« PreviousContinue »
the tradition. On the other hand, the assertion, that Eusebius inferred the liberation and subsequent imprisonment only from the second Epistle to Timothy, is without foundation and is in opposition to the words of Eusebius. The circumstance that Eusebius adduces no testimony from an older church writer for the truth of that tradition, may be taken as a proof that there was no witness; so, on the other hand, it cannot be denied that no opposing testimony was known to him. In favor of the truth of that tradition, there appear, if not direct, yet indirect proofs, and that too of an earlier time.
First, the passage in the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, c. v. The text of the Cod. Alex., the only remaining text, as amended by the editor, Junius, is: "Through zeal Paul received the reward of patience. Having been a preacher in the east and in the west, he obtained the excellent reward of his faith. Having taught righteousness through the whole world, and even to the boundary of the west, having come and testified before governors, so he was released from the world."1 Wieseler remarks, that on the supposition that the text so restored is the actual original of Clement, only the extreme west may be understood by régμa rñs dúσɛos, since, he thinks, that Clement could have so written, even if he knew only of the Apostle's residence in Rome—and not in Spain. In proof he relies on Rom. 10: 18. But it is not to be overlooked that these words are cited from the Old Testament; at the same time they answer Paul's object, since to him Rome was the city representing the west. Entirely analogous is the passage, Acts 2: 5, where Luke says that Jews were present at the Pentecost "from every nation under heaven," and afterwards he names the Romans as the representatives of all the western nations, (not indeed, as Wieseler thinks, "as the farthest people of the west.") These passages show, indeed, that Clement's phrases, "in the east and in the west," and the "whole world,” do not necessarily point to countries beyond Rome. But it is otherwise with the expression, κ[αὶ ἐπὶ] τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως. It would be difficult to show that Rome, in the view of the orientals,. lay at the utmost boundary of the west; how much less would this be the case in the view of the occidentals? But it is wholly impossible that a man who lived in Rome itself, and thence wrote these words, could have thought of Rome by that expression. Besides, the posi
1 Διὰ ζῆλον [ὁ] Παῦλος ὑπομενῆς βραβεῖον [ἔπεσχ]εν - -, κῆρυξ [γενόμε νος ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν [τῇ] δύσει, τὸν γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος έλα βεν· δικαιοσύνην διδάξας όλον τον κόσμον κ[αὶ ἐπὶ] τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου.
Passage in Muratori.
tion of these words gives them a special emphasis; if Clement had not intended to refer to countries beyond Rome, he would assuredly have been content with the expressions first used, as these would have perfectly indicated the labors of the Apostle in the west, and consequently in Rome. Accordingly, if this passage is rightly restored by Junius, it bears decided testimony in favor of a journey of the apostle to Spain; yet, certainly not for a course of labor there; this rather seems to be excluded by the use of the simple ¿¿ðóór. But Wieseler doubts the correctness of this restoration of the text, since he believes that the original text was not xai ini rò réqua, etc., but zaì vnò rò rέqua, etc., and the translation would be, "after he had taught righteousness through the whole world, and had appeared before the supreme power of the West, and had testified before the rulers," etc. That zò réoua may mean the sovereignty and even the highest imperial authority, is certainly granted; but with this meaning, the words vzò—ëoreovœu do not well accord; besides, in opposition to this conjecture and its explanation, is the fact, that thereby the highest imperial authority would be designated only as that of the West, while its power likewise extended over the East. Certainly Clement, who, according to Wieseler's own expression, "sounded a panegyric on Paul," could have by no means described that highest authority in so limited a manner; he would certainly, if he had understood zò réqua in that sense, have not merely added της δύσεως, but, in conformity to fact, τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ zns dúoews. So the restitution of the text by Junius, must stand, and it must be granted that Clement in this passage actually refers to a journey of the Apostle to Spain.
The second passage is found in the Canon of Muratori, formed about A. D. 170, "Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt. Lucas obtime Theophile comprindit, quia sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis." That these words contain a contradiction of the position that Paul made a journey to Spain, is by no means the fact; for if it is probable, as Wieseler correctly supposes, that after proficiscentis the word omittit has fallen out, then the fragmentist would only say, that Luke did not mention that journey, but he does not say that it did not occur, or that it was doubtful, or was controverted. But however these words may be explained, so much stands irrefutable, that that journey was a matter of tradition at the time the fragmentist wrote.
If it appears from these passages, that tradition preserved the
knowledge of a journey of the Apostle to Spain, (not of labors there,) then the liberation from the imprisonment in Rome mentioned by Luke, would fall in with this tradition (confirmed by the 2óyos exe of Eusebius,) since that journey could take place only on the supposition that Paul was liberated. As no decisive argument can be urged against the truth of this tradition, by which its impossibility, or even improbability can be shown, then the result may be rightfully used in settling the time in which our Epistles were written. For, if in the life of Paul up to his first imprisonment in Rome, no fit time can be found in which to place their authorship, and if, at the same time, the authorship of the three must necessarily belong to one and the same time in the life of the Apostle, (while the contents of the epistles point to a late period,) then the supposition is authorized that the epistles were written after the imprisonment mentioned in Acts; the first to Timothy and that to Titus in the interval between the two imprisonments, and the second to Timothy during this second imprisonment. This view, which presupposes the genuineness of the epistles, is the only tenable one, according to the foregoing investigation, and hence it has been received in the most recent times by the defenders of the authenticity, except Matthies and Wieseler.
If now we suppose, as can hardly be doubted after Wieseler's inquiries, that Paul first came to Rome in the spring of A. D. 61, then the epistles were not written as the imprisonment lasted somewhere about two years till after the spring of 63. The time, however, may probably be determined more exactly. In the summer of 64, Rome was burnt at the instigation of Nero; a general persecution of the Christians was 'connected with it. Since in the epistles there is not the slightest allusion to these events, it is very probable that they were written before these events, and that the martyrdom of the Apostle, which is sufficiently vouched for by tradition,1 took place either before, or at the latest, during that persecution. Since it cannot be supposed that the Apostle's first defence would have terminated so favorably for him, as is mentioned 2 Tim. 4: 17, if it had
1 The tradition which testifies to the manner of his death-beheading by a sword — conflicts, it is thought, with the view, that he was put to death in that persecution. But this is by no means the case, since we are not informed that this kind of capital infliction was not in use at that time. Allowing that it is improbable that the mode of his death by beheading was an indulgence to his rights as a Roman citizen, still there may have been other reasons which are unknown to us. That Paul was beheaded towards the end of Nero's reign, A. D. 67 or 68, has no sure support in tradition. Had his labors, after his first imprisonment, lasted so long, tradition would have preserved some notice of it.
External Evidence of Genuineness.
been made after the burning of the city, then this defence is probably to be placed before the burning, somewhere about July, 64. If these conjectures are correct, then it is the interval between the spring of 63 and the summer of 64, in which the pastoral epistles were writ ten, and in which the events took place, which are mentioned in the epistles as belonging to the same time. This interval was indeed short, but not too short. They may have happened in the following order. In the spring of 63, Paul departed from Rome, landed in Crete, where he staid some time, and then left Titus there; he then went to Ephesus, where he met Timothy. After he had stayed here a short time, he travelled to Macedonia. From hence he wrote the first Epistle to Timothy, and somewhat later, after he had come to the conclusion to "winter" at Nicopolis in Epirus, he wrote the Epistle to Titus, to whom he communicated that conclusion. After he had passed the winter in that city, he returned, near the end of it, to Ephesus. Without stopping here, he went through Miletus, where he left Trophimus sick, to Corinth. Without taking Erastus with him from this place, as he hoped, he sailed to Spain. Unknown circumstances induced him to leave Spain immediately for Rome. Perhaps he was apprehended in Spain, and taken as a prisoner to Rome. Thus he might have reached Rome in May or June; at the beginning of July, his first defence might have been made. Immediately, he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy, and then suffered martyrdom, either before or shortly after the conflagration.
The external evidence in favor of the genuineness of the three pastoral epistles, is very decisive. Eusebius reckons them among the Homologoumena, since not the smallest doubt of their genuineness prevailed in the Catholic church. They are found as Pauline epistles not only in the Canon of Muratori and in the Pesheto, but are repeatedly cited as such by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. If they are not expressly quoted by the earlier church fathers, yet by allusions, hints, or at least reminiscences, they seem not to have been less known to them than the other Pauline epistles. Clement of Rome uses the word evoéßeia, so common in the pastoral epistles, to denote "godliness." In his first Epistle to Corinthians, ch. ii, he writes, "ready to every good work," see Tit. 3: 1. Ignatius, in the Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. viii: "Be not led away with strange doctrines, neither with old fables, which are unprofitable," 1 Tim. 1:
4, Tit. 3: 9. Some places in Polycarp's epistles, have a very striking correspondence, e. g., "The beginning of all evils is the love of money; knowing, then, that we brought nothing into the world, and have nothing to carry out, let us be armed with the armor of righteousness," 1 Tim. 6: 7, 10. Justin, in his Dial. C. Tryph. 47, copies the words, Tit. 3: 4, "the kindness and philanthropy of God." There are, also, allusions or quotations more or less direct in Hegesippus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Anthenagoras.
But, with the Gnostic heretics, these epistles shared a different fate. That they are not found in Marcion's Canon, does not prove that he was ignorant of their existence. Jerome, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Titus, charges him and the other heretics with having arbitrarily rejected them. It is well known how capriciously Marcion treated some of the New Testament writings admitted by him as genuine. It is in entire harmony with this, when he excludes from the Canon, epistles that so decidedly war against the Gnostic errors. The reason why Tatian receives the Epistle to Titus, as genuine, while he rejects those to Timothy, may be owing to the fact that the heretical teachers are more definitely named as Jewish in Titus than in Timothy.
Since the time of Tatian, the genuineness of these epistles was not doubted till the beginning of this century. J. E. C. Schmidt suggested doubts in regard to the first Epistle to Timothy; Schleiermacher, 1807, decidedly rejected it, but received the other two. The first epistle was defended by Planck, Wegscheider and Beckhaus. Eichhorn then attacked the genuineness of all three, in which he was followed, though with some wavering, by De Wette, in his Introduction to the New Testament, 1826. While De Wette's criticism was rather of a negative kind, Eichhorn sought to prove that the epistles were written by a disciple of Paul. Schott, 1830, very arbitrarily describes Luke as the author. The epistles have been defended with more or less ability, partly in special treatises, partly in works of a more general kind, by Hug, Bertholdt, Feilmoser, Guerike, Böhl, Curtius, Kling, Heidenreich, Mack, and others. Baur, Tübingen, 1835, supposes that they originated at the time of the Marcion heretics, from an author, who, without being able to rid himself of Gnostic notions, was in the interest of the Pauline party, and put his attacks on the Gnostic errors into the mouth of Paul. Baumgarten, Böttger, Matthies, and others, have refuted Baur. Even De Wette does not accord with him, but, in his Commentary, 1844, thinks that the epistles were written near the end of the first century.