V. Authorship. — The external evidence for the Pauline authorship is much the same as that for 1 Timothy, save that the allusions to its language in writers of the first quarter of the 2nd cent, are less unequivocal. It was possibly known by Ignatius, more probably by Polycarp (c. 5 = 2'-, c. 9 = 4'"), but the conscious borrowing from the Epistle is not certain in either writer. This ditl'er- ence may be due to the fact that it is a more private letter than 1 Timothy.
On the other hand, the intrinsic evidence ol genuineness is much stronger than in 1 Tim. or in "Titus. Positively, there are personal touches throughout ; negatively, there is less to be urged against the genuineness. The picture of Timothy as young, timid, att'ectionate, is of a piece with what is known of him elsewhere : the allusions in 1"*""* 2" 410-iii. iD-ji bear the stamp of truth, giving a picture of desertion and cowardice in some Christians which could scarcely have been invented, and they are independent of the Acts and of all other known sources. So with regard to the writer ; in cliar- actcr — the affection for his fellow-workers, the gratitude for kindness, the sensitiveness to deser- tion (cf. 2 Cor.), the prayer for those who have deserted him, the sense of the importance of his own mission, the appeal to his own teaching and his own suB'erings, the self-sacrifice for the elect's sake, the a-ssurance of the Lord's protection and of the reward which he shall receive at the last day ; in method of teaching — the loyalty to Judaism (13=Ph 3*), the value attached to the OT (S'"- ", cf. Ro 15''), the use of Jewish traditions (4*), the masculine contempt for trivialities of argument (2") ; in the substance of the doctrines taught — the stress on God's purpose and grace, on the conquest of death, on the risen Christ as the inspirer of confidence, on the need of suft'ering and of courage, on the moral tests of faith, — all these point clearly to St. Paul. There is no objection, on the side of Church organization or of the doctrines assailed, to be raised against his authorship. The slight distrust of Timothy's courage and conduct (1''2-''') may surprise us, but they would be more surpris- ing in a forger : the repetition to him of the namei of his mother and grandmother (1') are indeed un- necessary, but very natural in an old man recalling
TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO
TIMOTHY, SECOA'D EPISTLE TO 777
his old converts ; the assertion of his aiiostleship (1") is natural to one who is enforcing the iluty of loyal adherence to hia teaching : the vague gener- alities about the false teaching and the absence of controver.'ial argument in refutation of them are natural in writing to one who knew all the circum- stances. The reference to the persecutions in Antioch, I.ionium, and Lystra unlii (3"), is expli- cable, as tney were the tirst whicli Timothy had witnessed, and is very like tliat in 2 Co ll^-'-si. The only ground of suspicion lies in the style — partly in tl e large number of 4iraf "Kcyliiuva. (44 in this Epistle alone : 6.0\eiv, aKaipus, dtrpaTTJi, ava^iirtrvfxiv, drdXi'trtf, dyavrjipdVj dva^i'Xft^', dfs^t- hdKOSf dvfiraL'X^'vTos, dvfi^Lfpo^, dvTibiaTWiaBai^ diraf- 5evro5, diroT/ lirtadax^ dprioSt dtpi\dya6oSf ^4\tiov, ydyypaiva, 76^»s, yuvaLKdpioiff 6etXia, ^kotjXo^, ^\eyfj.6Sf iv5uv(iv, iiravipOu)ai^^ iTTtaufxvftv^ Oedtn/evaros, Kara- ^$cipeiy, KinjOiH', Xoyo^axciv, ixdfiji-q, fUfx^pava^ vfuj- TepiK6Sf dpOoToixAf, tnCTOvadaif Trpay/xarla, ffT/saroXoyet*', ffvvKaKoiraOftyf Jw(ppovtiTfi6iy tp£\6vr]St ^tXauros, 0t\^- Sofos, <pi\60(ot, xo'^''f''5i JOTi^'Mo'i "o o'lfi of which, however, suggests a later date), and more de- finitely, in tlie many words or phrases — either Latiuisms ix'^p'" fX"' ^'' ^'' "''■'a") or half-sterco- tj'ped formulae {KaOapd (TwelSTjats, Ka&apd Kapoia, iTriyvttxns dXi^^f/ay, TrapatfiJ^'i;, vyiaivovres \6yoif ij iryiaivovca SiOajKaXla^ ncrrAs 6 X670S, ^f^7)Xoi Kevo- ipivylai, ri tov Sia^6\ou Trayts, 6 tov 6tov dydpunros, i yty aliiv) — which siiggest a different writer at a rather later stage of Christianity. With regard to these the suggestions urged on 1 Tim. will hold good, and it will perhaps be felt that. If they stood alone, they would not be so striking as when placed side by side with 1 Tim. and Titus. They would be scarcely a serious objection to this Epistle, on the hypothesis that those were later imitations of this.
The ditficulty of inserting the historical situation ia the time covered by the Acts, or of placing tie date of the Epistle in the first Roman im- prisonment, seems insuperable, and, if it is genuine, it presupposes alateriniprisonnieiiKcf. ITlMOTllv).
vi. iNTKCr.lTY. — The MSS sui)ply no hint of interpolation or of ' contamination' in the Epistle, neither does any internal neces.sity require such an hypothesis. But there are certain facts which have not unnaturally raised doubts about the integrity. Thus (1) the E])istle varies between two main purposes, and there is a possibility of Contradiction between them. The greater part is an instruction to Timothy about his teaching at Ephesus, and it seems to he assumed that he will remain there ; the latter part summons him to leave and join the writer. These two jmrposes are obviously capable of being combined, and the a|ipeals in chs. 1 and 2 may naturally be inter- preted ' show courage by coming to join me in my pri.-^on,' ' entrust your teaching to others in your own al>sence or in the prospect of your own death ' ; but this is not said, as might have been expected in the face of 4".