Timothy, Epistles to – Tongs

Timothy, Epistles to

These Epistles, together with that to Titus, form a special group among the Pauline letters, — the Pastoral Epistles, — being united by common objects in view, and by a common literary style. Each Epistle claims in its opening words to have St. Paul for its author — a claim which the Church has consistently allowed ‘ever since the idea of a Canon of the NT came into clear consciousness.’ During the last century, however, their genuineness has been vigorously assailed. Baur relegated them to late in the 2nd century; but modern hostile criticism very generally holds that, while they contain genuine fragments of the Apostle’s writing, their present form is the work of pseudonymous writers.

There is no doubt that these Epistles present very special difficulties to scholarship; but these are on the way to solution, and the general tendency of criticism may be said to be towards establishing their genuineness.

1. The situation disclosed by 1 and 2 Tim. is as follows. Paul, having to go into Macedonia, left Timothy in charge of the Church at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and, fearing he might be detained longer than he anticipated, he wrote telling him how to act during his absence (1 Timothy 3:14, 15). From other allusions in the Epistles we gather that the Apostle visited not only Ephesus and Macedonia, but also Troas (2 Timothy 4:13). Corinth and Miletus (4:20). and Crete (Titus 1:5). and that he purposed wintering in Nicopolis (3:12).

Now it is impossible to fit these visits into the period covered by the Acts. No doubt in Acts we find the Apostle remaining two years in Ephesus (Acts 19:10). but on that occasion he did not leave Timothy behind when he went into Macedonia; on the contrary, he sent him into that country while he remained at Ephesus (Ac 19:22) nor was there time during his two years in that city for such lengthened journeys as the above visits require. Therefore, as the Acts closes with St. Paul In Rome in prison (a.d. 61), we must conclude, if we accept the Pastorals as genuine, that the Apostle visited Ephesus, Macedonia, and Crete after a release from imprisonment.

Those who oppose the Pauline authorship refuse to believe in this release, taking as their ground the fact of the silence of the Acts on the point, and charge those who accept it with making an unwarranted assumption; but surely theirs is the unwarranted assumption, for they assume that St. Paul was not released, merely because the Acts does not continue its history farther than it does. Indeed, even if we had not the distinct statements of the Pastorals, we should consider it extremely likely that he was thus released; for it is clear that he anticipated being set at liberty when, from his imprisonment, he wrote to the Philippians that he hoped shortly to come to them (Philippians 2:24). and when he bid Onesimus prepare him a lodging at Colossae(Philem2’). When, therefore, we add the further facts, that the Muratorian Fragment states that the Apostle fulfilled his expressed wish of visiting Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). — a journey which certainly necessitates his release from his Roman imprisonment — and that Clement of Rome tells of his reaching ‘the bounds of the West,’ — a phrase which, used by one resident, as Clement, in Rome, can only mean Spain — we may hold without misgiving that St. Paul was released in a.d. 61, that he was again arrested, and suffered martyrdom in Rome (a.d. 64?), that between these dates he visited Spain in the West, and various Churches in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that during this period he wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

2. The external evidence in favour of the Epistles is remarkably strong. Irenseus, Clement, Tertullian, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, were all clearly acquainted with them. A singularly convincing quotation is found in the writings of Polycarp (the disciple of the Apostle John, and who died a.d. 167), who says: ‘The love of money is the beginning of all trouble, knowing . . . that we brought nothing into the world, neither can carry anything out’ (cf. 1 Timothy 6:7, 10).

On the other hand, not a word is raised by earlier writers against their genuineness, save by the heretics Marcion and Basilides; and their rejection was due not to any stated doubts as to the Pauline authorship, but apparently to dislike to the teaching of the Epistles. Very much stronger evidence against their authenticity must be supplied before this weight of evidence can be overturned.

3. Much discussion has arisen concerning the nature of the heresies attacked by Paul in these Epistles. Some see in them an incipient Gnosticism, theories from which the developed Gnosticism of Marcion ultimately sprang. Strength was lent to this view by the supposition that ‘the endless genealogies’ mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 were the long lists of emanations of sons and angels which formed part of the Gnostic systems. But, as Philo and others use the word ‘genealogy’ of the primitive history of the Pentateuch, it is now generally allowed that the reference is not to Gnostic speculations but to the legendary history of the Jewish patriarchs. Others regard the heresies opposed as essentially Jewish in origin, and undoubtedly many passages point in this direction. We read of would-be ‘teachers of the law’ (1 Timothy 1:7). of ‘they of the circumcision’(Tit li»), of’ Jewish fables’ (1:14) of ‘fightings about the law’ (3:9). Yet, while there are these distinct evidences of Jewish influences, it seems doubtful if it is right to mark all the heresies opposed as coming from this source. The errors leaning towards asceticism, with its prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods, and perhaps of wine also (1 Timothy 4:1–4, 8 S’‘*), may indeed have sprung from forms of Judaism which had become ascetic; but just as likely — indeed more likely — they may have come from Gentile sources. These ascetic doctrines may have been founded on the «7i-Jewish belief of the essential evil of matter — an error which the Apostle probably aimed at when he wrote that God gave all things richly to be enjoyed (6:17). . In a city like Ephesus, Oriental mysticism, Greek thought, Judaism, and Christianity would meet; and the Church there, it lapsing from truth, would show signs of heresy derived from all these sources. In 2 Timothy 2:18 one heresy is distinctly named — the belief that the resurrection was already past; this opinion may have been the same as that held by those within the Gentile Corinthian Church who said there was no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12).

4. Within these Epistles St. Paul’s use of certain theological terms Is somewhat different from that in his earlier writings. Thus faith is used more of the objective belief which the individual holds, than of the warm affection that unites the personal soul to Christ. Similarly righteousness is used rather of a virtue to be reached by personal struggle than in the technical sense found in the Epistle to the Romans. But it must be remembered that faith in the earlier writings is not always subjective (e.g. Galatians 1:23 3), nor is it always objective in the Pastorals (1 Timothy 1:16. Titus 3:8), and that righteousness is often spoken of elsewhere as a virtue to be acquired (e.g. 2 Corinthians 9:10, Romans 6 8:10), while justification by faith is emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Timothy 1:9. Titus 3:5). Another distinguishing mark is found in the traces of a formulated creed, which show themselves in frequent quotations, such as the five ‘faithful sayings,’ and the rhythmic stanza commencing " He who was manifested in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16). The latter is clearly part of a hymn embodying a confession of the Christian faith. Such are undoubtedly marks of a Church with a history behind it; but, assuming that St. Paul wrote the Epistles shortly before his death in a.d. 64, ample time would have passed since he first evangelized Ephesus In A.D. 52. It takes but a few years for a living and active community to crystallize itsjcommon convictions.

6. It is important to note the development reached In Church organization as presented in the Epistles. They show us the Apostle himself holding the reins of supreme control (1 Timothy 1:20 2:1 2:8). while Timothy and Titus are his delegates. Some years before, they had acted in this capacity on special commissions (1 Corinthians 4:17. Philippians 2:19, 2 Corinthians 8:16–18) ; and, as on those occasions, so on these, they seem to have been appointed temporarily to carry out the functions entrusted to them until the Apostle’s return (1 Timothy 1:3 3:14 4:13, Titus 3:12). But as his delegates, even though temporarily, they had full jurisdiction over the various offlcers of the Chufch, and full instructions are given to them to guide them as to the qualifications necessary to be found in those to be appointed to the oflBces of bishop (or elder) and deacon. The bishop and elder are spoken of as identical (Titus 1:5–7), showing that at the date of the Epistles these two titles had not yet been given to distinct offices (cf. Philippians 1:1, Acts 20:17, 28). This is strong confirmation of the accepted date of the Epistles, for, had they been written at the time assumed by radical criticism, the monarchical position of the bishop, then reached in Asia Minor, would have shown itself. Instructions are also given regarding ‘women’ (1 Timothy 3:11) and ‘widows’ (5:3 ff.). As the former are mentioned In the midst of regulations concerning deacons, they probably are not the deacons’ ‘wives’ (as AV), but official women or deaconesses, holding such an office as Phoebe held (Romans 16:1 RVm). This is a distinct advance on the ecclesiastical organizations disclosed in earlier NT writings, but need not surprise us. ■ The secluded life of women must at the very beginning have caused a felt want for women to perform for women what deacons did for men.’ The care of widows engaged the Church from the first (Acts 6:1, James 1:27).

The absence of all instructions regarding prophets is remarkable. Probably prophecy, which is an abnormal gift and not a stated function, was not very active in the Ephesian or Cretan Churches at the time, or, if active, was under due control, and so did not call for special treatment as formerly at Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:29 ff.).

6. The individuality of St. Paul is strongly present in all his writings, a distinguishing style marking them as his. At the same time his Epistles form themselves into different groups, which vary considerably in style in accordance with the particular period of his life in which they were written. So strongly do the Pastoral Epistles show the general Pauline style, that even those who oppose their genuineness admit that they contain genuine fragments of his writing. But, while this is so, there is no doubt that there is present in them a considerably larger proportion of words peculiar to themselves than we find in any other of the groups into which his Epistles are divided. This is the strongest argument against their Pauline authorship. The argument from ‘style,’ however, is a most precarious one, especially in the writing of one who shows such great variety of phraseology in his other groups of Epistles. Indeed, if we followed it to its logical issues, it would lead us to conclude that even the three Pastoral Epistles are themselves the work of different authors, for each of these Epistles contains a large number of words absent from the other two.

7. The true explanation of the marked difference of style of the Pastorals from the other Pauline writings appears to be that, while the earlier Epistles were written to Churches at an early stage of their development, and thus dealt mainly with fundamental discussions of doctrine, these were written to individuals who presided over well-established Christian communities, and therefore they deal chiefly with practical virtues and ecclesiastical organizations. Such newness of subject would compel even a much less versatile writer than St. Paul to enlarge and modify his phraseology.

The following judgment of the late Dr. Hort will, we believe, be increasingly accepted: ‘In spite of by no means trivial difficulties arising from comparison of the diction of these with other Epistles, I believe them to be his, and to be his as they now stand.’

The First Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus are devoted chiefly to instructions as to the governance of the Church. The Second Epistle to Timothy is the outpourings of the Apostle’s heart, when he felt his death to be imminent (2 Timothy 4:6). to one who had been his faithful companion and assistant for many years; it shows tender anxiety for his ‘beloved child’ (1:2). whose strength and weaknesses he well knew, and upon whose piety and wisdom so much of the Church’s future, after his own decease, would depend.

Chakles T. p. Ghierson.

TDf. — See Mining and Metals.

Tindale' S Version

SeeENOLisH Veiisions,12 ff.

Tiphsah

(‘crossing’). 1. The classical Thapsacus, the chief crossing-place on the middle Euphrates for caravans and armies, after the decline of Carchemish in the Persian period. It lay on the eastward bend of the river where it leaves its southerly course. It is named as the north-east limit of the dominions of Solomon (1 Kings 4:24). 2. Tiphsah should be corrected to Tappuah, with the Lucian LXX, in 2 Kings 15:16.

J. F. McCURDY.

Tiras

A son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2), formerly identified with Thrace, but of late much more plausibly with the Turusha, a piratical people who invaded Syria and Egypt in the 13th cent. e.g. But Tiras has also been identified with Tarsus ( =E. Cilicia) and even Tarshish (wh. see). J. F. McCdedy.

Tirathites

A family of scribes (1 Chronicles 2).

Tire

See Headtihe, and Dress, 6.

TIRHAKAH, king of Cush (2 Kings 19:9. Isaiah 37:9). marched out from Egypt against Sennacherib shortly before the mysterious destruction of the Assyrian army|(? b.c. 701). Herodotus preserves a version of the same event. Tirhakah was the third of the Ethiopian (25th) Dyn.. and reigned as king of Ethiopia and Egypt ftom about B.C. 691-665; towards the end of his reign (670-665) until his death he was engaged in constant struggles with the Assyrians, who endeavoured to establish their power in Egypt by means of the native princes as against the Ethiopian. Tirhalsah was quite unable to resist the attacks of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; even Thebes was sacked, but the Assyrians were equally unable to hold the country they had won. The chronology of the reign is not clear: Tirhakah was not king at the time of Sennacherib’s expedition, but he may have commanded the army opposing it. Winckler places the later Assyrian attacks in 675-668. F. Ll. Gbipfith.

Tirhanah

A son of Caleb (1 Chronicles 2:48).

Tiria

A son of Jehallelel (1 Chronicles 4:16).

Tirshatha

A Persian word =‘His Excellency," or more probably’ His Reverence,’ mentioned Ezra 2:63 ( =Neh 7). Nehemiah 7:70 8:9 10:1. In the first three passages he is unnamed, but is apparently Zerubbabel; in the last two he is Nehemiah. The title is used interchangeably with the Assyr. pechah or ‘governor,’ of which it may be the Persian equivalent, and apparently represents a plenipotentiary appointed for a special mission.

C. W- Emmet.

Tirzah

1. One of the 31 cities captured by Joshua (Joshua 12:24). It was the residence of Jeroboam i. (1 Kings 14:17) and his successors down to Omri (1 Kings 15:21 16:6, 8, 15 "■ The doubtful reference in Song of Songs 6:4 compares the Shulammite to Tirzah in beauty. The site is uncertain. Three different identifications have met with favour: Talluza, a village E. of Samaria and N. of Mt. Ebal; et-Tireh, a village close to Mt. Gerizim; and Teyasir, 11 m. N. of Nablus (Shechem) and 12 m. E. of Sebastiyeh (Samaria). 2. One of the five daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 26:33 27 36:11, Joshua 17:3). H. L. Willett.

Tishbite

Elijah is repeatedly designated ‘the Tishbite’ (1 Kings 17:1 21:17, 28 etc.)— i.e. native of Tishbeh (J Thisbe) in Gilead.

Tishri

(month). See Time, p. 936.

Titan's

In Greek mythology the Titans were divine or semi-divine beings who, endowed with supernatural powers, were overcome only with the greatest difficulty. In later times they were identified with primitive giants.

In the LXX version of Samuel the ‘Vale of Rephaim’ (2 Samuel 5:18, 22) is called the ‘Vale of the Titans.’ Here it is used in the sense of ‘giants,’ for the same version of Chronicles translates this name in 1 Chronicles 11 14:9 ‘Vale of the Giants.’ Thus, in interpreting early Hebrew thought for Greek readers, the old shadowy Rephaim were identified with Titans and giants.

Similarly in the song of victory in Judith 16:7 we read: ‘For the mighty one did not fall by the young men. Neither did the sons of Titans smite him. Nor did tall giants set upon him. But Judith, the daughter of Merari . . .’ In this late work Greek mjM^hology has been absorbed by Jewish thought. George A. Babton.

Tithes

According to both North Israelite (Genesis 28:22) and Judiean (Genesis 14:20) tradition, Israel’s patriarchs paid tithes; the custom, therefore, among the Israglites was evidently very ancient. But the institution of offering tithes of the fruits of the field and of the flocks is one which dates back to a period greatly anterior to Israelite history. A tenth of the flocks, fruits, and possessions of all kinds, as well as of the spoils of war, was given to their gods by many peoples, not only of Semitic, but also of Indo-Germanic race.

In the OT two ideas lie at the root of the custom; the more antique — apart from its position in the Bible — Is that which regards the offering of a tenth to the Deity as His due, owing to His being the Supreme owner of the land and all that it brings forth, or that feeds upon it (Leviticus 27:30–33)) here the underlying thought is that of propitiation, — if the Supreme owner does not receive His due. His blessing will be wanting another year. The other idea, which is obviously a later one, is that of thankfulness tor the blessings received (Genesis 28:20–22) the tithes were given in recognition of what the Giver of all things had accorded to His worshippers.

Among the Israelites this ancient custom was taken advantage of by the Levitical priesthood, who , as those employed in the sanctuary of Jahweh, claimed for themselves, on behalf of Him, a tithe of all. According to Numbers 18:21–24 the Levites were to receive this in lieu of the inheritance of land which fell to all the other tribes; but they received the tithe on behalf of Jahweh; stress is laid on this point in v. 24: ‘For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave-offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites tor an inheritance’; — the ‘heaving’ of an offering towards the altar was the substitute for the actual consuming of it upon the altar. Although tithes were, of course, intended to be offered once a year (Deuteronomy 14:22), it would appear from Amos 4:4 though the words are ironical — that in their anxiety to more than fulfil the requirements of the Law, many worshippers brought them more frequently (the original Hebrew, however, is ambiguous). Though, generally speaking, tithes were offered only to God, yet it is clear that they were sometimes given also to the king (cf. Genesis 14:20. 1 Samuel 8:17, Hebrews 7:2, 4). W. O. E. Oestehley.

Title

(Jn l9’«-2i>). The ordinarytermfor the ‘superscription, consisting usually of the name of the criminal and the crime with which he was charged (Mark 15:26), written on a board, which, according to Roman practice, was carried in front, or hung from the neck of a prisoner as he was led through the streets of the city to execution, or exposed for punishment. In cases of crucifixion the inscription was often fastened above the head of the criminal (Matthew 27:37). This public announcement was intended to serve as a warning to evil-doers.

The four inscriptions on the cross of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are different, though the words ‘the King of the Jews’ (Mark 15:26) are common to all, and truly set forth the charge on which Jesus was formally condemned. Mt. (27) adds, ‘this is Jesus’; Lk. (23). ‘this (is)’; and Jn. (19) ‘Jesus of Nazareth." ■The variations may be partly explained by the statement of Jn. that the inscription (like Roman edicts which also were often published in both Latin and Greek) was written in Hebrew, i.e. Aramaic (which was spoken ordinarily by the people of Jerusalem and the pilgrims from Palestine), Latin (the official language), and Greek (the lingua franca of the world). The Evangelist sees, in this announcement in the three languages of the Roman Empire, a symbol of the proclamation to the world of the Messiahship of Jesus, notwithstanding the efforts of the Jews to cover Him with ignominy. Jn. alone implies that Pilate took revenge on the Jews in preparing the inscription; Mt. and Mk. seem to suggest that the soldiers themselves placed the inscription on the cross, and crucified Jesus between two robbers In order to heighten the insult. R. A. Falconeh.

Tittle

See Jot.

Titus

A convert from heathenism (Galatians 2), probably won by St. Paul himself (Tit I’j. He is not directly mentioned in Acts, and all that is known of him comes from the Epp. to Gal., 2 Cor., and the Pastorals. Neither his age nor his place of birth is told us. We first hear of him when he accompanies St. Paul on his journey from Antioch to Jerusalem — a journey undertaken in connexion with the question of the circumcision of Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:1). He is thus included in the ‘certain others’ mentioned in Acts 15:2. The Judaistic party within the Church wished to have Titus circumcised (Galatians 2:3) but the Apostle and those representing Gentile Christianity strenuously resisted (v. 5), and the decision of the Church was in their favour (Acts 15:28, 29). The case of Titus thus seems to have been the test case in this controversy. From this time we may suppose that Titus continued with St. Paul as one of his missionary companions and assistants, but we have no distinct reference to him until some 10 years after the Council at Jerusalem, namely, when the Apostle wrote 2 Corinthians. In this Epistle Titus is mentioned nine times, and from it we gather that he visited Corinth as the Apostle’s delegate — probably three times. On the first occasion, which was a year before 2 Cor. was written (2 Corinthians 8:10), he came with an unnamed ‘brother’ (12:18), and on his arrival set on foot the necessary organization to secure the local contributions towards the collection for the poor Christians of Judaea which the Apostle had inaugurated(1 Co 16). After his departure from Corinth serious trouble vexed the Church there, and he was a second time sent to reduce matters to order. Probably on this occasion he was the bearer of the letter referred to in 2 Corinthians 2:3 ff. T^-. St. Paul anxiously awaited at Troas the return of Titus (2 Corinthians 2:12) but the journey tools longer than was expected; and so the Apostle moved on into Macedonia, with a view to meeting him the sooner on his road. Here Titus ultimately reached him, and bringing good news from Corinth refreshed his spirit (v. 14). Titus was then despatched a third time to Corinth, bearing the 2nd Epistle (8:16–24), and was charged to complete ‘the collection’ — the organization for which he had commenced the year before (8:10).

After these events we do not hear of Titus until St. Paul addressed to him the Pastoral Epistle. From it we gather that he had accompanied the Apostle, after his release from his Roman imprisonment, on a visit to Crete, and had been left there by him ‘to set in order things that were wanting’ and to ‘ordain elders in every city’ (Titus 1:5). He is charged to maintain sound doctrine (2:1). to avoid unprofitable discussions (3:9), and duly to assert his authority (2:15). The Apostle tells him of his intention to send Artemas or Tychicus to him, and bids him, when this occurs, to join him in Nicopolis, where he hopes to winter (3:12). Whether these plans were ever realized we know not. St. Paul may have been re-arrested before reaching Nicopolis; but we learn from 2 Timothy 4:10 that Titus was with the Apostle during part of his second imprisonment in Rome, though at the time of the writing of that Epistle he had left for Dalmatia.

Titus and Timothy share the honour of being the most trusted and efficient helpers of St. Paul, and the fact that the former was chosen to deal with so sharp a crisis as presented itself at Corinth shows that prudence, tact, and firmness marlced his Christian character.

Charles T. P. Gkierson.

Titus, Epistle to

This Epistle was written by St. Paul (11) to Titus while the latter was acting as his delegate in Crete (1"). It may have been a reply to a request from Titus for guidance, or may have been written by the Apostle on his own initiative, to assist his delegate in the difficulties that faced him. St. Paul had come to Crete in company with Titus (1^), but, having to leave before he could complete his work there, he left Titus behind to ‘set in order things that were wanting.’

As far as our records tell us, this waa the first missionary visit of St. Paul to the island. No doubt on his journey as prisoner from Csesarea to Rome he was windbound under its iee, sheltering from unfavourable winds at Fair Havens (Acts 27:7, 8) but we are not told that he landed on this occasion, and it is probable that, as a change of wind was being anxiously waited for, he was unable to leave the ship. In any case there was no opportunity then granted him of prosecuting any effective evangelization.

It has been thought possible that the visit alluded to in our Epistle might have taken place during the Apostle’s lengthened sojourn at Corinth (Acts 18:11) or atEphesus(19’J’). Such a visit is possi&Ze, but we have no record of it; while the general literary style of the Epistle marks it distinctly as belonging to the same group as 1 and 2 Timothy, which group on strong grounds must be held to belong to that period of St. Paul’s life which intervened between his two Roman imprisonments (see Timothy [Epistles to]).

From the Epistle it is evident that, though the Cretan Church was lacking in organization, yet it was of some years’ standing. We read of several cities having congregations in need of supervision (1:5) and of elders to be chosen from among those who were fathers of ‘believing’ (i.e. Christian) families (v. 6)) while the heresies dealt with are those that are in opposition to true doctrine, rather than such as might occur in a young Church through ignorance of truth.

The Cretan character was not high. Ancient writers describe their avarice, ferocity, fraud, and mendacity, and the Apostle himself quotes (l’^) Epimenides, one of their own poets, as saying ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.’ Christianity, without the discipline of a firm organization, springing up in such soil, would naturally be weakened and corrupted by the national vices. We are not surprised, then, to find the Apostle in this Epistle laying the chief emphasis on the importance of personal holiness of character, and insisting that right belief must issue in useful, fruitful life (l’«- 2 passim 3:8, 14). The chief errorists mentioned by him are unruly men, vain talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who led men astray for filthy lucre’s sake (l’»- "), men who professed that they knew God but denied Him in their lives (1:16). and men who were ‘heretical’ (RVm ‘factious,’ 3:10). The type of error to be resisted is also seen in the caution given to Titus to avoid foolish questions, genealogies {i.e. Jewish legendary history), and strifes and fightings about the Law, as unprofitable and vain (3:9).

These dangers to the Christian faith are very similar to those opposed in 1 Timothy; with, however, this difference, that none of those mentioned here seems to have its origin in the incipient Gnosticism which in a measure affected the Church in Ephesus, where Timothy was in charge. The false doctrines in Crete are predominantly, if not exclusively, Jewish in origin, and it is known that Jews abounded in Crete.

The ecclesiastical organization, entrusted to Titus for establishment, is of the simplest kind, merely the ordination of elders (1:5; spoken of as ‘bishops’ V.’) — oHlcers which it had been the custom of the Apostle from the first to appoint in the Churches he established (Acts 14:23). The appointment of presbyters was left entirely in the hands of Titus; but while this was so, it is evident that it would he necessary for him to consult the congregations over whom the elders were to be appointed, for he is charged to select only those whose reputation should be ‘blameless’ in the eyes of their fellow-Christians. Further, the presbyter is spoken of as ‘God’s steward,’ so that the authority committed to him by Titus was ultimately derived from God and not from man. No mention is made in this Epistle of deacons, deaconesses, or widows — a, fact which so far distinguishes it from 1 Timothy.

The Epistle claims to be written by St. Paul (1:1) and its authenticity is established by the same considerations as establish that of 1 and 2 Timothy, with which Epistles it is closely allied in general situation, external attestation, and literary style. For a discussion of the questions involved in this connexion the reader is referred to art. Timothy [Epistles to].

The Epistle was probably brought to Titus by the hands of Zenas and Apollos (3:13).

Charles T. P. Grierbon.

Titus Justus

See Justus, No. 2. TITUS MANIUS.— See Manius.

Tizite

A designation, whose origin is unknown, applied to Joha, one of David’s heroes (1 Chronicles 11:45).

Toah

See Nahath.

Tob

One of the small Aramsean principalities founded to the south of Mt. Hermon and Damascus in the 12th cent. B.C., the others being Hamath (the less), Zobah, Beth-rehob, Maacah or Geshur. It was in Tob that Jephthah lived as an outlaw (Judges 11:3, 5). Tob joined the rest of the Aramaeans, except those of Hamath (2 Samuel 8:9 f.). in helping the Ammonites in their war against king David (2 Samuel 10:6 ff.). The exact position of these little States is uncertain. Tob was perhaps the most easterly of them. Possibly Tob is meant in the region alluded to in 1 Maccabees 5:13 [Tubias], 2 Maccabees 12:17 [TubieniJ. J. F. McCuedy.

Tob-adonijah

One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Chronicles 17).

Tobiah

1. A family which returned from exile, but could not trace their genealogy (Ezra 2 7) corrupted in 1 Esdras 5:37 to Ban, 2. The Ammonite who, in conjunction with Sanballat and others, persistently opposed the vfoik of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:10, 19 4:3, 7 6:17 13:4, 8). Cf. art. Nehemiah.

Tobias

1. The son of Tobit (Tobit 1:9 and often). 2. The father of Hyrcanus (2 Maccabees 3:11).

Tobiel

The father of Tobit (Tobit 1:1).

Tobijah

1. One of the Levites sent by Jehoshaphat to teach in the cities of Judah (2 Chronicles 17:8). 2. One of a deputation that came from Babylon to Jerusalem with contributions of gold and silver (Zee e"- ").

Tobit, Book of

See Apochypha, § 8.

Tochen

An unidentified town of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:32). .

Togarmah

The third son of Gomer, his brothers being Ashkenaz and Kiphath (Genesis 10:3). In Ezekiel mention is made of ‘the house of Togarmah,’ the members of which traded for the wares of Tyre with horses and mules. Fried. Delitzsch suggests that Togarmah is the TU-garimmu of the Assyrian inscriptions, described by Sargon of Assyria as the capital of Melitene, which he captured and re-colonized. Sennacherib, who again captured Til-garimmu and destroyed it, speaks of it as being on the borders of Tabal (Tubal [see Meshech]). The difference in the first element (ts = lU) makes a slight difl[iculty. Kiepert and Dillmann regard Togarmah as being S.W. Armenia. T. G. Pinches.

Tohu

See Nahath.

Toi

See Too.

Tokhath

See Tikvah, 1.

Tola

The first of the five minor Judges (10’- ‘). In Genesis 46:13. Numbers 26:23. 1 Chronicles 7:1 he appears as the son of Issachar; Tola was apparently the name of the leading clan of the tribe. It means’ a worm,’ from which came a crimson dye (Exodus 16:20. Isaiah 1:18) and was perhaps an animal name due to totemism. Shamir, his home and birthplace, is unidentified. • C. W. Emmet.

Tolad

See Eltolad.

Tolbanes

See Telem, 1.

Toll

See Tribute.

Tolman

See Talmon.

Tomb, Grave, Sepulchre

The disposal of the dead among the Israelites was always by burial. While spices were sometimes sprinkled among the graveclothes, there was no religious motive for the embalming of the dead as in Egypt. 1. The common grave must have been the usual opening in the ground with protective stones laid on the surface; or one prepared slab of stone either quite flat, or with the ridge of a sarcophagus lid, might be used. To judge by the custom of to-day, the grave would often be cut partly or altogether in rock, not because that was preferred, but because the village elders usually marked off for the cemetery a ■ section of ground that was too rocky for purposes of cultivation. 2. Tombs of a more important kind were made by excavating in the face of a rock to form a chamber about 8 or 9 feet on each side. At the opposite end and on the two sides were three narrow recesses, Heb. kokim, 6 or 7 feet long and about 2 feet wide, cut into the rock at right angles to each wall. Into one of these the dead body was inserted with the feet towards the entrance, which was then covered with a slab sealed around the edges with plaster. 3. During the two centuries of Greek influence before the Christian era, a somewhat larger form of tomb came into use. The common chamber had on each of its three sides two, and occasionally three, shallow arched recesses, and in each recess a sarcophagus was laid along the line of the wall. From the fact that the two angels could be seen, one at the head and the other at the foot of the receptacle for Christ’s body (John 20:12). it is evident that the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathaea was of this later character. The opening to the central chamber was guarded by a large and heavy disc of rock which could roll along a groove slightly depressed at the centre, in front of the tomb entrance. Both the primitive Israelite sepulchre and its Greek successor might be of a compound form, having a passage leading from one chamber to another, each with its kokim or locidi. The most extensive example of such tombs is found in the catacombs of Rome.

From time immemorial a tomb was a sacred place which it was an act of profanation to violate, and of ceremonial pollution to use for other purposes, such as the erection of a house upon the site. The tomb of a saint became a shrine, and that of a Christian martyr was venerated as the memorial and altar of a living sacrifice. Religious meetings were held there, and pilgrimages were made to it as to a heathen oracle, and votive offerings gradually adorned the walls of the building erected over it. At the present day the peasants of Palestine can leave clothing and agricultural implements, with perfect safety, beside the tomb, under the temporary guardianship of the saint. In course of time this power of protection became transferred to the Church as the common institution of the saints. G. M. Mackie.

Tongs

See Arts and Crafts, 2 ; Tabernacle, 6 (6) .