pauline chronology 71
cloak and books to be brought (2 tim 4:13)—schnelle apparently knows
more about what it means for death to be near than others do. further,
schnelle says that 2 tim 1:15, 4:10–11 and 16 indicate that everyone but
luke has abandoned Paul, while 2 tim 4:21 includes greetings from four
others and “all the brothers.” the texts do not necessarily indicate that
everyone has abandoned Paul for all time, but that those mentioned, such
as those in asia (2 tim 1:15), those mentioned apart from luke within
that group, and those at his first apology or defense, have abandoned
him. finally, schnelle notes that 2 tim 4:20 says that trophimus was left
behind sick in miletus, while acts 21:29 says that trophimus was with Paul
in Jerusalem. this of course assumes that trophimus being sick in miletus
was the same trip as the one to Jerusalem. this further assumes that the
verb used in 2 tim 4:20 (ἀπέλιπον) means “left behind” and not “left in
charge” (cf. titus 1:5) or that we have complete information on all of Paul’s
companions’ travels (perhaps trophimus returned to miletus, where he
was from?).17 on top of all of this, none of schnelle’s objections, apart
possibly from the issue of trophimus, really addresses the chronology
of Paul, only supposed (and rather weak) internal contradictions within
2 timothy. regarding titus, schnelle objects simply because there is no
evidence in the Pauline letters or acts for a Cretan mission or Paul winter-
ing in nicopolis. further, he sees a tension between titus 3:12, where he
says that “titus should come to Paul as quickly as possible,” and titus 1:5,
where titus is instructed to appoint elders in each city. titus 3:12, in fact,
does not indicate that titus should come as quickly as possible, because
Paul must himself do something before titus can respond, and the task of
titus 1:5 is perhaps already underway, and can certainly be underway or
even accomplished before the sending of artemas takes place.
the argument on the basis of chronology—such as it is—is hardly
conclusive regarding placing the Pastoral epistles outside of the Pauline
chronology and hence requiring pseudepigraphal authorship. this is not
to say that other arguments may not be marshaled that are more telling,
but those raised by the chronology of the Pastoral epistles themselves are
hardly definitive. nevertheless, many scholars have found these—and,
i trust, other perhaps stronger arguments—convincing that the Pauline
chronology has no place for the Pastoral epistles and have concluded that
they are pseudepigraphal. the result for Pauline chronology is essentially
to remove them from that chronology, and to embed them into their own
17 Johnson, First and Second Letters, 447–48, for possible explanations.