Doxolo^y (iO- 16).
Postscript.— I*\irther advice as to the t«&ching which Timothy is to give to the rich O"^-^^).
Knal ai'pcal to Timothy to guard the deposit and to avoid false claims to knowledge (30- 21),
Salutation,
This analysis will have shown that the primary interest is ethical and spiritual. Moralitj*, Salva- tion, Truth are the keynotes ; the Church worsliip and Church ministries are to minister ro them, Tlie kernel is the great h^ran of 3"*, but each section has some great doctrinal statement or some faithful saying einhedded in it, which loads up to or away from that climax (liai>*-«2iM*-8-"6«). The Knistle is full of the thought of the Salvation of all mankind, tlie consecration of all Creation.
At the same time it is personal throughout ; and it is hard to hulieve that it was intended to be read out as it stands, in public ; though a greeting to the whole Church is added (0'-'), and though the sub- stance of the teaching was meant to be conveyed
770 XmOTHT, FIRST EPISTLE TO
TBIOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO
to the Church (4" 5' 6°- "), and though certain sections (2'"" 3'"" 5'"'") are necessarily of a general kind. In these it is hard to feel sure whether the writer has only the local needs of Ephesus in his mind, or whether he was consciously framing roles whicli would he of universal application and obligation (cf. 1 Co 7"). The phrase iv iravrl rbirif (2') favours the latter view ; so perhaps does the use of iKKXriala in 3" ; and some of tne rules deal with such essential doctrines or points of morality that the WTiter may have regarded them as ijiso facto binding on every one : hut his primary thought was probably only for the church or churches of which Timothy was in charge.
iii. Literary Dependence. — The OT is quoted as authoritative only once, 5''=Dt 25* (cf. 1 Co 9*) ; but its language is consciously adapted or its history appealed to in —
2"' = Gn2»(cf. 1 Coll»).
2"=Gn3»(cf. 2Coll>).
4< =Gn 1".
5» =Ps4«(?){cf. 1 P3»).
5"=Dt 19" (cf. 2 Co 13').
& =Is52»(cf. Ro2"). It will be noticed that nearly every passage had been used in earlier Pauline Epistles.
In 2"- " we liave perhaps a later Jewish adapta- tion of the OT history. A Christian rhythmical hymn is quoted in 3'* ; Christian sayings in 1'° glij;) 4»(;) (Tioris o \1i70t) ; Christian prophecy in 4' (cf. 1" 4") ; liturgicai doxologies are used, which had probably passed from Jewish into Christian worship, in 1" 6"- " ; traces of a creed seem to underlie 6'*; and Greek proverbial say- ings, 1» (?) 4* 6'.
With regard to writings of the NT, there are interesting parallels with the Gospels, especially with St. Luke, which in 5'* may possibly be treated as ' Scripture ' on a level with the Ol" ; but none of the other parallels give the impression of literary quotation, so that it is probably not so here. Cf. 2« Avith Mk 10«. 48 „ Lk 18».
o ,, ,, z .
C » >• 10' (where Luke agrees verbally with 1 Tim., but Matt, ditters).
5" „ „ S''.
gi7-» 2220- a.
There are striking points of contact with 1 Peter ; cf. 2»-" with 2 P 3'-», 3" with 1 P 3'«-*', 5" with 1 P 3" ; but it is not clear whether they do (so von Soden) or do not (so JUlicher) imply literary acquaintance : if they do, the priority seems to be clearly on the side of 1 Timothy.
On the other hand, ' an intimate acquaintance with the Pauline letters must be assumed on the part of the writer ' (Jiilicher). There are certainly conscious parallels with Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. Cf. 1' with Ro 16=«. 1" with 1 Co 1'^ 15". 1» „ „ 13». 2"" „ „ ni=>14".
1" „ „ 7'«. 4« „ „ 10».
1» „ „ 13>«. 4» „ „ 9^(?).
1" „ „ 16M. 5>» „ „ 9». 2» „ „ 3«. 5" „ „ 9". 2' „ „ 9>. 1" „ 2 Co 4«.
The likeness culminates in the relation to Titus and 2 Tiniotl-,y. Cf. 1' "'• » with Tit 1». 1" with 2 Ti 1».
at 014 07 111
*> »i »» ^ • *> »» II ^ •
93-4 18-8 VI OM
O 11 ,, 1 . o „ ,, - .
^U fllB ^1 01
t ,, ,, M . » II II *' •
Aa OTudU A\* 16
* II If ^ • * II II ' •
kU 111 r,ll t?
U fl ,, 1 . O 11 II *J •
6» „ „ 2». 5" „ „ 4'.
6' „ „ 2». 6" „ „ 2-=.
6" ,1 .. 2". 6" .. „ 4'.
The parallels with Romans and 1 and 2 Cor. ars explicable eitlier as deliberate adaptations by some later writer or as the reiterations of the same thought by Paul himself. Those with 2 Tim. and Titus are stronger, and either point to nearly con- temporary composition by one writer or to a deliberate adaptation. It lias been held by von Soden (Hdcom. p. 154), Motlatt (Historical NT, p. 560), McGitlert (Apost. Age, p. 413), that 1 Tim. u the latest of the three, and based on 2 Tim. and Titus ; but a mere comparison of style does not indicate any priority as between 1 Tim. and Titus, and favours the priority of 1 Tim. to 2 Timothy. The other points of difference — fuller organization in 1 Tim., fuller description of the false teachers, etc. — are as explicable by the difference of circum- stances in each place as by a diH'erence of date.