Imagini ale paginilor

with the apostle all the way to Jerusalem ; ? and as for Erastus' stay in Corinth, we know that Timothy was one of Paul's companions? during the same journey, after the apostle's last recorded visit to Greece, and could not have required to be informed that “Erastus abode in Corinth," if that had been the occasion referred to. In his subsequent voyage from Cæsarea to Rome, as recorded in the closing chapters of Acts, it is certain that the apostle visited neither Miletus nor Corinth. (4) The request here made to Timothy: “The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments.”3 For there was an interval of several years between Paul's last recorded visit to Troas and his first imprisonment at Rome. A subsequent visit, however, after his release, would fit in with the fresh journey from Miletus to Corinth which seems to be implied in the remark above made (3).

We may add that a second imprisonment was in itself not at all unlikely after the great fire in 64 A.D., when the Christian religion was put under the ban; and the apostle had no lack of enemies to give information against him. If we are right in dating the first epistle 67 A.D., we may assign this one to 67-68 A.D.

4. Character and Contents. We have here the apostle's last will and testament in 1 Acts xx. 1-4: "... And when he that it was at Troas Paul was arrested had gone through those parts, and had before being carried a prisoner for the given them much exhortation, he came second time to Rome, and that it was into Greece. And when he had spent during his detention at Ephesus, after his three months there, and a plot was laid arrest, that he experienced the kindness against him by the Jews, as he was of Onesiphorus to which he alludes in about to set sail for Syria, he determined 2 Tim. i. 18. The same writer also draws to return through Macedonia. And an interesting parallel between this rethere accompanied him as far as Asia quest of the apostle for his cloke, Sopater of Berca, ... and Timothy ; books, and parchments, and that of our and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus"; English martyr, William Tyndale, ver. 15:

and the day after we came to when, writing from his prison at VilMiletus"; xxi. 29: “For they had voorde, he begs that if he is to remain before seen with him in the city (i.e. there for the winter, he may have some Jerusalem) Trophimus the Ephesian, warmer clothes sent him, and also his whom they supposed that Paul had “Hebrew Bible, grammar, and vocabubrought into the temple."

lary. 2 Acts xx. 1-4 (see previous note). á E.g. iv. 14:

Alexander the cop3 iv. 13. From this passage Farrar infers persmith did me much evil.”


[ocr errors]

favour of the Church, in the form of a farewell charge to his beloved child Timothy. He still hoped to see him once again, and repeatedly urges him to do his best to come to him shortly—“ before winter," while navigation is still practicable. His yearning for Timothy's society in his lonely prison reminds us of our Lord's desire for the sympathy and prayers of His disciples on the eve of His Passion; and in this epistle, as in our Lord's teaching during the week preceding His death, there is blended with a sublime confidence in the speaker's own future, dark foreboding of approaching trial and temptation for the Church. He warns Timothy of the “grievous times” to come, and exhorts him to adhere steadfastly to the teaching he had received from the apostle on the foundation of the Scripture "inspired of God," and to take security for such teaching being continued by “faithful men who shall be able to teach others also "_bidding Timothy emulate his own example in the endurance of hardship and in the practice of self-denial for the sake of the Gospel

A peculiarity of this as of the other Pastoral Epistles is the introduction of short and weighty statements with the words, “ Faithful is the saying." In one of these passages we have what is probably part of a Christian hymn, expressing the faith in which the apostle would have Timothy to meet his trials.3

1 iv. 9, 21: Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me.

Do thy diligence to come before winter.

2 iii. 1.

3 ii. 11-13: “Faithful is the saying : For if we died with him, we shall also

live with him : if we endure, we shall also reign with him : if we shall deny him, he also will deny us: if we are faithless, he abideth faithful; for he cannot deny himself."




1. Authorship. The authorship of this epistle cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The earliest witness on the subject is Pantænus of Alexandria, in the latter half of the second century, who assigned the epistle, as Eusebius tells us, to the apostle Paul. In keeping with this opinion we find that the Eastern Church generally regarded it as the work of Paul; but some of the most learned of its bishops and teachers were constrained by internal evidence to depart somewhat from the traditional view. Their idea was that Paul might have written the original, and one of his disciples have translated it into Greek ;2 or that the apostle might have supplied the thoughts, and some disciple have put them into words. In this sense Origen maintains that the thoughts were worthy of the apostle, but “who it was that wrote the epistle, God only knows certainly.” ?

The opinion of the Western Church was for a long time

1 In this connection Prof. Bruce remarks: It seems fitting that the author of an epistle which begins by virtually proclaiming God as the only speaker in Scripture, and Jesus Christ as the one speaker in the New Testament, should himself retire out of sight into the background ” (Expositor 1888).

2 This is the view taken by Clement of Alexandria, who says that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew and that it was translated by Luke.

3 “If I were to express my own opinion I should say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but the diction and composition that of some one who re

corded from memory the apostle's teaching, and, as it were, illustrated with a brief commentary the sayings of his master. If then any church hold this epistle to be Paul's, let it be approved for so doing ; for it was not without good reason that the men of old times have handed it down as Paul's. But who it was that wrote the epistle, God only knows certainly. The account which has reached us is two-fold, some saying that Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, wrote it, while others assign it to Luke the author of the Gospel and the Acts." (Euseb. H.E. vi. 25).

adverse to the Pauline authorship. Clement of Rome, who wrote before the close of the first century, frequently quotes the epistle, but never claims for it the authority of Paul. If he believed that the epistle was written by Paul, it is difficult to account for the ignorance of the Roman Church on the subject in succeeding generations—all the more so because of the connection of the epistle with Italy. It was not till the close of the fourth century, and in spite of its traditions to the contrary, that the Western Church accepted the epistle as a writing of Paul's.2

Even if the external testimony in favour of the Pauline authorship were much stronger than it is, a study of the style and structure of the book would compel us to adopt a different view. Instead of the rugged, impetuous, and occasionally disjointed style of the apostle, we have here polished diction and carefully - constructed sentences. “ The movement of this writer resembles that of an oriental sheikh with his robes of honour wrapped around him ; the movement of St. Paul is that of an athlete girded for the race. The eloquence of this writer, even when it is at its most majestic volume, resembles the flow of a river ; the rhetoric of St. Paul is like the rush of a mountain torrent amid opposing rocks."3 In addition to this general dissimilarity of style, there are so many wellmarked differences in detail, that the idea that Paul wrote this epistle has now been generally abandoned. (1) There is a marked absence of the opening salutation and thanksgiving


1 xiii. 24: “They of Italy salute you."

2 At the fifth Council of Carthage (419 A.D.), this epistle was classed along with the rest of Paul's epistles : the epistles of Paul in number fourteen. But a little earlier, at the third Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.), a distinction is made between them: “Of the Apostle Paul thirteen epistles : of the same to the Hebrews one. Hence the position assigned to this epistle in our copy of the New Testament. the earliest order of all, concerning which we have information, is that of

the archetype from which the Vatican MS. was copied. In the Vatican MS. itself, and in other Eastern MSS. this epistle comes after that to the Thessalonians, and before the letters to individuals; but the numbering of the sections shows that the Vatican MS. was copied from one in which the Hebrews stood still higher in the rank of the Pauline Epistles, and came next after that to the Galatians. The Thebaic Version placed it even a step higher, viz., immediately before the Epistle to the Galatians ” (Salmon).

3 Farrar, Messages of the Books.

" But

usual with St. Paul. (2) There is an acknowledgment on the part of the writer that he and his readers were indebted in some measure for their knowledge of the Gospel to “them that heard” the Lord, whereas Paul repudiated for himself any such dependence on the testimony of others. 2

(3) In quoting from the Old Testament the writer of this epistle makes use of phrases that are not found in St. Paul's writings.3 (4) He invariably quotes from the Septuagint in the Alexandrian text, without regard to the Hebrew; whereas Paul often corrects the Septuagint by the Hebrew, and, when he quotes from the Greek version, follows the text found in the Vatican MS. (5) He never designates the Saviour as “our Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus our Lord”-expressions which occur nearly seventy times in Paul's epistles — but generally speaks of Him as “Jesus,” or “Christ,” or “the Lord.” (6) Greek particles of frequent occurrence in Paul's writings are entirely absent from this epistle ; while some are found here that are never used by Paul.4 With regard to the conjecture made by Clement of Alexandria, that the epistle, in its present form, may be the translation of a Hebrew work of the apostle, internal evidence is decisive against it. Not only is the ccmposition possessed of such a rhetorical grace and finish as is scarcely attainable in a translation, but in several other respects it bears unmistakable tokens of havinşbeen originally written in Greek. It has numerous piays on Greek words, 5 and contains expressions that lave no

3 E.g.

1 ii. 3, 4: “how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard ; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will."

2 Gal. i. 11-17: “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it,

but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

“God saith," the Holy Spirit saith," "he testifieth” (passim).

4 Of the former are, είτε, ποτε, ειτα, είπερ ; of the latter, όθεν and εάνπερ.

5 Ε.g. i. 1: Πολυμερώς και πολυτρόπως: V. Ι4: προς διάκρισιν καλού τε και κακού : vii. 3: απάτωρ, αμήτωρ, αγενεαλόγητος: xi. 27: τον γάρ αόρατον ως δρών εκαρτέρησε; xiii. 14:. μένουσαν

μέλλουσαν . &c., &c.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »