TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO

tioned at Ephesus with Paul on his third missionary journey, and thence is sent with Erastus to Macedonia la advance of the Apostle (Ac 19^). Shortly after Timothy's departure, Paul despatched by direct sea route his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In this he mentions that Timothy (travelling via Macedonia) would shortly reach them (1 Co 4"); he bespeaks a kindly welcome for him, and adds that he wishes him to return with 'the brethren' (i.e. probably those who had borne the Epistle) to Ephesus (16>»- " and 8). Timothy may not have reached Corinth on this occa-sion, being detained in Macedonia; and the absence in the Second Epistle of all mention of his being there points in this direction. But in any case he is found with Paul again when 2 Cor. was written, in Macedonia (2 Co 1'). Paul in due course reached Corinth, and Timothy with him, for his name occurs among the greetings in the Epistle to the Romans which was then written (1 Ro le^i; cf. Ac 20^). Paul and he, after a three months' sojourn, returned by land to Troas (Ac 20*- '). Timothy is not again mentioned in the Acts. It is clear from the Epistles of the Captivity that he was a companion of Paul during his imprisonment (Col 1', Philem", Ph 1'), and that the Apostle meditated sending him on a special mission to Philippi (Ph 2i'). From the Pastoral Epistles we learn that when Paul, after his release, came into Asia, he left Timothy as his delegate in Ephesus, giving him full instructions as to how he was to rule the Church during his absence, which he realized might be longer than he anticipated (1 Ti 1^ 3"- «). When Paul was a second time imprisoned, and felt his death to be imminent, he summoned Timothy to his side (2 Ti 4'- 2'). If Timothy ever reached the Apostle, he may have been then himself imprisoned, for we read (He 13*3) of his being 'set at liberty.' Of his subsequent history nothing is known with certainty. Chasles T. p. Grierson.

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO .-These Epistles, together with that to Titus, form a special group among the Pauline letters, — the Pastoral Epistles, — being united by common objects in view, and by a common literary style. Each Epistle claims in its opening words to have St. Paul for its author — a claim which the Church has consistently allowed ' ever since the idea of a Canon of the NT came into clear consciousness.' During the last century, however, their genuineness has been vigorously assailed. Baur relegated them to late in the 2nd century; but modern hostile criticism very generally holds that, while they contain genuine frag-ments of the Apostle's writing, their present form is the work of pseudonymous writers.

There is no doubt that these Epistles present very special difficulties to scholarship; but these are on the way to solution, and the general tendency of criticism may be said to be towards establishing their genuineness.

1. The situation disclosed by 1 and 2 Tim. is as follows. Paul, having to go into Macedonia, left Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus (1 Ti 1'); and, fearing he might be detained longer than he anticipated, he wrote telling him how to act during his absence (1 Ti 3"- "). From other allusions in the Epistles we gather that the Apostle visited not only Ephesus and Macedonia, but also Troas (2 Ti 4"), Corinth and Miletus (4M)i and Crete (Tit 1^), and that he purposed wintering in Nicopolis (3").

Now it is impossible to fit these visits into the period covered by the Acts. No doubt in Acts we find the Apostle remaining two years in Ephesus (Ac 19'"), but on that occasion he did not leave Timothy behind when he went into Macedonia; on the contrary, he sent him into that country while he remained at Ephesus (Ac 19^2); nor was there time during his two years in that city for such lengthened journeys as the above visits require. Therefore, as the Acts closes with St. Paul In Rome in prison (a.d. 61), we must conclude, if we accept the Pastorals as genuine, that the Apostle visited

TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO

Ephesus, Macedonia, and Crete after a release from imprisonment.

Those who oppose the Pauline authorship refuse to believe in this release, taking as their ground the fact of the silence of the Acts on the point, and charge those who accept it with making an unwarranted assumption; but surely theirs is the unwarranted assumption, for they assume that St. Paul was not released, merely because the Acts does not continue its history farther than it does. Indeed, even if we had not the distinct statements of the Pastorals, we should consider it ex-tremely likely that he was thus released; for it is clear that he anticipated being set at liberty when, from his imprisonment, he wrote to the Philippians that he hoped shortly to come to them (Ph 2^), and when he bid Onesimus prepare him a lodging at Colossae(Philem2'). When, therefore, we add the further facts, that the Muratorian Fragment states that the Apostle fulfilled his expressed wish of visiting Spain (Ro IS"- '>), — a journey which certainly necessitates his release from his Roman imprisonment — and that Clement of Rome tells of his reaching ' the bounds of the West,' — a phrase which, used by one resident, as Clement, in Rome, can only mean Spain — we may hold without misgiving that St. Paul was released in a.d. 61, that he was again arrested, and suffered martyrdom in Rome (a.d. 64?), that between these dates he visited Spain in the West, and various Churches in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that during this period he wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

2. The external evidence in favour of the Epistles is remarkably strong. Irenseus, Clement, Tertullian, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, were all clearly acquainted with them. A singularly convincing quotation is found in the writings of Polycarp (the disciple of the Apostle John, and who died a.d. 167), who says: 'The love of money is the beginning of all trouble, knowing . . . that we brought nothing into the world, neither can carry anything out' (cf. 1 Ti 6'- >»).

On the other hand, not a word is raised by earlier writers against their genuineness, save by the heretics Marcion and Basilides; and their rejection was due not to any stated doubts as to the Pauline authorship, but apparently to dislike to the teaching of the Epistles. Very much stronger evidence against their authenticity must be supplied before this weight of evidence can be overturned.

3. Much discussion has arisen concerning the nature of the heresies attacked by Paul in these Epistles. Some see in them an incipient Gnosticism, theories from which the developed Gnosticism of Marcion ultimately sprang. Strength was lent to this view by the sup-position that 'the endless genealogies' mentioned in 1 Ti l' and Tit 3' were the long lists of emanations of sons and angels which formed part of the Gnostic systems. But, as Philo and others use the word ' genealogy ' of the primitive history of the Pentateuch, it is now generally allowed that the reference is not to Gnostic speculations but to the legendary history of the Jewish patriarchs. Others regard the heresies opposed as essentially Jewish in origin, and undoubtedly many passages point in this direction. We read of would- be 'teachers of the law' (1 Ti 1'), of 'they of the circum-cision' (Tit li»), of 'Jewish fables' (1") of 'fightings about the law' (3'). Yet, while there are these distinct evidences of Jewish influences, it seems doubtful if it is right to mark all the heresies opposed as coming from this source. The errors leaning towards asceticism, with its prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods, and perhaps of wine also (1 Ti 4i-*- ' S''*), may indeed have sprung from forms of Judaism which had become ascetic; but just as likely — indeed more likely — they may have come from Gentile sources. These ascetic doctrines may have been founded on the «7i-Jewish belief of the essential evil of matter — an error which the Apostle

938