--I Thessalonians, just after Acts 18:5, compare I Thess 3:6.
Approximate calendar date, some time around 50-51. Gallio’s
proconsulship can be pretty precisely dated to 51-52, approximately 18 months,
by external evidence. (See Acts 18:12-17 and Hemer on Gallio.)
--II Thessalonians, some time during stay in Corinth in Acts
18. Notice that he is still with Timothy and Silvanus, just as in the
salutation to I Thess. Silvanus may be Silas.
Approx. calendar date 51-52, via Gallio connection and
probable writing during this stay in Corinth. However, could be as late as 53,
since we don’t know exactly when Paul left Corinth, and Acts 18:18 says Paul
remained “many days longer,” a vague note of time.
--I Corinthians, during Paul’s time remaining in Ephesus,
Acts 19:22. This would have been toward the end of his time in Ephesus.
Numerous arguments. See HIPV. This is very firmly fixed to Acts 19:22. Probably
in the spring between Passover and Pentecost (I Cor. 16:8). He expressed an
intention to spend the winter in Corinth (I Cor. 16:1-8); compare the “three
months” in Greece in Acts 20:3. Hence I Corinthians was written less than a
year before Acts 20:3.
Calendar date somewhat less firm, depending on vague notes
of time in Acts 18:18 and a journey of unspecified length in Acts 18:23. He
spent 2-3 years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-9). Hemer also places I Corinthians in
Ephesus somewhere in Acts 19 (though not quite as precisely as I do). He dates
I Corinthians around 55 A.D. and lengthens Paul’s journey through the
Macedonian regions in Acts 20:2 so that it includes over a year, but this loses
the coincidence with the three months in Acts 20:3. I would be inclined to make
that journey through Macedonia much shorter so that the 3 months in Acts 20:3
does correspond to the next winter mentioned in I Corinthians 16. If Hemer is
also right to date the arrest in Jerusalem in Acts 21 to 57, which is somewhat
conjectural, then I would be placing I Corinthians in the spring of 56.
--II Corinthians was written from Macedonia during the
collection journey. The collection is explained in the epistles. The collection
journey was through Macedonia and into Achaia at the beginning of Acts 20. See
II Cor. 8:1, 9:2-4. Very firmly fixed in relation to Acts and the collection
(though the collection is never mentioned in Acts). See HIPV.
Calendar date, again depends on how long you make the
Macedonian journey and whether one is trying to fix Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem
in Acts 21 in 57. I would put II Corinthians around late fall of 56.
--Romans, clearly completed around Acts 20:3, just before he
is about to set off for Jerusalem with the collection. See Romans 15:25-27.
Compare also the lists of his companions in Acts 20:4 and Romans 16:21-23.
Calendar date, if Hemer is right that the arrival in
Jerusalem was 57, would be late winter or very early spring of 57. Some
commentators have put the arrival/arrest in Jerusalem in 58, which would shift
all of this to a year later. Hemer’s arguments concern the notes of time in Acts
20:5-6 and the beginning of Passover in the year 57. I think this is not
extremely strong, because (among other things) Acts merely says (Acts 20:6)
that they sailed away from Philippi “after” the days of Unleavened Bread with
no statement of how long after. If it were even a few days, it would throw off
the calculation Hemer is making.
--Galatians, extremely controversial. I have my own opinions
but will not attempt to summarize all the arguments. Contrary to most
conservative commentators now, I would place Galatians during the winter of
Acts 20:2, right around the same time as Romans. I am inclined to think that
the journey to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is indeed the Jerusalem Council of Acts
15, despite the well-known difficulties of this view. In that case, Paul simply
doesn’t mention the Acts 11 journey in Galatians, which may be because it was
merely for purposes of carrying money or may even mean that he did not see the
apostles on that journey. Again this is all highly controversial. I am ambivalent
on the North-South Galatian destination, but placing the epistle in Acts 20
does not require one to take the North Galatian view, though it has been
associated with it historically. Hemer, in contrast, places
Galatians very early as the earliest epistle, back in Acts 14 or, at latest,
Acts 15:1, just before the Jerusalem council.
Hemer’s argument would make the calendar date around 49.
Mine would make it some time around the winter of 56-57.
--Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were all written
around the same time and despatched by the same messenger(s)—Tychicus and
Onesimus. Col. 4:7-9, Eph. 6:21-22. Col. 4:9 shows that Onesimus and Tychicus
traveled together. Many links between the persons mentioned in Colossians and
Philemon—Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, for example. And Archippus is
greeted in both. “Ephesians” appears to be the “lost” letter to the Laodiceans
mentioned in Col. 4:16. (See argument in HIPV, taken from Paley.) These three
are all prison epistles, see references to Paul’s imprisonment throughout them and
the argument in HIPV concerning the “chain” in Ephesians 6:20. They fit
extremely well in the two-year Roman imprisonment in Acts 28:30, but there are
few indications as to whether they are early or late in that imprisonment.
Hemer argues that they were early because of a mention in
Tacitus of an earthquake in AD 60-61 that completely destroyed Laodicea.
Eusebius says that an earthquake destroyed both Laodicea and Colosse, though
Eusebius dates the earthquake to 64. One assumes that these allude to the same
earthquake but place it in different years, since that is more economical than
assuming that Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake twice within four years. Obviously,
Paul wouldn’t have written telling Philemon (as he does) to prepare a guest
chamber for him in a house that Paul knew had just been destroyed by an
earthquake. So either the earthquake hadn’t happened yet or Paul hadn’t heard about
it yet when he sent these three letters. This places pressure to put the
letters fairly early in the 2-year Roman imprisonment, though if we accept
Eusebius’s date there is no such issue. Tacitus was writing closer to the time,
but Eusebius might have had access to other sources.
--Philippians, again, is a prison epistle and fits well
during the 2-year Roman imprisonment in Acts 28. Hemer rightly points out that
there apparently had been time for various journeys back and forth.
Epaphroditus had known where to find Paul and had brought him money from
Philippi. Word had gotten back to the Philippians that Epaphroditus was sick.
So this is some argument that it was somewhat later in the imprisonment. (Phil
2:25-27) Also, Phil. 1:12-17 shows that Paul’s imprisonment has had various
effects on the preaching of the gospel, Paul has had word of these effects and
is making an assessment of them. Again, this argues for a somewhat later date
in the imprisonment. Compare also Phil. 2:23-24 and Philemon 22. Both indicate
hope of release. Hemer sees somewhat more anxiety in Philippians 1:23-24 where
Paul is trying to guess whether he will live or die, but this is conjectural.
Suffice it to say that there is some evidence pushing
Philippians to around 62, later in the Roman imprisonment, and some evidence
pushing the three other prison epistles of Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians
to 60 or early 61, but it is impossible to be dogmatic.
The calendar dating of the imprisonment to approximately
60-62 comes from the notes of time of two years’ imprisonment in Caesarea (Acts
25:26-27) and the length of the voyage to Rome, including shipwreck, winter,
change of ships, etc., from Acts 27-28. If one scoots everything down a year,
the imprisonment would be 61-63, but that really would probably require taking
Eusebius’s date for the Colossian earthquake, since Paul would likely not have
written those three letters in that way to the Laodicea/Colosse region after he
knew about the earthquake.
--Hebrews: Obviously, whether or not Hebrews is in any sense
an epistle by the Apostle Paul is hugly controversial, and I’m not intending to
give all the arguments on various sides. My own present working theory is that
it was co-written by Paul and Luke and that the last verses of the last chapter
(perhaps from verse 16 or 17 on) were an entirely Pauline “cover note,” written
to its initial recipients (wherever they were) and known to be by Paul, with
the intention that they would circulate just the treatise itself to a wider
Jewish-Christian audience. This is obviously speculative. If Hebrews is
Pauline, where does it fit? Here I see a plausible connection with Philippians.
In Philippians 2:19-24 Paul says that he hopes to send Timothy to them as soon
as he sees how it will go with him, presumably at some sort of hearing or in
some other legal sense. In Hebrews 13:23 the author says that Timothy has been
“released” and that he hopes to see them along with Timothy soon. This need not
mean that Timothy has been actually in prison but could just mean that Timothy
has been released from some other duty. One possible picture, then, is that
there was enough good news (legally) that Paul sent Timothy to the Philippians
but that there were still legal loose ends to be tied up in Rome before he himself
was released. Hebrews, then, could be placed at the very tail end of the Roman
imprisonment mentioned in Acts, after the other prison epistles and shortly
before Paul’s release, either due to the default of his accusers or to a
favorable hearing.
In both Philemon v. 22 and Hebrews 13:18-19 the author says
that he hopes to be released from imprisonment soon by means of the prayers of
the recipients. If Hebrews is Pauline, this might
place it at approximately the same time in the two-year Roman imprisonment as
Philemon. However, that would place Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians much
later in the Roman imprisonment and would require that the Lycus River valley
earthquake took place according to Eusebius’s date, not Tacitus’s.
--I Timothy and Titus should not be dated within Acts, as the Pauline travel they allude to clearly occurred outside of the events in Acts. There are numerous arguments for this; just to begin with, there is no way to fit Paul’s leaving Timothy in Ephesus and going on to Macedonia (I Tim. 1:3) with any of the trips recorded in Acts.
If anything, the geographical notes in Titus are even more
clearly about some later journey of Paul. In Titus Paul has been in Crete and
has left Titus there (Titus 1:5), while at no time in Acts is there a good
place for Paul to visit Crete. Paul is at liberty when he writes Titus and
intends to spend the winter in Nicopolos (Titus 3:12), which is in the north of
Greece. Paul doesn’t appear to have wintered there at any time in Acts except
possibly during the very early years in Acts after his conversion that are
covered more sketchily. Yet I and II Timothy and Titus all appear to be much
later in Paul’s life.
Given all of this and more related to 2 Timothy, the best conclusion seems to be that Paul was released at the end of the imprisonment in Acts, as his notes in Philippians and Philemon indicate that he hoped for, and had an unspecified time of ministry after that before he was again imprisoned, with the second imprisonment represented by 2 Timothy.
This would put the dating of I Timothy and Titus somewhere
between 62 and 64.
This epistle can’t be dated with certainty but was very likely written in a relatively short second imprisonment, ending in Paul's death, during the Neronian persecution, 64-68.
2 comments:
I skimmed to Hebrews, and hope to read the remainder carefully soon. Regarding Hebrews, I give the nod to Silas/Sylvanus. 2:3 could hardly have been written by Paul (Gal. 1:11-12). Silas penned for both Paul and Peter, giving him unique credentials and positioning in 1st century fellowship. Interesting correspondences both in vocabulary and theological thought glow when Hebrews is read closely next to the Petrine epistles.
In Galatians we will find the real challenge!
Great work, Lydia.
Yes, I'm not super-committed to Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but I wanted to fit it in for completeness' sake and because I was interested in the possible correspondence between the note about Timothy and what Paul said about Timothy in Philippians. Your point about 2:3 is interesting, but I would compare I Corinthians 15:3, where Paul says that he did receive the gospel from others, which he is about to recount. I think it would be overly rigid to argue because of Galatians that he must in I Corinthians be saying that he got a direct divine revelation that Jesus appeared to James, Cephas, the twelve, etc., and in what order, *rather than* learning it from someone else. He did have contact with the apostles, and presumably they talked about these things. Evidently (based on I Corinthians) his emphasis in Galatians doesn't mean that he didn't receive any attestation from the apostles. It presumably has more to do with authority, commissioning, etc.
The connection with 2 Peter is interesting; I had just recently noticed the "strangers and sojourners" similarity between Hebrews 12 and 2 Peter 2:11.
Anyway, to my mind the more important thing is being able to locate so many epistles uncontroversially within Acts. It's easy to take that for granted, but the details of it actually make it a remarkable confirmation of Acts, especially given the evident independence of Acts from the epistles.
Post a Comment