Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

written when Paul was a prisoner, there were with Paul when he wrote Colossians, Timothy (1:1), Epaphras (1:7; 4:12), Aristarchus and Mark (4:10), Luke and Demas (4:14); and all these were with him when he wrote the letter to Philemon (vs. I, 23, 24). Onesimus moreover accompanied both letters (Col. 4:9; Philem. II, 12). Such a collocation of coincidences can only be explained on the supposition that the letters were sent together. That Ephesians was written also at this time appears from its similarity in contents to Colossians, and from the fact that Tychicus was the bearer of both letters, and in both is commended in almost identical words (Col. 4:7, 8; Eph. 6:21, 22). Whether, however, the imprisonment in the course of which these three letters were written is the same as that from which Philippians was written, and if so, whether Philippians preceded or followed the other three, are questions which cannot be decisively settled. The position assigned to the letters in the body of this work assumes that all the letters were written from Rome, and that Philippians preceded the other three. The strongest reason for this arrangement — and its inconclusiveness shows how impossible it is to maintain either view very positively — is that the epistle to the Philippians shows some resemblance in the lines of thought to the epistles written on the third missionary journey (see Phil. 3: 2-11), while Colossians and Ephesians seem to proceed from a situation the elements of which are in a large part new. The Pharisaic legalists who are so prominent in the letter to the Galatians and Romans no longer appear in the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, but instead we find the apostle opposing a new type of error which combines some elements of Judaistic legalism with others of a more speculative and philosophical character. It seems somewhat more probable that Philippians, which by its reference to the early Judaizing heresy, connects itself with the letters of the preceding group, should precede Colossians and Ephesians, which show the first traces of the later type of heresy, than that the reverse should be the case.

The references to the work already accomplished in Rome when Philippians was written (Phil. 1 : 12 ff.), and to the communication which had passed between Philippi and Rome, show that Philippians could not have been written till some months after Paul's arrival in the latter city. Thus it is implied in Phil. 2 : 25 ff. that Epaphroditus had come from Philippi to Rome, that news of his illness had been carried back to Philippi, and that Epaphroditus learned in Rome of the anxiety which his sickness had caused in Philippi, — all tnis apparently between Paul's arrival in Rome and the writing of this letter. Even in view of this, however, there is time within the two years in Rome for the group that includes Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians to be written after Philippians. Paul seems to be expecting to leave Rome soon when he writes to Philemon (vs. 22).

Philippians may then be assigned provisionally to the year 62, and Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians to 63.

Literature: MEYER, Commentary on Ephesians, Introduction, $2; and WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, $24, 2, assign Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians to the Cæsarean imprisonment; both assign Philippians to the Roman imprisonment. GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 275 ff., and GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 427 ff., assign all four to the Roman imprisonment, inclining to place Philippians last. LIGHTFOOT, Commentary on Philippians, Introduction, $2, defends at length the view that Philippians was written (at Rome) before the other three. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 115-129, takes the same view. Concerning the view of those who deny the genuineness of Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, in whole or in part, see HOLTZMANN, Kritik der Epheser und Kolosserbriefe; WEIZSÄCKER, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, p. 541 ff.; and the criticism of them by Weiss, Introduction to the New Testament, $24, 6, and $25, 4. 5; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 435-450, 478–490; JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 88-97; SANDAY, article on Colossians in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 2d English ed.

NOTE 13.

PAUL'S FOURTH MISSIONARY JOURNEY AND HIS SECOND ROMAN

IMPRISONMENT. $869–71. The pastoral epistles, First Timothy, Titus, and Second Timothy, refer to various missionary labors and journeys of the apostle Paul in Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Crete. For these journeys and labors it is impossible to find a probable place in that portion of the apostle's life which is covered by the book of Acts. In the case of First Timothy and Titus, which were written when the apostle was still at liberty, the only possible place within this period for the visits to Crete and Macedonia, to which they refer (1 Tim. 1: 3; Tit. 1:5), is the third missionary journey. The recorded journey from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 20: I; i Cor. 16:5-9; 2 Cor. 2: 12; 7: 5) is, however, excluded from account by the fact that Timothy was not on that occasion left in Ephesus (Acts 19 : 22; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16: 10; 2 Cor. 1:1), as 1 Tim. 1 : 3 requires. An unrecorded tour to Macedonia (I Tim. 1: 3), Corinth (cf. Note 8), and Crete (Tit. 1 : 5), which was intended also to include or to be followed by a winter at Nicopolis (Tit. 3: 12), has been assumed. But such a tour, or its alternative, a series of tours, can hardly be introduced into the three years in Ephesus consistently with our other information respecting that ministry, and in any case fails to provide the situations required by these letters. In each of its forms it encounters obstacles, more or less decisive against it.

Still more decisive is the evidence of Second Timothy. This letter was evidently written when the apostle was in prison and when death was immediately impending (4:6-8, 16–18), at the end therefore of the apostle's first Roman imprisonment, if this was the last, and more than four years since he was at liberty, the imprisonment at Cæsarea having lasted two years, the voyage to Rome some months, and the imprisonment at Rome not less than two years. But in this case such references to matters in the East, especially in addressing Timothy, who had been his companion in Rome (Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1, etc.), as occur in 2 Tim. 1:15-18; 4:20, are quite inconceivable. We are forced to conclude that when Second Timothy was written, Paul had recently been at liberty, and hence that the first Roman imprisonment was not his last.

Further evidence in the same direction is furnished by the style of the letters, which resemble one another closely, and differ in many respects from the other Pauline letters; and by the picture which they give of the state of the churches. It is well nigh impossible to suppose that these letters were written about contemporaneously with the Corinthian letters, and before Romans, Philippians, Colossians, or Ephesians. They seem distinctly to reflect a later period of the apostle's life, and a later stage in the history of apostolic Christianity. If, therefore, they are genuine letters of the apostle, they prove that he was released from his first Roman imprisonment, engaged in missionary labor for a time, and was again imprisoned. Second Timothy contains the last lines from his pen, written when he clearly saw death to be immediately impending. This view of the matter is confirmed by tradition, which, though in its early utterances it is vague and indefinite, and only in the fourth century becomes clear and definite, yet, so far as it goes, bears testimony to the release from the first imprisonment.

The data afforded by these letters do not enable us to construct an exact itinerary of the apostle's movements from the time of his release from imprisonment to his re-arrest and death. The following is perhaps as probable a construction as can be made on the basis of the fragmentary evidence.

1. It is possible that he went to Asia and Macedonia in accordance with his expressed intention (Phil. 2:24; Philem. 22).

2. He perhaps went to Spain. This had been at one time his intention (Rom. 15:24, 28), and Clement of Rome, who wrote near the end of the first century, speaks of him as having come to the extremity of the West. (Clem. Rom. I Cor. 5).

3. He returned to the East and visited Ephesus, where he left Timothy in charge (1 Tim. 1:3).

4. He went into Macedonia; thence, or soon after leaving there, he wrote to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3).

5. He went from Macedonia to Miletus, stopping at Troas on the way (2 Tim. 4:13). At Miletus he left Tropbimus (2 Tim. 4: 20).

6. From Miletus he went to Crete, where he left Titus (Tit. 1:5).

7. From Crete he went to Corinth, where he left Erastus (2 Tim. 4:20), and whence he probably wrote to Titus.

8. From Corinth he probably went to Nicopolis (Tit. 3: 12), and it was quite possibly here that he was arrested and sent to Rome.

9. In Rome he wrote Second Timothy, and here he was put to death.

Little confidence can be felt that this represents exactly the actual journeys of the apostle. It can only serve to show the regions in which they were made, their approximate extent, and a possible order of them.

Literature: WIESELER, Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 521– 551, defends the view that the pastoral epistles were written within the period covered by the Acts, and that Paul's first Roman imprisonment ended with his death. ALFORD, Greek Testament, Vol. III., Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles; CONYBEARE AND Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Appendix I.; FARRAR, St. Paul, Excursus XXVI., XXVII.; HUTHER, in Meyer's Com. mentary, 4th ed., Introduction; Weiss, Introduction to the New Testament, $27, and in Meyer's Kommentar, 6th ed., Vol. II, Einleitung; SALMON, Introduction to the New Testament, Lecture XX.; GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 369–391; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 558-611, accept the letters as genuine, and assign them to a missionary journey and Roman imprisonment subsequent to the period covered by the Acts. HOLTZMANN, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 3d ed., pp. 279-292; DAVIDSON, Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 2d ed., Vol. II., pp. 21-73; JÜLICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 115-124; SABATIER, The Apostle Paul, Book IV., chap. iv., deny the second Roman imprisonment and the genuineness of the letters, Jülicher holding, however, that the author probably made use of genuine brief letters of the apostle or fragments of letters. The arguments for and against their genuineness are also discussed, and a conclusion favorable to it reached by FINDLAY, Appendix to Eng. trans. of Sabatier, The Apostle Paul; and by F. E. WOODRUFF in the Andover Review, Sept., 1886. The theory of a second Roman imprisonment is defended independently of that of the genuineness of the pastoral epistles by SPITTA, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristenthums, Vol. I., pp. 1-108; reviewed by FINDLAY in the Critical Review, July, 1894, p. 276 ff.

NOTE 14.

THE LITERATURE OF THE PERIOD OF THE JEWISH WAR. $$72-76.

There is no portion of the New Testament literature which it is so difficult to locate with exactness and certainty as that which we have assigned to this period. The evidence is of varying strength in the different cases, but in no instance quite conclusive.

It is generally recognized that First Peter shows the influence of Romans and Ephesians. If this is the case, and if Ephesians belongs to the first Roman imprisonment, First Peter can scarcely have been written till after 62 A.D., and probably not till several years after. For if it was written in Babylon on the Euphrates (see 1 Pet. 5: 13), time must be allowed for the Ephesian letter to be carried so far east. And if Babylon is an allegorical name for Rome, we reach the same conclusion by another path; since in view of the silence of Paul's letters written from Rome, it is on the whole probable that Peter did not come to Rome till after Paul's death. On the other hand, it is commonly supposed, though upon the basis of an inconclusive tradition, that Peter died at Rome under Nero. If these probabilities were certainties, they would reduce the period in which the letter must have been written to somewhat narrow limits, placing it not earlier than about 65, and not later than 68. There remains open, however, the possibility, on the one side, that Ephesians may be earlier than 62, and, on the other, that Peter may have survived Nero.

The problem respecting Jude and Second Peter is complicated by their manifest resemblance to one another, implying that one is dependent on the other, and by the uncertainty which has always been felt concerning the genuineness of Second Peter. If Second Peter is genuine, it must of course fall between First Peter and the death of the apostle, or, according to the view of the date of First Peter suggested above, and the common view of the date of Peter's death, not earlier than about 65 or 66 and not later than 68. If, as seems probable, Second Peter is dependent on Jude rather than the reverse, Jude must precede Second Peter, yet by no long time, since both seem addressed to nearly the same situation. But it is evident that probability and conjecture enter so largely into this argument that we have at most no more than a working hypothesis, to be verified or corrected by decisive evidence, if such is at any time discovered. If Second Peter is not genuine, or if Jude is dependent on Second Peter, or if Peter survived Nero by some years, considerable change might be made in the dates assigned above. It is quite possible that all of these letters were written after the fall of Jerusalem rather than before.

Literature : WEISS, Introduction to the New Testament, $$38, 40, 41, accepts First Peter and Jude as genuine, and places First Peter in 50 A.D. The genuineness of Second Peter he regards as an open question. HUTHER, in Meyer's Commentary, Introductions to the several epistles, accepts First Peter (assigning it to the year 66 or 67) and Jude, but doubts Second Peter. FARRAR, Early Days of Christianity, Book II., chaps. vii., ix., xi., dates First Peter in 67. WEIZSÄCKER, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, 2d ed., p. 475, rejects all three, assigning First Peter to the reign of Trajan; see also HOLTZMANN, Einleitung, pp. 320, 325, 329. JULICHER, Einleitung, p. 135, places it about 100 A.D. GLOAG, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, treats the questions connected with these epistles very fully. He regards all as genuine. RAMSAY, Church in the Roman Empire, chap. xiii., rejecting the common view that Peter died under Nero, regards First Peter as a genuine writing of the apostle, written about 75-80 A.D.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »