PAUL THE APOSTLE

objections have been raised against Pliilippians and Pliilemon, for it is hard to taiie seriously van Manen's arguments in his articles on these Epistles in Encyc. Bibl. And indeed it is impossible that a forger could have conceived such a gem as the latter Epistle; the writer's pleading with Philemon for the runaway slave Onesimus bears genuineness on its face. But the authenticity of these two Epistles has a decided bearing on that of Ephesians and Colossians, for all tour hang together, especially Philemon and Colossians, which appear to have been written at the same time. It is objected that the phraseology of this group differs from that of the second; that Gnosticism did not rise till the 2nd cent.; that the Christology of these Epistles is derived from the Johannine writings ; and that ' Ephesians is a mere vapid expansion of Colossians.' These objections appear to be based on the idea that a man must be interested in the same questions and controversies all through his life, and must always use the same vocab-ulary. The reverse is known to be commonly the case. The controversy with Judaism having died out, it is a mark of genuineness, not the opposite, that that question does not form one of the topics discussed in this group. St. Paul at Rome would learn much; and a certain change in vocabulary is natural enough. Yet the literaiy connexions between this group and the earlier ones are very real. Bishop Lightfoot has shown that the Colossian heresy is a very incipient form of semi-Jewish Gnosticism, such as we should expect in the 1st cent. {Colossians, p. 71 ff.). And the argu-ment from the Christology is a pure begging of the question. Note that the doctrine is exactly the same in Colossians (which treats of the glories of the Head of the Church, while Ephesians describes those of the Church itself) as in Ph 2™-.

(d) Fourth Group, the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim., Tit.), so called because they are concerned mainly with the duties of Christian ministers. These all hang to-gether, and from coincidences of style and subjects are judged to be certainly by one writer. They are quoted by, or were known to, Polycarp, Justin, Hegesippus (see Salmon, Introd. to NT', p. 398), but were rejected by Marcion. Tatian accepted Titus, but rejected the other two, probably because 1 Ti 4"- 5"- " offended his Encratite ideas. In modern times it has been asserted that these Epistles are not St. Paul's, because of differences of diction (many phrases and words being found in this group which do not occur elsewhere in St. Paul); because the controversies are not the same as in the other Epistles, there being nothing about the Mosaic Law and justification by faith, and Gnosticism being attacked (for the name 'gnosis,' i.e. 'knowledge,' see 1 Ti e^"; cf. Col 2^, 1 Co 8' 12'), a heresy more Jewish in tone than even that which appears in Colossians (Tit 1"); because the ministry is said to be too fully developed for the lifetime of St. Paul; but especially because it is impossible to reconcile these Epistles with Acts. With the last statement almost all scholars entirely agree, though they do not assent to the deduc-tion made from it. This is the really crucial argument, and may be treated first. It is assumed by most of the objectors to these Epistles, that they must be placed somewhere in the history related In Acts, because that book 'concludes with the end of St. Paul's ministry'; and, as it is impossible to make the journeys referred to in these Epistles fit in with Acts, it is said that the former cannot be genuine. To this it is answered that St. Paul may have been acquitted, and that the journeys mentioned may have taken place after the acquittal; but the objectors reply that the acquittal is unhistorical. The truth is that history (outside these Epistles) does not explicitly tell us whether St. Paul was acquitted or condemned after the two years' imprisonment of Ac 282»; if the acquittal is unhistorical, so also is the condemna-tion. We may, then, take these Epistles, which have excellent external attestation, and therefore are a priori

PAUL THE APOSTLE

worthy of credit, as new evidence, and infer from them that St. Paul was released, made journeys to the scenes of his old labours, and was later re-arrested and im-prisoned (2 Ti IS). Even if these Epistles are not St. Paul's, they are evidence for an early belief that he was acquitted the first time; this is shown by the fact that the journeys described are quite independent of Acts (ct. also 2 Ti 41S'). Further, there was, quite apart from these Epistles, an early tradition that St. Paul went to Spain {Muratorian Fragment, c. a.d. 180), or to 'the farthest bounds of the West' (Clem. Rom. Cor. 5; this almost certainly means Spain: see Light-foot's note), according to his previous intention (Ro 1521. 28). This implies a belief in his acquittal whether or not the journey to Spain actually took place (see below, ii. 12). St. Paul himself fuUy expected to be acquitted (Ph l'^- 2", Philema). Thus the diflSculty that these Epistles cannot be reconciled with Acts entirely vanishes. [For the objection from the presenti-ment that St. Paul would not re-visit the Ephesians (Ac 20^) see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 9; but even if the early date of Acts be not accepted, it is quite possible that St. Paul never re-visited Ephesus. We should rather gather from 1 Tim., especially from 1', that he had an interview with Timothy elsewhere, probably at Miletus, as he was passing by on his way north; see Prof. Findlay in Hastings' DB iii. 714i>.] — The other considerations, as to diction and subject matter, have little weight when once we agree that the Epistles, it Pauline, must have been written several years after the others; and it is instructive that in these respects the Third Group makes a half-way house between the Second and the Fourth. We must, more-over, note that there are many indications of genuine-ness ; 2 Timothy has all the marks of authenticity, being full of personal allusions which it would be almost im-possible for a forger to invent. It is for this reason generally allowed that 2 Ti l'"-'* i'-^ are really Pauline. But it is grossly improbable that real epistles were used only for patching forgeries and then thrown away. It is in personal notices that a forger usually goes wrong; if these are authentic, it is a great argument for the whole writing being authentic (for further details see Salmon, Introd.', pp. 397-413). But as all three Epistles hang together, the marks of genuineness in 2 Timothy are a strong argument for the genuineness of the whole group.

We may briefly sura up what has been said on the difference of subject-matter and style in the thirteen Epistles. At the birth of a Gentile Church the con-troversy with Judaizing Christians was that which was most likely to arise, as we see in the Second Group. Questions were then asked about the Person of Christ and about the Church as a whole, as we see in the Third Group. As the communities grew, their organization occupied much attention, as we see in the Fourth Group. The special interest of the moment colours the diction and style. Sanday-Headlam (.Romans, p. liv. ff.) suggest, further, that variations of style are largely due to the nervous temperament of the Apostle, now calm, now fervid; and in a considerable degree also to the employment of different amanuenses. St. Paul did not write his letters himself, but only added postscripts in his own hand. Probably he dictated his Epistles, and they were taken down in shorthand- a difference of scribe would thus mean an appreciable difference of style.

We shall, then, in what follows, without hesitation use the 13 Epistles as genuine. If what has been briefly argued above be not accepted, this article must be taken as describing, at least, the life and teaching of St. Paul as the early Christians believed that he lived and taught.

5. Acts of the Apostles. — For the reasons stated in the article on that book, we may with confidence use Acts as a trustworthy authority for St. Paul's life. But we may here ask what we are to think of St. Paul's

686