pauline chronology 77
between his imprisonments. as a result, all of the reconstructions are
highly hypothetical and suppositional. one includes a trip to spain and
another does not. one proposal ignores two of the letters and the other
includes all possible references. any proposals that would attempt to go
beyond mere assertion, such as they might be, would simply have to fit
all of the data within the intermediate period, including all three letters,
probably a trip to spain, and all of the possible travels that are referred to
in the three letters.
Composition within the Acts Chronology
i think that it is fair to say that most scholars opt for either of the first
two proposals—that the Pastoral epistles were composed outside of the
Pauline chronology and hence are pseudepigraphal or they were written
during a period after a first and including a second roman imprisonment.
there is a third alternative that is occasionally suggested, in which an
attempt is made to locate all three of the letters within the chronology
presented in the book of acts. this is the least popular of the viewpoints.
there are at least six versions of this proposal that have been made. these
are by f. J. Badcock, stanislas de lestapis, Jacob van Bruggen, Bo reicke,
John a. t. robinson, and luke timothy Johnson.29 in an ideal situation,
i would like to analyze each of these proposals, but because of constraints
i cannot do so. in order to limit variables for consideration, i do not exam-
ine those proposals, such as by Badcock and de lestapis, that depend
upon some form of scribal intervention—in Badcock’s case a later edi-
tor preparing the letters from Paul’s originals after the latter’s death, and
in de lestapis’s involving luke in their formulation. in either case, the
hypothesis inherently invokes other factors as a possible explanation for
why the letters do not fit the acts chronology.
in light of this, i think that it is worth examining the other four propos-
als, to see where they place the three letters (noting that Johnson does not
29 f. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their His-
torical Setting (london: sPCK, 1937), 73–158; stanislas de lestapis, L’énigme des Pasto-
rales de Saint Paul (Paris: gabalda, 1976); van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung;
Bo reicke, Re-Examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence (ed.
david P. moessner and ingalisa reicke; harrisburg, Pa: trinity Press international, 2001);
John a. t. robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); and
Johnson, First and Second Letters, 65–68, 135–37, 319–20. there are no doubt other views,
but these are ones i have found that seem to be worth considering. they are often sum-
marized by others in commentaries.