|
The Life and Epistles of St. Paul
APPENDIX 2 |
|
|
|
On the Date of Apostle Paul's Pastoral Epistles |
|
BEFORE we can fix the time at which these Epistles were written, we must take the following data into account:—
- The three Epistles were nearly contemporaneous with one another. This is proved by their resembling each other in language, matter, and style of composition, and in the state of the Christian Church which they describe; and by their differing in all these three points from all the other Epistles of St. Paul. Of course, the full force of this argument cannot be appreciated by those who have not carefully studied these Epistles; but it is now almost universally admitted by all (f2760) who have done so, both by the defenders and impugners of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Hence, if we fix the date of one of the three, we fix approximately the date of all.
- They were written after St. Paul became acquainted with Apollos, and therefore after St. Paul’s first visit to Ephesus. (See Acts 18:24, and Titus 3:13.)
- Hence they could not have been written till after the conclusion of that portion of his life which is related in the Acts; because there is no part of his history, between his first visit to Ephesus and his Roman imprisonment, which satisfies the historical conditions implied in the statements of any one of these Epistles. Various attempts have been made, with different degrees of ingenuity, to place the Epistles to Timothy and Titus at different points in this interval of time; but all have failed even to satisfy the conditions required for placing any single Epistle correctly. (f2761) And no one has ever attempted to place all three together at any period of St. Paul’s life before the end of his first Roman imprisonment; yet this contemporaneousness of the three Epistles is a necessary condition of the problem.
- The Pastoral Epistles were written not merely after St. Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, but considerably after it. This is evident from the marked difference in their style from the Epistle to the Philippians, which was the last written during that imprisonment. So great a change of style (a change not merely in the use of single words, but in phrases, in modes of thought, and in method of composition) must require an interval of certainly not less than four or five years to account for it. And even that interval might seem too short, unless accompanied by circumstances which should further explain the alteration. Yet five years of exhausting labor, great physical and moral sufferings, and bitter experience of human nature, might suffice to account for the change.
|
|
- The development of Church organization implied in the Pastoral Epistles leads to the same conclusion as to the lateness of their date. The detailed rules for the choice of presbyters and deacons, implying numerous candidates for these offices; the exclusion of new converts (neophytes (1Timothy 3:6.) ) from the presbyterate; the regular catalogue of Church widows (1Timothy 5:9), — are all examples of this.
- The heresies condemned in all three Epistles are likewise of a nature which forbids the supposition of an early date. They are of the same class as those attacked in the Epistle to the Colossians, but appear under a more matured form. They are apparently the same heresies which we find condemned in other portions of Scripture written in the later part of the apostolic age; as, for example, the Epistles of Peter and Jude. We trace distinctly the beginnings of the Gnostic Heresy, which broke out with such destructive power in the second century, and of which we have already seen the germ in the Epistle to the Colossians.
- The preceding conditions might lead us to place the Pastoral Epistles at any point after A.D. 66 (see condition 4, above); i.e., in the last thirty-three years of the first century. But we have a limit assigned us in this direction by a fact mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy; viz., that Timothy was still a young man (1Timothy 4:12, 2Timothy 2:22) when they were written. We must, of course, understand this statement relatively to the circumstances under which it is used. Timothy was young for the authority entrusted to him; he was young to exercise supreme jurisdiction over all the Presbyters (many of them old men) of the Churches of Asia. According even to modern notions (and much more according to the feelings of antiquity on the subject), he would still have been very young for such a position at the age of thirty-five. Now, Timothy was (as we have seen, pp. 175 and 228) a youth still living with his parents when St. Paul first took him in A.D. 51 (Acts 16:1-3) as his companion. From the way in which he is then mentioned ( Acts 16:1-8, compare 2Timothy 1:4), we cannot imagine him to have been more than seventeen or eighteen at the most. Nor, again, could he be much younger than this, considering the part he soon afterwards took in the conversion of Macedonia (2Corinthians 1:19). Hence we may suppose him to have been eighteen years old in A.D. 51. Consequently, in 68 (the last year of Nero), he would be thirty-five (f2762) years old.
- If we are to believe the universal tradition of the early Church, St. Paul’s martyrdom occurred in the reign of Nero. (f2763) Hence we have another limit for the date of the Pastoral Epistles; viz., that it could not have been later than A.D. 68: and this agrees very well with the preceding datum.
It will be observed that all the above conditions are satisfied by the hypothesis adopted in Chapter 27., — that the Pastoral Epistles were written, the two first just before, and the last during, St. Paul’s final imprisonment at Rome. (f2764)
We come now to consider the order of the three Epistles among themselves:—
- 1 Timothy — In this we find that St. Paul had left Ephesus for Macedonia (1Timothy 1:3), and had left Timothy at Ephesus to counteract the erroneous teaching of the heretics (1Timothy 3:4); and that he hoped soon to return to Ephesus (1Timothy 3:14).
- Titus. — Here we find that St. Paul had lately left Crete (Titus 1:9), and that he war now about to proceed (Titus 3:12) to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he meant to spend the approaching winter; whereas, in 1Timothy , he meant soon to be back at Ephesus; and he was afterwards at Miletus and Corinth between 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy (otherwise 2Timothy 4:20 would be unintelligible). Hence Titus (f2765) must have been written later than 1Timothy
- 2 Timothy — We have seen that this Epistle could not (from the internal evidence of its style, and close resemblance to the other Pastorals) have been written in the first Roman imprisonment. The same conclusion may be drawn also on historical grounds, as Huther has well shown where he proves that it could neither have been written before the Epistle to the Colossians, nor after the Epistle to the Colossians during that imprisonment. The internal evidence from style and matter, however, is so conclusive, that it if needless to do more than allude to this quasi-external evidence. In this Epistle, we find St. Paul a prisoner in Rome (2Timothy 1:17):he has lately been at Corinth ( 2Timothy 4:20); and, since he left Timothy (at Ephesus), he has been at Miletus (2Timothy 4:20). Also he has been, not long before, at Troas (2Timothy 4:13).
The facts thus mentioned can be best explained by supposing, (1) that, after writing 1 Timothy from Macedonia, St. Paul did, as he intended, return to Ephesus by way of Troas, where he left the books, &c., mentioned 2Timothy 4:13, with Carpus; (2) that from Ephesus he made a short expedition to Crete and back, and on his return wrote to Titus;
(3) that, immediately after dispatching this letter, he went by Miletus to Corinth, and thence to Nicopolis; whence he proceeded to Rome.
Footnotes
(f2760) We have noticed Dr. Davidson’s contrary opinion before; and we should add that Wieseler may be considered another exception, only that he does not attempt to reply to the grounds stated by other critics for the contemporaneousness of the three Epistles, but altogether ignores the question of internal evidence from style and Church organization, which is the conclusive evidence here. Subjoined to this Appendix in the larger editions is an alphabetical list of the words and phrases peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles.
(f2761) Wieseler’s is the most ingenious theory which has been suggested for getting over this difficulty; but it has been shown by Huther that none of the three Epistles can be placed as Wieseler places then without involving some contradiction of the beta mentioned in them respectively.
(f2762) No objection against the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles has been more insisted on than that furnished by the reference to the youth of Timothy in the two passages above mentioned. How groundless such objections are, we may best realize by considering the parallel case of those young Colonial bishops who are almost annually leaving our shores. Several of these have been not more than thirty-four or thirty-five years of age at the time of their appointment; and how naturally might they be addressed by an elderly friend in the very language which St. Paul here addressed to Timothy!
(f2763) See the authorities for this statement above.
(f2764) At this point, in the larger editions, is a detailed discussion of the arguments of those, who, during the present century, have denied the genuineness of these three Epistles. This was written before the appearance of Dr. Davidson’s third volume. The reader who is acquainted with that valuable work will perceive that we differ from Dr. Davidson on some material points; nor, after considering his arguments, do we see reason to change our conclusions. But this difference does not prevent us from appreciating the candor and ability with which he states the arguments on both sides. We would especially refer our readers to his statement of the difficulties in the way of the hypothesis that these Epistles were forged.
(f2765) Had 1 Timothy been written after Titus, St. Paul could not have hoped to be back soon at Ephesus,
1Timothy 3:14; for he had only just left Ephesus, and
(on that hypothesis) would be intending to winter at the distant Nicopolis. |
Commentaries on Apostle Paul's Writings |
|
| |
|
|
|
