Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

The advocates for the opinion, that Timothy was then in Ephefus, allege, that St. Paul fpeaks in this Epiftle of feveral perfons, who refided in Ephesus, and relates to Timothy in what manner he had been treated by them, on their meeting in Rome: whence it is inferred, that Timothy was then in Ephefus. But this inference is very precarious. For, as Timothy was particularly acquainted with the Ephefian community, and had even appointed bishops there, he would have been interested in the conduct of the Ephefians, even if he had not been then refident among them: and St. Paul therefore, even in this cafe, might have thought proper to inform Timothy that all the Chriftians of Afia Minor had deserted him, and that Alexander the copper-fmith was one of his principal adverfaries.

Further, appeal is made to the following paffages.

1. St. Paul falutes, ch. iv. 19. the house of Onefiphorus; and from ch. i. 16-18. is inferred that Onefiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephefus.

[ocr errors]

Now it is true, that St. Paul, in the laft-quoted paffage, after having mentioned the favours, which he had received from Onefiphorus, when he was in Rome, adds, and in how many things he miniftered unto me at Ephefus thou knoweft very well.' But this is no proof that Onefiphorus was an inhabitant of Ephesus : for, in the fame manner, as he was a ftranger in Rome, when he miniftered to St. Paul there, he might have been likewise a stranger at Ephefus, when he fhewed to St. Paul a fimilar kindness.

2. Lardner alleges, that St. Paul in the very fame verse, in which he falutes the house of Onefiphorus, falutes alfo Aquilas and Prifcilla, who refided fome time at Ephefus, as appears from Acts xviii. 18, 19.

26.

Now that they had refided fome time at Ephefus, I grant: but it does not therefore follow, that they were there, when St. Paul wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, That they had left Ephefus, and were re

< Ch. i. 15.

turned

turned to Rome, before St. Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, is evident from Rom. xvi. 3.: and whither they went, when they again left Rome, is a matter wholly uncertain. As Aquilas was a native of Pontus, he may as well be supposed to have gone to fome city in that country, as to any other part of Afia Minor. Befides, as Aquilas was by profeffion an inftrumentmaker, as I fhall fhew in the following chapter, it is probable that he frequently changed the place of his abode, in order to promote the fale of his wares.

3. St. Paul advifes Timothy to be on his guard against Alexander the copper-fmith, ch. iv. 15. who is supposed to be the fame as the Alexander mentioned Acts xix. 33. who was an Ephefian, and at the inftigation of the Jews, acted the part of an orator, in ftirring up the people against St. Paul. Now I admit that the Alexander, against whom St. Paul warns Timothy, and who had lately taken an active part against St. Paul, was the fame as the Alexander, who had formerly oppofed St. Paul at Ephefus: but I do not therefore admit, that Timothy was neceffarily at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him. For, even if Timothy had been in fome other town of Afia Minor, the Apostle might have thought it neceffary to guard him against so dangerous and active an adverfary, who did not confine his perfecution to one place, but after having accufed St. Paul at Ephefus, had followed him fome years afterwards as far as Rome.

However, though no one of the preceding arguments, taken by itself, is fufficient to prove, that Timothy was at Ephefus, when St. Paul wrote to him his fecond Epiftle, yet their united force will render the opinion not improbable, till pofitive arguments can be brought on the other fide of the queftion. Now there are really two arguments against the opinion that Timothy was at Ephefus.

1. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 12. Tychicus have I fent to Ephefus.' Hence we may argue, that Timothy was

not

Acts xviii. 2.

not at Ephefus; for, if he had been there, he would have known of the arrival of Tychicus, without being informed of it by St. Paul.

Lardner has endeavoured to answer this objection: but he did not perceive its full force. For he attempts only to fhew, what no one will deny, that, if Timothy was at Ephefus, it was the fame thing, whether St. Paul faid, I have fent Tychicus to thee, or I have sent Tychicus to Ephefus.

[ocr errors]

2. St. Paul fays, ch. iv. 20. Trophimus have I left at Miletus fick.' Now, if Timothy had been at Ephesus, he must have known this circumftance, without having been informed by St. Paul, as Miletus was not far diftant: efpecially fince Trophimus, was an Ephefian, as we fee from Acts xxi. 29.

The arguments therefore on each fide of the queftion appear to me to counterpoife each other in fuch a manner, as to leave the queftion undecided. In fact, it is not improbable, that St. Paul himself did not exactly know in what city of Afia Minor Timothy would receive the Epiftle, which he was writing to him: for, as Timothy was very active in propagating the Gofpel, we may conclude that he frequently removed from one town to another. And as Afia Minor was not only at fome distance from Italy, but feparated from it by two feas, the communication between St. Paul and Timothy cannot be fuppofed to have been fo regular, that the former always knew where the latter refided. Though St. Paul knew not exactly, where Timothy was, he might have written to him an Epiftle, and have entrufted it to a fafe perfon, who was travelling into Afia Minor, with an order to deliver it to him, whereever be found him.

[ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Whether this Epistle was written, while St. Paul was prifoner for the first time in Rome, or during a fecond imprisonment there.

TH

HAT St. Paul was a prifoner, when he wrote this Epistle, is evident from ch. i. 8. 12. 16. ii. 9. and that his imprisonment was in Rome appears from ch. i. 17. But the question to be asked is, whether he wrote it during the imprisonment recorded by St. Luke in the laft chapter of the Acts: or whether he wrote it during a fecond imprisonment there. This question will likewife involve another, namely, whether the old tradition, that St. Paul was twice prifoner in Rome, be really true.

It is obvious from the contents of this Epiftle, that at the time, when St. Paul wrote it, his fituation was very different from that, in which he wrote the Epiftles to the Ephefians, Coloffians, Philemon, and the Philippians. For thefe Epiftles difcover very advantageous profpects, and fhew that the Apostle expected to be foon released: whereas the fecond Epiftle to Timothy plainly indicates, that he had then no other expectation, than that of an approaching death. When he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians, his caufe had taken fo favourable a turn, that many, even interested Jews, had been induced to preach the Gofpel. But, when he wrote his fecond Epiftle to Timothy, his fituation was fuch, that every one of thofe, who were formerly his friends, had deferted him, excepting St. Luke. Further, St. Luke was not with him, when he wrote the Epiftle to the Philippians: and again, the perfons, from whom he fends falutations in the fecond

• Ch. iv, 11.

fecond Epistle to Timothy, ch. iv. 21. are not mentioned in any of St. Paul's former Epiftles, and appear therefore to have been perfons, with whom Timothy, who was in Rome, when St. Paul wrote his Epiftles to the Coloffians and Philippians, had then made an acquaintance. Hence it is evident, that the second Epistle to Timothy was written under différent circumstances, and at a different time from the abovementioned Epistles. It must likewife appear highly probable, merely, from this ftatement, that it was written later. But from this ftatement alone, we must not immediately conclude, that it was written during a fecond imprisonment: for it ftill remains poffible, that St. Paul was only once prifoner in Rome, and that the favourable expectations, and the hopes of a release, which he had in the former part of it, were changed before he wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy, especially in the year 65, when the Chriftians underwent a fevere perfecution from Nero. But, if this be true, and St. Paul remained prifoner in Rome from the time of his firft arrival there to the time of his martyrdom, it must at least be admitted, that the Apoftle wrote the fecond Epiftle to Timothy toward the close of this imprisonment, and fhortly before his death.

[ocr errors]

Lardner, on the fuppofition that St. Paul, was twice prifoner in Rome, has taken great pains to prove, that the fecond Epiftle to Timothy was written during St. Paul's first imprisonment there. But though Lardner's arguments on this fubject are very numerous, they are totally ineffective. However, as he has collected almost every thing, which can be faid on this fide of the question, the reader will do well to confult him. The other fide of the queftion, namely, that this Epiftle was written during a fecond imprisonment in Rome, is very ably, and very impartially fupported by Mofheim

f Supplement to the Credibility of the Gofpel History, Vol. II. p. 226-274.

« НазадПродовжити »