78 stanley e. porter
treat titus, but only 1 and 2 timothy). rather than treat each proposal,
i will treat each letter.
1 Timothy. there are two major proposals regarding when 1 timothy was
written. the first is that it was written by Paul in the midst of his extended
stay in ephesus (acts 19), but while he was away from ephesus on one
of his visits to Corinth not recorded in acts and while timothy stayed
in ephesus. Van Bruggen believes that Paul’s stay in ephesus is divided
into two periods, the first covered by acts 19:1–20, a stay of two years or
slightly more, and the second covered by acts 19:21–40. Between these two
parts of Paul’s stay in ephesus is a period of about one year unrecorded
in acts but confirmed by the Corinthian correspondence when Paul
traveled to Corinth unaccompanied by timothy. during this time, once
timothy returned from Corinth (1 Cor 16:10), Paul left him there while he
went to macedonia and Corinth (1 tim 1:3). during this time, Paul heard
of problems and wrote his first letter to timothy from either macedonia
or achaia, instructing him on what to do and that he planned to return
(1 tim 3:14). acts 19:21 then picks up the account in ephesus once Paul has
returned from his trip to macedonia and Corinth.30
the other proposal is that 1 timothy was written by Paul after he left
ephesus and headed to macedonia (acts 20:1), leaving timothy in ephe-
sus, before timothy left ephesus to join him in macedonia (acts 20:4).
Paul may have written to timothy from Corinth, or perhaps even better
from troas. this is the view taken by reicke, robinson, and Johnson.31
there are a number of questions to raise about such reconstructions,
however. the first is with van Bruggen’s, in which not only must he
introduce the trip to Corinth by Paul but he must also posit the writ-
ing of 1 timothy, for which there is even less direct evidence than that
Paul visited Corinth between the writing of the two letters (though van
Bruggen believes that acts 19:29 implies such a trip by referring to Paul’s
macedonian travel companions). Van Bruggen must also create a divi-
sion within Paul’s stay that is not necessarily indicated by the transition
between acts 19:20 and 21, in which the events of acts 19:21 and following
seem to follow as a direct result from what is happening in the preceding
30 Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordnung, 22–35. for a summary of van Bruggen’s
theory, see Philip h. towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (niCnt; grand rapids: eerd-
mans, 2006), 13–14.
31 see reicke, Re-Examining Paul’s Letters, 51–52, 56–59; robinson, Redating the New
Testament, 82–84; and Johnson, First and Second Letters, 135–37.