trine in question. We see how this doctrine offended the Saddu-
cees, as also the Gentile Christians at Corinth, and the philosophic
audience of the apostle at Athens. And if, moreover, we suppose
that there were Jewish Christians in the apostolic era who held du-
alistic notions, such as Baur maintains were held by those at Home,



478 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

we shall not be surprised at its having entered into tne minds of
certain individuals that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection
would receive its right place, if they maintained that it was past
already; and we can then also feel a satisfaction in finding a clear
trace of this error in this epistle. For what remains, see Bottger's
learned notices (p. 170) concerning the Therapeuta?, the Essenes,
the ancient Ophites, and his observations on the meaning of a resur-
rection already past. Here, then, also, we find no unmistakeable
reference to Marcion.

It would lead us too far to attempt to throw light on the other
particular characteristics which Baur notices in support of his as-
sertion. There are still the doxologies and formulas occurring in
these epistles, as 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16 ; expressions such as (f>ave-
povoQai, Km<f>dvia, 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 10, etc., 6ebg <T<JT?/P, 1 Tim.
1, etc. ; the christological representations, 1 Tim. ii. 5, iii. 16 ; the
expressions $&$ dnpoairov^ doparog, u(j)6apTO^ } dtyOapaia, dOavaoia, irpb
at(*)vib)v y tvc^e/cro/, ayyeAoi ; the prominence given to the xP~n a ~
and tyiXavdpuma rov Oeov ; all represented as traces of the
Gnostic period. Not indeed that the writer, in these expressions,
opposes the Gnostics, but that he has adopted involuntarily their
ideas and language. However, in the passage 1 Tim. iii. 16, accord-
ing to Baur's interpretation, the author must have deliberately ex-
pressed himself in a Gnostic form ; as there are there six clauses,
every two of which form an antithesis, the one member having more
a Gnostic, the other an anti-Gnostic cast. A strange method, cer-
tainly, of refuting Gnosticism, which is yet said to have been the
chief object of this false apostle. Finally, it is said that the heretics
named in the epistles shew themselves to be fictitious. Baur ^has
not troubled himself much with the proof of this point, so as to
make it evident that he lays no particular weight upon it. And
with regard to the doxologies and other expressions, he repeatedly
acknowledges, that what he has adduced furnishes no strong proof.
He finds nothing that is unpauline in any of them ; nor can it have
escaped his observation how many representations and designations
may be found in Scripture, and even in the writings of Paul, from
which the expressions in question might be derived, or at least ex-
plained, without having recourse to the help of a Gnostic style of
language and conception, as also Baumgarten and Bottger have
shewn. We shall have an opportunity, in commenting on the par-
ticular passages, of saying what we deem necessary.

If now we inquire to what result we have been led by the inves-
tigation of the main features which are said to belong to the Gnosis
of the second century, we find that it can only be the same as that
to which De Wette, Neander, Rothe, Matthies, Baumgarten, and
Bottger have come who, in spite of the criticism of Dr. Baur, sup-



GENERAL INTKODUCTION. 479

ported as it is by the most comprehensive learning, have not been
convinced of the justness of his conclusion. They all more or less
point to this, that " the germ of a Judaizing Gnosticism, or a Ju-
daizing theosophic-ascetical tendency, such as shews itself in the
two Epistles to Timothy, must a priori be presupposed as existing
at this period ; as the heresies of the second century point back to
such a tendency gradually evolving itself out of Judaism" (Neander,
p. 439). To the same effect, Eothe considers the heretics of the
Pastoral Epistles as being an indispensable intervening link already
presupposed a priori. (Anfange der chr. k. 1. 322.) So also Bott-
ger, p. 211. Com p. also Thiersch in his Herstellung des hist. Stand-
punkts filr die Kritik, p. 249. When we go back to the origin of
Gnosticism, as Baur has traced it out in his work on this subject
(pp. 36-38), and learn that the first elements of this were already
formed within the sphere of the Jews' religious history further,
that Christianity could not first call forth this speculative philosophy
of religion, although it could not but be immediately drawn into its
circle wherever it came into contact with it when we add to this,
that Baur himself finds in the yv&mg of the first Epistle to the Co-
rinthians, viii. 1, seq., an idea at least closely allied with the later
Gnosticism that he already ascribes to the Jewish Christians at
Rome a dualistic view of the world of a Gnostic kind that he re-
cognizes in the Epistle to the Colossians an example of the manner
in which Essaism in particular united itself with Christianity, but
in this connexion generally produced a new form of the Gnosis that
he farther supposes a series of intervening links, by which the Gnos-
ticism of a later period is traced to its first elements, the question
presses itself upon us, why is no place to be found in the apostolical
era for the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles, and can they not be one
of those necessary intermediate links for which they give themselves
out ? We receive for answer; that would be a Gnosticsimus ante
Gnosticos, which is just, in other words, that in the Pastoral Epistles
we have before us the fully-developed, wide-spread heresies of the
second century, otherwise Rothe's suggestion must certainly be ad-
mitted as valid, that we have also in the Epistle to the Colossians
Gnostics ante gnosticisrnum ; and " among the Jewish Christians of
the earliest period there are many indications which lead to the con-
clusion that all these Jewish Christians of the earliest period bore
more or less an Ebionitic stamp, and had an element of Gnosticism
which they derived from Essaism" (Baur, Ursprung des Episc. p.
123). All will depend, then, on our being able to prove also posi-
tively, that there is nothing inconceivable in such heretics as those
of the Pastoral Epistles having existed in the apostolic time ; on
which see 4, and the Commentary.

We now add only one or two general remarks on Baur's view of



480 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles. Dr. Baur has maintained that
the general delineation which is given of the heretics, already trans-
fers us to a time subsequent to that of the apostles ; inasmuch as
they do not appear as the apostle's personal opponents, but come
into collision with the settled faith of the church, and are designated
by the name aipe-ncb? avdpu-rros, Tit. iii. 10, which was not applicable
in this sense in the apostolic time. Comp. also 1 Tim. i. 19, who,
concerning faith have made shipwreck, and similar passages. The
heresy, it is said, is here represented as a wide-spreading evil, and
the opposition between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, comes clearly out
in expressions such as if there be any other thing that is contrary to
sound doctrine, 1 Tim. i. 10, etc. We shall afterwards see that the
apostle does not here speak of heterodoxy and orthodoxy in the sense
which we attach to the words ; but of an unhealthy, unprofitable
tendency to speculations and pursuits which are destitute of moral
fruit, as opposed to the spirit of practical morality that belongs to
Christianity. Bottger rightly observes that there is much more said
of heterodoxy and orthodoxy in such a passage as Gal. i. 6-9. The
term alperixo^, too, can cause no serious offence so long as alpeaeu;
retains its place in 1 Cor. xi. 19. Comp. the interpretation of the
passage. It has already been sufficiently noticed by others how un-
certain is the criterion which is founded on the assertion that the
opponents with whom the apostle deals are always represented as
contradicting his own personal authority, while those of the Pastoral
Epistles come into collision with the faith of the church {concerning
faith have made shipwreck oppose the truth, are the expressions
referred to). (Baumgarten, p. 47. Bottger, p. 113.) We however
acknowledge fully that the perverse tendency to be taken up with
vain fancies, and controversies about words, which is rebuked in these
epistles, was widely extended, but we do not admit that this points
to a period posterior to that of the apostles. Baur also alleges that
the epistles themselves refer us to a later date. 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 1. But, far from our being constrained by this to the adoption
of Baur's view, it is just the point where may be clearly seen with
what injustice Baur has brought together all that is said in these
epistles respecting corruptions of, and apostacy from the faith on
the part of some, with reference both to the present and the future,
has set it down as features of one and the same wide- spready heresy,
and transferred it to the Gnosticism of the second century.

We shall not pursue this further, but rather proceed to set over
against these general remarks of Baur's, certain others, that we may
see which view has the more on its side on the principles of proba-
bility that, namely, which finds the heretics of the Pastoral Epis-
tles in the Gnostics of the second century, or our own, which gives
credit to the testimony of these epistles themselves. Let it be sup-



GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 481

posed that a pseudo-apostle refutes the Gnostics of the second cen-
tury. This man was, of course, a child of his age, a contemporary
of Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch,
Irenaaus, perhaps also of Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria.
We might here with good reason remark, as has already been often
done, that it were assuredly strange to find just the very writings of
the second century that are spurious to which by hypothesis these
epistles belong so far surpassing in their spirit, and in their intrinsic
value, every other production of mind confessedly belonging to that
period. This must be acknowledged by all with respect to these
epistles generally, whatever particular exceptions may be made.
But we confine ourselves to the refutation of the heretics, of which
we have specimens before us belonging to this period, by several
of those named above. How marked a difference must appear to
every one ! While the so-called heretics of the Pastoral Epistles
belong to the fellowship of the church, and of some only it is said
that they are fallen away from the faith, and such as were excluded
from church fellowship are expressly named ; those Gnostic sects, to
which these epistles are held to refer, are, on the contrary, repre-
sented as all of them out of the fellowship of the church and as
declared enemies. Could a pseudo-apostle of the second century,
whose main object was to combat those heretics, concede to them
such a position that he might have more the appearance of being an
apostle ? And then, how the writer has been able to divest himself
of all the influences of his time, its language, its style of thinking
and representing ! If an Irenasus and Tertullian appeal against the
heretics, above all to the general tradition of the church, must it not
have been most natural for a pseudo-apostle of that time to make
the apostle speak of the higher certainty of the doctrine declared by
him, of his agreement with the rest of the apostles, etc. While
they direct their attacks, in this controversy, against the blasphe-
mous doctrines of the Gnostics chiefly of the Marcionites concern-
ing the Creator of the world, and insist on the unity of the Old
and New Testaments, we find no trace of this in these epistles. See
on this point Thiersch, p. 255. This writer says justly, although in
a different connexion, " at all events we have in this the most direct
of all proofs, that in the New Testament there lie before us the
documents of a stage in the controversy with the Gnosis quite dif-
ferent from all later stages." And how do these epistles actually
combat the Gnostics of the second century ? They were written, it
is said, because Paul's own epistles could not be made available for
this object ; as, " the heretics made them out to be chiefly favour-
able to their opinions without finding anything which they were
compelled to acknowledge as a direct testimony against them"
(Baur). " How naturally must it have suggested itself, to represent
VOL. V 31



482 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

the apostle by means of writings appearing then for the first time,
as saying directly and with immediate reference to those opponents,
what was not said in his writings already known with the distinct-
ness that was to be desired" (Baur). Where then is the direct testi-
mony in these epistles where are the immediate references to these
opponents ? The beginning of 1 Timothy is the principal passage
adduced, i. 3-11. But what says the author there ? It is enjoined
not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, for they only
minister to controversy, instead of leading to the things that make
for salvation. And so in all these epistles together, the sum of what
is urged against the so-called heresy is, a warning against empty
talk, useless contention a conduct tending not to the advancement
of the Christian spirit, but to its hindrance, morally unfruitful and
unsound, which in several instances had led to a total departure
from the faith (comp. 1 Tim. i. 19, 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18). Besides
this, and distinct from it, there are certain forms of error specified
which were to appear in the future, the beginnings of which were
already shewing themselves (1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1, seq.) Are
we to suppose what is inconceivable, that the whole argument against
the Gnostics is contained in these two passages ? And have \ve here
any direct testimony against these heretics ? If the whole argu-
ment indeed be here, then must we acknowledge it to be seriously
defective. Even Baur himself, as Bottgcr observes, has admitted
the unsuitableness of two of these epistles for their object the re-
futation, namely, of the Gnostics when he says (p. 136), " Mar-
cion, as well as Tatian (who, it is well known, highly esteemed it),
might have admitted the Epistle to Titus ; in the second Epistle to
Timothy, however, he must at least have taken oft'ence at the two
passages, ii. 8, 18." There was no necessity then for any forged
epistle, since all that is contained in these two passages, as Bottger
has also observed, is found as well and even better stated in Rom. i.
3, and 1 Cor. xv.

II. The second class of arguments adduced by Dr. Baur includes
" whatever in these epistles relates to the government and exi< rual
institutions of the church." " This point stands in clo e and inti-
mate connexion with the foregoing. The Gnostics, as the lirst
heretics properly so-called, gave the first imjml.se to the fo:m:i:ion
of an episcopal government." Surely, considered in itself, this iixei
organization of the church, as we have it before us in the Pastoral
Epistles, is, we are told, sufficiently fitted to awaken doubt and hesi-
tation (Baur, Paulus, p. 495). According to Baur, the constitution
of the church, as it appears in these epistles, is characterized by a
hierarchical tendency quite remote from the Christianity of Paul ;
and the same is perceptible in the principles ho lays down with re-
gard to the treatment of heretics. Further, the institution for the



GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 483

widows is also to be viewed in the same light ; and then the com-
mand that women shall not teach, which is said to be pointedly
directed against the Marcionites ; then what is said regarding the
female sex, 1 Tim. ii. 13-15, in connexion with what is said respecting
widows. Finally, the injunction to a married life is to be regarded
as having reference to the practice of the church. Here also may
be included those expressions which Baur notices in the fourth sec-
tion of his work as unpauline, such as laying on of hands, 2 Tim. i.
6 ; then such expressions as he alleges do not correspond to the
apostolic time, as, the husband of one wife, Tit. i. 6 ; the wife of
one man, 1 Tim. v. 9 ; desire the office of a bishop, 1 Tim. iii. 1 ;
and that no neophyte be made a bishop, ver. 6 ; so also 1 Tim. iii.
13, where deacons are said to purchase for themselves an honourable
post, and then what is said respecting the presbyters, v. 17, 19, indi-
cating the transition to the later ideas connected with the office of
presbyter ; then also the charge to lay hands suddenly on no man,
as the mark of a later period ; finally, the expressions witnessed a
good confession, and Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius Pi-
late, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13, are said to bear the stamp of a later period.
With all this De Wette for the most part agrees, chiefly instancing
the institution for widows, the desiring the office of a bishop, etc., as
traces of a later state of things in the church, a. a. Q., p.. 118. He
too explains the directions as to the appointment of office-bearers in
the church, Tit. i. 5, seq ; 1 Tim. iii. 1, seq., and the " remarkable"
counsel, 2 Tim. ii. 2, by a reference to the interests of the hier-
archy. All this, however, according to him, falls within the period
towards the end of the first century, which makes a considerable
modification.

We have already fully acknowledged ( 1) the problem which
presents itself on a comparison of these with the other epistles of
Paul. The question here is, whether Dr. Baur has not represented
this problem as more difficult than we find it to be on a comparison
with what is known to us, and whether we can admit the solution of
it which he has given. There are two points on which the decision
of this question must rest ; viz., the organization of the church
through KirioKOfToi and diaKovoi, which comes strongly into notice, and
the institution for widows.

Now with regard to the KmaKonot. and didnovoi of the Pastoral
Epistles, we are quite at one with Baur in this that the appear-
ance of heretical tendencies in the church was that which chiefly led
to an insight into the necessity of settled ecclesiastical organization.
We find this connexion indicated in these epistles themselves, as Baur
also observes (comp. Tit. i. 5-10). When then Baur proceeds to
say, " The Gnostics (namely, of the second century), as the first
heretics, gave the first impulse to the establishment of an episcopal



484 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

constitution" he does not at all affect our position ; for before the
appearance of these Gnostics, there were heretical elements in great
abundance. How otherwise could Baur himself urge as an objec-
tion, that there were opponents and heretics in Corinth and Galatia,
and yet that the apostle, although the occasion equally demanded it
with respect to them, gives no admonitions relating to bishops and
deacons. The maxim cessante causa cessat effectus, is not appli-
cable to this case according to Barn's own acknowledgment. Yet,
granting that only the Gnostics of the second century could have
given the first impulse to the settlement of an episcopal constitution,
it may be proved, and Baur himself also admits, that in the Pastoral
Epistles there is no mention of episcopal government in the sense
which belonged to that expression in the second century. That Baur
has in reality made this concession, we shall afterwards shew, when
we come to examine the view which he has submitted respecting the
relation between the KnioKo-noi and -xpeaftvrepoi.

The second thing we have to mention against Baur's view, is,
that he either entirely leaves out of sight or arbitrarily rejects as
unhistorical, thos$ analogies with the ecclesiastical organization so
prominently brought before us in these epistles, so clearly furnished
by the rest of Paul's epistles, and the accounts we have elsewhere
in the Acts of the Apostles. He has said nothing on the appoint-
ment of deacons, as related in Acts, chap. vi. And is it not criti-
cal caprice to set aside the account in Acts. xiv. 23 regarding the
appointment of presbyters, and the passage Phil. i. 1, by saying
that these data are far too isolated ? What are we to say then
of the presbyters in the church at Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30, xv. 2,
4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4, xxi. 18, in the church at Ephesus, xx. 17, in
the Epistle of James, v. 14, and in 1 Pet. v. 1, 5 ? Are these
merely isolated data ? With these before us, can it be main-
tained, " that all official relations of this kind lie quite beyond
the sphere of the apostle ?" Have we not here already " standing
offices ?" But we turn to the epistles " confessedly genuine," in
order to see whether " we can find in those epistles nothing ana-
logous offering itself for comparison." Baur himself adduces the
passages 1 Cor. xii. 28, the KvfapvTJasig, the gifts of church govern-
ment, the dvTifatyeig, the gifts of various services, such as the care
of the alms, the care of the sick, and has nothing to object to
this signification of the words ; he notices Bom. xii. 6, seq., the
gifts of diaKovia, didaaicaMa, also the TrpoiaTdfievog, in addition to
which we may reckon Eph. iv. 11, some apostles, some prophets,
some preachers, some pastors and teachers, and 1 Thess. v. 12,
those that labour among you and have the rule (wpoidrafdvovf) over
you, etc., as undisputed passages. And yet in those " genuine" epis-
tles is to be found according to Baur nothing analogous, nothing



GENEEAL INTRODUCTION. 485

even presenting itself for comparison ; and all relations of the kind
brought before us in the Pastoral Epistles are entirely out of the
sphere of the apostle. True, indeed, in the passages just quoted it
is xapia\i(iTa that are enumerated ; but the very point of view from
which these appointments for the service of the church are there
regarded, shews why not so much the external regulation as the
internal gifts corresponding to this are prominently noticed. And
yet, what else can the rrpoiardfievog be than what we are accustomed
to regard as meant by the TrpeoftvTepog ? Of what use was the gift
of government if the person endowed had no sphere for the exercise
of his gift ? That some of these gifts found no outward corres-
ponding sphere in a settled and everywhere similar church service,
was to be expected from the very nature of the gifts themselves,
and can prove nothing here against the existence of presbyters and
deacons, as it is not the enumeration of the " settled and permanent
relations" in the churches, but of " gifts" that is intended to be
given. Thus we see that in those epistles of the apostle " acknowl-
edged to be genuine" there are direct analogies to the church gov-
ernment with which we are made acquainted in the Pastoral Epis-
tles ; and that from what we find in the Acts of the Apostles, as
well as in several of the epistles which harmonize with what is there
stated, we may infer that this church government was a generally
existing state of things. And how a priori could we suppose it
otherwise than that some form of church regulation would be
adopted from the very beginning ? We cannot imagine a Christian
congregation at any time to have existed without some form of
direction or superintendence. Baur fully agrees with us in this,
and he himself declares, in his work on the origin of Episcopacy,
that we must associate a " certain oversight and superintendence"
with the very first rise of a Christian congregation. According to
his view, those who had first taken the decisive step of embracing
Christianity acquired a preponderating authority, and became the
" presidents" of the congregations as they were formed. " Thus
were the Trpeafivrepoi as indeed even in the Pastoral Epistles the
one point of view always passes over into the other at once the
presidents of the congregations and the eldest in point of age" (p.
86). " The dnapxai then were the first bishops and deacons" (p. 87).
Whether it was not rather age and fitness otherwise (as the Pas-
toral Epistles shew on Baur's own admission to have been the case
in regard to the former) on account of which an individual was
raised to the office of imonoTTo^ whether with Rothe we consider
these presbyters as having formed a college or with Baur, each one
as having been a little bishop, is here quite the same for our pur-
pose ; all that we urge is, that Baur accounts for the existence of
presbyters as it were a priori, and admits that " this was the nat-



486 PASTORAL EPISTLES.

ural course of things necessarily brought about by the circumscribed