It is altogether unneccessary for any one now to restate the arguments which prove that the references to persons and places in the Pastorals cannot be accommodated to the history of St. Paul and of his companions as given in the Acts. The ‘historical contra- dictions’ are marshalled with crushing force by Lightfoot in his Biblical Essays, p. 403 sqq. Critics of the anti-traditional school who accept, as genuine Pauline fragments, those sections of the Pastorals in which the personal and local references occur are obliged to allocate these references to different parts of the Acts ; and, even so, the explanations given are forced and unconvincing. It must then be clearly understood that our claim of the Pastorals for St. Paul is based on the assumption that his ministry was pro- longed for at least two years beyond the date of the close of the Acts. If St. Paul was martyred immediately, or very soon, after the expiration of the two years’ confinement mentioned in Acts xxviil. 30, then he did not write the Pastoral Epistles or any portion of them. This is a vital point ; and demands at least a brief discussion of the main arguments in favour of the traditional opinion. Sup- posing that the Pastorals were not in our hands, and the question were asked, Was the two years’ confinement in Rome mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, followed by St. Paul’s execution, or by his re- lease ?—the answer must be that all the positive evidence available is in favour of the latter alternative. There are three lines of argu- ment: (1) the way in which the Acts ends; (2) the evidence of the epistles written during, or towards the end, of those two years ; (3) ex- ternal testimony.
(1) It ought to be unnecessary to observe that the author of the Acts knew what happened at the end of those two years. We can only guess why he stopped where he did; yet some guesses have more probability than others. There were limits to the size of books in those days. On the supposition that St. Luke knew of a sub- sequent ministry of his master’s, the close of the Roman captivity would be a suitable point at which to bring vol. i. of the Acts toa conclusion, whether regard be had to considerations of space, or of literary fitness; the arrival at Rome being the fulfilment of the apostle’s intention announced in Acts xix. 21. On the other hand, if St. Luke knew that St. Paul’s two years’ confinement had been followed at once by his execution, the historian’s omission to mention