5. Romans. — Since Ro 15 must be regarded as an original part of the whole Epistle (cf. Motlatt, LNT, p. 143), the allusion in v.^ to St. Paul's in- tended journey to Jerusalem fixes the point of departure for the date of the Epistle. The state- ment in v.'8 that the Apostle had 'fulfilled' the
gospel ' from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' has led some to place the writing of Romans in Illyricum ; but the greater probability lies with the view which identifies the place with Corinth, and fixes the date as the eve of St. Paul's departure thence for 'Syria' (Ac 20^). This was in the spring of 58 (during the Apostle's three months' sojourn at Corinth). See art. Romans, Epistle to the.
6. The Imprisonment Epistles. — Under this title are usually included Epliesians, Colossians, Philip- pians, and Philemon. Ephesians is by many made an exception to this class. The period of St. Paul's imprisonment, however, is divided into two parts by his removal from Ctesarea to Rome. Assuming the Pauline authority of Ephesians, it has been, with Colossians and Philemon, located in the Ceesarean period of his imprisonment (56-60 ; so Meyer, Weiss, Sabatier [The Apostle Paul, 1891, pp. 225-249]). Others have included even Philip- pians in this list. But it is difficult to think of Philippians and Philemon as composed elsewhere than in Rome and during the Roman part of the imprisonment (cf. the reasons in a summary by Bleek, Einleitung in das NT*, 1885, § 161). It is possible, though not probable, however, that Col., which was written earlier than Eph., may have fallen within the latter portion of the Csesarean imprisonment. In such a case the order and dates of these writings would be: (1) Colossians in 59 (C*sarea) ; (2) Ephesians in 60 (Rome); (3) Phile- mon in 60 (Rome) ; (4) Philippians in 61 (Rome). See artt. on the various Epistles named.
7. The Pastoral Epistles. — The present condition of opinion on the problem of the I'astoral Epistles presents three distinct views as to their dates : (1) that they were composed by the Apostle after liis release from the Roman imprisonment (62), towards the end of his fourth missionary journey (66 or 67) ; (2) that they represent a much more advanced stage of development in Christian thought and organization, and therefore fall between the date of St. Paul's death and the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 67-117), with the greater probability for 90-100 (cf. Motlatt, LNT, pp. 395-420) ; (3) that they represent short letters by St. Paul produced in his last year and expanded by interpolation. The merits of these views it is not possible to discuss in the com- pass of this article (cf. J. V. Bartlet, Acts [The Century Bible, 1901], Mofiatt, loc. rr/^., and the artt. on Timothy, Ep. to, and Titus, Ep. to).
8. Acts. — AU the discussion of the problem created by the abrupt close of the Book of Acts seems to lead to but one clear conclusion, viz. that the author knew nothing more to tell about St. Paul and the fortunes of the gospel, and that the date of the composition of the book coincides with the end of the second year of the Apostle's im- prisonment at Rome (62). This in general is the simple process of reasoning that ruled opinion in ancient times from the days of Eusebius onwards (HE II. xxii. 6). In modern times its advocates have been some of the ablest critics (Alford, Godet, Salmon, Rendall, Bisping, Rackham, Blass, and Harnack). On the other side, it is argued that, as Acts is a sequel to the Third Gospel [rbv nh irpCoTov X6yov), which, it is assumed, was written after A.D. 70, the earliest date possible for Acts must be some years posterior to this dat<3. The more precise determination of the period, however, becomes a question of extremely debatable con- siderations. Accordingly, a wide variety of dates of composition is proposed, as by Zahn, Headlam, Bartlet (72-74) ; by Bleek, Adeney, Gilbert (80) ; by Jiilicher, Burkitt, "Wrede (c. 100) ; by the Tiibingen critics ( 1 10-120), or even later. Harnack, however, has shown reasons why the posteriority of St. Luke to the year 70 cannot stand {The Date
282
DATES
DATES
of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels), and the tradi- tional dating at A.D. 62 may be said to have re- ceived a rehabilitation at his hands. See art. Acts of the Apostles.
9. The Synoptic Gospels.— That the Synoptic Gospels were composed npoa the basis of pre-exist- ing collections of 'Sayings of Jesus,' through a process of development, may be assumed as one of the fairly well-established results of modern critical study. How long this process continued is of secondary importance. The order in which the Gospels evidently appeared is — Mark, Luke, Matthew. The earliest notices of the time of the composition of Mark are not pei'fectly harmonious. Ireuitus (Hcer. iii. 1) testihes that Mark, 'the disciple and interpreter of Peter,' published ' the things preached by Peter' after the departure {i^o5op) of Paul and Peter ; but Clement of Alex- andria, a contemporary, represents the Gospel of Mark as written in the lifetime of Peter, and adds that the Apostle ' neither forbade nor encouraged ' the work. This discrepancy is not of course a con- tradiction. The ' departure,' to which Irenseus makes the writing of Mark posterior, may be a mere departure from Rome (though this is not likely) ; or it may be that the statement of Clement merely means that Peter knew of Mark's purpose to write, though that purpose was not actually carried out till after his death. The best view, however, of the discord is that neither of the re- presentations is primarily based on chronological interest, and therefore neither can be used as a precise datum in a chronological computation. So tar as the passage in Irenieus is concerned. Chap- man has shown this to be true (JThSt, vi. [1905] p. 563 ff.), and Harnack contends that it is also true of the passage in Clement. Such an estimate of these ' testimonies ' of the ancients leaves the time of the origin of the Gospels indefinite, but is in itself just. Upon the Avhole, therefore, it seems not improbable that Mark and Luke at least were composed before Acts and in the years of St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome or even earlier. The case is slightly different with Matthew, where signs of a later time are more clearly visible (27^ 28^* : ?ws Tijs crrifj.€pov, 'until to-day,' implying a considerable interval from the days of Jesus) ; a date as late as 70 or even later is quite admissible. See art. Gos- pels and artt. on separate Gospels in DCG.