Appendix C
Appendix C
St. Paul’s History After the Close of the Acts
The conclusion, at which we have arrived in the last section, assumes St. Paul’s release from his captivity at Rome. We must suppose that he resumed his active missionary labors, and these were terminated by a second captivity ending in his martyrdom, of which the Second Epistle to Timothy sounds the knell. In the present section it will be my business first, to show that there are sufficient grounds independently for assuming this release, and secondly, considering this as established, to sketch out his movements by the help of the record in the Pastoral Epistles.
I. Of this release with the subsequent events, there is no intimation in the New Testament beyond the notices in the Pastoral Epistles that seem to demand it. In the memoir of St. Luke there is not the slightest intimation of the future. The Epistles of the First Roman Captivity hover between hope and fear, between anticipation of release and forebodings of condemnation. They contain nothing that leads directly to the result we are seeking.
One passage indeed has been adduced as conclusive against a subsequent visit of St. Paul to Ephesus; and as, by surrendering this visit, we should be surrendering all the advantages gained by the assumption of his release, and should be thrown back upon our difficulties with respect to the Pastoral Epistles, it is important to consider what is the value of this argument. St. Paul in his farewell address to the Ephesian Elders on the eve of the First Captivity says (Acts 20:25), ‘and now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.’ This is supposed to be inconsistent with a later visit to Ephesus and pro tanto with his release from captivity. But in no other province of history would it be allowable to convert a presentiment, however strongly expressed, into a fact; and as this is purely a personal matter, inspiration does not enter into the question. A presumption might indeed have been founded on this expression, if no intimation existed of a release; but the notices in the Pastoral Epistles to the contrary are in themselves more than sufficient to set this presumption aside. Then again, in what infinite difficulties does this supposition involve us! To the Romans he says ‘I will pass by you into Spain’ (Rom 15:28). This however, it may be said, was before the conviction (or the revelation) declared to the Ephesian Elders had seized him. What are we to say of the expressions scattered through the Epistles of the First Captivity? Why does he waver between hope and fear, if the fatal result was certain? Why does he entreat prayers of his converts for his release, if he knew that release to be absolutely impossible?
Writing to the Philippians he says that he trusts in the Lord, that he himself also will come shortly (Phil 2:24). Nay, he even affirms positively that he will be released. ‘Having this confidence,’ he says, ‘I know (τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα) that I shall abide and continue with you all (Phil 1:25)’. Why is the οἶδα to be regarded as decisive in the one case, and disregarded in the other? But it may be urged that the supposed revelation did not negate his release in toto, that it is limited, that it referred only to his revisiting these Churches of Asia Minor. To this too St. Paul’s own language furnishes a reply. He bids Philemon ‘prepare him a lodging’ at Colossae, he ‘trusts through their prayers he shall be given unto them’ (Philemon 22)—language which he could not have held, if he had had a revelation to the contrary. And if here again it be urged that he might have gone to Colossae without revisiting the neighboring Church of Ephesus, to this we should reply, firstly, that when the inference from οἶδα is paired down to these dimensions, we have obtained such a concession as will explain the notices in the Pastoral Epistles, for, though a visit to Ephesus is much more probable, a visit to the neighborhood would suffice; and secondly, that it will be felt that so limited an inference is meaningless, and of course valueless to those who refuse to allow the release of St. Paul.
But though the New Testament, with single exception of the Pastoral Epistles, is silent about this release, it is most satisfactorily established from external tradition.
1) CLEMENT OF ROME [died c. A.D. 96], a contemporary of the Apostles, after mentioning several incidents in St. Paul’s life, and saying that he had preached in the East and the West, adds that he was ‘a teacher of righteousness unto the whole world’ and before his decease ‘reached the furthest bounds of the West and bore testimony before the ruling powers’ (ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων). Considering that Clement was writing from Rome, and bearing in mind the common significance of the expression ‘the extreme West’ at the time, as referring to the Pillars of Hercules, we can scarcely be wrong in concluding that St. Paul was released from captivity and fulfilled his purpose, expressed years before, of visiting Spain.
It might be urged indeed that Clement has here the passage in the Epistle to the Romans in his mind, and that he assumes the intention was carried out. But seeing that at least one of the facts mentioned in the context—the Apostle’s seven captivities (ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας)—is not recorded in the New Testament, he must be deriving his information from independent sources, as indeed, living in Rome and having perhaps known the Apostle personally, he was very competent to do. And it may be argued further that this fact obliges us to prolong the Apostle’s labors beyond the captivity with which the Acts closes.
2) Two generations later (c. A.D. 180), the anonymous writer of the MURATORIAN CANON gives the following account of the Acts of the Apostles. ‘Luke comprises in detail in his treatise addressed to the most excellent Theophilus the incidents in the lives of the Apostles of which he was an eyewitness. As he does not mention either the martyrdom of Peter, or the journey of Paul to Spain, it is clear that these took place in his absence.’
3) EUSEBIUS speaks of St. Paul’s release and second visit to Rome, which ended in his martyrdom, as a common report (λόγος ἔχει). It is true he goes on to confirm this report by a false interpretation of 2 Tim 4:16, explaining the two apologies there mentioned of the Apostle’s two captivities; but the worthlessness of his own comment does not affect the value of the tradition on which it is founded, and which must be held quite distinct.
4) In his Epistle to Dracontius ATHANASIUS holds up for imitation the earnestness of the Apostle to the Gentiles whose zeal prompted him ‘to preach as far as Illyricium, and not to hesitate to go even to Rome, nor to take ship for Spain, so that the more he labored the greater the reward he might receive for his labor.’
5) CYRIL OF JERUSALEM in his second catechetical lecture upon the Holy Spirit, adduces as a witness of the power of the Spirit St. Paul’s conversion, and his missionary labors, which he names in the following significant order, Jerusalem, Illyricum, Rome, Spain.
6) EPIPHANIUS in the account which he gives of the succession of the episcopate at Rome, explains his theory of the appointment of Linus, Cletus, and Clement as bishops in the lifetime of Apostles Peter and Paul by the frequent journeys which the Apostles had to take from Rome, and the impossibility of leaving the city without a bishop. ‘For Paul,’ he says, ‘even went as far away as Spain, and Peter was frequently superintending Pontus and Bithynia.’
7) JEROME appeals to the testimony of older writers in support of his statement of St. Paul’s release from his first imprisonment, which was arranged in God’s providence ‘that so he might preach the gospel of Christ in the West also.’
8) THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA speaks in the plainest way of St. Paul’s two visits to Rome in the reign of Nero. After relating how he was sent as a prisoner there on his appeal from Festus, he goes on to say that he was ‘set free by the judgment of Nero and ordered to depart in safety. But after stopping two years at Rome, he departed thence and appears to have preached to many the teaching of godliness. However coming a second time to Rome, while still stopping there, it happened that by the sentence of Nero he was punished with death for his preaching of godliness.’
9) When we come down to the time of PELAGIUS, we find the release from the first imprisonment generally maintained. Commenting on the Apostle’s request to Philemon ‘to prepare him a lodging,’ he says, ‘Here it is shown that on the first occasion he was sent away from the city,’ though of the journey to Spain he speaks more doubtfully.
10) THEODORET, commenting on the Apostle’s expression of confidence addressed to his Philippian converts that he would abide and continue with them, remarks: ‘and the prediction was fulfilled; For at first he escaped the wrath of Nero.’ Then, after quoting the passage in 2 Tim 4:16-17, and appealing to the last verses in Acts, he continues: ‘Thence (i.e. from Rome) he departed to Spain, and carried the divine gospel to the inhabitants of that part also, and so he returned and was then beheaded.’ Other references to his release and visit to Spain are given below.
On the statements of Eusebius and later writers however no stress should be laid. Even if it were clear that they relied on some independent testimony, and did not found their belief on deductions—in some case erroneous deductions—from St. Paul’s own language, they are too far removed from the time of the events to be of any real value as guides. With Clement and the author of the Muratorian fragment the case is different. The former wrote from Rome, at a place where and at a time when the memory of the Apostle’s labors was fresh, and his testimony is explicit, so far as it relates to St. Paul preaching in the West. The latter, though living at a later period, is a witness of some importance, for he too was probably a Roman, and he distinctly attests the journey to Spain. Indeed, so irresistible has this evidence appeared to impartial critics, that the release has been accepted as a fact by many writers who cannot be suspected of a bias towards this result—by Hug, for instance, who places the Pastoral Epistles earlier in St. Paul’s life, and by Ewald, who denies their genuineness entirely.
But it has been urged that, though there is evidence for the journey to Spain after the Apostle’s release, there is none for another visit to the East. This is true, if the notices in the Pastorals themselves are not to be put in evidence; but even then, how does the case stand? St. Paul, while still a prisoner but anticipating his release, expresses his intention of visiting the Philippians again, and writes to Philemon at Colossae to prepare him a lodging. He does obtain his release. In the absence of evidence either way, is it not more probable that he did fulfill his intention of visiting Macedonia and Asia than the contrary?
II. Assuming then that St. Paul was released from his first captivity at Rome and resumed his missionary labors, we shall have to sketch in the events which took place between this date and his final imprisonment, from the notices in the Pastoral Epistles, aided by such probabilities as circumstances suggest. If an intelligible and reasonable account of St. Paul’s doings during this interval can thus be given, we shall have found a possible place for the Pastoral Epistles, and shall have furnished an answer to objections raised from the point of view of historical unaccountability; and in the absence of full and direct information, nothing more than this hypothetical solution can be expected.
Before entering into details, however, we must clear the way by setthng two main questions; first, what was the probable length of this interval; and secondly, supposing that St. Paul visited both East and West, in what order did he make these journeys.
1) According to the chronology I have adopted, St. Paul arrived in Rome early in the year 61. The closing verses of the Acts speak of his remaining there without any change in the circumstances of his captivity for two whole years (Acts 28:30-31). This brings us to the beginning of the year 63 at least. Here St. Luke’s narrative ends abruptly, so that we are without information as to what occurred afterwards, but the natural inference is that at the end of the two years there was a change in the prisoner’s condition—a change either for the better or for the worse, but a change of some sort. Perhaps the most probable supposition is that his trial came on then. If so, we may place his release not later than the summer of 63, at all events it must have taken place between that date and the summer of the following year, for the great fire which broke out in July 64 was a signal for a fierce persecution of the Christians in Rome, and a teacher of the hated religion so zealous and so distinguished could not have escaped the general fate, had he still remained a prisoner.
The data for determining the close of the period are still more vague. Ecclesiastical tradition fixes the martyrdom of St. Paul in Nero’s reign, and this is probable in itself, for, after the tyrant’s death, the Romans were too much occupied with their own political troubles to pay any attention to the Christians, even supposing the succeeding emperors were animated by the same bitter spirit. It cannot therefore have been later than June 68, the date of Nero’s death. Now, when we examine the Pastoral Epistles with a view to obtaining some result, opposing considerations present themselves. On the one hand, their marked difference in style leads us to prolong the interval between them and the earlier Epistles so far as possible, while on the other hand the mention of Timothy’s youth is an ever-increasing difficulty as we postpone the date the letters addressed to him. On the whole, perhaps, the latter consideration must give place to the former. The death of the Apostle will then be placed at the very close of Nero’s reign, and the Pastoral Epistles will have been written in the year 67 or 68.
Next as to order in which St. Paul visited the East and the West. On the whole, it is probable that he went eastward immediately after his release. It is true that he had intended when he first thought of visiting Rome, to proceed thence westward to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). But circumstances might have occurred in the intervening period of about five years to alter his purpose and determine him to revisit the troubled Churches of Asia, before he entered on a new mission field in the far West. Such is the impression left by his language to the Philippians and to Philemon.
But if it is probable that St. Paul was in the East immediately after his release, it is certain that he was there towards the close of his life. The notices of his transactions in the East scattered through the Pastoral Epistles reach continuously to the time of his second imprisonment at Rome, which ended in his death. If this be so the visit to Spain and the West must have intervened between the two visits to the East. For these incidents there is ample time in the four or five years which elapsed before his martyrdom.
We obtain then: 1) A visit to the East, probably brief, according with his intention expressed to the Philippians and to Philemon. 2) The fulfillment of his long-cherished purpose of preaching in Spain and the West; 3) A return to the East. Eastward then the Apostle hastens after his release. First of all perhaps he revisited the Macedonian Churches, fulfilling his promise to the Philippians. We may imagine him next directing his steps towards the Churches of Asia and Phrygia. The unhealthy tone of religious speculation in these districts needed correction. And to Colossae moreover he was drawn by a personal motive. He was anxious to assure himself that Onesimus was fully restored to his master’s favor, and to carry out his undertaking of staying with Philemon. We can scarcely suppose that he left these regions without a brief visit to the Church of Ephesus, which had occupied so much of his time and thoughts; and it is possible that some of the notices in the Pastoral Epistles refer to incidents which occurred on this occasion, though it is on the whole more probable that they took place on a later visit.
We may conjecture also that, before he left the neighborhood of the Aegean he laid the first foundation of a Church in Crete. There was in this island a large Jewish population—a circumstance that would press itself on the Apostle’s attention. Possibly also St. Paul’s anchorage there (Acts 27:7-12 esp. v. 9 Ἱκανοῦ δὲ χρόνου διαγενομένου) on his voyage to Rome may have been accompanied by incidents which dwelt on his mind, and stimulated his desire to preach the Gospel in Crete. At all events a few years later we find a Christian Church established here, and, if its foundation is to be attributed to St. Paul, no occasion is more probable than this of his first visit to the East after his release.
2) Having thus taken a rapid review of Churches of the East, the Apostle hastened to fulfill his long-postponed intention of visiting the hitherto unexplored region of Spain. There was a considerable Jewish population settled in many of the towns on the Spanish coast and the Apostle would make this his starting-point. This course had many advantages in itself, but a deeper principle of obligation commended it to the mind of the Apostle, who seems to have held sacred the maxim ‘to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile.’ Whether St. Paul extended his labors in the West beyond the limits of Spain must remain a matter of speculation. At the close of his life we find him sending Crescens on a mission to Gaul—for so we may perhaps understand by ‘Galatia,’ and if this interpretation is correct, it would seem to imply some previous communication with this region. It is highly probable indeed that either on his way to or from Rome, he should have visited the famous port of Marseilles, and having once set foot in Gaul, he would naturally avail himself of the opportunity of furthering his Master’s cause. At all events, the Churches of Spain and Gaul were founded at a very early date, so that Irenaeus appeals to them along with others, as witnesses of the primitive tradition in matters of doctrine. On the other hand, had he remained long either in Spain or Gaul, we should have expected to find in those parts a more direct tradition of his visit.
3) Moving eastward, perhaps passing through Rome, the Apostle may possibly have visited Dalmatia, for with this region again we find him in communication at the close of his life (2 Tim 4:10). If so, he may have continued his journey along the Adriatic coast to Epirus, so that, by wintering at Nicopolis on a subsequent occasion (Tit 3:12), he purposed renewing an intimacy already formed, thus following out his general practice of confirming the Churches of his founding.
We find the Apostle then in the East once more. The slight fragmentary notices in the Pastoral Epistles may be pieced together variously, so that any particular plan of his journey must be more or less arbitrary. The object of framing such a plan is to show that it is possible to give a consistent and intelligible account of his movements, on the supposition of his release; and under the circumstances no more than this can reasonably be demanded. The scheme which I shall give differs from those generally adopted in assuming that the winter which he purposed spending in Nicopolis was in fact spent in Rome. We may suppose that his abrupt arrest and imprisonment frustrated his previous plans. In this way the events are gathered within narrower limits of time; and, the Pastoral Epistles being thus brought into closer chronological connection, the striking coincidences of thought and language between them are the more easily explained. This arrangement of the incidents seems to me slightly more probable than any other, but I lay no stress on it.
Once in the East, then, he would naturally revisit the Churches of Phrygia and Asia, which had caused him so much anxiety. There he found that his gloomiest anticipations had been realized. Grievous wolves had indeed entered the fold, as he had predicted years before. His personal influence had gone. ‘All in Asia turned away from him’ (2 Tim 1:15 sq.). Phygellus and Hermogenes are especially named among these timid or recreant Christians. There was one bright exception however in Onesiphorus whose attentions—repeated afterwards when the Apostle was prisoner in Rome—are gratefully recorded (2 Tim 1:15-17; cf. 2 Tim 4:19). It was probably at Ephesus too and on this occasion that St. Paul encountered the opposition of Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 4:14). And this is perhaps the same Alexander whom, together with Hymenaeus, the Apostle ‘delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim 1:20). If we are right in assigning all these notices to this one occasion, it would seem that the Apostle’s residence was more or less prolonged. Altogether the visit was one of bitter trial. It was evident that the clouds were gathering about the Church, and that a period of storm and tempest was imminent.
From Ephesus the Apostle turned northward into Macedonia. At the same time he left Timothy behind to preside over the Church there in his absence (1 Tim 1:3). He would gladly seek consolation after these sad experiences in the affection of that Philippian Church, of which he entertained the most tender remembrance, and which more than once had relieved his wants.
What country St. Paul visited next, we cannot say; it is not unnatural to suppose that following his old route, he would turn towards the Churches of Achaia. Somewhere about this time we may perhaps place the writing of the First Epistle to Timothy. Its exact time and place cannot be ascertained, but the following data should be observed: 1) It cannot have been written very long after St. Paul left Ephesus, as the whole tenor of the Epistle shows. It betrays a nervous anxiety such as might be expected from one who had recently delegated a very arduous task to a young and inexperienced successor. Such advice to have any value must be given at once, and indeed the Apostle’s ardent temperament would admit of no delay in a matter so important; 2) It would seem to have been written before the incidents occurred which St. Paul relates to Timothy in the Second Epistle (e.g 2 Tim 4:9-13, 20). When the letter was written, St. Paul hoped to revisit Ephesus soon, but foresaw that he might possibly meet with some delays (1 Tim 3:15).
About this time he also visited Crete. A hypothetical account of the origin of this Church I have already given (see above). Having been recently founded, its organization was still very imperfect; and, as St. Paul himself could not stay to do all that was needful, he left Titus behind him to complete his arrangements there (Tit 1:5).
From Crete we may suppose that he went to Asia Minor, and somewhere about this time he directed a letter of advice and exhortation to Titus. For ascertaining the time of writing of the Epistle to Titus we have the following data: 1) As in the case of the First Epistle to Timothy, it cannot have been written long after St. Paul left Crete; 2) Tychicus was still with him when he wrote; and therefore it is before the point of the time noted in 2 Tim 4:12; 3) He has no forebodings of his coming fate for he purposes wintering at Nicopolis, not expecting to have his movement constrained (Tit 3:12); 4) On the supposition that this winter is identical with that mentioned in his Second Epistle, the year cannot have been far advanced now. There is time for him to dispatch a messenger to Titus, for Titus to join him (at Corinth or Nicopolis) and to leave him again for Dalmatia, for him to reach Rome himself, for several incidents at Rome, e.g. his trial etc. for him to dispatch a messenger from Rome to Timothy, for Timothy to join him in Rome; all this before the winter.
In this letter he tells Titus that he will send Artemas or Tychicus—perhaps to act as his deputy—and bids him hasten to join him at Nicopolis. He asks him to provide Zenas the lawyer and Apollos with the necessaries for their journey (Tit 3:12-13).
From this point onwards we can trace the Apostle’s course westward with some degree of continuity, for the journey is the reverse of that in Acts 20:13 sq. We find him at Miletus, where he dropped Trophimus on account of illness (2 Tim 4:20). Hence, perhaps he dispatched Tychicus to Ephesus. Miletus was a convenient point from which to communicate with Ephesus as he had found it on a former occasion (Acts 20:17), and we may conjecture that, having abandoned his purpose of revisiting Ephesus, he sent Tychichus to Timothy to inform him of this (1 Tim 3:14). From Miletus he sails northward to Troas, where he lodges with Carpus (2 Tim 4:13). What were the intermediate stages, we do not know, but we next find him at Corinth, where he leaves Erastus behind (2 Tim 4:20). He was now on his way to Nicopolis—probably the city of that name in Epirus, where he purposed passing the winter. Whether he reached Nicopolis or not must remain uncertain. A probable, though a conjectural, account seems to me this. While he was at Corinth, his old enemies, the Jews, informed against him, as the leader of the hated sect of malefactors, who had roused the indignation of Rome; and on this information he was seized and imprisoned and ultimately carried to the Metropolis to await his trial.
Meanwhile, finding his plan of wintering at Nicopolis frustrated, he dispatches his messenger—probably Artemas (Tit 3:12), since he had left Tychicus behind (2 Tim 4:12)—to Titus in Crete to join him, not in Nicopolis, as he had intended, but either in Corinth or in Rome itself, whither he was soon to be conveyed. At all events Titus did join him at some point in his route (2 Tim 4:10).
Arrived at Rome, the Apostle found himself almost deserted. Onesiphorus, who lived in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19), and whose kind services the Apostle had experienced during his stay there, coming to Rome sought him out and with some difficulty found him (2 Tim 1:17). But these friendly offices ceased with the departure of Onesiphorus. Of all his more intimate friends and companions in travel Luke alone remained with him (2 Tim 4:9 sq.). Titus had gone to Dalmatia, Crescens to Gaul, probably dispatched thither by the Apostle on some missionary errand. Demas had forsaken him, and gone to Thessalonica, probably his native place. Certain Christians of Rome, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, join in the salutation, but these must have been comparative strangers. In this forlorn condition he writes his Second Epistle to Timothy. He urges Timothy to join him as soon as possible (2 Tim 4:9), at all events to come before the winter sets in and while the sea is yet navigable (2 Tim 4:21). At the same time he charges him to perform a commission at Troas; he had left his cloak with some books and parchments, and he requests Timothy, as he passes, to fetch these (2 Tim 4:13). He evidently contemplates that Timothy will follow the coast to Macedonia, and then take the great Egnatian Road from Philippi to Dyrrachium and cross over the straits thence to Italy. It was perhaps already late in the season and a voyage on the high seas was hazardous. Timothy is to pick up Mark on the way and bring him with him (2 Tim 4:11). Timothy appears to be still at Ephesus, for the Apostle in this letter salutes the household of Onesiphorus, doubtless resident there. He also salutes Aquila and Priscilla (2 Tim 4:19), and they too seem to have had connection with Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19).
The legal proceedings have already commenced when the Apostle writes. He had had his first hearing, and has a respite for a time (2 Tim 4:16). But he is full of gloomy forebodings, or rather he foresees but one termination to the trial. And here, with the notes of his dying strain ringing in our ears, we take leave of the great Apostle.