Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

—
24 First Timothy I. 3.
be wanting, the examples of others warn him what will be the result.
Ver. 3.
YiaBu)q— the apostle begins the sentence with a protasis,
but we look in vain for the apodosis, which, to correspond with KaOcbg
napEKaleaa— Mmed. would have to run somewhat thus, ovto) fcai vvv
napaKaXo) tVa, etc.
It will be apparent from this construction of the
period, how similar in form and substance the apodosis must have
been to the protasis, and how natural it was that the apostle should
express in the protasis as I besought thee, etc.; that to which he is
now about to admonish Timothy anew. Thus we actually find that
the protasis, in which the commission that had been given to Timothy
is more particularly stated, vers. 3 and 4, and not only so, but
in which also the error is opposed by the corresponding truth, and
the farther characteristics of the errors against which Timothy is to
guard, are mentioned along with their refutation, vers. 6-10, which
gives occasion for the reference to the gospel which the apostle is
called to promulgate—that this protasis absorbs the apodosis, and
properly contains what, according to the apostle's original conception,
the latter ought to have expressed. Comp. Winer's Gr. § 63,
1, p. 503 :
" There is here properly an anacolouthon, inasmuch as
Paul intended to write Kadi^g napeKaXeoa—Ma/c. ovtcj kol vvv TrapanaXu),
iva, etc. While he brings the object of the Trapen. withia the protasis,
the apodosis disappears." I do not think, however, that the
occasion of the anacolouthon is to be sought in the 'Iva -napayy.; but
further on in ver. 5, which appears to me to be confirmed by Tit. i.
5, seq., and also by the circumstance that if the idea had been so
simply conceived, no adequate reason could be given for the change.
How frequently these anacoloutha occur in Paul's writings is shewn
by Winer, a. a. Q., p. 504, seq., where reference is made to several
examples of the kind. So also Olshausen. To what extent, moreover,
the apodosis discovers itself again in ver. 18, if not in form at
least in substance, see at ver. 18. The other methods of making out
a formal apodosis, as, for example, that the apodosis begins with Iva
napayy., or that npoanelvaL is an imperative, or that Kad(l)g is merely
a transition-particle, or that vers. 5-17 forms a single parenthesis,
have been all justly rejected by Winer. In like manner Schneckenburger
and Bottger's change of npoanelvaL into Trpoaiielvag, which entirely
fails in critical authority, and causes an unnatural position of
thewords, has justly met with no countenance.—As I besought thee
(De Wette :
" not commanded. The apostle does not command
his helper, comp. 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5, xii, 18") to remain in Ephesus
when I went to Macedonia, that thoumightest forbid certain people
from teaching otherwise, and giving heed to fables and endless
genealogies, which minister discussions rather than the saving dispensation
of God in the faith—thus the apostle sets out, vers. 3 and