The Pastoral Epistles
AUTHORSHIP
In the case of these Epistles it seems best to
consider the question of authorship first, and to treat them as
a unity in the discussion of their authenticity. When we examine
the external testimony to these letters we find that this is in
no way deficient. If many have doubted their genuineness, it was
not because they discovered that the early Church did not
recognize them. It is true that some early heretics, who
acknowledged the genuineness of the other letters attributed to
Paul, rejected these, such as Basilides and Marcion, but Jerome
says that their adverse judgment was purely arbitrary. From the
time of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, who were
the first to quote the New Testament books by name, until the
beginning of the nineteenth century, no one doubted the Pauline
authorship of these letters. The Muratorian Fragment ascribes
them to Paul, and they are included in all MSS., Versions and
Lists of the Pauline letters, in all of which (with the single
exception of the Muratorian Fragment) they are arranged in the
same order, viz. I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus.
As far as the internal evidence is concerned we
may call attention in a preliminary way to a few facts that
favor the authenticity of these letters and take up the
consideration of other features in connection with the
objections that are urged against them. They are all
self-attested; they contain the characteristic Pauline blessing
at the beginning, end with the customary salutation, and reveal
the usual solicitude of Paul for his churches and for those
associated with him in the work; they point to the same relation
between Paul and his spiritual sons Timothy and Titus that we
know from other sources; and they refer to persons (cf. II Tim. 4. Titus 3) that are also mentioned elsewhere as
companions and co-laborers of Paul.
Yet it is especially on the strength of internal
evidence that these Epistles have been attacked. J. E. C.
Schmidt in 1804, soon followed by Schleiermacher, was the first
one to cast doubt on their genuineness. Since that time they
have been rejected, not only by the Tubingen school and by
practically all negative critics, but also by some scholars that
usually incline to the conservative side, such as Neander
(rejecting only I Timothy), Meyer; (Introd.to Romans) and
Sabatier. While the majority of radical critics reject these
letters unconditionally, Credner, Harnack, Hausrath and
McGiffert believe that they contain some genuine Pauline
sections; the last named scholar regarding especially the
passages that contain personal references, such as II Tim. 1:15-18; 4: 9-21;
Titus 3:12,13, as
authentic, and surmising that some others may be saved from the
ruins, The
Apostolic Age p. 405 if. The genuineness of the Pastorals
is defended by Weiss, Zahn, Salmon, Godet, Barth, and nearly all
the Commentators, such as Huther, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott,
Alford, White (in
The Exp. Gk. Test.) e. a.
Several arguments are employed to discredit the
authenticity of these letters. We shall briefly consider the
most important ones. (1) It is impossible to find a place for
their composition and the historical situation which they
reflect in the life of Paul, as we know it from the Acts of the
Apostles. Reuss, who provisionally accepted their Pauline
authorship in his,
History of the New Testament I pp. 80-85; 121-129, did so
with the distinct proviso that they had to fit into the
narrative of Acts somewhere. Finding that his scheme did not
work out well, he afterwards rejected I Timothy and Titus. Cf.
his Commentary on
the Pastorals. (2) The conception of Christianity found in
these letters is un-Pauline and clearly represents a later
development. They contain indeed some Pauline ideas, but these
are exceptional. “There is no trace whatever,” says McGiifert,
“of the great fundamental truth of Paul’s gospel,—death unto the
flesh and life in the Spirit.” Instead of the faith by which we
are justified and united to Christ, we find piety and good works
prominently in the foreground. Cf. I
Tim. 1: 5; 2: 2,15; 4:7 f.; 5:4; 6:6;—II Tim. 1:3;
3:5, 12;—Titus 1:1; 2:12. Moreover the word faith does not, as
in the letters of Paul, denote the faith that
believes, but
rather the sum and substance of that which
is believed, I Tim. 1:
19; 3: 9; 4:1, 6; 5 :8. And sound doctrine is spoken of in a way
that reminds one of the characteristic esteem in which orthodoxy
was later held, cf. I Tim. 1:10; 4: 6; 6: 3
;— II Tim. 4: 3 ;—Titus 1:
9; 2:1, 7. (3) The church organization that is reflected in
these letters points to a later age. It is unlikely that Paul,
believing as he did in the speedy second coming of Christ, would
pay so much attention to details of organization; nor does it
seem probable that he would lay such stress on the offices
received by ecclesiastical appointment, and have so little
regard to the spiritual gifts that are independent of official
position and that occupy a very prominent place in the undoubted
writings of the apostle. Moreover the organization assumed in
these letters reveals second century conditions. Alongside of
the πρεσβύτεροιthe
ἐπίσκοποςis named as a
primus inter pares
(notice the singular in I Tim. 3:1; Titus 1: 7); and the office-bearers in
general are given undue prominence. There is a separate class of
widows, of which some held an official position in the Church,
just as there was in the second century, I Tim. 5. Ecclesiastical office is conferred
by the laying on of hands, I Tim. 5: 22; and the
second marriage of bishops, deacons, and ministering widows was
not to be tolerated, I Tim. 3: 2, 12; 5 : 9-11; Tit. 1: 6. (4) The false teachers and
teachings to which the Epistles refer are evidently second
century Gnostics and Gnosticism. The term
ἀντιθὲσεις, I
Tim. 6 :20, according to Baur, contains a reference
to the work of Marcion which bore that title. And the endless
genealogies of I
Tim. 1: 4 are supposed to refer to the Aeons of
Valentinus. (5) The most weighty objection is, however, that the
style of these letters differs from that of the Pauline Epistles
to such a degree as to imply diversity of authorship. Says
Davidson: “The change of style is too great to comport with
identity of authorship. Imitations of phrases and terms
occurring in Pauls authentic Epistles are obvious; inferiority
and feebleness show dependence; while the new constructions and
words betray a writer treating of new circumstances and giving
expression to new ideas, yet personating the apostle all the
while. The change is palpable; though the author throws himself
back into the situation of Paul the prisoner.”
Introd. II p.
66. Holtzmann claims that of the 897 words that constitute these
letters (proper names excepted) 171 (read 148) are
ἅπαξ λεγόμενα of which
74 are found in I Timothy, 46 in II Timothy, and 28 in Titus.
Besides these there is a great number of phrases and expressions
that are peculiar and point away from Paul, such as
δώκειν δικαιοσύνην, I Tim. 6:11;
II Tim. 2:22;
φυλάσσειν τὴν παραθήκην, I Tim.
6:20; II Tim. 1:12, 14;
παρακολουθεῖν τῇ διδασκαλία̨, I Tim. 4:6; II Tim.
3:10; βέβηλοι
κενοφωνίαι,
I Tim. 6:20; II Tim.
2:16; ἅ̓νθρωπος
θεοῦ I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 3
:17; etc. On the other hand many expressions that play a
prominent part in Pauline literature are absent from these
letters, as ἄδικος,
ἀκροβυστία, γνωπίζειν, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, δικαίωμα, ἔ̓́ργα νόμου,
ὁμοίωμα, παράδοσις, etc.
As far as the first argument is concerned, it
must be admitted that these Epistles do not fit in the life of
Paul, as we know it from the Acts of the Apostles. Their
genuineness depends on the question, whether or not Paul was set
free again after the imprisonment described in Acts 28.
Now we have reasons, aside from the contents of these Epistles,
to believe that he was liberated and resumed his missionary
labors. In view of the fact that Felix, Festus and Agrippa found
no guilt in Paul, and that the apostle was sent to Rome, only
because he appealed to Caesar, the presumption is that he was
not condemned at Rome. This presumption is greatly strengthened
by the fact that, when the apostle wrote his letters to the
Philippians and to Philemon, the prospect of his release seemed
favorable, Phil. 1:
25; 2: 24; Philem. 22; compare
II Tim. 4: 6-8. It is objected to this that
Paul, in taking his farewell of the Ephesan elders, says to
them: “I know (οἷδα)
that ye all—shall see my face no more,”
Acts 20: 25. But it may be doubted, whether
we have the right to press this
οἷδα so that it becomes
prophetic; if we have, it is counterbalanced by the
οἷδα in Phil. 1 :25. The most
natural inference from the data of Scripture (outside of these
Epistles) is that Paul was set free; and this is confirmed by
the tradition of the early Church, as it is expressed by
Eusebius, Church
Hist. II 22: Paul is said (λόγος
ἓχει)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 ended his life by
martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the second Epistle
to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defense, and his
impending death.” Moreover the Muratorian Fragment speaks of a
visit that Paul paid to Spain, which cannot be placed before the
first Roman imprisonment. And Clement of Rome states in his
letter to the Corinthians, after relating that the apostle
labored in the East and in the West, that he came to “the
bounderies of the West.” Now it does not seem likely that he,
who himself lived in Rome, would refer to the city on the Tiber
in those terms. And if this is not the import of those words,
the presumption is that he too has reference to Spain.
Paul’s movements after his release are uncertain,
and all that can be said regarding, them is conjectural. Leaving
Rome he probably first repaired to Macedonia and Asia Minor for
the intended visits, Phil. 1:
23-26; Philem. 22, and
then undertook his long looked for journey to Spain, Rom. 15
: 24. Returning from there, he possibly went to Ephesus, where
he had a dispute with Hymenaeus and Alexander, I Tim. 1:
20, and engaged the services of Onesiphorus, II Tim. 1:
16-18. Leaving Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church, he
departed for Macedonia, I Tim. 1: 3, from where
he most likely wrote I Timothy. After this he may have visited
Crete with Titus, leaving the latter there to organize the
churches, Tit. 1:
5, and returning to Ephesus according to his wishes, I Tim. 3:14; 4:13, where Alexander the
coppersmith did him great evil, II Tim. 4:14. From
here he probably wrote the Epistle to Titus, for he was
evidently in some center of missionary enterprise, when he
composed it, Tit. 3:12-15. Departing from
Ephesus, he went through Miletus, II Tim. 4: 20 to Troas,
II Tim. 4:13, where he was probably
re-arrested, and whence he was taken to Rome by way of Corinth,
the abode of Erastus, II Tim. 4: 20; Rom. 16:
23. In that case he did not reach Nicopolis, where he intended
to spend the winter. In this statement we proceed on the
assumption that the winter mentioned in II Tim. 4: 21 is the same as that of Titus 3:12. The second imprisonment of
Paul was more severe than the first, II Tim. 1: 16, 17; 2:
9. His first defense appears to have been successful, II Tim. 4:16, 17, but as
his final hearing drew nigh, he had a presentiment of
approaching martyrdom. According to the
Chronicles of
Eusebius Paul died as a martyr in the thirteenth year of Nero,
or A. D. 67.
The objection that the theological teaching of
these Epistles is different from that of Paul, must be taken
cum grano salis,
because this teaching merely complements and in no way
contradicts the representation of the undoubted Epistles. We
find no further objective development of the truth here, but
only a practical application of the doctrines already unfolded
in previous letters. And it was entirely fitting that, as every
individual letter, so too the entire cycle of Pauline Epistles
should end with practical admonitions. Historically this is
easily explained, on the one hand, by the fact that the
productive period of the apostles life had come to an end, and
it is now Paul the
aged—for all the vicissitudes of a busy and stormy life
must greatly have sapped his strength—that speaks to us, cf. Philem. 9; and, on the other hand, by the
fact that the heresy which the apostle here encounters had
developed into ethical corruption. If it is said that the writer
of these Epistles ascribes a meritorious character to good
works, we take exception and qualify that as a false statement.
The passages referred to, such as I Tim.
1:15; 3:13; 4:8; 6:18 if.; II Tim.
4:8, do not prove the assertion. Since a rather full
statement of the Christian truth had preceded these letters, it
need not cause surprise that Paul should refer to it as “the
sound doctrine,” Cf. Rom. 6:17.
Nor does it seem strange, in view of this, that alongside of the
subjective the objective sense of the word
faith should
begin to assert itself. We find an approach to this already in Rom.
12: 6; Gal. 1: 23; Phil. 1:
27.
It is a mistake to think that the emphasis which
these letters place on the external organization of the
churches, and the particular type of ecclesiastical polity which
they reflect, precludes their Pauline authorship. There is
nothing strange in the fact that Paul, knowing that the day of
Christ was not at hand (II Thess.
2:1-12), should lay special stress on church
government now that his ministry was drawing to a close. It
might rather have caused surprise, if he had not thus made
provision for the future of his churches. And it is perfectly
natural also that he should emphasize the offices in the church
rather than the extraordinary spiritual gifts, since these
gradually vanished and made place for the ordinary ministry of
the Word. The position that the office-bearers mentioned in
these letters prove a development beyond that of the apostolic
age. is not substantiated by the facts. Deacons were appointed
shortly after the establishment of the Church, Acts 6; elders were
chosen from place to place, as the apostle founded churches
among the Gentiles,
Acts 14: 23; and in Phil, 1: 1 Paul addresses
not only the Philippians in general, but also “the bishops and
deacons.” Moreover in Eph. 4:11 the apostle says: “And He gave you
some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some
pastors and teachers.” Surely it does not seem that the Pastoral
Epistles are strikingly different in this respect from the
others. If it be said that the bishop becomes so prominent here
as to indicate that the leaven of hierarchy was already working,
we answer that in the New Testament the terms
ἐπίσκοπος and
πρεσβύτερος; are
clearly synonymous. The fact that the bishop is spoken of in the
singular proves nothing to the contrary. Not once are bishops
and presbyters arranged alongside of each other as denoting two
separate classes, and in Titus 1: 5-7 the terms are clearly
interchangeable. The case of Phebe, Rom. 16: 1 certainly
does not countenance the theory that the office of deaconess was
not called into existence until the second century. And the
passages that are supposed to prohibit the second marriage of
office-bearers are of too uncertain interpretation to justify
the conclusions drawn from them.
Granted that the errors to which these letters
refer were of a Gnostic character—as Alford is willing to
grant—, it by no means follows that the Epistles are second
century productions, since the first signs of the Gnostic heresy
are known to have made their appearance in the apostolic age.
But it is an unproved assumption that the writer refers to
Gnosticism of any kind. It is perfectly evident from the letters
that the heresy was of a Judaeistic, though not of a Pharisaic
type, resembling very much the error that threatened the
Colossian church. Hort, after examining it carefully comes to
the conclusion that “there is a total want of evidence for
anything pointing to even rudimentary Gnosticism or Essenism.”
In view of the fact that the errorists prided themselves as
being teachers of the law, I Tim. 1:
7, and that the term
γενεαλογία is brought in close connection with “strivings
about the law” in Titus 3: 9, the
presumption is that it contains no reference whatever to the
emanations of Gnostic aeons, but rather, as Zahn surmises, to
rabbinic disputations regarding Jewish genealogies. And the word
“antitheses,” of which Hort says that it cannot refer to
Marcions work, is simply descriptive of the opposition in which
the heretics that boasted of a higher knowledge placed
themselves to the Gospel.
The argument from style has often proved to be a
very precarious one. If a persons vocabulary were a fixed
quantity, he were limited to the use of certain set phrases and
expressions, and his style, once acquired, were unchangeable and
necessarily wanting in flexibility, a plausible case might be
made out. But as a matter of fact such is not the usual
condition of things, and certainly was not the case with Paul,
who to a great extent moulded the language of the New Testament.
We need not and cannot deny that the language of the Pastorals
has many peculiarities, but in seeking to explain these we
should not immediately take refuge in a supposed difference of
authorship, but rather make allowance for the influence of
Paul’s advancing years, of the altered conditions of his life,
of the situation in which his readers were placed. And of the
subjects with which he was obliged to deal in these Epistles.
And let us not forget what N.
J. D. White says,
Exp. Gk. Test. IV p. 63, that “the 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 fundamentally Pauline. Cf. also the
judicious remarks of Reuss on the style of these letters.History
of the New Testament, I p. 123.
In concluding our discussion of the authenticity
of the Pastoral Epistles we desire to remark: (1) The critics
admit that the objections urged by them against the genuineness
of these letters do not apply to all three of them in the same
degree. According to Baur II Timothy and Titus are the least
suspicious. He maintains, however, that I Timothy will always be
“the betrayer of its spurious brothers.” But it would be
reasonable to turn the statement about with Reuss, and to say
that “so long as no decisive and palpable proofs of the contrary
are presented the two which are in and of themselves less
suspicious ought always to afford protection to the third which
is more so.” Ibid. p. 84. (2) Baur and his followers rightly
held that, in order to prove the spuriousness of these letters,
they had to point out the positive purpose of the forgery; in
which, according to Reuss, they utterly failed, when they said
that it was to combat the Gnostic heresies that were prevalent
after A. D. 150, Ibid. p. 124 f. (3) It looks a great deal like
a confession of defeat, when several of the negative critics
admit that the passages in which personal reminiscences are
found, must be regarded as genuine, for it means that they yield
their case wherever they can be controlled. For a broader
discussion of the authenticity of these letters, cf. Alford,
Prolegomena
Section I; Holtzmann,
Einl. pp.
274-292; Zahn,
Einl. I pp. 459-491;
Godet, Introd.
pp. 567-611; Farrar,
St. Paul, II
pp. 607-622; Salmon,
Introd. pp.
433-452; McGiffert,
Apostolic Age
pp. 399-423; Davidson,
Introd. II
pp. 21-76. Lock (in
Hastings D. B.
Artt. I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus.)
|