Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/pauls-e2.int

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 8KB | 143 lines

                         THE FOURTH GROUP

                      THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

                          FIRST TIMOTHY
                              TITUS
                          SECOND TIMOTHY

                          A.D. 65 TO 68

                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

        It is necessary to discuss introductory matters
concerning the three because they are common to them all. It is
true that some modern scholars admit as Pauline the personal
passages in #2Ti 1:15-18; 4:9-22| while they deny the genuineness
of the rest. But that criticism falls by its own weight since
precisely the same stylistic characteristics appear in these
admitted passages as in the rest and no earthly reason can be
advanced for Paul's writing mere scraps or for the omission of
the other portions and the preservation of these by a second
century forger.

        The external evidence for the Pauline authorship is
strong and conclusive (Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Theophilus, the Muratorian Canon). "Traces of their circulation
in the church before Marcion's time are clearer than those which
can be found for Romans and II Corinthians" (Zahn, _Introduction
to the N.T._, tr. II, p. 85). Marcion and Tatian rejected them
because of the condemnation of asceticism by Paul.

        Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid
down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The
"most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity
in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the
Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as
we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It
is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does
that in #Ga 5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about
faith than in #1Ti 1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the
ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs
to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we
have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second
century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there
is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the
second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical
organization of that century instead of the first as we have it
in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal
development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is
made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we
know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events
alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late
and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and
had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64,
this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic
Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the
Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps
admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in
Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first
Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in
A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and
the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia,
to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to
Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for
(#Ro 15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the
limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language
in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by
this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this
difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the
Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has
printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the
facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red,
Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax
legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one
can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and
the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere
words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the
Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_)
175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline
Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to
Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the
difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of
new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the
other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable
differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words
per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in
Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII)
notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with
each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only
in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to
separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style
clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not
wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person
and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences
exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have
long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the
differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit
the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem
of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by
him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already
faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all
things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral
Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and
perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same
amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the
amanuensis for the Pastorals.

        The conclusion of Lock is that "either they are genuine
'letters' or artificial 'Epistles'" (_Int. Crit. Comm._, p. XXV).
If not genuine, they are forgeries in Paul's name
(pseudepigraphic). "The argument from style is in favour of the
Pauline authorship, that from vocabulary strongly, though not
quite conclusively, against it" (Lock, _Op. Cit._, p. XXIX). I
should put the case for the Pauline authorship more strongly than
that and shall treat them as Paul's own. Parry (_Comm._, p.
CXIII) well says: "It is not reasonable to expect that a private
letter, addressed to a personal friend, for his own instruction
and consideration, should exhibit the same features as a letter
addressed to a community for public, oral communication."

        Special Books on the Pastoral Epistles (besides
Introductions to the N.T., Apostolic History, Lives of Paul, the
Epistles of Paul as a whole): Belser (1907), Bernard (_Cambridge
Gr. T., 1899), E. F. Brown (_Westminster_, 1917), Bowen (_Dates
of P. Letters_, 1900), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1913), Ellicott
(1883), P. Fairbairn, P. N. Harrison (_Problem of the Past.
Eps._, 1921), Harvey (1890), Hesse (_Die Entst._, 1889),
Humphreys (_Camb. B._, 1897), Huther (1890), H. J. Holtzmann
(1880), James (_Genuineness and Authorship of P. Eps._, 1906),
Kohler (_Schriften N.T._, 2 Aufl. 1907), Knabenbauer (1913),
Kraukenberg (1901), Laughlin (_Past. Eps. in Light of One Rom.
Imp._, 1905), Lilley (1901), W. Lock (_Int. & Crit. Comm._,
1924), Lutgert (_Die Irrlehre d. P._, 1909), Maier (_Die
Hauptprobleme d. P._, 1910), Mayer (1913), Meinertz (1913),
Michaelis, W (Pastoralbriefe etc. zur Echtheitsfrage der
Pastoralbriefe, 1930), Niebergall (_Handbuch_, 1909), Parry
(1920), Plummer (_Exp. B._, 1896), Pope (1901), Riggenbach
(1898), Stock (_Plain Talks on_, 1914), Strachan (_Westm. N.T._,
1910), von Soden (_Hand-Comm._, 1891), Wace (_Sp. Comm._, 1885),
B. Weiss (_Meyer Komm._, ed. 5, 1886), White (Exp. Grk. T.,
1910), Wohlenberg (_Zahn's Komm._, 1906).