F" 
 
 BS 
 
 2735! 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES IN THE LIGHT 
 OF ONE ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 
 
 inaugural 
 
 T. COWDEN^LAUGHLIN, Ph.D. 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES IN THE LIGHT 
 OF ONE ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 
 
 Inaugural 
 
 BY 
 
 T. COWDEN LAUGHLIN, Ph.D. 
 
 v\ 
 
 Professor on the Frederick Billings Foundation for New Testament Greek 
 and Exegesis in Pacific Theological Seminary 
 
 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 
 1905 
 
213 S" 
 

 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES IN THE LIGHT 
 OF ONE ROMAN IMPRISONMENT. 
 
 THE problem of the Pastorals is one of the most 
 difficult in the whole New Testament. Any dis- 
 cussion of these Epistles involves the one great question 
 of their genuineness or authorship. By whom were they 
 written ? Are they Pauline ? 
 
 Three classes of writers are found on this subject: 
 those who hold that the Pastorals are genuine as we have 
 them; 1 those who hold that they are not genuine; 2 and 
 those who hold that the basis of these writings is gen- 
 uine, but that they have been interpolated, redacted, and 
 expanded into their present form. 3 
 
 Before any of these conclusions can be reached, the 
 writer in each case must decide on the question of 
 "whether Paul was in prison at Rome once or twice." 
 Those who regard the Epistles as genuine hold, without 
 exception, to two imprisonments, 4 while those who reject 
 
 1 Plummer, Humphrys, Conybeare, and Howson, Findlay, Huther, Hort, 
 Salmon, Sanday, Purves, Dods, Gilbert, Lightfoot, Lock, Ramsay, Adeney, 
 Godet, Bernard, Shaw, Weiss, and Zahn. 
 
 2 Beyschlag, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Von Soden, and Julicher. 
 'Pfleiderer, -Clemen, Moffatt, Bartlet, McGiffert, and Harnack. 
 
 4 Neander, Godet, Farrar, Renan, Blass, Belser, Lightfoot, Ramsay, Shaw, 
 Adeney, Van Manen, J. Weiss, Spitta, Harnack, Zahn (and Julicher if 
 Pauline). 
 
4 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 them (in whole or in part) think Paul was not released 
 from prison at Rome. 1 
 
 Any investigation of the Pastorals, then, involves also 
 an investigation of whether Paul was in prison at Rome 
 otce or twice. We have made a thorough study of this 
 question, 2 and are convinced that such a release never 
 took place. This being the case, Paul not only never 
 visited Spain, but he did not make a trip East (to Asia 
 Minor, Crete, Greece, Illyricum, etc.), as has been con- 
 jectured heretofore by those who hold to the Pauline 
 authorship of the Pastorals. The first record of a trip 
 East after Roman imprisonment is by Eusebius. His 
 testimony is very late and many think that he did not 
 even follow any tradition here, but recorded the con- 
 clusion which he reached from his own study of the 
 Pastorals, being convinced that their genuineness de- 
 pended on Paul's imprisonment at Rome a second time. 
 This is the view also of such eminent scholars as Godet, 
 Lightfoot, Ramsay, Weiss, Zahn, Adeney, .Shaw, and 
 others, who hold that Paul was released from prison 
 and made a trip East; that somewhere on this trip he 
 wrote i Timothy and Titus; that he was arrested and 
 imprisoned at Rome a second time and that it was during 
 this imprisonment that he wrote 2 Timothy. They, like 
 Eusebius, are forced to this conclusion, regarding other 
 arguments for two imprisonments as secondary, in order 
 to maintain the genuineness of the Pastorals as we have 
 them. It is because of certain passages in the Pastorals 
 whose interpretation hitherto has seemed impossible on 
 
 1 Eichhorn, De Wette, Baur (and Tubingen School), Macpherson, Bacon, 
 Bartlet, Erbes, McGiffert, and Moffatt. 
 
 2 A section of this paper, in its original form, contained a discussion 
 of this point which is necessarily omitted here. 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 5 
 
 the basis of one imprisonment that they have reached 
 this conclusion. 
 
 Let us examine these passages. There are five of 
 them: one in I Timothy, one in Titus, and THREE in 
 2 Timothy. Two of these are not very difficult of inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 1 i ) The first of these is I Timothy i 13. From this pas- 
 sage it has been maintained that Paul left Timothy at 
 Ephesus when going to Macedonia. (Adeney, p. 408, 
 and others.) When could this have been? Surely not 
 at any time during his three years' stay at Ephesus? 
 Neither could it have been when Paul left Ephesus at 
 the time of the riot in the Greek theater there, for Timo- 
 thy (together with Erastus) had already been sent to 
 Macedonia (Acts xix:22), and was with Paul again 
 shortly after his arrival there (at Philippi?) (2 Cor. i:i). 
 Now Paul only left Ephesus for Macedonia once, ac- 
 cording to the Acts' account, and if he did not leave 
 Timothy at Ephesus then he never did, unless he was 
 released from prison and did so later. Hence it has been 
 inferred that he must have been in prison at Rome twice. 
 A more careful exegesis of this passage, however, re- 
 moves the difficulty, as such reveals the fact that Paul 
 does not say he left Timothy at Ephesus when going into 
 Macedonia ; he does n't say that Timothy was at Ephesus 
 then. [It will be shown later that Timothy was not 
 there when Paul left that city.] 
 
 (2) A second supposedly difficult passage is Titus 
 i 15. When, according to Paul's movements as we know 
 them from the Acts, could Paul have left Titus in Crete 
 or summoned him to winter with him at Nicopolis (Tit. 
 iii:i2) ? In answer to this, it may be said that it is fully 
 
6 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 as easy (as will be shown presently) to find a time in 
 Paul's life when he might have gone to Crete and left 
 Titus there before he went to Rome as after a release 
 from prison there. No account of Titus is given in the 
 Acts. Luke never even so much as mentions him not 
 even once. Why, then, may Paul not have gone to Crete 
 before going to Rome? It is just as easy to find a place 
 in the Acts' account of Paul's life (before he went to 
 Rome) for such a visit as to find a place for his visit to 
 Arabia (Gal. in?) or for the doings of Titus as recorded 
 in 2 Corinthians or Galatians. [A place in Paul's life 
 for his visit to Crete will be suggested presently.] 
 
 (3) In 2 Timothy iv:i3, Paul tells Timothy to bring 
 the cloak he left at Troas. This seems to imply a recent 
 visit there, for which no room is left in the Acts, as in 
 the account therein given Paul's last visit to Troas (Tim- 
 othy with him, Acts xx:4) was when he stopped there 
 on his way to Jerusalem on the third journey, from four 
 to seven or eight years before. 
 
 (4) Again, in 2 Timothy iv:i2, Paul tells Timothy 
 that he sent Tychicus to Ephesus. Now Tychicus had 
 been the bearer of the letter to the Colossians and Ephe- 
 sians (and Philemon), but Paul does not refer to this 
 here, as Timothy was with him at Rome when he sent 
 Tychicus out with those letters. (Col. in; Phile. I.). 
 When was he sent to Ephesus, then ? 
 
 (5) In 2 Timothy iv:2O, Paul tells Timothy that he 
 left Trophimus at Miletus sick. When was that? He 
 could not have been left there on Paul's journey to 
 Jerusalem (Acts xx:i7) his only visit there accord- 
 ing to the Acts for Trophimus was in Jerusalem with 
 Paul (Acts xxi:2Q) and his presence there led to Paul's 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 7 
 
 arrest. Trophimus could not have been left at Miletus 
 sick at that time, for Paul was only in Jerusalem seven 
 days (Acts xxivin; xxiv:i) and Trophimus could not 
 have recovered and come on so soon. Hence there is 
 no room in the Acts for these events, all of which must 
 supposedly have taken place after Paul was released from 
 imprisonment at Rome (if the Acts gives a full account). 
 
 Of the five passages just examined, only the last three 
 cause any real difficulty. These three, it will be observed 
 also, are all found in 2 Timothy, and in the last chapter 
 of that epistle. The interpretation of these verses has 
 necessitated a resort to the "two-imprisonment" theory by 
 those who would maintain the genuineness of the Pasto- 
 rals. But as the other arguments for a second imprison- 
 ment have disappeared and the only one left is that based 
 on the interpretation of these verses, it is time that they 
 (together with their context i. e. 2 Tim. iv:9~2ia) be 
 examined with a possible view to adjusting their contents 
 in the light of but one imprisonment of Paul at Rome 
 (which has often been done, but with loss of Pauline 
 authorship). Can such an adjustment on such a basis 
 be made and the genuineness of the epistles still be main- 
 tained? If so, we are relieved from the necessity of 
 trying to account for much that has always been un- 
 reasonable conjecture where Paul went when released, 
 what he did, where he was rearrested, and why he was 
 imprisoned a, second time about all of which the Acts 
 and admitted Pauline epistles tell us absolutely nothing. 
 
 An investigation of 2 Timothy iv 19-21 a, reveals the 
 fact that there is great inconsistency between it and the 
 preceding verses. Thus in 2 Timothy iv:6~7, Paul is 
 expecting immediate death; he is already being offered 
 
8 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 and the time of his departure is at hand, while in 2 Tim- 
 othy iv:i3 he is sending away over to Ephesus for 
 Timothy and asking him to bring his cloak (2 Tim. iv 120), 
 which he would need during the winter, and for his books 
 and parchments (2 Tim. iv:i3), implying that he ex- 
 pected to live at least for some time. Again, down as 
 far as chapter iv 15, Timothy is to remain at Ephesus, but 
 in chapter iv 19 he is to leave and join Paul. Contradic- 
 tion is found also in 2 Timothy iv:ii, when compared 
 with 2 Timothy iv:2ib. But, aside from these contra- 
 dictory statements, the whole thought contained in 
 2 Timothy iv 19-21 a (which includes the three passages 
 which have caused such difficulty heretofore i. e. iv:i3; 
 iv:i2; iv:2O,) can be shown to fit in better with what 
 we know of Paul's life prior to his imprisonment at 
 Rome than in any period of his supposed life thereafter. 
 In other words, the section 2 Timothy iv:9-2ia does 
 not belong where it stands, but is a letter or part of a 
 letter to Timothy written by Paul shortly after he left 
 Ephesus (after the riot there and long before he went 
 to Rome). If this is true, all difficulties are removed 
 and the genuineness of 2 Timothy is maintained as strong- 
 ly as before, although the same could not be said of its 
 integrity. This section has always caused the difficulty 
 and has been variously interpolated and divided up, 1 but 
 it is all one piece and was written four or five years 
 before the rest of the epistle. This small letter was on 
 a distinct piece of papyrus originally; but when the 
 
 1 McGiffert retains only verses n and 16-19 an d thinks the rest of 
 9-2ia is a fragment of another letter of Paul. He thinks (i) two authen- 
 tic letters are worked over in 2 Timothy. A large part of chapter one, 
 first twelve verses of chapter two and the greater part of chapter four 
 are genuine; (2) Titus iii: 1-7, 12-13, an d perhaps parts of chapter one, are 
 genuine (written after 2 Timothy); (3) i Timothy is the least genuine of 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 9 
 
 first collection of Paul's letters to Timothy was made, 
 this small fragment letter was joined on to 2 Timothy 
 iv :8 without a special heading and 2 Timothy iv :2ib-22 
 (the original ending of 2 Timothy) which had been 
 detached from the end of the brittle roll, was put on at 
 the end of the short letter instead of after iv:8 where 
 it belonged. Or more likely still is the supposition that 
 the original copy from which our present text was made 
 was in book form and that one leaf (that containing 
 the brief letter) slipped into its present position. In 
 other words, 2 Timothy iv 19-21 a (without a heading) 
 slipped in before the last two verses of 2 Timothy. This 
 might very naturally have happened. If so, every diffi- 
 culty is explained. 
 
 A NEW ITINERARY. 
 
 The reader of this article is invited to note carefully 
 the following itinerary linked with exegesis of 9-213, 
 which makes clear that this section is a letter, or part 
 of one, written shortly after Paul reached Macedonia 
 (after the riot at Ephesus) to Timothy, who is about 
 to arrive at Ephesus. 
 
 While Paul was at Ephesus (third journey), he sent 
 Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia (Acts xix:22) and 
 then on to Corinth (i Cor. iv:i7; xvi:io), Erastus re- 
 maining there (2 Tim. iv:2o) where he was later city 
 
 the three. Probably written by the interpolator of 2 Timothy and Titus. 
 Redactor wrote to provide for the healthy development of the church by 
 the instituting of safeguards and the formulation of rules. 
 
 Bartlet makes 2 Timothy iv: 9-13, 21-223, a note written between 
 Ephesians and Philippians, the rest of 2 Timothy being the swan-song of 
 Paul. 
 
 Harnack thinks the Pastorals as we have them have had three inter- 
 polators, namely, one about 60 A. D., one no A. D. and one 115 A. D, 
 A substantial part was known to Polycarp. 
 
IO PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 treasurer (Rom. xvi:24). Timothy was to return to 
 Paul at Ephesus (i Cor. xvi:n). During his absence, 
 Paul wrote I Corinthians (from Ephesus) and sent it 
 to Corinth by Titus, who then probably went on to Dal- 
 matia (2 Tim. iv:io), from whence he was to return 
 after some time to Troas (2 Cor. ii:i3). Since 2 Cor- 
 inthians was not written for at least six months, or, as 
 many think, not for a whole year (2 Cor. viiino; ix:2; 
 xvi:i-2) after I Corinthians had been dispatched, Titus 
 would have had ample time to have gone to Dalmatia. 
 Paul, who had intended to remain at Ephesus until Pen- 
 tecost (i Cor. xvi:8), left sooner than he had planned 
 to do because of the circumstances which grew out of 
 the riot in the Greek theater there; but before he went 
 away he wrote Timothy who was expected at Ephesus 
 (i Cor. xvini) but had not yet arrived a letter which 
 he left at Ephesus for him (or sent to him somewhere 
 else just before Timothy left for Ephesus). In this 
 letter (which is not extant to-day) he exhorted Timothy 
 to tarry at Ephesus (that he might " charge certain men 
 not to teach a different doctrine" (i Tim. i:3; Tit. i:io, 
 14) ; but he was not to stay there long (2 Tim. iv 19) and 
 surely not until winter set in (2 Tim. iv:2ia). Paul 
 wanted to stay in Ephesus himself, where he had been 
 for three years (Acts xx:3i), but it was not expedient 
 for him to do so. The Asiarchs would n't even let him 
 go to the theater during the riot (Acts xix:3i). Alex- 
 ander the coppersmith did him "much evil" (2 Tim. 
 iv:i4) ; hence it was not safe for him to stay at Ephesus. 
 So he left that city shortly after the riot, sailing from 
 its harbor Miletus where he left Trophimus sick (2 Tim. 
 iv:2o) and disembarked at Troas (2 Cor. ii:i3; cf. Acts 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. II 
 
 xx :i). Here he had hoped to find Titus (2 Cor. ii:i3), 
 but in this he was disappointed, for Titus had not yet 
 returned from Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv:io). (The fact that 
 Paul did not know the exact time when Titus was to 
 be in Troas favors the possibility that Titus went to Dal- 
 matia. 1 ) Paul then went on alone to Macedonia, in all 
 probability to Philippi, where he immediately wrote Tim- 
 othy (who had not arrived at Ephesus, but was some- 
 where else, perhaps at his old home at Lystra, but would 
 soon be at Ephesus). This explains 2 Timothy iv:i2 
 (Tychicus) and 20 (Erastus). This letter (or note) 
 is 2 Timothy iv:9~2ia. In his previous letter (which 
 he left at Ephesus for Timothy not now extant) Paul 
 exhorted him to tarry at Ephesus (i Tim. i:3), although 
 not long (iv:9 an d 2ia shown also by the word tarry) ; 
 but now he wants him to come to him to Macedonia 
 i. e. Philippi. 2 The rest had all gone elsewhere. Demas, 
 who may have accompanied Paul as far as Philippi, had 
 gone on to Thessalonica (2 Tim. iv:io) (having given 
 up Christianity temporarily perhaps [a reason for which 
 we shall see presently], but is later with Paul in Rome 
 (Col. iv:i4; Phile. 24). Both he and Mark left Paul, 
 but returned to him later.) Crescens had gone to Galatia 
 (2 Tim. iv no) ; Titus had not yet returned from Dalmatia 
 (2 Tim. iv:io); Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus 
 (iv:i2). In this letter Timothy is warned against Alex- 
 ander the Ephesian (the coppersmith), who greatly 
 
 1 Our theory of the Pastorals does not depend on Timothy's going to Dal- 
 matia, nor on Paul's going to Crete, nor on Laodicea as place of compo- 
 sition of i Timothy, etc. These are only probabilities, but with reason 
 back of them. 
 
 2 Only Luke is with him there (2 Tim. iv: u), having stopped there on 
 the second journey, where he made headquarters until Paul starts for 
 Jerusalem on the third journey. The "we" sections show this. 
 
12 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 "withstood Paul's words" (2 Tim. iv:i4-i5; cf. I Tim. 
 1:20; I Tim. i 13) ; he salutes Prisca and Aquila, who were 
 still at Ephesus (2 Tim. iv:i9) and had a church in 
 their house there (i Cor. xvi:i9; cf. Acts xviii:i8); 
 sends greetings to Onesiphorus, an Ephesian (iv:i9; cf. 
 i :i8) ; tells Timothy that he left Trophimus at Miletus 
 sick (2 Tim. iv:2o) when sailing from there after leaving 
 Ephesus; asks Timothy to stop at Troas on his way to 
 Macedonia and bring the cloak which he had left with 
 Carpus (2 Tim. iv:i3) on his recent sojourn there (2 Cor. 
 ii:i3); wants his books and parchments also (2 Tim. 
 iv:i3). He had left Ephesus without packing up his 
 effects, especially his books, of which he probably had 
 quite a collection, having taught at Ephesus for so long 
 (three years, Acts xx:3i) ; he requests Timothy to come 
 soon, at least before the winter set in (iv:2i), as he would 
 need his cloak then. Timothy does as requested and joins 
 Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i:i). 
 
 This interpretation of the section in question (2 Tim. 
 iv:9~2ia) seems more reasonable and natural than any 
 other hitherto given. The greatest obstacle to its accept- 
 ance are verses 16 and 17 of chapter four. We shall 
 examine them. Some writers think that Paul made the 
 "first defense" (referred to in these verses) at Rome, 
 and imply that he was there now for a second defense. 
 Such a view takes too much for granted. Even if this 
 defense was made at Rome, there is no evidence that 
 he was set free, for he may have made a number of 
 defenses and never been given his liberty. Or if he was 
 in bonds when he made this " first " defense, he might 
 have been somewhere else than at Rome, since he was 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 13 
 
 seven times in captivity (Clement of Rome I Cor. v). 
 The defense here referred to was unquestionably made at 
 Ephesus. The town clerk stopped the riot and told 
 Demetrius the silversmith and the craftsmen with him 
 that if they " have a matter against any man, the courts 
 are open and there are proconsuls" (Acts xix:38). 
 Hence there was no occasion of going to Rome to be 
 tried. Paul in all probability was brought before the 
 courts at Ephesus. Luke, who gives a very scanty record 
 here (Acts xx:i-2), does not record this, just as he 
 does not record other imprisonments of Paul elsewhere 
 (referred to by Clement of Rome) or the occurrences in 
 2 Corinthians xi :23f, or the trip to Arabia, or any men- 
 tion of Titus anywhere and many other events. There 
 was good reason for his not recording this great blow to 
 the Christian Church. But all the craftsmen, and especial- 
 ly Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim. iv:i4; I Tim. 
 1:20), had grievances against Paul, who was ruining 
 their respective trades. At his "first defense" (imply- 
 ing that he made others there) this Alexander did him 
 much "evil" (2 Tim. iv:i4) and greatly "withstood 
 his words" (2 Tim. iv:i5). It was this Alexander 
 who, when he rose to speak in the Greek theater, was 
 drowned down by two hours of " yelling " (Acts xix 133). 
 He, although he may not have been a Jew (although he 
 probably was), was put forward by the Jews that he might 
 clear them in the eyes of the Gentile Ephesians. These 
 Jews wanted the Ephesians to know distinctly that they 
 did not agree with Paul (even if he was also a Jew 
 by race). Their doctrine was different from Paul's. 
 This Alexander probably did speak after the " yelling " 
 ceased (or when Paul made his defense before he left 
 
14 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 Ephesus). Paul, in all probability, did make a defense, 
 or several of them, before he left Ephesus (even though 
 not in chains). It was at his " first defense" there that 
 none of Paul's friends " took his part," but " all for- 
 sook him and fled" (2 Tim. iv:i6). Paul had even 
 despaired of his life there (2 Cor. i:8-io; cf. i:3, 5, 6) ; 
 but the Lord stood by him and delivered him out of the 
 "mouth of the lion" (2 Tim. iv:i7; cf. 2 Cor. i:io) 
 and strengthened him that his message might be fully 
 proclaimed and that " all the Gentiles might hear " 
 (2 Tim. iv:i7). Had Paul lost his life in Ephesus at 
 this time, a great part of the Gentile world Illyricum, 
 Crete and Rome would never have seen him (cf. Tit. 
 1:5; Rom. xv 119). 
 
 This is the proper interpretation of this incident at 
 Ephesus. Hence all difficulties are removed and 2 Tim- 
 othy iv:9-2ia, as it stands without interpolation was 
 written in Macedonia i. e. at Philippi to Timothy at 
 Ephesus, although the letter may have arrived there 
 shortly before Timothy did. 
 
 ITINERARY CONTINUED. 
 
 As already stated, Timothy joined Paul at Philippi. At 
 about the same time that he arrives there Titus returns 
 from Dalmatia (whither he had gone after leaving Cor- 
 inth 2 Cor. vii:6; 2 Tim. iv:io) and tells Paul of the 
 reception which his letter to the Corinthian church had 
 had by the church there. Whereupon Paul, assisted by 
 Timothy (2 Cor. i:i), immediately writes 2 Corinthians 
 which Titus (accompanied by Luke and some one else 
 perhaps Mark) takes to Corinth (2 Cor. viii:i8). Then 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 15 
 
 Paul, after sending Timothy to Ephesus, probably fol- 
 lowed Titus and Luke to Corinth (2 Cor. ix:5) from 
 whence all three set out for Crete, where, after a brief 
 visit, Paul left Titus (Tit. i:5), who remained there 
 he not being in the lists (Acts xx 14) of those leaving with 
 Paul for Jerusalem while he, accompanied by Luke 
 who had been appointed by the churches to travel with 
 Paul (2 Cor. viiiiiQ), returned via Asia Minor, perhaps, 
 stopping among other places at Laodicea where he wrote 
 i Timothy. That he wrote I Timothy here, we have 
 the manuscript authority of A. K. L. . etc., the only 
 manuscripts which mention name of place where this letter 
 was composed (cf. note at the end of the first epistle 
 to Timothy in Tischendorfs text). Paul then went on 
 to Macedonia and Illyricum (Acts xx:2; Rom. xv:i9). 
 Here in Illyricum somewhere, or more probably in Mace- 
 donia or Achaia and not far from Nicopolis, Paul wrote 
 the letter to Titus which was sent out by Zenas and 
 Apollos (Tit. iii:i3). Manuscript evidence asserts that 
 this letter was written from Nicopolis (cf. A. P. K. H. L. 
 116, 47, 113, 123, cop., syrP etc. and the texts of Gries- 
 bach and Scholtz; see note at end of epistle in Tischen- 
 dorfs text). This is not quite the truth as we see from 
 Titus iii:i2, where Paul says: "Give diligence to come 
 unto me to Nicopolis, for there ( e*ei ) I have deter- 
 mined ( KfKpiKa ) to winter," implying that he had not 
 yet arrived there; but the letter must have been written 
 near that city, and its bearers Zenas and Apollos (Tit. 
 iii:i3) in all probability set out from that harbor when 
 going to Crete. 1 The letter was written before winter 
 
 1 Nicopolis was situated in Epirus opposite Actium and was about one 
 hundred and forty miles northwest from Corinth and one hundred and 
 
l6 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 (Tit. iii:i2) and before Paul's three months in Achaia 
 and hence before he went to Rome. We do not know 
 whether Paul ever sent Artemas or Tychicus for Titus, 
 as planned, or not; or that Titus joined him in Nicopolis ; 
 yet Paul may easily have spent a part of the winter there. 
 Of course room must be left for a three months' sojourn 
 in Achaia (Corinth) (Acts xx:3) before the Passover 
 (Acts xx :6). Now, if the Passover came late that year. 
 Paul may have spent all of December at least and part 
 of January at Nicopolis and Titus may have been with 
 him there, returning later to Crete (or somewhere) as 
 he is not one of those leaving with Paul for Jerusalem 
 (Acts xx 14). After the days of "unleavened bread" 
 (Passover) Paul left Philippi (Acts xxi/j.) and attended 
 the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem (Acts xx :i6, ; xxi 117). 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Following the itinerary thus presented, then, we find 
 (i) that 2 Timothy iv 19-21 a was written by Paul 
 (shortly after the riot at Ephesus) in Macedonia (in all 
 probability at Philippi) to Timothy on or shortly before 
 his arrival at Ephesus; (2) I Timothy was written at 
 Laodicea where Paul and Luke arrive from Crete; (3) 
 a few days or a week or more later, Titus was written 
 somewhere near Nicopolis and sent out from there; 
 (4) last of all, 2 Timothy (with exception of iv:9-2ia 
 was written by Paul during the very last of his one im- 
 prisonment at Rome. 
 
 sixty-eight miles southwest from Thessalonica. As its name indicates, this 
 was a "city of victory," being founded on the spot where Octavius' troops 
 encamped on the night before the famous battle of Actium in 31 B. C. 
 in which Antony's troops were defeated. In Paul's day, Nicopolis had 
 become the great city and harbor of all that western coast and we are 
 not surprised to find Paul planning to spend some time there (Tit. iii: 12). 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 17 
 
 WHAT OF THE PASTORALS? 
 
 They stand or fall together. Their style betrays a 
 common author. That author we believe was Paul. 
 Most arguments put forth hitherto for such authorship 
 hold (with some modifications) still. But I Timothy 
 and Titus, according to our theory, were written not 
 after a release from prison and shortly before 2 Timothy, 
 but before Paul's final trip to Jerusalem (about 58 A. D.), 
 four or five or more years before 2 Timothy, which was 
 written during the very last part of Paul's only Romati 
 imprisonment i. e. seven or eight years earlier than 
 the date usually held for their composition. 
 
 We shall examine the Pastorals now individually from 
 this new point of view. 
 
 FIRST TIMOTHY. 
 
 This epistle was written somewhere not far from 
 Ephesus. As we have already shown, it was probably 
 written at Laodicea. Hitherto, the possibility of such 
 a theory has seemed unreasonable; but according to our 
 itinerary and the manuscript evidence presented, such 
 now seems most reasonable. Thus Paul after his visit 
 to Titus in Crete, returned via Asia Minor, stopping at 
 Laodicea (one hundred miles east of Ephesus where 
 Timothy now was). He may have visited other cities 
 in the vicinity, but here at Laodicea he wrote to Timothy 
 (i. e. i Timothy). The whole thought in the epistle suits 
 such a view. This epistle must have been written 
 shortly after Paul left Ephesus. According to our itin- 
 erary, he would have reached Laodicea within a very few 
 weeks thereafter (Ephesus, Miletus, Troas, Philippi 
 
1 8 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 where Timothy joins him and they together write 2 Cor- 
 inthians in the early autumn Crete and then to Lao- 
 dicea). The epistle was doubtless written from Laodicea. 
 Aside from the plausibility of Laodicea as the place of 
 its composition and aside from the manuscript evidence 
 to that effect, is the extensive mention of riches in I Tim- 
 othy vi 19-10 and 17-19 (which redactors hitherto have 
 regarded as interpolations). Paul is now in the rich 
 city of Laodicea which was full of bankers and capitalists. 
 Tacitus tells us it was so rich that after the earthquake 
 in 6 1 A. D. it rose again quickly without any assistance 
 from the state (Annals xvi:27) ; "because thou sayest I 
 am^rich and have gotten riches and have need of noth- 
 ing" (Rev. iii:i7). Paul while sojourning in this rich 
 city has had his attention vividly called to the rich and 
 their manner of life and very naturally puts in a note 
 on the rich and riches and could naturally have written 
 i Timothy vi :io. Occasion and Historical Setting of the 
 Letter. Paul's work had been disastrously interrupted at 
 Ephesus. Great harm had been done to the church there. 
 Its leader had been compelled to leave the city and could 
 not return there just yet, if ever, (although Paul hoped 
 to return I Tim. iii:i4). In the mean time who was 
 to guide the affairs of this most important church in 
 Christendom where Paul had stayed longer than at any 
 place in all his travels ? The whole future of Christianity 
 depended more on the future of this church than on any- 
 thing else. It was in a most critical condition. Not only 
 had it lost its leader, Paul, but doctrines different from 
 his were being taught (i Tim. i:i). These doctrines 
 were Jewish in character (cf. Lock Hastings' Diction- 
 ary, pp. 770-771 for summary of these). If ever a 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 19 
 
 church needed a leader and instructions, it was this one 
 at this time; if ever a church needed to be organized, 
 it was the one now at Ephesus ; and if ever a leader needed 
 help, it was Timothy at this time. Paul writes to Timothy, 
 who had been sent to this most difficult post and put in 
 complete charge there, and tells him what officers the 
 church ought to have (i Tim. iii:i-i3) and what their 
 qualifications should be (i Tirn. ii 18-15) and how service 
 should be conducted (i Tim. iii:i5 i. e. Iva. ei&Js TTWS Set 
 \v oiKo> Oeov dva<rre'<eo-0(u) . Paul (speaking of church 
 officers and church organization) says, " these things 
 write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know how things 
 ought to be carried on in the house of God which is the 
 church of the living God" (i Tim. 111:14-15). This is 
 Paul's account of church organization and we see the 
 need of it and why he wrote on this subject at this 
 time. At no time in Paul's life did a church need an 
 authoritative leader as the Ephesian did at this time 
 and at no time after his death is there a place for the 
 establishment of church organization half so fitting as 
 at this time when authoritative leadership and closer 
 organization was the only mode of procedure. A church 
 well organized and officered was the most effective means 
 of opposing heresy. Timothy himself was to take Paul's 
 place and was given full apostolic power (i Tim. 
 iv:i4-i6) ; he had received this gift already; it was a gift 
 of prophecy (i Tim. iv:i4; 1:18), received by the laying 
 on of Paul's hands (2 Tim. i:6; i Tim. iv:i4) ; he was 
 not to neglect this gift now (i Tim. iv:i4), but to stir 
 it up (2 Tim. i :6) ; he was to give heed to " reading, to 
 exhortation, to teaching" (i Tim. iv:i3). He was 
 young to receive such an appointment and timid (i Cor. 
 
20 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 xvi:io-ii) and apt to shrink from asserting the authority 
 which such an office would demand and especially under 
 the conditions at Ephesus at this time ; hence Paul writes 
 him, saying, " let no one despise thy youth " ( I Tim. 
 iv:i2) and to " take heed to thyself and to thy teaching; 
 . . . for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and 
 them that hear thee" (i Tim. iv:i6). Timothy is younger 
 now than he would be seven or eight years later (on any 
 other theory) and hence more reason for this remark. 
 Paul, for good reasons, could not go to Ephesus at this 
 time and the church there could be saved only by putting 
 some one in charge who had no less authority than he 
 himself possessed, and heresy could best be held in check 
 by a closer organization of those who were to assist him 
 in the management of church affairs. 
 
 The only new term which meets us here, however, is 
 that of " bishop." Later in prison at Rome, Paul ad- 
 dressed his letter to the Philippians to the saints with 
 the "bishops and deacons" at Philippi (Philippians i:i) 
 not implying that the term was anything new, but the 
 contrary. The fact that he does not define the term 
 there shows that it was in existence. The place to speak 
 of a bishop and his duties was when that office was in- 
 stituted and that time was when he wrote i Timothy. 
 The idea of deacon is not entirely new (cp. Acts vi). 
 There were elders before this. Paul and Barnabas took 
 the collection to the elders at Jerusalem from Antioch 
 (Acts xi 130) ; but the duties of deacons were more de- 
 veloped at this time and their qualifications specified, and 
 the same may be said of elders (i Tim. v:i7) and the 
 qualifications for bishops, although the bishop and elder 
 in i Timothy were probably the same. They were in 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 21 
 
 Titus (Tit. i 15, 7), and also in Acts (xx 117-28) where the 
 terms are interchangeably used some months later by 
 Paul on his way to Jerusalem. The elder and bishop are 
 thus probably the same in I Timothy also. Later, in the 
 time of Ignatius, one of the elders was over the others 
 with the distinctive title of bishop; but when the term 
 was first introduced namely, here the bishop and elder 
 were the same. 
 
 If what has already been said is true, the genuineness 
 of i Timothy as we have it should not be questioned. All 
 references to church organization fit into this scheme as 
 they do into no other, and as to false teachers and their 
 teachings, there is nothing referred to in this epistle that 
 might not well have been said by Paul when we con- 
 sider the conditions under which he left Ephesus. The 
 false teachings hinted at are nothing so far developed as 
 those we find in the epistle to the Colossians and Ephe- 
 sians (which were written later in prison, or in 2 Tim- 
 othy (ii:28), the last of all his writings), but was 
 incipient gnosticism in its earliest stage. 
 
 It has been objected that a hymn or part of a ritual 
 is found in I Tim. iii:i6, which shows late compo- 
 sition. But this is nothing startling, for Paul had been 
 at Ephesus three years where they had doubtless worked 
 out details of service. The Jews in their synagogues had 
 hymns; they sang a hymn at the Passover celebration 
 (Mark xiv:26). In Acts ii:42, "they gave attention to 
 the prayers" and broke out into a hymn (Acts iv:24) ; 
 in Colossians iii:i6, they sang "psalms and hymns and 
 spiritual songs" (also, Eph. v:i8). Evidence of songs or 
 ritual is not against early composition. 
 
 Again, evidence of late composition is said to be found 
 
22 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 in I Timothy ii :2, where prayer is offered for " kings and 
 all in high places " ; but after Paul's experience in the 
 courts at Ephesus, we are not surprised that instruction 
 should be given to pray for all those in authority, espe- 
 cially when we see the purpose of such prayer i. e. " that 
 we may lead a tranquil and quiet life" (i Tim. ii:2). 
 
 The greatest objection to the genuineness of i Timothy 
 is its vocabulary (the same objection applying to the 
 other two also). Many characteristically Pauline words 
 are not found in this epistle and, on the other hand, they 
 contain about thirty-five words not found in Paul else- 
 where (cf. Holtzmann's " Pastoralbriefe," s. 100). But 
 the remarkable thing about this is, that these same words 
 are found in Luke's writings. This is suggestive and 
 probably means that Luke was Paul's amanuensis when 
 these letters were written. He probably was. He could 
 well have been. Luke accompanied Titus from Macedonia 
 to Corinth with the second letter to the Corinthians, and 
 may well have gone on to Crete with him and a little later 
 have left there with Paul for Asia Minor and was still 
 with him when he wrote i Timothy from Laodicea. Luke 
 was appointed by the churches to go with Paul (2 Cor. 
 viii:i9) "appointed by the churches to travel with Paul 
 in matters of this grace" (collections). We should be 
 surprised if he was not with Paul there. Luke was with 
 Paul when he wrote the small letter (2 Tim. iv:9-2ia; 
 cf. iv:ii). This small letter was written before winter 
 (2 Tim. iv:2ia; 2 Tim. iv:9) and Titus (which was 
 written shortly after i Timothy) was also written before 
 winter (Tit. iii:i2). This means that the fragment 
 letter and Titus were written not far apart and as Luke 
 was present in the one case, he probably was also in the 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 23 
 
 other. He probably became a constant companion of 
 Paul from Crete (or at least from Laodicea) on, although 
 we have no assurance that he was with Paul during his 
 three months at Corinth ; Tertius was Paul's amanuensis 
 when he wrote Romans from there (Rom. xvi:22), but 
 Luke leaves Philippi with Paul when the latter starts for 
 Jerusalem ("we" sections begin in the account from 
 there) and accompanies him to that city and to Rome 
 (last "we" section), where he is still with Paul when 
 Colossians (iv:i4) and Philemon (vs. 24) were written. 
 It is quite reasonable, then, to suppose that Luke was 
 with Paul at Laodicea and helped with the composition 
 of i Timothy (as also with the epistle to Titus a little 
 later) and four or more years later helped with the com- 
 position of 2 Timothy last of all near the end of his life. 
 Such a supposition, if proven true, accounts for the un- 
 Pauline vocabulary and especially so since many of these 
 un- Pauline words are found in Luke's writings (cf. Lock, 
 ad loc., in Hastings). Hence the difficult question about 
 vocabulary and style vanishes and the epistle is still 
 Pauline, the composition being left somewhat more than 
 usual to the amanuensis (Luke). We should expect dif- 
 ferent vocabulary in the Pastorals, also, because Timothy 
 is not with Paul when they were composed as he had been 
 when at least six of his epistles were written i. e. I Thes- 
 salonians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 
 Philemon, Philippians (and likely when Ephesians was 
 composed) ; he was probably with Paul also when Gala- 
 tians was written, especially if written at Antioch in Syria. 
 Ramsay thinks Paul received his information about the 
 Galatian church from Timothy and that he was with him 
 when the Galatian letter was composed. In the epistle 
 
24 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 to the Romans, Timothy sends greetings, although Tertius 
 was the amanuensis of this letter. Timothy, then, was 
 present at the writing of every letter of Paul except I 
 Corinthians and the Pastorals. What wonder, then, if the 
 vocabulary in the latter is different. The presence of 
 Luke as amanuensis and the absence of Timothy would 
 account for this. 1 I Timothy is a unit as it stands, and 
 there is no need to assume a redactor or an interpolator 
 under the present theory. 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 What of Titus according to our theory ? As has already 
 been shown, it was composed shortly after I. Timothy 
 (probably the next week, or very soon). It was com- 
 posed before winter (Tit. iii:i2) and near Nicopolis 
 somewhere and just before Paul went to Corinth for his 
 three months' stay there, but mailed from Nicopolis. 
 
 Occasion. Zenas the lawyer and Apollos (Tit. iii:i3) 
 were to stop at Crete on a journey and Paul takes 
 advantage of this to send a letter to Titus, whom he 
 had left there recently (Tit. 1:5), insisting that he enforce 
 a " high moral standard in Crete in spite of the danger- 
 ous tendencies of the false teachers " and requests 
 him to be ready to join him in Nicopolis (where he 
 is to winter) a little later when he shall send for him. 
 Genuineness. The epistle claims to be Pauline; external 
 evidence for it is good. The a7m Aey<yieva are to be ac- 
 counted for in the same manner as in i Timothy. Neither 
 false teaching nor church organization imply a later period 
 
 1 Timothy is thought by many to have composed 2 Thessalonians almost 
 entirely, and for this reason its style differs so much from that of i Thes- 
 salonians. 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 25 
 
 than Paul. The false teaching is mainly Jewish genealo- 
 gies, law and legends of patriarchal history (Tit. i:io-n ; 
 i:i4) ; it is disastrous (i:n) ; false teachers losing respect 
 for Titus (i:io; iii:io), as they had for Paul long 
 before in Corinth and elsewhere; Titus given all author- 
 ity (Tit. ii:i5); false teachers professing knowledge 
 of God, but denying him by their abominable lives. 
 There is no second-century gnosticism depicted here. 
 Church organisation is not too far advanced to disfavor 
 Pauline authorship. No mention of deacons, deaconesses 
 or widows in Titus, but only of elders and bishops (who 
 were the same (Tit. i:5, 7) as they probably were in I 
 Timothy). Organization is not so much dwelt on in this 
 epistle as in I Timothy (already written). But this is 
 natural. Paul had much reason to write at length on that 
 subject to Timothy at Ephesus where he himself had 
 labored three years and under circumstances which he 
 left there and the great need of the church at Ephesus 
 of authoritative leadership and the bearing which all this 
 had to the future of Christianity. The situation when writ- 
 ing to Titus was different. No occasion for so much to be 
 said on this subject in a letter to Titus as in Crete only 
 elders were to be " appointed in every city," the church 
 there being still in crude form, although the elder receives 
 the other title also i. e. bishop which is natural after 
 this term had already been used namely, in I Timothy 
 (previously written). Furthermore, Paul on a former 
 occasion had talked all this over with Titus when he was 
 in Crete (Tit. i:5) namely, just before he left for Lao 
 dicea where he wrote Timothy fully on that subject. 1 
 
 1 Paul thus writes at length on the subject of church organization to 
 Timothy at Ephesus (i Tim), briefly later to Titus (when less occasion"* 
 and says nothing about it at all in 2 Timothy last of all, there being no 
 occasion of writing Timothy again on that subject. 
 
26 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 Integrity of Titus. Nothing, according to our theory, 
 need be said on this subject. It is a unit as it stands. 
 There is no occasion of separating it into parts if Pauline. 
 This has only been done by those who think the epistle 
 un-Pauline. 
 
 WHAT OF SECOND TIMOTHY? 
 
 Place and time of composition. As has been already seen, 
 2 Timothy iv:9~2ia was written in Macedonia shortly 
 after Paul left Ephesus after the riot there, while the rest 
 of the epistle (except perhaps i 115-18) was written dur- 
 ing his only imprisonment at Rome (2 Tim. i:8, 16-17; 
 iv:2ib) and towards the very close of his life (2 Tim. 
 iv 15-7) . Genuineness. The whole epistle is genuine even 
 though it contain two letters. In fact, if the epistle was 
 an integral as we have it, its genuineness could scarcely 
 be maintained. The greatest obstacle to its genuineness 
 is its vocabulary, containing as it does forty-four aira 
 Aeyo/xeva (cf. Lock, in Hastings' dictionary) ; but these 
 may be accounted for in the same manner as in the 
 other two pastorals (i.e. presence of Luke and absence of 
 Timothy). False teachers. Two of these mentioned 
 namely, Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught that the 
 Resurrection is "already past" (2 Tim. ii:i7-i8). False 
 doctrine not much discussed in this epistle, but Paul 
 knows that imposters will wax worse and worse (2 Tim. 
 iii:i2) ; sound doctrine will not be heeded long (2 Tim. 
 iv:3) ; Timothy warned to preach the word and be urgent 
 in season and out of season (2 Tim. iv:2) ; to reprove, 
 rebuke, exhort, etc. (2 Tim. iv:2) and make use of the 
 Scripture he has learned (2 Tim. iii :i6). Church organi- 
 sation. Very little in 2 Timothy on this subject, the most 
 
INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 2? 
 
 striking statement being contained in 2 Timothy ii:2. 
 There is no reference to bishop or elder or deacon or any 
 church officer in the whole epistle and this notwithstand- 
 ing the fact that this is the last epistle Paul ever wrote. 
 But why should Paul mention this subject to Timothy 
 again? He had written fully on that subject to him in 
 i Timothy. No occasion to bring that subject up again. 
 Paul is writing now his last charge and farewell to Tim- 
 othy. His departure is at hand. Occasion. Paul had 
 heard that Timothy was discouraged in his work at Ephe- 
 sus and depressed (2 Tim. i :7-8) and writes to encourage 
 him as all Christians must suffer persecution (2 Tim. 
 Hi: 12); to give him advice about preaching (2 Tim. 
 iv:2) ; warns him against unbelievers who will arise (2 
 Tim. iv:3~4) and gives him a parting word (2 Tim. 
 iv:5-8). These are the last words (extant at least) Paul 
 ever wrote. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We hold first that Paul was never released from prison 
 at Rome. As to the Pastorals, we are convinced that they 
 are genuine Pauline writings and integrals as we have 
 them (except 2 Tim. iv:9-2ia); that i Tmothy was 
 written first and from Laodicea to Timothy at Ephesus 
 when the church there was passing through aj crisis more 
 severe than any church had ever hitherto experienced; 
 that Titus, written shortly after i Timothy, was written 
 somewhere near Nicopolis and sent out from there to 
 Crete (shortly before Paul went to Corinth for three 
 months on his last journey) ; and that, last of all, four 
 or five years later and after a trip to Jerusalem and to 
 Rome and while in prison there and after the " Christo- 
 
28 PACIFIC THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 logical" epistles had been written, 2 Timothy (except 
 iv 19-213, which was written in Macedonia (at Philippi) 
 shortly after Paul left Ephesus) was written by Paul at 
 Rome to Timothy at Ephesus. A careful exegesis of these 
 epistles with these facts in mind, bears out this theory in 
 every detail. 1 
 
 1 New order of Paul's Epistles: i Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians; Gala- 
 tians; i Corinthians; 2 Timothy 4: g-2ia; 2 Corinthians; i Timothy; Titus; 
 Romans; Ephesians; Colossians; Philemon; Philippians ; 2 Timothy (ex- 
 cept 2 Tim. ivj9-2ia). 
 

Gaylamount 
 i Pamphlet , 
 
 Binder k 
 
 Gaylord Bros.. Inc. *4 
 Stockton, Calif. ^ 
 T.M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. * 
 
 YD !0393 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY