hardly have been passed over in silence either by Luke in the Acts, or by Paul himself in writing to the Co- rinthians. Indeed, the theory of unrecorded travels of this kind is altogether gratuitous. There is no period after the formal appointment of Paul as a missionary during whicli it was possible, so fully have we the itin- erary of the apostle; imless, indeed, it be the long resi- dence in E|(hesus, that favorite resort of theorists as to imaginary journeys ; and so entirely was Paid occupied with local labors there that it is wholly excluded even at that time.
2. This journey has been identifed vith the journey after the tumult at Ephesus (Acts xx, 1). Against this conjecture is the palpable fact that Timothy, instead of reiTiaining at Ephesus when the apostle left, had gone on into Macedonia before him (xix, 22). The hypoth- esis of a possible return is traversed by the fact that he was with Paul in Macedonia at the time when 2 Cor. was written and sent off. To obviate this objection, it has been suggested that Paul might have written this epistle immediately after leaving Ephesus, and the sec- ond to the Corinthians not before the concluding period of his stay in Macedonia; so that Timothy might have visited him in the interval. This appears to remove the difficulty, but it does so by suggesting a new one; for how, on this supposition, are we to account for the apostle's delaying so long to write to the Corinthians after the arrival of Titus, by whose intelligence, con- cerning the state of the Corinthian Church, Paul was led to address them? It may be asked, also, if it be likely that Timothy, after receiving such a charge as Paul gives him in this epistle, would so soon have left Ephesus and followed the apostle.
An attempt has been made by Otto (Die rjeschichtl. Verhiilt. p. 23 sq.) to avoid the difficidty in 1 Tim. i by translating it thus, "As I in Ephesus exhorted thee to stand fast, so do thou, as thou goest to Macedonia, enjoin on some not to adhere to strange doctrines,'" etc. The passage is thus made to refer to Timothy's going to Macedonia, not to the apostle's, and the occasion of his going is referred to the journey mentioned (Acts xix, 21, 22), with which the visit to Corinth mentioned (1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi, 10), is made to synchronize. The date of 1 Tim. is thus placed before that of 1 Cor. All this, however, rests on a rendering of 1 Tim. i. 3 which, in sjiite of much learned disquisition, its author has failed to vindicate.
3. The journey in question has been placed in the in- terval between Paul's first and second imprisomnents at Rome. In favor of this conjecture as compared with the preceding is the internal evidence of the contents of the epistle. The errors against winch Timothy is warned are present, dangerous, portentous. At the time of Paul's visit to Miletus in Acts xx, i. e., according to those hypotheses, subsequent to the epistle, they are still only looming in the distance (ver. 30). All the circumstances referred to, moreover, imply the prolonged absence of the apostle. Disci|iline had become lax, heresies rife, the economy of the Church disordered. It was necessary to check the chief offenders by the sharp .sentence of excommunication (1 Tim. i, 20). Other churches called for his counsel and directions, or a sharp necessity took him away, and he hastens on, leaving behind him, with fidl delegated authority, the disciple in whom he most contided. The language of the epistle also has a liearing on the date. According to the two preceding hypotheses, it belongs to the same periods as 1 and 2 Cor. and the Epistle to the Romans, or, at the latest, to the same group as Philippians and Ephesians; and in this case the differences of style and language are somewhat difficult to explain. Assume a later date, and then there is room for the changes in thought and expression which, in a character like Paul's, were to be expected as the years went by.
The objections to the position thus assigned are the following : (1.) The second imprisonment itself is not a matter of history. We have elsewhere, however,
TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO 422 TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO
adtlticed the evulence as being entirely satisfactory. See Paul. ("2.) As the evidence that the apostle took sucli a journey between his tirst and second im|irison- ineiit is purely hypothetical and inferential, it must be admitted that tlie hypothesis built upon it as to the date of tliis epistle rests at the best on somewhat pre- carious jirounds. On the other hand, we know that the apostle did purpose extended tours on his contemi)lated release from the first imprisonment (Kom. xv, 23, "24), and that these embraced Asia Minor (I'hilem. 2"2), as well as Crete (Tit. i, 5). (3.) This hypothesis is directly o]i|iosed to the solemn declaration of Paul to the elders of the C'liurcli at Ephesus when he met them at !Mile- tum, '• I know that ye all shall see m\' face no more" (Acts XX, 25), for it assumes that he did see them again and preached to them. But Paul was not infallible in his anticipations, and we have positive evidence that he did revisit Ephesus (2 Tim. iv, 12 ; comp. 13, 20). (4.) It is opposed by what Paul says (ver. 12), from which we leani that at the time this epistle was written Tim- othy was in danger of being <lespised as a youth; but this could hardly be said of him after Paid's tirst im- prisonment, when he must, on the lowest computation, have been thirty years of age. In reply to this, it is sufficient to say that this was young enough for one who was to exercise authority over a whole body of bishop-presbyters, many of them older than himself (v, 1). (5.) This hypothesis seems to assume the possibil- ity of churches remaining in and around I^phesus in a state of defective arrangement and order for a greater length of time than we can believe to have been the case. But arguments of this kind are highly insecure, and cannot weigh against historical statements and in- ferences. On the whole, therefore, we decidedlj' incline to this position for the journey in question.