88 stanley e. porter
Conclusion
there is and can be no final and definitive solution to the issue of Pauline
authorship and pseudepigraphy of the Pastoral epistles on the basis of
Pauline chronology. nevertheless, and possibly to the surprise of some,
there are a number of firm observations to be made regarding Pauline
chronology with reference to the Pastoral epistles and pseudepigraphy.
the first is that there appears to have been a wide range of speculation
regarding this topic, including conjecture of various types among all of
the three major proposals. each of them engages in various elements of
speculation, whether it be hypothesizing the letters being written outside
of the Pauline chronology and hence pseudonymously or whether it be
attempting to find ways to fit them within a known or unknown Pauline
chronology, as reconstructed from the book of acts. the second observa-
tion is that there are various levels of literalism and flexibility displayed in
these hypotheses. i find it ironic that the post-Pauline composition view is
in many ways the most rigidly literalistic in its efforts to find what amounts
to the most speculative conclusion—Pauline pseudonymous authorship
(at least so far as chronology is concerned). similarly, the post-acts 28
imprisonment view is dependent upon building much around minimal
ancient church testimony and relatively free speculation regarding a sup-
posed intermediate period—to the point of the hypotheses being very dif-
ficult to prove or disprove on the basis of the evidence that we have in
acts or the Pauline letters. a third observation is that, at least on the basis
of the evidence marshaled here, 2 timothy appears to have been written
from a roman imprisonment. Whether one is speculating regarding its
being pseudepigraphal or not (or assuming this or not), if one takes the
chronological argument solely into account 2 timothy appears to be writ-
ten near the end of a Pauline roman imprisonment. the major question
becomes whether this was a first or second imprisonment. if one were
to consider 2 timothy alone, i think it would be relatively clear that this
would be the first imprisonment, because there would be no requirement
to create a second one.54 this necessity is created, at least in some people’s
minds, more by 1 timothy and titus. at this point, the question—insofar
as chronology is concerned—becomes whether it makes more sense that
they were written sometime during Paul’s third missionary journey or
after he was released from a first roman imprisonment.
54 reference to the “first apology” (2 tim 4:16) can be adequately explained without
positing a second roman imprisonment.