question hae already been partially answered in the preceding eeotion, but it is import.ant enough to demand a separate consideration. Hug, in hie 'Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament' (vol. ii. sects. xo., oiii., cxxii., cxxiii.), assigns the Epistle to Titus to St. Paul's second missionary journey. He supposes that, when he left Corinth (Acts xviii. 18) to go to Ephesus, he, either voluntarily or by stress of weather, went round by Crete, and that he left Titus there; that he then pur- sued his journey to Ephesus, wrote the Epistle to Titus, recommended Apollos to him, who he knew was going on from Corinth (Acts xxiii. 27) ; then proceeded to Caiearea., Jerusalem, and Antioch; and from thence, passing through Ga.la.tie. and Ph.rygia, so returned to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 22, 23; xix. 1), having wintered by the way at Nicopolis in Cilicia., a city lying between Antioch and Tarsus, near to Jesus. But the objections to this scheme are insuperable. The narrative of his passage from Cenchrea to Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla. is quite incompatible with a sojourn at Crete by the way. So important an incident could not have been omitted. There is every appearance, moreover, of haste in the apostle's movements from Corinth, in order to enable him to reach Jerusalem by the feast (probably of Pentecost) in connection with the fulfilment of his vow (Acts xviii. 18, 21), which makes the notion of a. sojourn in Crete as unseasonable as possible. Then Nicopolis in Cilicia is the most unlikely place imaginable for him to winter in. It wa.s a.n obscure city, not connected with any missionary work of St. Paul's that we know of, and it is obvious to suppose that he would rather have wintered at Antioch, or, if so near his own home, at Tarsus. Nor is it possible to account for the omission of the mention of Nicopolis in the account given by St. Luke, in Acts xviii. 22, 23, of how Paul spent his time, if he passed some three months of the winter there. By Rug's own admission there is no other time in the compass of St. Luke's narrative when St. Paul could possibly have gone to Crete. He assigns 1 Timothy to St. Paul's third missionary journey-to the time, viz., when St. Paul left Ephesus, after the tumult, to go to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1). But it is surely absolutely fatal to this theory that we read, in Acts xix. 22, just before the tumult, that he "sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus (to precede him); but he himself stayed in A~ia for a. season." Nor id it less in flat contradiction to St. Paul's declared purpose (Acts xi.x. 21; xx. 3) of going from Macedonia and Ac!iaia to Jerusalem, that he tells 'l'imothy, in 1 'rim. iii. 14, 15, that it is his intention to return very shortly to Ephesus. We know, in fact, that, though he was obliged by the violence of the Jews ( Acts xx. 3) to return by way of Macedonia, yet he would not even so much as go to Ephesus for a day, but sent for the elders to meet him at Miletus (Acts xx. 16, 17). We know also that Timothy, whom he had sent before him to Macedonia, returned with him from Macedonia into Asia (Aots u. -4:), and was with him when ho wrote 2 Car. i. 1. So that d lNTRODUC1'ION Tu
every detail is direotly opposed t,o the idea. that the journey into Maoedonia of 1 Tim. i 3 is the same as the journey of Acts xix. 21 and xx. 1, and, oon- sequently, that 1 Timothy was writt.en at this time. Hug a.ssigns 2 Timothy t,o the time of St. Paul's first imptlsonment at Rome, and place-s it after the Epistle t.o the Ephesians and before those t,o the Colossians and Philemon. There are, no doubt, some coincidences which, taken alone, encourage such a conclusion. For example, Timothy W&8 not with St. Paul when he wrote to the Ephesians (i. 1), but in that same Epistle (vi. 21) he tells the Ephesians that he has sent Tychicus to them, and we find that Timothy was with St. Paul when he wrote Col. i 1. But in 2 Timothy we find St. Paul writing to Timothy and bidding him come to him quickly, and telling him that he had sent Tyobicus to Ephesus. Again, in Col. iv. 10-14 we find the following persons with St. Paul: Mark, Luke, Demas, besides Timothy (i. 2), and Tyohicus, who had just left him. But in 2 Tim. iv. we find Luke with him, Demas had just fors&ken him, Tychicus had just been sent away by him, and Timothy and Mark were immediately expected. But the force of these coincidences is very much weakened by the following considerations.· St. Paul's staff of missioDJ1.ry companions and associates consisted of about twenty-two persons, of whom mention is made either during his imprisonment at Rorue or shortly before. They are the following : Apollos, Aquila, Aristarchus, Demaa, Epaphras or Epapbroditus, Erastu,s, Gaius, Justus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, Onesimus, Pri.Bci,lla, Secundus, Silas, Sopater, Sosthenes, Sylvanus, Timothy, Titus, Tro-phimUB, TychiCUB. Of these, eleven (thos~ in italics) appear in the pastoral Epistles as still at work with St. Paul. The other eleven are not mentioned in the pastoral Epistles. But nine new names appear: Artemas, Carpus, Claudia, Crescens, Eubulus, Linus, Onesiphorus, Pudens, and Zenas. This is very much the proportion of change in tp.e per,onnel which three or four years might be expected to produce. Age.in, if we look c]o,;ely into the supposed coincidences in the situation exposed by Col. iv. and 2 Tim. iv., some of them are transformed into contradictions. Thus 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11 represents Demas as having for- sak.en St. Paul and gone to Thessalonica, whereas Col. iv. 14 (written, aooording to Hug, after 2 Timothy) represents him as still with St. Paul. Again, 2 Tim. iv. 11 represents Mark as probably coming from the neighbourhood of Ephesus to St. Paul at Rome to minister to him; but Col iv. 10 represents him a.s likely soon to go from Rome to Colossm, and apparently as a. stranger. Once more, the notice of Erastus and of Trophi- mus, in 2 Tim. iv. 20, naturally implies that Erastus had been in Corinth with Paul, but remained there when Paul came away, and, in like, ma.oner, that he and Trophim.us had both been at Miletus together, which, of course, is fatal to Hug's theory. His expedient of translating &.1rl.\,1rov, "they left," ill very unna.tnra.l and forced, and his rendering of lµ.nv£v doeH not suit the aorist, wlrioa rather gives the sense·" When I came a~ay, he stopped at Oarill.th." THE PASTORAL El'lSTLES. xiii