are most illuminating, and H. von Soden, in the Hand-Commentar, remarkable for subtle verbal analysis ; but his exegesis is vitiated by his critical position as to the authorship and date of the letters. Suspicion and half-heartedness do not make for profound exposition.
Plummer’s large treatment of certain sections, in the Expositor’s Bible, has been found helpful and suggestive. Field’s Notes (alas, too few!) on Trans. N.T, are indispensable; and H. P. Liddon’s analysis of 1 Timothy is masterly.
On the general subject of the Epistles, Salmon’s Introduction N.T. (p. 397 sqq.), Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays (xi., xii.), Wace’s In- troduction in the Speaker’s Commentary, J. H. Bernard’s Introduc- tion (Cambridge Greek Testament), Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, and Hort’s $udaistic Chistianity and Christian Ecclesta have been largely made use of. It has not, however, been thought necessary, especially when space had to be considered, to specify in every case the authority for the sentiment expressed, or the explanation adopted. In any case, the Church, in the long run, acts on the counsel of Thomas a Kempis: “ Non quaeras quis hoc dixerit: sed quid dicatur attende”’ (De Imit. Christ, i. δ).
September, 1999.
της
ΠΑΥΛΟΣ " ἀπόστολος " Χριστοῦ " Ἰησοῦ 1 ὃ κατ᾽ 5 ἐπιταγὴν 2 3 2 Οοτ. 1. τ,
Eph. i. 1,
Θεοῦ “σωτῆρος "ἡμῶν καὶ 5 Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, Col. i. τ, 2
ΘΌΣ τὶ ΠΙΕ ἐν χὰ ii. 10, iii. 4.
b Rom. xvi. 26, Tit. i. 3.
Tim. i. 1, cf. 1 c Jude 25, cf. 1 Tim. ii. 3, iv. 10, Tit. i. 3,
150 NWDFGP, 8o, one other, ἆ, f, g, fuld., boh., syrhcl; "Ino. Χριστ. AKL, am.,
syrpesh, arm. 3 ἐπαγγελίαν N.
85 Ins. Κυρίου DcKL; om. AD*FGP, 17, 31, seven others, d, f, 6, vg., go., syrr.,
sah., boh., arm.
«5ο AD*FGP, 17, five others, ἢ, f, 6, am., fuld., σοὶ, sah., syrr.; ἴησς
Χριστ. SDcKL, boh., arm.
CHAPTER I,—Vv. 1-2. SALUTATION.— Ver. 1. ἀπόστολος Xp. “Ino. The use of this official title is an indication that the Pastoral Epistles were not merely private letters (ctr. Παῦλος δέσμιος Xp. Ἴησ., Philem. 1), but were intended to be read to the Churches committed to the charge of Timothy and Titus re- spectively. The phrase means simply one sent by Christ, not primarily one belonging to Christ. Cf. Phil. ii. 25, where Epaphroditus is spoken of as ὑμῶν ἀπόστ., and 2 Cor. viii. 23, ἀπόστ. ἐκκλησιῶν. ἀπόστ. Xp. Ἴησ. is also found in 2 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. τ; ἀπόστ. *lno. Χρ. in 1 Cor. i. 1, Tit. i. 1. The difference in the use Fesus Christ and Christ Fesus seems to be this: in each case the first member of the compound name indicates whether the historical or the notional idea of the Person is chiefly in the writer’s mind. Fesus Christ briefly expresses the pro- position, “ Jesus is the Christ’; it em- bodies the first theological assertion concerning Jesus; it represents the conception of the historical Jesus in the minds of those who had seen Him. St. John, St. Peter and St. James employ this name when speaking of our Lord. But in Christ ¥esus, on the other hand, the theological conception of the Christ predominates over that of the actual Fesus Who had been seen, felt and
heard by human senses. Accordingly we find Christ ¥esus in every stage of the Pauline Epistles ; and, as we should expect, more frequently in the later than in the earlier letters. In almost every instance of the occurrence of Yesus Christ in the Pastoral Epistles the thought of the passage concerns the humanity, or historical aspect, of our Lord. Thus in Tit. i. 1, να servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,’ we could not substitute Christ ¥esus without weakening the antithesis. See note there. St. Paul, here as elsewhere, claims to have been as truly sent by Christ as were those who were apostles before him.