νοῦς: διεφθαρμένων. . - τ. νοῦν: a. κατεφθαρμένοι τ. νοῦν : Ὁ. μεμίανται αὐτῶν . . « ὁ vols: C.
πίστις : περὶ τ. πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν: a. περὶ τ. πίστιν ἠστόχησαν: a. ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τ. πίστιν: Ὁ. ἀποστήσονταί τινες τ. πίστεως: a ἀπεπλανή- θησαν ἀπὸ τ. πίστεως: a. Cf. 1 Tim. 1. 5, 19.
συνείδησις : κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν : a. μεμίανται αὐτῶν . . . ἡ συνείδησις: c. Cf. 1 Τίπι. 1. 5, 19.
ἀστοχεῖν : a, 2; Ὁ. See ἀλήθεια and πίστις.
ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν: Ὁ. ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν : 6. CF ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων, Ὁ.
βέβηλος : a, 8; Ὁ (Heb. xii. 16). (βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι : a, b).
γενεαλογίαι: a, 6.
ἐκίητήσεις “ ζητήσεις : ἃ, 2; b,c. (μωραὶ ζητήσεις: b, 6.)
λογομαχεῖν and λογομαχία: a, Ὁ.
µαταιολογία and µαταιολόγος: a, 6. Cf. ζητήσεις . . . μάταιοι, Ὁ.
ἔρις : ἃ, C.
μάχη: Dac.
μῦθος : a, 2; b,c (2 Pet. i. 16),
νόμος : a, As νομικός τ΄ ὦ; νοµοδιδάσκαλος: a.
ἐπὶ πλεῖον προκόψο:σιν ἀσεβείας : Ὁ. οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον : Ὁ.
προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον : Ὁ.
AvuTHor’s Favourite TERMS, ο σα πιστὸς ὃ λόγος: ἃ, Ὁ; ο. πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κ. πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος : a, 2. παραιτοῦ: a, 2; Ὁ, α. οἶκος (household): a, 5; Ὁ, 2; ο (1 Cor. i. 16, etc.). περί with accusative: a, 3; b, 2; ο (Phil. ii, 23, etc.)
ἃ, Ὁ. χάριν ἔχω; a, Ὁ (Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xii. 28). διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, Or τ. Κυρίου: a; Ὁ, 2. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ κ. ἀπόστολος. . . διδάσκαλος: a, Ὁ. χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη : a, Ὁ. ὧν ἐστίν: a; Ὁ, 2.
ὡσαύτως: a, 4; 6, 2.
ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ «πα
καιροῖς ἰδίοις: a, 2; ο. διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος: ἃ, 6.
προσέχειν : ἃ, δ; 6. (προσέχειν μύθοις : a, 6.)
INTRODUCTION 67 Bye
σπούδασον : Ὁ, 3; 6. (σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν : Ὁ, 2; ο.) περιΐστασο : Ὁ, 9.
δι ἣν αἰτίαν: Ὁ, 2; ο (Luke viii. 47; Acts xxii. 24; Heb. ii. 11). b. συνκακοπάθησον : Ὁ, 2.
The second difference in style by which the Pastoral Epistles are marked off from the earlier letters may be given in the words of Lightfoot.
The Syntax.
(a) “It is stiffer and more regular than in the easlier Epistles, more jointed and less flowing. The clauses are marshalled together, and there is a tendency to parallelism.” -
eae δρα 9, || 95 ai, 16, iv 19..15: 16. 1 ν᾿ 9.1}; 12, 13, 15, 18; 2 Tim. ii, 11, 12, iii, 1-8, 10-13, 16, iv. 2, 4,5,7; Tit. i. 7, 8, 9, ii. 7, 12, iii. J-3.
(0) “There is a greater sententiousnessY an abruptness and positiveness of form. Imperative clauses are frequent.
eg We Tiny λα 15. 16) πι 8}, AROS yi 6 11:00; 2 Tio 081/14) it εδω 29. 99: 1.0.) 5. 12..16." (Biblical Essays, p. 402.)
These differences in syntax are not unconnected with the small variety and paucity of particles which are a negative feature of the Pastorals. But neither characteristic is very astonishing, since in point of fact, the Epistles are of the nature of episcopal charges, authoritative, not argumentative ; enforcing disciplinary regulations, not unfolding theological conceptions, or vindicating personal claims. ,
We come, in the last place, to state and consider the problem presented by the purely negative characteristic of the style of the Pastoral Epistles, the fact that we do not find in them certain alleged characteristic Pauline words. Those who urge this as a serious argument against the traditional belief as to the author- ship of these letters do not seem to make allowance for the fact that they are ex hypothesi dealing with a real man—not a machine; a man who had travelled much, and had read much; who was con- stantly coming into contact with fresh people, constantly confronted with fresh problems of practical life. The vocabulary of such a man is not likely to remain unaffected in its contents or use. Add to this,