] 1 Timothy

[18] 2 Timothy

[19] Titus

πίστις [κ.] ἀγάπη: [20], 4; [21], 2; [22] (1 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:8).

[20] 1 Timothy

[21] 2 Timothy

[22] Titus

πίστις, ἀγάπη, ὑπομονή: [23], [[24]], [25].

[23] 1 Timothy

[24] 2 Timothy

[25] Titus

ἡ ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία: [26], [27], [28], 2. ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι: [29], [30]. ὑγιαίνειν τῇ πίστει: [31], 2. λόγος ὑγιής: [32]. Cf. νοσῶν: [33]; γάγγραινα: [34].

[26] 1 Timothy

[27] 2 Timothy

[28] Titus

[29] 1 Timothy

[30] 2 Timothy

[31] Titus

[32] Titus

[33] 1 Timothy

[34] 2 Timothy

ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας and ἐπιγινώσκειν τ. ἀληθείαν: [35], 2; [36], 2; [37]. (Hebrews 10:26; cf. Philemon 1:6).

[35] 1 Timothy

[36] 2 Timothy

[37] Titus

[ἡ] εὐσέβεια: [38], 7; [39]. κατʼ εὐσέβειαν: [40], [41]. εὐσεβῶς ζῆν: [42], [43]. εὐσεβεῖν: [44] (Acts 4; 2 Pet. 5).

[38] 1 Timothy

[39] 2 Timothy

[40] 1 Timothy

[41] Titus

[42] 2 Timothy

[43] Titus

[44] 1 Timothy

σώφρων: [45], [46], 3. σωφρονεῖν: [47] (Mark 5:15; Romans 12:3; 2 Corinthians 5:13). σωφρονισμός: [48]. σωφρονίζειν: [49]. σωφρόνως: [50]. σωφροσύνη: [51], 2 (Acts 26:25).

[45] 1 Timothy

[46] Titus

[47] Titus

[48] 2 Timothy

[49] Titus

[50] Titus

[51] 1 Timothy

ὁ νῦν αἰών: [52], [53], [54].

[52] 1 Timothy

[53] 2 Timothy

[54] Titus

ἐπιφάνεια: [55], [56], 3; [57] (2 Thessalonians 2:8) (ἐπιφαίνειν: [58], 2; Luke 1:79; Acts 27:20; cf. Acts 2:20).

[55] 1 Timothy

[56] 2 Timothy

[57] Titus

[58] Titus

ὠφέλιμος: [59], 2; [60], [61].

[59] 1 Timothy

[60] 2 Timothy

[61] Titus

διάβολοι, adj.: [62], [63], [64].

[62] 1 Timothy

[63] 2 Timothy

[64] Titus

ἀρνεῖσθαι: [65], [66], 4.; [67], 2, etc., but not Paul.

[65] 1 Timothy

[66] 2 Timothy

[67] Titus

[68], [69].

[68] 1 Timothy

[69] 2 Timothy

συνείδησις καθαρά: [70], [71] (συνείδ. ἀγαθή: [72], 2; Acts 23:1; 1 Peter 3:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

[70] 1 Timothy

[71] 2 Timothy

[72] 1 Timothy

καθαρὰ καρδία: [73], [74].

[73] 1 Timothy

[74] 2 Timothy

πίστις ἀνυπόκριτος: [75], [76].

[75] 1 Timothy

[76] 2 Timothy

πίστις κ. ἀγάπη ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: [77], [78].

[77] 1 Timothy

[78] 2 Timothy

πίστις ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: [79], [80]; etc.

[79] 1 Timothy

[80] 2 Timothy

καλός: qualifying adj. (not incl. καλὸν ἔργον): [81], 9; [82], 3 (esp. καλὴ στρατεία, [83], or στρατιώτης, [84], καλὸς ἀγών, [85], [86]); etc., but not Paul.

[81] 1 Timothy

[82] 2 Timothy

[83] 1 Timothy

[84] 2 Timothy

[85] 1 Timothy

[86] 2 Timothy

παγὶς: [87]; τοῦ διαβίλου: [88], [89].

[87] 1 Timothy

[88] 1 Timothy

[89] 2 Timothy

φεῦγε· δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην … πίστιν ἀγάπην: [90], [91].

[90] 1 Timothy

[91] 2 Timothy

ἀγωνίζομαι τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα: [92], [93].

[92] 1 Timothy

[93] 2 Timothy

παραθήκην-g0- φυλάσσειν-g0-: [94], [95], 2.

[94] 1 Timothy

[95] 2 Timothy

παρακολουθεῖν-g0- διδασκαλίᾳ-g0-: [96], [97].

[96] 1 Timothy

[97] 2 Timothy

ἄνθρωπος [τ.] Θεοῦ: [98], [99].

[98] 1 Timothy

[99] 2 Timothy

[100], [101].

[100] 1 Timothy

[101] Titus

καλὸν ἔργον, καλὰ ἔργα: [102], 4; [103], 4; etc., but not Paul.

[102] 1 Timothy

[103] Titus

σεμνός: [104], 2; [105] (Php 4:8); or σεμνότης: [106], 2; [107].

[104] 1 Timothy

[105] Titus

[106] 1 Timothy

[107] Titus

σωτήρ (of God the Father, not incl. Titus 2:13): [108], 3; [109], 3.

[108] 1 Timothy

[109] Titus

[110], [111].

[110] 2 Timothy

[111] Titus

εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον: [112].

[112] 2 Timothy

πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος: [113].

[113] 2 Timothy

πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι: [114].

[114] Titus

πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους: [115].

[115] Titus

PECULIAR TO ONE LETTER

ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ: [116], 2.

[116] 1 Timothy

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ: [117], 2 (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή: [118],).

[117] 1 Timothy

[118] 1 Timothy

ἐπιλαβέσθαι τῆς ζωῆς: [119], 2.

[119] 1 Timothy

μακάριος (of God): [120], 2.

[120] 1 Timothy

τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως, or τῆς εὐσεβείας: [121], 2.

[121] 1 Timothy

πίστις κ. ἀγάπη κ. ἁγιασμός, or ἁγνεία: [122], 2.

[122] 1 Timothy

ἐπαισχύνεσθαι τί or τινά: [123], 3 (Romans 1:16, and five other ins.).

[123] 2 Timothy

ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα (Last Day): [124], 3 (Matthew 2; Luke 3; 2 Thessalonians 1).

[124] 2 Timothy

καλῶν ἔρνων προΐστασθαι: [125], 2.

[125] Titus

POLEMICAL PHRASEOLOGY

ἀληθεία: ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας: [126]. περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν: [127]. μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας: [128]. μηδέποτε εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθ. ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα: [129]. ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: [130]. ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείος τ. ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν: [131]. αποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν: [132].

[126] 1 Timothy

[127] 2 Timothy

[128] 2 Timothy

[129] 2 Timothy

[130] 2 Timothy

[131] 2 Timothy

[132] Titus

νοῦς: διεφθαρμένων … τ. νοῦν: [133]. κατεφθαρμένοι τ. νοῦν: [134]. μεμίανται αὐτῶν … ὁ νοῦς: [135].

[133] 1 Timothy

[134] 2 Timothy

[135] Titus

πίστις: περὶ τ. πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν: [136]. περὶ τ. πίστιν ἠστόχησαν: [137]. ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τ. πίστιν: [138]. ἀποστήσονταί τινες τ. πίστεως: [139]. ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τ. πίστεως: [140]. Cf. 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:19.

[136] 1 Timothy

[137] 1 Timothy

[138] 2 Timothy

[139] 1 Timothy

[140] 1 Timothy

συνείδησις: κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν: [141]. μεμίανται αὐτῶν … ἡ συνείδησις; [142]. Cf. 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:19.

[141] 1 Timothy

[142] Titus

ἀστοχεῖν: [143], 2; [144]. See ἀλήθεια and πίστις.

[143] 1 Timothy

[144] 2 Timothy

ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν: [145]. ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσις: [146]. Cf. ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων, [147].

[145] 2 Timothy

[146] Titus

[147] 2 Timothy

βέβηλος: [148], 3; [149] (Hebrews 12:16). (βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι: [150], [151]).

[148] 1 Timothy

[149] 2 Timothy

[150] 1 Timothy

[151] 2 Timothy

γενεαλογίαι: [152], [153].

[152] 1 Timothy

[153] Titus

ἐκζητήσεις-g0- or ζητήσεις-g0-: [154], 2; [155], [156]. (μωραὶ ζητήσεις: [157], [158].)

[154] 1 Timothy

[155] 2 Timothy

[156] Titus

[157] 2 Timothy

[158] Titus

λαγομαχεῖν and λογομαχία: [159], [160].

[159] 1 Timothy

[160] 2 Timothy

ματαιολογία-g0- and ματαιολόγος-g0-: [161], [162]. Cf. ζητήσεις … μάταιοι, [163].

[161] 1 Timothy

[162] Titus

[163] Titus

ἔρις: [164], [165].

[164] 1 Timothy

[165] Titus

μάχη: [166], [167].

[166] 2 Timothy

[167] Titus

μῦθος: [168], 2; [169], [170] (2 Peter 1:16).

[168] 1 Timothy

[169] 2 Timothy

[170] Titus

νόμος-g0-: [171], 2; νομικός-g0-: [172]; νομοδιδάσκαλος-g0-: [173].

[171] 1 Timothy

[172] Titus

[173] 1 Timothy

ἐπὶ πλεῖον προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας: [174]. οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον: [175]. προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον: [176].

[174] 2 Timothy

[175] 2 Timothy

[176] 2 Timothy

AUTHOR’S FAVOURITE TERMS

[177], [178], [179].

[177] 1 Timothy

[178] 2 Timothy

[179] Titus

πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: [180], [181], [182].

[180] 1 Timothy

[181] 2 Timothy

[182] Titus

πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κ. πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος: [183], 2.

[183] 1 Timothy

παραιτοῦ: [184], 2; [185], [186].

[184] 1 Timothy

[185] 2 Timothy

[186] Titus

οἶκος (household): [187], 5; [188], 2; [189] (1 Corinthians 1:16, etc.).

[187] 1 Timothy

[188] 2 Timothy

[189] Titus

περί with accusative: [190], 3; [191], 2; [192] (Php 2:23, etc.).

[190] 1 Timothy

[191] 2 Timothy

[192] Titus

[193], [194].

[193] 1 Timothy

[194] 2 Timothy

χάριν ἔχω; [195], [196] (Luke 17:9; Hebrews 12:28).

[195] 1 Timothy

[196] 2 Timothy

διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, or τ. Κυρίου: [197]; [198], 2.

[197] 1 Timothy

[198] 2 Timothy

εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ κ. ἀπόστολος … διδάσκαλος: [199], [200].

[199] 1 Timothy

[200] 2 Timothy

χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη: [201], [202].

[201] 1 Timothy

[202] 2 Timothy

ὧν ἐστίν: [203]; [204], 2.

[203] 1 Timothy

[204] 2 Timothy

[205], [206].

[205] 1 Timothy

[206] Titus

ὡσαύτως: [207], 4; [208], 2.

[207] 1 Timothy

[208] Titus

ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ: [209], [210].

[209] 1 Timothy

[210] Titus

καιροῖς ἰδίοις: [211], 2; [212].

[211] 1 Timothy

[212] Titus

διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος: [213], [214].

[213] 1 Timothy

[214] Titus

προσέχειν: [215], 5; [216]. (προσέχειν μύθοις: [217], [218].)

[215] 1 Timothy

[216] Titus

[217] 1 Timothy

[218] Titus

[219], [220].

[219] 2 Timothy

[220] Titus

σπούδασον: [221], 3; [222]. (σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν: [223], 2; [224].)

[221] 2 Timothy

[222] Titus

[223] 2 Timothy

[224] Titus

περιΐστασο: [225], [226].

[225] 2 Timothy

[226] Titus

διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν: [227], 2; [228] (Luke 8:47; Acts 22:24; Hebrews 2:11).

[227] 2 Timothy

[228] Titus

[229].

[229] 2 Timothy

συνκακοπάθησον: [230], 2.

[230] 2 Timothy

The second difference in style by which the Pastoral Epistles are marked off from the earlier letters may be given in the words of Lightfoot.

The Syntax

(a) “It is stiffer and more regular than in the earlier Epistles, more jointed and less flowing. The clauses are marshalled together, and there is a tendency to parallelism.”

e.g., 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:12-13; 1 Timothy 4:15; 1 Timothy 5:10; 1 Timothy 6:9; 1 Timothy 6:11-13; 1 Timothy 6:15; 1 Timothy 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:11-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-8; 2 Timothy 3:10-13; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 4:2; 2 Timothy 4:4-5; 2 Timothy 4:7; Titus 1:7-9; Titus 2:7; Titus 2:12; Titus 3:1-3.

(b) “There is a greater sententiousness, an abruptness and positiveness of form. Imperative clauses are frequent.

e.g., 1 Timothy 4:11; 1 Timothy 4:15-16; 1 Timothy 5:7-8; 1 Timothy 5:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:2; 1 Timothy 6:6; 1 Timothy 6:11; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 2 Timothy 2:1; 2 Timothy 2:3; 2 Timothy 2:7-8; 2 Timothy 2:14; 2 Timothy 2:19; 2 Timothy 2:22-23; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Timothy 3:5; 2 Timothy 3:12; 2 Timothy 3:16.”

(Biblical Essays, p. 402.)

These differences in syntax are not unconnected with the small variety and paucity of particles which are a negative feature of the Pastorals. But neither characteristic is very astonishing, since in point of fact, the Epistles are of the nature of episcopal charges, authoritative, not argumentative; enforcing disciplinary regulations, not unfolding theological conceptions, or vindicating personal claims.

We come, in the last place, to state and consider the problem presented by the purely negative characteristic of the style of the Pastoral Epistles, the fact that we do not find in them certain alleged characteristic Pauline words. Those who urge this as a serious argument against the traditional belief as to the authorship of these letters do not seem to make allowance for the fact that they are ex hypothesi dealing with a real man—not a machine; a man who had travelled much, and had read much; who was constantly coming into contact with fresh people, constantly confronted with fresh problems of practical life. The vocabulary of such a man is not likely to remain unaffected in its contents or use. Add to this, that each of the other letters which are ascribed to him arose out of special circumstances, and deals almost exclusively with those special circumstances, and that the circumstances which called forth the letters to Timothy and Titus were, confessedly, quite different from those out of which any of the other Pauline letters arose. When these obvious facts are considered, it is difficult to treat seriously an argument which assumes that St. Paul was provided with only one set of words and terms; unalterable, no matter to whom, or on what subject, he was writing.

It is not thus that non-Biblical compositions are critically examined. We do not demand that Shakespeare’s Sonnets or Cymbeline should exhibit a certain percentage of Hamlet words. And the argument becomes all the more unreasonable when one thinks how very small in extent is the extant literary work of St. Paul: less than 150 small octavo pages in Westcott and Hort’s edition, and of these the Pastorals occupy only fifteen. If we had been privileged to hear St. Paul’s sermons, or to listen to his conversation, how many Pauline words, as shown in a concordance, should we have heard?

Antecedently, we should not expect that an author’s favourite expressions would be distributed over the pages of his book like the spots on a wall-paper pattern; nor is this notion confirmed when we examine the list of Pauline words missing from the Pastorals, as given by Holtzmann (Pastoralbriefe, p. 98, sqq.) and less fully by von Soden (Hand-Commentar, p. 177 sqq.).

In the complete list of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, fifty in all, as printed below, each group of cognate words, bracketed together, is for argument’s sake, treated as a unit. And the numbers indicate the number of times the word occurs in St. Paul’s Epistles. The words that are spaced are those, which after an examination of a concordance, can be plausibly claimed as characteristically Pauline; that is to say, they are of comparative frequent occurrence, and are found in at least three groups of his Epistles. It must be allowed that the absence of all of these is surprising. The simplest explanation is that some of them had passed out of St. Paul’s ordinary vocabulary; and that, in the case of others, the subject matter of the Pastorals did not demand their use. Some of them, obviously, belong to the vocabulary of certain theological conceptions, others to that of a writer’s temperament and temper.

For the purpose of analysis, it will be convenient to think of the other ten epistles of St. Paul as falling into four groups, viz.:—

(i.) 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

(ii.) Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal.

(iii.) Eph., Col., Philem.

(iv.) Philippians, which though it is one of group iii, as being one of the epistles of the first Roman captivity, yet inasmuch as it was written somewhat later, may be considered apart.

ἄδικος, 3, ἀκαθαρσία, 9, ἀκροβυστία, 19, (ἀποκαλύπτειν, 13, ἀποκάλυψις, 13), ἀπολύτρωσις, 7, γνωρίζειν, 18, διαθήκη, 9 (δικαιοῦν, 27, δικαίωμα, 5), δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, 9, δοκεῖν, 18, ἕκαστος, 42, (ἐλευθερία, 7, ἐλεύθερος, 16, ἐλευθεροῦν, 5), (ἐνέργεια, 8, ἐνεργεῖν, 17, ἐνέργημα, 2, ἐνεργής, 2), ἔξεστιν, 5, ἔργα νόμου, 9, κἀγώ, 27, καταργεῖν, 25, κατεργάζεσθαι, 20, (καυχᾶσθαι, 35, καύχημα, 10, καύχησις, 10), κρείσσων, 4, μείζων, 4, μικρός, 4, μωρία, 5, (ὁμοιοῦν, 1, ὁμοίωμα, 5), ὁμοίως, 4, ὁρᾶν, 10, οὐρανός, 21, παράδοσις, 5, παραλαμβάνειν, 11, πατὴρ ἡμῶν, 7, outside salutations, πείθειν, 2, (περισσεία, 3, περισσεύειν, 26, περίσσευμα, 2, περισσός, 2, περισσότερος, 6), περιπατεῖν, 32, (πεποιθέναι, 12, πεποίθησις, 6), πλεονάζειν, 8, (τλεονεκτεῖν, 5, πλεονέκτης, 4, πλεονεξία, 6), οἱ πολλοί, 8, (πρᾶγμα, 4, πρᾶεις, 3, πράσσειν, 18), σπλάγχνα, 8, (συνεργεῖν, 3, συνεργός, 12), σῶμα, 91, (ταπεινός, 3, ταπεινοῦν, 4), (τέλειος, 8, τελειότης, 1, τελειοῦν, 1), υἱοθεσία, 5, υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ, 17, (ὑπακοή, 11, ὑπακούειν, 11), (φρονεῖν, 24, φρόνημα, 4, φρόνησις, 1, θρόνιμος, 5), φύσις, 11, χαρίζεσθαι, 16, χρηστός, 3.

Of the fifty characteristically Pauline words no less than eleven do not occur in groups i, iii, iv, viz., ἄδικος, δικαιοῦν, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, ἔξεστιν, ἔργα νόμου, μείζων, μικρός, μωρία, ὁμοίως, πείθειν, οἱ πολλοί. Of these, ἄδικος is not found in 2 Cor. or Gal.; δικαιοῦν not in 2 Cor. though twice in the Pastorals; while δικαίωμα only occurs in Rom., δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ not in 1 Cor. or Gal.; ἔξεστιν not in Rom. or Gal., ἔργα νόμου not in 1 Cor. or 2 Cor.; μείζων not in 2 Cor. or Gal.; μικρός not in Rom.; (μωρία only in 1 Cor. (while μωρός, also in 1 Cor. (4), occurs in the Pastorals twice); ὁμοίως not in 2 Cor. or Gal.; πείθειν not in Rom. or 1 Cor.; οἱ πολλοί not in Gal., but five times in Rom. It is obvious, from these facts, that these eleven words are not characteristically Pauline.

Of the others, four do not occur in groups i and iii, viz., δοκεῖν, κρείσσων, ὁμοιοῦν, ταπεινός. Of these, δοκεῖν not in Rom.; κρείσσω not in Rom., 2 Cor. or Gal.; ὁμοιοῦν not in 1 Cor., 2 Cor. or Gal.; and ταπεινός not in 1 Cor. or Gal.

Seven do not occur in groups i and iv, viz., ἀκροβυστία, ἀπολύτρωσις, διαθήκη, ἐλευθερία, υἱοθεσία, φύσις, χρηστός. Of these, ἀκροβυστία not in 2 Cor.; ἀπολύτρωσις not in 2 Cor. or Gal. Of the ἐλευθερία group, ἐλεύθερος and ἐλευθεροῦν are not in 2 Cor., and ἐλευθεροῦν is not in 1 Cor. υἱοθεσία not in 1 Cor. or 2 Cor.; φύσις not in 2 Cor.; χρηστός not in 2 Cor. or Gal.; leaving διαθήκη (once in iii) and ἐλευθερία (twice in iii) as the only words that are evenly distributed in group ii.

Among those which do not occur in group i, viz., γνωρίζειν, κατεργάζεσθαι, σπλάγχνα, τέλειος, φρονεῖν, χαρίζεσθαι, we notice that of the twenty instances of κατεργάζεσθαι seventeen occur in Rom. and 2 Cor.; σπλάγχνα, not found in Rom., 1 Cor. or Gal., occurs three times in Philem.; none of the τέλειος group is found in 2 Cor. or Gal., while τελειοῦν and τελειότης are absent from Rom. and 1 Cor. Of the thirty-four instances of the φρονεῖν group, one of which is 1 Timothy 6:17, Rom. and Phil. account for twenty-five; φρόνημα is only found in Rom., φρόνησις only in Eph., φρόνιμος only in Rom., 1 Cor., and 2 Cor.; leaving γνωρίζειν and χαρίζεσθαι fairly representative words.

It remains to notice a few of these characteristically Pauline words which are not found in Philippians, viz.: ἀκαθαρσία, καταργεῖν, ὁρᾶν, παράδοσις, πλεονεκτεῖν, and υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ. ἀκαθαρσία is not found in 1 Cor.; καταργεῖν does, in point of fact, occur in 2 Tim.; ὁρᾶν, found in 1 Timothy 3:16, does not occur in 2 Cor. or Gal., παράδοσις not in Rom. or 2 Cor.; none of the πλεονεκτεῖν group is found in Gal., while πλεονεκτεῖν and πλεονεξία are both absent from 1 Cor., and πλεονέκτης from 2 Cor. Of the seventeen places where our Lord is called υἱὸς [τ. Θεοῦ,] eleven are found in Rom. and Gal.

In the whole list, then, there are twenty-seven words, or more than half, the absence of which from the Pastorals obviously need call for no remark. The following facts with regard to the distribution of some of the others are suggestive; and diminish, if they do not wholly remove, the difficulty of the problem before us. ἕκαστος (42) occurs twenty-two times in 1 Cor.; of the ἐνέργεια group (29) three members are not found in Rom., 2 Cor., or Gal., i.e., ἐνέργεια, ἐνέργημα, ἐνεργής; neither is ἐνέργεια found in 1 Cor. Of the twenty-seven occurrences of κἀγώ, more than half, nineteen, are found in 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. Of the καυχᾶσθαι group (55) more than half, twenty-nine, occur in 2 Cor; παραλαμβάνειν (11) is not found in Rom. or 2 Cor. πατὴρ ἡμῶν, apart from its common use in salutations, is found three times in 1 Thess., twice in 2 Thess., and once each in Gal. and Phil. Of the περισσεία group (39), none is found in Gal.; three not in 1 Cor., i.e., περισσεία, περισσός and περίσσευμα; two not in Rom., i.e., περίσσευμα and περισσότερος. On the other hand, nearly half, seventeen, of the total is found in 2 Cor. (which has also περισσοτέρως seven times), seven occur in 1 Cor. and five in Phil. Neither πεποιθέναι nor πεποίθησις occurs in 1 Cor.; πεποίθησις not in Rom. or Gal. Here again seven cases belong to 2 Cor. and seven to Phil. Of the πρᾶγμα group (25), thirteen belong to Rom., which has ten out of the eighteen occurrences of πράσσειν. Neither of the συνεργεῖν group (15) occurs in Gal.; yet its distribution is otherwise fairly even. The distribution of σῶμα (91) is remarkable. Just more than half, forty-six, of its occurrences are found in 1 Cor.; chap. 6 having eight, chap. 12, eighteen, chap. 15, nine. Neither ὑπακοή nor ὑπακούειν occur in 1 Cor. or Gal.; ὑπακούειν not in 2 Cor.

An analysis of the list of Pauline particles that are not found in the Pastoral Epistles yields the same general result: that is to say, the great majority of them are confined to group ii of the Epistles; and that is explained by the fact that that group is the most argumentative and controversial, and the subject matter demands the employment of inferential and similar particles. Thus ἄρα (15), ἕνεκεν (6), ἴδε (1) ἰδού (9, of which 6 are in 2 Cor.), ποῦ (10, 8 of which are in 1 Cor.), παρά, acc. (14), are not found outside group ii; ἔπειτα (11, 7 of which are in 1 Cor.), μήπως (10), οὔτε (34, of which 22 are in 4 verses), are only in group ii and in 1 Thess. The following also do not occur in groups i and iii: ἄχρι (ii. 12, iv. 2), οὔπω (ii. 2, iv. 1) πάλιν (ii. 25, iv. 3). The following do not occur in group iii. διότι (10: i. 3, ii. 6, iv. 1), ἔμπροσθεν (7: i. 4, ii. 2, iv. 1), ἔτι (15: i. 1, ii. 13, iv. 1). The distribution of the others is as follows: ἀντί (5: i. 2, ii. 2, iii. 1), ἄρα οὖν (12: i. 2, ii. 9, iii. 1), διό (27, i. 2, ii. 18, iii. 6, iv. 1), ὅπως (9: i. 1, ii. 7, iii. 1), οὐκέτι (15: ii. 13, iii. 2), ἐν παντί (16: i. 1, ii. 11, of which 10 are in 2 Cor.; iii. 2, iv. 2), ποτέ (does occur in Tit., otherwise 19: i. 1, ii. 8, iii. 9, iv. 1), ὥσπερ (14: i. 1, ii. 13), σύν (38: i. 4, ii. 21, iii. 9, iv. 4). There are twenty-four characteristically Pauline particles in the above enumeration. Of these, ten are not found in group i, fifteen are not found in group iii, and in fact, in the epistles of the first Roman captivity (groups iii and iv), which are about half as long again as the Pastoral Epistles, particles are very sparingly used; διό, ἐν παντί and σύν alone being at all common. It may be proper to note here in connexion with the absence of σύν from the Pastorals, that twice, in 2 Timothy 4:11 and Titus 3:15, μετά is used where the other Pauline letters have σύν; other wise the usage of μετά in the Pastorals does not differ from that of St. Paul elsewhere. Another noteworthy feature in the Pastorals is the absence of the article, especially before common Christian terms. This peculiarity, and also the deficiency in particles, may be possibly due to the amanuensis employed by St. Paul at this time. See Dean Bernard, Past. Epp. p. xli., and Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 126.

HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE EPISTLES

It is altogether unneccessary for any one now to restate the arguments which prove that the references to persons and places in the Pastorals cannot be accommodated to the history of St. Paul and of his companions as given in the Acts. The “historical contradictions” are marshalled with crushing force by Lightfoot in his Biblical Essays, p. 403 sqq. Critics of the anti-traditional school who accept, as genuine Pauline fragments, those sections of the Pastorals in which the personal and local references occur are obliged to allocate these references to different parts of the Acts; and, even so, the explanations given are forced and unconvincing. It must then be clearly understood that our claim of the Pastorals for St. Paul is based on the assumption that his ministry was prolonged for at least two years beyond the date of the close of the Acts. If St. Paul was martyred immediately, or very soon, after the expiration of the two years’ confinement mentioned in Acts 28:30, then he did not write the Pastoral Epistles or any portion of them. This is a vital point; and demands at least a brief discussion of the main arguments in favour of the traditional opinion. Supposing that the Pastorals were not in our hands, and the question were asked, Was the two years’ confinement in Rome mentioned in Acts 28:30, followed by St. Paul’s execution, or by his release?—the answer must be that all the positive evidence available is in favour of the latter alternative. There are three lines of argument: (1) the way in which the Acts ends; (2) the evidence of the epistles written during, or towards the end, of those two years; (3) external testimony.

(1) It ought to be unnecessary to observe that the author of the Acts knew what happened at the end of those two years. We can only guess why he stopped where he did; yet some guesses have more probability than others. There were limits to the size of books in those days. On the supposition that St. Luke knew of a subsequent ministry of his master’s, the close of the Roman captivity would be a suitable point at which to bring vol. i. of the Acts to a conclusion, whether regard be had to considerations of space, or of literary fitness; the arrival at Rome being the fulfilment of the apostle’s intention announced in Acts 19:21. On the other hand, if St. Luke knew that St. Paul’s two years’ confinement had been followed at once by his execution, the historian’s omission to mention it cannot be accounted for. A brief record would have been all that was necessary, and this would not have added unduly to the length of the book.

Salmon’s explanation (Introduction, p. 312) that “why St. Luke has told us no more is, that he knew no more; and that he knew no more, because at the time nothing more had happened—in other words, that the book of the Acts was written a little more than two years after Paul’s arrival at Rome,” will not commend itself to many scholars. It seems more natural to suppose that both the Gospel and the Acts were published after St. Paul’s death. Literary men do not always succeed in completing their designs before they die; and the later the date we assign to Acts, the greater is the probability that St. Luke died before he had reduced to literary form his memories of the Apostle’s post-Roman-captivity history.

Passing now to an examination on this point of the third group of St. Paul’s Epistles, the evidence afforded by them is distinctly favourable to the supposition that St. Paul was released after the two years of Acts 28:30. We must of course avoid the error into which some fall, of imagining that every foreboding or declared intention recorded in a narrative, or preserved in a published letter, would have been suppressed by the editor if it had not been realised. And accordingly we can only infer from the tone of Philippians and Philemon that, in St. Paul’s judgment, when he wrote these letters, the prospect of his release was favourable. No other inference can be drawn from “I know that I shall abide, yea, and abide with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith” (Php 1:25); “I trust in the Lord that I myself also shall come shortly” (2:24); “Prepare me also a lodging: for I hope that through your prayers I shall be granted unto you” (Philemon 1:22). Contrast with these passages the tone of 2 Timothy, which is that of a man who knew that his days were numbered, and that the end was not far off.

What seems to be a natural conclusion from the internal evidence of Acts 28 and of Philippians and Philemon is confirmed by the tradition of the early Church as it is expressed by Eusebius, H. E., ii., 22: “Paul is said (λόγος ἔχει), after having defended himself to have set forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and to have entered the same city a second time, and to have there ended his life by martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defence, and his impending death.” It is to be noted that there is no contrary tradition; nor is it easy to see what end could have been served by the invention of this one.

There are two passages in earlier writers which are adduced as proof that St. Paul at one time visited Spain. Since it is impossible to find room for such a journey within the period covered by the Acts, these passages, if accepted as proofs of the expedition to Spain, are therefore proofs of a missionary activity of St. Paul subsequent to the date of the close of the Acts. In the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, § 5, the writer speaks of Peter and Paul as contemporary martyrs; and Paul he describes as κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει … δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών.

It is difficult to believe that a native of Rome, writing from Rome, would speak of the world’s capital as ἡ δύσις or τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως; nor did Corinth lie so far to the east of Rome as to justify such a rhetorical expression (see Lightfoot’s note in loc.). Nor can we argue from the opening of the following chapter—“Unto these men of holy lives was gathered (συνηθροίσθη) a vast multitude”—that Clement meant to date the fury of Neronic persecution as subsequent to the martyrdom of St. Paul. Writing about thirty years after “the great tribulation,” he mentions the martyrs in order of dignity. In any case, he mentions Peter’s death before that of Paul; yet this was never considered an argument against the tradition that the two apostles were martyred together; nor would it be felt as a serious objection to the recent theory that St. Peter outlived St. Paul by many years.

The following passage from the Muratorian Canon, in its obscure simplicity, reads like a fragment of a genuine tradition rather than a literary figment based on Romans 15:28 : “Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophilo comprendit, quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem [perh. semota passione] Petri euidenter declarat, sed et profectionem [perh. profectione] Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis” (text as given by Westcott, Canon. N.T., p. 535). The argument is unaffected even if the words from “passionem” be derived from the early second century Actus Petri cum Simone. See James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii., xi., and Dean Bernard, Pastoral Epp., p. xxx. These considerations force us to the conclusion that the assumption that St. Paul’s life ended where St. Luke’s history terminates is arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence that is available. It remains to present to the reader a conjectural outline (based on Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, p. 223) of St. Paul’s movements between his release and his second Roman imprisonment.

(1) A journey from Rome to Asia Minor. It is natural to suppose that he visited Philippi and Colossæ, in accordance with the intimations cited above from Phil. and Philem. Perhaps he now visited Crete.

(2) A journey to Spain; perhaps passing through Dalmatia and Gaul (?) (2 Timothy 4:10). Possibly on this journey he became aware of the convenience of Nicopolis in Epirus as a centre for work.

(3) Last journey Eastward. Visits Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). The dispute with Hymenæus and Alexander the smith, and the services of Onesiphorus (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 4:14) perhaps now took place. Leaves Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus. Visits Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3).

[1 Timothy.]

Visits Crete; leaves Titus in charge; returns to Asia (as hoped in 1 Timothy 3:14; 1 Timothy 4:13).

[Titus.]

Passes through Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), Troas (2 Timothy 4:13), where perhaps he was arrested, Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20). In any case he never reached Nicopolis as anticipated in Titus 3:12. It is here assumed that the winter mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, is the same as that of Titus 3:12.

[2 Timothy.]

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

With regard to the external attestation to the Pastoral Epistles, it must be acknowledged that some early heretics, who acknowledged the genuineness of the other letters attributed to St. Paul, rejected these Basilides, who flourished in the reign of Hadrian (117–138 A.D.), is the first who is said to have done so. Clement Al. (Strom. ii. 11) states that some, Gnostics apparently, were actuated in this decision by dislike of the expression ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις in 1 Timothy 6:20 : ὑπὸ ταύτης ἐλεγχόμενοι τῆς φωνῆς οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς. On the other hand, the extant fragments of another Gnostic, Heracleon, contain an allusion to 2 Timothy 2:13 : ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν οὐδέποτε δύναται (Clem. Al., Strom. iv. 9). The Canon of Marcion, which contained only his own edition of the Gospel according to St. Luke and ten of St. Paul’s epistles, of course did not include the Pastorals; but Tatian (died about 170) did not wholly follow him in this, since he regarded Titus as certainly genuine. “Hanc vel maxime Apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvi pendens Marcionis, et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt, assertionem” (Jerome, Prol. in Tit.). In the same context St. Jerome declares that these adverse judgments were not critical in any true sense, but merely arbitrary: “cum haeretica auctoritate pronuntient et dicant, Illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est”. However that may be, there is at least no trace in the writings of the Church controversialists of arguments of a critical nature; whereas in the dispute as to the authorship of Hebrews, Clement Al. and Origen were compelled to discuss the problem presented by its un-Pauline style. In any case, the fact that the rejection of the Pastorals by some heretics was noted amounts to a positive testimony in their favour by the contemporary Church.

From the time of Irenæus, Clement Al. and Tertullian[231]—that is, practically from the time that N.T. books are quoted by their author’s names—until the year 1804, when Schmidt in his Introduction denied the genuineness of 1 Timothy, no one, Christian or non-Christian, doubted that the Pastoral Epistles were genuine letters of the Apostle Paul. They are included in all MSS., Versions and Lists of the Pauline Epistles without exception, and in the same order (i.e., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit.). An interesting exception as regards the order meets us in the Muratorian Fragment: “Uerum ad Philemonem unam, et ad Titum unam, et ad Timotheum duas pro affectu et dilectione; in honore tamen ecclesiae catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt”. The composer of this catalogue here arranges the groups of four personal letters of St. Paul in rough chronological order. As 2 Tim. was obviously the last letter that St. Paul wrote, the two to Timothy are placed last, Titus being joined to them as evidently dealing with kindred topics.

[231] e.g., Irenæus, Haer. Praef.; i. 16, 3; ii. 14, 7; iii. 3, 3; iii. 3, 4; iv. 16. 3. Clem. Al., Strom. i. p. 350. Tert., de Praescr. 6, 25. Adv. Marcion. v. 21.

It remains that the reader should have placed before him the traces, more or less distinct, of the Pastoral Epistles in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and of the pre-Irenæus period.

CLEMENT OF ROME. Ad Cor. 1. (A.D. 95.)

§ 1 (1 Timothy 6:1). ὥστε τὸ … ὄνομα ὑμῶν μεγάλως βλασφημηθῆναι.

§ 1 (1 Timothy 5:17). τιμὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ἀπονέμοντες τοῖς … πρεσβυτέροις.

§ 1 (1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:11; Titus 2:4). γυναιξίν … στεργούσας καθηκόντως τοὺς ἄνδρας ἑαυτῶν ἔν τε τῷ κανόνι τῆς ὑποταγῆς ὑπαρχούσας τὰ κατὰ τὸν οἶκον σεμνῶς οἰκουργεῖν ἐδιδάσκετε, πάνυ σωφρονούσας.

§ 2 (1 Timothy 6:8). τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι.

* § 2 (Titus 3:1). ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν.

§ 7 (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7). ὁ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται.

§ 7 (1 Timothy 2:3; 1 Timothy 5:4). ἴδωμεν … τὶ προσδεκτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς.

* § 26 (Titus 2:10). αὐτῷ δουλευσάντων ἐν πεποιθήσει πίστεως ἀγαθῆς.

§ 29 (1 Timothy 2:8). προσέλθωμεν οὖν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς, ἁγνὰς καὶ ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν.

* § 32 (Titus 3:5-7). πάντες οὖν ἐδοξάσθησαν … οὐ διʼ αὐτῶν ἤ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἤ τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ἧς κατειργάσαντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ.

* § 37 (1 Timothy 1:18). στρατευσώμεθα οὖν … ἐν τοῖς ἀμώμοις προστάγμασιν αὐτοῦ.

§ 42 (1 Timothy 3:10). καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους.

* § 45 (2 Timothy 1:3). τῶν ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει λατρευόντων.

§ 47 (1 Timothy 6:1). ὥστε καὶ βλασφημίας ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου.

§ 55 (2 Timothy 2:1). γυναῖκες ἐνδυναμωθεῖσαι διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ.

§ 55 (1 Timothy 1:17). Θεὸν τῶν αἰώνων.

§ 61 (1 Timothy 1:17). βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων.

To these we may add, perhaps, the prayer for Kings in §§ 60, 61, in conformity with the direction given in 1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:2, and in those places only of the N.T.

On a review of these passages, it must in candour be admitted that those marked with an asterisk seem to be the only ones that suggest a literary dependence on the Pastorals. The others, it may be plausibly maintained, are simply illustrations of that current religious phraseology which the Pastorals themselves reflect. Taken all together, they prove that Clement’s mind was at home in the religious world to which the Pastorals belong; but while the present writer believes that Clement was as familiar with these letters as he was with 1 Cor., he cannot affirm such a position to be wholly free from uncertainty.

IGNATIUS (circ. A.D. 110)

* Magn. § 8 (Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9). μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις μηδὲ μυθεύμασιν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσιν· εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ ἰουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι.

§ 11 (1 Timothy 1:1). πεπληροφόρησθε ἐν τῇ γεννήσει κ. τ. πάθει κ. τ. ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου· πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς κ. βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν.

Trall. Inscr. and § 2 have also Jesus Christ our hope.

Polyc. § 2 (2 Timothy 2:25). τοὺς λοιμοτέρους ἐν πραΰτητι ὑπότασσε.

* § 2 (2 Timothy 4:5; 2 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:12). νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής τὸ θέμα ἀφθαρσία καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, περὶ ἦς καὶ σὺ πέπεισαι.

§ 3 (1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:3). ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σε καταπλησσέτωσαν.

* § 3 (2 Timothy 2:12). ἕνεκεν Θεοῦ πάντα ὑπομένειν ἡμᾶς δεῖ, ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὑπομείνῃ.

§ 3 (1 Timothy 1:17). τὸν ἀόρατον.

* § 4 (1 Timothy 6:1-2). δούλους καὶ δούλας μὴ ὑπερηφάνει· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ αὐτοὶ φυσιούσθωσαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πλέον δουλευέτωσαν.

* § 6 (2 Timothy 2:4). ἀρέσκετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια κομίζεσθε.

§ 7 (Titus 3:1; 2 Timothy 2:21). ἕτοιμοί ἐστε εἰς εὐποιΐαν Θεῷ ἀνήκουσαν.

The echoes of the Pastorals are especially remarkable in the Epistle to Polycarp; and it is peculiarly worthy of remark that in this letter, which was admittedly a personal communication from Ignatius to Polycarp, the writer passes from exhortations to Polycarp himself—and those too of a very delicate nature—to general exhortations addressed to the whole Church. Contrast e.g. § 5 with § 6; and in the middle of a section addressed to the whole Church he interposes a personal appeal to Polycarp. This illustrates admirably a feature in the Pastorals which has been alleged as a serious objection to their acceptation as genuine letters; i.e. the intermingling of personal matter with directions and exhortations addressed to the Church.

POLYCARP. Ad Phil. (circ. A.D. 110)

* § 4 (1 Timothy 6:10; 1 Timothy 6:7). ἀρχὴ δὲ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία. εἰδότες οὖν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἔχομεν.

§ 5 (2 Timothy 2:12): ἐὰν πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως αὐτοῦ, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν αὐτῷ.

§ 8 (1 Timothy 1:1). προσκαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν … ὅς ἐστι χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.

* § 9 (2 Timothy 4:10). οὐ γὰρ τὸν νῦν ἠγάπησαν αἰῶνα.

* § 12 (1 Timothy 2:2; 1 Timothy 4:15). Orate etiam Proverbs regibus et potestatibus et principibus … ut fructus vester manifestus sit in omnibus.

THE ACTS OF MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP (A.D. 155 OR 156)

§ 10 (1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:1). δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις ὑπὸ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναις τιμὴν … ἀπονέμειν.

There can be no question that in the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians we have express citations from 1 and 2 Timothy. It is, to say the least, difficult to believe that a man like Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John, and who, when he wrote this letter, was bishop of Smyrna and in full vigour of life, would have made such honourable use of letters which had been compiled by an unknown Paulinist a few years before. We regard the evidence of Polycarp as a fact of capital importance; for it removes any possible doubt that may hang over inferences drawn from Ignatius; and it supports us in our belief that the Pastoral Epistles were also known to Clement of Rome. For the sake of completeness, we may add echoes of the Letters in other extant second century Christian Literature. The three passages cited from the Epistle of Barnabas are not of necessity based on our Letters; and the same may be said of the four quotations from Justin Martyr, with the possible exception of that from Dial. § 47.

THE SO-CALLED SECOND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT OF ROME (circ. 120–140 A.D.)

§ 7 (2 Timothy 2:4-5). ἀγωνισώμεθα, εἰδότες ὅτι … οὐ πάντες στεφανοῦνται, εἰ μὴ οἱ πολλὰ κοπιάσαντες καὶ καλῶς ἀγωνισάμενοι … ὁ τὸν φθαρτὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνιζόμενος, ἐὰν εὑρεθῇ φθείρων … ἔξω βάλλεται τοῦ σταδίου.

§ 8 (1 Timothy 6:14; 1 Timothy 6:12). τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τὴν ζωὴν ἀπολάβωμεν.

§ 17 (Titus 2:12). μὴ ἀντιπαρελκώμεθα ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν.

§ 20 (1 Timothy 1:17). τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ … ἡ δόξα κ.τ.λ.

THE SO-CALLED EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (A.D. 70–132)

§ 7 (2 Timothy 4:1). εἰ οὖν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὢν Κύριος καὶ μέλλων κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἔπαθεν.

§ 12 (1 Timothy 3:14). ἡ παράβασις διὰ τοῦ ὄφεως ἐν Εὔᾳ ἐγένετο.

§ 12 (1 Timothy 3:16). υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ … ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.

THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS (circ. A.D. 150)

* § 4 (1 Timothy 3:16). τὸ δὲ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν θεοσεβείας μυστήριον μὴ προσδοκήσῃς δύνασθαι παρὰ ἀνθρώπου μαθεῖν.

* § 9 (Titus 3:4). ἦλθε δὲ ὁ καιρὀς ὃν Θεὸς προέθετο λοιπὸν φανερῶσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χρηστότητα καὶ δύναμιν (ὢ τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης φιλανθρωπίας καὶ ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ), οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς … ἐλεῶν αὐτὸς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρτίας ἀνεδέξατο, αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.

§ 11 (1 Timothy 3:16). [μαθηταῖς] οἷς ἐφανέρωσεν ὁ Λὁγος φανείς. This and the following section do not really belong to the Epistle.

JUSTIN MARTYR (circ. 140 A.D.)

Dial. § 7 (1 Timothy 4:1). τὰ τῆς πλάνης πνεύματα καὶ δαιμόνια δοξολογοῦσιν.

§ 35 (1 Timothy 4:1). ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτους εἶναι ἄνδρας, ὁμολογοῦντας ἑαυτοὺς εἷναι χριστιανοὺς καὶ … Ἰησοῦν ὁμολογεῖν … Χριστόν, καὶ μὴ τὰ ἐκείνου διδάγματα διδάσκοντας ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς πλάνης πνευμάτων.

* § 47 (Titus 3:4). ἡ γὰρ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄμετρον τοῦ πλούτου αὐτοῦ τὸν μετανοοῦντα … ὡς δίκαιον … ἔχει.

§ 118 (2 Timothy 4:1). ὅτι κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν ἁπάντων αὐτὸς οὗτος ὁ χριστός, εἶπον ἐν πολλοῖς.

THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA (not later than 170 A.D.)

* § 14 (2 Timothy 2:18). λέγει οὗτος ἀνάστασιν γενέσθαι, ὅτι ἤδη γέγονεν ἐφʼ οἷς ἔχομεν τέκνοις. Note also the use in this work of the names Demas and Hermogenes as ὑποκρίσεως γέμοντες, § 1, and Onesiphorus as seeking Paul, § 2.

ATHENAGORAS (circ. 176)

Legatio, 16 (1 Timothy 6:16). πάντα γάρ ὁ Θεός ἐστιν αὐτὸς αὐτῷ, φῶς ἀπρόσιτον.

* 37 (1 Timothy 2:2). τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγοιμεν.

THEODOTUS (Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti, Clem. Al. p. 350)

(1 Timothy 6:16). καὶ ὁ μὲν φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἴρηται.

THE EPISTLE OF THE CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND LYONS (circ. 180)

* Euseb. H.E. v. i. (1 Timothy 3:15). ἐνέσκηψεν ἡ ὀργὴ … εἰς Ἄτταλον Περγαμηνὸν τῷ γένει, στύλον καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἀεὶ γεγονότα.

* (1 Timothy 6:13). ὁ δὲ … Ποθεινὸς … ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ἐσύρετο … ὡς αὐτοῦ ὄντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀπεδίδου τήν καλὴν μαρτυρίαν.

Euseb. H.E. v. 3 (1 Timothy 4:3-4). ὁ Ἀλκιβιάδης, μὴ χρώμενος τοῖς κτίσμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ … πεισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἀλκιβιάδης πάντων ἀνέδην μετελάμβανε καὶ ηὐχαρίστει τῷ Θεῷ.

THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (circ. 181)

* ad Autol. i. 1 (2 Timothy 3:8). φράσις εὐεπὴς τέρψιν παρέχει … ἀνθρώποις ἔχουσι τὸν νοῦν κατεφθαρμένον.

* ad Autol. ii. 16 (Titus 3:5; 1 Timothy 2:4 (?)). ἔτι μὴν καὶ εὐλογήθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων γενόμενα, ὅπως ᾖ καὶ τοῦτο εἰς δεῖγμα τοῦ μέλλειν λαμβάνειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν διὰ ὕδατος καὶ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας πάντας τοὺς προσιόντας τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.

ad Autol. iii. 14 (Titus 3:1; 1 Timothy 2:2). ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις, καὶ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν κελεύει ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεῖος λόγος, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE LETTERS

It is scarcely too much to say that but for the difficulty presented by their style, and the assumption that St. Paul never left Rome alive, no one would have suspected these letters of being a compilation. But inasmuch as no one has been found to deny the bona fide Pauline character of some sections of them—at least in 2 Timothy—those who impugn the genuineness of the letters as they have come down to us have been compelled to exercise much ingenuity in attempts to apportion the matter of the letters between St. Paul and the compiler or compilers. For an account of their schemes the student is referred to the articles on these epistles in Hastings D. B., and the Encyclopædia Biblica, and for a fuller account, to Moffatt’s Historical N. T.

To those who agree that the problem presented by the style and the historical setting of the Pastorals is unsolved, but not insoluble, all attempts to decompose these letters will seem unprofitable. There is sound sense in the old scholastic maxim: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”. The case of the Pastorals is not like that of 2 Corinthians, in which plausible reasons may be alleged for theories of dislocation. There is no difficulty in presenting such an outline of 1 Tim. or 2 Tim. or Tit. as will show it to be a single letter, with as much unity of purpose as a bona fide letter—not a college essay—can be expected to have.

But even were we to grant, one moment, that the style and historical considerations must preclude a Pauline authorship for them, yet, the next moment, we find ourselves confronted by more serious objections to the theory of compilation. To begin with, the historical difficulty presented by the personal and local references in the admittedly Pauline sections is insurmountable, on the hypothesis that the whole of St. Paul’s history is contained in the Acts.

Again, without using violent language about “forgery,” it is not easy to explain why the alleged compiler should pretend to be St. Paul. The ascription of a book to an honoured name was not a precedent condition to its acceptance or acceptability in the primitive Church. Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistle to Diognetus do not claim anyone as their authors. Whoever it was that produced the Pastorals, he was just as good a practical Christian as St. Paul himself; and he had no compelling reason to hide his identity. The case of 2 Peter is different. That epistle, whoever wrote it, was always reckoned a disputed book.

Again, how are we to explain the honourable use, certainly by Polycarp, and probably by Clement of Rome and Ignatius, not to mention other later second century writers, of a work which only appeared, ex hypothesi, not earlier than 90 A.D.? And, further, if these epistles are due to a compiler, he must have been an extraordinarily clever man, and quite capable not only of supplementing the Pauline fragments, but of editing them. Now by the year 90 A.D. Timothy’s name had become venerated in the Church. Is it likely that a Churchman of that time, writing too, as is alleged, with an ecclesiastical bias, would have permitted the publication of letters which certainly give the impression of Timothy as a not very heroic person? The treatment of Linus (2 Timothy 4:21) raises a similar question. A tradition, which no one has ever questioned, names Linus as the first bishop of Rome; the subordinate position he occupies in this letter is, as Salmon has noted (Introd. N.T. p. 411), quite intelligible if St. Paul was the author of it. It is, on the other hand, extremely unlikely that an editor of the year 90 A.D., who had no scruple in writing in St. Paul’s name, would not have given Linus a more prominent place.

These are a few of the difficulties which may be urged on the traditional side in this “contest of opposite improbabilities”.

ANALYSIS OF 1 TIMOTHY

“Guard the Deposit”

A. 1 Timothy 1:1-2. Salutation.

B. 1 Timothy 1:3-20 : The Crisis, and the Men—Paul and Timothy.

(a) The Crisis: 3–11.

(1) 3–7. The motive of the letter is to provide Timothy with a memorandum of previous oral instructions for the combating of those who mischievously and ignorantly endeavour to oppose the Law to the Gospel.

(2) 8–11. This opposition is really factitious; inasmuch as the Law and the Gospel are, both of them, workings of law, God’s law, the final cause of which is right conduct.

(b) The Men: 12–20.

(1) 12–17. Paul’s own spiritual history illustrates the fundamentally identical moral basis of the Law and the Gospel. Paul had been “faithful,” trustworthy, while under the Law; therefore Christ pardoned his violent opposition to the Gospel, because it was due to ignorance, though a sinful ignorance. Moreover, this whole transaction—the triumph of Christ’s long-suffering over Paul’s sinful antagonism—has an enduring value. It is an object lesson to encourage to repentance sinners to the end of time. Glory be to God!

(2) 18–20. The present charge to Timothy, although its immediate exciting cause is the recent action of Hymenæus and Alexander and their followers, ought not to be new in its substance to Timothy. It is practically identical with what the prophets gave utterance to at his ordination.

C. 2, 3. The foundations of Sound Doctrine.

False teaching is most effectually combated indirectly; not by controversy, with its negations, but by quiet, positive foundation work on which true views about God and Man can be based. We begin then with:—

(a) 1 Timothy 2:1 to 1 Timothy 3:1 a. Public Prayer.

-11 Timothy 2:1-7. Its universal scope; and the Divine sanction for catholicity in human sympathy.

-21 Timothy 2:8 to 1 Timothy 3:1 a. The Ministers of Public Prayer: men, not women; with a judgment as to the true function of Woman in the Church and in Society.

(b) 1 Timothy 3:1 b–16. The Ministry of the Divine Society.

(1) 1 b–7. The qualifications of the episcopus.

(2) 8–10, 12, 13. The qualifications of the deacons.

(3) 11. The qualifications of women Church-workers.

(4) 14–16. Caution to Timothy lest he should be tempted to think these details trivial, in comparison with more obviously spiritual things. The importance of rules depends on the importance of that with which they are concerned. The Church, for whose ministers rules have been just laid down, is the greatest Society in the world: human, yet divinely originated and inspired; the House of God; an extension of the Incarnation.

D. 4. A fresh word of prophecy (see 1 Timothy 1:18) addressed to Timothy in his present office.

(a) 1–5. The false teaching more clearly defined as a spurious asceticism. This is condemned, a priori, by considerations (1) of the declared character and object of the material creation, and (2) of the purifying effect of benedictions.

(b) 6–16. The spurious asceticism, however, as it manifests itself in practice, is best combated (1), 6–10, by the Church teacher showing an example in his own person of genuine holiness, and (2), 11–16, by active pastoral care, courageous outspokenness and the diligent cultivation of all God-given ministerial graces.

E. 1 Timothy 5:1 to 1 Timothy 6:19. This naturally suggests the specification of directions for administration of the Church by a Father in God.

(a) 1 Timothy 5:1-2. He must not deal with his people en masse, but individually. He cannot treat alike old men and young men, elder women and younger women.

(b) 1 Timothy 5:3-16. There is one class of the laity in particular which, because they have a special claim on the Church, need a discriminating care: the widows. The Church cannot afford to support all widows, nor would it be right to relieve their relatives, if they have any, of responsibility for them. Consequently, none can be entered on the list for relief but those over a certain age, and who have a good record for consistent Christian lives. Young widows had better marry again.

(c) 1 Timothy 5:17-25. The questions of Church finance and discipline, as they concern widows, suggest recommendations on the same subjects, as they concern the presbyters: (1) 17, 18, finance; (2) 19–25, discipline, with, 23, a parenthetical personal counsel to Timothy, suggested by the word pure in 22.

(d) 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Ruling principles for the conduct of Christians who are slaves, towards heathen and Christian masters respectively.

(e) 1 Timothy 6:3-19. A right judgment in all these matters which affect our daily life depends on right basal convictions as to the true values of things material and spiritual.

(1) 3–10. The false teachers reverse the true order: they regard religion as a sub-section of the world; whereas the world has its own place—an honourable place—as subordinate to religion.

(2) 11–16. A solemn adjuration to Timothy to adhere to the principles just laid down; and

(3) 17–19. To urge the observance of them upon the well-to-do members of the Christian Society.

F. 1 Timothy 6:20-21. Final appeal, summing up the perennial antagonism between character (the natural fruit of the faith) and mere intellectualism.

ANALYSIS OF 2 TIMOTHY

Sursum Corda

A. 2 Timothy 1:1-2. Salutation.

B. 2 Timothy 1:3 to 2 Timothy 2:13. Considerations which should strengthen Timothy’s moral courage (a, b, c, [232], [233]), interspersed with appeals to his loyalty (α, β, γ, δ, ε).

[232] The Latin text of Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[233] The Latin version (a corrected copy of D) of Codex Sangermanensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., now at St. Petersburg, formerly belonging to the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Its text is largely dependent upon that of D. It has been printed, but with incomplete accuracy, by Belsheim (18 5).

(a) 3–5. Paul’s thoughts of, and prayers for, him; and Paul’s recognition of Timothy’s faith.

(b) 6, 7. An objective fact in Timothy’s own spiritual history: his ordination; since when there is available for his use, Power, Love, and Discipline, the gifts of God.

(α) 8–10. An appeal based on thoughts of the Gospel, as the power of God.

(c) 11, 12. Paul’s own steadfastness.

(β, γ) 13, 14. Appeals based on loyalty to the human teacher, and to the Divine Spirit.

(d) 15. The deterrent example of the disloyal of Asia.

(e) 16–18. The stimulating example of Onesiphorus.

(δ) 2 Timothy 2:1-2. An appeal for the provision of a succession of loyal teachers.

(ε) 2 Timothy 2:3-13. An appeal based on “the Word of the Cross”; i.e., Suffering is the precedent condition of glory. This is exemplified in the earthly analogies of the soldier, the athlete, and the field-labourer; in the actual experiences of Jesus Christ Himself, and of Paul.

C. 2 Timothy 2:14-26. General exhortations to Timothy as a Church teacher, as regards (a) 14–18, the positive and negative subject-matter of his instructions; (b) 19–21, the true and optimistic conception of the Church in relation to all teachers, true and false; (c) 22–26, the personal equipment of the true teacher, and his treatment of the erring.

D. 2 Timothy 3:1 to 2 Timothy 4:8. A word of prophecy setting forth—

(a) 2 Timothy 3:1-9. The practical shortcomings of the false teachers.

(b) 2 Timothy 3:10-17. A recalling of Timothy’s past spiritual history: (1) 10–13, the conditions under which his discipleship began; (2) 14–17, the holy persons by whom, and the sacred writings on which, his youth had been nourished.

(c) 2 Timothy 4:1-8. A concluding solemn adjuration to play the man while there is time. As for Paul, the contest is over, the crown is in sight; there is a crown for Timothy, too, if he takes Paul’s place.

E. 2 Timothy 4:9-22. Personal details: Instructions, 9, 11, 13, 21; News about other members of the Pauline comradeship. 10, 11, 12, 20; A warning, 14, 15; A reminiscence and a confident hope, 16–18; Salutations and greetings, 19, 21; Final benediction, 22.

ANALYSIS OF TITUS

“Maintain Good Works”

A. Titus 1:1-4. Salutation.

B. Titus 1:5-16. The position of affairs in Crete, which (a), 5–9, necessitates that the foundation of Church organisation—the presbyterate—be well and truly laid; in view of (b), 10–16, the natural unruliness and bad character of the people, aggravated by Jewish immoral sophistries.

C. Titus 2:1 to Titus 3:11. Heads of necessary elementary moral instruction for the Cretan folk.

(a) Titus 2:1-10. For aged men and aged women; for young women and young men—and what is said about these latter applies also to Titus—and slaves.

(b) Titus 2:11-15. The eternal sanction for this insistence on the practice of elementary virtues is the all-embracing scope of the Gospel of God’s Grace; which has been visibly manifested, with its call to repentance, its assurance of help, and its certain hope.

(c) Titus 3:1-2. Obedience to the civil authority is also a Gospel virtue.

(d) Titus 3:3-7. These instructions are not given in a spirit of superiority. We ourselves were once in as bad moral condition as are the Cretans, if not worse, until we came to know, and test the love of God, unmerited and saving.

(e) Titus 3:8-11. In conclusion, the sum of all is: Let the people maintain good works, and shun useless speculations. Let Titus not be lax in dealing with leaders of the false teaching.

D. Titus 3:12-13. Personal instructions.

E. Titus 3:14. Concluding summary, repeating the teaching of 8–11.

F. Titus 3:15. Final salutation.

THE TEXT

The text which is printed above the exposition is in the main that of Westcott and Hort. In a very few cases other readings have been adopted in this text (see e.g. 1 Timothy 2:8; Titus 2:4; Titus 3:9); and in some places their punctuation has been modified.

The apparatus criticus is based on that of Tischendorf’s eighth edition. The readings of the Old Latin fragments, r, Cod. Frisingensis, have been added, and the references to m (Speculum) have been given according to the edition by Weihrich in the Vienna Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat. Of the uncial MSS. cited by Tisch., E3 (Cod. Petropolitanus, or Sangermanensis, ix. or x.) has not been noted, since it is merely a transcript of [234] [235]. On the other hand, it has been thought best to cite both [236] [237] and [238] [239], since it is not certain that the latter is a copy of the former, though both are derived from one exemplar.

[234] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[235] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[236] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS.

[237] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS.

[238] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels.

[239] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels.

Only the most important cursives are mentioned in these notes. The reader will understand that the attestation of [240] [241] [242] carries with it, in most cases, that of the great bulk of the cursive MSS. Neither has it been thought advisable to cite the more obscure versions. Even if their readings were critically ascertained they would not carry much weight. For a similar reason patristic citations are sparingly used. Subjoined is a list of the authorities cited in the critical notes.

[240] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[241] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[242] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 2:13–16.

[243], Cod. Sinaiticus, iv. St Petersburg.

[243] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

A, Cod. Alexandrinus, v. London.

C, Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus, v. Paris. It does not contain 1 Timothy 1:1 to 1 Timothy 3:9, μυστη " ριον.

D (D2), Cod. Claromontanus, vi. Paris.

F (F2), Cod. Augiensis, ix. Trinity College, Cambridge.

G (G3), Cod. Boernerianus, ix. Dresden.

H (H3), Cod. Coislinianus, vi. Fragments. Those that contain portions of the Pastorals are in Paris and Turin. It only contains: 1 Timothy 3:7-13; 1 Timothy 6:9-13; 2 Timothy 2:1-9; Titus 1:1-3, Titus 1:15 to Titus 2:5; Titus 3:13-15.

I (I2), Cod. Tischendorfianus (Petropolitanus, Tisch.), v. St. Petersburg. Contains only Titus 1:1-13.

K (K2), Cod. Mosquensis, ix. Moscow.

L (L2), Cod. Bibliothecae Angelicae, ix. Rome.

P (P2), Cod. Porphyrianus, ix. St. Petersburg.

Of the Old Latin MSS. cited, d, e, f, g are the Latin portions of the bilingual uncials, [244] [245], [246] [247], [248] [249] and [250] [251] respectively. m is the treatise entitled Speculum, practically a catena of texts or testimonia, formerly ascribed to St Augustine. r is the Cod. Frisingensis, v. or vi. (Munich) fragments, containing inter alia, 1 Timothy 1:12 to 1 Timothy 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:18 to 1 Timothy 6:13.

[244] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[245] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[246] Codex Sangermanensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., now at St. Petersburg, formerly belonging to the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Its text is largely dependent upon that of D.

[247] Codex Sangermanensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., now at St. Petersburg, formerly belonging to the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Its text is largely dependent upon that of D.

[248] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS.

[249] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS.

[250] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels.

[251] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels.

The only MSS. of the Vulgate cited are Cod. Amiatinus (am.), A.D. 716, Florence, and Cod. Fuldensis (fuld.) A.D. 541–546, Fulda in Germany.

The other versions are indicated as follows:—

syrpesh (Tisch., syrsch) = Peshitto Syriac.

syrhcl (Tisch., syrp) = Harkleian Syriac.

syrr = both Syriac Versions.

boh (Tisch., cop.) = Bohairic Egyptian.

sah = Sahidic Egyptian.

arm = Armenian.

go = Gothic.

For a complete bibliography of the Pastoral Epistles the reader is referred to the articles, “Timothy, Epistle to,” and “Titus, Epistle to,” by W. Lock, in Hastings’ D.B., vol. iv., pp. 775, 785, and the articles “Timothy and Titus (Epistles),” by J. Moffatt, in the Encyclopædia Biblica. To the articles themselves—the former temperately conservative, the latter, uncompromisingly anti-traditional—the present writer is much indebted. Diligent use has also been made of the labours of the following commentators on the continuous text: St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, full of good sense and practical wisdom; Bengel, pithy, direct and spiritual; Ellicott, a sound grammarian from the classical Greek standpoint, and therefore useful as a warning against possible pitfalls, but very dry; Alford, still most serviceable as the variorum edition of A.D. 1865; J. H. Bernard (Cambridge Greek Testament) whose notes on the ethical language of the Epistles are most illuminating, and H. von Soden, in the Hand-Commentar, remarkable for subtle verbal analysis; but his exegesis is vitiated by his critical position as to the authorship and date of the letters. Suspicion and half-heartedness do not make for profound exposition.

Plummer’s large treatment of certain sections, in the Expositor’s Bible, has been found helpful and suggestive. Field’s Notes (alas, too few!) on Trans. N.T. are indispensable; and H. P. Liddon’s analysis of 1 Timothy is masterly.

On the general subject of the Epistles, Salmon’s Introduction N.T. (p. 397 sqq.), Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays (xi., xii.), Wace’s Introduction in the Speaker’s Commentary, J. H. Bernard’s Introduction (Cambridge Greek Testament), Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, and Hort’s Judaistic Chistianity and Christian Ecclesia have been largely made use of. It has not, however, been thought necessary, especially when space had to be considered, to specify in every case the authority for the sentiment expressed, or the explanation adopted. In any case, the Church, in the long run, acts on the counsel of Thomas à Kempis: “Non quaeras quis hoc dixerit: sed quid dicatur attende” (De Imit. Christi, i. 5).

September, 1909.