GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

§ 1. THE PROBLEM.

ALTHOUGH the second Epistle to Timothy is different in its scope and aim from the other two so-called Pastoral Epistles, inasmuch as it does not treat of the order and government of a church, but relates entirely to the person of the Evangelist Timothy, we yet join the three writings here together, as they possess in common a peculiar character, which distinguishes them from all the other epistles of the apostle, and on account of which, in relation to these others, they may be viewed as forming one epistle. None can pass from the other epistles of Paul to these, without being struck with this peculiarity. In the three epistles we find errors of a similar kind combated, to which we may indeed find analogies here and there in the other epistles of the apostle, but which stand out here in a breadth and a significance such as they have in none of the others. The case is similar with regard to what we find in these epistles (the second to Timothy excepted, which offered no occasion for such a topic), respecting ecclesiastical institutions. To this also we may easily find analogies in the other epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, but the defined and comprehensive form in which the subject appears here, creates a degree of surprise. In addition to this, what will perhaps appear most striking in these epistles, is a peculiarity of language, which shews itself not merely in the use of new terms for new phenomena, but also in new and uncommon expressions to denote what is familiar. Nay, these epistles are even distinguished by a peculiarity in their style and composition. To him who has still in his thoughts the dialectics of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, or the rhetorical fulness of that to the Ephesians, the style of these epistlesnot merely of the first, but of all of them—cannot but appear surprising. And even when compared with other epistles, to which they are much more nearly related, as, for example, with that to the Philippians, and especially that to Philemon, a marked difference VOL. V.-30

will be observed. How loosely are the sentences connected, what a strangely sententious form of expression prevails here! Thoughts and instructions of a general nature, follow in quick succession precepts of the most special kind, but at the same time of a universal value. It is also acknowledged that the language of the Pastoral Epistles is most pure, most free from hebraisms. And finally, with respect to the circumstances of time and place amid which they seem to have been written, we find ourselves here also on unknown and strange ground, in as far as regards the other epistles, and even the Acts of the Apostles. The statement made in the first epistle, i. 3, does not correspond to what is said in Acts xx. 1 respecting the apostle Paul, although we are most readily led to seek in that passage the explanation of the statement. The second Epistle to Timothy intimates, indeed, that it was written during an imprisonment of the apostle, but what difficulties beset us, if we fix it as having been written during his imprisonment at Rome, of which we are informed in the Acts of the Apostles, and give it a place among the other epistles which proceeded from this imprisonment ! And, lastly, as to the Epistle to Titus, every trace of history is entirely lost.

This peculiarity, which we have pointed out as distinguishing the Pastoral Epistles, must be acknowledged in the very outset. There lies here therefore at the threshold of these epistles (as even the most decided advocates for their genuineness must acknowledge), a real problem that requires solution; and the question can only be, whether such a solution is given in the results of this more recent criticism, or whether we have to seek it in another way, and how far it is attainable.

§ 2. THE EXTERNAL TESTIMONIES.*

Ere we set foot on the shifting ground of criticism, it may be well to call to mind the testimonies afforded by ecclesiastical antiquity in favour of these epistles. We pass over the references to them which are supposed to be found in Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, and notice, first of all, the passage in Polycarp, ad Phil. cap. 4, comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10, and cap. 12, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; the passage in Theophilus of Antioch ad Autol. III. 24, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 2; those in Athenagoras, in which he alludes to 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, and 1 Tim. vi. 16; Justin Martyr, in Eusebius (II. E. 3, 22), comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20; and lastly, the unmis

* Comp. on this subject for details, Bauer, die s. g. Pastoralbriefe. Stuttg. u. Tūb. 1835, pp. 136–142, and on the other side, Baumgarten, die Æchtheit der Pastoralbriefe, etc., 1837, pp. 27-40. Böttger, Beiträge zur hist. krit. Einl. 1838, V.Abth. pp. 199–204. Matthies Erklärung der Pastoralbriefe, pp. 4–16.

takeable testimonies to their genuineness to be found in Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The heretics, too, appear as witnesses for these epistles. Comp. in Hug (Einl. 1, p. 54, seq.) the passages from Theodotus, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 5; from Heracleon, comp. with 2 Tim. ii. 13; from Tertullian as quoting from heretics, comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. 2. Tatian has acknowledged at least the Epistle to Titus; and it is not difficult to account for his having rejected the two others (comp. Bauer a. a. Q. p. 136); nor is it more difficult to shew why Marcion stumbled at all the three, and excluded them from his canon. Dr. Baur himself acknowledges, p. 139, that although Marcion might have admitted the Epistle to Titus, as well as Tatian, he could not regard the second to Timothy as at all consistent with his opinions, except on the supposition of interpolations, whilst, by acknowledging the first to Timothy, he would clearly have condemned himself. Comp., morcover, Baumgarten, a. a. Q., p. 33, seq., and Hug, Einl. 1, pp. 56-70. Without at present entering on the objections that may have been raised against certain of the testimonies here adduced (comp. Böttger, a. a. Q., p. 199), we may safely assert that these epistles are inferior to none of the other epistles of Paul in historical proof, and that long before the close of the second century they had, in consequence of these testimonies, obtained the full acknowledgment of the church.

§ 3. SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ON THE SUPPOSITION OF THEIR BEING NOT GENUINE. THEIR GENUINENESS IMPUGNED, AND DEFENDED."

It is known that Schleiermacher was the first who, in his critical dissertation on the so-called first Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Berl. 1807, directed an attack against one of these epistles, viz., the first Epistle to Timothy. The two others he acknowledged to be genuine, and made use of them principally as the basis of his attack on the first. His arguments against its genuineness are founded partly on the peculiarity of its language, partly (although this he regarded as of secondary importance) on historical difficulties, and lastly, on its plan and composition, which he held to be unworthy of the apostle. The result of his critical investigation has not failed to exercise a mighty influence, as may still be seen in the opinions expressed on the first epistle, by Usteri (in der Einl. zur Entw. des Paulinschen Lehrbegriffs, p. 2), by Neander (ueber das apostolische Zeitalter, i. 539), and by Lücke (Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 764). Ere long, however, as was to be expected from the cognate

* See this subject historically treated in Matthies, p. 16, seq.

character of these epistles, even in a grammatical point of view (which Schleiermacher himself acknowledges a. a. Q. p. 27), the suspicion of spuriousness was extended to them all. This was done first by Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament (Leipsic, 1812), then by De Wette, Lehrbuch der hist. crit. Einl. (Berl. 1830); Schott. Isag. (Jen. 1830), and Schrader, der ap. Paulus (Leipsic, 1830). Credner, in his Introduction, sought to give a new turn to this critical question, by acknowledging the Epistle of Titus alone to be genuine, while at the same time he professed to find in the other two epistles certain portions that were genuine. But the previous criticism had arrived at the fixed conclusion that the three epistles must stand or fall together; and Credner himself has again given up this view. The most recent opponent of the genuineness, Dr. Baur, die s. g. Pastoralbriefe der ap. Paulus (1835), we find directing his attack against the three epistles, and also De Wette, in his most recent statements on this subject in his exeg. Handbuch, Bd. 2, 5 Th. If the attack on their genuineness has been thus from time to time renewed, ever since it was first opened, there has also been from the commencement no lack of able defenders. Against Schleiermacher there appeared in the lists H. Planck (Bemerkungen ueber den ersten Paul. Brief an den Tim. Gött. 1808), Wegscheider (der erste Brief, etc. Gött. 1810), Beckhaus (spec. observ. de voc. άл. λɛу. etc., Lingæ, 1810) for the genuineness of the first epistle; and when the attack was directed against all the three, their defence was undertaken by Süskind in Bengel's Archiv. fur Theol. I. 2; Bertholdt, in his Einl. 6. Th. Hug. Einl. 2 Th.; Feilmoser, Einl.; Heydenreich de Pastoralbriefe; Guerike, Beit. zur hist. crit. Einl. Halle, 1828; Curtius de tempore, quo prior P. ad T. ep. ex. sit; Böhl on the date and Pauline character of the Epistles to Tim. and Tit.; Hemsen, der Ap. Paul.; Flatt, in his lectures on the Epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit; Mack, comm. über die Pastoralbriefe; Baumgarten die Echtheit der Pastoralbriefe, Berl. 1837 ; Böttger, Beiträge zur hist. crit. Einl. IV. u. V. Abth. Gött. 1737; and finally, Matthies, Erklärung der Pastoralbriefe, Greifsw. 1840. In considering this question, we may fairly view it only in the position which it now occupies as represented by Dr. Baur and De Wette's most recent attacks, and the replies which these have called forth from Baumgarten, Böttger, and Matthies. We shall therefore, first of all, have to bring forward and examine the grounds on which the most recent criticism denies the authenticity of these epistles. But this criticism does not present us with merely negative results. It is well known that in its latest form, as represented by Dr. Baur, it boasts of not abiding by merely negative results, but of building up by positive criticism what has been destroyed by negative; of assigning their real historical place to those particular