TIMOTHY and TITUS. 295 TIMOTHY and TITTJS. the subject of critical suspicion in respect of their aiithorsliip, being discredited by liberal criticism loii^ before the Tiibiugen School as- signed them to the Gnostic period of the second century, and standing to-day as among the most generally rejected portions of the New Testa- ment. At the same time, there has been from the first more or less disposition on the part of such criticism to recognize in the letters certain traces of genuine Pauline material — this tend- ency receiving of late large impulse from the propaganda of the Dutch School, which seeks to resolve all New Testament critical prob- lems by aid of documentary soirces for the writ- ings in question. Along with this the date at which the letters in their present form were composed has been gradually moved back to- ward and even into the Apostolic century. The present dilVerences in the liberal attitude to- ward the Epistles arc practically as to the ex- tent of Pauline material allowed in the Epistles and the nearness in thought and s^npathy with the Apostle of their compiler. On the other hand, while this general negative position has been strongly combated by a conservative criti- cism which has sought to defend the entire gen- uineness of the letters, there is to-day a tendency to admit frankly the peculiar dilliculties pre- sented by the writings in the matter of their Pauline origin and a willingness to unite with all scholars in a fair and impartial study of the problems which these difficulties involve. The question as to the Paulinity of these let- ters is naturally bound up in the larger ques- tion of the Apostle's second imprisonment, since it is clear that the letters disclose situations which in no way lit into the recorded life of Paul up to and including his first imprisonment. If, therefore, the Apostle was not released from the imprisonment narrated in Acts, engaging in further mission work, which ended in his be- ing rearrested and brought to Rome for a second trial, these writings cannot reasonably be sup- posed to have come from his hand. But the settlement of the question of author- ship on the basis of this question of imprison- ment alone has proved an unsatisfactory pro- cedure, as iu itself a second imprisonment is not possible of sufficiently definite decision to afi'ord a critical standing ground. Scholars conse- quently have been giving of late increased at- tention to the study of the Epistles themselves — their vocabulary and literary style, the his- torical situations which they present, the ec- clesiastical and theological development which they betray — in order to discover whether or not they involve sufficient Pauline elements to pre- suppose, on the Apostle's part, a further period of active ministiy beyond the imprisonment narrated in Acts. The critical relation of the second imprisonment to the authorship of the letters is thus reversed, the latter rather than the former problem furnishing the standing ground from which the investigation proceeds. In this investigation the questions which fur- nish the chief deliate are (1) the specific stage of cluirch organization and (2) the par- ticular phase of false teaching which the letters disclose. (1) As to the organization presented, it is clear that Timothy and Titus are representatives of the Apostle in charge over certain fields of work (I. Tim. i. 3, 4; iv. IMG; II. Tim. ii. 1. 2; iv. 1. 2; Tit. i. 5,0; ii. 15; iii. 12-14), which fields are evidently general, covering more or less ex- tended regions around specific localities (I. Tim. ii. 8; Tit. i. 5), while the charges are apparently temporary (I. Tim. i. 3, 4; Tit. i. 5; iii. 12). The instructions given to the church ofiicers re- ferred to in the letters have to do with tile dis- tinctive moral qualities of the candidates, rather than with the funcUons of their ofiice (I. Tim. iii. 1-13; V. 4-10; Tit. i. 5-9); while the offices themselves are presbvtcrial rather than mon- archical (I. Tim. iii. "l-7; v. 17-10; Tit. i. 5-9). In fact, the church teaching accomplished among the people, thoush comicctoil itli the elder's office (I. Tim. iii." 2; v. 17; 11. Tim. ii. 2-4; Tit. i. 9) is not confined to official hands, but is ex- tended to individual members within the congre- gation who cari-y it on from house to house. It is this that the false teachers abuse (1. Tim. i. 3-7; vi. 3-5; II. Tim. iii. 6-9; Tit. i. 10-14). Clearly this oi'ganization is not what we find in the recorded New Testament history. (2) As to these false teachers, they are evi- dently of two classes : ( A ) a class then at work among the people (I. Tim. i. 5-11; vi. 310; II. Tim. ii. 14, 16-18, 24-26; iii. 8, 0; Tit. i. 10-16) and {V>) a class defiiiitelj' predicted as to de- velop among them in later times (I. Tim. iv. 1-3; II. Tim. iii. 1-7; vi. 3, 4). (A) The present class is evidently further divided into two groups: (1) The main portion, working among the congresjation. as memliors themselves of the churches (I. Tim. vi. 20, 21; II. Tim. ii. 17, 18; iii. 6-9; Tit. i. 10-16). (2) The smaller portion separated from all church membership (I. Tim. i. 19, 20; V. 11-15; Tit. iii. 10). (1) This first and larger group is described in the letters (a) as onlv nominally Christian (I. Tim. i. 4, 19: II. Tim. ii. 14-18 ;' Tit. i. 9, 13, 16) ; (b) as having their chief occupation in teaching among the peo]de of the parishes — going from house to iiouse with their doctrines and making their teaching a business of money gain (I. Tim. vi. 3-10; Tit. i. 11) ; (c) as busying themselves in this teaching with affairs which ministered only to wordy disputes (I. Tim. 1. 4; vi. 4; Tit. iii. 9) and within these disputes as having specifically to do with .Jewish questions such as the contents and authority of the IMosaic law (I. Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 9). .Jewish legends and genealogies (I. Tim. i. 4; Tit. i. 14; iii. 9). (d) At the same time it is evident that they are not identical with the .Tudaizers pictured to us in the Galatian and Corinthian Epistles. They are developed be- yond them, especially in (heir indifference to the moral claims of the Christian life (I. Tim. i. 10; vi. 3-10; Tit. i. 15-16). On the other hand, they are not advanced to the full matured Gnostic doctrine of God. Formally they hold to the doctrine of God and grace, though practical- ly denying them in life (II. Tim. iii. 5; Tit. i. 16). (2) The second and smaller group is more definitely referred to in the letter to Titus, but in the Timothy Epistles some appear to have been excommunicated on moral grounds ( I. Tim. i. 19. 20). while certain younger women, who had rejected their first faith, seemed to have 'turned aside to Satan' (I. Tim. v. 11-16). (E) The future errorists arrange themselves in three groups: (1) The first is described in I. Tim. iv. 1-3 as carrying on an extreme form of
