« AnteriorContinuar »
meindeverfassung, deren Kern der monarchische Episkopat mit dem zu ihm gehörenden Diakonate, die Zurücksetzung des Presbyteriums als der leitenden Behörde ist." This consists of 11. 2. 12-17 21-6a. 8-15 31-16 49:11 412_518a 519-22. 24. 25. The rest of the canonical epistle consists of additions made by another editor (p. 32 f.) who had a slightly different conception of Paul, and who (after 136 A.D.) may have changed an original Bagidéws (22) into Baoiléwv (!). Titus has been only slightly re-edited (11. 2. 12. 13a 213 310. 11 in parts), under a similar tendency to emphasise soundness and sureness of doctrine. 2 Timotheus again represents an interpolated letter, in which the respective limits of the original and the additions are worked out in most elaborate and unconvincing detail, the redactor, according to Hilgenfeld, being responsible for passages reflecting the view that the battle of the faith is against erroneous doctrine, not (as in the original) against the heathen world : “ Der Bearbeiter steht in der Hitze der gnostischen Bewegung und kämpft namentlich gegen jene Antithese des Christentums und der alttestamentlichen Religion, welche Marcion vertrat." See below, p. 708, for Prof. Bacon's reconstruction.
[Reuss (pp. 120-129) dates 2 Tim wholly from the Roman imprisonment.]
2 Ti 115 413-17 420-22a.-A genuine letter of Paul, written in 58 A.D. from Caesarea (Hitzig, Ueber Joh. Marcus, 1843, p. 154 f.). At any rate, as 420 stands in its extant setting, it is very plainly an isolated fragment of alien origin.
46-12 419 116-18 422b.-Another genuine letter, written from Rome in 63 A.D. (Hitzig). As 41la contradicts 421, and 420. 21 is apparently a doublet of 49-13, Jülicher formerly thought that possibly in this chapter passages from two separate letters to Timotheus had been combined, which the editor only possessed in fragmentary shape. This is at least better than Holtzmann's solution of “tendenziöse Wiederholung."
Krenkel (Beiträge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe des Apostels Paulus, 1890, pp. 395-468) finds genuinely Pauline fragments in three letters :. Tit 312, 2 Ti 420, Tit 313.—(a) Written during Paul's second journey (Ac 201-3) to Corinth (from Illyricum ?); addressed to Titus at Crete.
[Reuss (pp. 80, 81) with great hesitation suggests that the whole epistle to Titus may have been written at Corinth, 57–59 A.D., and then taken by Apollos to Crete. This hazardous scheme he regards as the only possible alternative to abandoning the epistle as non-genuine. Bartlet (AA, pp. 182 f.) also fixes it in 59 (60), addressed to Titus, whom Paul had left at Lasea (Ac 278).]
2 Ti 49-18. –(6) Written during his Caesarean captivity, later than Coloss-Philemon ; addressed to Timotheus at Troas.
2 Ti 419 116. 17 1186 421.—(c) Written from Rome during his imprisonment; addressed to Ephesus.
[Bartlet (AA, pp. 192 f., 198 f.,) places 2 Ti 49.13. 21. 22a between ColEph and Philippians, and the rest of 2 Ti later than Philippians, as Paul's very last word; while Spitta (Urc. i. pp. 39–46) labours hard to prove that 2 Ti 416-18 cannot spring from the first imprisonment of the apostle.] 2 Ti 112-14.-Later than Paul, with McGiffert (AA, p. 404 f.);
though“itis impossible to decide 214-317, etc.-Most un-Pauline part | with any degree of accuracy." of the epistle, in great part from Lemme also takes 211_48 as an another hand.
insertion, 11-210 46-8 as interpol48.4 ...-An interpolation. ations.
115-18.-An original Pauline frag. Hausrath and Pfleiderer (Urc. ment.
p. 822 n.). Clemen dates it 61, from Rome; McGiffert (adding 19-11), at the close of Paul's
Roman imprisonment. Similarly 4 represents or contains a Pauline von Soden (ad loc.) dates 115-18 fragment. [Hase, verses 6-22; 49-22 shortly after Philippians, Ewald, 9–15, 19–22; Pfleiderer, 9-18; and (like that epistle) written Immer, 9-21; Lemme, 9-22.]
from Rome, except 20–21a, which are unauthentic. Clemen puts 419-21 into C. 56 A.D., before Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem ; 49-18 he regards as
composed a year or two later. 2 Ti 11-12 21.13 41-2. 5-8. 16-19. 210. 10 Hausrath's (iv. pp. 160–163) 115-18.-A letter written from Rome letter to Timotheus, which he disto Timotheus after the extant epistles, covers in the extant 2 Timotheus, as the apostle's dying testament is composed of 11. 2. 18-18 49-18. (McGiffert).
49. 11.18. 20-21a.-Another note writ. For an elaborate note on ten shortly before 2 Corinthians (Mc- 2 Ti 413 and the papyrus-rolls Giffert); in response to it, Timotheus of Paul, cp. Zahn, GK, ii. joined him soon (2 Co 11).
pp. 938-942. Tit 17-9 ... 110-16 mostly, 2 mostly, 38-11, 14 unauthentic (McGiffert). 17-9 is clearly an interpolation interrupting the thought ... ñ åv UTÓTAKTA (6)... cioiv yàpolloi àvu T ÓTAKTOL (10), and partly a reproduction of Ga (Harnack, Chron. pp. 710, 711).
31-7. 12-13. — Undoubtedly Pauline (McGiffert); a note written to Titus, before Paul wintered for three months at Corinth (Ac 203). 312-15.—Genuine Pauline fragment. Weisse (Philos. Dogmatik, i.
p. 146) (adding 2 Ti 49-22). Cp. Jülicher (p. 127). Clemen dates 312-14 in 52, 53 A.D., during Paul's winter residence at Nikopolis ; while von Soden (EBi, i. p. 812) admits that this "undoubtedly authentic" note (312-14) may have been addressed to Titus about the year 54 (58), although the plan was not
carried out. 1 Ti 31.13 517-20, with Tit 17-9, later fragments added after 138 A.D. (Harnack, Chron. pp. 482-484), betraying their origin in the regulations for ecclesiastical offices and the quotation of an evangelic word as ypaon. Indeed, the whole passage 51-22a is out of connection (ibid. pp. 710, 711) with the context, which reads much more smoothly when it is omitted. [Reuss, pp. 82-85, again, conjectures that 1 Tim as a whole may have arisen out of the same situation as that which gave rise to Titus; and Bartlet (AA, p. 180 f.) fixes it in 55 (56), written on board ship by Paul after leaving Miletus. But how could Paul hope to rejoin Timotheus at Ephesus (1 Ti 314 412) in face of what he had just told the Ephesians (Ac 2025. 38)? The same critic finds in 2 Ti 420 a private postscript originally attached to this epistle.]
617-21.-The references to riches, as in Hermas and James, in vers. 17-19, and to heresies in vers. 20–21 (Marcion's åvTidéoels), standing at the close and out of connection (von Soden) with the rest of a letter which ends naturally with ver. 16, suggest to Harnack (Chron. pp. 481 f., 711) a date for this passage not earlier than the fifth decade of the second century (HD, i. p. 270 n.). On the other hand, Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 139 f.) finds that the Marcionite reference of the ảvridéoes is“ merely a seductive verbal coincidence," and interprets the word as an allusion to frivolous and casuistical discussions which correspond to the Halacha as do μυθοι and γενεαλογίαι to the Haggada.
Harnack sums up the postulates of criticism upon the pastorals in four points—(1) They contain a genuinely Pauline element ; (2) as they stand, they cannot have been written by Paul; (3) the substantial part of them was known to Polykarp (c. 115 A.D.); (4) the letters reveal one or two sections which can hardly have been written before the middle of the second century. Upon the first two of these points there is practical unanimity, and (3) is largely accepted. On the other hand, (4) is less certain. If admitted, it either contradicts (3) or else involves the application of the interpolation-theory (as with Harnack). Certainly, when each is taken as a literary whole, the three documents lie close together. They cannot be separated, as they stand, by any considerable length of time-a fact which, together with the utterly different tone of 2 Corinthians and Romans, wrecks any attempt to convey them back into the apostle's life previous to 60 A.D.
In the printed text, clarendon type indicates those passages which appear to the present editor to rest upon genuinely Pauline tradition, although in their extant form they must have been edited with more or less freedom. 2 Ti 118-18 parts easily from its context, but neither in the earlier part of this chapter nor in the second is it possible to distinguish with any literary precision the Pauline and sub-Pauline strata. In the fourth chapter, vers. 9–22a reproduce with great exactness personal details and motives of the apostle which point to their authenticity (as against Holtzmann, “In Wahrheit ist gerade hier Alles Copie "); but the section is not homogeneous, and must include notes of various dates and moods. In Tit 11-6 a Pauline note has been embedded, but the clearest fragment occurs in 312. 13 (14. 15). Upon the other hand, whatever sources may have been still at the disposal of the author in 1 Ti have been used in such a free fashion that their original form cannot be made out. Hesse's analysis is by far the most plausible, but the details cannot be pressed.
As to the dates of the above pieces, one can only offer a conjecture, partly owing to the fragmentary condition in which they have been preserved, partly owing to the inadequate information which we possess upon large spaces of Paul's life (e.g. 2 Co 1123 f.). But 2 Ti 115-18
1 Dr. Hort's remark that “the theory of large early interpolations does not work out at all well in detail” (Judaistic Christianity, p. 130), sounds like a colloquial expression of opinion rather than a conclusion based upon investigation of the facts in question; at any rate, it represents an attitude prior to recent movements of thought upon the whole subject. It is surprising, however, to find this obiter dictum echoed by writers upon all sides, as if its repetition absolved them from any fresh investigation into the evidence upon which it rests.
Bartlet (AA, pp. 511-515), who follows: Zahn in the ma however, that a large Pauline basis, consisting of all the personal matter and much else, underlies the epistles; he also agrees that the possibility of interpolation “is a real one with letters so inorganic as those made up of counsels and exhortations, Such may easily grow by an almost insensible process of accretion.'
46-12. 16-19 are probably from a late note, written after Philippians, when Tychicus had gone (Eph 621) to Asia Minor. Timotheus, who had been with him at an earlier stage (Col 1°, Ph 1°), is now absent, and Demas has relapsed. The sky is overcast and threatening; and Paul in loneliness wearies for his younger com rade. So much is clear. 2 Ti 413-15. 21. 22a again are earlier, and cannot be dated very much later than Paul's journey from Troas. They may have been written from Caesarea during his imprisonment. 420 cannot (Ac 2129) belong to this period, as Trophimus seems to have accompanied Paul to Jerusalem ; its origin therefore must be earlier, possibly in the period Ac 1818 L). Of these passages at least one may say with Mr. G. A. Simcox (Excp. Ti. x. p. 431), á all these commissions and cautions are unlike a dying man ; the writer is in a hurry for Timothy to come, simply because he is old and lonely." Finally, the fragment Tit 312. 13 falls somewhere in Paul's second missiontour, written from Corinth or on his way to that city (Ac 2011). The plan of wintering at Nikopolis seems to have been abandoned, but Titus afterwards (2 Ti 410) appears in connection with the neighbouring district.
This attempt at reconstruction, however, is quite provisional and hypothetic, for it is easier to feel the presence of Pauline fragments than to trace them to their birth and native soil. But no analytic theory of this kind works out so badly in details, or inflicts such a strain upon the general evidence, as the traditional hypothesis which compresses the three letters, as they stand, into the lifetime of the apostle Paul.
James.—An attempt to find a pre-Christian origin for James has been independently made by Spitta (Urc. ii. pp. 1-239) and M. L. Massebieau (“L'épître de Jacques, est-elle l'oeuvre d'un Chrétien ?” Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1896, pp. 249-283). On this theory 1 James becomes almost like the Test. XII Patr., 4th Esdras, or the Didache, an originally Jewish work written by a Jewish scholar and then revised by a Christian editor, who made certain additions in order to adapt the book to his later audience. The strength of this hypothesis lies in the obviously meagre Christianity of James, as well as in the rich series of parallels between it and the older Jewish literature of the dar.' These, it is held, point to a purely Jewish environment for the author and his readers. The interpolations necessitated by this theory are as follows:11.-kai kuplov 'Incoû XPLOTOÙ , interpolations by a Christian, in a (Spitta)
writing, originally Jewish, which 21.-ñuñv ’Incoû Xplotoù i became a favourite with the early
Christian writers of the NT. But, even apart from the absence of allusions, natural in Jewish writ. ing, to ritual or legal usages, the genuinely Christian elements elsewhere (127 tarpi, 27 39, perhaps 118), the resemblance to the gospels, and the
1 Spitta goes on to apply it also to Hermas (Urc. ii. pp. 240-347), where, however, he had been anticipated (as Krüger points out) by Schwegler (Vach. apostolische Zeitalter, i. p. 333 f.). Massebieau finds its origin in Essene influences (op. cit. p. 270 f.): “l'auteur de l'épître est un juif helléniste, lettré, atteint par la philosophie grecque, universaliste, connaissant le milieu théologique de la Dispersion." Admittedly the letter often seems a Jewish island in the Christian stream.
2 But this dependence upon the Wisdom-conceptions and the Wisdom-literature had always been marked in early Christianity. Apart from the epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's letters, the synoptic gospels occasionally use the Wisdom-idea to present the very tradition of Jesus himself (e.g. Mt 1119. 26-30, Lk 735 1149, Oxyrhynchite Logia, No. 3). Against the above theories of James cp. Jülicher, Einl. 178–179.
un-Jewish ideas of the writing (e.g. tioris in 13, the Blaoonuciv 26. 7, and the passage 57 ff.), it may be argued that the attempt to transform a Judaistic writing into a Christian document would certainly have gone further. The two phrases I do not suffice even yet to give a distinctive, specific, Christian character to the book in Luther's phrase, it does not preach and urge Christ), and, as McGiffert urges, it is hard to understand how the editor could have contented himself with their addition, instead of inserting further references to Christ's life and death (p. 583 n.). The latter course would have been perfectly easy and—from a modern stand pointnatural. Besides, as Zahn hints, the cases adduced by Spitta-Sibyllines, etc.-are no true parallels, for in these cases interpolations were made, not to give the writings a Christian appearance and colour, but to transpose them into prophecies or corroborations of Christian thith. For these and other reasons, Spitta's view is rejected by Mayor (Exp.5 vi. pp. 1-14, 321338, and in 2nd ed. of his James, pp. cliv-clxxviii), Harnack (Chron. pp. 489, 490 n.), Zahn (Einl. i. pp. 101 f., 107 f.), von Soden (HC, ad loc. 3rd ed. 1899; also in Th Ly, 1897, pp. 581-584), Adeney (CR, 1896, pp. 277–283), Wrede (LC, 1896, pp. 450, 451), and by Haupt in an appreciative but adverse review (SK, 1896, iv. pp. 747-777). The last-named attaches cardinal importance to the linguistic features of the epistle, its Grecisms, use of the LXX, etc. These suggest to him a Christian author, familiar with the older Jewish literature, and resident in the Diaspora.
Harnack (Chron. pp. 485-491) once threw out the suggestion that “ James," like 2 Clem, consisted originally of a collection of anonymous addresses by some early Christian prophet, afterwards published under the name and title of “ James ” (TU, 11. ii. pp. 106-109; above, pp. 618 f.). Following out this suggestion, McGiffert regards it as possible that 'lákwBos Ocoû kai Kupiov 'Incoû XPLOTOÙ (11) were added in the second century to an anonymous epistle composed by some Hellenistic Jew before the close of the first century. The argument is ingenious but of very moderate size. Upon Harnack's hypothesis, the yalpely and rapàv of vers. 1 and 2 would be torn apart, whereas they are evidently linked together. Besides, if, as is urged, the general contents of the epistle have no affinity to the character and position of James, it is not easy to imagine how his name should have been affixed at all to this particular document, which fails to correspond with his traditional portrait. Here, as in the case of 1 Peter, the address seems isolated ; in fact, it may be fairly held that, were it removed, the contents of neither writing would suggest James or Peter respectively as their authors. But the argument cuts both ways, and makes it improbable that any scribe or later editor would add so incongruous a title. Deissmann (Bibel-Studien, pp. 245-247) explains the lack of personal touches throughout the epistle by emphasising its oecumenical character. It is a letter only in form, he thinks : “Aber so wenig Diaspora ein geographischer Einzelbegriff ist, so wenig schreibt “Jacobus' einen Brief...: In der Jakobusepistel redet weniger ein bedeutender Mann als eine bedeutende Sache, mehr das Christentum als ein Christenmensch." This ideal and general character of the epistle, he argues, is preferable to the conception (Feine,? Der Jacobusbrief untersucht) of a
1 As Zahn correctly points out, the very difficulty of 21 is a proof of its originality. An interpolator would have taken pains to make his meaning clear and distinct.
? Who regards the homily as originally addressed to the Palestinian church, and afterwards issued in letter-form to Christian Jews of the Dispersion (pp. 68-100). This is a plausible theory, but it becomes unnecessary so soon as the early date is aban. doned. Bacon (Journ. Bibl. Lit., 1900, p. 12 t.) dates it 75-95 A.D., not later.