

<>K\|. EPISTI.KS 



VI, KPl- the name npp 



win tnivt -' ' unent 



i MS In !U8 < tWO to Til '""l'. v ; "" ; '"-> 



J V ' written by the Apostle l':inl near the 



of his life; L> Tiiiuithy l>eariiig 

 toy iu:irk 'In- l:Lt epistle penned. (Phile- 



mon, though phoH with tin- pastoral epi.-tles in our 

 Bibles, in not to be classed with tin m. since it \\.is 

 written at the same time with the Kpi.-tl.s to the 

 Epbenans and Cokwsians. Phileui. 10; (',,1. i\ 7,'.'; 

 Eph. vi. >}.) 



The difficulties connected with these epistles have 

 been set forth in the previous article, anil the impres- 

 sion given that the Pauline authorship is improbable. 

 "The majority of modern critics." it is asserted, 

 "question or deny their authenticity." that is. their 

 genuineness. But thi- assertion holdsgood only in 

 toe cue of a certain school of critics. The difficulties 

 have not led to a rejection of the epistles by any con- 

 siderable |M.rtion of Biblical scholars, and the argu- 

 ment in favor of the genuineness is a very strong one. 

 The three letters stand or fall together. Every at- 

 tempt to prove one of them Pauline and the others 

 forgeries has failed from its inherent inconsistency. It 

 has been fully shown by Dr. Hatch that they cannot 

 be placed at any period in the life of the apostle up 

 to the close of the two years named in Acts xxvlii. 30. 

 Vet he somewhat summarily disposes of the theory 

 that they were written by the apostle, "subsequent 

 to the close of the Acts of the Apostles." Most of 

 those who accept these epistles as genuine hold that 

 Paul was released from his imprisonment at Rome, 

 and after a brief period of freedom was reimprisoned 

 and beheaded. On the other, hand, those who deny 

 their geoameneH object to this theory ; indeed, the 

 theory is frequently objected to, in order to deny the 

 genuineness of the epistles. The controversies of this 

 century have virtually narrowed the question to this 

 single point, which is more probable, that Paul lived 

 for some years after the time when the Book of Acts 

 closed its narrative, or that these epistles are forgeries '! 

 The former is exceedingly probable, the latter equally 

 improbable. As the improbability of the former and 

 the probability of the latter have been i'ullv set forth 

 in Dr. Hatch's article, the other side should be stated 

 here. 



1. The probability that the Apostle Paul lived for 

 some years after the time at which the Book of the 

 Acts closes. (1) The patristic evidence, while open to 

 discussion, is positive. The objections raised against 

 this evidence do not weaken its force resi>ecting the 

 main point, namely, that the apostle was set at liberty 

 ailcr the two years' imprisonment at Rome, and made 

 another missionary journey before his death. The 

 silence of other early writers about this journey is not 

 evidence. (2) The Book of Acts terminates in an ab- 

 rupt manner, making no allusion to the death of the 

 apostle. It therefore presents no evidence on the 

 matter in question. But this silence respecting the 

 martyrdom of the apostle is unaccountable, if that 

 martyrdom took place at the time when the narrative 

 closes. If, however, the apostle lived and labored for 

 a few years after that time the conclusion of the Book 

 <-f Acts is natural enough. The evangelist wrote it 

 during the two years at Rome, and it was in eircula- 



hilc the apostle was still alive. Even if it were 

 written after his death, that fact would probably have 



Motioned if it occurred at the time when the 

 narrative closes. On the other hand, if a number of 

 other events occurred in the later history of Paul the 

 historian would omit all of them, localise his purpose 

 was accomplished, that of showing the establishment 

 of Christianity in its new centre .it I',. imp. This is 



r.-tiire," not "evidence," but (:',) the entire argu- 

 ment against the second Roman iuiprisonmci 

 upon "conjecture" rather than "evidence." It is 



"y the critics who oppose this theory that Paul 

 would have alluded to the Neronian persecution in the 



pastoral epistles had he written these alter that perse- 

 cution b.-iMii. But his silence is not so singular as the 

 of the author of the Book of Acts about the 

 death of Paul, if that occurred at the time the oppo- 

 nents of this theorv claim. No positive historical 

 statement can be adduced : iin-t the fact of a second 

 Human imprisonment. The internal evidence from 

 the epistles themselves is constantly used to prove a 

 later aatc than that of the other Pauline epistles. This 

 is valid enough. But this evidence does not compel 



accept a date later than that allowed by the 

 theory of a second imprisonment. Only by pressing 

 terms and statements beyond their necessary meaning 

 can a plausible argument for a sub-apotolic date be 

 presented. I'ntil the epistles are proven forgeries they 

 themselves are competent witnesses as to the facts of 

 the apostle's history'- Those who accept them as com- 

 petent witnesses rarely find a serious difficulty in con- 

 structing a consistent theory respecting the event* in 

 Pauls life subsequent to the two years imprisonment 

 .11 Home, and in assigning to these epistles their 

 respective places in that period of his life. The alter- 

 native is the spuriousness of the epistles. 



2. The improbability of these epistles being forgeries. 

 If spurious, they must be wilful forgeries; for they 

 claim to be Pauline. Their contents include many 

 personal allusions and direct commands, as if from the 

 Apostle Paul. Every attempt to account for them as 

 based upon briefer writings of the apostle has failed. 

 The " patchwork " school of criticism lias essayed to do 

 it. hut without success. As regards the genuineness 

 of the pastoral epistles, the following statement must 

 suffice : (1) The epistles have been well-nigh univer- 

 sally accepted as Pauline, and are included in the ear- 

 liest lists of New Testament writings, as well as cited 

 by very early fathers. (2) No motive for forging such 

 epistles can be discovered, cither in their contents or 

 in any circumstances of the early church to which the 

 contents would be pertinent. (3) As in the case of 

 other epistles which have been doubted, no author can 

 be found who could have written such epistles. The 

 second century produced few Christian authors of 

 mark. The works remaining to us are of a character 

 so much below that of the Pauline epistles, these 

 included, that one cannot even by "conjecture" hit 

 upon an author. The contrast with the Trui-hiii;/ f 

 the Ttcclve Apostles and the Epixll- f Hnninbat is 

 obvious. Yet we are asked to believe that these 



- came into existence, in the same age with these 

 latter. (4) The historical difficulties themselves furnish 

 an argument against the spuriousness of the epistles. 

 A forger skilful enough to personate Paul so success- 

 fully as to deceive the church for 1 StM) years would 

 have been skilful enough to make his historical allu- 

 sions fit into the narrative of the Book of Acts. Nor 

 is it improper to suggest that such a forger would 

 hardly have taken pains to invent the incident about 

 " the cloak at Troas" (2 Tim. iv. 13), and other-minor 

 di tails. (5) The objeri d on internal grounds 



have been repeatedly answered, (a) As to the con- 

 tents, the pressing of "doctrine is not singular. 



!:ing" is meant, and these epistles were written 

 to men who were organizing churches and superintend- 

 ing the induction of teachers into office. The errors 

 c.imhatcd are not necessarily those of a later period 

 of the church than that usually assigned as the date ojf 

 these epistles. The early and rapid growth of error is 

 indicated in the undoubted Pauline epistles. Nor can 

 there be found any particular age or error in the church, 

 after the apostolic period, to which the language of 

 these epistles would apply with such force as to suggest 

 a forgery to meet that error in that a ire. (fi) The 

 us from the peculiar words and the more simple 

 i In epistles amount to little. The purpose of 



:ers necessarily led to the use of words not per- 

 tinent in the other epistles. Arguments from the use 

 of words are always precarious. Then, as to st\le ; 

 tho invoked structure so common in the other Pauline 



