« НазадПродовжити »
The reader will perceive much similarity of manner in these two passages. ference in the speech is to a heathen poet; it is the same in the epistle. In the speech the apostle urges his hearers with the authority of a poet of their own; in the epistle he avails himself of the same advantage. Yet there is a variation, which shows that the hint of inserting a quotation in the epistle was not, as, it may
be suspected, borrowed from seeing, the like practice attributed to St. Paul in the history; and it is this, that in the epistle the author cited is called a prophet, “one of “ themselves, even a prophei of their own. Whatever might be the reason for calling Epimenides a prophet; whether the names of poet and prophet were occasionally convertible; whether Epimenides in particular had obtained that title, as Grotius seems to have' proved ; or whether the appellation was given to him, in this instance, as having delivered a description of the Cretan character, which the future state of morals. among them verified; whatever was the reason (and any of these reasons will account for the variation, supposing St. Paul
to have been the author), one point is plain, namely, if the epistle had been forged, and the author had inserted a quotation in it merely from having seen an example of the same kind in a speech ascribed to St. Paul, he would so far have imitated his original, as to have introduced his quotation in the same manner, that is, he would have given to Epimenides the title which he saw there given to Aratus. The other side of the alternative is, that the history took the hint from the epistle. But that the author of the Acts of the Apostles had not the epistle to Titus before him, at least that he did not use it as one of the documents or materials of his narrative, is rendered nearly certain by the observation that the name of Titus does not once occur in his book.
It is well known, and was remarked by St. Jerome, that the apothegin in the fifteenth chapter of the Corinthians, “evil communi“cations corrupt good manners," is an lambic of Menander's:
Φθειρεσιν ηθη χρησθ' ομιλιαι κακα. . Here we have another unaffected instance of the same turn and habit of composition).
Probably there are some hitherto unnoticed; and more, which the loss of the original authors render impossible to be now ascertained
No. II. There exists a visible affinity between the epistle to Titus and the first epistle to Timothy. Both letters were addressed to perfons left by the writer to preside in their re: spective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be fought for, in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church ; and the ingredients of this description are in both letters nearly the fame. Timothy and Titus are likewise cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and, in particular, against the same misdirection of their cares aud studies. This affinity obtains, not only in the subject of the letters, which, from the similarity of situation in the persons to whom they were addressed, might be expected to be somewhat alike, bụt extends, in a great variety of instances, to the phrases and expressions. The writer accosts his two friends with the same
salutation, and passes on to the business of his letter by the same transition.
“ Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith, grace, mercy, and peace froin God " our Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord: “ as I befought thee to abide still at Ephesus, « when I went into Macedonia,” &c. 1 Tim. chap. i, ver. 2, 3.
“ To Titus, mine own son after the com“ mon faith, grace, mercy,
from “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ “ our Saviour: for this cause left I thee in • Crete.” Tit. chap. i. ver.4, 5.
If Timothy was “not to give heed to * fables and endless genealogies, which mi“ nister questions,” 1 Tim. chap. i. ver. 4; Titus also was to avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions” (chap. iii. ver. 9); “and was to rebuke them sharply, not
giving heed to Jewish fables” (chap. i. ver. 14). If Timothy was to be a pattern (TUTOS), 1 Tim. chap. iv. ver. 12 ; so was Titus (chap. ii. ver. 7). If Timothy was to “ let no man despise his youth,” i Tim. chap. iv. ver. 12; Titus also was, to “ let “no man despise him” (chap. ii. ver. 15).
This verbal consent is also observable in some very peculiar expressions, which have no relation to the particular character of Timothy or Titus.
The phrase, “ it is a faithful saying," (TUOTOS O Logos), made use of to preface some sentence upon which the writer lays a more than ordinary stress, occurs three times in the first epistle to Timothy, once in the second, and once in the epistle before us, and in no other part of St. Paul's writings; and it is remarkable that these three epistles were probably all written towards the conclusion of his life; and that they are the only epistles which were written after his first imprisonment at Rome.
The same observation belongs to another singularity of expression, and that is in the epithet “ found,” (uzlauwv), as applied to words or doctrine. It is thus used, twice in the first epistle to Timothy, twice in the second, and three times in the epistle to Titus, beside two cognate expressions υγιαινοντας τη πιστει and λογον υγιη, and it is found, in the same sense, in no other part of the New Testament,