Encyclopaedia Biblica/Timnah-Tobie

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


(n:pfi ; e*MN<\ [BAL] ; also Josh. 19:43, Judg. 14:1-2, 14:5 ; i.e. , 'allotted portion')

1. A town in the hill-country of Judah, in the same group with Maon and Carmel (Josh. 15:57 ; 6ajj.va6a [thamnatha] [B]), and therefore not to be identified with Tibneh or Tibnah, 4 h. W. of Bethlehem. There must have been a Timnah SE. of Hebron. Most scholars have supposed this place to be intended in Gen. 38:12-14 (daifiva [thaimna] [A] in v. 12 ; 6afivav [thamnan] [L] in v. 14), but the emended reading of the first place-name in v. 14 (see TAPPUAH, i) favours the view that the Timnah (see below, 2) of Josh. 15:10, Judg. 14:1 is meant. The gentilic of this Timnah, 'Timni', seems to occur, miswritten as TEMENI (q.v.), or Timeni, in 1 Ch. 4:6.

2. (AV Timnath, and once, Josh. 19:43, THIMNATHAH, where LXX varies as in 15:57 [see above]. In Judg. dapvaOa [thamnatha] [BAL]. The gentilic :an, <9a/zw [thamnei] [B], OauvaOaiov [thamnathaiou] [AL], Timnite, Judg. 15:6.) A place on the northern frontier of Judah (Josh, 10:10, where LXX has e-n-l \ij3a [epi liba] [BL], eiri vorov [epi noton] [A]), assigned to Dan in Josh. 19:43, but according to Judg. 14 inhabited by Philistines in the pre-regal period. The latter narrative describes most graphically an occasion on which Samson 'went down to Timnah' (Judg. 14:1) from Zorah. The Chronicler includes it among the cities taken from Ahaz by the Philistines (2 Ch. 28:18; om. LXX{B}), and the contemporary evidence of Sennacherib in the 'Prism-inscription' (KB 2:92-93) records that king s capture of Tamna after the battle of Altaku before he laid siege to Amkaruna or Ekron. Timnah is now represented by the village of Tibneh, on the S. side of the Wady Sarar, 2 mi. W. of 'Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh) and a little farther to the SW. of Sarah (Zorah). The site, however, has been robbed of three-fourths of its ruins by the builders of a neighbouring village (Guerin, Jud. 2:30-31). But cp ZORAH.

3. A third Timnah (possibly the same as TIMNATH-HERES) may be recognised in the THAMNATHA of 1 Macc. 9:50 (on the readings, see PIRATHON), which was one of the Judaean cities fortified by Bacchides. It is doubtless the Thamna mentioned by Josephus (BJ 3:3:5) and Pliny (HN 5:14:70) as giving name to one of the toparchies (the Thamnitica) of Judaea, and incorrectly described by Eusebius and Jerome (OS 260:3, 1566) as being in the district of Lydda on the road to Jerusalem. The topographical notices in Jos. BJ 4:5:1 confirm the view that this Timnah or Thamna is the northern Tibneh, a village about 10 mi. NW. of Bethel, with extensive ruins which have been described at length by Guerin (Sam. 28:9+). Cp Clermont Ganneau, PEFQ, 1875, p. 169; Schurer, GVI 2:138.


(Dnn njpn, as if 'Portion of the Sun', see NAMES, 95; Judg. 2:9 fla/ui/aSape? [BL] 8anva.0a.p- eta? [A], also called in Josh. 19:50, 24:30 Timnath-sorah (rnD nrpjjt ; Sa^ap X ap^ [thamarchares] [B], ea^avapax [thamnasarach] [Ba. mg.], 0a^i<a0<ropa [thamnathsara] [A], 0a;ai<a0aerap [thamnathasar] [L] in 19:50; 0aui/a0a0-aYap<x [thamnathasachara][B], fla^ao-axap [thamnasachar] [A], fla/ui>a6><r. [L], in 24:30).

A locality in 'Mt. Ephraim on the N. side of the Mt. GAASH' (q.v.). According to the book of Joshua it was assigned to Joshua at his own request ; he fortified the city, dwelt there, and was buried there. The place has been identified with the modern Tibneh (see TIMNAH, 3), where, on the N. slope of the hill to the S. , are some remarkable tombs described by Guerin (Sam. 2:89-104). This, however, assumes that there is only one Ephraim, whereas the probability is that there was a second Ephraim ( Jerahmeel) in the Negeb.

The alternative identification with Kefr Harith (a small village NE. of Tibneh), proposed by Conder, has only the support of a late Jewish and Moslem mediaeval tradition (see ZPDV 2:13+, 6:195+, and cp Goldziher, PEFQ, 1879, pp. 193+). It also implies the correctness of -heres, whereas Josh. (ll.c.) gives -serah, which is hardly to be treated as a deliberate metathesis (so Moore).

But possibly Din [HRS] (whence by error mo [SRH]) comes from -\nv [ShHR] - i.e., TintrN ['ShHVR] (this also accounts best for 'Mount Heres'). This will become still more probable if 'Nun' in 'Joshua son of Nun' should really be Nahshon {1} (apparently a Rehobothite or Jerahmeellte name). Joshua surely represents a clan of the Negeb ; see JOSHUA. It is also important that Eleazar son of Aaron (apparently a kinsman of Joshua), is said to have been buried in Gibeath-pinehas, 'which was given him [omit ^3] in Mt. Ephraim', for bi[ne]has is not improbably another corruption of Jerahme'el. See PHINEHAS.

T. K. C

1 For a parallel cp "?n in y~X Vn, which may represent see TEL-ABIB.


(TIMCON [Ti. WH]), one of the seven deacons (Acts 6:5). He has a Greek name and was perhaps a Hellenist. Traditions contained in Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus make him bishop of Bostra in Arabia, and according to the former he suffered martyrdom by burning at the hands of the heathen.


(riMOeeoc [ASV]).

1. An Ammonite leader; whether an Ammonite with a Greek name, or a Greek who had been put by the Syrian general in command of the Ammonites is unknown. He was defeated on various occasions by Judas the Maccabee ; first in the campaign which resulted in the capture of Jazer, and again in that which included the battles of Dathema and Raphon and the relief of Bosora, Bosor, Alema, Casphor, Maked and Carnaim (1 Macc. 5:6-12, 5:24-44). He is also mentioned in 2 Macc. 8:30, 8:32, 9:3, 10:24, 10:32, 10:37, 12:2, 12:10, 12:18-21, 12:24, where the scene is transferred to Western Palestine and a chronology implied which has suggested to many scholars that a different person must be intended. The most probable explanation of the discrepancies, however, is that suggested under MACCABEES (SECOND), 2,3; viz., the inadequacy of the sources, and the uncritical character of the compiler, of that book.



  • Birthplace, etc. (1).
  • Circumcision (2).
  • Journeys (3-5).
  • An author? (6).
  • Traditions (7).

This Hellenistic name (see TIMOTHEUS) is in the NT (TIMO06OC [Ti.WH]) borne by one of Paul s younger companions who was connected with, and Drobably born at, LYSTRA ( 3) in Lycaonia, where the apostle first came across him.

In Acts 16:1 efcei [ekei] is epexegetic of Ka.1 els AuVrpar [kai eis lystran], and the text of 20:4 is too secure to justify any alteration which (GAIUS, 2) would connect AepjSaios [derbaios] with Tifj.66cos [timotheos], identifying this Gaius with the Macedonian of the same common name (19:29) from whom in all likelihood the epithet Aep/3aios [derbaios] is expressly intended to distinguish him. Cp Holtzmarm, Die Pastoralbriefe, 65-66 (1880).

1. Birthplace and family.[edit]

The diminished strictness of local Judaism (PHRYGIA, 3) is betrayed by two features in the Lystran household where Timothy was brought up; his Jewish mother had married a pagan, and their son was allowed to reach manhood uncircumcised. His father, it has been conjectured, died during the boy s early years ; this is corroborated at any rate by the absence of all reference to him as well as by the strong influence assigned in reliable tradition to the lad's mother (EDUCATION, 5) and (maternal?) grandmother, even though we hesitate to lay stress on the slight textual evidence for Eunice's widowhood (Acts 16:1, add x ? W xls [cheras] 2:5 : X- [ch.] for lovSalas [ioudaias], gig. fu.), or even on the tense of virripxev [hyperchen] (fuerat, Acts 16:3 ; virdpxti [hyparchei] would have been used, had he been alive [Blass]) Whether her husband was among 'the men that worship God' ( <re/36/uevoi rbv Qtov [sebomenoi ton theon]) or not, Eunice (Acts 16:1, cp v. 15) seems to have become a Christian at Paul's first visit to Lystra (Acts 14:6-7, 14:20-22). Later notices, embodying a tradition which there is no reason to suspect, indicate that her mother Lois had assisted her to train 1 the lad in the knowledge and piety of the OT previous to their joint conversion (2 Tim. 1:5, 3:14-15, cp 1 Tim. 5:4) ; and it may be inferred that their influence subsequently brought Timothy over to the new faith some time before the return of Paul a couple of years or so later. Passages like 1 Cor. 4:17 (contrast v. 15), 2 Tim. 2:1, etc., refer to kinship of spirit, and Phil. 2:22 expressly identifies Timothy's genuine sonship with his loyal service to Paul, not with spiritual parentage. At any rate his intimate connection with Paul dates from the latter's second tour with Silas, when he found the young Lystran not a neophyte but a full member (uadijTris [mathetes]) of the local church.

The allusion in 2 Tim. 3:10-11 (a genuine fragment) simply means (Lk. 1:3) acquaintance with the facts and experiences narrated - an acquaintance involving moral imitation (1 Tim. 4:6) - and does not imply that Timothy accompanied Paul on the journey described in Acts 13:14-14:20. In this flight, according to Acta Petri et Pauli, etc. (ed. Lips. 1891, pp. 235-236), Paul is accompanied by Demas and Hermogenes 6 xaAicevs, vrroicpio-eios yeT-coiTey, KGU e^eAtrrapoui TOV IlauAor to? ayaTrit>VTS O.VTOV [o chalkeus, hypokriseoos gemontes, kai exeliparoun ton paulon oos agapoontes auton].

1 As the nearest synagogue was at Iconium, the religious instruction of the child devolved on Eunice, who probably possessed a copy of some part of the OT scriptures is well as the little parchment rolls, specially for the use of children, containing. e.g.. the Shema, the Hallel, the history of Creation down to the Flood, and Lev. 1-8 (Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 114-117).

2. Circumcision.[edit]

The language of Acts 16:1 (/ecu I8ov [kai idou], cp 1:10, 8:27, 10:17, 12:7) is intended to denote a remarkable and happy episode in the tour (cp Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 178-179). It seemed providential that another youth was found willing and fit to join Paul's company and enterprise, after the defection of Hohn Mark and Barnabas. Characteristically (cp 6:3, 10:22, 22:12) an excellent reputation is singled out as one essential feature in his moral equipment ; Actsl62 suggests also, though it does not necessarily imply, that he had already preached in the neighbourhood. However, as his father's nationality was notorious in the locality, Paul had him circumcised. He carried out this long-deferred rite upon the eve of proceeding farther on a tour among the Phrygian churches with their Jewish surroundings and partially Jewish atmosphere, his object being to prevent people taking needless offence either at Timothy's connection with Paul or at his entrance into Jewish circles.

Acts 16:36 is often taken as an editorial gloss (e.g., Clemen, Jungst, Hilgenfeld, and Wendt), and on different lines the last-named critic and McGiffert (Apostolic Age, 232-234) have attempted to explain the whole passage as the popular and later misstatement of an actual fact, in opposition to the dominant view (cp ACTS, 4, 7) which - apart from minor variations - generally regards the story as an invention of the author, introduced in order to illustrate what he conceived was or should have been Paul s deferential and conciliatory attitude towards Jewish-Christian scruples. But the existence of a strong Timothy-tradition in the later church makes it hard to believe that a strange story like this could be spread not long after Timothy s death, if it did not correspond to fact.

And psychological reasons can be adduced which render the tradition fairly acceptable (cp Renan, S. Paul, 125, 313 ; Hort, Jud. Christ. 85-86). Paul, either before or after the conference at Jerusalem, was independent of petty scruples against or for circumcision, which he probably regarded as among the adiaphora (1 Cor. 7:18). Particularly in the case of a half-caste or semi-Jew like Timothy, where no principle was at stake, Paul could not have felt bound to abstain from circumcision, if it promoted effectiveness, any more than to insist upon it uniformly. His liberal views (cp Rom. 2:28-29, 14:13-21) left him free to act upon his own judgment and to decide any case upon its merits, free even to accommodate himself to scruples felt by Jews when such accommodation could not fairly (yet cp Gal. 5:11, and Rams. Hist. Comm. Galat., 8) be misunderstood. Timothy s circumcision was a matter of convenience, not of principle ; and Paul would make that perfectly clear before permitting his friend to become legally a Jew to save the Jews.l Upon the whole, therefore, there is a distinct case to be made out on behalf of the historicity of this paragraph, as against the plausible but somewhat arbitrary view that it represents a make- weight to Gal. 2:3-4. The case of Titus was entirely different. And it is one thing for a writer to omit an awkward fact, another and a much more serious thing - requiring greater motives and historical justification than can be reasonably brought forward in this case - deliberately to invent a story which hundreds of contemporary Christians (cp Heb. 13:23) could have readily refuted. This forms an almost insuperable difficulty in the way of accepting the ordinary hypothesis of criticism upon Acts 16:1-3 ; and it seems therefore more natural to regard Paul s action as somewhat exceptional, though it depends on the view taken of the date of Galatians (cp 5:2) whether we suppose Paul deliberately made this exception afterwards (so Weber, Abfassung des Galatterbriefes, 77-78 [1900]), or advanced to a clearer and more consistent line of action.

In sketching at a later date some personal traits of Timothy, the author of the pastoral epistles, either drawing upon Acts or upon independent oral tradition, lays characteristic stiess on the questions of good character and reputation as a requisite for the ministry (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:7), preserves the names of Eunice and Lois (2 Tim. 1:5), suggests timidity and backwardness as qualities of Timothy (2 Tim. 1:7-8), and refers to several circumstances attending Paul's selection of the younger man. There is no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of such notices or of the tradition that this momentous event (1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14) was due to some local Christians, possibly including Paul himself, who felt themselves inspired in the assembly to single out the youth as a fit companion for Paul. The statement agrees at any rate with phenomena such as those noted in Acts 13:3, etc., and merely implies that the local prophets and leaders felt themselves divinely guided in selecting Timothy, or in ratifying Paul s judgment on a matter which may have already occupied his mind. But ecclesiastical tendency of a later age is felt in the further description, throughout these passages and elsewhere (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:6, cp TIMOTHY AND TITUS [EPISTLES], 7), of a supernatural xapio-jua [charisma] due to solemn ordination; although the fact of the laying-on-of-hands at such a time is in itself quite credible (cp Acts 13:3, 14:23).

1 Zahn (Einl. 1:479-480) subtly traces an allusion to this characteristic of Timothy in the emeis of Phil. 3;3, which he insists on taking (as in v. 17) as a reference to Paul's coadjutor (Phil. 1:1). See further K. Schmidt's Ap.-gesch. 358-359 (1882).

3. In Macedonia.[edit]

Accompanying Paul and Silas on their European tour (PAUL, 20), Timothy apparently took a specially keen interest in the Macedonian churches which he helped to found at Philippi and Thessalonica, although it is remarkable that the narrative in Acts only mentions his name quite incidentally (Acts 17:14, 18:5). With the former church (Phil. 2:20-22) his relations remained singularly close and warm, but it is impossible to see him (with Volter, Th.T, 1892, p. 124) in a second-century allusion (4:3) to <rwfirye [synzyge] (cp SYNZYGUS). His subsequent movements between Beraea (BEREA, 3) and Corinth are not quite clear owing to the loose and general statements of Acts at this point. The probability is, however, that (1 Thess. 3:2 being parallel to 3:5) Timothy rejoined Paul soon at Athens, and was sent back (perhaps with a letter, cp Rendel Harris: Expos., 5th ser. , 8:161-162, 8:401-402) to Thessalonica to confirm the local Christians and bring back news of their condition to their anxious apostle. Returning from this errand Timothy, now accompanied by Silas, found that in despair Paul had gone across from Athens to Corinth. Cp THESSALOXIANS, 1-2.

The 'awkward and badly constructed' (Ramsay, St. Paul, 233) narrative of Acts 17:10-11 shows that the author, or the source which he followed here, was ignorant of this Macedonian mission; he offers no explanation of the extraordinary delay which - on his own statement ­- transpired between 17:13-14 and 18:5, imagining that Silas and Timothy had simply remained in Beroea. Whereas it is probable that the visit of Paul's two emissaries extended to Philippi as well as to Thessalonica, and that they conveyed from the former church to Paul (2 Cor. 11:9 ? Phil. 4:15) a gift of money.

4. At Corinth and elsewhere.[edit]

At Corinth and throughout Achaia, Timothy, as an apostle (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6) in the wider sense of the term (cp MINISTRY, 17; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 648-649), shared Paul's pioneering work (cp 2 Cor. 1:19) and was associated with him in the epistles (epistle?) to Thessalonica, which were written in the earlier part of the apostle s stay on the Isthmus - for although the mention of Athens (1 Thess 3:1) does not exclude the possibility of that city as the place where they were composed (see 1 Cor. 15:32, 16:8), it is plain from other allusions (cp 1 Thess. 1:8) that they presuppose the apostle's entry into Achaia. From Corinth two years later Timothy seems to have accompanied Paul as far as Ephesus, where he became known to the churches in the neighbourhood (Col. 1:1) and to local individuals (Philem. 1). {1} At any rate (cp CHRONOLOGY, 68) towards the close of the two or three years spent by Paul in Ephesus and the surrounding district, Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22), as two assistants of Paul upon the spot, were despatched to Macedonia and Achaia (possibly; dav ZXdy [ean elthe], 1 Cor. 16:10) in advance of their leader, who intended to follow up his letter to Corinth (despatched by sea after March 5, when navigation became open) by a personal visit. It is plain, from 1 Cor. 4:17, 16:10-11, that there was a chance of Timothy failing to arrive until after the letter reached its destination ; for Paul bespeaks a courteous reception for his young representative. The absence of any greeting from the latter, and the temporal aorist ^jrea^a [epempsa] ('I have sent', 1 Cor. 4:17), show that he had left before the epistle was despatched. His instructions were to return with some other Christians directly (i.e., by the sea-route) to Paul at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:11), after instructing the Corinthians afresh upon Pauline methods and views (1 Cor. 4:17) and generally consolidating their faith.

The obscurity of the Corinthian episode at this stage (cp TITUS, 2) renders it difficult to decide whether Paul s silence in 2 Cor. upon the mission of Timothy and any results attending it forms a tacit proof that Timothy did not manage to reach Corinth (so, e.g., Lightfoot, Weiss, and Ramsay), or that he did arrive and then, failing to cope subsequently with the fresh trouble, returned to Paul or simply sent him word of the crisis. On the last-named hypothesis he may have been either (so Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, G. G. Findlay) in person, or with Paul on the latter's painful visit (2 Cor. 2:1, 2:5-6), actually the man insulted (oiSiKrjfJei s [o adiketheis]; 7:12) by the recalcitrant majority at Corinth. On the whole intricate question see Schmiedel, HC 2:1;220-223.

Whatever happened to Timothy in the interval, Paul at last met 2 him somewhere among his favourite Macedonian churches (2 Cor. 1:1, 7:5) whither he had retired from Corinth probably to find a more congenial sphere ; unless we are to suppose that he accompanied Paul thither from Ephesus. Evidently he had not been in Achaia lately (2 Cor. 7:5-6, 7:13). But when Paul went on to Corinth, Timothy accompanied him (Rom. 16;21), and formed a member of the apostle's entourage on his return to Asia in the spring of the following year.

1 If the note to Ephesus, incorporated in Rom. 16, extended (as, e.g., Weizsacker and McGiffert suggest) to v. 23, the mention of Timothy in v. 21 would be highly appropriate. But the note probably contained v. 1-20 and no more. [Cp, further, ROMANS, 13.]

2 Or, sent for him ; if one plausible reconstruction of the period, based on a critical view of 2 Tim. 4:9, 4:11-18, 4:20-21 (see TIMOTHY AND TITUS [EPISTLES], 12), could be established.

5. Later movements.[edit]

Whether he accompanied Paul to Rome or was summoned by him afterwards, the scanty data available do not permit us to determine ; the latter conjecture (cp TIMOTHY AND TITUS [EPISTLES], 12-13) fits in well with the tone of 2 Tim. 4:13-15, 4:21-22a when that fragment is assigned to a genuine note sent by Paul either late in the Czesarean or early in the Roman imprisonment, urging his friend to join him. At any rate it is obvious that Timothy did stay beside him at Rome for a considerable period (Col. 1:1, Philem. 1, Phil. 1:1). Later on, however, Paul s concern for the Philippian Christians led him to arrange for the disinterested and zealous Timothy paying them a visit (Phil. 2:19-22) in order to relieve the apostle s mind by bringing back news of his old friends. Timothy had a tried character by this time and his 'solicitude for the Philippians had become a second nature' (Lightfoot). Clearly he was not a a prisoner, but free to come and go. His journey may have detained him ; or he may have proceeded farther to Ephesus. 1 At least a genuine fragment preserved in 2 Tim. 1:15-18, 4:6-12, 4:16-19 shows that at some subsequent period Paul had been forced to abandon his hope of release and now, in view of a martyr s death, wanted to have Timothy beside him again in his isolation. We do not know if the summons was obeyed in time, or at all. A final glimpse of the envoy is afforded, some twenty years later, by a casual remark in an epistle apparently addressed to some Christians at Rome (Heb. 13:23), from which it would appear that Timothy, who was familar to this circle of readers (cp Rom. 16:21, HEBREWS, 9), had been recently released from imprisonment somewhere and might possibly revisit Rome in company with his friend the writer.

6. As author.[edit]

Apart from a hypothesis, which needs only to be chronicled, that he actually edited the two pastoral epistles bearing his own name, three lines of critical reconstruction connect Timothy with authorship either independently or as an amanuensis of Paul,

  • (i.) Least probable of all is Spitta's ingenious attempt to find in him the author of 2 Thess. (Zur Gesch. u. Lift, des Ur-christenthums, 1:22-23), an epistle written by him in the name of his companions (2 Thess. 1:1) - hence its somewhat formal and official tone - and saturated with apocalyptic fantasies of Judaism peculiar to himself (cp Acts 16:1, 2 Tim. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 1:4, 4:7) See THESSALONIANS, 14.
  • (ii.) When 2 Cor. 10-13 is accepted as part of an intermediate letter to Corinth, written previous to 2 Cor. 1-9, it is natural (Pfleid. Das Urchristenthum, 106-107) though far from necessary to suppose that these four chapters were preceded by a part (no longer extant) written by Timothy or by some other companion of Paul interested in the local church. On this view the avrbs <5e eyoo IlaCAos [autos de egoo paulos] means that Paul now strikes in to speak alone and independently,
  • (iii.) With more plausibility the composition of the 'We-journal' in Acts has been assigned occasionally to Timothy (e.g., by Konigsmann, Ulrich, Beyschlag, de Wette, Bleek, and [?] Weizsacker), although the threads of positive proof are extremely subtle (cp ACTS, 9b) and the general probabilities point rather to Luke as the diarist. Besides, even if the Bezan reading in Acts 11:27-28 be rejected, a passage like Acts 20:4-6 (unless we are to suspect a serious dislocation of the text) tells against the composition of the journal by Timothy.

Sorof, however, has followed a modified form of Mayerhoff s theory in attributing to Timothy the task of editing Acts in its extant shape from

  • (a) a Lucan sketch of early Christianity in connection with Paul and
  • (b) a rather legendary Petrine source (Die Entstehung der Ap.-gesch. 1890).

1 If so, this would be the basis for the literary setting adopted by the later author of the pastoral epistles in his third composition (1 Tim. 1:3-4, cp TIMOTHY AND TITUS [EPISTLES], 11). The casual way in which Timothy's connection with Ephesus is assumed there, may be pure fantasy; but it is more likely that it may reflect some actual tradition of his career after Paul's removal ; certainly (although the far from exhaustive or accurate nature of Acts as a record of Paul's later life does not make this an insuperable objection) there is no recorded period in Acts when Paul started for Macedonia leaving Timothy to superintend matters at Ephesus.

7. In tradition.[edit]

The widespread belief of Christian tradition (Ap. Const. 746, Euseb. HE 3:4, Photius, Bibl. 254), that Timothy was appointed by Paul as the first bishop of Ephesus, is probably nothing better than an inference from the pastoral epistles (1 Tim. 1:3-4), which, however, may echo some historical relationship. The story is occasionally improved by some circumstantial details: e.g., that he was succeeded in his episcopate by the apostle and the presbyter John, suffering martyrdom (Jan. 22, Greek church ; Jan. 24, Latin ; Sept. 27, Ephesus) during the former s exile at Patmos towards the close of the first century A.D. (see Nicephorus in HE 3:11). No miracles are narrated of him in the fifth century Acta Timothei (ed. Usener, 1877). For these and other legends see further Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. (1884), 372-400, and, for the traditional connection of Timothy and Ephesus, Zahn, Einl. 1:426-427. His martyrdom 1 Tim. 6:12-13) is connected in one tradition with wild orgies in vogue possibly at the local festival of Diana, the mob having clubbed him to death for protesting against their licentiousness.

J. Mo.


  • Contents of epistles (1-3).
  • Period and object (4).
  • The errorists (5).
  • Paulinism (6).
  • Sub-Pauline elements (7).
  • The faithful sayings (8).
  • Style and diction (9).
  • Second imprisonment (10).
  • Genesis of pastorals (11).
  • Critical analysis (12-14).
  • Order of composition (15).
  • Author (16).
  • Pseudonymity (17).
  • Bibliography (18).

These three epistles commonly form a group 1 in the NT canon, 2 and the general similarity of their diction, aim, and atmosphere makes it convenient to discuss them side by side.

1 As 'personal' letters ('pro affectu et dilectione', Murat. Can.) they usually share with Philemon the last place in the list of Pauline epistles. After the Murat. Canon, where for some reason Titus precedes the other two, the normal arrangement is 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus.

2 The allusions and citations in early Christian literature simply prove the existence and (by no means unanimous) acceptance of these epistles during the second and third centuries. Neither their rejection by writers and leaders outside the catholic church, nor their welcome within it, can be supposed to throw independent light upon the question of their actual origin and authorship. Errorists usually refused to admit what was in more or less plain conflict with their own tenets, and one has always to suspect the bias of moral dislike (Clem. Alex. Strom. 2:11) behind their so-called literary verdicts upon authorship. But as little do the employment and the approbation of such writings by church-authors tell in favour of their reputed authorship. When admitted to the canon as documents bearing Paul's name, they were judged healthy in religious tone, practically serviceable to the church ('in honore ecclesiae catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiasticae discipline sanctificatae sunt', Murat. Can.), and generally congruous with the Pauline tradition and temper. Those who thus stamped them with approval had no independent knowledge of their composition ; it was enough that the epistles contained nothing which jarred with what was judged to be apostolic or Pauline ; and the early Christian attitude towards 'Hebrews' is abundant evidence of how loose that judgment could be. The modern critic is therefore justified in going behind such ecclesiastical tradition in order to face directly problems of origin and authorship which, in the nature of things, could hardly have been present to the consciousness of those who with sound instinct preserved writings handed down by religious usage from the past. No one would dream of challenging the verdict of the Homeric \ioptfoi Te [chorizontes], simply because in common with antiquity generally Aristotle (with the same facts before him) found no difficulty in treating the Iliad and the Odyssey as products of the same mind. And the identification of canonicity or worthiness with direct apostolic authorship, which tacitly controlled nearly all early Christian discussions upon the primitive literature of the church, is a literary convention which it is needless at this time of day to spend space in refuting. Consequently, in the case of the pastoral epistles, there need not be any hesitation in concentrating attention upon their internal evidence when problems such as pseudpnymity are raised. This is just one of the instances in which the naive presuppositions of early Christianity imposed limitations upon its judgment, when that judgment was exercised upon the remote literary and historical sources of its treasures.

3 J. Turmel, 'Histoire de l'interpret. de 1 Tim. 2:4' (Revue d'Hist. et de Litt. Relig. 1900, Sept.-Oct.).

Their contents.[edit]

Their contents are as follows :

1. 1 Tim.[edit]

1 Tim. is somewhat loosely knit together; the contents are miscellaneous rather than orderly, as if the writer had had no single topic dominant in his mind. But in spite of this desultory character the general trend of the epistle is not obscure.

  • After the usual greeting (1:1-2)
  • the epistle opens
    • by describing the commission already given by Paul to his lieutenant at Ephesus and now urged afresh upon his attention that he may be able to counteract local errorists of antinomian proclivities. This commission enforces sincerity and moral earnestness, according to the Pauline standard presented as an apostolic trust and tradition to which Timotheus is naturally heir (1:3-11).
    • Here a digression occurs, suggested by the closing words of v. 11; Paul claims to be the staunch though unworthy representative of this evangelical standard, and summons Timothy to unflinching loyalty (1:12-20) in view of some recent instances of aberration (HYMENAEUS and ALEXANDER).
  • The epistle then passes away from polemic and personal allusions into the first of its two sections (2-3).
    • Directions are laid down for the regulation of church-life in general:
      • (a) for whom (2:1-2) and by whom (2:3) prayer is to be offered in church - both paragraphs expanding into slight digressions
        • upon the universality {3} of salvation in the Pauline gospel (2:3-7) and
        • upon the subordinate place of women (2:9-3:1).
The writer then proceeds from Christian worship to the more vital question of
      • (b) organisation, laying down the moral criteria (see EDUCATION, 16-17)
        • of episcopi (3:2-7)
        • and diaconi (3:8-13, incidentally deaconesses are included),
    • and closing the whole section {1} with a lofty stanza or fragment of a primitive confession upon the incarnate Christ (3:14-16).
  • The second section (4-6), which resumes the tone of polemic, is thrown into the form of rules for the personal conduct and ministry of Tim. in view of serious moral aberrations fostered by the ascetic tendencies of certain Christian teachers;
    • these sophistries and superstitions he is authoritatively to refute (4:1-16).
    • He is further advised upon his attitude to the practical problems created by differences of age and sex within the membership of the churches (5:1-2),
    • and some space is devoted to the maintenance and control of two special classes of officials -
      • widows {2} (5:3-16) and
      • presbyters (5:17-25).
    • After {3} a word on the relative duties of slaves and masters (6:1-2),
    • the epistle comes round to lash the errorists, attacking them with considerable vigour for making a trade of religion. Naturally this suggests a warning to Christians in general {4} against the passion for money (6:3-10),
    • and with an impressive charge addressed to the 'man of God', the epistle dies away in a doxology (6:11-16).{5}
  • In a postscript, some words to rich people are appended, together with a supplementary warning to Timothy against contemporary yccocris [gnoosis] (6:17-21).

2. 2 Tim.[edit]

In 2 Tim., after the greeting,

  • Paul gives thanks for Timothy's inheritance and experience of faith (1:1-5).
  • He then warns his friend against false shame, urging his own life and teaching to the contrary (1:6-14), {6}
  • as well as a recent example of energy and fearlessness on the part of an Asiatic Christian called Onesiphorus (1:15-18).
  • Especially for one who like Timothy is heir to the Pauline trust and tradition, endurance for Christ's sake and adherence to the Pauline gospel (of which, indeed, endurance is a note) form a pressing duty;
    • the former is certain of a reward (2:1-13),
      • whilst the latter is the one useful and honourable course of action open for a Christian teacher (2:14-26)
amid the heightening temptations of unpractical controversy and immorality.
    • After vigorously exposing the principles and methods of these errorists (3:1-9, see JANNES AND JAMBRES),
  • Paul bids Timothy maintain the principles of the Pauline gospel, even when they involve suffering and obloquy, and at the same time adhere to the OT scriptures (3:10-17); {7}
  • then follows a resume containing his final charge and the swansong of his own confession (4:1-8).
  • Data of personal information and private messages close the letter (4:9-22).

1 The personal reference elsewhere in the NT (Gal. 2:9, Rev. 3:12) does not justify Bois in bracketing 'which is the church of the living God' (TJTIS . . . <Ju)fTOs [epis ... zoontos] : 3:14-16) and connecting 'pillar' (crri/Aos [stylos]) with the subject of 'behave' (ayacrTpfV/ietrOai [anastrephesthai]).

2 The concern to keep the widow-class under the bishop's control is thoroughly sub-apostolic (cp Ignat. ad Polyk. 4, 5). See MINISTRY, 41, and Hastings' DB 4:916-917

3 The interpolated remark (5:23), if not an aside suggested by 'pure' (dyrdr [agnon]), may have originally lain between 4:3 and 4:4 or 4:12 and 4:13, from which it has got displaced (instances of this in Hist. New Test. (2) pp. 39:676 ; also Jahn on Juv. 3:12, 3:16 and Che. on Is. 38:22). Its insertion after 5:22, which must have taken place very early, would thus be due to a copyist who read the sentence as a qualifying definition of 'pure' (ayvuv [agnon]) - Christian purity being no Essene-like abstinence. Epictetus (Diss. 3:22) similarly regards bodily health as a necessary part of the true Cynic's religious equipment; 'for if he has the appearance of a consumptive, pale, and thin person, his testimony has not the same weight'. Julicher and Bacon group vv. 23-25 together, and von Soden links 25 to 23, 24 to 22, whilst Calvin plausibly suggested that 22c-23 was a marginal note of the author.

4 In particular to teachers who found Christianity a lucrative trade (cp Did. 11-12, Barn. 10, Ignat. Ephes. 7, Tit. 1:11).

5 The absence of any greetings to members of the Ephesian church, together with the paucity of personal allusions, shows that the epistle is not a letter in the strict sense of the word. The author is writing with his eye on the Christian church of his own day, as the phrases (2 Tim. 4:22, Tit. 3:15, 1 Tim. 6:21) prove for all three epistles. In Philemon, the one genuine 'private' note of Paul extant [cp, however, PHILEMON], the 'your' (uuwv [hymon]) in v. 25 refers to the different persons associated with Philemon in the introduction. Cp also the variant 'know ye' (yivtuCTxeTe [ginooskete] : Lachm.) in 2 Tim. 3:1. The alternative open to the traditionalists is the gratuitous assumption that passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-3:13, etc., were meant to be communicated by their recipients to wider circles (Zahn); which of course destroys the character of the writings as private letters. Cp 1 Tim. 2:8 (1 Cor. 7:17).

6 On the contents of 1:6 see below (section 7). But even if 'us' in v. 7 referred to Paul and Timothy (which is not absolutely certain) it would simply allude to them as the persons immediately under consideration, not as officials. The passage, therefore, does not in itself betray the narrowing of the Spirit to a class ; and the contents of the Spirit are distinctly ethical : vigour issuing in love to others and in self-control.

7 On 3:13 cp Aristides 6:16 (Wendland, Klicin. Mus., 1894, 49:309).

8 The curious antipathy of the writer to second marriages on the part of presbyters, episcopi, diaconi, and 'widows' (>?pu [cherai], see WIDOW), is quite un-Pauline, but corresponds to the more general cast of feeling prevalent in the second century throughout the churches (e.g., Athenagoras, Leg; pro Christ. 33, 'respectable adultery', euvrpeTri)? /aot^ eta &gt [euprepes moicheia]; Herm. Mand. 4:1:4 ; Clem. Alex. Strom. 3:1). See Jacoby, Neutest. Ethik (1899), 378-399.

3. Titus.[edit]

  • After a somewhat elaborate greeting (1:1-4),
  • the epistle to Titus opens by reiterating Pauls instructions with regard to the choice and duties {8} of presbyters or episcopi in Crete, {1} in order to sharply check erroneous teaching and immoral practices on the part of some Judaising propagandists who were upsetting the churches (1:5-16).
  • {2} Titus is then instructed how to enforce the moral obligations of Christianity upon
    • aged men (2:1-2),
    • aged women, {3} and married women (2:3-5),
    • younger men like himself (2:6-8), and
    • slaves (2:9-10).
  • Paul insists on this moral life as an essential of the Christian faith (2:11-14, see PECULIAR PEOPLE),
  • and urges Titus to press home the positive duties of obedience to authority and of pure conduct, instead of wasting time over-controversialists and sectaries (2:15-3:11; cp EXCOMMUNICATION, 3 ; HERESY, 2).
  • With some brief personal notices (3:12-15) the epistle closes; the mention of the jurist Zenas and the evangelist Apollos is perhaps intended to suggest that it was conveyed by their hands to its recipient.

4. Period and object.[edit]

The cluster of problems offered by these epistles is intimately connected with the dual nature of their contents. Within a setting and alongside of material which, upon all available criteria of internal evidence, must be pronounced distinctly sub-Pauline, 4 the reader meets passages apparently alien which have high claims to be considered as directly due to the apostle whose name the letters bear. The task of criticism is to do justice to both of these elements. The sub-Pauline element is primary, and in view of it any reasonable appreciation of the whole question, not merely of isolated details, leads almost inevitably to the conclusion - one of the best established in NT research - that the three epistles are pseudonymous, composed by a Paulinist in Asia Minor 5 not earlier than the close of the first century, and not later than the second decade of the second century, based in part upon genuine fragments from the apostle s pen as well as upon more or less reliable oral tradition, and intended to express and instruct the common Christianity 6 of the day in terms, as far a! was possible or useful, of the great Pauline tradition. Substantially they were written and circulated early in the second century, as is evident from their employment in the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. During the period 90-120, and during that period alone, they possess a career and object which corresponds to their own internal evidence as well as to the data afforded by more or less contemporary literature. The latter point is minor though real. Their literary affinities are beyond question with Lk.-Acts, 1 Clem. Rom., Barnabas, and the epistles of Jude and 2 Pet. , as well as with the fourth book of the Sibylline oracles (Asia Minor, circa 80 A.D. ) which, like 4 Maccabees, reiterates the term 'pious' (ei><re,i?7s [eusebes]). Unlike Paul, the author also makes copious use of the vocabulary of 2 Maccabees, and, at least in Titus and 1 Tim. , there are traces of acquaintance with 1 Pet.

1 The concrete and bitter description of the Cretan character - with its prevalent traits of falsehood, avarice, drunkenness, and restless sedition - does not favour the ingenious hypothesis that Cretans in this epistle are an allegorical equivalent for Philistines (Kprji-es [kretes], cp CRETE), whom tradition occasionally connected with the island. There is no evidence for such personification in the pastorals as would represent the church under the figure of the twelve tribes scattered in the dispersion (Jas. 1:1) and opposed by enemies of the true Israel.

2 In v. 16 o/j.o\oyovcriv [homologousin] (EV 'profess') is (as Heb. 11:13) 'to make public avowal', especially when called upon (1 Pet. 3:15). The writer s point is, not that the errorists made extravagant claims, but that they did not act up to the normal profession of the Christian faith.

3 For npfcrBuTis [presbytis] in early Christianity see Achelis, ZNTW, 1900, pp. 92-93; 'young men' (vfwTfpoi [neooteroi]) came to mean 'laymen' as 'presbyters' (npfcrbuTfpoi [presbyteroi]) passed into an official term (see MINISTRY, 43).

4 It is only fair to the ascertained results of criticism to adopt this position, although one still meets statements like the following: 'It may be asserted without fear of contradiction that nothing really un-Pauline has been proved in any of the disputed epistles' (Sanday, Inspiration, 338-339, 363-364, 379-380, 1896, a discussion characterised by Dr. Hincks of Andover thus: 'General assertion, bolstered up by the opinion of those like-minded this is not the way in which an intelligent man, who has solid arguments at his disposal, maintains an imperilled cause').

5 Cp von Dobschutz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, 127-139 (1902), Harnack, Ausbreit. d. Christ. (1902) 461-462

6 The motto of the pastorals lies in a sentence like (RV) 'For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us' (Tit. 2:11, eTre^afr; yap TT\ \apis TOV 9eoO cramjpio? iracrti/ ayflpiuTroi? TraiSev ovtra rjfias). In their age Christianity had to fight for its life against a subtle spirit in the air rather than against civil persecution ; visionaries and sophist? were more deadly than proconsuls and lictors. Thanks to the moderation and steady sense of writers like the author of the pastorals, however, ordinary Christians came safely through the struggle with four truths as a secure possession; the unity of the Creator and the Redeemer, the unique and sufficient value of Jesus for redemption and revelation, the vital tie between morals and faith, and the secure future assured to the church of God.

The distinctive element, however - i.e. , the prominence assigned to Timothy and Titus, is intelligible only upon the supposition that the author had specially in view the ulterior end of vindicating the legitimate evangelic succession of contemporary episcopi and other office-bearers in provinces where this was liable for various reasons to be challenged. The pastorals were composed, says Tertullian, to expound church affairs ('de ecclesiastico statu'). The craving (visible in Clem. Rom. ) for continuity of succession as a guarantee of authority in doctrine (and therefore in discipline 2 ) underlies the effort of this Paulinist to show that Timothy and Titus were genuine (yvrjcrioi [gnesioi]) heirs of Paul, who himself (as the author goes out of his way to repeat and assert) was a divinely commissioned herald of the gospel. Inferentially, the successors appointed by Paul's lieutenants possessed the true central deposit of the faith. Conscious of this inheritance, and alive to its value, they are urged even as novices to instruct 3 the churches personally upon the faith in a peremptory and positive manner, 4 instead of allowing converts to lie exposed to unreliable teachers or false leaders. Such teachers and leaders abound. Indeed, one note of the age is the flaunting confident temper of the errorists (2 Tim. 2:23-24, 3:1-2, 4:3-4, Tit. 1:10-11, 3:10, 1 Tim. 1:7, 4:1-2, 5:24, Acts 20:29-30, Jude 8-10, 12, 19, Rev. 2:20, 1 Jn. 4:1, 4:5, 2 Jn. 7, 3 Jn. 9 ; Ign. Ephes. 7, Trall. 6, etc. ).

1 Cp von Soden, Theol. Abhandlungen, 133-135 (1892). A comparison of the pastorals with Lk.-Acts, etc., establishes not their priority or literary filiation, so much as the relatively late period at which all were composed. Diction, ideas, standpoint - all indicate unmistakably the sub-Pauline period, with its stereotyped expressions and current phraseology.

2 The concern of the pastorals, less avowed yet none the less real than in Ignatius and Clement, is to vindicate the authority of the elders or bishops over the enthusiasts and ascetics in the church ; the second century reveals this perennial struggle going on particularly in Asia Minor. Hence this Paulinist is forward to claim Paul s authority on behalf of the organised discipline of the churches.

3 The prominence given to 'teaching' qualities shows that one danger of the contemporary churches lay largely in the vagaries and crude speculations of unauthorised teachers (Did. 15:1). The author's cure is simple. Better let the episcopus himself teach ! Better let those in authority themselves be responsible for the instruction of ordinary members ! Evidently teaching was not originally or usually (1 Tim. 5:17) a function of the presbyters ; but abuses had led by this time, as the Didache proves, to a need for combining teaching with organised church authority. A contemporary spirit of contempt for young episcopi (Ignat. Magn. 3 etc.) is answered by the repeated encouragements of Paul in 2 Tim. 2:22-23, Tit. 2:6-7, 1 Tim. 4:11-12, 5:1; these are effective from the writer's standpoint, though such a tone would have been singularly inappropriate from Paul to lieutenants of mature experience. Here, however, they are types of loyalty to the Pauline gospel; that is all.

4 Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5), eg., is not an evangelist, but he is to do an evangelist's work as part of his full service. See EVANGELIST, MINISTRY, 39b, and Dieterich in ZNTW, 1900, pp. 336-338. The whole evidence from the allusions to ecclesiastical organisation points to the period immediately preceding that of Ignatius (MINISTRY, 54).

5 Also to the statement of Clem. Alex. (Strom. 7:17) that Gnostic heresies first became threatening about Hadrian's reign, whilst the apostolic age and teaching ended with Paul's ministry under Nero.

6 Emphasis on the visible church as a bulwark of morals (2 Tim. 2:19-20 etc.) is accompanied by its elevation to the rank of foundation (#e/xe Aios [themelios]), hitherto reserved for Christ (1 Cor. 3:11), or, at least, for the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20). The church now takes her place in a fairly stable world; the old anxious outlook for an immediate return of Jesus is no longer central. The really pressing questions concern not the next world but the present, and institutions are brought forward as a means of moral discipline and religious settlement.

5. The errorists.[edit]

Open attempts, as well as cunning intrigues (2 Tim. 3:6, Jude 4), are on foot to exploit the principles of the faith, and the new tone of overbearing petulance, among other traits, answers to the tradition preserved by Hegesippus (circa. 160 A.D.) {5} that such a phase occurred first of all during Trajan's reign (Eus. HE 3:32), previously to which the church {6} had remained 'a pure and incorruptible virgin' (mtpScvos KaOapa. KO.\ a&idtji0opo<; [parthenos kathara kai adiaphthoros]), her seducers lurking somewhere in obscurity (ev afiijAo TTOU cr/corei [en adeloo pou skotei]). This comparatively virgin purity of the church lasted not merely till the death of the apostles, but till the close of the next generation, 'of those thought worthy to be immediate listeners to the very words of the divine wisdom' (riav avrals dicoats TTJS evBiov <ro<f>ia.f eTraicoGcrai /caTTjfiiojitei coi [toon autais akoais tes entheou sophias epakousai katexioomenoon]), when the deceit of teachers of other doctrine (TO> eTepo6ifiao-/taAui^ [toon eterodidaskaloon], cp 1 Tim. 1:3, 6:3) produced impious error in the communities. Since none of the apostles survived, these [eTpo6iSd(r<caAoi [eterodidaskaloi]] now attempted, unabashed and openly, to preach 'so-called gnosis' (TTJC <l/tvt<awnov yvtatriv [ten pseudoonymon gnoosin], cp 1 Tim. 6:20) in opposition to 'the preaching of the truth' (TUJ TTJS aArjSei a? (cijpuy/maTt [too tes aletheias kerygmati]; cp 2 Tim. 4:17, Tit. 1:3). Of these Marcion 1 was the foremost.

In the pastorals, as in Jude and 2 Peter, this movement in its incipient stage is met by equally frank methods, which seem denunciatory merely because we no longer possess any statement of the other side and are, therefore, prone to forget that such rough and decisive ways are at times the soundest method of conserving truth. Popular applications of gnosticism were, as a rule, brilliant and poisonous fungi. Instead of writing a botanical treatise on their varieties, this writer felt the simpler and more practical plan was to make people either avoid or destroy them. It was a short and easy plan, and probably effective at the time, although its expression in literature runs the natural risk of being reproached for containing more heat than light. Firmness and even ridicule have their own place as ethical weapons of defence, and the opening of the second century offered Christianity some admirable occasions for their use.

The physiognomy of the errorists is indistinct, for several reasons. The author had to preserve the verisimilitude of a Pauline situation, for one thing ; and the desire of avoiding undue anachronisms prevented him from being more explicit about the details of errors which had arisen in his own later age. Besides, the errors were familiar to his audience and might be taken for granted on the whole. It is even probable that he abstained purposely from confining his range to any one set of visionaries and opponents, inasmuch as his letters were intended (like 1 Peter, James, and 2 Peter) to be manifestoes to the church in general, rather than homilies for any local audience. The numerous forms of opinion and conduct in and around contemporary Christendom, which by a sound instinct he regarded as a menace to the faith, had certain common features; and to describe these as due to a syncretism of Gnosticism and (Tit. 1:10-11, 3:9, 1 Tim. 1:7) Judaism, is to go as far as the evidence of the pastorals warrants.

The environment (as in Rev. 2-3, and the Ignatian epp.) is marked by the incipient phases of what afterwards blossomed out into the Gnosticism of the second century : an amalgam of tendencies towards dualism {2} and docetism (1 Tim. 2:6, 3:16, as in 1 jn.), the multiplication of media between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5-6), a distinction between the God of creation and the God of redemption (1 Tim. 4:3-5, cp Herm. Vis. 1:3), a depreciation of the OT (2 Tim. 3:16), {3} and a penchant for magic and superstition (2 Tim. 3:8, 3:13 ; cp. Acts 8:9-24, 19:11-19 for Ephesus, 13:6-12 for Cyprus). These tendencies were allied to ascetic predilections (like the prohibition of marriage among the Encratites, of marriage and flesh among the Saturninians and the Marcionites), which as usual bordered on antinomian license, to an aristocratic exclusiveness (opposed in non-Pauline fashion, 1 Tim. 2:4-5, 4:10), to a semi-philosophic evaporation of primitive beliefs - e.g., on the resurrection {1} (2 Tim. 2:18 ; so Menander and Dositheus), to indulgence in superficial theories and rhetoric, and so on. To our author's eye these errorists were heterogeneous. 'For there are many insubordinate people, chatterers and cheats, especially those who have come from the circumcision' (Tit. 1:10). The mischievous feature about them was their presence within the churches and their combination of plausible errors with apparent, even ostentatious, fidelity to the principles of the faith - a trouble elsewhere reflected (Acts 20:29-30) in connection with the Ephesian church towards the close of the first century.

1 Marcion's omission of the pastorals from his canon tells heavily against their origin as preserved in tradition. Philemon was accepted by him, though far more of a private note than any of the pastorals; and the presence of elements antagonistic to his own views need not have made him exclude them, since he could have easily excised these passages in this as in other cases.

2 Cp von Dobschutz, 180-187, 189.

3 The lack of homogeneity in the description of the errorists prevents this trait from telling against the reference (GENEALOGIES, 4; Hart, Judaistic Christianity, 135-136) of the 'genealogies' (yei/eaAo-yuu [genealogiai]) in Tit. 3:9, 1 Tim. 1:4 to legendary pedigrees of Jewish heroes. But the phrase came to have a conveniently appropriate colour afterwards in view of the interminable series of aeons and emanations developed especially by Gnostic sects like the Valentinians. The Jewish legalism of Tit. 1:14, 3:9, 1 Tim. 1:7-8 recalls Cerinthus decidedly.

6. Paulinism.[edit]

Even if the author had any single system of error in mind (which, in view of the contemporary fusion of paganism and Judaism, is unlikely), the vague and somewhat indiscriminate fashion in which he endeavours to confute their pretensions, renders it impossible to reconstruct any coherent picture of his opponents. Several traits suggest influences similar to those which fostered Essenism ; others 2 recall the picture of Cerinthus sketched in later tradition, others again the errorists Carpocrates, Menander, and Dositheus. The two in disputable facts are, that the collective evidence of the early Christian literature, as well as of later tradition, places the origin of such phenomena (upon any considerable scale) not earlier than the close of the first century, and that their locus was primarily Eastern, in Syria and particularly Asia Minor, where we find the pastorals, like the Ignatian epistles, pouring a scattered fire upon manifold forms of antagonistic theosophy.

Against the seductive influences of local paganism, with its ethical miasma and religious cravings, the author assumes a moralistic standpoint based upon the popular conception of Paulinism.

No writer after Paul s death could maintain, even when - as in Marcion's case - he happened to sympathise with, the deeper aspects of the apostle's thought, which survived mainly, so far as the subsequent literature was concerned, but in altered form throughout the Fourth Gospel. As a general rule Paulinism was either misunderstood or modified. The sub-Pauline epistles, like the Roman symbol (Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol, 2:498-499, 596-597, 720-721 [1900]), show instances of both attitudes, and the pastorals are a vivid proof of how even a devoted Paulinist had to alter the emphasis at many points of his master s teaching upon religious and practical topics 3 in a restatement of it for some later age - being forced, for example, to meet the common objection to Paul's severe view of the Law, and to admit the high estimate of its value throughout the diaspora as an ethical code and check (1 Tim. 1:5-11), {4} as well as to correct abuses and misunderstandings of certain Pauline ideas (e.g., the resurrection, 2 Tim. 2:18).

1 This notion is either ultra-spiritualist (cp Jn. 5:24, qualified carefully by 5:28-29, etc.) and due to Gnostic tendencies, or chiliastic - the reign of Christ, eternal life, has already begun; therefore there can be no marrying (Lk. 20:35-36, 1 Tim. 4:3).

2 If Cerinthus and Carpocrates really rejected the virgin-birth (Iren. Adv. haer. 1:26:1, 1:25:1), it is strange that neither the author of the Fourth Gospel nor the author of the pastorals defended this point. The former, probably, had reasons of his own; but the latter, who had no semi-philosophic christology to state, seems to have omitted the virgin-birth from his rhythmic summary (1 Tim. 3:16-17) owing to his genuinely Pauline standpoint. This adherence to the older view is all the more remarkable side by side with the eager insistence on it in Asc. Isaiae., 11:2-22, and Ignat. ad Eph. 19 (where a Pauline citation occurs, 1 Cor. 2:8), both contemporary writings.

3 Note, e.g., the varying proportion of the two currents - one spontaneous and prophetic, the other veering towards order and organisation. The former is in some writings of this age almost wholly subordinated to the latter (Clem. Rom., Past., even Ignat.) : in others it is dominant, almost exclusively important (Barnabas, 1 Jn., Rev., Jude, 2 Pet.).

4 Antiphanes (Fragm. Com. Graec.), 'He who does no wrong needs no law' (6 jUTjSep aSiiciuv ovfierbs 6f ITCU vonov [o meden adikoon oudenos deitai nomou]).

7. Sub-Pauline elements.[edit]

The author rightly felt that Paul was essentially anti-Gnostic, and that the tenets of the incipient Gnostic theosophy would have been repugnant to the man who had theoretically and practically attacked its precursors at Colossae. But his own practical bent and prudent sense of the situation prevent him from developing in reply Paul's peculiar theory of gnosis as a special endowment, superior to faith, and mediated by the spirit. Such methods would not have been appropriate. Popular Christianity had always been wider and more varied than Paulinism, even during Paul s lifetime, and the new period which found Christianity in fresh relations with the wider empire in the generation following Paul s death, stimulated fresh energies and fresh methods of expression, native to the age but more or less an advance upon all previous conceptions. To the author of the pastorals, loyal to the apostolic and especially the Pauline tradition, but none the less free to interpret afresh his Christian consciousness, God appears - in un-Pauline fashion as a Saviour ; Jesus not as the son of God but as a mediator, 1 or rather the mediator ; baptism (Tit. 3:5) as almost a sacrament of salvation, the Law simply as a useful code of morals. Anthropomorphism is carefully avoided, as in the Fourth Gospel ; God is the Absolute - his unity, awe (1 Tim. 6:16, cp En. 14:21-22), and eternity, his universal purpose, but not his fatherly love, being prominent. 2 The pressing question of religion is the consolidation of the churches rather than the extension of the gospel to those as yet unreached. We are in the age of the Epigoni, when the creative genius has almost disappeared and is yielding place to practical activities which are mainly devoted to conserving ground already gained. The spirit of defensiveness has increased. Christianity is now more self-conscious than ever. Her outlook is not eschatological so much as secular, directed to a useful though troubled career in the world. The church has behind her a sound body of religious truth, which it is her business to teach and enforce ; and this is presented by the writer in brief, crystallised phrases and paragraphs, which recall the incipient liturgies and symbols of the church. 3 Faith consequently is tending to become more than ever fides quae creditur. It is predominantly the confident apprehension of the truth or the conviction that the gospel-message is authentic, sometimes the virtue of fidelity ; but neither the author nor his age has any intelligent sympathy with Paul s characteristic idea of faith as the warm tie between Jesus and the redeemed Christian. Nay more, the old Pauline antithesis of faith and works (like the idea of justification by faith, or of salvation from sin's guilt) is put into the background, evidently as misleading or apt to be misunderstood. 'Piety', nourished by sound 4 teaching, is the root out of which all human virtues spring ; and the conceptions of reward, a good conscience, and the value of a respectable reputation, come to the front. In effect, this is practically the ethical result of Paulinism. But how differently 5 the apostle and the later church reached even the same conclusions ! Here eternal life is the boon granted to good works, and 'faith' (iriffris [pistis]) is a man's relation to the 'truth' of 'the teaching'.

Similarly the church, to this unmystical author, is no longer the bride or the body of Christ but God's building, or rather a familia dei, quite in the neo-catholic manner. It is beginning to assume the place occupied by the Holy Spirit in Paul's theology, the latter doctrine having become liable to abuse as well as proving too profound for later generations. As in books like the Apocalypse, Jude, and 2 Peter, the Spirit in the pastorals is essentially prophetic ; 1 as a means of union between the individual and Jesus, it is almost if not entirely ignored. The exceptions - and they are apparent or partial exceptions - are Tit. 3:5-6, 2 Tim. 1:14 ; even the personal relation of the believer to Jesus is not cardinal (2 Tim. 1:12, 2:11-12).

1 Sub-Pauline idea (Heb. 8:6, etc.). In Test. Dan. 6, the angel of peace is the mediator between God and man.

2 The heaping up of predicates, especially in the negative, recalls earlier attempts by Jewish thinkers (e.g., Philo and Josephus) to define God semi-philosophically, as a reaction from the earlier realism and its love of theophanies. Passages like 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16 mark the sub-Pauline transition from this to the later efforts of the Greek spirit, as in the 'Preaching of Peter' and Aristides. The pastoral 'Trinity' corresponds, however, to the apocalyptic (e.g., Rev. 14, Lk. 9:26, etc.) - i.e., God, Jesus, and the angels (elect); while Christ s appearing (1 Tim. 6:14-15) is stated in Pauline terms of subordination, and with the substitution of epiphany (eTrt^xxveta [epiphaneia]) for the Pauline parousia (wapowia [parousia]).

3 The pastorals, like Ephesians, are absorbed in an un-Pauline devotion to the church which ignores the local churches. This trait, absent even from Ignatius, significantly illustrates their authorship and real aim as tracts for the officers of the Catholic church. Timothy and Titus are portrayed as receiving instructions and ideals which were to control the contemporary teachers and other office-bearers of the author's age.

4 This un-Pauline use of vyiaiveiv [hygiainein] in 8iSacnca.\ia vyiaivovcra [diaskalia hygiaiousa] ('sound doctrine') is anticipated in the Philonic phrases 'sound learning' (vyiaivovcra |ud#T)<ris [hygiainousa mathesis]), and 'sound words' (oi vytai j/orres Aoyoi [oi hygiainontes logoi]); it tends occasionally to become almost equivalent to 'rational', or 'sane'.

5 Paul could have written Tit. 2:11, 2:14; but he would have had something to say also about peace with God and reconciliation. He 'could no doubt have said all this' (i.e., Tit. 3:4-7) also, but 'probably he would have said it otherwise, and not all at a time'. Practically it is the use of such stereotyped and almost formal language which makes it reasonable to say that 'St. Paul was inspired, but the writer of these epistles is sometimes only orthodox' (Denney, The Death of Christ, 1902, p. 203).

8. The 'faithful sayings'.[edit]

These and other items of the creed, now rapidly crystallising in Rome and Asia Minor, are conveyed partly in hymnal fragments {2} which, like those in the Apocalypse of John, sprang from the cultus of the churches ; partly in the shape of aphorisms such as the terse and weighty axioms called the five 'faithful sayings' (cp Ps. 111:7-8). These are like proverbs; they mark a comparatively advanced stage of experience, expressing in concentrated form the outcome of prolonged reflection.

  • (i.) 2 Tim. 2:11-13a. - Here the 'faithful saying' (TTIO-TO? Ao-yos [pistis logos]) {3} resembles a fragment of some primitive hymn or confession, if it is not - like the rhythmical snatches (cp also Rev. 21:5, 22:6, Adyoi TTIOTOI [logoi pistoi]) in the Apocalypse - an outburst of the Spirit-raptures in the early church (cp Weinel, Die Wirk. des Geistes, 80-81 [1899]).
  • (ii.) Tit. 3:8. - As the phrase implies a condensed and pregnant statement, it seems better in Tit. 3:8 to find its contents in v. 7 rather than in 4-7, which it is sometimes supposed (e.g., by von Soden, Bernard, Weiss) to recapitulate.
  • (iii.) 1 Tim. 1:15. Here the phrase not merely is expanded by the non-Pauline addition {4} 'and worthy of all acceptation' (/cai Trao-rjs aTroSoxrjs a to? [kai pases apodoches axios]; as in 4:9), but also precedes its contents which are in this instance introduced by 'that' (on [oti]),
  • (iv.) 1 Tim. 3:1 - The use of the phrase in this verse, which of course refers back to 2:15 ('saved in child-bearing'; Chrysost. Erasm. etc.) - a wife's salvation being worked out in her own sphere of motherhood (despite the associations of Jewish tradition), not in ecclesiastical position - is remarkable for the variant (accepted by Zahn. Einl. 1:482) 'human' (avdpuiwivo; [anthroopinos) 5 in D*g (Ambrosiast. Sedul.). In 1:15 as here, 'save' (<r<a$ei.v [soozein]) has an indirect eschatological reference,
  • (v.) 1 Tim. 4:9. - In this verse (which Bois and Baljon delete) the contents of the 'saying' (Adyos [logos]) might be either v. 8 (Chrysost. Weizs. Hilg. Weiss, von Soden, Horton) or v. 10 (Bengel, Schleierm. Holtzm., cp 'for' [yap [gar]] and ayuiv [hagion]. 2 Tim. 2:11).

1 In 1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14, where a symbol is trembling into a sacrament (cp Acts 20:28, not 13:1-3 which denotes a commission for some special service), divine inspiration prompts the Christian prophets, of whom Paul is one, to select men for office in the church, and to confer upon them a supernatural charism (xcipicrjiia [charisma]) by means of the rite of imposition of hands (see HANDS, LAVING ON OF, and SPIRITUAL GIFTS, also MINISTRY, 37b, 37c). The idea of such a special rite, even in the form of 2 Tim. 1:6 (1 Thess. 5:19-20), could hardly have come from the man who wrote 1 Cor. 12:4 (diversities of gifts), 1:11 (dividing to every man), and represents the water-mark of later Catholicism; the semi-official tinge lent to a primitive ceremony is palpable (see Gunkel's Wirkungen des heilig. Geistes,(2) 7 [1899], and especially Weinel's Wirk. des Geistes und der Geister, 140-142, 216-218 [1899], with the conveyancing of influence through physical contact as traced by Volz in ZATW 21:93-94 [1901]). The other function of the Spirit in the prophets - i.e., prediction of woes and perils (1 Tim. 4:1-2, 2 Tim. 3:1-2) - is naturally referred by the sub-apostolic age (Acts 20:29-30, Clem. Rom. 44:1, Jude 17-18, 2 Pet. 2:1) to the apostles. They foresaw what their successors suffer. Hence the pseudonymous pastoral epistles credit Paul with anticipations of the errors current in their own age.

2 In 1 Tim. 3:16 the statement of the resurrection ('justified in the spirit', eSixaiiaOr] ei> n-i/ev/ixaTi [edikaioothe en pneumati]) is an un-Pauline development of Rom. 1:4 (cp Iren. 2:32:3-4) after 1 Pet. 3:18, 4:6 and Jn. 16:10, as that of the incarnation is un-Pauline and distinctly Johannine (1 Jn. 3:5, 3:8, cp 1 Pet. 1:20); 'seen by angels' is a sub-Pauline development (Eph. 3:10, 1 Pet. 1:12, 3:18-19), 'world' (edoyios [kosmos]) appears to have its sub-Pauline emphasis of 'evil', and 'was taken up in glory' (di/eA^i^r) f v Sofrj [anelemphthe en doxe]), if an allusion to the Ascension, is thoroughly un-Pauline. On the Messiah as the copestone of this new temple of Truth, see Briggs, Messiah of Apostles, 228-232 [1895].

3 The reference is neither to v. 8 (Weiss) nor to what immediately precedes (Chrysost.), but to v. 11b-13a. which, like Tit. 3:8 and 1 Tim. 4:9, looks out directly upon the future and final hope of the Christian disciple. v. 13b is probably an explanatory comment ; but there is no need to regard v. 13 (with Ewald, Hesse, Hilg.) as a gloss or interpolation.

4 Cp En. 9:41, 'the paths of righteousness are worthy of acceptation'.

5 So r (humanus), 1:15.

It is noticeable that of these sententiae (i.) alone is in thought anil style somewhat parallel to Paul, {1} who never associates 'heirship' or 'hope' (as Tit. 3:7-8) with 'eternal life' (fior) aiiovios [zooe aioonios]). The colouring of (iii.), as of Tit. 3:5 (2 Tim. 1:10, 1 Tim. 2:4 {2} 6:13-14, Tit. 1:1-2, 1:16) is Johannine, whilst (iv.) contains the pastoral triad of faith, love, and soberness, and the air. Aey. [ap. leg.] childbearing, which is besides an idea generally strange to Paul's mode of thought (particularly if childbirth is considered as a means of salvation). In (v.) characteristically un-Pauline terms abound (e.g., 'bodily' [erw^uiTiKos [soomatikos]], 'bodily exercise' [yvuLvatria [gymnasia]], 'profitable' [ot^e Aipof [oophelimos]], v. 7-8, niaTrjp [sooter] of God, v. 10). The 'faithful sayings', therefore, not merely are characteristic of the pastorals, but betray an essentially un-Pauline conception of the regula fidei. {3}

9. Style and diction.[edit]

This difference in ground-work is endorsed by the difference in style and diction between Paul and the author of the pastorals, an argument which forms a cumulative and almost final proof of the sub-Pauline origin of the epistles. Out of the 176 hapax legomena, a proportion two or three times as great as in the Pauline epistles, nearly 80 are in LXX and were therefore consciously neglected by Paul. Favourite Pauline phrases and words are totally wanting (e.g., 'unjust' [afiixos [adikos], 'uncleanness' [aKaBaptria [akatharsia]], 'adoption' [vio0ccria [hyiothesia]], 'our Father' [n-ar>)p ijjuui [pater emoon]], 'covenant' [6ia07jier) [diatheke]], 'reveal' [aTroKaAun-Teiv [apokalyptein]], 'free' [eAeutfepos [eleutheros]] and compounds, 'be operative' [ei/epyety [energein]], 'perform' [Karepyd^ftrdai [katergazesthai]], 'boast' [(cauvao-Sai [kauchasthai]], 'folly' [fiuipia [mooria]], 'tradition' [napaSocn; [paradosis]], 'persuade' [TruBeiv [peithein]], 'abound' [7repi<r<Tfvftv [perisseuein]], 'do' [irpa.va eLi [prassein], = iroielv [poiein], in past.], 'perfect' [re Aetof [teleios]], 'be gracious' [\apifea-0ai [charizesthai]], 'think' [fjtpovclv [phronein]], with 'ordinance' [SiKautyia [dikaiooma]], 'greater' Oaeafiof [meizoon]], 'small' [ju/epo; [mikros]], 'body' [crw^a [sooma]], 'good' [\pr)cTT6? [chrestos]], etc. ; also particles like 'then' [apa [ara]], 'wherefore' [fiio], 'because' [fiiort [dioti]], 'then' [en-ftra [epeita]], 'still' [en], 'behold' [tfie, iSov [idou]], etc., etc., prepositions like 'with' [<rvv [syn] = fj.eTa [meta] of pastorals], 'instead of' [ai/Tt [anti]], 'until' [dxpt [achri]], 'before' [HiJLirpo<r6ev [emprosthen]], 'beyond' [irapd [para], acc.]). Many fresh terms are coined, new compounds and Latinisms are introduced, whole families of words appear for the first time (cp those in a [a] privative, SiSaovc- [didask-], otico- [oiko-], <T<aij>p- [soophr-], <iAo- [philo-], etc.), and others are used with unwonted frequency (e.g., icdA- [kal-]). The extent and significance of this change in vocabulary cannot adequately be explained even when one assigns the fullest possible weight to such factors as change of amanuensis, situation, or topic, lapse of time, literary fertility, or senile weakness ; for the wider evidence of syntax and style, to be felt even through a translation, comes in to verify the impression already made by the vocabulary. Particularly where the writer is most himself and least dependent on previous letters (as in 1 Tim.), the idiosyncrasies of his composition appear, neither accidental nor trivial by any means. The comparative absence of rugged fervour, the smoother flow, the heaping up of words, all point to another sign-manual than that of Paul. In short, the relative proportions of likeness and unlikeness (especially to Romans and Philippians) between the style of Paul and the style of these three letters, are explicable only upon the hypothesis that the writer of the pastorals modelled his diction in part upon that of his master, but not slavishly - certainly not to the prejudice of his own originality and cast of thought. These proportions are precisely what we should expect in such a literary relationship. Upon any other hypothesis they do not seem credible or reasonable. Questions of style are proverbially delicate, but the linguistic data of the pastorals and the Pauline epistles may be said to resemble those of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel ; both ratify the conclusion that we have to do with kinship, not identity, of authorship. *

1 Yet 'deny' (apvelcrOat [arneisthai]) is non-Pauline, and the stanza reads like a popular version of Paul's own words, adapted to the requirements of a martyr-period. See Denney, 202.

2 The knowledge of God or of the truth = salvation or eternal life (Jn. 17:2-3, 17:17); cp Jn. 17:3 with 1 Tim. 2:5, the same combination of monotheism as against polytheism, and of Christ's unique and sufficient position as against Judaism or Gnosticism, besides ('the man Christ Jesus') a Johannine protest against the Gnostic or Docetic tendency to resolve Christ into a phantom of abstract spirit. On the Christology of the epistles (1 Tim. 3:16), see A. Klopper in ZWT (1902) 339-361.

3 No possible change of circumstances could make Paul oblivious (through three separate letters) of God's fatherhood, of the believing man's union with Jesus, of the power and witness of the Spirit, or of reconciliation. They might be taken for granted? But surely in enforcing the ethical requirements of the pastorals, Paul would never have demanded the blossom without urgently pressing the need of these spiritual facts as its root !

4 There is no ground for the idea that the prosaic tone of the pastorals is due to their preoccupation with the practical steps of organisation, whilst in Paul s earlier letters he had been mainly employed in sketching the ideal of the church. A letter like 1 Cor., to say nothing of passages in the other letters, is enough to refute this explanation and to show how Paul would have dealt with the problems of organisation and church order, had these met him in an acute form. It would have been different from the method of this Paulinist, for Paul ever came down upon ethical tasks from a spiritual height.

10. The second imprisonment.[edit]

Still further proof in corroboration of their un-Pauline origin flows in from the impossibility of placing the epistles within Paul s lifetime. With practical unanimity {1} defenders {2} of the traditional hypothesis abandon all attempts to fix them previous to Paul's Roman imprisonment ; but their conjecture of a release, followed by a further extension of activity and a second imprisonment, is quite gratuitous and hardly furnishes a more tenable ground for the pastprals. It is not indeed bound up with the acceptance of their Pauline authorship ; the two positions are independent and maybe held separately. Hut even apart from the evidence of the pastorals (which never mention Spain, nor allude to so momentous a tour in the Western Mediterranean), the evidence for this second imprisonment must be pronounced inadequate (CHRONOLOGY, 79-80, PAUL, 31), resting mainly on a vague rumour (Xtryos ?x et [logos echei]) reported by Eusebius, and the allusion in the Muratorian Canon (possibly derived from apocryphal Acta) which is simply an expansion of Rom. 15:24, 15:28 - the devout and imaginative fantasy of later tradition being convinced that because Paul proposed a visit to Spain, he must have carried it out. No such tradition lingered in Spain itself, whilst the express statement of Acts 20:25, 20:38 and the significant silence of Clemens Romanus imply that the tradition nearest to Paul's life knew of no return to Asia Minor. The very passage in Clemens Romanus (5), which has been supposed to refer to this western journey, tells against it. Charged with rhetorical feeling, as Baur pointed out, it narrates (like Rom. 15:19) the sweep of Paul's career from Jerusalem to Rome: 'after teaching righteousness to the whole world, and reaching the limit of the West, and bearing testimony tefore the authorities, so he left the world'. Paul's sun had ended its course (Acts 13:47). Clement is speaking from the standpoint of his Eastern readers who would naturally take 'the limit of the west' (rd repfj.0. Trj<i Srcrews [to terma tes dyseoos]) as the Imperial capital (cp 'east' [dvaToXrjs [anatoles]] and 'west' [5wns [dysis]] of Syria and Rome in Ignat. Rom. 2), and incidentally clinches the proof by adding that the Neronic martyrs of 64 were 'gathered unto Paul and Peter', implying that the latter had already died. Were the 'earlier' chronology adopted, which brings Paul to Rome early in the sixties if not even earlier, space would of course be won before 64 for the two or three years' interval required by the traditional hypothesis of the 'pastorals' (CHRONOLOGY, 64-66). Otherwise no time is left, and it is almost incredible that the 'pastorals', if written after 64, should breathe no hint of the shock produced upon the Christian consciousness of the age, especially at Rome, by Nero's massacre which outraged even the Roman conscience. But even chronological resetting only makes the hypothesis possible ; its acceptance or rejection rests on other grounds, and - to put it mildly - these do not seem at any point secure.

1 Bartlet, Bowen (Dates of Pastoral Letters, 1900), and Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900) are the chief exceptions recently.

2 Especially Spitta in Zur Gesch. und Litt, des Urchrist. 1:2-108 ; also Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 215-233), Zahn (Einl. 1:435-436), Steinmetz (Die zweite rom. Gefang. des Apostels Paulus, 1897), C. H. Turner (Hastings, DB 1:421, etc.), and Frey (die zweite rom. Gefang. und das Todesjahr des Apostels Paulus, 1900).

11. Genesis of the pastorals.[edit]

The genesis of the pastorals is therefore sub-Pauline. To account for the Pauline, or presumably Pauline element, including not merely phrases and conceptions such as could be gathered pfrom the extant letters of the apostle or from tradition, but also private details and personal matters affecting about sixteen new figures (some of whom are not mere names) - recourse must be had to theories of compilation, whose common feature is the presupposition that the author was in possession of genuine reliquiae Paulinae. No doubt a pseudonymous writer would endeavour to stamp his figures and scenery upon the reader's mind by means of circumstantial details, especially when (as in this case) the authentic letters would suggest the introduction of a certain quantum of personal matter - though in the sub-Pauline letters (Eph. , Heb. , 1 Pet.) this quantum is noticeably small. But, while it is conceivable that this may be sufficient to account for 1 Tim., {1} it fails to afford an adequate rationale for 2 Tim. The latter is flooded with items which by no means fall under the category of romantic ornament or literary vraisemblance, and lift the letters quite above the level of later Pauline romances.

Even when such passages do not part from their context, they suggest to a critical inquirer the advisability of admitting that they are based upon authentic tradition and that they reproduce, with more or less freedom, information still accessible to the immediately sub-Pauline generation. It may be allowed, still further, that genuine notes have been incorporated, although these cannot any longer be deciphered. But the advocates of compilation attempt the subtler task of actually separating original notes from the strata in which they lie embedded, 2 upon the hypothesis that, whilst the authors direct aim was to instruct and move the church of his own day and not to preserve literary relics, he was able to use certain Pauline notes in the composition of 2 Tim. at least and even Titus. The preservation of such letters is far from incredible. 3 Paul was the first 'man of letters' in early Christianity, and the extant canonical collection represents only a part of his actual correspondence. In the nature of things, private notes would be more likely to remain overlooked than others, unless, like the letter of recommendation to Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-20), they were attached by late editors to some larger epistle.

In addition to this, the pastorals have suffered accretion as church documents, and thus three stages of their composition must be distinguished:

  • (i.) the primitive notes from Paul's lifetime,
  • (ii.) the incorporation of these by the author of the pastorals in his epistles, substantially composed about forty years after Paul's death, and
  • (iii. ) glosses added to these epistles by subsequent copyists to render them more suitable than ever for the needs of the second century. The last-named process naturally ceased by the time that the letters passed into the canon.

Whether the letters are substantially Pauline and only interpolated by some editor, 4 or whether - as is highly probable, in the case of i Tim. at any rate - the Pauline element, such as it is, has been submerged in later work, cannot be decided till each letter has been separately examined upon the principles of literary morphology. As the amount of presumably authentic material is obviously largest in 2 Tim. and least in 1 Tim., it will be advisable to discuss the epistles in that provisional order.

1 1 Tim. 1:3-4 might be developed from the hint in Philem. 22 (the Asiatic locus being shown in the failure to use the companion allusion in Phil. 2:24 to a return visit to Macedonia). The personal matter here is principally meant to furnish a suitable setting for an epistle dealing with general questions of church life and work in the Asiatic provinces, and reflecting that cardinal importance of Ephesus as a centre of early Christianity to which Lisco has rightly but extravagantly called attention (Roma Peregrina, 1901). Cp Harnack, Ausbreitung, 333, 462, 482.

2 Perhaps 2 Pet. also contains material worked up from earlier sources ; certainly it has incorporated parts of Jude. And the canonical 2 Cor. is a compilation of two separate letters in reverse order. But even were the pastorals, as compilations, without any analogy in the NT literature (cp, further, JAMES [EPISTLE], 5), this would not of itself discredit the analytic hypothesis. Tlie pastorals present quite unique features, and it is only reasonable that the complexity of their structure should demand somewhat unique and exceptional methods of treatment.

3 E.g., the correspondence of Cicero and Atticus, the letters of King Agrippa II. (Josephus), etc. See Peters, Der Brief in der romischen Litteratur (rgoi), 27-28, 78-79, and Wehofer, 'Untersuch. zur altchristliche Epistolographie' (SWAW: phil.-hist. Klasse, 143, 1901).

4 Menegoz, for example (Le Peche et la Redemption, 5-6), treats them as authentic, but supposes that copyists under the direction of bishops subsequently added glosses; these, however, affected only questions of discipline and order, leaving the genuinely Pauline spirit unimpaired.

5 The insertion of 'mercy' between 'grace' and 'peace' (so 2 Jn. 3) is un-Pauline. Deleting it among other phrases Hausrath (Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, ET, 1895, 4:160-163) finds a genuine letter to Timothy in 1:1-2, 1:15-18, 4:9-18, Sabatier in 1:1-18, 4:6-22.


12. 2 Tim.[edit]

Second Timothy. - Although the address of 2 Tim. (1:1-2) is fairly 5 Pauline, the strange emphasis on the fact and purpose or standard of Paul's apostolate ('according to the promise' [/car 1 eTrayyeXiai [kat epaggelian]]) in a letter to one who could hardly have doubted it, at once reveals the real genius of the writing and corroborates the general evidence afforded by all three epistles, especially by 1 Tim. and Titus. They are not private letters at all, not even semi-private, and the very form of a private letter is not strictly preserved. They resemble rather 'pastorals' in the modern sense of the term , and find their real audience among people (primarily teachers and officials, it may be) 1 inclined to doubt the validity and misunderstand or misapply the tenets of the Pauline gospel. As even Liddon admits (Explan. Analysis of 1 Tim., 1897, ad loc.), of Paul's apostolic authority 'Timothy did not require to be reminded ; St. Paul has other readers of the epistle - perhaps false teachers 2 - in view'. Behind 1:3c-6a lies a tradition of Timothy's temporary absence (Phil. 2:19-20) from Paul during his last captivity ; but neither here nor elsewhere is it feasible in 1:3-14 to disentangle any written source. On the other hand, 1:15-18 is perhaps a displaced (after 4:10 M Giffert, 4:13 Knoke), 3 and at any rate a genuine, fragment, probably written from Paul's Roman captivity. So most editors and critics (Lemme, 4 Hesse, 5 and Krenkel 6 omitting rather needlessly 1:15b and 1:18a). Again, 2-3 hardly seems homogeneous {7} (cp 2:16, 3:13 with 3:9); 2:2 [or 2:22] seems a gloss (om. Hesse, Hilg. ZWT, 1897, pp. 1-86); 2:14-15 is awkwardly introduced, and the thoroughly un-Pauline passage 3:1-9 may well be a later insertion, due to the process of accretion. 3:10-12, however, is an interpolated genuine fragment ; its isolated position and contents mark it off from the surrounding context. Furthermore, the bulk, if not the whole, of 4:(6)9-22 {8} is generally allowed to have come directly from Paul's own hand (4:9-18a, except 'having loved this present world' [a.ya-n-qa-a.^Tbvv uva.i^va [agapesas ton nyn aloona]] 4:10, 4:11b, Bahnsen{9}; 4:9-15, 4:19-22, Ewald{10}; 4:9-18, Immer{11}; 4:9-21, Pfleid.). But it is not homogeneous ; evidently 4:11a and 4:21b, like 4:6-8 and 4:9-15, reflect different situations in Paul's life, and the whole passage offers an admirable proof of the composite character of even the directly Pauline strata in the pastoral epistles. Following the various dates and moods, one can detect approximately in 1:15-18 4:6-12, 14:6-19 a note (or part of a note) written after Philippians ; the situation has become more grim, and Paul pines in loneliness for his younger ally. Again, 4:13-15, 4:21-22a go back {12} to a still earlier period, when Paul had left Troas on some journey; 4:20 (cp Acts 21:29) seems to belong to Acts 18:18-19, though the historicity of Acts 21:29 is not above suspicion (cp ACTS, 11, TROPHIMUS ; with J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht u. d. literar. Charakter der Ap.-gesch. 39-40 [1897]).

A dual analysis of 2 Tim. has been carried through by several critics from Credner onwards. Hesse, e.g. (pp. 170-180), regards it as the compilation of a genuine brief letter of recall (1:3c-4, 1:16-17, 1:18b-c, 4:9-22a) with a later pseudonymous letter (1:1-3b, 1:5-10, 2:3-8a, 2:14-26, 3:1-8, 3:13b-17, 4:1-5). Lemme's reconstruction of the genuine letter underlying 2 Tim. is even more intricate (see O. Holtzmann's critique, ZWT, 1883, pp. 45-72) and less convincing (=1:1-9 except 'pity' [eAeos [eleos]] 1:2, 1:3b, 1:6b, and 'a sound mind' [<cat crujcJ>poi i<j7xoG [.... sophronismou]] 1:7, 'in Christ Jesus before the world began' [ef . . . nioji ioji [... aioonioon] 1:9, 1:10, except 'but is now made manifest by the appearing' [l>a.i epu>6(i<Ta.v, . . . nri^opctaf [ranerootheisan ... epithaneias]], 1:11 except 'and a teacher' [<ai i> .Sa.<TKa\os [kai didaskalos]], 12 except 'against that day' [ets . . . rmtpav [eis ... emeran]], 14 except 'that good thing which was committed' [TTJI . . . <j>v\. [ten ... oul.]], 1:15a, 1:16-17, 1:18b-c, 2:1, 2:3-5, 2:8a, 2:9b, except 'with eternal glory' [ju.era 56f>) aitaviov [meta doxes aiooniou]], 4:6+ except iv e<c. r. 17.[en ek. t. e.], 4:9-22), while Hilgenfeld's analysis of the epistle into two sub-Pauline notes is quite in the air (A = 1:1-2, except 'according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus' [KO.T . . . IrjaoO .... iesou], 1:3a, 1:5-10, except 'before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light' [irpb \poviav . . . afflapaiav [pro chronoon ... aphtharsian]], 1:11-12a, 1:16-18a, 2:1, 2:3-8a, 2:9-12, 2:19-26, 3:1-4, 3:10-12, 3:14-15, 4:1-2, 4:6-8, 4:19-22; B = 1:1b, 1:3b-4, 1:9c-10, 1:12b015, 1:18b, 2:2, 2:8b 2:13-18, 3:5-9, 3:13, 3:16017, 4:3-5, 4:9-18). More is to be said for McGiffert's hypothesis that the epistle is a redacted version of one written by Paul towards the close of his Roman imprisonment (1:1-12, 2:1-13, 4:1-2, 4:5-8, 4:16-19, 4:21b, 4:10, 1:15-18) (so Clemen for 1:15-18; from Rome 61 A.D.), whilst 2 Tim. 4:9, 4:11-18, 4:20-21a represents an earlier note written from Macedonia before 2 Cor. which was composed (1:1) after Timothy had obeyed his summons. Similarly Bacon places 4:9, 4:11-18, 4:20-21a, 4:22b in the period immediately previous to 2 Cor. 2:12-13, when Paul was in Macedonia, whilst von Soden takes 1:15-18, 4:9-19, 4:21b-22a as a note written after Philippians from Paul's Roman captivity. Hitzig had already found a letter of Paul written about 58 A.D. from Caesarea in 1:15, 4:13-16, 4:20-22 (so Clemen : 4:9-18, about 60 A.D. ?), and another letter written from Rome about 63 A.D. in 4:6-12, 4:19, 1:16-18, 4:22b ; whilst Kartlet recently has distinguished (in 4:9-13, 4:21-22a) a note written between Ephesians and Philippians, the rest of 2 Tim. being the swan-song of the apostle. Less probably Clemen puts 4:19-21 into 57 A.D. (from Jerusalem, previous to his imprisonment), dating the epistle as a whole slightly earlier than Titus (circa 100 A.D.), which again preceded 1 Tim. (100- 110 A.D. Asia Minor) and the author's interpolations in 2 Tim. (1:13-14, 2:14-26, 4:1-8) and Titus (1:7-11, 3:1-11).

1 'Les communautes vaudront ce que valent leurs conducteur? ; voila l'idee generale qui se degage de ses instructions' (J. Reville).

2 Cp Ascension Isaiah 3:20-21 (before 100 A.D.) for the contemporary feeling that an apostasy would precede the latter days, when the disciples of Jesus would desert 'the prophecy of his twelve apostles and their faith (cp 1 Tim. 1:19, etc.) and love and purity (1 Tim. 4:19), and there shall be many sects', etc. (rrji/ npo^Tfiav TWV StaSfxa. ajroo-ToAoii/ avroO ai -rr\v rriemv [cp 1 Tim. 1:19, etc.] (cai T\IV ayaTriji O.VTMV, icai -rr]v ayveiav aiiTtav [1 Tim. 4:19] Kai eVoi Tcu aipeVet; TroAAai K.T.A.).

3 Praktisch-theol. Comm. zu den Past. 1887-1889.

4 Das echte Ermahnungsschreiben des Ap. Paulus an Tim., 1882.

5 Die Entsteh. der NT Hirtenbriefe, 1889.

6 Heitr. zur Aufhellung der Gesch. und der Briefe des Ap. Paulus, 395-408 [1890].

7 Chap. 2 contains two passages paralleled in Epictetus (Diss. 3:10, 'God saith to thee, Prove to me whether thou hast contested according to requirement' [et POjiu /uios TJyAT)<ras [ei nomimoos ethlesas]] = 2 Tim. 2:3 ['good soldier']; and 3:22 where, as the Cynic is in an army arrayed for battle, it is urged that he should not be 'entangled' [e/u.7re7rAeyju.eVoi [empeplegmenon]] but wholly devoted to God's service - cp 2 Tim. 2:4 ['entangleth himself', efiirAefceTat [empleketai]] - and free from distraction; aTrepio-TraoTios [aperispastoos], 1 Cor. 7:35). Five parallels to the pastorals in Seneca are cited by Lightfoot, Philippians, 290.

8 Upon the difficulties of geography in v. 10, see CRESCENS, DALMATIA, GALATIA 32. The figurative expression in v. 17 is paralleled by an old proverb that one should 'visit the poor in his affliction and speak of him in the Sultan's presence and do one's diligence to save him from the mouth of the lion' (Rendel Harris, Story of Ahikar, p. 67). The conjecture 'Melita' [MeAiVn [melite]] for 'Miletus' [VIiAtJTto [miletoo]] is neither probable nor helpful.

9 II. Timothcus (1876).

10 Sieben Sendschreiben (1870).

11 Theologie des NT, 399 (1877).

12 These 'commissions and cautions' at least are 'unlike a dying man ; the writer is in a hurry for Timothy to come simply because he is old and lonely', not because he fears his friend will be too late (G. A. Simcox, Expos. T 10430-432, finding in Heb. 13 also two commendatory letters).

13. Titus.[edit]

Titus. - The attempts to find in Tit. 1:1-4 a genuine address interpolated by some redactor are not convincing. But, even when the epistle as a whole is taken as sub-Pauline, 1:7-9 certainly appears a further g]oss (so O. Ritschl, TLZ, '85, 609; Knoke ; Harnack, Chron. 710-711; Clemen, and McGiffert). The sudden transition from presbyters to episcopi, and the general contents of the passage, mark it off as the insertion of some later editor who was interested in promoting the monarchical episcopate. Hesse and Clemen carry the gloss on to the end of 1:11; but, although 1:10 connects with 1:9 (which partly explains the insertion of the gloss at this point), 1:12 would be abrupt after 1:6, for naica. 0. [kaka th.] are not an antithesis to dwir. [anup.], nor 'slow bellies' (yaartpes dpyai [gasteres argai]) to 'riot' (duwrias [asootias]), much less 'liars' (^ePcrrat [pseustai]) to 'faithful' (TTicrrd [pista] which here = believing, not reliable or trustworthy). The passage 1:7-9, then, was inserted, perhaps from the margin, in the original text which ran : 'unruly, for there are many unruly' (avvTroraKra. Fjlfflv yap TroXXot dvvir6Ta.KTOt, K.T.\. [anupotakta Eisin gar polloi anupotaktoi, k.t.l.]). No man could discharge a presbyter's duties effectively, if the members of his own family were tainted with the local disease of insubordination and profligacy. 2:1-14 and 2:15-87 are somewhat parallel (cp 2:5 and 3:2, 2:14 and 3:1) ; but no analysis of the passage into a Pauline and a later source is plausible. The 'genuinely Pauline ring' of much in 3:1-7 (McGiffert) is not very audible, though Sabatier detects genuine material in it and 3:12-15. The latter passage certainly, 3:12-13 [3:12-14], 3:15b, contains an authentic fragment, as is admitted upon almost all hands (e.g. , Weisse, 1 Ewald, Krenkel, Knoke, Hesse, von Soden, Clemen, M'Giffert). Hesse (pp. 150-151) finds further in Titus (1:1-2, 1:4-6, 1:12-13a, 1:16, 3:1-6, 3:12-13, 3:15) a complete letter of Paul, written shortly after he left Crete; it has been expanded by the addition of passages which, although rising out of the original text (with the possible exception of 2), are intended as a proviso against heresy. Similarly McGiffert regards the canonical epistle as a redacted version of some letter (1:1-6 partly, 3:1-7, 3:12-13) written to Titus before Paul reached Corinth in Acts 20:2. The alternative to these dual hypotheses is to reconstruct (with Krenkel) out of 2 Timothy and Titus three letters of Paul;

  • (a) one written to Titus at Crete, perhaps from Illyricum during Paul's second journey to Corinth (Acts 20:1-3) = Tit. 3:12, 2 Tim. 4:20, Tit. 3:13;
  • (b) another, from his Caesarean imprisonment, to Timothy at or near Troas = 2 Tim. 4:9-18, subsequent to Colossians and Philemon;
  • (c) a third = 2 Tim. 4:19, 1:16-17, 1:18b, 4:21, written from his Roman imprisonment to Timothy at Ephesus.

The Caesarean date of Colossians, however, is untenable; and otherwise this ingenious resetting of the fragments fails to explain satisfactorily how such notes came into their present curious position.

1 Philosoph. Dogmatik, 1:146.

14. 1. Tim.[edit]

First Timothy. - In spite of its unwieldy anacoluthon (cp Rom. 1:1-7), 1 Tim. 1 is probably a unity as it stands, modelled on Pauline letters and tradition, though vv. 12-17 {1} resemble in part something more definite. Certainly 1:13-11 and 1:18-20 hang together. After 1:1-2 a thanksgiving would naturally follow, in the Pauline manner; but when the thanksgiving does come (v. 12-17) it is occasioned not by the person addressed but by Paul himself. Even the 'therefore' (o$v [oun]) of 2:1, resuming either 1:3-11 or 1:12-17 or 1:18-20, forms a loose transition; but it illustrates the zigzag course of the epistle rather than any phenomena of compilation. Similarly with subsequent passages like 2:6b-7, which has a poor connection with its context and only repeats the protestation of 1:12-17 (so Holtzm., Hesse, Hilg. ), 2:9-10 (the odd juxtaposition of rules for prayer with a sumptuary regulation for women) 4:1-8 which would readily part from its context, and 5 which has suffered accretion towards the close. No fragment of the epistle can be referred, however, to the apostle himself with much confidence. The incidental allusions to Paul's personality (3:14-15, 4:13) merely betray the writer's consciousness that there was a certain awkwardness in such elaborate commissions and instructions upon the commonplace regulations of a Christian community being addressed to one who was not merely himself in mature life but ex hypothesi separated from his superintendent only for a short time. In such touches we feel the author's literary conscience and his tactful attempt to preserve the vraisemblance of the situation or to justify the existence and point of such an epistle.

As it stands, in fact, 1 Timothy is a free composition; it consists of a sub-Pauline letter which has been subsequently enlarged by interpolations, especially in chap. 6. 6:17-21 is plainly an addition (Harn.), in thought and diction perhaps the least Pauline paragraph in all the pastorals ; its contents and context are against it as an integral part of the letter. The 'antitheses' of 6:20 are not the casuistic subtleties of dialectic in the Halacha, but the tabulated passages from the OT and the gospel arranged by Marcion to prove the diversity of the two dispensations and the superiority of the later. Such arguments are dismissed as secular and verbose and pseudo-scientific. See 2 Tim. 3:16, 'every scripture', etc. , and the significant collocation of an OT sentence and an evangelic saying in 1 Tim. 5:18. Another un-Pauline element is of course the connection between eternal life and almsgiving (vv. 17-19) as already between salvation and religious work or personal conduct (2:15, 3:13). Hence, like Tit. 1:7-9 and some other passages in 1 Tim. (3:1-13, {1} 5:17-20 ?) or even 2 Tim. (2:20-26 ?), 6;17-21 shows the process of accretion familiar in documents bearing on church organisation and discipline.

1 The motive of this section is to throw the glorious gospel into relief against the unworthiness and weakness of its original bearers, as in Harn. 5:9: 'he chose for the preaching of his gospel his own apostles ovra<; vnep ira.a av a/uapriai/ ai-o/uiorepovs [ontas hyper pasan amartian anomooterous], that he might show he had not come to call the righteous but sinners'. See Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis (1901), 107-108

Here again Hesse, admitting (like Schleiermacher) the irregular course of the epistle, attempts acutius quam verius to disentangle an original letter of commission (1:1-10, 1:18-20, 4:1-16, 6:3-16, 6:20-21) containing the duties and rights of an episcopus at Ephesus. This is conjectured to have been enlarged by the addition of independent pieces bearing on the work of the episcopate: e.g., 1:11-17 (justifying the apostolate to the Gentiles), arrangements for the worship (2:6b-7, so Hilg., and 2:9b-10, glosses) and the officials of the church (3:14-15a, a further insertion to justify the author dilating on such topics; 3:15b-16, to connect with 4:1-2), a general mandate for bishops (5:5, 5:23, however, being genuinely Pauline), and extracts (6:1-3, 6:17-19) from a table of ethical duties. Knoke pushes the epistle much nearer Paul by his hypothesis of two letters from Paul's pen, one - an instruction (n-apayyeAta [paraggelia]) written to Timothy from Corinth (1:3-4, 1:18-20, 2:1-10, 4:12, 5:1-3, 5:4c-6, 5:11-15, {2} 5:19-23, 5:24-25 ?), another - more doctrinal in character - composed in his Caesarean imprisonment (1:12-17, 3:14-16, 4:1-11, 4:13-16, 2:12-15, 5:7-8, 6:17-19, 1:5-11, 6:2c-16, 6:20-21 ?). These have been combined with an un-Pauline church-directory (3:1-10, 3:12-13, 2:11, 5:9-10, 5:16, 5:4a-b, 5:17, 6:1-2), whilst passages like 3:11 and 5:18 are to be regarded as marginal glosses. It is not easy, however, to see adequate psychological motives for this sort of extensive compilation, and the criteria of style are by no means equal to the inferences drawn from them.

Hypothetical and contradictory as such conjectures may appear to be, however, a not inconsiderable agreement prevails even amid the most independent analyses of these epistles. All partition-theories presuppose an editorial function which certainly is unexampled in previous early Christian literature, even in Acts and the Apocalypse. But this is not an insuperable objection; and whilst it is idle to dogmatise upon the particular and original setting of verses, or at every point to distinguish precisely between redactor, author, and source, the composite nature of these epistles and (within general limits) the main strata of their contents have been substantially proved. Such analytic criticism is upon the right lines, and as a working hypothesis it is historically superior to the conjectures which attribute the writings en bloc to Paul or as unpromisingly set down the Pauline element to vague tradition or the inventiveness of a literary artist.

15. Order of composition.[edit]

As the titles formed no part of the original autographs, the early church naturally argued from the internal evidence that 2 Tim., with its reflection of a climax and rich individual references, represented the last phase of the apostle's life, and that 1 Tim. was earlier. But the comparative study of the epistles suggests that 2 Tim. is the earliest, and 1 Tim. the latest production of the author. 3

The relative amount of hapax legomena (46 in 2 Tim., 28 in Tit., 74 in 1 Tim.), the increasingly sub-apostolic colour of 'faith' (TTICTTIS [pistis]) and 'saviour' ((rwrjjp [sooter]), the diminution of freshness and intimate feeling in the allusions to Paul, the predominance of ecclesiastical interests and church organisation in Tit. and 1 Tim., 1 the gradual shifting of emphasis from the personality to the sheer authority of the apostle, the gradual increase of severity towards errorists, evident as the epistles proceed - these and other traces form a cumulative and sufficient argument for this order of composition. When the author wrote 2 Tim. he had considerable Pauline material at his disposal. Even in the epistle to Titus, he falls back on genuine tradition, and Pauline material preponderates though to a less degree. But in 1 Tim. the situation has become more advanced ; he writes more freely and less under the influence of his master, confutes errorists with greater sharpness, assigns more dictatorial powers to the officers of the church, and elaborates the various ecclesiastical canons with unprecedented care. The third epistle (1 Tim.) is thus, as Schleiermacher was the first to point out, an expansion and in some respects a repetition of the others, further from their Pauline background of reminiscences and tradition, but more characteristic of the writer himself. The superiority of 2 Tim., with its ample personal allusions and less formal tone, is quite obvious; and superiority means here priority. That it comes from the same pen as the others, need not be doubted, although in it the writer is more of an editor than an original author. The general sub-apostolic style and spirit of all three is fairly uniform and affords no adequate evidence for suspecting a plurality of writers.

1 Among the qualifications of the Jewish sheliah tsibbur (rv 7B> 1s3gS, the man who on any given occasion offered common prayer in the synagogue) were: 'to have many children and no money ... to be of sound age, and humble, popular, well-mannered ... to be practised in the study of the law, the prophets, and the psalms ; able to expound the allegoric meaning, traditions, and histories', etc. (R. Jehuda, quoted by Selwyn. Christian Prophets, 208-209).

2 The difficulty of fj^avBavovcn [manthanousi] (v. 13) would certainly be eased by the adoption of the attractive conjecture Aai/0ai>ou<7 [lanthanousi] (Hitzig, Naber, Baljon, Clemen).

3 See ACTS, 16, and MINISTRY, 31. Besides Mangold, De Wette, Reuss {La Bible, 7:243-244, 307-308), and some others, the main advocates of this order are denoted by an asterisk in the bibliography at the close of the present article. It is of course possible that the author himself rearranged the epistles in this order, having written them otherwise, as Vergil is said to have composed the various books of the Aeneid irregularly (e.g., the third before the second) and subsequently placed them.

4 The pronounced element of ecclesiasticism in 1 Tim., which in several passages is simply a manual of church order, betrays its more advanced situation. For some not insignificant details of style, see 'certain men' (rti/es avBpunroi [tines anthroopoi]), or 'certain' (-rii/e s [tines]) [7 times in 1 Tim., never in others], 'faith' (TTUTTIS [pistis]) in objective sense (4 times in 1 Tim., once in Tit. 14), 'saviour' (<ro>Ttjp [sooter]) of God alone in 1 Tim. (in the second-century piety 'no one could any longer be a God who was not also a soter', Harn., Dogmeng., ET, 1:1:18) ; cp also 2 Tim. 2:17-20 as preceding 1 Tim. 1:20, and the heightening scale of 2 Tim. 2:23, Tit. 3:9, 1 Tim. 1:4, of 2 Tim. 1:11 and 1 Tim. 2:7, of 2 Tim. 3:1 and 1 Tim. 4:1-2, of Tit. 1:7 and 1 Tim. 3:2.

16. Author.[edit]

Like most of the NT writings, the pastorals have a communal origin. In them a current of the age becomes articulate, and hence the inconspicuous personality of their author 1 cannot be rightly deduced from his writings. It was an age when, as in the days of Haggai, men had to 'fetch wood and build the house', while others had to encourage and direct their efforts. To furnish such inspiration may not have been a very heroic task, demanding writers of exceptional insight and pioneering ardour like Paul, but it was timely and serviceable ; and after all 'edification' (oiKodo/j.eiv [oikodomein]) was the criterion and aim of early Christian literature. This Paulinist had singular capacities for the labour of instructing the churches of his day. Thoroughly convinced that he had a message for it, or rather that in Paul's teaching and life lay the pattern for true doctrine and godliness, he addressed himself to the duty of curbing and stimulating his contemporaries in the spirit of his master, writing like a shrewd and experienced man of affairs who feels (unlike his contemporary, the prophet who wrote Rev. 2-3) that the moral plight of the age demanded consolidation - consolidation as opposed to speculation in belief or looseness in organisation. If he lacks the authority of intuition, he at least possesses the intuition of authority. He has much in common with the unconciliatory element in Paul. Unlike the later apologists, he refuses to discuss points of disagreement or to meet objectors on their own ground, but is content with the more congenial method of insisting in a rather dictatorial fashion upon the fixed truths of the faith. In this he is a precursor of Polycarp, yet in all likelihood the majority of his opponents, perhaps even of his readers, were none the worse for being somewhat sharply reminded that the ultimate proofs of religion lay open to faith and the moral sense ; there may have been an effectiveness in the resolve of this censor to assert and enlighten, not to argue. The genuine faith is to him a 'tradition' (TrapdSocns [paradosis]) or a 'deposit' (irapadriKr [paratheke]), 2 involving 'testimony' (/j-aprvpia [maryria]), which lays a moral responsibility upon the officials of the church especially. The tone of his instructions to them reminds one often of Butler's famous Charge to the Clergy (1751) not to trouble about objections raised by men of gaiety and speculation, but to endeavour to beget a practical sense of religion upon the hearts of the common people. This task demands moral purity above all things, together with teaching ability in the higher officials. True to his master, this mentor is utterly indifferent to the sacerdotal heresy 1 which was already beginning to tinge unhealthily the primitive ideas of the church (MINISTRY, 59a, PRIEST, 8). In resisting incipient Gnosticism with its attempt to Hellenise the faith into an evaporated intellectualism, the pastorals refuse to employ the tendency, which ultimately secularised the Catholic church, of Hebraising the religion of Jesus by means of a retrograde movement to ritual and priestly conceptions. Indeed the impression made by these letters is revealed in nothing so clearly as in the fact that they came to be cherished by those who more or less unconsciously were either ignoring or modifying or defying their principles under the constraining influence of the Zeitgeist.

1 The pastorals in fact voice a tendency of popular Christianity rather than any individual writer's cast of thought ; cp Wrede, uber Aufgabe und Methode der sog. NT Theologie, 35-36 (1897). Authorship is here quite subordinate to function.

2 Cp Herod. 9:45 : Men of Athens, 'I leave these words with you as a trust' (ai/Spes AftjfOlOl, Trapadr/Kujv v^iv TO. ewea raSe riSffnai K.r.A.) with 2 Tim. 1:12-13, etc.

17. Pseudonymity.[edit]

Like the authors of Matthew's gospel, Barnabas, Hebrews, the Fourth Gospel and 2 Peter, the author of the pastorals belongs to the great anonymous period of early Christian literature. The religious life of the primitive church, as of ancient Israel, was 'at certain periods very intense, and at these periods the spiritual energy of the nation expressed itself almost impersonally, through men who forgot themselves and were speedily forgotten in name by others' (Dav. Job, 68). His work, too, was pseudonymous. 2 To write under Paul's name was, for a Paulinist, quite a legitimate literary artifice'; and although pseudepigrapha in the second century - that period rich in rhetorical forgeries (Jebb, Homer, 87) - ranged from mere fabrications to high-toned compositions, the pastorals, like 2 Peter, belong to the latter class, breathing not a crude endeavour to deceive but self-effacement and deep religious motives. Hence the oblivion in which the writer chose to work and has been allowed to remain. It was clue not merely to the necessity of throwing a certain air of mystery round the situation in order to secure the circulation of letters long after their putative author s death, but to a sort of Pythagorean feeling that unselfish piety required a pupil's work to be attributed to his master - a canon of literary ethics not unfamiliar to early Christianity itself (Tertull. adv. Marc. 4:5). This author wrote from what he conceived to be the standpoint of Paul. 3 But it would be unjust to estimate him by the measure of the man whose spirit he endeavoured to propagate and apply in his own way. The correct standard is to be sought in the sub-Pauline literature. And if the author of the pastorals is inferior to the genius who wrote the fourth gospel, even in appreciating some of the more inward aspects of Pauline thought, he is superior in range and penetration to those who wrote Barnabas, Jude, the Ignatian epistles, the Christian section of Ascensio Isaiae, and 2 Peter. The prevailing deference shown to the apostles and to Paul by contemporary and later writers 4 who disclaim all pretensions to equality with them, as well as the fact that mere literary ambition was utterly foreign to the early Christian consciousness at this period, may serve to guarantee the ethical honour of the pastorals and to corroborate the impression left by themselves that their author 5 was right in feeling himself not merely justified but obliged to sanction and support his message by his master's name. Not long before, another 'Paulinist' had composed speeches for Paul which were based on oral tradition and yet were indubitably free products of a historian who had skill and sympathy enough to give fairly faithful transcripts of the situation in question (Acts 13:16-4i, 17:22-31, 20:18-35, etc.). It was but a step from this to the other recognised method of literary impersonation, which chose epistolary rather than historical expression to &ain its religious end.

1 Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschaap in de Christelijke Kerk, 32-33, 62-63, 79-80, 110-126 (1892).

2 See EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 4; MINISTRY, 35d; and, to the literature cited in Hist. New Test. 597-598, 619-624, add W. Christ, Philologische Studien zu Clem. Alex. 30-39 (1900), and (for the pseudepigrapha, mainly Gnostic, of the 2nd cent., etc.) Liechtenhan in ZNTW, 1902, Hefte 3-4.

3 He is least successful in reproducing what would have been Paul's tone and temper to colleagues like Timothy and Titus. The curt, general instructions put into the apostle's mouth are often incongruous with the character of their primitive recipients as well as with the situation presupposed by the epistles in question.

4 E.g., Ignat. Rom. 4, 'I do not order you, as did Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a convict'; also Acta Phoc. 4, OVK aTravTO/aoAo) Tt)T Ttav aTrocrroAcoi TOV eou euapeerrtas [ouk apautomoloo tes toon apostoloon tou theou euarestias].

5 His success, undoubtedly deserved, becomes all the more remarkable where failure was so easy. The Asiatic presbyter who half a century later composed the Acts of Paul and Thekla no doubt acted with a sincerity equal to his affection (id se amore Pauli fecisse), but failed to appreciate the vital elements of Paulinism and was deposed - not for using an illegitimate method so much as for employing it to promote notions which the common-sense of the church rejected as palpably alien to the faith. Pseudo-Pauline epistles ('fictae ad haeresim Marcionis'), were widely circulated during the second century ; the superiority of the pastorals to all such is a difference of degree rather than of kind.

18. Literature.[edit]

Since Schmidt and Schleiermacher almost a century ago suggested a sub-Pauline date for 1 Tim., a conjecture which Eichhorn amongst others speedily (1812) extended to all three epistles, there has been a remarkable continuity of criticism, starting from *F. C. Baur (Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus, 1835). For the critical work up to 1880 see

  • H. J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (1880), a monograph which is far from being superseded. Subsequent contributions in general support of Baur

and Holtzmann, with modifications and adaptations, have come along three main lines:-

  • (a) editions: *H. von Soden (HC 3:1:155-254. (2) 1893); *Moffatt (Histor. New Testament. (2) 556-575 [1901]); O. Cone (Internat. Hdbks. to NT, vol. 3 [1901]).
  • (b) monographs and essays on-
    • (i) general criticism of epp. : Kenan (St. Paul, 23-53, l'eglise Chretienne, ch. 6); *Harnack (Chronologie, 480-485, 710-711); *Pfliederer (Paulinismus, ET, 2:196-214, Das Urchristentum, 801-823 [1887]); *M. A. Rovers (Nieuwtest. Letterkunde, 1888, (2) 66-78); van Manen (OLD-CHRIST. LIT., PAUL); *Bruckner (Die Chronol. Reihenfolge der Briefs des NT, 277-286 [1890]); Prof. E. Y. Hincks, J BL, 1897, pp. 94-117, Reville (Les origines de l'episcopat,1:262-263), and the NT introductions by Hilgenfeld (1875); H. J. Holtzmann (3) (272-292 [1892]); *S. Davidson, (3) 1-75 [1894]; B. W. Bacon

(127-139 [1900]); Baljon, Geschiedenis v. d. Bb. d. NT (1901) 150-174; *Julicher ((4) 136-156 [1901]) and Sabatier, art. Pastorales, L'ency. Sciences rel., 10:250-251.

    • (ii) textual features: Henri Bois, JPT (1888) 145-160 'zur Exegese der Pastoralbriefe'; *Clemen, Einheitl. d. paul Briefe, 142-176 [1894]; P. Ewald, Probabilia betr. d. Text des 1 Tim. (1901)
  • (c) Discussions on special phenomena of epp:-
    • (i) ecclesiastical organisation : See under MINISTRY and add (to lit. there cited) defences of conservative standpoint in Hort, Christian Ecclesia (1898), 189-217, and J. W. Falconer From Apostle to Priest, 109-146 (1900): against Kuhl (Die Gemeinde-ordnung in den Pastoralbriefen, 1885), see Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 1886, pp. 456-473); and on their connection with Apostol. Constitutions, Harnack, Texte und Untersuch. 2:5:49-50.
    • (ii) the errorists ; Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 1880, pp. 448-464): Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines, 4:376-380 (1884); and Bourquin, Etude critique sur Paul. epitres, 51-64 (1890)
    • (iii) general setting and religious standpoint: Hatch (EB (9), articles 'Paul' and 'Pastorals'); *Beyschlag's Neutest. Theol. (ET, 1895), 2:501-517, Holzmann's Neutest. Theol. 2:259-281 (1897); O. Cone (Gospel and its Interpretations, 327-338 [1893]); W. Mackintosh (Nat. Hist. of Christ. Rel. 465, 490 [1894]); Weizs, Das Apostl. Zeitalter, (2) (ET) 2:163-165, 2:329-330; *A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, 398-423 (1897); E.P. Gould, Bibl. Theol. of NT, 142-150 (1900), also Harnack, Dogmengeschichte (ET) 1:156-162, 1:189-192, 1:215-216, 2:23-24, and Wernle, Die Anfunge unserer Religion, 347-368, 380-381 (1901).

Although the general critical position, outlined in these contributions, is unquestionable, it is unhappily not unquestioned. The traditional view survives, with more or less hesitation and a far from uniform presentment, in the editions of Rolling (1882- 1887 ; on i Tim.), Weiss (-Meyer, ( G )i893, also Die Paulin. Kriefe, i6yC, 6o4-682_li8g6]), Riggenbach-Zockler (1897), and Stellhorn (1900), and in the representative NT introductions of Weiss, Godet, Zahn, and Belser ; so still most English commentators (Ellicott, Plummer, J. H. Bernard, Horton, J. P. Lilley), writers on NT introduction (Salmon, Gloag, and Adeney), and others, e.g., G. G. Findlay (appendix to ET of Sabatier s L apttre Paul, 341-402 [1891], Hastings D B 3 714-716), and Rams. Church, &) 248^, EJ:/>OS. 4th ser. 8no_/T, etc. Add Bertrand (!-:ssai critique sur [authenticity des cpitres Past., i88b), Ruegg (Ans Schri, t und Geschichte, 59-108 [1898]) ; Roos (Die Briffe des ap. Paulus und die Redcn des Herrnjesii, 156- 202), G. H. Gilbert s Life of Paul, 225-232(1899); and G. T. Purves, Christianity in Apostolic Age, 170-176 (1900). Also (published since this article was written) Lock s studies in Hastings DB 4 on the epistles. i. MO.


( 7H2, bedil, lit. 'that which is separated' [from precious metal], see Is. 1:25, where render 'alloy' [RVmg. Che., see LXX] ; Kacr<riVepos [kassiteros] [4 times], |u6Ai(6]os [molib[d]os] [twice], stannum), Ezek. 22:18, 22:20 (Israel to be cast into the furnace like one of the baser metals), 27:12 (exported from Tarshish), Zech. 4:10 (material of plummet, /cacraiTepu os [kassiterinos]), Nu. 31:22 (cleansed by passing through fire).

Being a component of bronze, tin was used as a metal from a very early date (see COPPER). A ring from a tomb at Dahshur (dated about the third dynasty) contains 8.2 percent of tin ; a vase of sixth dynasty 5.68 percent of tin. When the unalloyed metal was first introduced cannot be ascertained with certainty. All we know is that about the first century the Greek word Ka.<T<riTfpos [kassiteros] designated tin, and that tin was imported from Cornwall into Italy after, if not before, the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar. From what Pliny says (HN 34:16, 33:9), it appears that the Romans in his time did not fully realise the distinction between tin and lead ; the former was called plumbum album or candidum to distinguish it from plumbum nigrum (lead proper). 1 The word stannum definitely assumed its present meaning in the fourth century. (See Jer. on Zech. 4:10.


(D DDi;), Is. 3:18 AV, RV ANKLETS (q.v.).

1 So in LXX the distinction between Ka(r<rtTep09 [kassiteros] and jixoAi/3os [molibos] is uncertain.


(npppl ; wanting in the true LXX but pA({>ei [raphei] [B] in 1 K. 24:6-7; 6&Y,\ [thapsa] [A]; tahpis - i.e. , Tahpanhes [Pesh.] ; thaphsa [Vg. ]).

i. A place in the Eber-han-nahar (see EBER) mentioned as the NE. boundary of Solomon's empire (1 K. 4;24 [5:4]), corresponding to Gaza in the SW. It is generally held that Tiphsah is the ancient Thapsacus, and that Solomon's occupation of this place was connected with his commercial enterprises, Thapsacus being the great zeugma, or place of passage, of the river Euphrates alike for caravans and for invading armies.

It was there that the Ten Thousand first learned the real object of the expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and crossed the stream (Xen. Anab. 1:4:11). There too, Darius Codomannus crossed after the fatal battle of Issus, and Alexander after him. In the sixth century A.D. it passed out of knowledge.

The true site was identified about the same time by J. P. Peters (Nation. May 23, 1889) and B. Moritz (Ber. der Berl. Akad., July 25, 1889) with Kal'at Dibse, a small ruin 'at the bend of the stream where it changes from a southerly to an easterly course, 8 mi. below Meskene, and 6 below the ancient Barbalissus'. Among other points in which the situation of Dibse agrees with the statements of Xenophon and Strabo is the existence of a camel-ford at this very spot. There is no philological objection to this combination, but excavations still wait to be made (cp Peters, Nippur, 1:96+)

At the same time, there are good reasons for testing this theory afresh. The realm of Solomon was not as extensive as a tradition based on incorrect readings of the text has represented (see SOLOMON, 9). Tiphsah and Azzah are most probably places on the frontier of Solomon's dominion in the Negeb. The former may come from Tappuah ( = Nephtoah), the latter may perhaps represent the strong city Zarephath. These points are doubtful.

2. A town in Ephraim which opposed the pretensions of Menahem, and was punished by him (2 K. 15:16-17), identified by Conder with Kh. Tafsah, on an old site 6 mi. SW. of Shechem (PHFMem. 2:169). The 'Tiphsah' of MT is as much conjecture as the 'Tirzah' (depua [thersa]) of LXX{B} (Oaipa [thaira] [A]). The right reading, as many think, is that of LXX{L} - viz. TAPPUAH (ra^we [taphooe]). So Thenius, Klostermann, Renan (Hist. 2:450), Kohler (Bibl. Gesch. 3:399), Guthe. There were at least three places called Tappuah (or Nephtoah). Whether this Tiphsah or Tappuah was really in the neighbourhood of Shechem, and not rather in the Negeb (cp 1), is one of the most recent critical problems. See Crit, Bib. on 2 K. 15:16.

T. K. C.


(DTfl; 9[e]lp&c[BADEL]), son of Japheth, mentioned after Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, Gen. 10:2 (P), 1 Ch. 1:5.

1. A northern people?[edit]

It is usually assumed that he must be the representative of a northern folk. The older commentators mostly think of the Thracians (9/>a [thrax]; Jos. Ant. 1:6:1). But after removing the Gk. nom. suffix s, we get a form which has no similarity to Tiras. Hence Tuch, Noldeke (HL 5:519-520), and W. Max Miiller (As. u. Eur. 382-383) think of the Tyrseni, who are spoken of not only as Etruscans but also as pirates on the Aegean Sea (cp TARSHISH, 6, and note quotation from E. Meyer on the probable distinction between the Etruscan Tyrseni and the Turusha of the Egyptian inscriptions). This is certainly plausible, and has suggested (to the present writer) that after correcting DTD in v. 2 into DTin, the latter word should be substituted for srenn in v. 4. The order of the names in v. 4 seemed to favour this, and granting that "Tarshish" is the Hebrew name for Tartessus or S. Spain, no better course seems to be open, for one cannot expect Tartessus to be inclosed between Elishah (i.e., S. Italy and Sicily [Lag., Di. , Kau.]), and Kittim (i.e., Cyprus?). The Tyrseni, however, might naturally enough be so grouped. How easily Tiras (or Tures?)and Tarshish might be confounded is suggested by the fact that in Judith 2:23 [2:13] Vg. actually gives filios Tharsis where Vet. Lat. gives filios Thiras et Rasis. Cp ROSH. A better view, however, can possibly be found (see 2).

Jensen connects Tiras with the Hittite T(a)rsh = Tarzi (so Shalmaneser II. ) = Tarsus (Jensen, TLZ., 4th Feb. 1899, col. 70), but see TARSHISH, 6.

2. A corruption of Asshur?[edit]

The increasing evidence (see Crit. Bib.) that many parts of the OT, which came down to the late editor or editors in a corrupt form, have been manipulated by him in accordance with incorrect views of geography and history, compels us to consider, as we pass through the Table of Nations, what may have been the original form of each ethnic or place-name that we find there. It has already been suggested by others (see JAPHETH) that Japheth in the original legend meant either the Phoenicians or the Philistines. It may be added here that there is great reason to doubt whether either the J portions or the P portions of Gen. 10 in their original form extended their range beyond Palestine and Arabia.

It is a characteristic of P's lists (and to P vv. 2-4, according to the critical analysis, belong) that he in naive ignorance repeats the same name in different corrupt and independent forms. Thus 'Tiras' in v. 2 is ultimately the same as 'Tarshish' in v. 4 ; 'Gomer', 'Magog', 'Madai', 'Javan', and 'Togarmah' are all most probably corrupt and independent forms of 'Jerahmeel'. 'Tubal' (cp TABEAL), as the connection in which the name occurs in Ezek. 32:26 ought sufficiently to show, is a Palestinian or rather a N. Arabian name. 1 'Meshech' (TJire) should be 'Cusham' (CJ 2) - i.e., the N. Arabian Cush (see CUSH, 2). 'Elishah' in v. 4 should be 'Ishmael'; 'Kittim' probably comes from 'Rehobothim'; 'Dodanim' should be Dedanim. If these emendations are in the main right - and the evidence referred to above would seem to make this a reasonable contention - it follows that 'Tiras' as well as 'Tarshish' (see TARSHISH, 7), is most probably a corruption and distortion of the N Arabian ethnic name Ashhur or Asshur ( = Geshur). Cp GESHUR, 2.

T. K. C.

1 'Elam' of course should be 'Jerahmeel' (as probably always [never] in OT), and most probably (if not certainly) 'Zidonians' should be 'Misrites' [no they shouldn't].


(D ninfi), 1 Ch. 2:55. See JABEZ.


1. D Ohnb*, saharonim. Is. 3:18, Judg. 8:21, 8:26, RV 'crescents'. See NECKLACE, 2.

2. -IN2, pe'er, Ezek. 24:17 (AV), 24:23 (EV) ; see TURBAN, 2.

3. lity, shesh; Ezek. 16:10 RVmg translates '[a tire of] fine linen'. A headtire seems to be meant. See TURBAN, 2.

4. fj-i-rpa. Judith 10:3, 16:8 (AVmg. 'mitre'), Bar. 5:2 (EV 'diadem'). See DIADEM.


(H^rnF! ; OAPAKA [A in 2 K., B in Is.]. 9Ap0AK [tharthak] [L], -pA [-ra] [B in 2 K.], -p&6A [ratha] [XAQ* in Is.], Vg. Tharaca).

1. Name.[edit]

According to Is. 37:9 = 2 K. 19:9, the Assyrian general (rab-shakeh) had heard that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (LXX of [the] Ethiopians), was coming forth to fight against the Assyrian armies occupying Judah before the siege of Jerusalem (701 B.C.) in order to assist Hezekiah.

This is the third king of the twenty-fifth (or Ethiopian) dynasty of Egypt (EGYPT, 66b). His name is written in Hieroglyphic signs Ta-h-ru-k. {1} The vowels (a and u) are written quite constantly, although they appear to us unintelligible and useless. The cuneiform transcription is Tarku. Manetho gives Tarkos or Tarakos, Strabo, 1:3:21, Tearko (he strangely makes the king a great conqueror, who reached the pillars of Hercules ; cp Megasthenes, Fragm. 20, in Strabo, 686). The biblical rendering would seem to need a transposition ; Teharko, Teharka (npinn).

2. Date.[edit]

The king seems to have been an usurper, 2 who legalised his crown afterwards by marriage with the widow of king Shabako. When the usurpation took place, can be determined with certainty (see SO). Tirhakah reigned, according to a stele of the Serapeum, twenty-six complete years ; according to Assyrian sources he died in 668/67 ; {2} consequently his accession to the throne was in 694/93 B.C. This shows at once that in the biblical account there is an impossible conjunction of facts. Either the original form of the text did not give the name of the 'king of Ethiopia' referred to - later scholars would then attempt to identify the king and insert Tirhaka-Taharko instead of Shabako who reigned in 701 (see, however, So on the improbability of Shabako's attacking the Assyrians) or Taharko was mentioned as the Ethiopian governor of Lower Egypt, and the later recension made him a king. Otherwise, we should have to acknowledge a confusion of the events of 701 with others of the time between 693 and 676 B.C.

3. Assyrian data.[edit]

The first expedition of the Assyrians against Egypt, in 676, was in all probability caused by such a provocation as military aid from Egypt to Palestinian rebels against Assyria. Esarhaddon mentions indeed that Ba'al, the king of Tyre, was induced to rebellion by Tarku. This may have occurred earlier ; but 693 is, as has been said, for Tirhakah the superior chronological limit.

Tirhakah, however, could not really play the part of an aggressor in Syria. The difficulty of maintaining Egypt and keeping the nomarchs in subjection must as a rule have absorbed his whole strength. An Assyrian army penetrated into Egypt in 676 and seems to have occupied a considerable portion of it, but in 675 was annihilated. 4 In his tenth year, 671, king Esarhaddon secured the road to Egypt by an expedition against the Arabs, invaded (then, or by another army?) Egypt by way of a city in the desert called Magdali or Migdol (see MIGDOL), and met and defeated the forces of Taharko near a place called Ishupri. The Ethiopian king had finally, after losing the third battle, to withdraw from Egypt. The Assyrians marched as far as Thebes, which capitulated and was mildly dealt with. The country was divided among twenty nomarchs, descendants of Libyan generals. Some of these may have called in the Assyrians to free them from the Ethiopian yoke, and submitted to the Assyrian supremacy without resistance. Nevertheless we read of a conspiracy with Taharko against the Assyrians by the three most influential leaders (Niku-Necho I. of Sais and Memphis, Sharludari of Tanis and Pakruru of Pi-saptu}. Evidently, they felt too weak to resist the Ethiopians when these threatened to invade Egypt again, and therefore tried to maintain good relations with them. In point of fact Taharko invaded Egypt again in 669. Esarhaddon hurried to the rescue of his vassals, and died on the expedition. His army, nevertheless, entered Egypt, defeated Taharko's army, coming from Memphis, at Karbanit (near Canopus?), and forced him to retreat as far as Thebes. The cities Sais, Mendes, and Tanis were cruelly punished for joining the Ethiopians ; prince Necho, however, when sent to Nineveh as a prisoner, obtained a pardon and his dominion. Evidently, the Assyrians needed his influence. They even gave the city of Hathribis to his son Psametik and thus furthered the rise of the next dynasty (the Saitic). Taharko, in the meantime, fortified a camp near Thebes and, while the Assyrian troops were engaged in the Delta, forced this city to surrender. At first, the prince of Thebes seems to have closed the door to the fugitive Ethiopian king. Preparing for a new invasion of northern Egypt, Tirhakah died there. His step-son Ten(wa)t-Amon (Tandamani of the Assyrian reports), son of Shabako, became king, and made the last attempt to expel the Assyrians (668/67). {1}

1 [cartouche of tirhaka goes here]

2 See Maspero, Histoire, 3361, on this point. The words of the inscription of Tanis (de Rouge in Melanges d'Archeologie Egyptienne, 1:21, etc) 'he went to the Delta at the age of twenty years' do not point, however, to a revolution necessarily.

3 Cp Winckler in KAT (3) 93. Why he places (p. 87 and AOF 1:482) his accession to the throne in 691, does not appear.

4 See KAT (3) 88, for the report of the 'Babylonian Chronicles'.

4. Egyptian data.[edit]

On the Egyptian monuments, nothing of this warlike activity of the king can be observed. Tirhakah left many buildings and restorations, especially in his residence Napata (mod. Gebel-Barkal) and at Thebes. North of Thebes, the difficulties caused him by the nomarchs seem to have prevented him from building much ; but inscriptions bearing his name have been found at Tanis, and at Memphis his name is represented at the burial of an Apis bull in his tenth and twenty-fourth year (directly before the Assyrian conquest?). Nominally, also, the two years following 668/7 seem to have been counted to him in Egypt, so at least later by Psammetichus I. At Thebes, the nomarch Mont(u)-m-he't was in the time of the Assyrian invasion practically independent (he built considerably at Karnak) and does not seem to have always been faithful to his suzerain in Napata (see above).

A (rather conventionalised) portrait of Tirhakah is given elsewhere (ETHIOPIA, fig. 1, right-hand picture); the Negro blood is more strongly indicated in several other portraits ; the full Negro type on the Zinjirli-stele of Esarhaddon is therefore no caricature.

[The view expressed elsewhere (SENNACHERIB, 5) as to the possibility of a confusion between an Assyrian and an Asshurite (N. Arabian) invasion of Juclah may possibly require a reinvestigation of the meaning of tm t^D in 2 K. 19:9 = Is. 37:9. 'Cush' may be, not Ethiopia, but a region in N. Arabia (see CUSH, 2). If so, npmn (Tirhakah) will have to be admitted into the group of personal names which have (according to the new theory) been modified by redactors to suit their own limited historical knowledge. See Crit. Bib. on 2 K. 19:9 and other parts of 2 K.]

W. M. M.

1 So far after Winckler's arrangement, KAT (3) 90-94.


(narnn ; GARAM [tharam] [B], GARXNA [tharchna] [A], 6ARAANA [L]), a son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah (1 Ch. 2:48).


({-ryri ; om. B, GHRIA [A], eGpiA [ethria] [L]), the name of a son of Jehallelel (1 Ch. 4:16), may have arisen from -irr [YThR] in the following verse.


(NJU ; "in ; either = tarshata, Pers. partic. = 'feared' [Meyer, Ryssel, and most scholars], or an official title from Old Pers. antare-kshathra, 'royal representative in the province', Lag. Symmicta, 160; A6ARAC0AC [atharasthas] [L generally]), a title like 'Your Excellency' (Meyer), or an official title (Lag., Stade) of the Persian governor of Judah, or perhaps a corrupt form of a personal name, or of a gentilic, of Semitic origin. The article is always prefixed.

(a) Ezra 2:63 (afleptraa [B], -crafla [A], -a<r0a; [L]) = Neh. 7:65 (ao-eptrafla [R], aOcp. [NA])= 1 Esd. 5:40 (see below);

(b) Neh. 7:70 (om. B, a.6ap<raoa [tfc.a mg. A]) ;

(c) Neh. 8:9 ;

(d) Neh. 10:1 [10:2].

The sense in (a) Ezra 2:63 = Neh. 7:65 = 1 Esd. 5:40 and (b) Neh. 7:70 depends on the critical view adopted as to the origin of the list of sons of the province. If, with Meyer, we admit it to be a list of exiles who returned with Zerubbabcl, the Tirshatha will of course be Zerubbabel ; to Kosters, however, it is a list of post-exilic residents in Judah and Jerusalem, and the Tirshatha is Nehemiah.

Cp 1 Esd. 5:40 (= Ezra 2:63), where we find v. [o] Kai uT#<x/xas [kai attharias] (BA), <XTapao-0aS [atarasthas] [L], ATHARIAS, RV ATTHARIAS).

In (c) Neh. 8:9 = 1 Esd. 9:49 and (d) Neh. 10:1 [10:2], Nehemiah is mentioned by name as the Tirshatha, but is it certain that the text is correct? Guthe (SBOT) points out that 1 Esd. 9:49 ( = Neh. 8:9) gives simply /ecu elirev aTTO.pa.Ti [kai eipen attarate] ([B], ar^apar??? [attharates] [A], adapaaOas [atharasthas] [L], ATTHARATES) - i.e., 'and the Tirshatha said', and infers that N?n rram [nehemiah ....] is a gloss. Smend, however (Listen, 18), prefers to omit 'that is, the Tirshatha' (so LXX [BXA] in Neh.), whilst Meyer (Entst. 200) omits both 'Nehemiah' and 'Tirshatha'. In (d) Guthe (SBOT) and Wellhausen (GGN, 1895, p. 177} omit 'the Tirshatha', because it separates the proper name from the patronymic (LXX{BXA}, but not LXX{L}, supports this). Very possibly here as well as in (c) both 'Nehemiah' and 'Tirshatha' are intrusive (cp Marq. Fund. 34). The two laymen, Nehemiah and Zedekiah, are very isolated just before the names of priestly classes (see ZEDEKIAH). Nehemiah's usual title is nns, 'governor'. It is not certain that Nehemiah had yet returned. To this it may be replied that Nehemiah s change of title may be connected with a limitation of his jurisdiction during his second period of office to matters connected with a religious reformation. For the grounds of this hypothesis see NEHEMIAH. On the name see, further, Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.


(nV~in ? 'agreeable', 102; 0epc<\[BAL]; but in Josh. 12:24 0ap<ra [BF], Oeppa. [therma] [A], in 1 K. 14:17 yrji/ <ra.pi.pa. [gen sarira] [A ; see ZARETHAN], in 2 K. 15:14 6ap<rei.\a. [tharseila] [B], OepcrtAo, [thersila] [A], in Cant. 6:4 evSoiaa. [eudokia] [BXA], in Targ. NrTjnrY).

1. An ancient city of Mt. Ephraim (see below) which had a king of its own before the Israelitish conquest (Josh. 12:24), and was the residence of the N. Israelitish kings from Jeroboam to Omri (1 K. 14:17, 15:21, 16:6, 16:8-9, 16:15, 16:17, 16:23). According to Klostermann's emendation of has-Tseredah in 1 K. 11:26 (and of the crapeipa [sareira] of LXX in 1 K. 12), Jeroboam was a native not of 'Zeredah' but of Tirzah, which place he fortified while still nominally in the service of Solomon (see JEROBOAM, i, ZARETHAN, 2). Shortly afterwards we read (1 K. 12:24-25) that on Jeroboam s return from Egypt he built a castle (xa/>a/ca [charaka] = N3n3) at Sarira. Whether Klostermann is right in holding Tirzah to be the original form of the name of Jeroboam's city, will be considered later; at any rate, we may follow him in his statement that Zeredah (rrns), or hats-Tseredah, crapeipa [sareira], and Tirzah are fundamentally the same. The next fact recorded of Tirzah is that, when, after a reign of seven days, Zimri saw that he could not hold Tirzah, he burned the citadel, and himself perished in the flames (1 K. 16:17-18) ; the usurper Omri then took up his abode in Tirzah. Even after Samaria had supplanted Tirzah as the capital, it continued to be a fortress of strategic importance. Menahem b. Gadi won Tirzah first and then Samaria, when he slew Shallum b. Jabesh and mounted the throne of Israel.

From the context (on 2 K. 15:16 see TIPHSAH) Tirzah appears to have been not far from Tappuah (in Ephraim, but on the border of Manasseh). In the Book of Judges too there is one more reference in the narratives, which, if based on fact, should come first in chronological order. Nor must we omit a famous poetical reference in the ordinary text. In Cant. 6:4, as given by MT (LXX, however, has ws evdoKia [oos eudokia]), we find the Shulammite compared to Tirzah. But whether a methodical criticism can accept this reading, is doubtful (see CANTICLES, 14, and cp ROSE). We need not therefore discuss the question whether Tirzah really was as beautifully situated as the ordinary text of Cant. 6:4 seems to imply. It is enough to find out where this northern city lay.

There are three current identifications.

  • (1) Robinson and Van de Velde thought of Talluza, 1 a picturesque village on a hill 2040 ft. above the sea-level, E. of Samaria, and slightly N. of Mt. Ebal. The phonetic resemblance, however, is but slight, and the description of Thersa quoted by Robinson from Brocardus ('on a high mountain, three leagues from Samaria to the E.') suits Tubas (Thebez?) better than Talluza.
  • (2) The Midrash represents Tirzah as Tir'an (cp CANTICLES, 14, note) and the Targum as Tar'itha. Hence Buhl (Pal. 203) suggests that Tirathana, a village close to Gerizim (Jos. Ant. 18:4:1), may be intended, and he (doubtfully) identifies this with et-Tireh, on the W. side of the plain of Makhneh. But this is not a sufficiently important site.
  • (3) Conder (PEFM 2:216) suggests the village Teyatsir, 11 mi. N. of Shechem, and 12 mi. E. of Samaria (see ASHER, 2). The site appears not unsuitable ; but nothing can be based on the name.

But is the name Tirzah really the correct form? Is it likely to have been corrupted into Zeredah or hats-tseredah ? And is it the most natural name for an important fortress? Add to this that another corrupted form of the same original may be ZARETHAN (q. v.). The problem is to find a name out of which all these forms can have been corrupted. Such a name is "VIS JV3 'Beth-zur'; such a name, too, is rlSlS, 'Zarephath'. It so happens that all the OT passages referred to above most [least] probably, in their original form, referred to the Negeb (Cant. 6:4 of course is excluded). It will therefore be safer to pronounce in favour of Zarephath.

2. One of the five daughters of ZELOPHEHAD - the fifth (Nu. 26:33, 27:1 [om. L], Josh. 17:3), or the second (LXX{BL} the first), Nu. 36:11, perhaps = Zarephath.

T. K. C.


(nifa 3Cn ; CK Gee BOON THC p [ RA 1. o eK SecceBtoN THC p [L]) 1 K. 17:1, RVmg, AV 'inhabitants of Gilead', RV 'sojourners of Gilead'. See TISHBITE and reff.


CgP Fl; {2} 6ecB(e)lTHC ; {3} Thesbites}, i.e., a native of Tishbeh, 1 K. 17:1, 21:17, 21:28, 2 K. 1:3, 1:8, 9:36. See ELIJAH, i, and n. i ; JABESH, i ; and especially PROPHET, 6, and Crit. Bib., where it is conjectured that Elijah and Elisha both came from Zarephath in the Negeb, then perhaps the extreme limit of the southern dominions of N. Israel. Cp THISBE.


{4} pb lJP, pi. nnb M?: Ae<vm [dekath]; decima}.

1 Probably the Tarlusa of the Talmud (Neub. Geogr. 268).

2 Konig (Exp. T 12:38 [1901]) explains the ' [Y] in the Gileadite place-name ajj-n [ThshBY] as a radical (\/ 3B f [root ShBY])

3 A om. in 1 K. 17:1, BAL om. 1 K. 21:28 ; LXX has ee<rj8(e)iTr [thesb(e)ites] also in 1 K. 18:27 [BAL], 18:29 [L] Mal. 4:4 [3:23] [BXAQr[gamma]].

4 The tithe in relation to other sacred dues is discussed elsewhere (see TAXATION; see esp. 9+), to which the present article is supplementary).

1. Terms; history.[edit]

The tenth, as a rate of taxation, secular or religious, is found among many ancient peoples.

See Ryssel, PRE (2) 17:428-429, and for the Greeks, Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. 4:2423-2424; Romans, id., 2306+; Carthaginians, Diod. Sic. 20:14 ; Justin, 18:7 ; Egyptians, Maspero, Struggle of Nations, 312 (spoil of war, tribute, etc., to Amon); Syrians, 1 Macc. 10:31, 11:35 ; Sabaeans, Plin. NH 12:63; Lydians, Herod. 1:89; Nic. Damasc. frg. 24 (FHG 8:371); Babylonians, Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 668 ; Chinese, Legge, Chinese Classics, 1:119, etc.

The oldest use of the word seems to have been secular, designating a tax or tribute in kind levied by a ruler from a subject or vassal people, or from his own countrymen. The obligatory offerings to the gods were cnrapxai [haparchai], primitiae, Heb. reshith, bikkurim. When these offerings came to be regarded as a tribute due to the deity as the ruler or the proprietor of the land, the name tithes was applied to them also. The dedication of a tithe of the spoils of war, an early and wide spread custom, may have contributed to this extension of the use of the term.

The 'tenth', doubtless, originally roughly expressed the proportion exacted; and in later times also, for example in Sicily under Roman rule ( Pauly-Wissowa, 4:2307+), was the actual rate of taxation ; but frequently the notion of tax or tribute predominated, so that the term tithe might be used in cases where the rate was different - as in Moslem law the 'tithe' is sometimes 1/20 or 1/40 - or where there was no fixed percent. Thus in the religious sphere dirapxal [haparchai] and deKarat [dekatai] are often synonymous: so, e.g., in Dion. Halic. 1:23-24, cp SeKarevcris [dekateusis], ib. 24, for the payment of a vow of firstlings ; so Philo calls the tithe which was to be paid the priests out of the Levites' tithe, dTrapxijs a.ira.px.n [haparches haparche] (De mutat. nom. 1:607, Mangey).

Similarly in the OT : to exact a tithe from the grain-fields, vineyards, and flocks is a royal prerogative (1 S. 8:15, 8:17). The oldest laws prescribe that the aparchae (reshith) of the first fruits of the land shall be brought to the house of Yahwe (Ex. 34:26, {1} cp Dt. 18:4, 26:2, Ezek. 44:30). The term 'tithe' was in use, however, in the northern kingdom in the eighth century for religious dues (Am. 4:4, cp Gen. 28;22, E). In Dt. the word occurs repeatedly (12:6, 12:11, 12:17, 14:22+, 14:28-29, 26:12+); the tithe of grain and wine and oil is to be brought to Jerusalem and - as in Amos - used for a feast ; in the third year, however, a tithe is to be reserved for charity (see TAXATION, 9-10). Together with the tithes Dt. 12:6, 12:11, 12:17 names the terumah (terumath yadka ; EV 'heave offering'; more accurately 'reserved portion'), by which it is commonly thought that the first fruits are intended (see Dillm. in loc. ), but this is doubtful ; more probably the terms are to be taken as synonymous ; cp Nu. 18:24. In Ezekiel we find reshith and terumah (20:40), which are assigned to the priests for their support (44:30); but no mention of tithes. There is nothing on the subject of tithing in H.

It seems probable, therefore, that the name 'tithe' was employed at some sanctuaries in the period of the kingdoms, while elsewhere other names were in use. It is not improbable, moreover, that the nature and quantity of the obligatory offerings, and the use made of them, differed at different places as well as times. When the fragmentary remains of old sacred laws were brought together with later rules (P) in one code, these various terms were treated as so many different dues, and combined in one system of religious taxation. The critic, on the other hand, sometimes falls into the hardly less serious error of assuming that all the laws lie in one serial development.

1 Ex. 23:19 is brought over by a redactor from 34:26

2. Use of tithe.[edit]

Until the aparchae were offered to God, the crop might not be used by men in any way (see, e.g. , Lev. 23:14). The presentation was the natural occasion of a feast at the holy place. This is the use of the tithe in Dt. (12:6, 14:23). The portion dedicated to the deity may at some time have been actually consumed upon the altar ; or, as in the case of the voluntary minhah, a representative part may have been thus consumed ; but in the rituals we possess the offering is symbolical (cp the wave sheaf and the two loaves, Lev. 23:9+, 23:15+) , God ceded his share to the priest (Nu. 18:11). At the feast given by the offerer the priest had a place by custom ; and thus from early times the offerings of first-fruits or tithes indirectly contributed to the support of the clergy. The poor, also, shared in the feasts by a religious guest-right.

The deuteronomic reformers foresaw that the suppression of the village high-places would deprive both the country priests and the poor of the community of no small part of their living. They provided, therefore, that every third year the land-owner, instead of taking his tithe to Jerusalem, should set it aside for charity at his own home. Here, again, it is not improbable that they found a precedent in earlier custom ; there are many examples, e.g. - among the Arabs - of sacrifices left wholly to the poor, this being a work of superior piety.

The new model of Ezekiel provides for the support of public worship, including the feasts at the great seasons, by the prince, out of the proceeds of a general tax (terumah, 45:13+) at a fixed rate. The old reshith bikkurim and terumah, are all assigned to the priests for their support (44:30). Ezekiel s programme was never put into operation, but in the Persian period the tithe seems to have been converted to the use of the temple (Mal. 3:8-10). Some such provision must have proved necessary, not only for the support of the priests but also for the maintenance of public worship.

In P all sacred dues, under whatever name, go to the support of the ministry (Nu. 18:8-20); the 'tithe' is specifically the portion of the Levites (vv. 21-24) ; of it they in turn make over a tithe to the priests (vv. 25-32). See NUMBERS, 11. According to Neh. 10:37+ (Chronicler), the plan was for the Levites to collect their tithe in all the cities and villages, under the supervision of a priest, and then deliver the tithe of the tithes into the storehouse in the tern pie for the priests. There is complaint, however, that the tithes were not paid, so that the Levites had to support themselves (Neh. 13:10+).

It is impossible to say whether this system was ever actually worked. It is often inferred that Neh. 10:37+ represents the practice of the Chronicler's own time; but it is quite as likely that it is one of the many pia desideria which he projects into his 'history as it ought to have been'. The fortunes of the Levites in these centuries are involved in dense obscurity (see LEVITES, 7). What is certain is that at the beginning of the Christian era the tithes were collected by the priests for themselves (Jos. Vita, 12, 15; Ant. 20:8:8, 20:9:2). This departure from the law is recognised in the Talmud : Ezra took the tithe away from the Levites because so few of them were willing to return to Palestine (Kethuboth, 26a ; Yebamoth, 86a-b ; Hullin, 131b, etc.).

3. Things tithed.[edit]

The deuteronomic laws name grain, wine, and oil as subject to tithe (12:17, cp 14:22, Nu. 18:27); Lev. 27:30 is more general: 'all the tithe of the soil, whether of the seed of the ground or the fruit of the tree, is Yahwe's. The general rule of the Mishna is: 'Everything that is eaten and is watched over and grows out of the ground is liable to tithe' (M. Ma'aseroth, 1:1). The scrupulosity of the Pharisees in matter of garden herbs - 'mint', 'anise', and 'cummin' - is commented on in the NT (Mt. 23:23 Lk. 11:42); the Mishna and the Palestinian Talmud go into minute details and discussions of what should be tithed, and when, and how. The tithe of agricultural products paid to the Levites or to the priests, is called by the Jewish writers on the law the 'first tithe'.

Lev. 27:32-33 puts by the side of the tithe of seed crops and fruit (vv. 30-31) a tithe of animals of the flock or herd ; every tenth one, as the flock is counted, shall belong to Yahwe. The complete parallel between vv. 30-31 and vv. 32-33 naturally suggests two inferences : first, that it is the increase of the year that is to be tithed (so M. Bekoroth, 9:3+, etc.); and, second, that the tithe of cattle, like that of the fruits of the earth, was to go to the priests. This is the view of Philo (De praaemiis sacerdot. 2, 2:234, Mangey ; De carit. 10, 2:391) ; so also Tob. 16 (cod. X [aleph]) and - what seems not to have been noted - Jubilees, 32:15 (on Gen. 28:22) : 'all tithes of neat cattle and sheep shall be holy to God and belong to his priests, who eat them year by year before him'. On the other hand, the legal authorities unanimously take the whole passage, Lev. 27:30-33, to refer to the 'second tithe'; the animals were sacrificed by their owners as thank offerings (todah), or as 'joyous peace offerings' (shalme shimhah} at the feasts. 1 Modern critics generally assume that the chapter is a late supplement to the 'Priests Code', and that the tithe is therefore to be understood in accordance with Nu. 18:21+ But if, as is more probable, it be a supplement to a body of law which included Dt. , the rabbinical interpretation is equally possible (cp vv. 9-15). There can be no doubt that the Mishna and Siphre represent in this particular the practice of the first century. And it is not difficult to conceive that the claim of the priests to all the firstlings ­- once the accompaniment of the tithe of corn and wine and oil (Dt. 126, etc. ) - made it necessary to make some other provision for the sacrificial feasts ; the tithe of cattle is a natural form for this provision to take. It is, therefore, not so certain as has sometimes been thought, that Lev. 27:32-33 is the last monstrous demand of a greedy priesthood or the fiction of an imaginative scribe.

1 Siphre, Dt. 63: M. Hagigah, 1:4 ; M. Menahoth, 7:5, etc. See Schurer, GJV (3) 2:251 n. So also Maimonides, Rashi, and the Mishna commentaries.

4. Jewish system of tithing.[edit]

On the basis of the Pentateuch as a whole, the system included three tithes:

  • the 'first tithe', a tax of one tenth of all edible vegetable products collected by the ministry for its own support (Nu. 18:21-24) ;
  • the 'second tithe', of the same products, which, together with the cattle tithe (Lev. 27:32-33), furnished a feast for the owner and his guests at Jerusalem (Dt. 14:22-27); and
  • the 'poor tithe', set apart every third year for charity (Dt. 14:28-29, 26:12).

The last, in the original intention of the law probably only a particular use of the tithe every third year, was in later times made, at least by some, a 'third tithe' falling twice in every seven years, in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle (Tobit, 1:7-8; Jos. Ant. 4:8:22; Trg. Jer. Dt. 26:12-13); see Geiger, Urschrift, 176+; Schurer, GJV (3) 2;252.

5. Literature.[edit]

Spencer, De legibus ritualibus, lib. 3, diss. 1, cap. 10 ; Selden, History of Tithes; Reland, Antiquitates sacrae, lib. 3, cap. 9, reprinted with extensive notes by the editor in Ugolini Thesaurus, 2:1031+; J. C. Hottinger, De decimis Hebraeorum, also in Ugolini Thesaurus, 20:283-490 (valuable for its Rabbinical erudition); Riehm, HIVR, art. 'Zehnten'; Ryssel, 'Zehnten bei den Hebraern', PREP) 17:428+, lit. ib. 17:444); A. S. Peake, 'Tithe' in Hastings' DB 4:780+; W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. (2) 244+; Nowack and Benzinger, HA ; Schurer, GJV (3) 250+

G. F. M.


i. |VV. tsiyyun, 2 K. 23:17 RV 'monument'. See MASSEBAH, 1 (e)

2. rtrXos [titlos], Jn. 19:19-20. See CROSS, 4.


(TITOC : on the accentuation see Winer-Schmiedel Gramm. Th. i., 6:2) is the name of a rather enigmatic minor figure in the apostolic age, who is known almost entirely from Paul's allusions to him (in Gal. and 2 Cor. ) as a friend and trusty lieutenant. He is not associated with Paul in the address of any extant epistle, and nothing is known of his birthplace, age, or nationality, except that he was a pagan by birth ("EXX?/!/ uv [hellen oon]) and apparently a native of Asia Minor (cp Gal. 2:1-5). Later tradition (Tit. 1;4) may be correct in hinting that he was brought over to Christianity by Paul himself.

1. At Jerusalem.[edit]

At any rate he appears at an early stage of the apostle's public career (possibly in 49 A.D. ; cp CHRONOLOGY, 74, PAUL, 16) as a private individual who accompanied Paul and Barnabas (cp Acts 15:2) at the former's request upon their visit to Jerusalem, evidently to represent the success of the Pauline gospel outside Judaism. The burning question at the conference of Jerusalem was the value and validity of Christian faith if unsupplemented by circumcision, and (as Paul had foreseen) the case of Titus inevitably came up for discussion. Whether it was made a test case or not, it led to bitter feeling between the conservative party and their challengers. Paul and Barnabas, however, stood their ground against the orthodox centre and repudiated any compromise involving their companion; 'not even Titus', says Paul triumphantly, 'was obliged to get circumcised' - much less (as the Judaising Christians appear to have insisted) Gentile Christians in general, who were not (like Titus) in direct daily touch with a circumcised Christian. Nothing is said of what Titus himself thought and felt. His attitude is passive. The natural inference, however, is that he left himself in Paul's hands, sharing, or at least sympathising, with that 'inward impulse' of Paul's spiritual nature, which 'went straight to the results of its principles . . . and thus carried him past a form of Christianity which was simply another form of Judaism' (Baur). Cp COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 4, 7.

The textual problem raised by the omission of o! ovSe [ois oude] (Gal. 2:5) in some western MSS is not serious (cp Lightf. Gal. 121-123, and Klostermann's Probleme im Apostel-texte [1883], 54-55); besides, even were the external evidence more considerable, the internal probabilities of the case put the matter beyond doubt, ihe curious silence of Acts upon this notorious controversy (ACTS, 4) is due to the irenical tendency of the author or of the sources which he edited at this point of his story. Even if he did not know the Pauline Epistles, Titus must have been familiar to him, as familiar at any rate as several of the minor figures who flit across his pages. But by the time he wrote, the circumcision-question was obsolete, and he probably deemed it prudent to pass by allusions which might revive unpleasant memories better left unstirred. Some such explanation is distinctly preferable to Ramsay's hypothesis that the Antiochian Luke omitted the name of Titus because he was his relative (St. Paul, 389-390). Further, the disinclination to report so discreditable and unedifying an episode as that of the local dispute at Corinth naturally led to the omission of any later reference to Titus, who thus had the misfortune to be sacrificed to the special aims and interests of the first historian of the early church.

2. At Corinth.[edit]

Three or four years elapse before Titus reappears, in connection with the Corinthian church. 1 His lack of circumcision would naturally prevent him from being a suitable companion during Paul's second tour (49-52 A.D.) which embraced as a rule - for so much is visible even under the religious pragmatism of Acts - an initial attempt upon the synagogues in almost every city. But, since Titus is found at Paul's disposal in Ephesus, it is possible that the apostle took him from Antioch, after the dispute with Peter (Gal. 2:11-21), upon his third tour through Galatia and the Phrygian highlands as far as the Asiatic metropolis - a 'carefully planned stroke of policy', according to Ramsay, which effectually answered the unfair deductions drawn by Judaisers in favour of Judaic Christianity from Timothy s circumcision previous to his promotion. Be that as it may, the keenest interest shown by Titus was in the Achaian Christians, an interest only equalled by that of Paul himself (2 Cor. 8:16), who stamped him as 'my comrade and fellow-worker in your interest' (2 Cor. 8:23), my brother' (2 Cor. 2:13), and a colleague actuated by the same high motives (2 Cor. 12:18) - an estimate borne out by the record of what transpired during the Corinthian episode, where Titus proved himself a prudent, active, and reliable commissioner of Paul. His connection with the Achaian Christians appears to have begun upon the occasion of a visit paid either at the despatch of i Cor. (which he may have carried, as one of 'the brothers' : 1 Cor. 16:11; cp 2 Cor. 12:18) or shortly afterwards, when he set on foot arrangements for a local contribution to the great collection (cp Rendall, Expos. (4) 8:321-336, and E. Lombard, Rev. d. Theol. el Philos. , 1902, p. 113-114) on behalf of the Judaean Christians which Paul was negotiating throughout the Gentile churches, partly as a timely act of charity, partly as a tangible evidence of sympathy between the two branches of the church, and partly to show his own belief and interest in their unity. Acquainted with the instructions already given by Paul to the Galatians in this matter of the Xoyia [logia] (1 Cor. 16:1), Titus was well adapted 2 for this financial work, which began in the year previous to that in which 2 Cor. 8:10, 9:2 were written.

1 On the movements of Titus and Timothy at this period see especially and variously Lightfoot (Bibl. Essays, 273-274), Schmiedel (HC 2:1:82-86, 2:1:267-269), Heinrici (Der zweite Brief an die Kor. [Meyer, 1900], 46-51), and A. Robertson (Hastings ' DB 1:492-497). The scantiness of the available data renders any outline rather hypothetical at more than one point; upon the whole the most satisfactory view of the episode in general and of its extant literary evidence seems to lie somewhere among those which are based upon an acceptance of 2 Cor. 10-13 as the 'intermediate letter' (literature in Moffatt's Hist. New Testament (2) 1901, p. 174-175).

2 In describing the collection of temple tribute among the Jews, a custom which no doubt suggested to Paul the idea or at least the form of this collection, Philo notices the periodical assignment of the funds in each district 'to men of good standing whose duty it is to convey them to Jerusalem. For this purpose it is always men of the highest rank who are chosen, as a kind of guarantee that what forms the hope of every Israelite may reach the Holy City untampered with' (De monarchia, 3, cited by Schur. Hist. 2:2:289). Evidence for such collections in Egypt is displayed by Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka (1899), 1:253-254, 6:15-16, See DISPERSION, 16, and Harnack s Ausbreitung, 133-135.

As the context implies (2 Cor. 12:15-17), 2 Cor. 12:17-18 (ew\eove icTTjcra [epleonektesa]) refers to the collection ; neither in person, nor by my agents (Paul retorts), did I overreach you. In view of this it seems inadequate to deny (with Zahn, Einl. 1:244-245) that the collection is the topic of 2 Cor. 8:6. As Titus had previously made a beginning (n-poei^pf arc [proenerxato]) with this bounty, so (Paul urges) let him complete it now in addition to (<eai [kai]) the other local tasks - such as that of acting for Paul during the estrangement - which, as 2 Cor. 1-9 implies, he had brought to a happy issue.

Then and there he won the esteem of the Corinthians. Along with some other agent, he supported himself as Paul had done, thereby putting his disinterested zeal beyond suspicion ; as Paul s language indicates (2 Cor. 12:18), he was evidently the last man in the world whom the Corinthians would have dreamed of accusing (cp J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 1900, p. 119). The business of the collection prospered famously (2 Cor. 9:1-2). But it was rudely interrupted by the painful, discreditable, and contemptible affair which led to a rupture beween Paul and the Corinthian church. At this outbreak of bad feeling Titus in all likelihood returned to Ephesus, although this is one of several details which are far from luminous or coherent. It is possible that he contented himself with simply reporting the crisis. At any rate, he seems to have borne somewhat later to Corinth from Ephesus the vehement, severe letter (preserved in whole or part in 2 Cor. 10-13:10) which Paul precipitately wrote with caustic and passionate indignation, his aim being to test their loyalty and bring them to their senses (2 Cor. 2:13, 7:6-7, 7:13-14). The misgivings and apprehensions 1 of Titus on this errand proved happily unfounded. He was received and obeyed heartily by the majority, and eventually found himself able to rejoin Paul with good news of the Corinthians repentance and affection. Some delay occurred, however, and meantime the outbreak at Ephesus (PAUL, 25) had driven the apostle to Troas. Dismayed to hear at Corinth of the grief produced by his sharp letter (2 Cor. 7:8), he felt driven by restless eagerness for further news across to Macedonia. There at last he met his friend returning by land, and in an access of delight and relief at his favourable report composed 2 Cor. 1:1-9, 13:11-13, which he concludes by planning to have the collection resumed and completed under charge of Titus accompanied by two anonymous but able subordinates. The former was not only willing but eager to return to Corinth (2 Cor. 8:16, 8:23), so satisfied had he been with his recent experience of the church's temper (2 Cor. 7:6-7, 7:13-15). Thus Titus disappears from the scene. He probably returned with the letter to Corinth and reorganised the Xoyia [logia] or voluntary assessment throughout Achaia. For although no Corinthian deputies are mentioned among those named in Acts 20:4, it is evident from Rom. 15:26 that the long-promised liberality of the Corinthians (2 Cor. 9:5) had not been withheld, and that the financial labours of Titus (2 Cor. 8:6, 9:2) were crowned with success. Curiously enough, among the virtues of the Corinthian church celebrated some forty years later, liberality (ijdiov didovres f) Xo,ufidvovTfs [edion didontes e lambanontes]) is reckoned as one of its leading and traditional characteristics (Clem. Rom. 1:1, 2:1).

1 As a personal friend of Paul and as a Gentile Christian over whom an acrimonious feud had been already waged (Gal. 2:3), Titus cannot have felt comfortable at the prospect of confronting the Jewish Christian intriguers who were busy at Corinth. Probably it was dislike of them, if not their active malice, that had driven him away. At the same time his diplomatic qualities, no less than his organising capacity, made him evidently a more capable man than Timothy to deal with a difficult situation of this kind, and Paul's generous confidence in the sterling qualities of the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 7:14), as well as his sagicity in the choice of a new envoy, must have been amply justified by events.

3. Later traditions.[edit]

The genuine fragment incorporated in Tit. 3:12-13 (cp CHRONOLOGY, 68-69, TIMOTHY AND TITUS [EPISTLES], 13) probably belongs to the period after the composition of 2 Cor. 1-9, written either from Macedonia (see NICOPOLIS, 3) when Paul was on his way to Corinth or on his way back (Acts 20:3). How the connection with Crete arose, and whether Titus managed to rejoin him or not, it is impossible to say. The only light thrown upon his subsequent movements is afforded by a remark two years later in a genuine Pauline fragment preserved in 2 Tim. 4:10, from which it appears that Titus, who must have turned up during Paul's captivity in Rome, had left (on a mission?) for DALMATIA (q.v.). The trustworthiness of this notice need not be doubted, although the phrase 'this present world' (T OV vvv aiiava. [ton nyn aioona], cp 1 Tim. 6:) is un-Pauline. Nor is a substantial basis to be denied to the tradition (reflected in Tit. 1:5) that links Cretan Christianity to Titus at any rate (whatever may be thought of the allusion to Paul), although the tendency and object of the sub-Pauline author is naturally to suggest that the anarchic condition of the local Christians 'was one considerable cause of the evidently low moral condition to which they had sunk' (Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 176), and characteristically to lay stress upon organisation as a safeguard.

Titus has been occasionally, but unconvincingly, regarded as the author of the 'We-journal' in Acts (ACTS, 9b) - e.g., by Krenkel, Kneucker, Seufert, Jacobsen, O. Holtzmann (ZWT, 1889, p. 409), and Bartlet (Apost. Age, 69, 100 [1900]). But all that the curious silence of Acts enables us to adduce in favour of such a conjecture is the wholly inadequate fact that Titus was a companion of Paul, possibly - though only possibly - during part of the time covered by the diary in question. Besides, it is significant that no writing, canonical or extra-canonical, is assigned to him in tradition, which is content to elaborate his connection with Crete and - by a strange shift of fortune, after the Venetian regime - with Venice. The meagre allusion to Crete which happens to occur in the Epistle to Titus, may quite well rest upon a nucleus of historical fact ; but the luxuriant fancy of later generations proceeded among other developments to make him the first bishop appointed by Paul over Crete (Ap. Const. 7:46, Euseb. HE 34, Theod., Theophylact, Jerome, etc.), dying indeed at Candia, as archbishop of Gortyna, in his ninety-fourth year (Fabric. Cod. Apocr. NT 2:831-832). Cp Tozer, Islands of the Aegean, 65-66. In the Roman legends of the gnostic Trpcif ei5 II av Aou [praxeis paulou], Titus is connected with Paul, and plays along with Luke a role in the Passio sancti Pauli Apostoli and Martyrium Pauli, 114-117 (cp Lips. Acta Apost. Apocryph., 1891, 123-44). Like Timothy he is of course reckoned among the seventy disciples by Chron. Pasch. 420 (ed. Bonn), and, according to Acta Pauli et Theclae, 2-3, he gives information regarding Paul to Onesiphorus at Iconium. One of the epistles of the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita is addressed to Titus as bishop of Crete. The rather slight contents of the Acta Titi (see Lips. Apocr. Ap.-gesch. 3;401-406) are as legendary as the panegyric on Titus pronounced by Andreas of Crete (ed. Paris, 1644).

Like Timothy, Titus also has had some ado to preserve his individuality. But it seems needless to do more than chronicle even the attempts made to identify him (see Wieseler) with the Titius (TtVov [titou] [XE]) Justus of Acts 18:7 or with Silas (Silvanus) ; against the latter as advocated especially by Zimmer, see the conclusive statement of Julicher, JPT, 1882, pp. 528-552 [, also SILAS, 5-6].

J. Mo.




(TITIOC loycroc [Ti. WH]), Acts 18:7 RV, AV JUSTUS (q.v., ii.).


RV Titus Manius (TITOC MANIOC). 2 Macc. 11:34 . See MANLIUS.


rynri; o leAcei [BN], o ecoc^ei [A], o [L] ; Thosaites\Vg. }, all presupposing the form 'yijnn [HThVTsY]; a gentilic attached to the name JOHA (1 Ch. 11:45). David's warriors were presumably, like himself, [not] from the Negeb. Shimri, the name of Joha's father, also favours this. If TIRZAH (q.v.) was really a place in the Negeb, we might suppose corruption from -ni^n a Tirzathite.

T. K. C.


(niPl), 1 Ch. 6:34 [6:19]; in 1 S. 1:1, TOHU.


(3112 ; rcoB [BAL]), a region in which Jephthah 'the Gileadite' took refuge (Judg. 11:3, 11:5), and whence the Ammonites obtained allies in their war against David (2 S. 10:68, RV ; cp ISH-TOB). Sayce plausibly identifies it with Tubi, a place conquered by Thotmes III., and mentioned a little before Astiratu - i.e.. Tell Ashtera (RP(2) 545 ; cp Maspero, AZ, 1881, p. 124). This does not, however, suit the original story which underlies Judg. 11:1-33 (see JEPHTHAH); a district of Hauran is not to be expected here. Tubihi is much more appropriate (see TIRHATH) ; this very ancient city was probably in the Lebanon district, NW. of Damascus. The identification also suits the mention of Tob in 2 S. 10:68 in connection with ZOBAH (q.v. ). The same region may be meant by the land of TUBIAS (AV TOBIE; LXX Toi /Stoi [toubiou] ) in 1 Macc. 5:13, the people of which appear to be called TUBIENI (2 Macc. 12:17 ; see CHARACA) - i.e., the men of Tub or Tob. These identifications, however, only suit a fairly conservative view of the MT. If the Gilead originally meant in Judg. 11 and in 1 Macc. 5 be a southern Gilead in the Negeb, and if the Zoba originally meant in 2 S. 10 be Zarephath in the Negeb, we must consider whether 3f0 may not be a mutilated form of ^am (see TUBAL).

The n in the Gk. and Syr. forms (roujSeicov? [toubeinous] [A], Tov/3iacous [toubianous] [V], jkl*2>aJ) is clearly not radical. See GASm. HG 587, n. 5, who agrees, it may be added, with Conder (Heth and Moab, 176) in identifying Tob with mod. et-Tayyibeh, NE. of Pella.

T. K. C.


(Pl3n* 3iO; TU)B6.AcoBei<\ [toobadoobeia] [B], -A IONIA [doonia], [AL]), a Levite temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17:8). Note that Pesh. omits the name and that of the preceding Adonijah and Tobijah ; LXX{BA} omits the second. If not a corruption (e.g. , for ITHDJ? [ABDYH = Abdiah] or DIN naj;[ABD 'DM] - y [ayin] and 13 [taw] are very similar in Samaritan script) the name should probably be omitted ; a scribe may have begun to rewrite irraia [TVBYHV = tobijah] and then invented the most suitable name he could think of. [But cp Crit. Bib., ad loc.~\

S. A. C.


(rVTlD), Ezra 2:60; see TOBIJAH, 2.


(TooB[e]i <\C *.<?, naiU).

1. The son of TOBIT (q.v.).

2. The father of HYRCANUS (q.v.).


(royBiOY [ A ^ v ]). 1 Macc. 5:13 AV, RV TUBIAS. See TOB. ,