pauline chronology 67
by J. g. eichhorn and f. C. Baur, who came to dispute authorship of all
the Pastorals, and solidified by h. J. holtzmann into an assured result of
scholarship,4 the convenience of placing them outside such a chronology
altogether has provided a means of avoiding more definitive discussion
regarding the relationship of chronology and authorship. after discussing
the basic evidence regarding chronological location found within the Pas-
toral epistles, i will examine the three major views of Pauline chronology
in relationship to these letters, with an eye toward re-examining the issue
of authorship.
Major Chronological Proposals regarding the Pastoral Epistles
the evidence regarding chronological location of the Pastoral epistles has
been recounted numerous times, but bears repeating again to ensure that
what we do know is clearly understood. in 1 tim 1:3, Paul5 tells the recipi-
ent, timothy, to remain in ephesus, as or while he goes, or even in antici-
pation of his going, to macedonia.6 this is in anticipation of Paul’s being
able to come soon to ephesus (1 tim 3:14; cf. 4:13). the letter, 1 timothy,
does not say where it was written,7 only that Paul is either on the way to
or anticipating going to macedonia and sometime soon wanting to go to
ephesus, the place to which the letter is apparently addressed. after the
epistolary opening of titus, Paul says that, on account of this (anaphori-
cally referencing the message god manifested to Paul, titus 1:2–3, or cata-
phorically setting in order the remaining matters, especially appointment
4 for history of early discussion, see friedrich Bleek, An Introduction to the New Testa-
ment (ed. Johannes friedrich Bleek; trans. William urwick; 2 vols.; edinburgh: t&t Clark,
1870), 2:52–54; Werner georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. howard
C. Kee; nashville: abingdon, 1975), 371; and Jakob van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einord-
nung der Pastoralbriefe (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1981), 9–12. Whereas many introductions
refer to the debate, not nearly as many place it within its historical context.
5 i will use the names Paul, timothy, and titus, because these are the names used in
the letters. others will need to determine to whom these names belong if they are different
than the people they purport to be.
6 i formulate the interpretation in this way to reflect the present participle following its
main verb, which tends to indicate contemporaneous or subsequent (anticipated) action.
see stanley e. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to
Tense and Mood (sBg 1; new york: Peter lang, 1989), 377–85.
7 Contra Johnson, First and Second Letters, 136; m. eugene Boring, An Introduction to
the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology (louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012),
373; and Porter, “Pauline authorship,” 107, who all think that the letter makes it clearer
than it does.