RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Paul the Apostle
and Ephesians. But this parallel becomes disastrous. For, while Galatians and Ephesians thrill with prophetic feeling, I Timothy is wholly institutional, disciplinary, and creedal. The conception of the Church differs from that in Ephesians (iii. 15; contrast Eph. i. 22-23). The offices and the functions of the Church (bishops, deacons, widows) are distinct. The episcopate has clearly emerged from the corporate presbyterate. The creed (iii. 16) is forming. In this connection it is to be noted that the word " mystery " is beginning to take a new turn (iii. 9, 16). Caution, however, is necessary against the bias of the highly subjective individualism of our time. The creedal element in faith was easy for St. Paul to reach. Yet between Ephesians and I Timothy there is a gulf in feeling. And along with this goes the fact that the letter abounds in expressions (" It is a credible saying "; " healthgiving teaching "; " contrary teaching ") which are not found in the letters of the first three groups. The difficulty is more serious than the difficulty created by hapax legomena, in which fixed formulas enter. The cumulative effect of these difficulties is an almost irresistible impression of ungenuineness. The letter seems to have been written by a Paulinist contending with Jewish-Christian heretics, possibly about the end of the century.
II Timothy is in much better case. At nearly every point where I Timothy fails to meet the test, II Timothy succeeds. It follows the Pauline order of thought (i. 3). The personal element is fresh
„ __ _,. and varied. Timothy is a real indi- 3. II Tim- J
othy, Titus.
vidual (i. 3-6) with fiesh-and-blood kinsfolk. The writer abounds in expressions revealing the inner life of the apostle (i. 11-18, ii. 16-17, iv. 6-8). In iv. 9-21 is material which can not have been invented. The institutional element, compared with I Timothy, is a minimum. The single reference (ii. 2) is general. The thought of the quadrilateral crops out (i. 8- 9) in a natural way. The feeling of the letter is thoroughly Pauline. Pauline idioms abound (" my gospel "; " I am not ashamed," i. 12; cf. Rom. i. 16). The mental idioms of Paul appear; for example, his use of the aorist in describing the redemptive effects of the death of Christ (ii. 11; cf. Gal. vi. 14 and Rom. vi. 5-10). Yet the fixed formulas of I Timothy (" It is a credible saying, etc.") pervade the epistle. The most probable conclusion is that II Timothy is a genuine Pauline letter touched here and there by the Paulinizing editor. The epistle to Titus, like I Timothy, violates the order of thought (i. 5 suggests the same hand that wrote I Tim. i. 3). The two together may possibly indicate the beginnings of the conscious theory of "Apostolic Succession" (q.v.; also see Succession, Apostolic). The letter is institutional in its aim, its material being practically identical, so far as it goes, with I Timothy. It also lacks the personal element. The author's way of handling the Cretans (i. 12) does not seem like Paul. To be sure, this is slippery ground for argument. Yet the apostle's regenerating faith in man, part and parcel of the enthusiasm which founded the Catholic Church, is missing. What seems to be heard is the voice of a later generation, deeply aware of the inertia of
human nature, vexed with questions of discipline, and substituting the schoolmaster for the prophet. But iii. 12-14 looks like a genuine Pauline element. Zahn has proved (Einleitung, 1. 434-435) that the Nicopolis here mentioned is in Epirus. There is no ground for supposing that such a detail is due to the historical novelist. Moreover, the salutation (i. 1-4) is strikingly Pauline. May it not be supposed that the fragments of a genuine letter were used by the editor of II Timothy? And that the same writer went on to write I Timothy with a free hand?
It can not be said that all the problems connected with the Pastorals have been finally settled. This is not a favorable field for the dogmatic scholar whether he be conservative or critical. The criticism of the Pauline epistles has some serious questions still unsolved. But if they are tested by no other test than that to which the writings of Plato and Aristotle are subjected, the conclusions may be as certain here as there regarding the main point. The sweeping negative treatment of the letters is indeed a just historical nemesis on a canonizing process that largely dehumanized them. But the sane critic has no commission to execute poetic justice or to illustrate in his own person the law of recoil. There is a solid body of genuine letters. They give us the self-revelation of one of the supreme religious agents. It is a real autobiography, all the more valuable because singularly free from literary consciousness — a wonderfully sensitive and expressive body of thought. Inseparable from the building of the Catholic Church and containing the secret of its life and growth, it is the most fertile portion of the Biblical field for those who would understand the divine method in revelation.
Henry S. Nash.
Bibliography: I. The literature on the life and work of Paul is very large; only a selection is offered here. Some of the most illuminating discussions are in the works on church history, particularly those dealing with the apostolic age. For English readers the three standard works have long been: W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, London, 1852 and often; F. W. Farrar, 2 vols., London, 1879; T. Lewin, 2 vols., London, 1890. Other studies of the life and work of Paul are: K. Schrader, 5 vols., Leipsic, 1830-36; F. C. Baur, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1866, Eng. transl., London, 1873-75; A. Hausrath, Heidelberg, 1872; J. Stalker, New York, 1884; E. Renan, Paris, 1869, Eng. transl., London, 1890; C. Fouard, London, 1894; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, 1895; P. Seeboeck, Paderborn, 1897; O. Cone, Boston, 1898; G. H. Gilbert, New York, 1899; W. Lock, London, 1899; R. Bird, ib. 1900; A. Whyte, Edinburgh, 1903; C. Clemen, Giessen, 1904; H. Weinel, Tubingen, 1904, Eng. transl., London, 1906; N. Heim, Paulus der Vblkerapostel nach Bibel, Geschichte und Tradition, Salzburg, 1905; F. X. Poelzl, Regensburg, 1905; DB, iii. 696-731; EB, iii. 3603-38.
Books on special phases of Paul's life, work, or significance are: J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, London, 1880; J. S. Howson, Character of St. Paul, ib. 1883; O. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 2 vols., ib. 1877; idem, Influence of Paul on the Development of Christianity, ib. 1885; G. Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, London, 1890; Van Manen, in ThT, 1890, 1896, 1900 (cf. Expository Times, 1898, pp. 205-211, 257-259, 314-319); C. C. Everett, Gospel of Paul, Edinburgh, 1893; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh, 1894; A. Sabatier, L'Apdtre Paul. Esquisse d'une histoire de sa pensee, Paris, 1896; S. A. Alexander, The Christianity of St. Paul, London, 1899; H. St. J. Thackeray, Relation of St. Paul to Jewish Contemporary Thought, ib. 1900; W. E. Ball, St. Paul and Roman Law, Edinburgh,
Paul the Apostle