(3) At Ephesus. It was whilst staying on this occasion at Ephesus that Hug supposes Paul to have written this epistle. As confirmatory of this may be adduced the two other facts referred to as mentioned in the Epistle itself, viz., the visit of Apollos to Crete, and Paul's intention to winter at Nicopolis. From Acts xix:i we learn that dur ing the time Apollos was residing at Corinth, whence he had gone from Ephesus, Paul was en gaged in a tour through the upper coasts (viz., Phrygia and Galatia; comp. Acts xviii:23), which ended in his return to Ephesus. This tour was commenced after the apostle had been at Jerusa lem and Antioch (ch. xviii :22). It appears, there fore, that Paul left Antioch much about the same time that Apollos reached Corinth. But Apollos went to Corinth from Ephesus, Paul went to Je rusalem from Ephesus. At this city, therefore, they must have met; and before leaving it Paul probably wrote this epistle, and gave it to Apol los to deliver to Titus at Crete, on his way to Corinth.
Further, Paul went up to Jerusalem to keep the feast; after which he visited Antioch, and then traveled for some considerable time in up per Asia. He, therefore, probably spent the win ter somewhere in Asia Minor. was a town named Nicopolis, between Antioch and Tar sus, near to which, if not through which, Paul must pass on his way from Antioch to Galatia (Strabo, lib. xiv, p. 465, ed. Casatibon, fol. 1587). May not this have been the very place referred to in Titus Hi:12? In such a locality it was quite natural for Paul to desire to spend the winter; and as Titus was a native of Asia it would be well known to him, especially if he knew what route the apostle designed to pursue. All this supports the hypothesis that Paul wrote this epistle before leaving Ephesus to go to Syria.
Another circumstance in favor of this hypothe sis is the close resemblance in sentiment and phraseology between this epistle and the first epis tle to Timothy. This resemblance is so close, and in some particulars so peculiar, that we are nat orally led to conclude that both must have been written whilst the same leading ideas and forms of expression were occupying the Apostle's mind. Now the first Epistle to Timothy was most prob ably written after Paul had left Ephesus the sec ond lime to go into Macedonia (see TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO), that is, about two years and a half after the period when Hug supposes the Epistle to Titus to have been written. To some this may appear too long a time to justify any stress being laid upon the similarity of the two epistles in this question of their respective dates; but when it is remembered that duringthe interval Paul had been dealing at Ephesus with very much the same class of persons, to whom a great part of both epistles refer, and that both are addressed to persons holding the same peculiar office, the force of this objection will be weakened.
Such is Hug's hypothesis. To us it appears to be worthy of all respect. The only one which can compete with it is that which Benson, Paley, Pear son, and several other British scholars have adopted, viz., that this epistle was written after Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, and while he was residing probably at Nicopolis in Macedonia. As this hypothesis, however, is formed solely out of the rtistle itself, it can be legitimately resorted to only when no other, supported by external au thority, can be found. If Hug's hypothesis be not untenable, it must on this account claim the pref erence. W. L. A.