pauline chronology 85
of the Pastoral epistles, at least according to the arguments cited above
regarding chronology, is with regard to supposed incompatibilities with
the book of acts. if acts is not a reliable source anyway, or if reliable is at
best a later source (second century), then how is it that incompatibility
between acts and the Pastoral epistles constitutes grounds for dismissing
authenticity of the Pastoral epistles and positing pseudonymous author-
ship? this appears to be special pleading of the most egregious sort. there
is the further difficulty that such a position seems to take a very literalistic
and inflexible view of the new testament material, positing that, at least
in this instance, the only events that could have happened are those that
are recorded to have happened—especially in the book of acts. Johnson
makes a very important and noteworthy point, when he reminds us that
there are many things not recorded in the book of acts that we know must
have happened. these include other travels by Paul, other events that
transpired, and, perhaps most of all, the fact that Paul wrote letters while
on his journeys—not one of which is mentioned in acts itself.52 if one
holds open the possibility (indeed, certainty) that acts is not inclusive of
all that occurred in Paul’s life, then there are plausible possibilities created
for examining the relationship of the Pastoral epistles to the Pauline chro-
nology. nevertheless, when the specific chronological arguments against
authenticity of each of the letters is examined, the problems are not allevi-
ated but only compounded. regarding 1 timothy, the proposal examined
above posits only one possible time for the writing of the letter in regard
to the acts chronology, and then possibly misinterprets what 1 timothy
is saying. as for 2 timothy, apart from the issue of trophimus, there are
no chronological arguments even introduced, merely supposed internal
inconsistencies of the letter (hardly germane to the issue of chronology,
and only arguably relevant to the question of authenticity). finally, titus
is dismissed only because there is not an account of the founding of the
church in Crete recorded in the book of acts. such proposals are, to my
mind, hardly worth considering as serious arguments regarding Pauline
pseudepigraphy, not least because they create further difficulties through
their creation of double pseudonymy—we now know virtually nothing
about the original author(s) or original reader(s).53
52 Johnson, First and Second Letters, 67–68.
53 this, of course, does not mean that there are not various proposed reconstructions of
the pseudonymous authorship and audience—only that the evidence is even less certain
than in other cases.