TIMOTHEUS  , Athenian statesman and

general, son of Conon, the restorer of the walls of Athens . From 378-356 B.C. he frequently held command in the war between Athens (in alliance with Thebes), and Sparta . The object of Athens was to revive the old confederacy (see PELIAN LEAGUE, § B), and to regain command of the sea, and in 375 Timotheus was sent with a fleet to sail round Peloponnesus by way of demonstration against Sparta . He gained over Cephallenia, secured the friend-ship of the Acarnanians and Molossians, and took Corcyra, but used his victory with moderation . Want of funds and jealousy of the Thebans led to a short peace . In 373 Timotheus was appointed to the command of a fleet for the relief of Corcyra, then beleaguered by the Spartans . But his ships were not fully manned, and to recruit their strength he cruised in the Aegean . The delay excited the indignation of the Athenians, who brought him to trial; but, thanks to the exertions of his friends—Jason, tyrant of Pherae, and Alcetas, king of the Molossians, both of whom went to Athens to plead his cause—he was acquitted . He had previously been superseded in his command by Iphicrates . Being reduced to great povery—for he had pledged his private property in order to put the fleet in an efficient state—he left Athens and took service with the king of Persia . We next hear of him about 366, when, having returned to Athens, he was sent to support Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia . But, finding that the satrap was in open revolt against Persia, Timotheus, in conformity with his instructions, abstained from helping him and turned his arms against Samos, then occupied by a Persian garrison, and took it after a ten months' siege (366-65) .

Be then took Sestus, Crithote, Torone, Potidaea, Methone, Pydna and many other cities; but two attempts upon Amphipolls failed . An

action was brought against him by Apollcdorus, the son of the banker Pasion, for the return of money lent by the father . The speech for the plaintiff is still extant, and is attributed (though not unanimously) to Demosthenes . It is interesting as showing the manner in which Timotheus had exhausted the large fortune inherited from his father and the straits to which he was reduced by his sacrifices in the public cause . In 358 or 357, the Athenians, in response to a spirited appeal of Timotheus, crossed over to Euboea and expelled the Thebans in three days . In the course of the Social War Timotheus was despatched with Iphicrates, Menestheus, son of Iphicrates, and Chares to put down the revolt . The hostile fleets sighted each other in the Hellespont; but a gale was blowing, and Iphicrates and Timotheus decided not to engage . Chares, disregarding their opposition, lost many ships, and in his despatches he complained so bitterly of his colleagues that the Athenians put them on their trial . The accusers were Chares and Aristophon, both men of notoriously bad character . Iphicrates, who had fewer enemies than Timotheus, was acquitted; but Timotheus, who had always been disliked for his arrogance, was condemned to pay a very heavy fine . Being unable to pay, he withdrew to Chalcis, where he died soon afterwards, The Athenians showed their repentance by remitting the greater part of the fine to his son Conon . His remains were buried in the Ceramicus and statues erected to his memory in the agora and the acropolis .

See

Life by Cornelius Nepos; Diodorus Siculus xv., xvi . ; Isocrates, De permutation; Pseudo-Demosthenes, Adversus Timotheum; C . Rehdantz, Vitae Iphicratis, Chabriae, Timothei (1845); and especially Holm, Hist. of Greece (Eng. trans., vol. iii.) . xiii . 386 . particularly exposed to (Harnack) . Their inorganic character naturally permitted later generations to bring them up to date, and accretions of this kind may be suspected in I Tim. iii . I–13,v . 17–20 (22a), Vi . 17–21, as well as in Tit. i.7-9 . Other verses, like iii . 11 and v .

23, have all the.

appearance of misplaced glosses, perhaps from the margin . When vi . 20–21 is thus taken as a later addition, it becomes possible' to see in the reference to 1:tvrt6E Tess Ti]S ¢eu&,vuµou yvwvews an allusion to Marcion's well-known volume . Attempts have been made by some critics, particularly Hesse (Die Entstehung der neutest . Hirtenbriefe, 1889: i . 1-10, 18–2o, iv . 1–16, vi . 3–16, 20 seq.) and Knoke (Prakt. theol . Kommentar, 1887, 1889: a=i . 3 seq., 18-20, ii . I–I0, 1V . 12, V .

1-3, 4C–6, II–15i 19–23, 24 seq., written to

Timothy from Corinth; b=i . I2-17, iii . 14-16, iv . 1–1s, 13-16, ii . 12-15, V . 7 seq., vi . 17-19, 1 . 5-11, vi . 2c–16, 20 seq., written from Caesarea), to disentangle one or more original notes of Paul from the subsequent additions, but the comparative evenness of the style does not favour such analyses .2 They have more relevance and point in 2 Tim. than in i Tim . P . Ewald, in his Probabilia betr. d . Text des r Tim .

(19o1), falls back upon, the

hypothesis of the papyri leaves or sheets having been displaced, and conjectures that i . I2–17 originally lay between i . 2 and i . 3, while iii . 14-iv . 10 has been misplaced from after vi . 2 . But his keen criticism of Hesse and Knoke is more successful than his positive explanation of the textual phenomena, and a more thorough-going process of literary criticism is necessary in order to solve the problems of the epistle . Its irregular character, abrupt connexions and loose transitions' are due to the nature of the subject rather than to any material disarrangement of its paragraphs . The phenomena of style have to be viewed in a broad light . Allowance must be made for the difference of vocabulary produced by change of subject . The evidence of &all e6rrggiva is always to be received with caution and strict scrutiny; no, hard and fast rule must be set up to judge the language of a man like Paul .

Yet such considerations do not operate against the literary

judgment that the pastorals did not come from Paul's pen . The words and phrases which are common to the pastorals and the rest of the Pauline epistles are neither so characteristic nor so numerous as those peculiar to the former, and the data of style may be summed up in the verdict that they point to a writer Who, naturally reproducing Paul's standpoint as far as possible, and acquainted with his epistles, yet betrays the characteristics of his later milieu in expressions as well as in ideas.' Thus, of 174 words which occur in the pastorals alone (of all the New Testament writings), 97 are foreign to the Septuagint and 116 to the rest of the Pauline letters . This proportion of &aaf E6prusave is extremely large, when the size of the pastorals is taken into account, and its significance is heightened by the further fact that several of Paul's characteristic expressions tend to be replaced by others (e.g. aep,rarsly and craggily by avaerp€¢ew, &c., K6pws by 6Eaa6r71s, rapovaia by Etrc4,6.vELa), while a large number of Pauline words are entirely absent (e,g . &SLKOS, iNEVeipta, KavadaOac, 'wcKp6s, µwpia, rapaSoacs, rel[•Emv, rsp u56ELV, crawl, &c.) . Nor is this by any means all . " Difference in vocabulary may be partially explained (though only partially in this case) by difference of subject-matter and of date; bu. the use of particles is one of the most unfailing of literary tests . The change in the use of particles and the comparative rarity of the definite article form, together with the startling divergepce in vocabulary, the chief ground of our perplexity " (Church Quarterly Review, 1903, pp . 428 seq.) . Pauline particles like &pa, Sc6, Scion, Ereira, Ere, 1SE and Thou ' When the literary integrity of the epistle is maintained this allusion naturally drops to the ground, since the use of the epistle by Polycarp rules the earlier conjectures of Baur and others (who made the pastorals anti-Marcionite) out of court; besides, passages like i . 7 (Titus i . 1o, 14) would not apply to the Marcionites . Dr Hort (Judaistic Christianity, pp .

113 seq.) prefers to

group both the false -yearns (cf . Rom, ii . 2o) and the avrcOhrfi.s as Jewish casuistical decisions, the ysmsaXoyiac of i . 4 and Tit. iii . 9 being the legendary pedigrees of Jewish heroes, such as are prominent in Philo and the Book of Jubilees . Cf . Wohlenberg, pp . 3o--36, and on the other side Klopper in Zeits. fur wiss . Theologie (1902), pp . 339 seq . I Hesse's, in particular, is shipwrecked on the assumption that the Ignatian epistles must be dated under Marcus Aurelius . 2 Thus ii, 11–15 seems almost like a gloss (Hesse, Knoke), iv .

1–8 arts easily from its context, and the ov' of ii . I indicates a very loose relationship to the preceding paragraphs . ' So the philologist T . Nii_reli (Der Wortschatz des Apostels

Paulus, 1905, pp . 85 seq.), whose opinion is all the more significant on this point that he refuses to admit any linguistic features adverse to the Pauline authorship of the other epistles.disappear; the Pauline a6v is replaced by µEra, while prepositions like Sari, &xpc, Eµrpoa0ee and aapa (accus.) drop out , entirely . A number of Latinisms, unexampled in the rest of- Paul's epistles, occur within the pastorals; whole families of new words, especially composite words (often compounded with a-privative, Ow-, oiw-, Kako-,5 aw¢ipo-, 4eXo-), emerge with others, e.g . EdaEpEGa, Awr6S o X6yos, &c.; and the very greeting is un-Pauline (I Tim. i . 2; 2 Tim . 1 . 2) . The peculiarities of syntax corroborate the impression made by such features of the vocabulary . There is less flow than in the rest of the Pauline letters; " the syntax is stiffer and more regular .

. . the clauses are marshalled together, and there is a tendency to

parallelism " (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p . 402) . An increase of sententious imperative clauses is also to be noted . Doubtless, some of these features might be set down to Paul's amanuensis .° But not all of them, more especially when the characteristic conceptions and ideas of the pastorals are taken into account . Nor can it be argued that the characteristics of the pastorals are those of private letters; they are not private, nor even semi-private as they stand; besides, the only private note from Paul's hand (Philemon) bears no traces of the special diction exhibited in the epistles to Timothy and Titus . Furthermore, throughout the pastorals, and especially in I Tim., there are traces of a wider acquaintance with Greek literature i than can be detected in the letters of Paul . Affinities to Plutarch (cf . J . Albani in Zeitschrift fur wiss . Theologie, 1902, 40–58) and to 4 as well as to 2 Maccabees are not improbable . 1 Tim. also gives clearest expression to the author's ecclesiastical and doctrinal views . The objective sense of ,riaris has begun to overpower the subjective .

Christianity is becoming more and more a " form of

sound words," a crystallized creed, whose teaching is the vital point . The deep conceptions of Paul, viz. the fatherly love of God, the faith-mysticism of the Christian's relation to Christ, and the inward witness of the Spirit, fall into the background, while unusual prominence is assigned to the more tangible and practical tests of Christianity . Of all the pastorals, I Tim. is furthest from Paul.' The author writes more out of his own mind, evidently with little or no special material to fall back upon . The epistle is not a compilation from the two others (as Schleiermacher thought), but it seems to denote a slightly later stage.' Many critics therefore (e.g . De Wette, Mangold, Reuss, Bruckner, Pfleiderer, von Soden,McGiffert, S.Davidson, Bourquin, Clemen and Jillicher) conclude that the pastorals were written in this order (2 Tim., Titus, I Tim.) . When _ the epistles were arranged for the canon, it was natural to put 2 Tim. later than the other two, since its setting seemed to imply the close of Paul's career . Its literary priority is confirmed by several resemblances between it and Philitppians, the last of Paul's epistles (e.g. avaavacs iv . 6 =aerating Phtl. i . 23, and arieSeoOac iv . 6=Phil. ii . 17) . Kaa6s, which Paul neveruses as an attribute, is mainly employed in this way by the author .

On raritp as applied to God, cf .

Wagner in Zeits. f. neut . Wiss . (1905), pp . 221 seq . The so-called " Lucan " features (cf . Holtzmann, pp . 92 seq., and Von Soden in Theologische Abhandlungen, 1892, pp . 133–135) have suggested that Luke may have been the amanuensis (cf . 2 Tim. iv . II), or even the author of the pastorals . i E.g .

Tit. i . 11 (el . Plut . Moral . 967, 13), H . 3 (cf . Thuc. ii . 61 ; Xen .

Mena i . 5, 5, 6, 8); 2 Tim. ii . 17 (cf . Plut .

Moral . 65 D 6 Si Kaprdvos ro?u5caxvrov iv Tw eG., an r60os); I Tim. i . 6 (cf . Plut . Moral . 414 Ei 6,aroxovac roU µerpiov Kai rpirovros), i. io (cf . Plut . De educ.

lib . 5 A roO iycaivovroc Kai rerayµlpov Sloe se a/,povEiv, for 6yiiis =" normal "; cf . Plato's Protagoras, 346 C), i . 19 (cf . Galen, x .

307, ev ds evai yiiaav of rp6sOev iarpot =" came to grief "), vi . 5 (cf . Plut .

Cato major, 25, Moral . 92 B with Plato's Protagoras, 313) . Even linguistically Titus and I Tim. are closer to one another than either to 2 Tim . The latter has no allusion to the Kaa6v Epyov, the irspoS,.SacrKaAEly, the Sca&EflacouaOac, &c., of the others, and contains one or two specific phrases of its own. i Tim., like Ephesians, is a writing whose lack of greetings and general tone point to the functions of an encyclical or Catholic epistle . s For details, cf . Ency . Bib . 5093–5094 . Of the five " faithful sayings," three occur in I Tim.; these condensed aphorisms tally with liturgical fragments such as the famous quotation in I Tim. iii .

16, a

formula of confession written in small short cola (cf . Klopper in Zeitschrift fur wiss . Theologie, 1902, pp . 336 seq.) . second (cf . Luke x . 7) goes back to either Luke's gospel or its source at this particular point . The hypothesis that a saying of Jesus is loosely added here to an Old Testament citation is very forced, and the inference is that by the time the author wrote, Luke's gospel was reckoned as ypa4n . This would be explicable if Luke could be assumed to have been the author, in whole or part, of the pastorals . (J .