(Comp. the Introductions of Michaelis, Eichhorn, Hug, De Wette, Bertholdt, Guericke, Schott, Davidson, Sleek, Reuss, etc. ; Schleiermacher, Ueb. den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos, Berlin 18°7, 12mo ; Planck, Be merkungen fiber d. ersten Pa2din. Britt an d. Tim. Gott. t8oS, 8vo ; Beckhaus, De vocabulis Xeyo ,uevois in ad nil. Ep. Pazdina obviis, azithentia tjus detrahentibus, Ling.:e 181o, Svo ; Curtius, De tempore quo prior Pauli ad Tim. Epist. exarata sit, Berol. 1S2S, Svo, etc. ; Otto, Die Geschichtl. verhaltnisse der Past. Brkfe, Leipz. 1860).
Assuming that these epistles were written by St. Paul, the question next to be considered respects the time when each of them was composed.
With regard to the first, it is clear that it was written not long after Paul had left Ephesus for Macedonia (ch. i. 3). Now from Acts xx. we learn that Paul left Ephesus after the uproar caused by Demetrius, and went into Macedonia. Shall we suppose, then, that it was at this time this epistle was written ? Many excellent critics reply in the affirmative ; and upon the whole we think this opinion the one to be preferred. It is not, however, without difficulties ; the chief of which lies in the fact that Timothy, to whom this epistle is addressed, appears to have been with Paul in Macedonia at this time (comp. 2 Cor. 1). To obviate this objection, it has been suggested that Paul might have written this epistle immediately after leaving Ephesus, and the second to the Cor inthians not before the concluding period of his stay in Macedonia ; so that Timothy might have visited him in the interval. This appears to re move 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 concerning the state of the Cor inthian church Paul was led to address them ? [SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.] 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 fol lowed the apostle. Pressed by these difficulties, many critics of note have resorted to the hypothesis that this epistle must have been written at a later period, subsequent to the apostle's first imprison ment at Rome, and upon a journey undertaken by him during the interval between that and his final imprisontnent. But this hypothesis seems to assume the possibility of churches remaining in and around Ephesus in a state of defective arrangement and order for a greater length of time than we can believe to have been the case. It is opposed also by what Paul says, ch. iv. 12, from which we learn that at' the time this epistle was written Timothy was in danger of being despised as a youth ; but this could hardly be said of him after St. Paul's first imprison ment, when he must on the lowest computation have been upwards of thirty years of age. To weaken this objection it has been said that even at that age Timothy was young enough to exercise authority over bishops who might be older than himself. But it is not in this connection that the allusion occurs, but in connection with work to be done in driving heresies out of the community of the faithful. And, finally, this hypothesis is directly opposed to the solemn declaration of Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus when he met them at Miletus : I know that ye all shall see my face no more ' (Acts xx. 25), for it assumes that he did sce them again and preached to them. These difficulties in the way of the hypo thesis of a later date for this epistle seem to us weightier than those which attach to the other supposition. An attempt has been made by C. W. Otto (Die Gesch. Verheilt. p. 23, ff.) to avoid the difficulty in this passage 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 pas sage 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. 2I, 22, with which the visit to Corinth mentioned Cor. iv. 17, xvi. to, is made to syn chronise. The date of I Tim. is thus placed before that of Cor. All this, however, rests on a ren dering of r Tim. i. 3 which, in spite of much learned disquisition, the writer has failed to vindicate.
With regard to the second epistle, it is certain that it was written at Rome, and whilst the apostle was a prisoner there (i. 8, 16 ; 9 ; 17 ; iv. 21) ; but the question arises, was it during his first or his second imprisonment that this took place 7 In favour of the first, tha most weighty consi deration arises out of the fact that the apostle appears to have had the same individuals as his companions when he wrote this epistle, as he had when he wrote the epistles to the Ephesians, Phi lippians, and Colossians, and that to Philemon, WhiCh We know were written during his first im prisonment at Rome. At the beginning of the imprisonment,' says Hug, who has very forcibly stated this argument in favour of the earlier hypo thesis, when the Epistle to the ,Ephesians was written, Timothy, who was not one of Paul's com panions on the voyage to Italy (Acts xxvii. 2), was not with him at Rome ; for Paul does not add his name in the address with which the epistle com mences, as he always did when Timothy was at his side. Timothy afterwards arrived ; and ac cordingly, at the outset of the epistles to the Col ossians and Philemon, his name appears with the apostle's (Col. i. ; Phil. r) ; secondly-, Luke was in Paul's company (Col. iv. ro ; Phil. 24) ; thirdly, Mark was likewise with him (Col. iv. io ; Phil. 24) ; fourthly, Tychicus was then Paul% 8/4/covos and letter-bearer, and, in particular, was sent to Asia (Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv. 7, 8). All these cir cumstances are presented to view in the second epistle to Timothy. Timothy was not with Paul at first, but was summoned to his side (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21) ; secondly, Luke was with him (iv. ; thirdly, he wishes Mark to come with Timothy, so that he must have been with him in the course of his imprisonment (iv. 1) ; fourthly, Tychicus was with him in the capacity of letter-bearer, and, in particular, was sent to Asia (iv. 12). Now, in order to suppose that Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy diming the second imprisonment at Rome, we must assume that the circumstances of both were exactly the same, etc. We must also assume that Paul at both times, even in the latter part of Nero's reign, was permitted to receive friends during his confinement, to write letters, despatch messengers, and, in general, to have free inter course with everybody ' (Introduction, p. 556, etc., Fosdick's transl.) The case, as here stated, it must be admitted, is strongly in favour of our assigning the composition of this epistle to the time of St. Paul's first imprison ment at Rome. On the other hand, the difficulties lying in the way of this seem insuperable. Hug's reasoning assumes that the epistle must have been written in the early part of the apostle's imprison ment, else Timothy could not have been absent at the time of its composition. But that this is utterly inadmissible the following considerations show When St Paul wrote to the Colossians, the Philippians, and Philemon, Demas was with him ; when he wrote this epistle to Timothy, Demas had forsaken him, having loved this present world and gone to Thessalonica (iv. to). 2. When. St. Paul
wrote to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, he was in good hopes of a speedy liberation from his imprisonment ; when he wrote this epistle to Timothy he had lost all these hopes, and was anticipating death as near at hand (iv. 6-8). 3. At the time this epistle was written St. Paul had been, if not oftener, at least once before the bar of the emperor, vvhen he had offered his apology (iv. 16). 4, Tychicus, the bearer of the letters to the Colossians, had been despatched from Rome before this epistle to Timothy was written (iv. 12). 5. At the time the epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were written, Aristarchus was with St. Paul ; by the time this was written Aristarchus had left him (iv. 1). All these circumstances forbid our suppos ing that this Second Epistle to Timothy was written before the epistles above named, that is, in the early part of St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. Shall we then assign the epistle to a later penod of that same imprisonment ? Against this also lie diffi culties. Before we can admit it WC must suppose that Timothy and Mark, who did not accompany St. Paul to Rome, had shortly after followed him thither, and, after remaining awhile, left the apostle, and were again requested by him in this epistle to return ; that during the interval of their absence from Rome, St. Paul's first trial had occurred ; 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 release (Phil. i. 25 ; 24 ; Philem. 22). These circum stances may perhaps admit of explanation ; but there are others which seem to present insuperable difficulties in the way of the supposition that this epistle was written at any period of Paul's first im prisonment at Rome. 1. St. Paul's imprisonment of vvhich we have an account in the Acts, was of a much milder kind 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 nar rowly escaped destruction from the Roman tymnt (i. 16-18 ; 9 ; iv. 6, 7, 8, r8). 2. In ch. 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 visit 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 seven or eight years, as ,that length of time elapsed between the visit to Troas, mentioned by Luke, and St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. This is surely very unlikely, as the documents were plainly of value to the apostle ; and if by IpatX6ros, in this passage, he meant a cloak or mantle, the leaving of it for so long a time unused 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 allowed to be not a little improbable. 3. In ch. iv. 20 St. 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 the apostle at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29). It follows that St. Paul must have visited Miletus at a subsequent period ; but he did not visit it on his way from Jerusalem to Rome on the occasion of his first imprisonment ; and this, therefore, strongly favours the hypothesis of a journey subsequent to that event, and immediately antecedent to the writing of this epistle. The attempt to enfeeble the force of this by translating cirairrov, 'leo, left,' etc., and understanding it of messengers from Ephesus coming to visit Paul, is ingenious, but can hardly be admitted, as no sound interpreter would forcibly supply a subject to a verb where the context itself naturally supplies one. 4. In ch. iv. 20 the apostle says, Emstus abode in Corinth.' Such language implies that shortly before writing this epistle the apostle had been at Corinth, where he left Erastus. But before his first imprisonment St. Paul had not been at Corinth for several years, and durin, the interval Timothy had been with him, so thlt he did not need to write to him at a later period about that visit (Acts xx. 4). Hug contends that 44.e-we simply expresses the fact that Erastus was then residing at Corinth, without necessarily implying that St. Paul had left him there ; but would the apostle in this case have used the aorist ? On these grounds the hypothesis has been adopted, that St. Paul, after his first imprisonment, was set at liberty, resumed his missionary labours, was again apprehended, and wrote this epistle during his second imprisonment. Whichever hypo thesis we adopt we shall encounter difficulties ; but the latter seems, upon the whole, the prefemble (comp. the Introductions of Horne, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn ; Hemsen's Leben Pauli ; Paley's Hone Paritina, etc.) The de'sz:gn of tbe first epistle is partly to instruct Timothy in the duties of that office with which he had been intrusted, partly to supply him with cre dentials to the churches which he might visit, and partly to furnish through him guidance to the churches themselves. It may be divided into three parts, exclusive of the introduction (i. 1, 2), and the conclusion (vi. 20, 21). In the first of these parts (i. 3-20) the apostle reminds Timothy generally of his functions, and especially of the duties he had to discharge in reference to certain false teachers, who were anxious to bring- the believers under the yoke of the law. In the second (ii.-vi. 2) he gives Timothy particular instructions concerning the orderly conducting of divine worship, the qualifi cations of bishops and deacons, and the proper mode of behaving himself in a church. In the third (vi. 3- ro) the apostle discourses against some vices to which the Christians at Ephesus seem to have been prone.
The design of the second epistle is partly to in form Timothy of the apostle's trying circumstances at Rome, and partly to utter a last warning voice against the errors and delusions which were cor rupting and disturbing the churches. It consists of an inscription (i. 1-5) ; of a series of exhortations to Timothy, to be faithful in his zeal for sound doctrine, patient under affliction and persecution, careful to maintain a deportment becoming his office, and diligent in his endeavours to counteract the unhallowed efforts of the false teachers (i. 6 ; iv. 8) ; and a conclusion in which Paul requests Timothy to visit him, and sends the salutations of ceitain Christians at Rome to Timothy, and those of the apostle himself to some believers in Asia Minor.
Commentaries : Mosbeim, El-Hi/rung, Hamb. 1755, 4to ; Zachariae, Paraphrast. Erkliir. 1775. Wegscheider, Der I. Br. des Ap. P. an d. 77m. iibersetzt und erldart. Gott. r8ro, 8vo ; Heyden reich, Die Pastoralbriefe Pauli erlaiitert. Hadamar. 1826-1828, 2 vols. 8vo ; Mack, Comment. iib.d. Pas toralbr. 184r, ; Matthies, Erkliir..d. Pastoralbr. Griefswald 184o ; Leo, Pattiz' Efist. Orima ad Tim. Gre£Ca CUM Comment. perpetzto, Lips. 1838, Svo, Allera. ib. r85o.—W. L. A.