Shall we, then, assign the epistle to a later period of that same imprisonment '? Against this also lie difficul- ties. Before we can admit it, we must suppose that Timothy and ]\Iark, who did not accompany Paul to Rome, had shortly after followed him thither, and, after remaining awhile, left Paul, and were again requested by him in this epistle to return; that during the inter- val of their absence from Rome, Paul's first trial had oc- curred ; and that, yet even before he had so much as appeared before his judges, he had written to his friends in terms intimating his full confidence of a speedy re- lease (Phil, i, 25; ii, 24; Philem. 22). These circum- stances may perhaps admit of explanation ; but there are others which seem to present insuperable difficul- ties in the way of the supposition that this epistle was written at any period of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. (1.) Paul's itnprisonment, of which we have an account in the Acts, was of a much milder kinti than that in which he was at the time he wrote this epistle. In the former case, he was permitted to lodge in his own hired house, and to receive all who came to him, being guarded only by a single soldier; in the latter, he was in such close confinement that Onesiphorus had no small difficulty in finding him; he was chained, he suffered evil even unto bonds as a malefactor, his friends had mostly deserted him. and he had narrowly escaped de- strurtion from the Roman tyrant (i, 16-18; ii, 9; iv, 6, 7, 8, 18). (2.) In iv, 13 he requests Timothy to bring with him from Troas some books, parchments, etc. which he had left at that place. If we suppose the vi.sit here referred to the same as that mentioned in Acts XX, 5-7, we must conclude that these documents had been allowed by the apostle to lie at Troas for a space of at least years, as that length of time elapsed between the visit to Troas, mentioned by Luke, and Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. This is surely very unlikely, as the documents were plainly of value to the apostle ; and if by (pai\6vi]c, in this passage, he meant a cloak or mantle, the leaving of it for so long a time iniused when it might have been of service, and the sending so anxiously for it when it could be of little or none, as the apostle's time of departure was at hand, must be al- lowed to be not a little improbable. (3.) In iv, 20 Paul speaks of having left Trophimus sick at Miletus. Now this could not have been on the occasion referred to in Acts XX, 15, for subsequent to that Trophimus was with
TIMOTHY, SECOND EPISTLE TO 424
TIN
Paul at Jerusalem (Acts xxi, 29). It follows that Taul must have visited Jliletus at a siiliseiiiient ])eriod ; l)ul he iliil not visit it on his way from Jerusalem to Home on the occasion of his tirst imprisoinuent, and this, therefore, strouf^ly favors the hypothesis of a journey subsetjuent lo that event, and immediately antecedent to the writ- iiiij of this epistle. The attempt to enfeeble the force of this by translating an-kXimn', " t/ie;/ left," etc., and nnderstandinj,' it of messengers from Ki)hesns coming to visit Paid, is ingenious, but can lianlly be admitted, as no sound interpreter would forcibly siijiply a subject to a verb where the context itself naturally supplies one. (4.) In iv, iO, the apostle says " Jirastus abode in Cor- inth." Such language implies that shortly before writ- ing this epistle the ajiostle had been at Corinth, where lie left Erastus. Hut before his tirst imprisonment Paul had not l)Oen at Corinth for several years, and during tlie interval Timothy had been with him, so that he did not need to write to him at a later period about that visit (Acts XX, 4). Hug contends that f/ieive simply expresses the fact that Erastus was then residing at Corinth, without necessarily implying that Paul had left him there; but would the apostle in this case have used the aorist?
3. It thus appears that the number of special names and incidents iu the second epistle make the chronologi- cal data more numerous. We propose here, by way of summary, and in part recapitulation, to bring t;hem, as far as possible, together, noticing briefly with what oth- er facts each connects itself, and to what conclusion it leads as to the conflicting theories of an earlier and later date, (A) during the imprisonment of Acts xxviii, 30, and (15) iluriug the second imprisonment already spoken of,
(1.) A parting apparently recent, under ciicnmstances of special sorrow (i, 4) — not decisive. The scene nt Mi- letus (Acts XX, 3T) suggests itself, if we assume A. The partiu;; referred to iu 1 Tim. i, .S niiirht meet B.
('2.) A t'enerid desertion of the apostle even by the dis- ciples of Asia (i, 1.5). Nothing in the Acts indicates any- thing like this before the iinpiisoument of Acts xxviii, 30. Eveiytliiii^r iu Acts xix aud xx, and not less the language of the Episile lo the Ei)hesians, spe.iks of general and stronsr aflec'liou. This, therefore, so far as it goes, must be placed on the side of B.