pauline chronology 69
Paul’s “first apology,” at which no one was present. some take this as a first
imprisonment, from which he was released, although it may only indicate
his not being condemned at a first or previous defense (2 tim 4:17). it may
also indicate Paul’s defense before felix or a first defense during a roman
imprisonment involving a series of such defenses.12
having briefly offered the evidence from the Pastorals that might be
relevant to reconstructing Pauline chronology (other evidence will be
cited below), i wish now to turn to the three major views of Pauline chro-
nology and their relevance for the issue of authorship, in particular pseud-
onymity. there are three major views of Pauline chronology regarding the
Pastoral epistles: those that hold to a post-Pauline date, sometimes reach-
ing as late as the early second century, those that hold to a post-acts 28
release and a second roman imprisonment, and those that hold to com-
position within the acts chronology. i do not attempt to cover all of the
issues related to these positions, but only to comment on those matters i
think relevant to the issue of the relationship between the Pauline chro-
nology and authorship of the Pastoral epistles.
Post-Pauline Composition
ever since the view became widespread that Paul did not write the Pasto-
ral epistles, it has become widely accepted that these letters—whomever
they were written by, whether a close follower of Paul who may or may
not have used some genuine Pauline fragments or a later unknown
pseudepigrapher who fabricated from whole cloth13—were written after
the death of Paul by someone other than Paul. the range of such dates
is from sometime soon after Paul died, especially if they were written by
a devoted follower possibly using Pauline fragments or at least writing
in the “spirit” of the beloved apostle, to a time in the second century by
the tense-forms to create a temporal sequence. Both seem to be confused over the use of
the conditional clause in Phil 2:17, which provides a parallel.
12 see James moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd rev. ed.;
edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1918), 400.
13 the most well-known fragmentary hypothesis is that of P. n. harrison, The Problem
of the Pastoral Epistles (oxford: oxford university Press, 1921), revived fairly recently by
James d. miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (sntsms 93; Cambridge:
Cambridge university Press, 1997). Whether fragmentary or not, such views usually end
up within the pseudepigraphal camp, in which a later author or editor used authentic
portions within a larger pseudepigraphal construction.