Redating the

NEW
TESTAMENT

Written in 1976

By John A.T. Robinson

(1919-1983)

Original text by Paul Ingram and Todd Dennis and this

version edited, with a new layout by Peter Bluer.

“One of the oddest facts about the

New Testament is that what on any
showing would appear to be the
single most datable and climactic
event of the period - the fall of
Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the
collapse of institutional Judaism
based on the temple
is never once mentioned as a past fact.”

1
2
"For my father Arthur William Robinson who began at Cambridge
just one hundred years ago to learn from Lightfoot, Westcott and
Hort, whose wisdom and scholarship remain the fount of so much in
this book and my mother Mary Beatrice Robinson who died as it was
being finished and shared and cared to the end.
Remember that through your parents you were born;
What can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?
Ecclus.7.28. All Souls Day, 1975

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations
I Dates & Data
II The Significance of 70
III The Pauline Epistles
IV Acts & the Synoptic Gospels
V The Epistle of James
VI The Petrine Epistles & Jude
VII The Epistle to the Hebrews
VIII The Book of Revelation
IX The Gospel & Epistles of John
X A Post-Apostolic Postscript
XI Conclusions & Corollaries

Envoi

Colour version edited by Peter Bluer. 2012

The footnotes have been taken to bottom of each page to make this
version more readable.

3
 PREFACE
I really have no more to say than thank you — to my long-suffering
secretary Stella Haughton and her husband; to Professor C. F. D. Moule
from whose New Testament seminar so small a seed has produced so
monstrous a manuscript, on which he gave such kindly judgment; to my
friends, Ed Ball, Gerald Bray, Chip Coakley, Paul Hammond and David
McKie, who advised or corrected at many points; and finally to Miss Jean
Cunningham of the SCM Press for all her devoted attention to tedious
detail.
John Robinson
Trinity College Cambridge
Meaning of some terms
Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, comprising
three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction,
an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension
between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.
The Synoptic Problem is not really a "problem" in the normal sense of
the term. It is simply a way to refer to questions and possible explanations
about the literary relationships between the first three New Testament
Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke present the basic story of Jesus in
similar ways, including the order of the material, the stories told, the
sayings of Jesus, even using many of the same words in parallel
accounts. For this reason they are called the Synoptic Gospels.
On the other hand, while the Gospel of John sometimes resembles the
other three Gospels, it tells the story of Jesus in significantly different
ways, including a different order of events, different perspectives and
points of emphasis, and with its own unique vocabulary and style. Those
differences can be understood in terms other than literary relationships
between the Gospels, which is the reason John is not included in the
Synoptic Problem.
Pastoral Epistles are l Timothy, ll Timothy and Titus
Latin and other phrases with their meanings
ad hoc : for this purpose only
ad clerum : To the clergy. a priori : derived by logic, without observed
facts.
aide-memoire : Aid to memory
Aporiai : Puzzlement

4
a propos : At an appropriate time.
Corpus : A large collection of writings of a specific kind.
cri de coeur : a passionate outcry (as of appeal or protest) (French)
Deutera : Second.
didache : The Didache meaning “Teaching” is the short name of a
Christian manual compiled before 300AD. The full title is
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
Some Christians thought Didache was inspired, but the church
rejected it when making the final decision which books to
include in the New Testament
en route : on the way, on the road (French).
Envoi : Concluding remarks
et passim : Throughout or frequently; here and there.
ex eventu : from the events.
ex nihilo : Creation out of nothing.
fides quae creditur : the faith
which is believed.
Hypotyposeis : Sketches in Christian Origins.
ipsissima verba : the exact language used by someone quoted
ipsissima vox : the very voice
kerygma : The proclamation of religious truths, especially as taught
in the Gospels.
La tradition c'est moi' : The story is mine.
Minim : a small number
Nero redivivus : Nero Redivivus Legend was a belief popular during the
last part of the 1st century that Nero would return after
his death in 68 AD.
Nundinum : Market
Pace : With all due respect to
pan passu : I think it means distribution ?
par excellence : Being the best of its kind. (French)
Parousia : Presence.
per se : through itself
Pericopae : An extract from a Scripture.
Per contra : on the contrary.
Prote : First.
Numeric Footnotes with letters eg. 43a, 70a are Editor’s [ PB ] comments
5
quieta non movere ; to stand by decisions.
Rechauffe : Re-working the Synoptics. Lit. reheating French
Redaktionsgeschichte : seeks to understand the theological emphases
the writers placed on the source materials they
used, and the purposes and circumstances of
the writing.
Religio licita : Permitted religion Status of Judaism under Rome
riposte : A retaliatory action, maneuver, or retort.
Shibboleth : A custom or belief
Sitz im Leben : Setting the material in it’s context. German
status quo : It means things will stay as they are.
terminus ad quern : A finishing point, a final limiting point in time
terminus post quem : limit after which (last date possible)
urbi et orbi : The Pope's Easter and blessing from St Peter's Square.
vaticinium ex eventu : A prophecy made to look as though it was written
before the events it describes, while in fact being
written afterwards.
Verbatim : in exactly the same words; to repeat word for word.
via : by the way of.
Via Egnatia : (Greek: Ἐγνατία Ὁδός) was a road constructed by the
Romans in the 2nd century BC.
via media : The middle course or way.
Volte face : an about-face.

6
 ABBREVIATIONS KEKNT Kritisch-exegetischer
AF Apostolic Fathers Ant. Antiquities Kommentar über das Neue Testament
AP Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha NCB New Century Bible
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological n.d. no date
Institute NEB New English Bible
ATR Anglican Theological Review n.f. neue Folge
Bb Biblica NovTest Novum Testamentum
BJ Bellum Judaicum n.s. new series
BR Biblical Research NT New Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift NT Apoc. New Testament Apocrypha
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly NTC New Testament Commentary
CH Church History NTI New Testament Introduction
Chron. Chronologie der Altchrislichen NTS New Testament Studies
Litteratur (see p.4 n. 8) OT Old Testament
CN Conjectanea Neotestamentica par(s). parallel(s)
CQR Church Quarterly Review PC The Primitice Church
DR Downside Review PCB Peake's Commentary on the Bible
EB Encyclopedia Biblica PL Patrologia Latina
ed(d). editors(s), edited by PP Past and Present
EGT Expositor's Greek Testament RB Revue Biblique
EQ Evangelical Quarterly RBén Revue Bénédictine
ET English Translation RE Review and Expositor
ExpT Expository Times RHPR Revue d'Histoire et de
FG The Four Gospels Philosophie Religieuses
HBC Handbook of Biblical Chronology RHR Revue d' Histoire des Religions
HDB Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse
HE Historica Ecclesiastica RSV Revised Standard Version
HJ Heythrop Journal SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
HJP History of the Jewish People ST Studia Theologica
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament TLS Times Literary Supplement
HTFG Historical Tradition in the Fourth TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
Gospel TR Theologische Rundschau
HTR Harvard Theological Review tr. translated
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual TU Texte and Untersuchungen
IB Interpreter's Bible USQR Union Seminary Quarterly
ICC International Critical Commentary Review
IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible VC Vigiliae Christianae
INT Introduction to the New Testament VE Vox Evangelica
JBC Jerome Biblical Commentary v.l. varia lectio
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature ZNW Zeithchrift für die
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archeology neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
JRS Journal of Roman Studies ZTK Zeithchrift für Theologie und Kirche
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies ZWT Zeithchrift für wissenschaftliche
JTS Journal of Theological Studies Theologie

7
 Chapter I
Dates and Data

WHEN WAS THE New Testament written? This is a question that the
outsider might be forgiven for thinking that the experts must by now have
settled. Yet, as in archaeology, datings that seem agreed in the textbooks
can suddenly appear much less secure than the consensus would
suggest. For both in archaeology and in New Testament chronology one is
dealing with a combination of absolute and relative datings. There are a
limited number of more or less fixed points, and between them
phenomena to be accounted for are strung along at intervals like beads on
a string according to the supposed requirements of dependence, diffusion
and development. New absolute dates will force reconsideration of relative
dates, and the intervals will contract or expand with the years available. In
the process long-held assumptions about the pattern of dependence,
diffusion and development may be upset, and patterns that the textbooks
have taken for granted become subjected to radical questioning.
The parallel with what of late has been happening in archaeology is
1
interesting. The story can be followed in a recent book by Colin Renfrew.
As he presents it, there was in modern times up to about the middle of this
century a more or less agreed pattern of the origins and development of
European civilization. The time scale was set by cross-dating finds in
Crete and Greece with the established chronology of the Egyptian
dynasties, and the evidence from Western Europe was then plotted by
supposing a gradual diffusion of culture from this nodal point of Aegean
civilization, to the remotest, and therefore the most recent, areas of Iberia,
France, Britain and Scandinavia. Then in 1949 came the first radio-carbon
revolution, which made possible the absolute [ so-called ] dating of
prehistoric materials for the first time. The immediate effect was greatly to
2
extend the time span. Renfrew sums up the impact thus
The succession of cultures which had previously been squeezed
into 500 years now occupied more than 1,500. This implies more
than the alteration of a few dates: it changes the entire pace and
nature of the cultural development. But... it did not greatly affect
the relative chronology for the different regions of Europe: the
megalithic tombs of Britain, for instance, were still later than

1. C. Renfrew, Before Civilization: the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe,

1973.
2. Ibid., 65f.

8
 those further south.... None of the changes... challenged in any
way the conventional view that the significant advances in the
European neolithic and bronze age were brought by influences
from the Near East. It simply put these influences much earlier.
There were indeed uncomfortable exceptions, but these could be put
down to minor inconsistencies that later work would tidy up. Then in 1966
came a second revolution, the calibration of the radiocarbon datings by
dendrochronology, or the evidence of tree-rings, in particular of the
incredibly long-lived Californian bristlecone pine. This showed that the
radiocarbon datings had to be corrected in an upward (i.e. older) direction,
and that from about 2000 BC backwards the magnitude of the correction
rose steeply, necessitating adjustments of up to 1000 years. The effect of
this was not merely to shift all the dates back once more: it was to
introduce a fundamental change in the pattern of relationships, making it
impossible for the supposed diffusion to have taken place. For what
should have been dependent turned out to be earlier.
The basic links of the traditional chronology are snapped and
Europe is no longer directly linked, either chronologically or
3
culturally, with the early civilizations of the Near East.
The whole diffusionist framework collapses, and with it the
assumptions which sustained prehistoric archaeology for nearly a
4
century.
This is a greatly oversimplified account, which would doubtless also be
challenged by other archaeologists. Nothing so dramatic has happened or
is likely to happen on the much smaller scale of New Testament
chronology. But it provides an instructive parallel for the way in which the
reigning assumptions of scientific scholarship can, and from time to time
do, get challenged for the assumptions they are. For, much more than is
generally recognized, the chronology of the New Testament rests on
presuppositions rather than facts. It is not that in this case new facts have
appeared, new absolute datings which cannot be contested - they are still
extraordinarily scarce. It is that certain obstinate questionings have led
me to ask just what basis there really is for certain assumptions which the
prevailing consensus of critical orthodoxy would seem to make it
hazardous or even impertinent to question. Yet one takes heart as one
watches, in one's own field or in any other, the way in which established
positions can suddenly, or subtly, come to be seen as the precarious
constructions they are. What seemed to be firm datings based on scientific
evidence are revealed to rest on deductions from deductions.
3. Ibid., 105.
4. Ibid., 85.

9
The pattern is self-consistent but circular. Question some of the inbuilt
assumptions and the entire edifice looks much less secure.
The way in which this can happen, and has happened, in New Testament
scholarship may best be seen by taking some sample dips into the story of
the subject. I have no intention of inflicting on the reader a history of the
chronology of the New Testament, even if I were competent to do so. Let
me just cut some cross sections at fifty-year intervals to show how the
span of time over which the New Testament is thought to have been
written has expanded and contracted with fashion.
We may start at the year 1800. For till then, with isolated exceptions, the
historical study of the New Testament as we know it had scarcely begun.
Dating was dependent on authorship, and the authorship of the various
New Testament books rested on the traditions incorporated in their titles in
the Authorized Version - the Gospel according to St Matthew, the Epistle
of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians, the Revelation of St John the Divine,
and so on. All were by apostles or followers of the apostles and the period
of the New Testament closed with the death of the last apostle, St John,
who by tradition survived into the reign of the Emperor Trajan, c. 100 AD.
At the other end the earliest Christian writing could be calculated roughly
to about the year 50. This was done by combining the history of the early
church provided in Acts with the information supplied by St Paul in Gal.
1.13-2.1 of an interval of up to seventeen 'silent' years following his
conversion, which itself had to be set a few years after the crucifixion of
Jesus in c. 30. The span of time for the composition of the New Testament
was therefore about fifty years - from 50 to 100.
By 1850 the picture looked very different. The scene was dominated by
the school of F. C. Baur, Professor of Church History and Dogmatics at
Tübingen from 1826 to 1860. He questioned the traditional attribution of all
but five of the New Testament books. Romans, I and II Corinthians and
Galatians he allowed were by Paul, and Revelation by the apostle John.
These he set in the 50s and late 60s respectively.
The rest, including Acts and Mark (for him the last of the synoptists,
'reconciling' the Jewish gospel of Matthew and the Gentile gospel of
Luke), were composed up to or beyond 150 AD, to effect the mediation of
what Baur saw as the fundamental and all-pervasive conflict between the
narrow Jewish Christianity of Jesus' original disciples, represented by
Peter and John, and the universalistic message preached by Paul. Only a
closing of the church's ranks in face of threats from the Gnostic and
Montanist movements of the second century produced the via media of
early Catholicism. The entire construction was dominated by the Hegelian
pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and the span of time was

10
determined more by the intervals supposedly required for this to work itself
out than by any objective chronological criteria. The fact that the gospels
and other New Testament books were quoted by Irenaeus and other
church fathers towards the end of the second century alone set an upper
limit. The end-term of the process was still the gospel of John, which was
dated c. 160-70. The span of composition was therefore more than
doubled to well over a hundred years - from 50+ to 160+.
By 1900 this schema had in turn been fairly drastically modified. The
dialectical pattern of development had come to be recognized as the
5
imposition it was . A major factor in the correction of Baur's picture of
history was the work of J.B. Lightfoot, who was appointed a professor at
6
Cambridge in 1861, the year following Baur's death .
By the most careful historical investigation he succeeded in establishing
the authenticity of the first epistle of Clement, which he dated at 95-6, and
of the seven genuine epistles of lgnatius, between 110 and 115. In each of
these both Peter and Paul are celebrated in the same breath without a
7
trace of rivalry , and he demonstrated how groundless were Baur's
second-century datings. This achievement was acknowledged by the great
German scholar Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), who in 1897 published
8
as the second volume of a massive history of early Christian literature his
Chronologic der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius.
Harnack's survey, which has never been repeated on so comprehensive
9
a scale , gives a good indication of where critical opinion stood at the turn
of the century. It still carried many of the marks of the Tubingen period and
continued to operate with a span of well over a hundred years. Isolating
the canonical books of the New Testament (for Harnack covered all the
early Christian writings, a number of which he placed before the later parts
10
of the New Testament), we have the following summary (ignoring
qualifications and alternative datings at this point as irrelevant to the broad
picture):

5. For the story, cf. W. G. Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of
its Problems, ET 1973, 162-84.
6. Lightfoot's achievement is particularly well brought out by S. C. Neill, The Interpretation of
the New Testament, 1861-1961, Oxford 1964, 33-60.
7. I Clem. 5; Ignatius, Rom. 4.3.
8. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusehius, Leipzig 1893-7, vol. II
(cited hereafter as Chron.).
9. For a survey of surveys, cf. 0. Stahlin in W. Schmid and 0. Stahlin (cdd.), Geschichte der
griechische Literatur, Munich 1961, 11.2, esp. 1112—1121.
10. Chron.717-22. A comparable picture is to be found a few years earlier in A. Julicher's
Einleitung in das neue Testament, Tubingen 1894, though he put Mark after 70 and the
Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) at I25+.

11
 48-9 I and II Thessalonians
53 I and II Corinthians, Galatians (?)
53-4 Romans
57-9 Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians (if genuine),
Philippians
59-64 Pauline fragments of the Pastoral Epistles
65-70 Mark
70-5 Matthew
79-93 Luke-Acts 81-96 ('under Domitian')
I Peter, Hebrews
80-110 John, I-111 John
90-110 I and II Timothy, Titus
93-6 Revelation
100-30 Jude
120-40 James
160-75 II Peter

It is to be observed that the gospel of John has reverted to somewhere

around the turn of the first century and no longer represents the terminus
ad quern. Mark and Acts have been set much further back, and Harnack
was subsequently to put them a good deal earlier still.
A similar but slightly more contracted scheme is to be found in the article
on New Testament chronology by H. von Soden in the contemporary
11
Encyclopaedia Biblica His summary dates are:

50-60+ The Pauline Epistles

70+ Mark
93-96 Hebrews, I Peter, Revelation
-100 Ephesians, Luke, Acts, John, I-III John
100-33 Jude, Matthew, the Pastoral Epistles
The individual articles in the same Encyclopaedia reveal however how
volatile opinion was at that time.
11. Encyclopaedia Biblica, edd. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black, 1899-1903, I, 799-819.

12
Acts is still put well into the second century and John shortly before 140.
No date for II Peter is given, but even I Peter is put at 130-40. Above all,
while I and II Corinthians are set in the mid-50s, Romans and Philippians
are put in 120 and 125! But the articles on the latter two were written by
the Dutch scholar W. C. van Manen (1842-1905), who regarded all the
Pauline epistles (and indeed the rest of the New Testament literature) as
pseudonymous, or written under false names.
Yet while the radical critics were still oscillating wildly, conservative, yet
still critical, opinion of the period was content to settle for a span of
composition between 50 and 100+, with the single exception of II Peter at
c. 150. This was true both of English scholarship reflected in Hastings'
12
Dictionary of the Bible and of American represented by B. W. Bacon's
13
Introduction to the New Testament . Indeed the most conservative
dating of all was by the German Theodore Zahn (1838-1933) whose
14
Introduction to the New Testament a monument of erudition and
careful scholarship, set all the books between 50 and 95, including II
Peter.
By 1950 the gap between radical and conservative had narrowed
considerably, and we find a remarkable degree of consensus. There is still
marginal variation at the upper limit, but the span of composition has
settled down to a period from about 50 to 100 or 110, with the single
exception again of II Peter (c. 150). This generalization holds of all the
major introductions and comparable surveys, English, American and
Continental, Protestant and Catholic, published over the twenty years
15
following 1950.

12. Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh 1898-1904.

13. B. W. Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament, New York 1900.
14. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, originally Leipzig 1897-9, ET Edinburgh
1909.
15. R. G. Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1950; H. F. D. Sparks, The
Formation of the New Testament, 1952; A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of
the New Testament, revised by C. S. C. Williams, Oxford 1953 (cited henceforth as
McNeile-Williams); W. Michaelis, Einleitung in das neue Testament, Bern 1954; A.
Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (Freiburg 21956), ET New York 1958; A.
Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament (Tournai 1959), ET New York
1965; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 1961- 5, 31970; Peake's Commentary on
the Bible, revised, ed. M. Black, 1962; The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, New York
1962; R. M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, i963;W. G. Kummel,
Introduction to the New Testament (Heidelberg i963),ET 1966; 21975; W. Marxsen,
Introduction to the New Testament (Gutersloh 1963), ET Oxford 1968; E. F. Harrison,
Introduction to the New Testament, 1964; R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New
Testament, 1966; W. D. Davies, Invitation to the New Testament, New York 1966; A. F. J.
Klijn, An Introduction to the New Testament, ET Leiden 1967; D.J. Selby, Introduction to the
New Testament, New York 1971.

13
The prevailing position is fairly represented by Kummel, who tends to be
more radical than many Englishmen and more conservative than many
Germans. His datings, again omitting alternatives, are:
50-1 I and II Thessalonians
53-6 Galatians, Philippians, I and II Corinthians,
Romans
56-8 Colossians, Philemon c.70 Mark 7
0-90 Luke
80-90 Acts, Hebrews
80-100 Matthew, Ephesians
90-5 I Peter, Revelation
90-100 John
90-110 I-III John
-100 James c.100 Jude
100+ I and II Timothy, Titus
125-50 II Peter
In this relatively fixed firmament the only 'wandering stars' are
Ephesians, I Peter, Hebrews and James (and occasionally the Pastorals
and Jude), which conservatives wish to put earlier, and Colossians and II
Thessalonians, which radicals wish to put later. So once more the span
(with one exception) is back to little more than fifty years. But before
closing this survey I would draw attention to the latest assessment of all,
16
Norman Perrin's The New Testament: An Introduction, since it could
suggest a return to a wider spread. His approximate datings are:

50-60 I Thessalonians, Galatians, I & II Corinthians,

Philippians, Philemon, Romans
70-90 II Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians,
Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, Hebrews
80-100 John, I-III John
90-100 Revelation
17
90-140 I Peter, James, Pastoral Epistles, Jude, II Peter

16. N. Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction, New York 1974.

17. The order of this last group is only a guess. No dates are given, except that I Peter is
about the end of the first century and II Peter c. 140.

14
Perrin represents the standpoint of redaction criticism, which goes on
from source criticism (dealing with documentary origins) and form criticism
(analysing the formative processes of the oral tradition) to emphasize the
theological contribution of the evangelists as editors.
There is no necessary reason why its perspective should lead to later
datings. Indeed other representatives of the same viewpoint who have
written New Testament introductions, Marxsen and Fuller, have taken
over their precursors' datings. Moreover, the gospels, with which the
redaction critics have been most concerned, all remain, including the
fourth, within what Perrin calls 'the middle period of New Testament
Christianity', 'the twenty-five years or so that followed the fall of
Jerusalem'. Yet subsequent to this period he sees a further stage,
extending into the middle of the second century, in which the New
Testament church is 'on the way to becoming an institution'.
If we ask why it is only then becoming an institution, the answer is bound
18
up with his 'theological history of New Testament Christianity' . The
course of this he traces from 'Palestinian Jewish Christianity', through
'Hellenistic Jewish Mission Christianity', 'Gentile Christianity' and
'the apostle Paul', to 'the middle period', and finally into 'emergent
Catholicism'. Yet these categories, taken over from Rudolf Bultmann
and his successors, have of late come in for some stringent criticism not
19 20
only from England but from Germany itself, none of which Perrin
acknowledges.
The entire developmental schema (closely parallel to the 'diffusionist
framework' in archaeology), together with the time it is assumed to
require, begins to look as if it may be imposed upon the material as
arbitrarily as the earlier one of the Tubingen school. It is premature to
judge. But certainly it cannot itself be used to determine the datings which
are inferred from it. It must first be submitted to a more rigorous scrutiny in
the light of the independent data.
Indeed what one looks for in vain in much recent scholarship is any
serious wrestling with the external or internal evidence for the daring
of individual books (such as marked the writings of men like Lightfoot and
Harnack and Zahn), rather than an a priori pattern of theological

18. Op. cit, 39-63.

19. I. H. Marshall, 'Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments',
NTS 19, 1972-3, 271-87; 'Early Catholicism' in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (edd.),
New Dimensions in New Testament Study, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974, a 17-31.
20. M. Hengel, 'Christologie and neutestamentliche Chronologic' in H. Baltens-weiler and
B. Reicke (edd.), Neues Testament und Geschichte: Oscar Cullmann zum 70.
Geburtstag, Zurich and Tubingen 1972, 43-67; Judaism and Hellenism, ET 1974.

15
 21
development into which they are then made to fit. In fact ever since the
form critics assumed the basic solutions of the source critics (particularly
with regard to the synoptic problem) and the redaction critics assumed the
work of the form critics, the chronology of the New Testament documents
has scarcely been subjected to fresh examination. No one since Harnack
has really gone back to look at it for its own sake or to examine the
presuppositions on which the current consensus rests. It is only when one
pauses to do this that one realizes how thin is the foundation for some of
the textbook answers and how circular the arguments for many of the
relative datings. Disturb the position of one major piece and the pattern
starts disconcertingly to dissolve.
That major piece was for me the gospel of John. I have long been
convinced that John contains primitive and reliable historical tradition,
and that conviction has been reinforced by numerous studies in
recent years. But in reinforcing it these same studies have the more
insistently provoked the question in my mind whether the traditional dating
of the gospel, alike by conservatives and (now) by radicals, towards the
end of the first century, is either credible or necessary. Need it have been
written anything like so late? As the arguments requiring it to be set at a
considerable distance both in place and time from the events it records
began one by one to be knocked away (by growing recognition of its
independence of the synoptists and, since 1947 by linguistic parallels from
the Dead Sea Scrolls), I have wondered more and more whether it does
not belong much nearer to the Palestinian scene prior to the Jewish revolt
of 66-70.
But one cannot redate John without raising the whole question of its place
in the development of New Testament Christianity. If this is early, what
about the other gospels? Is it necessarily the last in time? Indeed does it
actually become the first? - or are they earlier too? And, if so, how then do
the gospels stand in relation to the epistles? Were all the Pauline letters
penned, as has been supposed, before any of the gospels?

21. Perrin's particular schema is in itself fairly arbitrary. It is hard to see by what criteria of
doctrine or discipline I and II Peter are both subsumed under the heading of 'emergent
Catholicism'; in fact in the analysis of the marks of this phenomenon (op. cit., 268-73) I
Peter is scarcely mentioned. Moreover, while he acknowledges his deep indebtedness to E.
Kasemann for his estimate of II Peter ('An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology',
Essays on New Testament Themes, ET (SBT 41) 1964, 169-95), he ignores Kasemann's
equally strong contention ('Ketzer und Zeuge', ZTK 48, 1951, 292-311) that III John reflects
a second-century transition to Ignatian monepiscopacy. (Of the Johannine epistles he merely
says, 249: 'We are now in the middle period of New Testament Christianity.') He does
not explain why I Clement's concern for apostolic succession and Ignatius' plea for unity
around the monarchical bishop (quintessential interests, one would have thought, of
'emergent Catholicism') receive no mention in New Testament documents supposedly later
than they are.

16
Moreover, if John no longer belongs to the end of the century, what of the
Johannine epistles and the other so-called Catholic Epistles which have
tended to be dated with them? And what about the book of Revelation,
which, whatever its connection with the other Johannine writings,
everyone seems nowadays to set in the same decade as the gospel?
It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of
the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews,
Acts and the Apocalypse,
was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once
mentioned or apparently hinted at?
And what about those predictions of it in the gospels - were they really the
prophecies after the event that our critical education had taught us to
believe? So, as little more than a theological joke, I thought I would see
how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New
Testament was written before 70. And the only way to try out such a
hypothesis was to push it to its limits, and beyond, to discover what these
limits were. Naturally, there were bound to be exceptions - II Peter was an
obvious starter, and presumably the Pastorals - but it would be an
interesting exercise.
But what began as a joke became in the process a serious preoccupation,
and I convinced myself that the hypothesis must be tested in greater detail
than the seminar-paper with which it started would allow. The result is that
I have found myself driven to look again at the evidence for all the
accepted New Testament datings. But so far from forcing it to a new
Procrustean bed of my own making, I have tried to keep an open mind. I
deliberately left the treatment of the fourth gospel to the last (though
increasingly persuaded that it should never be treated in isolation from the
other three, or they from it) so as not to let my initial judgment on it mould
the rest of the pattern to it.
Moreover, I have changed my mind many times in the course of the work,
and come through to datings which were not at all what I expected when I
began. Indeed I would wish to claim nothing fixed or final about the results.
Once one starts on an investigation like this one could go on for years.
Problems that one supposed in one's own mind were more or less settled
(e.g. the synoptic problem) become opened up again; and almost all the
books or articles that have been written on the New Testament (and many
too on ancient history) threaten to become relevant. But one has to stop
somewhere. I am much more aware of what I have not read. But this will
have to do as a stone to drop into the pond, to see what happens.
Naturally if one presumes to challenge the scientific establishment in any
field one must be prepared to substantiate one's case in some detail.

17
So I have tried to give the evidence and provide the references for those
who wish to follow them up. However, short of making it one's life's work
(and frankly chronology is not mine), one must delimit the task. I have not
attempted to go into the theoretical basis of chronology itself or to get
involved in astronomical calculations or the complex correlation of ancient
22
dating systems.
These things are too high for one who finds himself confused even when
changing to summer time or crossing time zones! Nor have I entered the
contentious area of the chronology of the birth, ministry and death of
Jesus, since it does not seriously affect the dating of the books of the
New Testament. Nor have I found it necessary to be drawn into the
history of the canon of the New Testament, since, unless one has reason
to suppose that the books were written very late, how long an interval
elapsed before they became collected or acknowledged as scripture is but
marginally relevant. Above all, I have not ventured into the vast field of the
non-canonical literature of the sub-apostolic age, except to the extent that
this is directly relevant to the dating of the New Testament books
themselves. Without attempting to survey this literature, both Jewish and
Christian, for its own sake (which would have taken me far beyond my
competence), I have simply devoted a postscript to it, in so far as by
comparison and contrast it can help to check or confirm the conclusions
arrived at from the study of the New Testament.
Finally, in a closing chapter I have sketched some of the conclusions and
corollaries to be drawn - and not to be drawn - from such a study. My
position will probably seem surprisingly conservative - especially to those
who judge me radical on other issues. But I trust it will give no comfort to
those who would view with suspicion the application of critical tools to
biblical study - for it is reached by the application of those tools. I claim no
great originality - almost every individual conclusion will be found to have
been argued previously by someone, often indeed by great and forgotten
men – though I think the overall pattern is new and I trust coherent.
Least of all do I wish to close any discussion. Indeed I am happy to prefix
to my work the words with which Niels Bohr is said to have begun his
lecture-courses: 'Every sentence I utter should be taken by you not as
23
a statement but as a question.'
22. Cf.J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Princeton 1964, for the single most
useful survey; also T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri: A Key to the Chronology of the New Testament,
1865; J. van Goudoeuver, Biblical Calendars, Leiden 21961; A. K. Michels, The Calendar
of the Roman Republic, Princeton, NJ, 1967; E. J. Bickermann, Chronology of the
Ancient World, 1968; A. E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology, Munich 1972; E.
Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised ET,
Edinburgh 1973, vol.1. Appendix III ('The Jewish Calendar').
23. Quoted by J. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, 1973, 334.

18
 Chapter II
The Significance of 70

ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any
showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of
the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of
institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned
as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in
some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event.
But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock
Holmes of the dog that did not bark.
S. G. F. Brandon made this oddness the key to his entire interpretation of
24
the New Testament: everything from the gospel of Mark onwards was a
studied rewriting of history to suppress the truth that Jesus and the earliest
Christians were identified with the revolt that failed.
But the sympathies of Jesus and the Palestinian church with the Zealot
cause are entirely unproven and Brandon's views have won scant
25
scholarly credence.
Yet if the silence is not studied it is very remarkable. As James Moffatt
said,
We should expect... that an event like the fall of Jerusalem would
have dinted some of the literature of the primitive church, almost
as the victory at Salamis has marked the Persae. It might be
supposed that such an epoch-making crisis would even furnish
criteria for determining the dates of some of the NT writings.

24. S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 1951; 2I957; 'The
Date of the Markan Gospel', NTS 7, 1960-1, 126-41; Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester
1967; The Trial of Jesus, 1968.
25. Cf. the devastating review of Jesus and the Zealots by Hengel, JSS 14, 1969, a 31-40;
and his .Die Zeloten, Leiden 1961; Was Jesus a Revolutionist?,' ET Philadelphia 1971;
Victory over Violence, ET 1975; also W. Wink, 'Jesus and Revolution: Reflection on S. G.
F. Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots', USQR 26, 1969, 37-59; O. Cullmann, Jesus and the
Revolutionaries, ET New York 1970; and especially the forthcoming symposium edited by C.
F. D. Moule and E. Bammel, Jesus and the Politics of his Day, Cambridge 1977(?). P. Winter
makes the important point that 'nothing that Josephus wrote lends any support to the
theory that Jesus was caught up in revolutionary, Zealotic or quasi-Zealotic
activities. ... The relatively friendly attitude of Josephus towards Jesus contrasts with
his severe stricture of the Zealots and kindred activist groups among the Jews
responsible for encouraging the people to defy Roman rule' (Excursus II in Schurer, HJP
I, 441).

19
 As a matter of fact, the catastrophe is practically ignored in the
26
extant Christian literature of the first century.
Similarly C. F. D. Moule:
It is hard to believe that a Judaistic type of Christianity which had
itself been closely involved in the cataclysm of the years leading
up to AD 70 would not have shown the scars - or, alternatively,
would not have made capital out of this signal evidence that they,
and not non-Christian Judaism, were the true Israel. But in fact
27
our traditions are silent.
Explanations for this silence have of course been attempted. Yet the
simplest explanation of all, that perhaps... there is extremely little in the
28
New Testament later than AD 70 and that its events are not mentioned
because they had not yet occurred, seems to me to demand more
attention than it has received in critical circles.
Bo Reicke begins a recent essay with the words:
An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament
studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after
the Jewish War of AD 66-70 because they contain prophecies ex
eventu of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year
29
70.
In fact this is too sweeping a statement, because the dominant consensus
of scholarly opinion places Mark's gospel, if not before the beginning of
30
the Jewish war, at any rate before the capture of the city. Indeed one of
the arguments to be assessed is that which distinguishes between the
evidence of Mark on the one hand and that of Matthew and Luke on the
other. In what follows I shall start from the presumption of most
contemporary scholars that Mark's version is the earliest and was used by
Matthew and Luke.

26. j. Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, Edinburgh 31918, 3.
This is quoted by L. H. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Fall of Jerusalem in
the Synoptic Gospels (Nov Test. Suppl. 23), Leiden 1970, 5, who continues: 'There is no
unambiguous reference to the fall of Jerusalem any place outside the gospels.’
27. C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 1962, 123.
28. Moule, op. cit., 121.
29. B. Reicke, 'Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem', in D. W. Aune
(ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Alien P.
Wikgren (NovTest Suppl. 33), Leiden 1972, 121-34.
30. Cf. the summary of opinions in V. Taylor, St Mark,21966, 31. He himself opts, with many
others, for 65-70. Kummel, INT, 98, hedges his bets: 'Since no overwhelming argument for
the years before or after 70 can be adduced, we must content ourselves with saying that
Mark was written ca. 70.

20
 31
As will become clear , I am by no means satisfied with this as an
overall explanation of the synoptic phenomena. I believe that one must be
open to the possibility that at points Matthew or Luke may represent the
earliest form of the common tradition, which Mark also alters for editorial
reasons. I shall therefore concentrate on the differences between the
versions without prejudging their priority or dependence. The relative order
of the synoptic gospels is in any case of secondary importance for
assessing their absolute relation to the events of 70. Whatever their
sequence, all or any could have been written before or after the fall of
Jerusalem.
Let us then start by looking again at the discourse of Mark 13. It begins:
As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples exclaimed,
'Look, Master, what huge stones! What fine buildings!' Jesus said
to him, 'You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left
upon another; all will be thrown down.' When he was sitting on
the Mount of Olives facing the temple he was questioned privately
by Peter, James, John, and Andrew. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when will
this happen? What will be the sign when the fulfilment of all this
is at hand?' (13.1-4).
The first thing to notice is that the question is never answered. In fact no
further reference is made in the chapter to the destruction of the temple.
This supports the judgment of most critics [ unbelieving ] that the
discourse is an artificial construction out of diverse teachings of Jesus,
with parallels in various parts of the gospel tradition, and linked somewhat
arbitrarily by the evangelist to a subsequent question of interest to the
church, such as Mark regularly poses by the device of a private enquiry by
an inner group of disciples (cf. 4.10; 7.17; 9.28).
We need not stop to wrestle with the complex question of how much goes
back to Jesus and how much is the creation of the community. That Jesus
could have predicted the doom of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is no more
inherently improbable than that another Jesus, the son of Ananias, should
32 33
have done so in the autumn of 62 . Even if, as most would suppose ,
the discourse represents the work of Christian prophecy reflecting upon
the Old Testament and remembered sayings of Jesus in the light of the
church's experiences, hopes and fears, the relevant question is, What
experiences, hopes and fears ?

31. Cf. pp. 92-4 below.

32. Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless
otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.
33. Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless
otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.

21
The mere fact again that there is no correlation between the initial
question and Jesus' answer would suggest that the discourse is not being
written retrospectively out of the known events of 70. Indeed the sole
subsequent reference to the temple at all, and that only by implication, is
in 13.14-16:
But when you see 'the abomination of desolation' usurping a
place, which is not his, (let the reader understand), then those
who are in Judaea must take to the hills. If a man is on the roof,
he must not come down into the house to fetch anything out; if in
the field, he must not turn back for his cloak.
It is clear at least that 'the abomination of desolation' cannot itself refer
to the destruction of the sanctuary in August 70 or to its desecration by
34
Titus' soldiers in sacrificing to their standards . By that time it was far
too late for anyone in Judaea to take to the hills, which had been in
35
enemy hands since the end of 67 .
Moreover, the only tradition we have as to what Christians actually did, or
36
were told to do, is that preserved by Eusebius apparently on the basis
37
of the Memoirs of Hegesippus used also by Epiphanius
This says that they had been commanded by an oracle given 'before the
war' to depart from the city, and that so far from taking to the mountains of
Judaea, as Mark's instruction implies, they were to make for Pella, a
Greek city of the Decapolis, which lay below sea level on the east side of
38
the Jordan valley.

34. Josephus, BJ 6. 316.

35. Brandon, who argues for this, JTS 7, 133f., merely omits any reference to the injunction
to take to the hills.
36. HE 3. 5.3. Quotations from this work are from the translation and edition by H.J. Lawlor
and J. E. L. Oulton, 1927-8.
37. Adv. haer. 29.7; 30.2; de mens. et pond. 15.2-5. For the case for a common source in
the Hypommmata of Hegesippus, cf. H.J. Lawlor, Eusebiana, Oxford 1912, 27-34, who
prints the full texts (101f.).
38. According to Epiphanius' version, the flight was made just before the beginning of the
siege of Jerusalem itself. At that stage escape was indeed still possible. Speaking of
November 66 Josephus says: 'After this catastrophe of Cestius many distinguished
Jews abandoned the city as swimmers desert a sinking ship' (BJ 2.556). But an earlier
reference (Ant.20.256) to the period between the arrival of Gessius Florus as procurator in
64 and the beginning of the war in 66 fits better a popular exodus and the Eusebian dating:
'There was no end in sight. The ill-fated Jews, unable to endure the devastation by
brigands that went on, were one and all forced to abandon their own country and flee,
for they thought it would be better to settle among gentiles, no matter where'. If the
Christian Jews were among them, then the λησταί (Josephus' word for the Zealots) would
have been the cause for the Christians' dissociation from the revolt rather than, as Brandon
thought, their attachment to it. This seems altogether more likely.

22
It would appear then that this was not prophecy shaped by events and
cannot therefore be dated to the period immediately before or during the
39
war of 66- 70. What apparently the instruction is shaped by (whether in
the mind of Jesus or that of a Christian prophet speaking in his name) is,
rather, the archetypal Jewish resistance to the desecration of the temple-
sanctuary by an idolatrous image under Antiochus Epiphanes in 168-7 BC.
This was 'the abomination of desolation... set up on the altar' (I Macc.
40
1.54) referred to by Daniel (9.27 ;11.31;12.11), and it was in
consequence of this and of the local enforcement of pagan rites that
Mattathias and his sons 'took to the hills, leaving all their belongings in
the town' (I Macc. 2.28).
It is here that we should seek the clue to the pattern of Mark 13.14-16.
Moreover the influence of the book of Daniel is so pervasive in this
41
chapter that it is hard to credit that what is regularly there associated
with the abomination of desolation, namely, the cessation of the daily
offering in the temple (Dan.8.13; 9.27; 11.31; 12.11) would not have been
42
alluded to if this had by then occurred, as it did in August 70.
It is more likely that the reference to 'the abomination of desolation standing
where he ought not' (to stress Mark's deliberate lack of grammatical
43a
apposition) is, like Paul's reference to 'the lawless one' or 'the enemy'
43, 43b
who 'even takes his seat in the temple of God' (II Thess.2.1-12),
traditional apocalyptic imagery for the incarnation of evil which had to be
interpreted ('let the reader understand'; cf. Rev. 13.18) according to
whatever shape Satan might currently take.
It is indeed highly likely that such speculation was revived, as many have
44
argued , by the proposal of the Emperor Gaius Caligula in 40 to set up
45
his statue in the temple (which was averted only by his death).
39. This point is made strongly, perhaps over-strongly, by Reicke, op. cit., 125. For a defence
of the Pella tradition, against the criticisms of Brandon, Fall of Jerusalem, 168-78, cf. S. S.
Sowers, 'The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight', TZ 26, 1970,305-20.
40. LXX 41. As well as in this passage, it is echoed in 13.4 (Dan. 12.7); 13.7 (Dan. 2.28);
13.19 (Dan. 12.1); and 13.26 (Dan. 7.13). 42. Josephus, BJ 6.94
43. There is here the same transition between neuter and masculine: τὸ κατέχονv.6), ὁ
κατέχων (v. 7) …43a. ‘Apposition’ no explanation of the ‘abomination of desolation’ Ed. PB
… 43b. We cannot seek the interpretation beyond the apostolic age. We can have a choice
between a Jewish and a Roman Man of Sin, — who name Simon of Gioras, and
Stephenson, late rector of Lympsham, who (Christology, vol. 1) cites proof upon proof that
the Man of Sin is Eleazer Thebuthis, first a Jewish Gnostic, then a Christian and rejected
candidate for the bishopric of Jerusalem on the death of St. James, then an apostate, and finally a
leader in the Jewish rebellion, possessing himself of the Temple and aiming at making himself the
Messiah of the Scriptures; Alexander Brown ‘the Great Day of the Lord’ Page 344/5 Ed. PB
44. E.g. B. W. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, New Haven, Conn., 1925, 53-68.
45. Josephus, Ant. 18. 261-309. For the horror and alarm which this raised among Jews, cf.
Philo, Leg. Ad Gaium, 184-348.

23
Paul was evidently still awaiting the fulfilment of such an expectation in 50-
1 (to anticipate the date of II Thessalonians), where 'the restrainer' holding
it back is probably to be interpreted as the Roman Empire embodied in its
emperor (ὁ κατέχων being a play perhaps on the name Claudius, 'he who
shuts'). His expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 could be reflected in
the phrase of I Thess. 2.16 about retribution having overtaken them εἰς
46
τἐλος ('with a view to the end' ?).
The only other datable incident to which 'the abomination' might
conceivably refer in retrospect is the control of the temple not by the
Romans but by the Zealots temporarily in 66 and permanently in 68, which
47
Josephus speaks of in terms of its 'pollution'.
This would be the very opposite of Brandon's thesis, with the Zealots filling
the role of antichrist. But it does not explain the masculine singular (as a
47a
vaticinium ex eventu should require) and again it is too late for a pre-
war flight, and perhaps for any.
One is forced to conclude that the reference in Mark 13.14 to 'the
abomination of desolation standing where he ought not' is an extremely
uncertain indicator of retrospective dating.
G. R. Beasley-Murray ends a note on the history of the interpretation of
this verse with the words:
It would seem a just conclusion that the traditional language of
the book of Daniel, the Jewish abhorrence of the idolatrous
48
Roman ensigns, attested in the reaction to Pilate's desecration,
and Jesus' insight into the situation resulting from his people's
rejection of his message, supply a sufficient background for this
49
saying.
Marxsen, writing from a very different standpoint, regards the phrase as a
vague reference to the forthcoming destruction of the temple and is
forthright in saying:
46. A suggested interpretation I owe to Dr E. Bammel.
47. BJ 2.422-5; 4.147-92; 5.IQ. So M.-J. Lagrange, S. Matthieu, Paris 1927, 462; R. T.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, 227-39; W.J. Houston, New Testament
Prophecy and Christian Tradition, unpublished D.Phil, thesis for the University of Oxford,
1973. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 'Josephus and Daniel,' ASTI 4, 1965, i53f.
… 47a. Zealots plural, Antichrist singular. If Mark was written after AD 70, the Zealots could
have been easy used as the abomination and the Greek could have been in the masculine
plural to identify them and without mentioning them by name - vaticinium ex eventu
48. The reference is to an incident in Caesarea in a6 (Josephus, Ant. 18. 55-9; BJ 2.169-74;
Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 299-305) and therefore well before Jesus' supposed utterance. Cf. P.
L. Maier, 'The Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem', HTR 1969, 109-21
49. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 1957, 72 (cf. 59-72).

24
'From Mark's point of view, a vaticinium ex eventu is an
50
impossibility.'
With regard to Mark 13 as a whole the most obvious inference is that the
warnings it contains were relevant to Christians as they were facing
duress and persecution, alerting them to watchfulness against false
alarms and pretenders' claims, promising them support under trial before
Jewish courts and pagan governors, and assuring them of the rewards of
steadfastness.
Doubtless the phrasing has been influenced and pointed up by what
Christians actually experienced, but, as Reicke argues in the second half
51
of his essay , there is nothing that cannot be paralleled from the period of
church history covered by Acts (c. 30-62).
As early as 50 Paul can say to the Thessalonians: 'You have fared like the
congregations in Judaea, God's people in Christ Jesus. You have been treated
by your countrymen as they are treated by the Jews' (I Thess. 2.14).
Unless the flight enjoined upon 'those who are in Judaea' is purely
symbolic (of the church dissociating itself from Judaism) - and with the
detailed instructions and the prayer that it may not be in winter (Mark
13.18) there is no reason to assume it is figurative any more than the very
literal dissolution of Herod's temple - then the directions for it must surely
belong to a time when there still were Christians in Judaea, free and
able to flee. Finally, we are in a period when it could still be said without
reserve or qualification on the solemn authority of Jesus: 'I tell you this: the
present generation will live to see it all' (13.30).
In fact there is, as we said, wide agreement among scholars that Mark 13
does fit better before the destruction of the temple it purports to
prophesy. This is relevant as we turn now to Matthew and Luke. What will
be significant are differences from Mark: otherwise the same presumption
will continue to hold.
We will take Matthew first, since he is closest to the Markan tradition. But
the first relevant passage in his gospel is not in fact in Markan material but
in that which he has in common with Luke, the parable of the wedding
feast (Matt.22.1-10 = Luke 14.16-24), where Matthew inserts the following:
The others seized the servants, attacked them brutally and killed
them. The king was furious; he sent troops to kill those murderers
and set their town on fire (22.6f.).

50. W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, ET Nashville, Tenn., 1969, 170 (cf. 166-89); similarly
E. Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark, ET 1975, 104f., 245. He
thinks Mark 1-13 was written c. 50 (259).
51. 'Synoptic Prophecies', 130-3.

25
 52
There can be little doubt that these verses are secondary to the parable.
They form part of an allegorical interpretation of the successive servants
(Luke has one only) in terms of the prophets and apostles sent to Israel,
as in the immediately preceding parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt.
53
21.33-45).
The introduction of a military expedition while the supper is getting cold is
particularly inappropriate. Luke has also allegorized the parable, to match
the Jewish and Gentile missions of the church, by introducing two search-
parties, first to the streets and alleys of the city and then to the highways
and hedgerows.
The secondary character of all these features is now further established by
their absence from the same parable in the Gospel of Thomas (64). This
version also supports the supposition, which we should independently
deduce from his usage elsewhere (Matt.18.23; 25.34, 40), that it is
Matthew who has brought in the figure of the king as the subject of the
story: Luke and Thomas both simply have 'a man'.
It is therefore as certain as anything can be in this field that the crucial
verse, 'The king was furious; he sent troops to kill those murderers
and set their town on fire', is an addition, probably by the evangelist. The
sole question is, When was it added and does it reflect in retrospect the
destruction of Jerusalem (to which it must obviously allude)?
It has to be admitted that this is the single verse in the New Testament
that most looks like a retrospective prophecy of the events of 70, and it
has almost universally been so taken. It is the only passage which
mentions the destruction of Jerusalem by fire.
54
Yet, as K. H. Rengstorf has argued, the wording of Matt. 22.7
represents a fixed description of ancient expeditions of punishment and is
such an established topos of Near Eastern, Old Testament and rabbinic
literature that it is precarious to infer that it must reflect a particular
occurrence. He concludes that it has no relevance for the dating of the first
gospel.
55
And this conclusion is borne out in a further study by Sigfred Pedersen ,

52. Matthew has also tacked on the (originally separate) parable of the wedding garment
(22.11- 14).
53. Cf. especially 22.4, 6 with 21.35f.
54. K. H. Rengstorf, 'Der Stadt der Morder (Mt 22.7)' in W. Eitester (ed.), Judentum-
Urchristentum-Kirche: Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias (ZNW Beiheft 26), 1960, 106-29
(especially 125f.).
55. S. Pedersen, 'Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu (eine Analyse von Mt 21.33-46
par; 22.1-10 par)',. ST19, 1965, 167-88.

26
who believes that this and the preceding parable of the wicked
husbandmen are fundamentally shaped by material from the Old
Testament, especially Jeremiah. The most he will say is that if Matthew is
writing after 70, then we must see this as a contributory occasion for the
addition (which of course no one would deny).
Moreover, if Matt. 22.7 did reflect the happenings of 70 one might expect
that it would make a distinction that features in other post eventum
'visions', namely, that while the walls of the city were thrown down, it was
the temple that perished by fire. Thus the Jewish apocalypse II Baruch
clearly reflects the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, though it purports to
be the announcement to the prophet Baruch of a coming Chaldean
invasion.
It recognizes that the city and the temple suffered separate fates:
We have overthrown the wall of Zion and we have burnt the place
56
of the mighty God (7.1). They delivered... to the enemy the
overthrown wall, and plundered the house, and burnt the temple
(80.3).
If one really wants to see what ex eventu prophecy looks like, one should
turn to the so-called Sibylline Oracles (4.125-7):
And a Roman leader shall come to Syria, who shall burn down
57
Solyma's temple with fire, and therewith slay many men, and
58
shall waste the great land of the Jews with its broad way.
It is precisely such detail that one does not get in the New
Testament.
Finally, in Matthew's parable the king clearly stands for God. In the war of
66-70 the king who sent the armies to quell the rebels was Nero, followed
by Vespasian. Reicke says:
The picture of God sending his armies to punish all guests not
willing to follow his invitation was in no way applicable to the war
started by Nero to punish the leaders of rebellion against Roman
59
supremacy.
He argues indeed that there is every reason to assume that the final
redactor of the parable would have altered the reference if he had been
writing after 70.
56. I.e. the temple. For this sense, cf. II Mace. 5.17-20; John 11.48; Acts6.14; 21.28; etc.
57. Jerusalem's
58. Tr. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II,
Oxford 1913,395.
59. Op.cit., 123.

27
This, I believe, is putting it too strongly, since undoubtedly Christians came
to see the destruction of Jerusalem as God's retribution on Israel, whoever
60
the human agent. Yet the correspondence does not seem close enough
to require composition in the light of the event.
Nevertheless, the conclusion must, I think, stand that on the basis of Matt.
61
22.7 alone it is impossible to make a firm judgment. It could reflect 70.
On the other hand, it need not. One must decide on the evidence of the
distinctive features in Matthew's apocalypse in chapter 24.
The first observation to be made is how few these are. As K. Stendahl
says, 'He does not have any more explicit references than Mark to the
62
Jewish War or the withdrawing of the Christians from Jerusalem'.
Apart from minor verbal variations he follows the tradition common to
Mark, with only the following differences of any significance:
1. In Matt 24.3, the purpose of the discourse is broadened to answer the
disciples not merely on the date of the destruction of the temple ('Tell us,
when will this happen ?') but on the theme to which the chapter (and the
one following) is really addressed: 'And what will be the signal for your
coming and the end of the age?' It is significant, however, that the
former question does not drop out, as might be expected (especially
since Matthew has no more answer to it than Mark) if at the time of
writing it now related to the past whilst the parousia was still awaited.
2. In 24.9-14, the prophecies of persecutions ahead found in Mark 13.9-12
are omitted, being placed by Matthew in Jesus' mission charge to the
disciples during the Galilean ministry (10.17-21). Whatever the motives for
this, the effect is to see the predictions fulfilled earlier rather than later, and
evidently they are not intended by Matthew to have any reference to the
sufferings of the Jewish war.
In their place Matthew has warnings against division and defection within
the church, which are presumably relevant to the state of his own
community but have no bearing on the question of date.
60. Cf. later (c. 300) Eusebius, HE 3.5.3: 'The justice of God then visited upon them (the
Jews) all their acts of violence to Christ and his apostles, by destroying that
generation of wicked persons root and branch from among men'; also (c. 400) Sulpicius
Severus, Chron. 2.30. But evidence for this is remarkably absent from earlier writings where
one might expect it, e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas or Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.
61. R. V. G. Tasker, St Matthew (Tyndale NTC), 1961, 206, suggests that the verses may
have been marginal comment (subsequently embodied in the text) added after 70 to draw
attention to the judgment on Israel for persecuting the Christians. The weakness in this
suggestion is of course the lack of any textual evidence.
62. PCB, 793. Cf. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 198, who himself has no doubt that
Matthew is later than 70: 'If we begin by inquiring into the time of Matthew's composition,
we encounter the startling fact that chap. 24 is scarcely ever used in evidence. It is rather on
the basis of 22.7 that the Gospel is assumed to have originated after AD 70.'

28
3. In 24.15, the cryptic reference to 'the abomination of desolation' is
specifically attributed to the prophet Daniel (which was obvious anyhow),
and Matthew has the neuter participle ἑστος for the masculine ἑστηκ ὀτα
(as the grammar demands), and ἐν τλοπῳ ἁγλιῳ for the vague ὅπου οὐ
δεῖ. Despite the lack of article, '(the) holy place' must mean the temple
(evidently intended by Mark's allusion), and the choice of phrase may
again reflect the scriptural background already referred to:
How long will impiety cause desolation, and both the holy place
and the fairest of all lands be given over to be trodden down?
(Dan. 8.13)
63
They sat idly by when it was surrendered, when the holy
place was given up to the alien (I Macc. 2.7).
Yet none of Matthew's changes affects the sense or makes the application
more specific (in fact the neuter participle does the opposite). Again he
does not mention the reference in Daniel to the cessation of the daily
sacrifices. If Matthew intended the reader to 'understand' in the prediction
events lying by then in the past he has certainly given him no help.
64
Moreover, as Zahn said long ago , in view of Matthew's appeal to
conditions in Jerusalem 'to this day' (27.8; cf. 28.15), one would have
expected him of all people to draw attention to the present devastation of
the site.
4. In 24.20, there occurs the only other change in the decisive paragraph
about Judaea, with the addition of the words in italics:
Pray that it may not be winter when you have to make your
escape, or Sabbath.
'When you have to make your escape' merely specifies what must be
meant in Mark. The reference to the sabbath could again contain an
allusion back to the fact that when the faithful of Judaea took to the hills
after the original 'abomination of desolation' their first encounter with the
enemy was on the sabbath and because of scruples which they later
abandoned they were massacred without resistance (I Macc. 2.29-41). But
it is more likely to refer to the obstacles to movement on the sabbath for
Jewish Christians who were strict observers of the law.
In any case it bespeaks a primitive Palestinian milieu and a community-
discipline stricter than that recommended in Matthew's own church (cf.
Matt. 12.1-14). It is certainly not an addition that argues for a situation
after 70.

63. Jerusalem
64. INT,571.

29
Indeed it is one of those points of difference where, unless one is
committed to over-all Markan priority, it looks as though Mark has omitted
an element in the tradition no longer relevant for the Gentile church.
5. Matthew's material without parallel in the Markan tradition (24.26-8;
24.37- 25.46) has no reference to the fall of Jerusalem but, like the
additional signs of the parousia in 24.30f., solely to 'the consummation
of the age'. Yet his version of the 'Q,' material in 24.26, 'If they tell you,
"He is there in the wilderness", do not go out', clearly shows that in his
mind the scene is still in Judaea (in the Lukan parallel in 17.23 it could be
anywhere). It is significant therefore that in 24.29, 'the distress of those
days' (i.e., on the assumption of ex eventu prophecy, the Judaean war) is
to be followed 'immediately' (εὐθέως) by the coming of the Son of Man,
whereas in Mark 13.24 it is promised vaguely 'in those days, after that
distress'. Normally Matthew edits out (if this is the relationship between
them) Mark's incessant use of εὐθύς ( immediately )
65
Never elsewhere does he alter a Markan phrase to εὐθέως. This makes
it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Matthew could deliberately be
writing for the interval between the Jewish war and the parousia. So
66
conscious was Harnack of this difficulty that he insisted that the interval
could not be extended more than five years (or ten at the very most), thus
dating Matthew c. 70-5. He would rather believe that Matthew wrote
before the fall of Jerusalem than stretch the meaning of εὐθέως further.
67
It seems a curious exercise to stretch it at all! Even E. J. Goodspeed,
who put Luke at 90, said of Matthew, 'A book containing such a
statement can hardly have been written very long after AD 70' (though
his elastic was prepared to extend to 80). The only other way of taking this
verse retrospectively is to say that 'the coming of the Son of Man',
though not 'the consummation of the age', did occur with the fall of
68
Jerusalem. But it is a fairly desperate expedient to seek to distinguish
these two (joined by Matthew by a single article in 24.3) in face of the
usage of the rest of the New Testament.

65. Though he adds the word, without significant change of sense, in 27.48. B. W. Bacon,
'The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels', JBL 28, 1909, a, argued (without a
shred of evidence) that εὐθύς could 'easily' have been in the original text of Mark 13.24 -
though this would still not explain why Matthew retained it.
66. Chron., 653f.
67. E. J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago 1937, 176.
68. Cf. A. Feuillet, 'La synthese eschatologique de saint Matthieu', RB 55-6, 1949-50,
340-64, 62-91, 18o- 211 (especially 351-6); 'Le sens du mot parousie dans l'evangile de
Matthieu' in W. D. Davies and D. Daube (edd.), The Background of the New Testament
and its Eschatology: In Honour of C. H. Dodd, Cambridge 1956, 261 —80; Gaston, No
Stone on Another, 484; also (somewhat differently) France, Jesus and the OT, 227- 39;
and G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (Ethel M. Wood Lecture), 1965.

30
Finally, Matthew retains unaltered Jesus' solemn pronouncement, 'The
present generation will live to see it all' (24.34), preserving also (as the
equivalent of Mark 9.1) the saying, 'There are some standing here who
will not taste of death before they have seen the Son of Man coming
in his kingdom' (16.28). Most notoriously of all, he has, alongside the
apocalyptic material from the Markan tradition which he sets in his mission
charge, the promise, 'Before you have gone through all the towns of
69
Israel the Son of Man will have come' (10.23).
If, on the usual reckoning, the evangelist is writing some 50-60 years after
the death of Jesus, it is surely incredible that there are no traces of
attempts to explain away or cover up such obviously by then unfulfillable
predictions. One would equally expect modifications to prophecies
69a
after the non event.
Indeed, I think that it needs to be asked much more pressingly than it is
why warnings and predictions relating to the crisis in Judaea should have
been produced or reproduced in such profusion after the events to which
they referred.
Just as Jesus' parables were reapplied to the life of the church and to the
parousia when their original setting in the crisis of his ministry was no
70
longer relevant , so one might suppose that instructions given, or pointed
up, for earlier situations would, if remembered at all afterwards, have
become related more timelessly to the End. Alternatively, if subsequent
occasion required, they might have been brought out and subjected to
70a
recalculation (the way that Jeremiah's unfulfilled prediction of the
seventy years' duration of the exile is reapplied 'on reflection' in Dan. 9.1-
27). But the period of composition commonly assigned to both Matthew
and Luke (80-90) was, as far as we know, marked by no crisis for the
71
church that would reawaken the relevance of apocalyptic.
I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long
after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a

69. This again could well be a saying which Mark has omitted from the common tradition as
irrelevant to his Gentile readers.
… 69a. Robertson does not realise that the Second Advent did take place, he is like most
Christians that they have wrong expection of what is to happen at the Second Advent.
70. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1935, and J. Jeremias, The Parables of
Jesus, ET 3I972.
… 70a. Where Robertson gets the idea that the 70 years of Jeremiah was not fufilled is
beyond me. It was fufilled perfectly. 70 years of 360 days each. 606-537 BC
71. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, 516-23, associated it with the rumours of the
return of Nero redivivus. But there is no other evidence connecting this myth with the gospel
tradition, even if we could date it with certainty (see pp. 245f. below). Moreover Streeter's
argument depends on his omission (with the Sinaitic Syriac) of 'standing in the holy place'
from Matt. 24.15.

31
prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have
defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions). It
would seem much more likely, as the form critics have taught us to expect,
that these sayings, like the rest, were adapted to the use of the church
when and as they were relevant to its immediate needs.
There is one other passage common to Matthew and Luke which it will be
convenient to mention briefly before turning to Luke. This refers to the
murder of Zechariah 'between the sanctuary and the altar'.
In Matthew (23.35), but not Luke (i 1.51), he is called 'son of Berachiah',
72
and this has been held to contain an allusion to the murder by two
Zealots 'in the midst of the temple' of a certain Zacharias, son of Baris
73
(V.L, Beriscaeus) in 67- 8. But the identification rests on a rather remote
resemblance of names, and this Zacharias, not being a priest, would have
been unlikely to have been 'between the sanctuary and the altar.'
On Jesus' lips it makes entirely good sense to interpret the reference, with
74
the Gospel according to the Hebrews , as being to the murder of
Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest (II Chron. 24.20-2), whom Matthew,
like some of the rabbis, has evidently confused with Zechariah son of
75
Berechiah, the prophet (Zech.1.1). In any case it is far too uncertain a
piece of evidence to carry any weight by itself.
Finally, then, we turn to Luke. His parallel to the Markan apocalypse must
be taken closely with another earlier passage relating to Jerusalem and it
will be convenient to set them out together.
When he came in sight of the city, he wept over it and said,
'If only you had known, on this great day, the way that leads to peace!
But no; it is hidden from your sight. For a time will come upon you,
when your enemies will set up siegeworks against you; they will encircle
you and hem you in at every point; they will bring you to the ground, you
and your children within your walls, and not leave you one stone
standing on another, because you did not recognize God's moment when
it came' (19.41-4).
But when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you may be sure
that her destruction is near. Then those who are in Judaea must take to
the hills; those who are in the city itself must leave it, and those who are

72. E.g. by J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin 2I9II, 118-23.
To the contrary, Zahn, INTII, 589f.
73. Josephus, BJ4, 334-44.
74. According to Jerome, in Matt. 23.35.
75. So e.g. A. H. McNeile, St Matthew, 1915; J. M. Creed, St Luke, 1930; H. St J.
Thackeray, Josephus, Loeb Classical Library, 1928, ad locc.

32
 out in the country must not enter; because this is the time of retribution,
when all that stands written is to be fulfilled.
Alas for women who are with child in those days, or have children at the
breast! For there will be great distress in the land and a terrible
judgment upon this people. They will fall at the sword's point; they will
be carried captive into all countries; and Jerusalem will be trampled
down by foreigners until their day has run its course (21.20-4).
The latter passage replaces, and at some points echoes, that in Mark
13.14-20 beginning, 'But when you see "the abomination of
desolation"...'.
Its relation to it must be considered shortly. But first let us look at what
Luke himself actually says.
At first sight it seems clearly to be composed (or at any rate pointed up) in
the light of the siege of 68-70. For here indeed is the greater specification
we expect but fail to find in Matthew.
The details, says Kummel, 'correspond exactly to the descriptions
which contemporary accounts offer of the action of Titus against
76
Jerusalem'.
Yet this is far from indisputable. In an article written now thirty years ago
but strangely neglected, Dodd argued strongly and circumstantially that no
77
such inference could be drawn.
These operations are no more than the regular commonplaces of ancient
warfare. In Josephus's account of the Roman capture of Jerusalem there
are some features which are more distinctive; such as the fantastic
faction-fighting which continued all through the siege, the horrors of
pestilence and famine (including cannibalism), and finally the conflagration
in which the Temple and a large part of the city perished.
It is these that caught the imagination of Josephus, and, we may
suppose, of any other witness of these events. Nothing is said of them
here. On the other hand, among all the barbarities which Josephus
reports, he does not say that the conquerors dashed children to the
78
ground. The expression ἐδαφιοῦσιν σε καὶ τὰ τἐκνα σοῦ ἐν σοίis is in
any case not based on anything that happened in 66-70: it is a common
79
place of Hebrew prophecy.
Dodd then proceeds to show in detail how all the language used by Luke
76. INT, 150. Similarly, among many others, R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic
Tradition, ET Oxford 1963, 123.
77. C. H. Dodd, 'The Fall of Jerusalem and the "Abomination of Desolation" ', JRS,
1947, 47-54; reprinted in his More New Testament Studies, Manchester 1968, 69-83.
78. The youths under the age of seventeen were sold into slavery (BJ 6.418).
79. Op-cit.49f. (74f.)

33
or his source is drawn not from recent events but from a mind soaked in
the Septuagint.
So far as any historical event has coloured the picture, it is not Titus's
capture of Jerusalem in AD 70, but Nebuchadrezzar's capture in 586 BC.
There is no single trait of the forecast which cannot be documented
80
directly out of the Old Testament.
It has justly been said that if this article had appeared in the Journal of
Theological Studies rather than the Journal of Roman Studies New
Testament scholars would have taken more notice of it. It is still ignored in
Kummel's extensive bibliography, and no recognition is given to the case
it argues. Interestingly, it had no influence on Reicke's article cited
81
above , which independently reaches much the same position.
But the absence of any clear reference to 70 does not settle the question
of what Luke is doing in relation to the Markan material. Indeed on this
Dodd and Reicke come to opposite conclusions. Reicke, with the majority
of critics, thinks that Luke 21.20-4 is an editing of Mark.
Dodd holds that it is independent tradition into which the evangelist has
simply inserted verbatim two phrases from Mark: 'Then those who are in
Judaea must take to the hills' (21.21 a) and 'Alas for women who are with
82
child in those days, or who have children at the breast!' (21.23a).
83
The latter alternative seems to me the more probable , if only because
the introduction of 'Judaea' in 21.21a upsets the reference of ἐν µέσω
αὐτῆς in 21b, which must be to Jerusalem αὐτῆς 21.20). But, whether or
not this was material which Luke had prior to his use of the Markan
tradition, he has clearly now united the two. Is the effect of their
combination to suggest or to require a later date?
Luke has preferred to concentrate on the destruction of the city rather than
the temple, the last reference, veiled or unveiled, to the sanctuary having
disappeared, despite his retention of the opening question about the fate
84
of the temple buildings (2I.5-7).
The answer therefore is even less precise, though there is now a definite

80. Ibid., 52 (79). Cf. earlier (though Dodd does not refer to it) C. C. Torrey, The
Composition and Date of Acts (Harvard Theological Studies, I), Cambridge, Mass., 1916,
691., who concludes: 'Every particle of Luke's prediction not provided by Mark was
furnished by familiar and oft-quoted Old Testament passages.'
81. Though it is cited with approval by Pedersen, ST 19, 168.
82. In 21.20 the reference to the 'desolation' of Jerusalem derives, Dodd argues, not from
Mark (and Daniel) but from the frequent use of the word in this context by Jeremiah.
83. Cf. my Jesus and His Coming, 1957, 122-4. Similarly T. W. Manson, The Sayings of
Jesus, 1949, 328-37; Taylor, Mark, 512; Gaston, op. cit., 358.
84. Luke broadens the audience ('some people were saying') but not, like Matthew, the
question.

34
reference to devastation and not simply to desecration. Reicke indeed
argues that by replacing Mark's 'abomination of desolation standing
where he ought not' with 'Jerusalem surrounded by armies' Luke
actually makes it more certain that he is not writing after the event. For
if the Gospel of Luke is supposed to have been composed after the
historical siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, the evangelist must be
accused of incredible confusion when he spoke of flight during
that siege, although the Christians were known to have left
85
Judaea some time before the war even began in AD 66.
The last clause goes beyond the evidence, for Luke may not have known
it. Nevertheless the point stands against a vaticinium ex eventu.
Things did not in fact turn out like that. Indeed they could not, for there
was no escaping once the city had been encircled. But the saying about
getting out and not going back in, which in Luke 21.21 is applied to the
city, has probably nothing in origin to do with a siege. In Mark and
Matthew it relates to a man's house, as in the closely parallel saying which
Luke himself preserves in 17.31: On that day the man who is on the roof
and his belongings in the house must not come down to pick them up; he,
too, who is in the fields must not go back.
As when Mattathias and his sons 'took to the hills, leaving all their
belongings behind in the town', the context seems more likely to be
local harassment than a military siege. If, as is entirely possible, Jesus
himself did utter some such urgent exhortations to vigilance and rapid
86
response, they were almost certainly independent of any programme of
future events. If subsequently they were incorporated by the church into
instructions for Christians in Judaea and combined with other words of his
87
about the desolation of the city, this does not mean that they were edited
after or even during the war. In fact there is nothing that requires them to
be restricted to the events of the latter 60s.
The 'wars and rumours of wars' between nations ἔθνος ἐπ΄ ἔθνος and
kingdoms (Mark 13.71. and pars) have no obvious reference to
88
Vespasian's campaign against the Jewish extremists. In Luke this is
'wars and insurrections' (ἀκαταστασίας) (21.9).
The latter word appears here to have the same meaning as στἀσις which
is used by Luke (23.19, 25), as by Mark (15.7), of the Barabbas incident,

85. 'Synoptic Prophecies', 127.

86. Cf. the whole of Luke 17.2 0-3 7; also 12.35-13.9; Mark 13.33-6; Matt. 24.37-25.30.
87. Cf. Matt.23.37-9 = Luke 13.34f Without Mark's story of the widow's mite, Matthew makes
this saying lead directly into the programme of ch. 24.
88. Cf. Reicke, op. cit., 130f., who instances rather the wars of Rome against the Parthians in
36 and 55 which inspired the Jewish nationalists to violent activities.

35
and in the context (cf. Luke 21.8) seems to refer to risings led by
messianic pretenders, such as he also records from the 40s and 50s in
89
Acts (5.36f.; 2I.38). There is no ground for assuming that he is alluding
specifically to the Jewish revolt of 66-70, let alone writing after it.
None of this in itself decides the issue of when the synoptic gospels were
written. In fact, despite the arguments he puts forward, Dodd (followed by
Gaston & Houston) thinks that Luke & Matthew were composed after 70.
Reicke, although regarding Luke 21 as secondary to Mark, concludes that
'Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their Gospels before the war
90
began'.
That issue must be considered in due course on its own merits. The one
conclusion we can draw so far is to agree with Reicke's opening
statement that it is indeed 'an amazing example of uncritical
dogmatism' that 'the synoptic gospels should be dated after the
Jewish War of AD 66-70 because they contain prophecies ex eventu
of the destruction of Jerusalem'. Indeed on these grounds alone one
might reverse the burden of proof, and reissue Torrey's challenge, which
he contended was never taken up:
It is perhaps conceivable that one evangelist writing after the year 70
might fail to allude to the destruction of the temple by the Roman armies
(every reader of the Hebrew Bible knew that the Prophets had definitely
predicted that foreign armies would surround the city and destroy it), but
91
that three (or four) should thus fail is quite incredible.
On the contrary, what is shown is that all four Gospels were written
before the year 70. And indeed, there is no evidence of any sort that will
bear examination tending to show that any of the Gospels were written
later than about the middle of the century. The challenge to scholars to
92
produce such evidence is hereby presented.
But before we can even consider that piece of bravado it is necessary to
establish some sort of scale of measurement by which the progress of
affairs in the Christian church 'about the middle of the century' can be
assessed. And the best, indeed the only, way of discovering any fixed
points is to turn to the evidence provided by the life and writings of Paul.

89. στἀσις refers also, of course, to purely civil disturbances (Acts 19.40; 23.10; 24.5), as
presumably do the ἀκατασταςίαι II Cor. 6.5.
90. Op. cit., 133.
91. Wink, USQR 26, 48, poses a similar question to Brandon who wishes to put Mark after
70: 'Is it really conceivable that Mark should fail to mention, even by allusion in a
single instance, an event so traumatic that it is alleged to be the sole motification for
his undertaking to write his gospel?'
92. C. C. Torrey, The Apocalypse of John, New Haven, Conn., 1958, 86, quoting his earlier
book, The Four Gospels, New York 21947.

36
 Chapter III
The Pauline Epistles

‘On the subject of the chronology of St Paul's life originality is out of

93
the question.' So Lightfoot began his lectures at Cambridge in 1863.
It might seem a discouraging start to any re-examination. In fact it is not
strictly true. Since then there has been at least one find of major
importance for fixing the chronology of St Paul, the discovery of an
inscription at Delphi, published in 1905, which enables us to date fairly
accurately Gallio's proconsulship of Achaia (Acts 18.12).
It has had the effect of shifting Lightfoot's dates a couple of years or so
earlier. Moreover, there has been at least one highly original
reconstruction of the sequence of events, John Knox's Chapters in a
94
Life of Paul - which, ironically, brushes aside the new piece of
95
evidence. Yet the relative fixity of the Pauline datings remains. If we
ignore eccentric solutions and the penumbra of disputed epistles, one can
say that there is a very general consensus on the dating of the central
section of St Paul's ministry and literary career, with a margin of difference
of scarcely more than two years either way. This is nowhere near the case
with any other part of the New Testament - the gospels, the Acts, the other
epistles, the Apocalypse.
The Pauline epistles constitute therefore an important fixed point and
yardstick, not only of absolute chronology but of relative span, against
which to measure other developments.

93. J. B. Lightfoot, 'The Chronology of St Paul's Life and Epistles', Biblical Essays,
1893, 215-33. It is remarkable that of the more than 700 pages of Harnack's Chronologie
only 7 (233-9) are devoted to the life and letters of Paul, most of which are spent in trying
(unsuccessfully I believe) to fix the date of Festus' accession. Other surveys include: Zahn,
WTIll, 450-80; C. H. Turner, 'Chronology of the New Testament: II. The Apostolic Age',
HDB I, 415-25; M. Goguel, 'Essai sur la chronologic Paulinienne', RHR 65, 1912, 285-359; D.
Plooij, De chronologie van het leven van Paulus, Leiden 1918; K. Lake, 'The Chronology
of Acts' in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake (edd.), The Beginnings of Christianity, 1920-
33 (hereafter Beginnings), V, 445-74; G. B. Caird, 'The Chronology of the New
Testament: B. The Apostolic Age', IDB I, 603-7; G. Ogg, The Chronology of the Life of
Paul, 1968 (with a bibliography to date); J. J. Gunther, Paul: Messenger and Exile: A
Study in the Chronology of his Life and Letters, Valley Forge, Pa., 1972.
94. John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, New York 1950. Knox's work has been followed
up by J. C. Hurd, 'Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology' in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D.
Moule, R. R. Niebuhr (edd.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to
John Knox, Cambridge 1967, 225-48; and C. Buck and G. Taylor, St Paul: A Study of the
Development of his Thought, New York 1969.
95. Or rather he locates it in Paul's last visit to Corinth, not (as Acts says) his first. Buck and
Taylor do the same.

37
Having said this, however, it is important to remember Lightfoot's other
preliminary warning: 'It may be as well to premise at the outset that as regards
96
the exact dates in St Paul's life absolute certainty is unattainable.' There is
not only a margin of disagreement but a margin of error to be allowed for. I
shall be giving a number of fairly precise sounding dates, which on
balance seem to me the most probable. But the reader should be warned
that they are always more specific than the evidence warrants.
A shift of a year or two in either direction — and sometimes more - is
entirely possible, without the over-all position being affected. Mention may
be made in advance of a number of factors which cause uncertainty and
allow room for genuine difference of judgment even when (as is rarely the
97
case) the evidence itself is fairly hard.
1. The sources, Roman, Jewish and Christian, are largely uncoordinated
and share no common canon of chronology such as is presupposed by
any modern historian. The evidence, for instance, from Tacitus,
Josephus and Acts has to be set together from different systems of time
measurement and then reduced to our (quite arbitrary) BC and AD.
2. The actual calendar years begin at a bewilderingly different number of
points - e.g. (ignoring internal changes with periods and places) the
Jewish in the spring, the Macedonian (which was spread to the Greek-
speaking world by the conquests of Alexander the Great) in the autumn,
the Julian (the official calendar of the Roman empire and still ours today)
in midwinter. (The same applies to the time the day was reckoned to
begin, but this is not so relevant to the epistles as to the gospels.)
3. Dates are designated not by the calendar but by the year of office of
some king or official. This does not, of course, usually commence neatly
with the calendar year. There is the additional uncertainty whether the
'first' year of, say a particular emperor is the residue of that year from the
day of his accession (assuming, too, that that follows immediately on the
demise of his predecessor) or whether it is counted from the next new
year's day. For instance, is what we call AD 55 the second or the first
year of Nero, who was proclaimed emperor on 13 October 54?
4. When we are dealing with intervals, there is the uncertainty whether the
reckoning is inclusive (with parts of the day or year being counted as
wholes) or exclusive. For instance, 'on the third day' (Matt.16.21; Luke
9.22; I Cor.15.4) in all probability means the same as 'after three
days' (Mark 8.31), whereas we should say it was 'after two days'.

96. Ibid.
97. For further discussion of these factors, which of course affect much more than this
chapter, cf. Finegan, HBC.

38
The question arises which usage a particular New Testament writer (e.g.
Paul or Luke) is following. With such latitude it is obviously possible, by
taking all the doubtful decisions one way, to interpret the same piece of
evidence to yield a rather different date from that which would be obtained
by taking them all the other way. And when the evidence itself is doubtful
or patient of more than one meaning, the divergence can be still greater.
Thus it is fairly easy to expand or contract intervals to suit the
requirements of a particular theory. Ultimately dating is almost always a
matter of assessing the balance of probabilities.
There is one further methodological decision which is of great importance
in this area, namely, the credence to be given to the evidence of Acts in
relation to that of Paul. There can be no dispute that Paul writing in his
own name is the primary witness, and the author of Acts, whom for
convenience we shall call Luke (the date and authorship of Acts will
occupy us in the next chapter), a secondary witness. When they conflict
we are bound to prefer Paul. But most of the time they do not conflict.
Indeed Kummel, who does not think Acts could have been written by a
98
companion of Paul , says nevertheless that
the sequence of Paul's missionary activities that can be inferred
from his letters is so remarkably compatible with the information
from Acts that we have good grounds for deriving the relative
chronology of Paul's activity from a critical combination of the
99
information from Paul's letters with the account in Acts.
So we shall follow the procedure of trusting Acts until proved otherwise
100
and allow this procedure to be tested by the results it yields.
We must however recognize that Acts itself is very uneven in the
chronological details it supplies - and it is not of course primarily interested
in being a chronicle but an account of the Spirit in action.
98. INT, 184.
99. WT, 254, supporting what he calls the convincing proof of T. H. Campbell, 'Paul's
"Missionary Journeys" as reflected in his Letters', JBL 74, 1955,80-7.
100. For the general relation of Acts to history, cf., among others, W. M. Ramsay, St Paul
the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1920; H. J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History,
New York 1955; E. Trocme, Le 'livre des Actes' et I'histoire, Paris 1957; R. R. Williams,
'Church History in Acts: Is it reliable?' in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Historicity and
Chronology in the New Testament, 1965, 145- 60; R. P. C. Hanson, Acts (New Clarendon
Bible), Oxford 1967, 2-ai; W. W. Gasque, 'The Historical Value of the Book of Acts: An
Essay in the History of New Testament Criticism', (3,41, 1969,68-88; E. Haenchen, Acts,
ET Oxford 1971,90-103. For a classical historian's assessment, cf. A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford 1963, 189: 'For Acts the
confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no
less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to
reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have
long taken it for granted.'

39
Thus there are some stages of Paul's life that are treated very summarily.
The longest stay of his career in one place, in Ephesus, which Acts itself
says lasted three years (20.31), occupies but a single chapter (19.2-20.1),
whereas the period from Paul's final arrival in Jerusalem to the end of his
first court-hearing, which lasted just over a fortnight and where the
101
passage of time is detailed very precisely, occupies three and a half
chapters (21.17-24.23). We should have no idea from Acts that Paul
visited Corinth three times (II Cor.13.1), the second visit having to be fitted
somewhere into the thinly covered Ephesian period. This must make
arguments from the silence of Acts very precarious, particularly since
Acts never mentions Paul writing a single letter and omits all
reference to Titus, one of his most constant emissaries.
Furthermore, Luke intersperses detailed datings with vague statements
such as 'in those days', 'about that period', 'after some (or many)
102
days' or 'for a time'.
At least when he generalizes we know it and may treat the indications of
time freely; when he does not we may have the more confidence in him. If
he discriminates, so can we. With these preliminary observations, let us
first try to get an outline framework of Paul's life into which we can then fit
his letters - though naturally the letters also provide primary evidence for
the framework.
The most reliable fixed point from which we can work both backwards and
forwards is supplied by the inscription to which I have already referred.
This enables us to date the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia, before
whom, according to Acts 18.12-17, Paul was summoned towards the end
of his first visit to Corinth. With increasing certainty we may say that Gallic
103
entered upon his office in the early summer of 51 and that Paul
104
appeared before him soon afterwards, probably in May or June.
By that time Paul had been in Corinth for at least eighteen months (Acts
18.11) and probably longer - for this period appears to be reckoned from
101. Acts 21.18 ('next day'); 21.26 ('next day'); 21.27 ('before the period of seven days
was up'); 22.30 ('the following day'); 23.11 ('the following night'); 23.12 ('when day
broke'); 23.32 ('next day'); 24.1 ('five days later').
102. The vague and untranslatable ἱκανός is one of his favourite words.
103. For the text of the inscription, which reproduces a letter from Claudius to the city of
Delphi mentioning Gallio, cf. E. M. Smallwood, Documents illustrating the Principates of
Gains, Claudius and Nero (no. 376), Cambridge 1967, 105; or briefly C.K. Barrett, The New
Testament Background: Selected Documents, 1956, 48f. For the dating, cf. A.
Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, ET 2I926, 261-86; Lake,
Beginnings V, 460-4; Finegan, HBC, 316-19; Ogg, op. cit., 104-11; and, for the most recent
discussion, A. Plessart, Fouilles de Delphes (Ecole Francaise d'Athenes) III. 4 (nos. 276-
350), Paris 1970, 26- 32 (especially 31); B. Schwank, 'Der sogenannte Brief an Gallic und
die Datierung des I Thess.', BZ. n.f. 15, 1971, 265f.

40
the time of Paul's full-time preaching (18.5) and his residence with Titus
Justus (18.7). Prior to that he had lodged and earned a living with Aquila
and Priscilla (18.1-4). So his arrival in Corinth is probably to be dated in
the autumn of 49. This would fit well with the statement of 18.2 that Aquila
'had recently arrived from Italy because Claudius had issued an edict
105
that all Jews should leave Rome', which is usually dated in 49. To
allow for the visits of Acts 15.36-17.34, Paul and Barnabas must have set
out from Antioch at least in the early spring of 49. This in turn probably
puts the Council of Jerusalem late in 48, allowing for the vaguely defined
but apparently quite extensive interval of 15.30-6.
Working backwards from this we find the chronology of Acts, as we might
expect, increasingly uncertain. The incidents of 11.27-12.25, introduced by
such nebulous time-references as 'during this period' (11.27) and 'about
this time' (12.1), appear to be arranged topically rather than
chronologically. The famine of 11.27-30 seems to correspond with that
106
recorded by Josephus as coming to its climax in 46 (or perhaps a year
107
earlier or later), whereas the death of Herod Agrippa I, which Luke
relates after it (though he does not make Barnabas and Paul return to
108
Antioch till after Herod's death), occurred in 44. If then the famine-relief
visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in Acts 11.30- 12.25 is to be
dated c. 46, then the first missionary journey described in Acts 13-14
109
would occupy 47-8, with the controversy and council-meeting of Acts 15
coming later in 48. So far there are no serious problems.
It is when we come to tie up the Acts story with Paul's own statements in
Gal. 1-2 that the difficulties begin.
There Paul relates two visits to Jerusalem - and two only - to make
contact with the apostles. At this point we must give absolute priority to
Paul's own account, not merely because he is writing in the first person,

104. That the Jews 'tried their luck' (Deissmann, op. cit., 264) with the new proconsul by
bringing Paul before him when Gallio had but recently arrived is, however, only a
presumption.
105. On the authority of Orosius, Hist. adv. pagan. 7.6.15. For the evidence, which is not as
firm as one could wish, cf. Lake, Beginnings V, 459f.; Finegan, HBC, 319; Ogg, op. cit., 99-
103; Bruce, 'Christianity under Claudius', BJRL 44, 1961-2, 313-18.
106. Ant. 20.101.
107. Cf. K. S. Gapp, 'The Universal Famine under Claudius', HTR 28, 1935, 258-65; Lake,
Beginnings V, 454f.; Ogg, op. cit., 49-55; Gunther, op. cit., 36-40. K. F. Nickle, The
Collection: A Study of Paul's Strategy (SBT 48), 1966, 29-32, puts it as late as 48.
108. Josephus, Ant. i9.35of. We shall have occasion later (p. 113 below) to suggest that
Luke may also have run together the arrest of Peter and the death of Herod, the former
occurring perhaps two years earlier in 42.
109. Ogg, op. cit., 58-71, estimates this as lasting c. 18 months; but the estimates vary - and
are in the last resort only calculated guesses.

41
whereas Luke is at this stage clearly dependent on sources (and can be
shown to be chronologically unreliable), but because Paul is speaking on
oath (Gal. 1.20) and any slip or dissimulation on his part would have
played into the hands of his opponents. Indeed we may say that the
statements of Gal. 1-2 are the most trustworthy historical statements
in the entire New Testament.
After first describing his conversion, Paul goes on:
When that happened, without consulting any human being,
without going up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles
before me, I went off at once to Arabia, and afterwards returned
to Damascus.
Three years later (ἒπειτα µετὰ τρία ἒτη) I did go up to Jerusalem
to get to know Cephas. I stayed with him a fortnight, without
seeing any of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother.
What I write is plain truth; before God I am not lying.
Next (ἒπειτα) I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and
remained unknown by sight to Christ's congregations in
Judaea....
Next, fourteen years later (ἒπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν) I
went again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with us
(Gal. 1.17-2.1).
The first question is whether the fourteen years are to be counted from the
first visit or from his conversion. There is no way of being certain, but
the natural presumption is that Paul is detailing a sequence (ἒπειτα ...
110a
ἒπειτα ... ἒπειτα —) exactly as in I Cor 15.5—8) and that the two
intervals of three years and fourteen years are intended to follow on each
110
other.
Moreover, the 'again' of 2.1, if part of the true text (as it surely is), would
naturally refer the reader back to the former visit, not to the conversion. No
one, I believe, would begin by supposing otherwise, though once the other
way of taking it is suggested there is no way of disproving it.
The second question is whether the reckoning is to be regarded as
inclusive or exclusive. Again we cannot be sure, but Jewish usage would
indicate the former.
'After eight days' in John 20.26 is evidently intended to refer to the
following Sunday (not Monday), and is rightly rendered in the NEB 'a
week later'.

110a. ἒπειτα = after that, then, afterwards

110. So Zahn, WTlll, 452, strongly.

42
When Paul says he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal.1.18) the NEB
is again surely correct in rendering it 'a fortnight'. So we may begin by
assuming that 'after three years' means in the third year following, or
what we would call after two years. Similarly, 'with the lapse of (διά cf.
Acts 24.17) fourteen years' probably means thirteen years later.
The third question (and much the most difficult) is which visit of Acts it is to
which the visit of Gal. 2.1 corresponds. If it is the second (that of Acts 11),
then it must have occurred c. 46; if it is the third (that of Acts 15), then it
would on our calculation have been in 48. On the assumption that the two
intervals are sequential and the reckoning is inclusive, then 13+2 from 46
would bring us back to 31 for Paul's conversion; if from 48, then to 33.
Though we cannot be absolutely certain, it looks as if the most likely date
for the crucifixion is 30 - the only serious alternative astronomically
111
and calendrically being 33. Even on the former dating, 31 would be
almost impossibly early for Paul's conversion if all the developments of
112
Acts 1-8 are to be accounted for.
If then the equation of Gal. 2.1 with Acts 11.30 is preferred, the two
intervals have to be run concurrently, bringing the date for the conversion
to 33. This is the same date as is reached by equating the visits of Gal. 2.1
and Acts 15 if the intervals are nonconcurrent. (Of course if the time-
reckoning is not inclusive, or the famine was really before the death of
Herod in 44, or the crucifixion was in 33, then the equation with the earlier
visit is out of the question.) The initial chronological probability must
therefore favour identifying the visit of Gal. 2 with the subsequent council
visit of Acts 15.
However, before examining the points for and against this, we may pause
to look at the equation of the first visits of all recorded in Gal.1.18-24 and
Acts 9.26-30. There is no serious dispute that these must refer to the
same occasion, yet it is worth bearing in mind how divergent the accounts
are. Luke suggests that Paul went to Jerusalem direct from Damascus
after no great interval (Acts 9.20-6), and indeed from Paul's subsequent
account of the matter in Acts 22.17 we could gather that he returned to
Jerusalem at once. There is no hint of his going off to Arabia or of a two-
to three-year gap.
Moreover in Gal 1 he is insistent that he saw only Peter and James and
remained unknown by sight to the congregations in Judaea. In Acts 9 he is
introduced by Barnabas (who is not mentioned in Gal 1) to the apostles,
111. The case is argued in detail and I believe convincingly by A. Strobel, 'Der Termin des
Todes Jesu', ZNW 51, 1960, 69- 101; and independently by Finegan, HBC, 285-301.
Gunther, op. cit., 19-24, comes to the same conclusion.
112. Despite Gunther, op. cit., 168f., who however provides no solid grounds for it.

43
moves freely about Jerusalem, debating 'openly' with the Greek-speaking
Jews; while in 26.20 he says that he turned 'first to the inhabitants of
Damascus, and then to Jerusalem and all the country of
Judaea' (though Paul himself agrees in Rom. 15.19 that he started his
preaching 'from Jerusalem'). Subsequently, according to Acts 9.30 he
went to Caesarea and thence direct to Tarsus.
According to Gal.1.21 he went to 'the regions of Syria' - presumably
113
including Antioch — 'and Cilicia'. Acts however says that it was much
later (11.25f.) - we should gather a year before the famine visit in 46 - that
he was fetched by Barnabas from Tarsus to Antioch. None of these
discrepancies is fatal or sufficient ground for not identifying the first visit of
114
Galatians with the first of Acts.
As Kirsopp Lake, who holds no particular brief for the reliability of Acts,
remarks, 'Their disagreement in descriptions is not really any proof
115
that they do not refer to the same things.' But it is a warning against
expecting too much coincidence in the accounts of the later visits or
dismissing their equation if we do not find it.
Comparing then the details of Gal. 2 with Acts 11 and 15, what do we
116
find? With Acts 11 the correspondences are not in fact great. There
Paul and Barnabas go up from Antioch to Jerusalem, but they are alone,
they meet none of the apostles, only the elders (Acts 11.30; contrast the
repeated 'apostles and elders' of 15.2, 4, 6, 22f), and they are not
recorded as having conversations or debate with anyone. Other possible
points of convergence are
(a) that Paul describes himself as having gone up by 'revelation' (Gal 2.2)
and, on the assumption that this means by an inspired utterance ( as in I
Cor 14.6, 26), it could be a reference to the prophecy of Agabus (Acts
11.28) which gave rise to the visit; and

113. According to Knox, Chapters, 85, he also visited Galatia, Macedonia, Greece and Asia
(and possibly elsewhere) before going up to Jerusalem - but somehow omitted to mention
them!
114. P. Parker, 'Once More, Acts and Galatians', JBL 86, 1967, 179-82, equates the first
visit of Galatians with the second of Acts, and D. R. de Lacey, 'Paul in Jerusalem', NTS 20,
1973-4, 82-6, the second visit of Galatians with the first of Acts. But neither is convincing.
115. K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St Paul, 1911, 273.
116. For presentations of this case, cf. Ramsay, St Paul, 48-60; Lake, Earlier Epistles,
274-97; A. W. F. Blunt, Galatians, Oxford 1925, 77-84; Bruce, 'Galatian Problems: i.
Autobiographical Data', BJRL 51, 1969, 302-7; Gunther, op. cit., 30-6. For a conspectus of
the debate, cf. C. S. C. Williams, Acts (Black's NTC), '957, 24- 30; D. Guthrie, Galatians
(NCB), 1969, 29-37. C. H. Talbert, 'Again: Paul's Visits to Jerusalem', NovTest 9, 1967,
26, tabulates seven different possible positions. Though I have come down firmly for one in
the text, I am aware of the strength of other alternatives.

44
(b) that Gal.2.10 could refer to the famine relief that occasioned it, if Paul's
comment on the charge 'remember the poor' is interpreted to mean
'which was the very thing I had made, or was making, it my business
to do'. But neither is the obvious translation of the aorist ἐστούδασα which
117
would naturally refer to a resolve from that moment on. Moreover, the
only other reference to 'the poor' at Jerusalem in Paul's epistles is to the
collection towards the close of his ministry (Rom.15.26). Since we know
he wrote to the Galatians about that (I Cor.16.1), it is natural to take the
reference to point forward to it.
With Acts 15 on the other hand, as Lightfoot observed in his extended
118
note on the subject, the correspondences are considerable. There is
the same tension between Judaizing Christians and the church at Antioch
over the same issue (the requirement of circumcision), with the same
persons (Paul, Barnabas, and Titus in Galatians; Paul, Barnabas and
'some others' in Acts) going up from Antioch to Jerusalem, and back, to
119
meet the same people (James, Peter and John in Galatians; James,
Peter with the apostles and elders in Acts) with the same essential result
(recognition of the non necessity of circumcision, with corollaries for
mutual respect and support). The actual meetings described are indeed
different; the one is a private consultation, the other a public council, and
no attempt should be made to identify the two. Indeed, as Lightfoot
pointed out, Paul's own form of expression in Gal.2.2, 'I laid it before
them (αὐτοῖς) but privately to the men of repute', 'implies something
beside the private conference'. It is simply that the occasion provided by
the gathering of so many church leaders gives the opportunity for
confirming previous missionary policy toward Gentiles and planning future
120
division of labour.
The differences of emphasis between the two accounts, from inside and
outside, are certainly no greater than the divergences between Paul's and
Luke's accounts of the first, post-conversion visit, which have not
prevented the vast majority of scholars from equating them. Indeed, as
Knox, who is certainly not biased towards harmonizing Acts and the
epistles, points out, there can be 'little doubt' that Acts 15 and Gal. 2
describe the same occasion, and 'it seems fair to say that no one would
117. E. de W. Burton, Galatians (ICC), Edinburgh 1921, 115, argues that it positively
excludes this interpretation; but cf. to the contrary D. R. Hall, 'St Paul and Famine Relief: A
Study in Galatians 2.10', Exp T82, 1970-71,309- 11.
118. J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 1865; <i874, 122-7; cf. H. Schlier, Galater (KEKNT 7),
Gottingen "1951, 66-78; Ogg, op. cit., 72-8; Parker, JBL 86, 175-9.
119. As we have seen, for whatever reason, Titus is never mentioned by name in Acts.
120. One of the difficulties in equating Acts 11.30 with Gal.2.2 is that Paul is not recorded as
having begun his preaching to Gentiles until Acts 13. But this could be put down to the
silence of Acts; and a combination of 11.20 and 25f. might suggest such activity earlier.

45
have thought of the possible identification' of the visit of Gal 2 with that
121
of Acts 11 were it not for other difficulties.
For Knox these other difficulties are with 'the usual Pauline
chronology' - such as we are following. I am not in fact persuaded of
them; but the greatest difficulty for Knox, and therefore the strongest
argument for resorting to his reconstruction, turns on another point (the
date of Festus' accession) to which we shall come later. Meanwhile there
are, of course, very real difficulties for those who (unlike Knox but like
myself) wish to fit the visits of Gal.1-2 into the framework of Acts.
The first is why Paul passes over in apparently damaging silence the
second visit described by Acts 11.30-12.25. This has led many to excise
this visit as unhistorical or as a doublet in Luke's sources of the visit of
Acts 15. But this is an arbitrary way of cutting the knot, for which there is
no evidence nor indeed other probability (the two visits are, as we have
seen, very different in purpose and detail). The most likely reason for
Paul's silence is surely that there was no occasion for him to mention this
visit. As Lightfoot succinctly stated it years ago,
His object is not to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define
his relations with the Twelve; and on these relations it had no bearing.
Secondly, it is said, Why does not Galatians refer to the decrees of Acts
15.28f.? One of the corollaries of equating Gal.2 with Acts 11 is that it is
possible to date Galatians before the council-visit of 48 and therefore to
explain Paul's lack of reference to it.
Yet this is not a necessary corollary, and the date of Galatians must be
determined, in due course, on its own merits. Indeed, Caird goes so far as
to say, 'This rider has done more to discredit than to commend the theory to
122
which it has been attached.' For Paul had no reason to quote the
decrees. The decrees presupposed in what they did not say (cf. Acts
15.19: 'no irksome restrictions... but') the non-necessity of circumcision, on
which Paul affirms the concurrence of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal.2.3).
What the decrees did say was that when Gentiles and Jews eat together
the former must be prepared to make certain concessions to the
conscience of the latter. But this is not at issue in Galatians.
As Lightfoot put it again,
The object of the decree was to relieve the Gentile Christians from the
burden of Jewish observances. It said, 'Concede so much and we will
protect you from any further exactions.' The Galatians sought no such
protection. They were willing recipients of Judaic rights; and St Paul's

121. Op. cit., 63.

122. idB I,606.

46
 object was to show them, not that they need not submit to these burdens
against their will, but that they were wrong and sinful in submitting to
them.
More explanation indeed is needed for why he does not mention the
decrees in I Corinthians and Romans, where he not merely passes them
over in silence but actually sets aside the prohibition of eating meat
offered to idols (I Cor.10.25-29; Rom.14). The answer of course is that the
decrees were devised for a local, predominantly Jewish-Christian church
situation 'in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia' (Acts 15.23) - not even for
Galatia. In a cosmopolitan city like Corinth or Rome, where the conditions
in the markets were very different, they were simply no longer practicable.
In Galatians the only reference to meals is not to conditions to be
observed when Jews and Gentiles eat together, but to their refusal to do
so (Gal.2.11-14). And that for Paul was a matter not of concession but of
principle, to which the decrees were irrelevant - quite apart from the fact
that, as Lightfoot says again,
by appealing to a decree of a Council held at Jerusalem for sanction on a
point on which his own decision as an Apostle was final, he would have
made the very concession which his enemies insisted upon.
To sum up, whatever the differences in the accounts - and there is no
need to deny or minimize them - I find the case for equating the visits of
Gal. 2 and Acts 15 more compelling than any alternative. It also enables
us to take the two intervals, 'after three years' and 'after fourteen years',
in sequence rather than concurrently.
For 33 is certainly a possible date for Paul's conversion - though we are
123
still free to run the intervals together and to put the date later if we wish.
We have now sketched what is at least a credible and coherent
chronology of Paul's life up to the time of his appearance before Gallio in
51.
After that point it is impossible to tell how long a period Luke intended by
the 'some (or many) days' (Acts 18.18) that Paul stayed on in Corinth.
124
But there seems no good reason to stretch it to months.

123. The upper limit is c. 37, if the incident in Acts 9.25 of Paul's escaping from Damascus in
a basket is equated, as it must be, with his description of the same thing in II Cor.11.321.
under 'the commissioner of king Aretas' and if this occurred just before his going to
Jerusalem two (or three) years after his conversion. For Aretas' reign ended in 39 or 40. But
the incident could have come earlier.
124. With Ramsay, op. cit., xxxiii-iv, and F. F. Bruce, Acts, 1954, 377; New Testament
History, 1969, 301, They make Paul winter in Corinth. But the addition in the Western and
Antiochene texts of Acts 18.21 ('I must at all costs keep the approaching feast in
Jerusalem'), which makes Paul wish to hasten back in time for Passover (?), is almost
certainly secondary.

47
It looks likely that he was back in Antioch by winter, before setting out
once more for Asia Minor - after an unspecified delay (18.23) - when
travelling again became possible in the spring.
At this point the Acts narrative enters a thin patch. As we have seen, it is
not much help for filling in the three years in Ephesus that it itself requires,
quite apart from placing the mass of experiences which Paul relates as
having occurred to him by the time of writing II Cor, 11.2 3-2 7 (though
these of course are not to be placed exclusively in the Ephesus period):
Are they servants of Christ? I am mad to speak like this, but I can outdo
them. More overworked than they, scourged more severely, more often
imprisoned, many a time face to face with death.
Five times the Jews have given me the thirty-nine strokes; three times I
have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I have been
shipwrecked, and for twenty-four hours.
I was adrift on the open sea. I have been constantly on the road, I have
met dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my fellow-
countrymen, dangers from foreigners, dangers in towns, dangers in the
country, dangers at sea, dangers from false friends. I have toiled and
drudged, I have often gone without sleep; hungry and thirsty, I have
often gone fasting; and I have suffered from cold and exposure.
Then there is the evidence of an additional visit to Corinth and probably to
southern Illyricum (or Dalmatia, our Jugoslavia) (Rom.15.19) before Paul
returns to Jerusalem for the last time. Since a chronological sequence of
events is lacking, it will be best to see if we can set a terminus ad quern
for this period and then work backwards. Unfortunately the evidence is
nowhere near so firm for the end of it as it is for the beginning.
The crucial date is when Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as procurator of
Judaea (Acts 24.27). This is a fact of Roman history which one might think
could be securely established. But unfortunately there is (as yet) no
inscription to settle the matter and the testimony of the historians is
conflicting and inconclusive. Since, however, much turns on it, it is
necessary to examine it in some detail. There is general agreement that
125
Felix himself had succeeded Cumanus in 52, but Tacitus differs from
126
Josephus in saying that by then Felix had already shared the title of
procurator with Cumanus for some time. It is not impossible to harmonize
the accounts; but it is agreed that in this matter Josephus is more likely to
127
be right, and this throws our first doubt on the accuracy of Tacitus.
125. Ann. 12.54.
126. Ant. 20.137; BJ. 2.247.
127. So Zahn, INT III, 470; Lake, Beginnings V, 464f.; Ogg. op. cit., 149; Haenchen, Acts,
68-70.

48
Josephus is also clear that Felix was recalled under Nero, who had
confirmed him in office on his accession as emperor in 54. Later he
records that the Jews of Caesarea sent complaints to Nero about him, and
'he would undoubtedly have paid the penalty for his misdeeds against the Jews
had not Nero yielded to the urgent entreaty of Felix's brother Pallas, whom at
128
that time he held in the highest honour'.
129
Now according to Tacitus Pallas fell from office as chief of the imperial
treasury at a date that it is possible to calculate as late 55 - though this
depends on juggling with discrepancies between Tacitus and Suetonius
130
and is very far from certain. So, it is argued, 55 would be the latest date
for the recall of Felix if Pallas was to protect him.
Eusebius, in the Latin version of his Chronicle (the Greek original is lost)
gives the date of Festus' succession as the second year of Nero, i.e.,
131
56 - though in the Armenian version it is put in the last year of Claudius
132
(54), which is impossible if, as Eusebius himself agrees in his History,
he also served under Nero.
Now, if Festus arrived as early as 55, then the phrase in Acts 24.27, 'when
two years had passed' (διετίας δὲ πληρωθείσης) must be referred not to
Paul's time in prison but to Felix's term of office. For it is agreed that Paul
could not possibly have arrived in Jerusalem as early as the summer of
133
53, having only set out on his third journey, which included two to three
years in Ephesus alone, in the spring of 52. But there are difficulties in
taking it this way.
Assuming the phrase to mean 'when his two years were up', we have to
argue, with Haenchen, that Felix had only two years in office, and that
therefore, though appointed in 52, he did not arrive till 53 and left again in
55. Certainly we should not get this impression from Josephus, who
records a long list of events, which must have occupied a considerable
time, while Felix was procurator, not only before but also after Nero's
134
accession in 54.

128. Ant. 20.182.

129. Ann. 13.14.
130. Cf. Lake, BeginningsV, 466; Ogg, op. cit., 155-8.
131. Ed. A. Schoene, Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo II, Berlin 1866, 152-5- Harnack,
Chron., 238, supporting the date of 56, had to admit 'a little error' of one year on Tacitus'
part. For whether Harnack changed his mind on this in favour of a later dating, see below p.
91.
132. HE 2.22.I
133. Harnack had no such problem, as, prior to the discovery of the Gallic inscription, he
could simply push all the dates two years earlier.
134. Ant. 20. 148-81; BJ 2.248-70.

49
They include (and that not at the beginning of Nero's reign) the rising of
the Egyptian, which according to Acts 21.38 already lay in the past (πρὸ
τούτων τῶν ἡµέρων) when Paul was first arrested under Felix. Moreover,
though the phrase in Acts 24.27 could refer to Felix's time in office, it is
virtually certain that Luke did not intend it to do so, for he has already
made Paul congratulate Felix on having administered justice in the
province 'for many years' (24.10). In its context too it is much more
natural to take it of Paul's stay in prison ('He had high hopes of a bribe from
Paul, and for this reason he sent for him very often and talked with him. When
two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus').
Indeed those who want to interpret it the other way have to say that, while
Luke thought it applied to Paul, 'this does not exclude the possibility
135
that a source spoke of a two-year term of office for Felix.' Yet here
we are in the midst of a very detailed section of Acts where Luke shows no
sign of relying on second-hand material.
136
The only other recourse, if one is committed to 55, is to say with Knox
that Paul after all did arrive two years earlier in 53, and with that abandon
the entire chronological framework of Acts (and the Gallic date) and start
again without it. It is however somewhat ironical that the pressure to do
this should be occasioned by a moment in Paul's career which is
mentioned solely by Acts and whose dating is far less certain than the
137
fixed point which Knox discards. In fact the date 55 rests upon two
fairly weak supports. The first is the conclusion that if Felix was saved by
the intercession of Pallas it must have been before the latter was
138
dismissed from the treasury, assuming that this was in 55.
But it is far from certain that this was the decisive turning-point. As Caird
says,
It is plain that Nero had always disliked Pallas and intended to dismiss
him from the moment he became emperor, so that it is hard to see why
Pallas' influence with Nero should have been greater before his
dismissal than after it. For Pallas was not disgraced; he was able to
make his own terms with Nero, was exempt from the scrutiny normally
undergone by retiring Roman officials, and was allowed to keep the vast
fortune he had accumulated as secretary of the treasury under
139
Claudius.
135. Haenchen, Acts, 661. It is to be observed how totally hypothetical and insubstantial this
statement is.
136. Chapters, 66,84f.
137. Cf. the review of Knox by Ogg, "A New Chronology of Saint Paul's Life', ExpT64.,
1952-3, 120-3.
138. Schurer, HJP I, 466; Zahn, /AT III, 473; and Ogg, Chronology, 1581., are convinced
that Josephus is simply mistaken on Pallas.
139. IDE I, 604.

50
Secondly there is the self-conflicting evidence of Eusebius, though it is
highly doubtful if he had anything to go on at this point apart from his
140
reading of Josephus. Caird also adopts an ingenious way of
accounting for this. In the Armenian version of the Chronicle Eusebius
puts Festus' arrival in the fourteenth year of Claudius and the tenth of
Agrippa II.
The former, as we have seen, must be wrong, since Eusebius himself
was well aware that Felix was recalled by Nero. But, says Caird,
It is a mistake which becomes intelligible if we assume that the second
figure was the only one that stood in Eusebius' source. Knowing that
Agrippa I had died in 44, Eusebius assumed that 45 was the first year of
his son, Agrippa II, and therefore identified the tenth year of Agrippa II
with 54, the fourteenth of Claudius. Actually, as we know from Josephus
(BJ 2.284), the beginning of Agrippa's reign was reckoned from Nisan I,
AD 50, so that his tenth year began on Nisan I, AD 59. There is thus
good reason for believing that, according to Eusebius' source, Festus
141
became procurator in the summer of 59.
This would allow him three years in office (59-62), which would match the
relatively small space which Josephus devotes to him compared with
142
Felix. The older writers gave him still less, opting for 60, though
143
allowing 59 as entirely possible. 59 is also the date favoured by a
144
number of scholars on the grounds that a new issue of provincial
coinage for Judaea in the fifth year of Nero may point to a change of
145
procuratorship before October 59. Yet this inference is very far from
146
certain.
140. Cf. especially Schurer, 'Zur Chronologic des Lebens Pauli', ZWT 41, n.f. 6,1898, 21-
42; HJP I, 466.
141. IDB 1, 604f. Yet this argument, which goes back to Plooij, Chronologic, 60f, and
behind him to K. Erbes, 'Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus und ihre
romischen Denkmaler', TU 19. i, Leipzig 1899, 27, was already criticized by Lake,
Beginnings V, 472, on the ground that the shift in years should apply not only to the date of
Festus' appointment but also to that of Felix. But this would bring forward the latter into the
reign of Nero, which is impossible.
142. Ant. 20.182-96; 57 2.271.
143. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 217- 20; Schurer, HJP I, 466; Zahn, INT III, 469-78. Ogg,
op. cit., 160-70, indeed puts it as late as 61.
144. A. R. S. Kennedy, 'Palestinian Numismatics', Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly,
1914, 198; Ramsay, St Paul, xiv-xx; Gadbury, Acts in History, 10; Bruce, JVT History, 327;
Gunther, Paul, 140!. Goguel and Plooij also opt for 59.
145. Cf. F. W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, 153. A. Reifenberg, Ancient
Jewish Coins, Jerusalem 2I947, 27, supports this.
146. Pilate became procurator in 26 and as far as we know issued no new coins till 29/30
(Madden, op. cit., 147-9). This point is made by Haenchen, Acts, 71, and Ogg,op.cit., 170.

51
From the external evidence the conclusion must be that no firm date can
147
be given. 59 seems as likely as any other, putting Paul's arrival in
Jerusalem at 57. But the actual date must be decided, if we can, from
what the New Testament story itself requires.
What is methodologically unsound on the evidence before us is to fix an
upper limit (as we can fix the lower with a reasonable degree of
confidence) and then adjust the material to this Procrustean bed. So, with
the ends open, let us then return to the longest and most important stretch
of Paul's work represented by what Acts depicts as the third missionary
journey.
We left him setting out again for Asia Minor in all probability in the spring
148
of 52 (18.23). Confining ourselves first to the Acts outline, we should
conclude that he arrived at Ephesus (19.1); say, in the late summer of 52.
He based his teaching on the synagogue there for three months (19.8)
before withdrawing his converts and starting daily discussions in the
lecture-hall of Tyrannus, which went on for the next two years (19.10).
This would bring us, on our chronology, nearly to the end of 54. There is
then an undated incident (19.13-20), followed by a typically vague Lukan
time-reference: (19. 21f.).
When things had reached this stage (ὡς δὲ ἐπληρώθη) Paul made up
his mind to visit Macedonia and Achaia and then go on to Jerusalem;
and he said, 'After I have been there, I must see Rome also'. So he sent
two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he
himself stayed some time longer (χρόνον) in the province of Asia
This is followed by the story of the silversmiths' riot (19.23-41), introduced
by the words 'about that time'.
This is the same formula used in 12.1 of Herod's action against James
and Peter, which we have already had reason to think is misplaced in
relation to the famine visit. All we can say therefore is that the riot probably
took place towards the end of Paul's stay in Ephesus, perhaps in the first
half of 55. In any case further time must be allowed for the dispatch (with
the coming of spring ?) of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia and for
Paul's continued stay in Asia, which would bring us naturally to the early
summer of 55.

147. This was also the outcome of Turner's very careful investigation (HDB I, 417-20). He
opted for 58. But he wrote before the Gallic date was fixed.
148. Ogg, op. cit., 132-4, 'assumes' (!) that Paul was ill for the whole of 52 and did not set
out till June 53. He then has him spend more than a year in Galatia, reaching Ephesus only
in the autumn of 54. But Ogg has an interest in stretching the chronology, as we shall see
later that Barrett has an interest in contracting it. There is no objective evidence from Acts -
or the epistles - for such a long-drawn-out progress.

52
This would fit very well with Paul's assertion to the Ephesian elders at
Miletus (20.31) that 'for three years, night and day' he had not ceased to
have the most intimate contact with them.
Then, to round off the Acts story as far as Jerusalem, we will follow him
from Ephesus:
When the disturbance had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and, after
encouraging them, said good-bye, and set out on his journey to
Macedonia. He travelled through those parts of the country, often
speaking words of encouragement to the Christians there, and so came
into Greece. When he had spent three months there and was on the point
of embarking for Syria, a plot was laid against him by the Jews, so he
decided to return by way of Macedonia (20.1-4).
He set sail from Philippi after the Passover season (20.6), making all
speed so as 'to be in Jerusalem, if he possibly could, on the day of
Pentecost' (20.16) - and there is no reason to suppose that he did not
achieve his object.
For the journey from Philippi onwards we are in a narrative recounted by
Luke in the first person plural (20.6-21.18) and the notes of time are
characteristically precise. But prior to that there is no indication of time
apart from the three months' stay in Greece (i.e., Achaia). From Acts alone
there would be nothing to suggest that if Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia
in the summer of 55 he should not have reached Corinth by the end of that
same year, left the following March, and arrived in Jerusalem in May 56.
But at this point we must turn to the evidence of Paul himself, and in
particular that of the Corinthian correspondence which covers much of this
period. First it is important to notice how it confirms as well as
supplements (and stretches) the Acts framework. In II Cor.1.19 Paul
speaks to the Corinthians of the gospel which he had originally proclaimed
to them, adding 'by Silvanus and Timothy, I mean, as well as myself’.
This strikingly confirms Acts 18.5 when Silas (Silvanus) and Timothy join
Paul in preaching at Corinth for eighteen months on his first visit to the
city. It is significant too that Paul does not mention Apollos in this
connection, who according to Acts 18.20-19.1 arrived in Corinth only after
Paul's first visit. II Cor.11.7-9 taken with I Thess.2.2; II Thess.3.1, 6; and
Phil.4.15f. also confirm the sequence of Acts 16.12-18, viz. Philippi,
149
Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth.
Paul himself also speaks of his intention to revisit Corinth via Macedonia,
having already sent Timothy ahead to prepare the way; and the details

149. Cf. Campbell, JBL, 74,82f.

53
and timing again fit well with the plan outlined in Acts 19.2 if. In I Cor. 16.5-
11 he says:
I shall come to Corinth after passing through Macedonia - for I am
travelling by way of Macedonia - and I may stay with you, perhaps even
for the whole winter, and then you can help me on my way wherever I go
next. I do not want this to be a flying visit; I hope to spend some time
with you, if the Lord permits. But I shall remain at Ephesus until
Whitsuntide, for a great opportunity has opened for effective work, and
there is much opposition. If Timothy comes, see that you put him at his
ease; for it is the Lord's work that he is engaged upon, as I am myself; so
no one must slight him. Send him happily on his way to join me, since I
am waiting for him with our friends.
Earlier Paul had made it clear that he had planned for Timothy to go as far
as Corinth, and he promised: 'I shall come very soon, if the Lord will' (4.17-
19). At this stage he had evidently not finally decided whether to
accompany the bearers of the collection to Jerusalem himself: 'If it should
seem worth while for me to go as well, they shall go with me' (16.31.); and he
leaves his further destination open: 'You can help me on my way wherever I
go next' (16.6).
Indeed there is a tentativeness about his plans ('If the Lord permits', 'if the
Lord will') which suggests that in Acts 19.2 if. Luke is summarizing in the
light of subsequent events. Nevertheless there can be little doubt that I
Corinthians was written in the spring of Paul's last year in Ephesus,
round about Easter-time, which the references to Passover in 5.7f. would
support:
The old leaven of corruption is working among you. Purge it out, and
then you will be bread of a new baking, as it were unleavened Passover
bread. For indeed our Passover has begun; the sacrifice is offered -
Christ himself. So we who observe the festival must not use the old
leaven, the leaven of corruption and wickedness, but only the unleavened
bread which is sincerity and truth.
Paul plans to stay on in Ephesus till Pentecost in the early summer, by
which time Timothy should be back to report on the situation he has found.
So far all is straightforward. Then the upsets begin.
For some reason or other (perhaps because of Timothy's report) Paul
apparently changed his original plan, and then later went back on the
150
second - though the details are far from certain. In II Cor.1.15f. he says,
150. The best recent discussion is by C. K. Barrett, II Corinthians (Black's NTC), 1973,
introduction and ad locc. I find his general solution convincing, though his time-table
intolerably constricted.

54
 I had intended to come first of all to you and give you the benefit of a
double visit. I meant to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and after
leaving Macedonia, to return to you, and you would then send me on my
151
way to Judaea.
In other words, instead of going to Corinth via Macedonia (as proposed in
I Cor.16.5) he had decided to go to Corinth direct (by sea), then do his
work in Macedonia, and return to Corinth (by land) en route for
Jerusalem, which was by that stage fixed in his mind as his next
destination. It is fairly clear that he did pay the first of these two visits (his
second in all), since in II Cor.12.14 and 13.1f. he speaks of his second
visit and says that his next will be his third.
It is also clear that he abandoned the plan to come straight back to Corinth
after his work in Macedonia. 'It was out of consideration to you', he says in II
152
Cor.1.23, 'that I did not come again to Corinth'; for, he explains later, 'I
made up my mind that my next visit to you must not be another painful
one' (2.1). In place of the visit he wrote them a letter, 'out of great distress
and anxiety' (II Cor.2.3), which, he says, he does not now regret, even
153
though he may have done so (7.8).
It is not clear from where he wrote the letter, but evidently it had been sent
via Titus, whose report on its effect Paul awaited anxiously (2.13).
By that time he was in the Troad (τὴν Τρωάδα not simply Troas), in north-
west Asia minor (2.12). How he got there -via Macedonia, as planned, or
from Ephesus — we do not know. He went there to preach the gospel, and
a considerable opening beckoned him, but because he could find no relief
of mind he 'took leave of the people there and went off to Macedonia' (2.13).
This appears to be the departure, however spun out, that Acts refers to in
20.1, though of course Acts records no intermediate visit to Corinth.
By that time it must have been autumn at least, and it has been
convincingly suggested that Paul waited at Troas for as long as there was
154
hope that Titus might still arrive there by boat from Corinth.

151. It could mean 'I had originally intended to come to you' (neb margin), but this would
not explain the double visit.
152. οὐκέτι. The NEB's 'after all' suggests that he never paid the visit at all, which is
contradicted by II Cor.13.2.
153. Lightfoot and earlier commentators identified this letter with I Corinthians, but it is almost
universally agreed that it does not fit its tone. Lightfoot indeed put the second visit to Corinth
in Paul's first year at Ephesus, prior even to the 'previous letter' mentioned in I Cor.5.9
(Biblical Essays, 222). But then it is surely incredible that this visit should have left no trace
in I Corinthians.
154. W. L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, Cambridge 1939, 144; Bruce, NT
History, 315.

55
When winter put an end to shipping across the Aegean it was clear that he
would be coming by land. So Paul set out to meet him. Yet, he says,
Even when we reached Macedonia there was still no relief for this poor
body of ours: instead, there was trouble at every turn, quarrels all round
us, forebodings in our heart (7.5).
Eventually, however, Titus did arrive, and with joyful news (7.6f.), which
made Paul write off to Corinth again from Macedonia (9.2). He sent Titus
back (8.6, 17), presumably with the letter and certainly with two other
'brothers' (8.18-24), to complete the collection which earlier he had
initiated (8.6) and which Paul had told the Macedonians was ready (as it
should have been) 'last year' (8.10; 9.2).
Clearly by now we are in the year following the instructions which Paul had
given concerning this in I Cor.16.1-3 - and there seems little point in
seeking to argue (with Barrett) that, since the new year (in all probability
on Paul's calendar) began in the autumn, II Corinthians could have been
written in the October of what to us is the same year (55). Rather, Paul
appears to be writing in the first part of 56. And he promises to come again
himself when time has been given for the collection to be prepared (9.4f.).
It remains to ask whether he fulfilled this promise at once or after yet
further delay. This depends on the relation we believe II Cor.10-13 to bear
to II Cor.1-9. Many have felt that its tone is so different that the two
sections cannot form continuous parts of the same letter.
It has often indeed been suggested with much plausibility that chs.10-13
are a part of the severe or sorrowful letter which Paul sent earlier. Yet in
12.14 and 13.1 he says in no uncertain terms that he is intending to visit
the Corinthians, whereas the earlier letter had explained why he was not
coming (2.3). Moreover, it looks as if the reference in 12.17,
'I begged Titus to visit you and I sent our brother with him', must be to the
same mission mentioned in 8.17-24.
The only question is whether in each case the aorist is an epistolatory
154a
aorist (meaning 'I am sending') or whether (as the NEB takes it) in the
second passage Paul is now looking back, in a separate and subsequent
letter, on this previous mission. In this case we have to assume, with
155
Barrett, that there was further trouble and that Paul writes yet again,
threatening this time to come and deal with the situation unsparingly (13.2,
10).
154a. This is the use of the aorist in the espistles in which ‘the author self-consciously
describes his letter from the time frame of the audience’
155. So too, Bruce, I and II Corinthians (NCB), 1971, 166-70.

56
There is no need for us here to decide this question. But if we do posit an
interval between the two sections of II Corinthians, then the second part
must come from yet later in 56. It becomes the more incredible that
everything can be fitted into the previous year, if Paul is to have three
months in Achaia before leaving for Jerusalem in March.
It appears far more likely that most of 56 was spent in Macedonia and
'those parts' (Acts 20.1) and that this was also the occasion when, as he
reports in Romans, Paul 'completed the preaching of the gospel... as far round
as Illyricum' (Rom.15.19). For 'now', he says, he has no further scope in
these parts (Rom.15.23) and can thus press on beyond, as previously he
had hoped to do (II Cor.10.15f.).
But first he must go to Corinth to 'finish the business' of the collection
before delivering it under his own seal to Jerusalem (Rom.15.28). Even
then he was prevented by a plot of his Jewish opponents from sailing
direct (Acts 20.3), but accompanied by the delegates of the congregations
(Acts 20.4; cf. II Cor.8.18-24) he set off once more through Macedonia.
It looks therefore as if we should allow a further year for Paul's final
156
preparations than the bare summary of Acts 20.2 would suggest. He
writes to the Romans in 15.22 that he has been 'prevented all this time'
from coming to them, and certainly he would appear to have run up
against frustrating delays and changes of plan of which Acts gives no hint.
Only when the Acts narrative once again supplies a detailed timetable, as
it does from 20.6 to the end, may we safely assume that there are no
substantial gaps.
If then we may conclude that Paul probably arrived in Jerusalem for the
last time at the end of May 57, the next period of his career is fairly certain.
Matters came rapidly to a head. Within twelve days (Acts 24.11), or a little
157
longer, he had been arrested, tried, and remanded in jail at Caesarea,
where he was to stay for two years (24.23-27) till the arrival of the new
procurator provided occasion for his case to be reopened.
As we saw earlier, the date of this cannot be fixed with certainty from the
external sources, but the possible, if not probable, date of 59 fits precisely.
Within a fortnight of Festus taking up his appointment (25.1, 6) Paul is in
court again and, threatened with being returned to Jerusalem, makes his
dramatic appeal to Caesar (25.9-12).
A further appearance before Agrippa and Bernice follows, after an interval
of' some days' (25.13f., 23).

156. Plooij, Ogg and Bruce agree.

157. See n. 9 above.

57
There is no precise indication of when Paul was finally put on board for
Italy (27.1), but evidently it was (as we should expect) in the late summer.
'Much time' had already been lost by the time they were in Crete (27.9)
and with the equinoctial gales the 'danger season' for sailing had begun
158
(September 14- November 11). Indeed 'even (καὶ) the Fast' (i. e. the
Day of Atonement) had passed - or the Fast 'as well' as the equinox
(September 23 or 24), which was reckoned to be the last safe day for
159
shipping.
It has convincingly been argued that this may also afford some
160
confirmation of the year. For there would have been no point in this
further time-reference if the Day of Atonement was not late that year or at
any rate later than the equinox. Of the years in question only 59 really fits,
161
when it fell on October 5.
Moreover unless they did not leave Crete till well into October, taking
something over a fortnight (27.13-28.1) to reach Malta in November, a
three months' stay in Malta (? November, December, January) would not
have been sufficient to see the winter out.

Even so it is difficult to stretch it to March 10, when Vegetius says the

162
seas opened , though Pliny allows that sailing could start from February
163
8. In any case 'after three months' (28.11) must be taken to mean what it
means for us and not 'after two months' - and this may provide a key to
Luke's usage in similar statements of interval when we are in no position
to check him (e.g. 24.1; 25.1; 28.13, 17).

A further two to three weeks were to see them in Rome. There, from the
spring of 60 to the spring of 62, Paul spent two full years (28.30) under
open arrest. Beyond that we cannot go with any certainty, though we shall
164
return to the discussion later.

At this point we may summarize our conclusions about the outline of

Paul's career, remembering that the absolute datings cannot be more than
approximate:

158. Vegetius, De rei milit. 4. 39.

159. Caesar, Bell. Gall. 4.36; 5.23.
160. W. P. Workman, 'A New Date-Indication in Acts', ExpT n, 1899-1900, 316-19. Plooij,
op. cit., 86- 8; Bruce, Acts, 506; and Gunther, op. cit., 141, support this.
161. The only other possible year is 57, when it fell on September 27. In 61, which Ogg
favours, it was as early as September 12, when the danger season had not even begun. He
admits this, but slurs over it.
162. De rei milit. 4. 39.
163. Nat. hist. 2.47.
164. Pp. 140-150 below.

58
 33 Conversion
35 First visit to Jerusalem
46 Second (famine-relief) visit to Jerusalem
47-8 First missionary journey
48 Council of Jerusalem
49-51 Second missionary journey
52-7 Third missionary journey
57 Arrival in Jerusalem
57-9 Imprisonment in Caesarea
60-2 Imprisonment in Rome.
Within this framework let us now try to fit his letters.
l Thessalonians. According to I Thess.3.6 Paul is writing just after
Timothy arrived from Thessalonica, whither Paul had sent him when he
was in Athens (3.1f.). According to Acts 18.5 Timothy and Silas rejoined
Paul in Corinth. The presumption therefore is that the letter was written by
Paul, with the other two (1.1), from Corinth towards the beginning of the
eighteen month period that ended in the summer of 51 (Acts 18.11).
Acts however elides two journeys of Timothy. He and Silas had been left
behind in Beroea with instructions to join Paul with all speed at Athens,
where he waited for them (17.15f.). Evidently they (or Timothy at least) did
do this, but were then sent back to Thessalonica. By the time they
returned Paul had moved on to Corinth and set up with Aquila. Once again
Acts appears to summarize more complex travels, but the overall situation
is not in doubt.
Precisely how long an interval is required after Paul's original visit to
165
Thessalonica in the summer of 49 is disputed; but neither Kummel , nor
166
Ernest Best , who take into account all the most recent scholarship on
the matter, sees reason to question the traditional placing. We may
therefore accept early 50 as the most probable date for the Epistle.
ll Thessalonians. To go into the challenges that have been made to the
authenticity and integrity of this epistle and to its order in relation to I
Thessalonians would take us far a field.
The arguments are set out in all the commentaries.

165. INT, 257- 60.

166. E. Best, I and II Thessalonians (Black's NTC), 1972, 7- 13.

59
Suffice it here to say again that, after full examination of all the theories,
167 168
both Kummel and Best come down decisively in favour of the
traditional view that Paul wrote II Thessalonians, with Silas and Timothy
(1.1), from Corinth within a short time of I Thessalonians, either late in 50
or early in 51. The hypothesis of pseudonymity, despite the authentication
of the personal signature in 3.17, would require a date at the end of the
first century. Yet, as Kummel says,
2.4 ('he... even takes his seat in the temple of God') 'was obviously written
169
while the temple was still standing'. There is no sound reason for not
170
accepting the usual dating.
l Corinthians. We have already argued that this was written from
Ephesus about Passover-time (March-April) when Paul had been nearly
three years in Ephesus and was beginning to make plans to move on.
There is wide agreement that this must, as we have reckoned, have been
171 172
in 55. It is surprising therefore that Barrett makes it 54 or even 53.
The reason becomes clear when we realize that he is one of those who is
convinced that everything must be adjusted to allow Paul to appear before
Festus in 55. (He cannot of course have arrived in Jerusalem by 53, so the
'two years' of Acts 24.27 have, as we have seen, on this view to be
referred to Felix.) Barrett agrees that Paul came to Ephesus in the late
summer of 52, but he has to make him leave again by the early summer of
54. He argues that the 'three years' of Acts 20.31 is not inconsistent with
the two years and three months of 19.8 and 10.
But it is difficult to see how it can be consistent with less than two years -
quite apart from the fact that the two dated spells in Acts do not claim to
cover all Paul's time at Ephesus (cf. 19.22).
It seems much easier to take the space of 'three years, night and day' to
mean what it says and put I Corinthians in the spring of 55. Barrett has
subsequently to compress all the further journeys and letters of Titus and
Paul to Corinth and the work in the Troad and Macedonia (let alone

167. INT, 263-9.

168. Op. cit., 37-59.
169. The authenticity of II Thessalonians is defended by F. W. Beare, IDB IV, 626, even
though he would question both Ephesians and I Peter and is doubtful about Colossians.
170. The attempt by Buck and Taylor, St Paul, 146-62, to establish absolute dates for
Pauline chronology, not from Gallic, but from placing II Thess.1-12 three and a half years (as
in Dan.12.11-13) after Caligula's frustrated attempt to set up his statue in the temple, i.e. in
44 (with I Thessalonians in 46) is so subjective as to be almost unanswerable.
171. Thus, summarizing other scholarship, C. S. C. Williams, PCB, 954; S. M. Gilmour, IDB
I, 692.
172. C. K. Barrett, I Corinthians (Black's NTC), 1968, 5; II Corinthians, 4f.

60
Illyricum) into the remaining months of the same year - and this despite
the fact that he believes that II Cor.10-13 reflects yet further trouble and a
fifth letter in all. It is more natural to reckon that his dealings with the
church there dragged on well into 56 and the early part of 57.
ll Corinthians. The first part of this epistle at any rate (i.e. chs.1-9) is
written from Macedonia, in all probability in the early part of 56. If chs.10-
13 belong to a subsequent letter, then they must come from later that
same year, shortly before Paul descends upon Corinth for the last time to
winter there (13.1-10). In any case we can safely place the whole of II
Corinthians in 56.
Romans. Paul is writing shortly before setting off for Jerusalem (15.25),
while staying with Gaius in Corinth (16.23; cf. I Cor. 1.14) and completing
the work on the collection (15.26-8). It can confidently be dated during the
173
three months spent in Achaia (Acts 20.3), early in 57. The only issue is
whether the final ch.16 is part of the letter sent to Rome or, as many have
argued, a covering letter for dispatching a version of it at the same time to
174
Ephesus.
As this does not affect the date, it is not directly our concern. But since the
destination of the chapter determines the use of its material elsewhere, I
simply register my conviction, with that of most recent commentators, that,
despite the evidence of textual dislocation, it belongs to Rome with the
175
rest of the Epistle.
Galatians presents much more uncertainty. The view that we have taken
that the visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2 corresponds to the council visit of 48
means that it cannot be written before that date. There would in any case
be no initial reason to think that it was, since the closest contacts of the
epistle are with II Corinthians and still more with Romans.
It is however difficult to be more precise. We do not even know for certain
the location of the recipients, whether in the Roman province of Galatia,
which included the churches in Pisidia and Lycaonia founded on Paul's
first missionary journey (Acts 13-14) and revisited on the second (16.1-5),
or the territory of Galatia further north (which could be referred to in 16.6
176
and 18.23.)
173. Notwithstanding J. R. Richards, 'Romans and I Corinthians: Their Chronological
Relationship and Comparative Dates', NTS 13, 1966-7, 14-30.
174. E. g. T. W. Manson, 'The Letter to the Romans', Studies in the Gospels and
Epistles, Manchester 1962, 225-41.
175. E.g. C. H. Dodd, Romans (Moffatt NTC), 1932; C. K. Barrett, Romans (Black's NTC),
1937; and even J. C. O'Neill, Romans (Pelican NTC), Harmondsworth 1975, who believes
that remarkably little else is an original part of the epistle. So too, Kummel, INT, 314-20.
176. For a balanced survey of the arguments, cf. Guthrie, NTI, 450-7.

61
 177
The weight of scholarly opinion appears to favour the former, with
178 179
which on balance I would side, though Kummel and J. A. Fitzmyer
180
still argue for the latter view, championed by Lightfoot. Fortunately we
do not have to decide this issue for the purposes of dating, since both
options remain open unless we wish to put Galatians before the council of
Jerusalem and therefore before the second missionary journey.
If in Gal. 4.13, as is probably the contrast intended in II Cor.1.15, τὸ
πρότερον means 'on the first of my two visits' (rather than simply 'formerly'
or 'originally', as it certainly could mean), then the epistle must be written
at least after the visit of Acts 16.6 (in 49), if not after that of 18.23 (in
181
52). The reference in Gal. 1.6 to the Galatians having turned 'so
quickly' (ταχέυς) from the true gospel is sometimes taken as an argument
in favour of an earlier rather than a later date. But such an expression,
even if it has a temporal sense and does not mean 'hastily' or
'suddenly' (cf. II Peter 2.1), is highly relative.
182
The undoubted affinities with II Corinthians and Romans, though
certainly not decisive for dating, have inclined the majority of scholars who
do not wish for other reasons to put Galatians back in 48 to place it either
during Paul's time in Ephesus (52- 5) or between II Corinthians and
183
Romans, perhaps on his travels in northern Greece, in 56. The greeting
in 1.2, 'I and the group of friends now with me', perhaps suggests that Paul
is not writing from an established Christian congregation like Ephesus or
Corinth, and there are no personal messages at the end (contrast I Cor.
16.191. and Rom.16). It is more like what we find in II Corinthians (written
in Macedonia), where he simply sends greetings from 'all God's
people' (13.13). Again, though he longs to be with the Galatians (Gal.
4.20), he appears to be in no position even to propose a visit - and this
would, on balance, count against a place so accessible as Ephesus.
A further possible pointer may be found in I Cor.16.1: 'About the collection
in aid of God's people: you should follow my directions to our congregations in
Galatia.' Clearly our epistle to the Galatians contains no such directions
and it must either have been written before the project (i.e., well prior to I
Corinthians) or later on.

177. F. F. Bruce, 'Galatian Problems: North or South Galatians?', BJRL 52, 1970,243-66.
178. INT, 296-8.
179. J. A. Fitzmyer, Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, 236f.
180. Galatians, 18-31. Similarly, strongly, Moffatt, ILNT, 90-101.
181. To refer the second visit to the return journey in 14.21-23 is possible, though forced.
182. Cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 44-50; C. H. Buck, 'The Date of Galatians', JBL 70, 1951,
113-22; Buck and Taylor, op. cit., 82-102.
183. So e.g. Moffatt, ILNT, 102; Sanders, PCB, 973; Fitzmyer, JBC, 237.

62
In favour of the latter there is one of the parallels between Galatians and II
Corinthians. In II Cor. 9.6 Paul says, in relation to the collection,
'Remember, sparse sowing, sparse reaping; sow bountifully, and you will reap
bountifully'. In Gal. 6.7-10 he writes:
Make no mistake about this: God is not to be fooled; a man reaps what
he sows.... So let us never tire of doing good, for if we do not slacken our
efforts we shall in due time reap our harvest. Therefore, as opportunity
offers, let us work for the good of all, especially members of the
household of the faith.
It is possible (though no more than possible) that Paul is here reproving
the Galatians for their lack of liberality in the same cause.
I would conclude therefore, with Lightfoot and others, that Galatians most
probably comes from the period between II Corinthians and Romans,
184
which we have already argued covers most of 56. But this conclusion is
much less sure than that for the other epistles so far discussed. Indeed
Knox has suggested that, so far from being the first of Paul's writings, it
185
may have been among the last, written from prison. However, the
absence of the slightest reference to his 'bonds' (particularly in a letter
which has so much to say about freedom) makes this very arbitrary. Yet it
is a salutary warning. For Philippians, which carries the same greeting,
'the brothers who are now with me' (Phil.4.21; cf. Gal.1.2), and which many
have put last of all, has equally forcibly been argued to come from the
period of Paul's Ephesian ministry (where indeed Knox puts it) because of
its common themes with Galatians, Corinthians and Romans.
This brings us to the so-called captivity epistles, and we may start with
Philippians, which, it is generally agreed, stands apart from the other
three, Colossians, Philemon and (assuming its authenticity) Ephesians.
The dating of all these is almost entirely dependent on the judgment made
about their place of writing. Three locations have been canvassed,
Ephesus (52-5), Caesarea (57-9) and Rome (60-2), and none has finally
prevailed over the others. Rome has been the traditional one for all four,
but many scholars have wished to discriminate and allocate different
letters to different places. It will be well to say at the beginning of the
discussion that complete certainty cannot be established on the evidence
available and that it is a matter of assessing probabilities. Whatever
conclusions we finally reach, other alternatives cannot be ruled out.

184. Galatians, 36-56; E. H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: An Essay on its
Destination and Date, 1899, a valuable and forgotten book which combines this dating (as I
would) with a south Galatian destination and an identification of the visits of Gal. 2 and Acts
15; Buck, J.B.Z, 70,113-22; C. E. Faw, 'The Anomaly of Galatians', BR 4,1960,25-38.
185. IDB II, 342f.; cf. Hurd in Farmer, Moule and Niebuhr, Christian History, 241-3.

63
With regard, then, to Philippians, we may note that of all the captivity
epistles this is the one for which the hypothesis of an Ephesian origin has
186
won greatest support. Indeed it can at first sight be fitted neatly into the
Acts narrative at this point. In Phil. 2.19-24 Paul says that he hopes to
send Timothy soon, confident that he himself will come before long. In
Acts 19.22 he sends Timothy and Erastus ahead of him to Macedonia, of
which Philippi was 'a city of the first rank' (Acts 16.12), while he stays on
for a time in Asia.
Referring apparently to the same situation, Paul speaks in I Cor.16.5-11 of
Timothy having gone before him to Corinth. And he will wait in Ephesus for
his return, just as in Phil.2.19 he hopes that Timothy will bring him news of
187
the church at Philippi.
On the other hand, there is not the slightest hint in Acts or I Corinthians
that Paul is or has been in prison. On the contrary, he is a free agent
planning his future travels (Acts 19.21; I Cor.16.6-8) and fully stretched by
his evangelistic opportunities (I Cor.16.9). He sends greetings from the
churches of Asia and from Aquila and Prisca and the congregation at their
house (I Cor.16.19). The cri de coeur of Phil.2.20, that, apart from
Timothy,
there is no one else here who sees things as I do and takes a genuine
interest in your concerns; they are all bent on their own ends, not on the
cause of Christ Jesus,
fits neither Acts 19.22, 'he sent two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, to
Macedonia', nor I Cor.16.11f., 'I am waiting for him with our friends' (who
include Apollos).
Of course, it is always possible to say that the imprisonment of Paul and
the sending of Timothy occurred independently, before or after the events
of which we have record. But this merely exposes the main weakness of
the hypothesis of an Ephesian captivity, that it rests on no direct evidence
whatsoever - merely unspecified references to φυλακαί in II Cor.6.5; 11.23
and Rom.16.7 (cf. I Clem.5.6, which mentions seven imprisonments of
186. Cf. e.g. the survey by Bruce, 'The Epistles of Paul', PCB, 9321.; and Guthrie, JV77,
149: 'There is a much greater inclination to attribute Philippians than the other
Captivity Epistles to Ephesus.' For the Ephesian hypothesis in general, cf. especially W.
Michaelis, Die Gefangenschaft des Paulus in Ephesus und der Itinerar des Tinotheus,
Gutersloh 1925; Die Datierung des Philipperbriefs, Giitersloh 1933; G. S. Duncan, St
Paul's Ephesian Ministry, 1929. On the other side, C. H. Dodd, 'The Mind of Paul: II', New
Testament Studies, Manchester 1953, 85-108; Guthrie, JV77,472-8. It is notable that Dodd
does not even consider the alternative of Caesarea.
187. Kummel correctly points out, INT, 330f., that Paul himself does not say that he is
sending Timothy to Corinth via Macedonia (only that he is planning to come that way himself)
and that Acts 19.22 does not indicate that Paul expects Timothy back before his own
departure. But these would be negligible differences if everything else fitted.

64
Paul). No description of Paul's many troubles and dangers in Ephesus or
188
Asia (Acts 19.23-20.1; I Cor.15.32; 16.9; II Cor.1.8f.; and Rom.16.3f.)
includes imprisonment. Moreover, the imprisonment referred to in
Philippians must have been an extended one (1.13f.) (and based on a
capital charge, 2.17) - having lasted long enough even by the time of
writing for the Christians in Philippi to have heard about it and sent
Epaphroditus with relief, and then for Epaphroditus to have recovered from
a near fatal illness, of which they had also had time to get news (2.25-30).
Another difficulty is that in Philippians there is no reference whatever to
the collection for the poor, in which Macedonia was so prominent (II
Cor.8.1-5; 9.1-4; Rom.15.26f.). On the contrary, stress is laid upon the
Philippians' collection for Paul's personal needs (Phil. 2.25, 30; 4.10-19),
which he is especially sensitive to dissociate from the other collection (II
Cor.8.i6-24; 12.13-18; Acts 20.33-35). It looks then as if Philippians must
come from a period well before or well after the project that occupied so
much of Paul's time and thought in the two years (at least) prior to 57.
And if it came before it must be well prior to the spring of 55, when the
Corinthians are already assumed to know about the collection (I Cor.16.1-
4). This scarcely fits the impression which we get from Philippians that
Paul's relations with that church have by then extended over many years
(1.5; 4.10f., 15f.). Nor does it comport with his expressed desire for death
(1.20-26), which is very different from what he is looking forward to even in
Romans. It seems altogether easier to place it later.
The only advantages indeed of an Ephesian locale for Philippians would
seem to be: (a) the affinity of language with the other epistles in the central
section of Paul's ministry. But the parallels are spread amongst all the
189
Pauline epistles; and, as with Galatians, this is a fairly uncertain
criterion. (b) The shorter distance required for the journeys described to
and from Philippi (Phil. 2.19-30). But it is generally conceded that this
latter cannot be decisive. For the rest, the references to the praetorium in
1.13 and the servants of the imperial establishment ('Caesar's
household') in 4.22, though not impossible in Ephesus, point more
obviously to Rome or Caesarea.
Certainly these latter two references would seem to favour Rome, though
again it is agreed even by the advocates of this hypothesis that they
cannot be decisive. Indeed, if it is in Rome, then the phrase ἐν ὃλω τῶ
190
πραιτωρίω must be taken, with Lightfoot, to refer to the members of

188. perhaps
189. Cf. C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, Oxford 1951, 322-32.
190. J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians, 31873, 97-102.

65
the Praetorian guard, whom Paul it is supposed influenced by rota, and
not a building - since according to Acts 28.30 he is in his own hired
lodging.
This is not however how it is used anywhere else in the New Testament
(Matt.27.27; Mark 15.16; John 18.28, 33; 19.9; Acts 23.35). An alternative
is to say that it refers to a later stage in Paul's Roman captivity when he
has been moved into the praetorium to stand trial - though Lightfoot
insisted that 'in Rome itself a "praetorium" would not have been tolerated'.
But then we lose all contact with the evidence and can invent any
191
circumstance that suits us (as at Ephesus). In Caesarea, on the other
hand, Paul is specifically said to be in the praetorium of Herod's palace,
the headquarters of the procurator of Judaea (Acts 23.55). Moreover, the
sense of Phil. 1.16f. is correctly rendered in the NEB by 'as I lie in prison'.
He is in jail.
And yet, according to Acts 24.23, Felix 'gave orders to the centurion to keep
192
Paul under open arrest and not to prevent any of his friends from making
themselves useful to him' - a statement which fully fits the description of his
conditions in Phil. 2.25-30; 4.10-19. Furthermore a hearing has already
taken place (1.7), which suits the situation at Caesarea following the
appearance before Felix; but by the time Acts ends there has been no
hearing in Rome.
It has been objected that at Caesarea Paul was not facing the possibility of
death, since he could always appeal to Caesar. Yet it is constantly made
clear that his life is in danger from the Jews (Acts 21.31, 36; 22.22; 23.30;
25.3, 24; 26.21), a fate from which he is protected only by Roman custody.
If he had really brought a Greek into the temple, then, even as a Roman
citizen, he would under Jewish law have been liable to death. In fact he
says to Festus, 'If I am guilty of any capital crime, I do not ask to escape the
death penalty' (25.11). Yet he knows, like the authorities, that he is
innocent of this (23.29; 25.10, 25; 26.31; 28.18) and therefore has every
ground for expecting discharge (26.32) - which, it is suggested, he could
have bought at any time (24.26).
His appeal to the emperor is only a last desperate recourse when it looks
as if Festus is going to hand him back as a sop to the Jews (25.11).
At the time of writing to the Philippians his confidence was that he would
be alive and free to visit them once more (Phil. 1.24-26; 2.24) on his
191. For this case, cf. E. Lohmeyer, Philipper (KEKNT 9), Gottingen 81930, 3f., i4f., 41; L.
Johnson, 'The Pauline Letters from Caesarea', ExpT68, 1956-7, 24-6; Gunther, op. cit., 98-
107.
192. ἂωεσις cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.235) 'apparently means leave to communicate with
friends and receive food' (Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings IV, 304).

66
projected journey back west (Rom. 1.13; 15.23-29; Acts 19.21; 23.11).
That he had any plans for returning east from Rome is entirely
hypothetical - though of course we can never prove that he did not change
his mind. The only evidence is for journeys further west still, whether
planned or accomplished.
Further support for Caesarea as the place of writing is the bitter polemic in
Phil. 3.1-11 against the Jews, who are much more fiercely attacked even
than fellow-Christians who betray the gospel (1.15-18; 3.18f.). This fits the
fanatical and unrelenting Jewish opposition Paul encountered in
Jerusalem and Caesarea (Acts 21.37-26.32; cf. 28.19). There may have
been such bitterness later in Rome, but the only evidence we have is of
Jews who are conspicuously fair to Paul, even if sceptical and obtuse
(28.21-28).
193
I would agree therefore with Kummel in thinking that Caesarea as the
place of origin for Philippians has been too quickly abandoned, and it is
certainly preferable to Ephesus. Rome has little to be said against it,
precisely because the evidence is so thin.
Reicke, who argues, as we shall see, strongly for the Caesarean locale of
194
the other captivity epistles, still places Philippians in Rome. He urges,
rightly, that on grounds of personalia it does not belong with the rest. Yet I
believe the best hypothesis may turn out to be that all these epistles come
from the same place but at different times. But before deciding on a date
for Philippians, we should turn to the other letters.
Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians. At once we are up against the
problem of authenticity, not for the last time. There is virtually no one
195
now who denies the genuineness of Philemon. There are those,
196
especially in Germany, who question Colossians on stylistic and
theological grounds. But the close and complex interrelationship of names
with Philemon points strongly to the fact that the two epistles were dictated
by the same man at the same time and sent to Colossae by Tychicus, in
company with Onesimus (Col. 4.7-9; Philem.12).
Reicke summarizes the connections thus: Greetings were conveyed from

193. 1NT, 329.

194. B. Reicke, 'Caesarea, Rome and the Captivity Epistles', in W. W. Gasque and R. P.
Martin (edd.), Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays
Presented to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 277- 86; 'The Historical Setting of Colossians', RE 70,
'973>429-38.
195. John Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul, Nashville, Tenn., 2I959, makes its
genuineness a cornerstone of his case against Ephesians. Cf. also Bruce, 'St Paul in Rome:
2. The Epistle to Philemon', BJRL 48, 1965, 81-97.
196. for names, cf. Kummel, INT, 340.

67
and to nearly the same persons in both letters, but their names were by no
means given in the same order so that any hypothesis of dependence can
<not> be plausible (Philem.1f., 23f.; Col.1.7; 4.7-19).
In particular, the fact that Epaphras of Colossae appears in both writings,
though in different contexts (Philem.23; Col.1.7; 4.9), is a remarkable
evidence of a common background.... This complex of relations cannot be
197
understood as the result of artificial imitation.
After a careful weighing of the pros and cons Kummel ends by saying 'all
the evidence points to the conclusion that Colossians... is to be regarded as
198
Pauline', and I would agree. Ephesians presents a difficult problem to
handle here. To argue in any detail the question of Pauline authorship
would take us far from our primary purpose, which is to establish a
chronology. If it is not Pauline, then there are two alternatives: either it is
by an amanuensis or agent writing on the apostle's behalf at the same
date; or it is strictly pseudonymous, claiming to be Pauline but coming
(probably) from towards the end of the first century.
The former alternative has commanded little support (though it has
recently been argued by Gunther, who believes that the author was
199
Timothy) and it does not affect the date anyway. It is really a straight
200
issue between attributing it to Paul and to a second generation Paulinist
201
imitating and expounding his theology.
202
The pros and cons are summarily set out by Sanders and Nineham
203
and assessed by Guthrie (who comes down in favour of Paul),
204 205
Kummel (who comes down against), and H. Chadwick (who
regards the issue as evenly balanced).

197. RE 70, 434. Cf. also the different way Archippus comes into Philem. 2 and Col. 4.18.
198. INT, 340-6; similarly Goodspeed, INT, 102-4; C. F. D. Moule, Colossians and
Philemon (Cambridge Greek Testament), 1957, 13f.
199. Op. cit., 130-8. The absence of Timothy's name from the address (in contrast with
Colossians, Philemon and Philippians) has to be put down to self effacing modesty! M.
Goguel, Introduction au Nouveau Testament, Paris 1923-6, IV.2, 474f., suggested an
original homily by Tychicus, with subsequent additions attributing it to Paul. From the point of
view of dating, these theories are interesting as testimony to the difficulties felt in regarding
Ephesians simply as a late pseudepigraph.
200. Cf. most recently and massively, A. van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians, Leiden
1974, and M. Barth, Ephesians, New York 1974.
201. Major presentations of this thesis are: E. J. Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians,
Chicago 1933; INT, 222-39; The Key to Ephesians, Chicago 1956; and Mitton, Ephesians.
202. In F. L. Cross (ed.), Studies in Ephesians, 1956, 9- 35.
203. NTI, 479-508.
204. INT, 357-63.
205. PCB,980f.

68
Short of going over the whole evidence afresh, I can only express my own
considered conviction. In contrast with most of the other judgments in this
book, which have been modified, often radically, in the process of writing
it, I have never really doubted the Pauline authorship of
206
Ephesians.
It has always struck me as noteworthy that in what has remained a classic
207
English commentary on Ephesians, Armitage Robinson, who was in
208
close touch with Harnack and contemporary German scholarship and
certainly not conservative for his day (and whose very late dating of the
209
Didache I shall subsequently disagree with completely), never even
raised the question of authorship. Features of style and theology which
210
have struck others as impossible for Paul apparently to him, with as
extensive a knowledge of the early Christian literature as any Englishman
since Lightfoot, seemed entirely at home. In a nicely balanced article
211
Cadbury asks the question:
Which is more likely, that an imitator of Paul in the first century
composed a writing ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with
Paul's style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per
cent from his usual style?
Moreover there is the question of what sort of imitator. If he were a
scissors and paste copyist and conflator, it would be relatively simple. Yet
everyone agrees that his relationship to the genuine Paul is more subtle
than that. He is so near (especially to Colossians) and yet apparently so
far. The only thing he does reproduce virtually verbatim from Colossians
is the note in 6.21f. (= Col.4.7f.) about the sending of Tychicus to convey
Paul's news. Why this, and no other personalia, should have been
inserted to add verisimilitude is inexplicable. Moreover, as Dodd says,
'Does one find such faithful dependence and such daring originality in one and
212
the same person?'
206. Cf. my study The Body (SBT5), 1952, 10.
207. J. Armitage Robinson, St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903. Note the title.
208. Harnack left the matter open in his Chron., 239, but in his later 'Die Addresse des
Epheserbriefs des Paulus', Sitzungsberichte der koniglich preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Berlin 1910, 696- 709, argued that it represented Paul's letter to the
Laodiceans mentioned in Col.4.16.Julicher, Einleitmg, 1124-8, declared a verdict of 'non
liquet' (though the edition revised by E. Fascher, 71931, 138-42, subsequently came down
against). Zahn, INT I, 491-522, vigorously defended Pauline authorship.
209. See ch. x below.
210. Thus Nineham, Historicity and Chronology, 27, holds that key words in Colossians
and Ephesians are used 'to convey completely different ideas' (italics his). This at any
rate is an exaggeration.
211. H.J. Cadbury, 'The Dilemma of Ephesians', NTS 5, 1958-9,91-102 (101).
212. In the Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929, 1225, favouring Pauline authorship.

69
For he is a spiritual and theological giant, and these men do not appear
and disappear without leaving any other trace, especially in that
singularly flat sub-apostolic age from which the Epistle of Barnabas and
the Shepherd of Hermas are typical samples.
Even if, with the majority of scholars, we regard the Pastoral Epistles and
II Peter as pseudonymous, we are not in these cases dealing with original
and creative productions.
The only comparable unknown author is the writer to the Hebrews.
But he is not imitating anyone, and in any case, I believe, belongs firmly
213
within the apostolic age. Here as so often the case is cumulative and to
some extent circular. If on other grounds half the literature of the New
Testament is to be located in the last quarter of the first century, then the
epistle to the Ephesians will seem to stand in good company. If on the
other hand it is isolated there, it will look very exposed.
I propose therefore to proceed as though Ephesians comes from
Paul, and to see how it fits in if it does. There is not in fact much that
turns on it for chronology, since its dating (if genuine) is derivative from
Colossians and Philemon rather than vice versa. If, therefore, anyone
prefers to regard it as an exception and set it outside the series altogether,
the consequences for the rest are not decisive.
If then all three epistles are by Paul, there can be no doubt that they
were written closely together and sent by Tychicus on the same
journey, with Ephesians being composed in all probability shortly after
Philemon and Colossians, almost certainly as a general homily to the
Asian churches. This is strongly supported by the absence of 'in
Ephesus' from the best manuscripts of Eph.1.1 and the lack of local
details or personal messages. Where, and therefore when, may we say
that they were written?
Again the same three options are open. Only, of course, if Ephesians was
not sent to Ephesus (and the inclusion of that church in the general
circulation is difficult to deny) is Ephesus itself a credible source of origin.
Indeed all the previous objections and more arise to this hypothesis. Mark
and Luke are with Paul (Col.4.10, 15; Philem. 24).
Yet according to Acts (15.37-39) Mark had not accompanied Paul to
Ephesus, and the absence of any 'we' passage for the Ephesus period, let
alone any account of an imprisonment, tells strongly against Luke's
presence there (assuming for the moment the Lukan authorship of Acts).

213. See ch. vii below.

70
 Indeed the only real argument for Ephesus is again its geographical
214
proximity, which considerably eases Paul's request to Philemon to have
a room ready for him should he be released (Philem.22) and, according to
some, the arrival there of the runaway slave Onesimus.
But that Onesimus would have been most likely to flee to Ephesus, a mere
hundred miles away, to escape detection seems to others less credible.
As Dodd says, 'If we are to surmise, then it is as likely that the fugitive slave,
his pockets lined at his master's expense, made for Rome because it was distant,
215
as that he went to Ephesus because it was near.' We cannot tell. Moreover,
though arguments from theological development are notoriously
dangerous, there are strong grounds for thinking that the elaboration of the
doctrine of the church as the body of Christ, with Christ as its head, found
in Colossians and Ephesians follows rather than precedes its much more
tentative formulation in I Corinthians and Romans (written on or after
Paul's departure from Ephesus). It has not seemed to anyone to come
earlier: the only question is whether it is so much later as to require an
author other than Paul.
We are back then with Caesarea or Rome. The latter has been the
traditional location, and the only argument has been whether these
epistles precede or follow the somewhat different situation presupposed
by Philippians. There is nothing finally against Rome, and from the 'we'
passages Luke can certainly be presumed to have been there. But the
lack of obstacles again is largely due to the fact that we know so little
about Paul's prospects there that we can create what conditions we like -
for instance, that he is expecting release and plans to travel east (though
the idea of asking from Rome for a guest room to be prepared in Colossae
has always stretched credibility).
The case for Caesarea has recently been stated again by Reicke with
216
much persuasiveness. Of the people with Paul, Timothy (Col.1.1;
Philem.1), Tychicus (Col.4.7; Eph.6.21), Aristarchus (Col.4.10; Philem. 24)
and Luke (Col.4.14; Philem.24) all travelled with the collection (Acts 20.4;
cf. 20.6 for the 'we' and may be presumed, like Trophimus (20.4; 21.29),
to have reached Jerusalem together (21.17f.) and to have stayed with
Paul at any rate for a time to see him through the troubles which their
presence brought him (21.27-29).

214. Colossians is indeed assigned to Ephesus by the Marcionite Prologue, but the value of
this statement is negatived by its assignation of Philemon (which clearly belongs with it) to
Rome.
215. New Testament Studies, 95.
216. Opp. cit. (n.101 above). I am much indebted to him also for valuable suggestions in
conversation and correspondence. Johnson and Gunther (opp. cit., 11.98) also argue that
these epistles come from Caesarea.

71
Aristarchus, described as a fellow-prisoner in Col.4.10, indeed is still with
217
Paul (as is Luke) as he sets out for Italy (Acts 27.2).
Meanwhile Epaphras has joined Paul from Colossae (Col.1.7; 4.12) and
218
has apparently also been arrested (Philem.23). Reicke argues that
there is no reason why he should have been arrested in the mild
conditions of the Roman detention but that in Caesarea he could well have
shared the danger to the other Hellenistic companions of Paul, who once
more laments how little support or comfort he has had from the Jewish
219
Christians (Col.4.11).
The fact that Tychicus rather than Epaphras is taking the letters and news
(Col.4.7; Eph.6.21) may reflect the fact that the latter was not free to leave.
Yet it would be natural by then for Tychicus to go back, since he came
220
from those parts (Acts 20.4). Onesimus would also return with him (Col.
4.9), far less of an undertaking in either direction than the journey from
Rome. Paul, too, as we have seen, could reasonably have been expecting
release from Caesarea and would naturally hope to revisit Colossae, as
well as Philippi, on his way west. Reicke also makes the interesting
suggestion that the political situation at that time in Jerusalem and
221
Caesarea throws light on the language of Ephesians. According to Acts
21.28f. Paul had been unjustly accused of bringing Greeks into the inner
sanctuary (τὸ ἱερόν) of the temple.
On the wall which marked it off from the court of the Gentiles were
inscriptions, fragments of which survive to this day, giving warning of
222
the death-penalty for any foreigner transgressing this line.
Reicke draws attention to the particularly virulent animosity at this time
217. Lightfoot, Philippians, 34, argued that Aristarchus did not go all the way to Rome but
was put off at Myra for his home in Thessalonica. But the case is highly speculative. Dodd,
New Testament Studies, 91, goes so far as to call it an 'irresponsible conjecture'….cont
It is to be noted that Lightfoot then has to make Aristarchus come later to Rome (on no
evidence whatever) if Colossians is to be written from there.
218. Unless συναιχµάλωτος is purely figurative (so Moule, Colossians, i36f.). But cf. E.
Lohmeyer, Kolosser (KEKNT 9), Gottingen 81930, ad loc., to the contrary.
219. Kummel, INT, 347, takes this to mean that there were only a few Jewish Christians and
therefore as an argument against Caesarea (a location, however, which he does not reject).
But, as in Phil.2.15-18, all that Paul implies is that the Jewish Christians were very doubtful
fellow-workers.
220. Gunther, op. cit., 102, makes the point that Col. 4.7 implies that the Colossians would
receive Tychicus before the Laodiceans did (4.15f.): 'Since Colossae is south-east of
Laodicea it is legitimate to assume that Tychicus was coming from that direction.
Such would be the case if he were proceeding from Caesarea via Attalia, but hardly
from Rome or Ephesus.'
221. 'Caesarea, Rome and the Captivity Epistles', 281f.
222. Josephus,BJ 5. 193f.; Ant. 15.417.

72
between Jews and Gentiles in Caesarea, leading later to an appeal to the
emperor, with each party denying the other the right of citizenship
223
(ἰσοπολιτεία); and he observes how closely these themes are reflected
in the language of Ephesians:
Paul speaks of
(a) the ethnic dividing wall (Eph.2.14b), which has been removed in
Christ, and the new temple (2.20);
(b) the animosity between Jews and Gentiles (2.14c; 16b; cf. Col.1.21),
which has been changed into peace through Christ (2.15b, 17);
(c) the divine citizenship (2.19), which in Christ belongs also to the
Gentiles (3.6), as well as the fact that every nationality (πατριά) on
earth has its origin in God the Father (3.15; cf. Col.3.11).
No one of course is to say that such language could not have been written
in Rome, but in the Caesarean context its appropriateness is striking. As
Reicke says, 'If the epistle is a forgery, then the author had unusually
accurate information to hand.' It is also a strong argument, as with the
epistle to the Hebrews, against a date after 70. For by then the situation
had been obliterated by events, and Paul's spiritual point could scarcely
have been made without reflecting the fact that the infamous dividing wall
had quite literally been 'broken down'.
In his second article, 'The Historical Setting of Colossians', Reicke has
extended his argument by drawing attention to the links of personalia not
only between Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians but with II Timothy,
venturing the conclusion that this also was written (whether by Paul or on
224
his behalf) about the same time from Caesarea. I confess that when I
first read this I thought it incredible.
For, unlike Ephesians, I had never believed the Pastoral Epistles to be
Pauline, nor contemplated that if they did fall within his lifetime (as I was
prepared to accept) they could be fitted into any other period but a
presumed further stage of missionary activity after the close of the Acts
story.
Until halfway through the writing of this book I had planned to deal with
them in a separate and subsequent chapter. I am persuaded however that
here as elsewhere one must be prepared to suspend previous
assumptions and be open to the evidence wherever it may point.
223. Josephus, Ant. 20. 173f.
224. Johnson and Gunther make the same suggestion (though Gunther, op. cit., 107-14,
argues that only the fragment II Tim.4.9-22a comes from Caesarea). The three appear to
have written independently of each other.

73
The issue of authorship is relevant for our purposes only in relation to
chronology; and with regard to dating two questions may be isolated:
(a) Is there anything that requires, or makes probable, a date for the
Pastoral Epistles outside the lifetime of the Apostle, whether or not
genuine fragments from an earlier period are incorporated in them ?
(b) If there is not, how may they be fitted into his career, whether he
composed them personally or not ?
For the former it would have to be established that the vocabulary, the
church organization and the theology presupposed by the epistles could
not come from the 50s or 60s of the first century but only from the end of
the first century or the beginning of the second - if not later. Without
going into the detail needed to determine this, I can only say that I do not
regard the case as proven.
There is nothing decisive to require us to say that the distinctive
vocabulary of the Pastorals could only have come from the second
century. On the contrary, it has been shown that nearly all the words in
question are to be found in Greek literature by the middle of the first
century and that half of them occur in the Septuagint, with which Paul was
225
well acquainted.
With regard to the organization of the church, the Pastorals do not
presuppose monarchical episcopacy (on the second-century Ignatian
model), but rather the equivalence of bishop and presbyter (cf. I Tim.3.if.;
5.17; Titus 1.5-7), and they demand nothing more elaborate than the local
226
ministry of 'bishops and deacons' of Phil.1.1 Timothy and Titus
themselves are travelling delegates of Paul, not residential archbishops
with fixed territorial assignments. While therefore concern for orderly
ministry and appointments in the church could argue a later date, there is
nothing that requires a second-century setting - or indeed anything
subsequent to the pastoral solicitude already shown by Paul, according to
Luke, in his speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20.28-31).
227
Parry concludes an extensive examination with the words:
225. Cf. R. F. M. Hitchcock, 'Tests for the Pastorals', JTS 30, 1928-9, 2781.; W. Michaelis,
'Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik', ZNW 28, 1929, 69-76; F. J. Badcock, The Pauline
Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting, 1937, 115-27; D.
Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul, 1956, 3gf.; B. Metzger, 'A
Reconsideration of Certain Arguments against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles', ExpT 70, 1958-9, 91-4.
226. Cf. Jeremias, 'Zur Datierung der Pastoralbriefe', ZNW 52, 1961, 101-4; and earlier
Zahn, INT II, 89-99, and R. St J. Parry, The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge 1920, lix-lxxx.
Even Goodspeed, WT, 337, who puts the Pastorals as late as 150, has to admit that they do
not show the 'fully developed polity' of later Catholicism already present in Ignatius.
227. Op. cit., Ixxviii.

74
 There is no substantial reason in the character of the organisation
implied in the Pastoral Epistles for assigning them to a date later than
the lifetime of S. Paul.
With regard to doctrine too, the type of gnosticizing Judaism attacked in
the Pastorals betrays no more elaboration than that refuted in Colossians
(if anything less) and certainly bears no comparison with the fully-blown
gnostic systems of the second century, which we now know so much
228
better at first hand. Indeed Kummel, who believes that the way in
which this false teaching is countered is uncharacteristic of Paul, is
nevertheless emphatic that there is
not the slightest occasion, just because the false teachers who are being
opposed are Gnostics, to link them up with the great Gnostic systems of
the second century.... The Jewish-Christian-Gnostic false teaching which
is being combated in the Pastorals is... thoroughly comprehensible in the
life span of Paul.
The preoccupation with purity of doctrine, the quotation of hymns and
teaching formulae, and the stress on 'the faith' rather than 'faith', though
certainly more marked in these epistles, represent but shifts in emphases
229
already present in other parts of Paul and the New Testament. None of
them rules out a first-century date; and unless a date well after the death
not only of Paul but of Timothy and Titus is presupposed it is hard to
imagine a situation in which the fiction would either have deceived or have
been taken for granted.
We may contrast the situation presupposed by II Thessalonians, where
Paul warns of the effect of 'some letter purporting to come from us' (2.2) and
is most insistent to add the authentication of his personal signature: 'In my
own hand, signed in my name, PAUL; this authenticates all my letters; this is
how I write' (3.17; cf. I Cor.16.21;Gal.6.11;Col.4.18).
The inherent difficulties of the alternative theories, whether of total
fabrication - with purely fictional messages, like 'I am hoping to come to you
before long' (I Tim. 3.14) - or the incorporation of genuine (but highly
230
fragmented) fragments, do not directly concern us. All one can say is
that the case which makes a second-century composition necessary or
even probable has very far from established itself.

228. INT, 379; cf. earlier Zahn, INT11, 99-121.

229. Cf. Guthrie, NTI, 604-6; Parry, op. cit., xc-cx.
230. The major statement of this latter theory is P. N. Harrison's, The Problem of the
Pastoral Epistles, Oxford 1921, whose second thoughts arc to be found in Paulines and
Pastorals, 1964. There are many other fragment theories, but no two agree on all the same
passages (cf. Guthrie, NTI, 590f.).

75
Indeed Reicke has pointedly argued that the call for 'petitions, prayers,
intercessions and thanksgivings' for 'sovereigns and all in high
office, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in full observance of
religion and high standards of morality' (I Tim.2.1f.; cf. Titus 3.1)
betokens an attitude towards authority and its beneficent effects which
would be inconceivable after the Neronian persecution (we may contrast
the Apocalypse).
Among the recent commentators it is interesting that J. N. D. Kelly, the
231
patristic scholar, should judge that the Pastorals could not come from
the second century, while, writing in the same year, Barrett, the Pauline
232
scholar, should judge that they could not come from Paul.
Perhaps both may be right. At any rate there would seem to be a
detectable swing back, if not to apostolic authorship, at any rate to taking
233
seriously the second set of questions relating to dating.
(b) The presupposition here is that Timothy and Titus are the same real
persons who meet us in the rest of the New Testament and that they are
being addressed by Paul in genuine pastoral situations, whether directly at
his dictation or through someone writing on his behalf or by a combination
of the two. It is not necessary for our present purpose to come to a
decision on the purely literary issue. But, whether the style is Paul's own
234
or not, this is the position taken by such scholars as Jeremias, Kelly,
235 236
Moule and Reicke, as well as by the more conservative Guthrie and
237
by the majority of Roman Catholics. I believe it to be open to fewer
difficulties than any theory that requires the letters to be pseudonymous,
whether in whole or part. Whether Paul penned them himself must remain
questionable.
There are very real differences from his usual style and theology (though
also many more similarities); but I am not persuaded that there is anything
231. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (Black's NTC), 1963.
232. C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (New Clarendon Bible), Oxford 1963.
233. Cf. E. E. Ellis, 'The Authorship of the Pastorals: A Resume and Assessment of
Current Trends', EQ.32, 1960, 151-61; and Kelly, op. cit., 30: 'The strength of the anti-
Pauline case has surely been greatly exaggerated.'
234. J. Jeremias, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, Gottingen 6I953, 7f.
235. C. F. D. Moule, 'The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles', BJRL 47, 1965, 430-52. He
suggests that Paul used Luke as his agent. For the same thesis, cf. A. Strobel, 'Schreiben
des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe', NTS 15,1968- 9,191-210.
236. D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul; The Pastoral Epistles (Tyndale
NTC), 1957; and NTI, 584-622, 632-4.
237. E.g. C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1947, cxix; P. Benoit in
the Jerusalem Bible, 1966, 264; G. A. Denzer, 'The Pastoral Letters', JBC, 351f., and the
literature there cited.

76
 238
he could not have written. Yet the Pastorals were after all composed
for a very distinctive purpose. Paul would not be the last church leader
whose style (and indeed subject-matter) in an ad clerum differed
markedly from his already highly diverse and adaptable manner of
speaking and writing for wider audiences. He himself claims to 'have
become everything in turn to men of every sort' (I Cor.9.22). But the issue of
authorship for its own sake may here be left on one side.
Our concern is with the occasions and circumstances which the letters
might fit if they do belong to his period.
The consensus among those who wish to place the Pastorals within Paul's
lifetime is that they cannot be made to fit any part of his career covered by
Acts. They are therefore located in the gap between his (inferred) release
from custody in Rome in 62+ and his execution there some years later.
239
This view was first propounded, as far as we know, by Eusebius and is
based by him on nothing else than deductions from II Timothy. But the
complexity of Paul's itinerary and the divergence between the proposed
240
schemes vividly illustrate how totally hypothetical this construction is.
238. Moule, BJRL, 432, instances I Tim.1 .8: 'We all know that the law is an excellent
thing (Paul may well be quoting his opponents here; cf. the οἲδαµεν of I Cor.8.1, 4)
provided we treat it as law.' But this is surely his position elsewhere. If we treat the law as a
means of salvation, it is worse than useless; but as a dyke against the lawless and sinful (I
Tim.i,9f.) it is admirable (cf. Rom. 7.12, 14; 13.1-6). Zahn, INT II, 121, ironically quotes I
Tim.1.9 in support of Pauline authorship and comments, 'Nowhere in these Epistles do we
find sentences that sound so "un-Pauline" as I Cor.7.19'!
239. HE 2.22.2-8.
240. E.g. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 223: First journey eastward: He revisits Macedonia
(Philippi) (Phil. 2.24), Asia and Phrygia (Colossae) (Philem.22). Journey westward: He
founds the church of Crete. Visits Spain, Gaul (?) (II Tim.4.10 V.I.), and Dalmatia (?) (II
Tim.4.10). Second journey eastward; He revisits Asia and Phrygia (II Tim. i.i5f.), visits
Ephesus (I Tim.1.3); here probably he encounters Alexander the coppersmith (I Tim. 1.20; II
Tim.4.14). Leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church. Revisits Macedonia (Philippi) (I
Tim.1.3) and Achaia (?) (Athens and Corinth). Writes I Timothy. Visits (perhaps revisits)
Crete, and leaves Titus in charge of the church there (Titus 1.5). Returns to Asia. Writes
Epistle to Titus. Visits Miletus (II Tim.4.20), sails to Troas (II Tim.4.13), is at Corinth (II
Tim.4.20) on his way to Nicopolis to winter (Titus 3.12). Arrested (probably at Corinth) and
carried to Rome. Titus joins him there. Writes II Timothy. Timothy shares his imprisonment
(Heb. 13.23). Martyrdom of Paul. Guthrie, NTI, 598f.: 'The Pastorals tell us that Paul again
visited Asia (Troas, II Tim. 4.13, and Miletus, II Tim. 4.20) although it is not necessary to
suppose that he visited Ephesus on the strength of I Tim. 1.3. But he urged Timothy to
stay there when he was en route for Macedonia. At some time he paid a visit to Crete,
where he left Titus, but his main activity appears to have been in Macedonia and
Greece. From the Captivity Epistles we may surmise that he visited the Lycus valley,
no doubt on the same occasion as he urged Timothy to remain at Ephesus, and that
he paid his promised visit to Philippi... . He may have been rearrested in the western
districts of Macedonia or Epirus (which is mentioned in Titus 3.12) and taken to Rome.'
Denzer, JBC, 351: 'He might have gone to Crete first. When he left Crete, Titus might
have remained there as his legate (Titus i .5). From Crete, Paul might continued…

77
Since there are no controls, we can make Paul do anything, go anywhere,
and the sole evidence for any of the journeys (let alone for their dating) is
that surmised from the documents themselves - on the odd assumption,
judging from his previous experience, that all Paul's hopes and plans were
fulfilled.
It is interesting that those who suppose that the fragments represent
genuine travel-plans do not think of placing them here, but, by dint of
judicious selection and drastic dissection, slot them into the Acts
241
framework - though even so they do not agree together.
But this is testimony to the fact that some external control is felt to be
necessary for any plausibility. Those who believe that the travel plans are
all part of the fiction do not explain why the inventor of them should not
have aimed at greater verisimilitude.
One would have expected him to quarry the details from existing sources
(as the author of Ephesians is supposed to have drawn on Colossians for
the journey of Tychicus), or at any rate to have seen that they matched.
The very difficulty of squaring them with any itinerary deducible from Acts
or the other Pauline epistles is a strong argument for their authenticity.
An attempt was indeed made some time ago by Vernon Bartlet to fit
them, with the rest of the captivity epistles, into the first imprisonment of
242
Paul in Rome between 60 and 62. But quite apart from the hypothetical
nature of any journeys back east from Rome, Bartlet's reconstruction is
open to at least three weaknesses:
have gone to Asia Minor. When he left Ephesus for Macedonia, Timothy remained as
his legate (I Tim. 1.3). Possibly, Paul passed through Troas on his way to Macedonia (II
Tim.4.13), and there wrote I Timothy and Titus. Paul then perhaps spent the winter at
Nicopolis in Epirus (Titus 3.12). The following spring he might have returned to
Ephesus, according to his plan (I Tim.3.14; 4.13). It would seem that he was then
arrested in the region of Ephesus (II Tim.1.4). In the course of Paul's voyage to Rome
as a prisoner, the ship might have stopped at Miletus and Corinth (II Tim.4.20). During
his imprisonment in Rome, Paul wrote II Timothy. In this letter, Paul is without hope of
being released; he expects to be condemned and to suffer martyrdom in the near
future (II Tim.4.6-8).'
241. In his Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, 115-27, Harrison isolated five fragments and
placed them as follows: (1) Titus 3.12-15 in western Macedonia; (2) II Tim. 4.13-15, 20, 21a
in Macedonia; (3) II Tim.4.16-18a (18b?) in Caesarea; (4) II Tim.4.0-12, 22b, and (5) II
Tim.1.16-18; 3.10f.; 4.1, 2a, 5b, 6-8, 18b, 19, 21b, 22a in Rome (before the end of Acts).
Duncan, op. cit. (n. 94), 184-225, scattered all his fragments among or between different
imprisonments in or near Ephesus. Subsequently Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals, 106-
28, converted to an Ephesian origin for Colossians and Philemon, reduced his fragments to
three and located them as follows: (1) Titus 3.12-15, in western Macedonia; (2) II Tim. 4.9-
15, 20, 2ia, 2ib in Ephesus; (3) II Tim.i.i6-i8; 3.iof.; 4.1, 2a, 5b- 8, 16-19, 31 b, 22a in Rome.
242. Vernon Bartlet, 'The Historic Setting of the Pastoral Epistles', The Expositor, 8th
series, 5, 1913, 28-36, 161-7, 256-63, 325-47, especially 326-39.

78
(1) He does not attempt to explain why, if I Timothy and Titus were written
from prison, they contain no references to Paul's 'bonds', like all the other
prison epistles.
(2) He is hard put to it to account for Paul's referring back after some five
years to his instruction to Timothy to stay on in Ephesus (I Tim 1.3 = Acts
20.1) when so much else has happened to both of them in the interval. (3)
He can do nothing with II Tim.4.20 ('Erastus stayed behind at Corinth, and I
left Trophimus ill at Miletus'), which he has to explain, rather tamely, as a
misplaced fragment of a much earlier, and entirely hypothetical, letter.
With the other alternatives so unsatisfactory, it is at least worth exploring
one more, and I do so by taking up the suggestive hint dropped by Reicke
in the second of the two articles to which I referred (n. 101 above).
He draws attention to the names in common between Colossians and
Philemon (which he has already argued were written from Caesarea) and
243
II Timothy. Demas, Luke and Mark reappear in different contexts
(Col.4.10, 14; Philem.24; II Tim.4.10f.). Moreover, in II Tim.4.12 the
sending of Tychicus to Ephesus (Eph.6.21f.; cf. Col.4.7-9) is again
mentioned, but this time in the past tense. Timothy, associated with the
writing of Colossians and Philemon, but not of Ephesians, is by now away
on Paul's behalf apparently somewhere near Troas in Mysia, north-west of
Ephesus (II Tim.4.13). Mark, for a possible visit from whom Paul had
previously prepared the Colossians (Col 4.10), is to be collected from the
same parts (II Tim. 4.11).
Reicke's suggestion is that it is Mark who is to take II Timothy, which, he
argues, is an open pastoral letter for reading aloud in the various churches
visited. The names and places mentioned in it reflect his itinerary:
A reference to the belief found in Timothy's mother and grandmother
was inserted (II Tim. 1.5), for they lived in the city of Derbe (Acts 16.1),
through which Mark had to pass on his way from Caesarea to Colossae
(Col.4.10). For the same reason the Christians, to whom Mark would
come in other cities of Lycaonia, were reminded of Paul's earlier
troubles in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra (II Tim. 3.11). After the visit to
Colossae (Col.4.10), Mark was expected to make the Christians of
Ephesus familiar with the epistle of Timothy. He should especially let the
house of Onesiphorus know about Paul's appreciation of this man (II
Tim. 1.16-18; 4.19) and make sure that people in Asia realised the

243. Though the personalia in Philippians are different, both Johnson, ExpT 68, 25, and
Gunther, op. cit., 97, suggest that 'those who belong to the imperial establishment' in
Phil. 4.22 could well be represented in the predominantly Latin names of Eubulus, Pudens,
Linus, and Claudia, unique to II Tim.4.21.

79
 244
danger of the new heresy (1.15; 2.16-3.9). After this it was planned
that Mark should meet Timothy in Mysia (4.11) and go back with him via
Troas (4,13). Paul needed their help since his only collaborator was
245
presently Luke (4.11).
Reicke adds, 'It is questionable whether any member of the early church
would have found it worthwhile to restore or construct such antiquities in a
later situation.'
Obviously such a reconstruction is hypothetical (and I shall question its
detail), but at least it is not grounded on air. And once we make it, other
connections open up. Above all, 'my first defence' (τῆ πρώτη µου
ἀπολοωία) in II Tim.4.16 will now refer not to some entirely undocumented
court appearance in Rome but, like the ἀπολοωία mentioned in Phil.1.7
and 16, to the hearings in Jerusalem and Caesarea, which in Acts 22.1
Paul specifically introduces as µου τῆς νυνὶ ἀπολοωίας and which Felix
adjourns in 24.22. As soon as this identification is made, other
correspondences are recognizable.
II Tim.4.17a, 'But the Lord stood by me and lent me strength, so that I might be
246
his instrument in making the full proclamation of the Gospel for the whole
pagan world to hear,' reflects with considerable precision Acts 23.11,
'The following night the Lord appeared to him and said, "Keep up your
courage: you have affirmed the truth about me in Jerusalem, and you must do
the same in Rome"', while II Tim.4.17b, 'And thus I was rescued out of the
lion's jaw', will refer to Paul's narrow escape from ambush the following
247
day’ (Acts 23.12-35). Even the phrase in II Tim.1.3, 'God, whom I, like
my forefathers, worship with a pure conscience' echoes the speech Paul
made before Felix in Acts 24.14 and 16: 'I worship the God of our fathers...
and keep at all times a clear conscience.' Either the correspondences arise
from the facts, or the author of the Pastorals is using Acts.

244. We might add 4.14f., if (as Reicke subsequently agrees) Alexander the coppersmith is
the same Alexander put forward in Acts i9.33f. by the silversmiths and workers in allied
trades (19.25) of Ephesus. He is mentioned, in conjunction with Hymenaeus (who also
appears in II Tim.2.18), in I Tim.1.20, which we shall argue comes from shortly after that
incident.
245. RE 70,438.
246. Cf. earlier Rom.15.19: 'I have completed the preaching of the gospel of Christ from
Jerusalem as far round as Illyricum.'
247. Cf. M. Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (HNT 13), Tubingen 81966, 95, who saw the
strength of the case for Caesarea. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, 121f.,
also recognized these parallels in his earlier placing of II Tim.4.16-18 in Caesarea - though
he confused the issue by supposing, apparently, that only the speech of Acts 22.1-29
represented the 'first defence'. But later he put the fragment in Rome, where no hearing is
recorded at all.

80
But in that case why did he not draw on Acts for the travel-notes - or at
least not make them so hard to harmonize?
If then we equate the captivity in II Timothy with that at Caesarea,
Onesiphorus' services on Paul's behalf (II Tim.1.16f.) will fall into line with
those of Epaphroditus (Phil. 2.25-30) and of Onesimus (Philem.11-13),
who were among the friends permitted to 'make themselves useful to
him' (Acts 24.23). But here we meet the first of two objections to the
whole reconstruction. For apparently, according to II Tim.1.17, Paul was
not in Caesarea but in Rome, where Onesiphorus 'took pains to search me
out when he came to Rome'. So fatal to his theory of an Ephesian
imprisonment did Duncan find this verse that he was reduced to the
248
desperate expedient of emending the text to ἐν Πριήνη or ἐν Λαοδιλία
But though it has regularly been taken to mean that Paul was in Rome
when Onesiphorus came to see him, I am indebted to Reicke for an
interpretation which I believe in the context makes better (though
249
admittedly less obvious) sense.
Onesiphorus was evidently a man of some substance, whose household
in Ephesus was the centre of notable church work (II Tim.1.16, 18; 4.19).
In the last of these passages his name is linked with those of Prisca and
Aquila, who, as we know, were in business (Acts 18.3) and are to be found
at short intervals in a succession of places.
Though hailing originally from Pontus, Aquila with his wife were, prior to
49, living in Rome (18.2). From 49 to 51 they were in Corinth (18.2-11), in
52 (18.26) and again in 55 (I Cor.16.19) in Ephesus, in 57 in Rome, where
they had a house (Rom.16.3- 5), and finally back once more in Ephesus (II
Tim.4.19).
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Onesiphorus was also an itinerant
Jewish businessman, of the sort so vividly described by James, who say
to themselves: 'Today or tomorrow we will go off to such and such a town and
spend a year there trading and making money' (James 4.13).
248. Paul's Ephesian Ministry, 189. Here Harrison could not follow him (Paulines and
Pastorals, 93-5). Badcock, Pauline Epistles and Hebrews, 115-2 7, who also wished to put
II Timothy in Caesarea (with Ephesians - though not Colossians and Philemon, which he
located in Ephesus) was reduced in 1.17 to emending 'Rome' to 'Antioch' (of Pisidia), as
well as placing 4.20 much earlier. Unfortunately his book is spoilt throughout by a tissue of
speculation. E. G. Selwyn, I Peter, 1946, 392, referring to it with approval, says: 'I hesitate
to express any opinion either as to the date or the genuineness of the Pastoral
Epistles as they stand; but the view that the greater part of a Timothy was written
during St Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea seems to me to merit careful
consideration'. Gunther, op. cit., 95, 177, though placing II Tim.4.9- 22a in Caesarea, is
compelled, without any supporting evidence, to see 1.15-18 (and 4.6f.) as a fragment of a
later letter to Timothy from Rome.
249. To be included in his forthcoming article in TLZ,, 'Chronologic der Pastoralbriefe'.

81
It was on some such business trip that we may guess that Onesiphorus
found himself in Rome (µενόµενος ἐν Ῥώµη). As was his wont, for Paul
said he had 'often' relieved his needs (II Tim.1.16), he looked out for Paul,
expecting him to be there, since the apostle had made no secret of his
intention to go on to Rome after visiting Jerusalem (Acts 19.21; Rom.1.15;
16.22-9).
He failed to find him; but hearing he was in prison, he determined to
search him out. He was 'not ashamed', says Paul, (though his business
interests might have prompted otherwise?) to visit one who was 'shut up
like a common criminal' (II Tim.1.16; 2.9).
He made strenuous efforts to track him down (σπουδαίως ἐζήτησεν), and
eventually found him. If Paul had been in a Roman jail, it is hard to believe
that with his well-placed Christian contacts Onesiphorus would have had
difficulty in being directed to him. Paul's extravagant gratitude (II Tim.1.16,
18) seems to demand something more, and this would indeed be
explained if Onesiphorus had made it his business to go out of his way to
Caesarea to visit him before returning to Ephesus.
At any rate the reference to Onesiphorus being in Rome cannot of itself be
allowed to settle the question of Paul's being there, if the evidence points
in another direction. We must judge the location of the epistle on its own
merits.
The second difficulty is occasioned by II Tim.4.20, 'I left Trophimus ill at
Miletus'. For if this refers to Paul's brief stay at Miletus on the way to
Jerusalem (Acts 20.15-38), Trophimus had not been left behind, for he
was subsequently seen with Paul in the city (21.29). The easiest (perhaps
too easy) solution would be to say that in a highly confused situation, of
which there were garbled reports and rumours (21.27-40), Luke has
simply mixed up the twin delegates from Asia (20.4) and confused
Tychicus with Trophimus. It would be a pardonable error.
But Paul may not be referring to the journey up to Jerusalem. It is
assumed both here and in Titus 1.5 that 'I left' (ἀπέλιπον) must imply that
Paul himself was present. In Titus, as we shall see, there is no reason to
suppose this to be implied. When speaking of his own personal
possessions, as in II Tim.4.13 ('the cloak I left with Carpus at Troas'), this
of course is so. But Paul is also speaking in these letters very much as the
director of operations, with 'the responsibility', as he puts it in II Cor.11.28,
'that weighs on me every day, my anxious concern for all our congregations'.
He is like a general reporting on the movements of his commanders in the
field (cf. the metaphor of II Tim. 2.4: 'A soldier on active service... must be
wholly at his commanding officer's disposal') or the head of a missionary
society giving news of his staff.
82
'Demas has deserted and gone to Thessalonica: Crescens to Galatia, Titus to
Dalmatia. Only Luke is here with me. Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. Erastus
250
has stayed in Corinth. Trophimus I have had to leave ill at Miletus. Perhaps
Trophimus was on his way back to Ephesus with his fellow-delegate Tychicus:
251
we do not know.
Reicke suggests that Timothy is notified so that he may call in on him at
Miletus, after Troas and Ephesus, on his way home (cf. the sequence in
4.13, 19, 20).
The one thing of which we can be reasonably sure is that Paul is reporting
on recent events, not only for Timothy's benefit (who would have known of
252
the first hearing of Paul's case from being at Jerusalem and Caesarea),
but for the leaders of the congregations, to whom the letter would be read
out - for all the Pastoral Epistles end with greetings to the church as well
as to the individual (I Tim.6.21; II Tim.4.22; Titus 3.15).
This brings us back to our main question, the date of II Timothy, which, if
our hypothesis is right, must be considered in close conjunction with that
of the other letters from the Caesarean jail.
We may begin again with Philippians, which as we saw stands apart from
the rest not only in style and content but in personalia. If it comes from the
same place, it must be either before or after the rest. I had originally
thought it came last, and indeed most scholars who see them written from
253
the same imprisonment (Lightfoot was an exception ) have put it after

250. Perhaps because he now has a permanent post there, if Rom. 16.23 (written at Corinth)
refers to the same man (cf. also Acts 19.22). Harrison argues persuasively for this in
'Erastus and his Pavement', Paulines and Pastorals, 100-5. He believes that owovop.os
means something more like 'clerk of works' than the neb's 'city treasurer'. H. J. Cadbury,
'Erastus of Corinth', JBL 50, 1931, 42-58, comes down on the whole against the
identification.
251 A possible alternative would be to take άπέλιπον in 4.19f. to mean 'they left' (for the
history of this interpretation, cf. Zahn, WT II, 26) and refer it, with Johnson, ExpT68, 25, to
Onesiphorus and his family, who after visiting Paul (1.17) were taking Trophimus back home
with them to Ephesus, while Tychicus was sent independently on Paul's work. Yet there is no
reason to think that Onesiphorus' family was with him at the time and the subject for the
plural verb is both remote and difficult.
252. This is a genuine difficulty, but not so hard surely as positing, with Johnson, op. cit., 26,
another defence before Felix (why then is it called the first?) unrecorded by Acts, or referring
it, with Gunther, op. cit., 109f., to the first defence under Festus (Acts 25.6-12). The latter
solution would confine the writing of II Timothy to the few days (25.13) between that and the
second ἀπέλιπον 26.1, 24) before Festus and Agrippa. Moreover it totally fails to explain
why Paul does not inform Timothy of the major new turn in events - namely, his appeal to
Caesar and the transfer of his case to Rome (25.11f.).
253. Philippians, 29-45. He rested his case, somewhat dubiously, on the resemblances with
earlier epistles, especially Romans.

83
Colossians and Ephesians, because it speaks of Paul looking forward to
254
death. Yet it is not at all natural to put it after II Timothy (as Reicke has
to, since he locates Philippians in Rome), which reads if anything does like
a last will and testament.
I am now persuaded, especially after reading Johnson's article already
255
quoted, that it is the first of the letters from Caesarea. He argued that
the Philippians, who saw Paul and his party off on their journey to
Jerusalem (Acts 20.6), would with their characteristic forwardness
(Phil.4.15-18) have lost no time in collecting for Paul's needs once they
had heard of his imprisonment. The journey from Philippi to Caesarea in
Acts 20.6-21.8 did not require longer, even with stopovers, than the six
weeks between Passover and Pentecost, and there is no reason why,
once the news had got back, Epaphroditus should not have arrived with
their supplies by the autumn of 57.
He then fell dangerously ill, for long enough for the Philippians to get news
of it and for Epaphroditus to hear that they had done so. By the time Paul
feels he must send him back (Phil.2.25-30), with the letter, we may judge
that winter has passed and that we are in the spring of 58. Timothy is
associated with the writing of it (1.1) and Paul hopes shortly to send him
too, so soon as ever he can see how things are going with him (2.19, 23).
Timothy is still with Paul when he writes Colossians and Philemon but not,
apparently, Ephesians (even though the three letters are taken together by
Tychicus). However he writes to Timothy to inform him of Tychicus'
dispatch to Ephesus (II Tim. 4.12) and asks him to collect the cloak which
he had left with Carpus at Troas, together with his books and note-books
(4.13), and to bring them before winter (4.21).
Paul had doubtless deliberately deposited them there as he set out on foot
for Assos in the warmth of late spring (Acts 20.131.), fully expecting to pick
them up on his way back after delivering the collection. Now he faces the
prospect of a second winter without them in prison and is understandably
pressing to have them in time. Reicke assumes that Timothy is in Mysia
near Troas, but there is nothing actually to suggest this, nor anything to
say that Mark should meet him there. It seems more natural to suppose
that Paul writes to Timothy in Philippi (where he has sent him) and asks
him to call in at Troas, and later at Miletus and Ephesus, on the route back
to Caesarea that both of them had followed before (Acts 20.6-21.8).

254. So Lohmeyer, Kolosser, 141., who sets Colossians and Philemon as well as
Philippians in Caesarea. But he does not reckon with II Timothy.
255. ExpT68, 24-6. His argument is unhappily mixed up with highly speculative theories that
stichometrical analysis shows the 'two years' in Rome of Acts a8.3of. to be misplaced from
the two years at Caesarea in 24.26 and γενόµενος ἐν Ῥώµη in II Tim.1.17 to be an
interpolation.

84
He is to pick up Mark, perhaps from Colossae, where Timothy, as joint-
author of the letter to that church, would not need to be told he was due to
256
be (Col.4.10).
If so, we may reconstruct the following time-table for the year 58:
Spring: Philippians written and dispatched via Epaphroditus
to Philippi.
Summer: Philemon and Colossians written.
Timothy sent to Philippi.
Ephesians written and dispatched with the other
two letters via Tychicus to Asia Minor.
Mark sent to Colossae.
Autumn: II Timothy written and dispatched to Philippi.
Reicke argues that Paul's appeal in Philem 9 as 'an ambassador of Christ
Jesus and now his prisoner' indicates that this betokens a new situation and
257
that Paul had therefore 'quite recently' been arrested. But this is surely
258
to read a great deal into one word. For Onesimus has already had time
to become Paul's spiritual child in prison (Philem.10f.) and indeed to
begin, like Timothy, to 'be at his side in the service of the Gospel like a son
working under his father' (Phil.2.22; cf. I Tim.1.2; II Tim.1.2).
Moreover time must be allowed for Epaphras to have come from Colossae
bringing news of the state of that church, to which, after some thought and
prayer, Paul responds (Col.1.7-9). I believe that 58 is the earliest likely
date. It is also probably the latest. For, like the rest of the news in II
Timothy, the sending of Tychicus would appear to be quite recent.
Anyhow by the following year Paul was already in late summer awaiting
shipment to Rome: the request to have his cloak before winter would have
been too late. The only good reason for putting II Timothy later in Paul's
career (unless we judge from 1.17 that it must come from Rome) is the
sense it conveys that, as he sees it, the end is at hand - combined with
our knowledge that it was not yet so.
Yet already, according to Acts 20.24, he had said at Miletus in the spring
of 57: 'I set no store by life; I only want to finish the race and complete the task
which the Lord Jesus has assigned to me, of bearing testimony to the Gospel of
God's grace.' But things dragged on for him.
256. This involves abandoning Reicke's assumption that Mark is the carrier of II Timothy, but
that is only a guess.
257. More likely than 'old man', especially if Eph.6.20, 'an ambassador in chains', is
Pauline. Anyhow no inference for dating can safely be drawn from Paul's age.
258. So too when he argues, RE 70,435, that it could 'only' fit Caesarea.

85
At first he had every reason to assume that his case would last no longer
than it took Lysias to come down from Jerusalem to Caesarea (Acts
24.22) and that he could expect early release. Until then he had had, as
far as we know, no experience of more extended detention than being
locked up on the order of local magistrates, which (if the incident at
Philippi in Acts 16.19- 40 is any sample) would not have lasted more than
a night or so (16.35), even without the intervention of the earthquake.
The word describing these experiences, φυλακαί, custody (II Cor.6.5;
11.23), is never used in the captivity epistles, where it is always δέσµοι
and the situation thus reflected is indeed different. As the weeks and
months pass at the imperial headquarters, Paul's confidence ebbs. In
Philippians, though he cannot yet see the outcome, he is sure that he will
live to be with them again before long (1.25f; 2.24). In Philemon he hopes,
in answer to their prayers, to be granted to them (22).
In Colossians and Ephesians he says merely that Tychicus will tell them
all the news, and prays that he may be given the right words when the
time comes (Col.4.7-9; Eph.6.19-22). By the time of II Timothy only the
prospect of death appears to await him, hope of release having faded: he
is deserted, and men must come to him (1.12; 4.6-13). As he was to
explain later (Acts 28.19), he had 'no option' left - except his last card,
appeal to the emperor.
To bear out the interconnections - and the mutual order - of Philippians
and II Timothy, it is interesting to observe how he takes up the language of
'finishing the race' (τελειώσω τὸν δρόµον) which, according to Luke's
report (Acts 20.24), had come into his speech at Miletus. (Earlier he had
used the same metaphor but spoke of running rather than finishing: I Cor.
9.24-6; I Tim. 6.12. We may set the phrases out in parallel columns:
Philippians II Timothy
What I should like is to The hour for my departure
depart (ἀναλῦσαι) (1-23). (ἀναλύσεως) is upon me (4.6).
If my life-blood is to crown the Already my life-blood is being poured
sacrifice (εἰ καὶ σπένδοµαι (2.17) out on the altar (ἢδη σπένδοµαι) (4.6)
(I have not yet reached perfection I have run the great race, I have
(οὐκ ... ἢδη τετελείωµαι) but finished the course
I press on (3-I2). (τὸν δρόµον τετέλεκα) (4-7).
I press toward the goal to Now the prize awaits me (4.8).
win the prize (3.14).
86
It is hard to resist the conclusion that both epistles reflect the mind of the
same man, at not too great an interval and in that sequence. So we may
put Philippians in the spring of 58, Philemon, Colossians and (a little later)
Ephesians in the summer of 58, and II Timothy in the autumn of 58.
But what finally of the other Pastoral Epistles, I Timothy and Titus?
Working backwards from II Timothy, let us take Titus first.
We last heard of Titus in Corinth, whither he had been sent from
Macedonia to reorganize the collection (II Cor.8; 12.17f.). By the time Paul
writes Romans early the next year, he is evidently no longer there - or he
would certainly have featured, like Timothy, in the greetings of Rom.
16.21-3. Paul is finishing off the business of the collection himself (15.28).
It could well have been at this stage that he had sent Titus to Crete, for
which Cenchreae, the port of Corinth (cf.16.1f.), was the natural point of
embarkation.
He was sent, as Paul reminds him in Titus 1.5, to set right the
shortcomings of the church there (τὰ λείποντα: not what remained to be
259
done after some hypothetical visit of Paul's) and to appoint local
presbyters. Paul explains that he had deliberately left him behind, instead
of taking him with the rest (as Titus of all people had surely earned the
right to expect) as one of the delegates to Jerusalem. This is just the
opposite of what he had done earlier when, he explains to the
Thessalonians, 'we decided to be left in Athens alone and sent Timothy' (I
Thess.3.1). So he writes Titus a charge, for public recitation, to reinforce
his original instructions (1.5) and promises him a replacement (3.12).
260
When is Paul writing? There is no hint that he is in prison. Any time in
the first half of 57 would fit. Reicke has made the plausible suggestion that
Paul writes to Titus en route to Jerusalem, perhaps from Miletus, whence
a boat could easily go to Crete and where we know his mind was occupied
with similar matters. Indeed he may well have used material prepared for
his charge to the Ephesian elders. Themes common to the speech and the
epistle are the warnings to elders, who are also ἐπίσκοποι Acts 20.18, 28;
Titus 1.5-9), against those who like wild beasts will ravage the flock from
within and by distortion of the truth break up the family of God (Acts
20.291.; Titus 1.10- 12) and an insistence on the example of honest work
(Acts 20.33f; Titus 3.8, 14). Paul has with him Artemas as well as Tychicus
(Titus 3.12), one of whom (and the uncertainty argues strongly for
authenticity) he promises to post to Crete.

259. Cf. Titus 3.13, 'See that they are not short (λείπη) of anything'.
260. Failure to recognize this vitiates Gunther's reconstruction of the epistle (op. cit., 114- 20)
as coming from the same time as II Timothy.

87
Presumably it was Artemas, of whom we hear nothing more, since
Tychicus was sent subsequently to Ephesus. When the replacement
arrives, Titus is to hasten to join Paul in Nicopolis, where, he says, he has
decided to spend the winter. This would be the same winter of 57, for Paul
was fully intending at this point, having delivered the collection, to come
back west to Italy and Spain (Rom.15.28). And there is no suggestion that
he planned to go by sea, as eventually he was forced to. On the contrary,
he would follow his usual practice of going over the ground he had
covered. Naturally he would go via Asia Minor (Philem. 22), stopping at
Troas to pick up his cloak and other valuables (II Tim.4.12f.).
Then he would call in at Philippi (Phil.2.24), before taking the Via Egnatia
to consolidate the work in Illyricum and the north-west begun the previous
year. He would winter with Titus on the coast at Nicopolis in Epirus, and
thence cross the Adriatic, when the spring weather allowed, for southern
Italy and Rome. But, alas, as it turned out, Titus had to go to Dalmatia
alone (II Tim.4.10) and Paul was to spend the winter languishing in a
Palestinian jail.
What finally of / Timothy? With far fewer personal details than the other
two, it is correspondingly difficult to locate. There is no more suggestion
than in Titus that Paul is or has been in prison. The only clear clue is in
1.3, where he says to Timothy, 'When I was starting for Macedonia, I urged
you to stay on at Ephesus.' It is natural to look to Acts 20.1, where Paul sets
out for Macedonia from Ephesus after the silversmiths' riot, and natural,
too, as we have said, to surmise that the Alexander mentioned in 1.20
recalls the same incident. Unfortunately, as we have seen, Luke's notice in
Acts 20. if. condenses a considerable amount of time and activity which it
is impossible to reconstruct accurately. During the interval Paul probably
went to Corinth and back and certainly spent some time in the
neighbourhood of Troas.
From where he would have written to Timothy we cannot know. Perhaps it
was from Corinth, if he did travel there via Macedonia, as he originally
planned (I Cor.16.5) - though probably he went direct (II Cor.1.16). More
likely it was from the Troad, where he had gone for missionary work, which
turned out to present many openings (II Cor.2.12). At the time of writing he
is still hoping to come to Timothy before long, though he recognizes the
possibility of delay (I Tim.3.14f.).
The next time in fact they meet, owing to Paul's restless determination to
push on (instead of returning to Ephesus?) in order to make contact with
Titus (II Cor. 2.13), is evidently in Macedonia, where Timothy joins Paul in
the sending of II Corinthians (1.1). It looks therefore as if the autumn of 55
is the most likely space for I Timothy.

88
Indeed the farewell exhortation for which Paul assembled the disciples in
Acts 20.1 may be the occasion mentioned in I Tim.1.3, where the same
word is used (παρακαλέσας, παρακάλεσα). The letter will then reinforce on
paper as a pastoral charge the gist of this address, whose substance
could indeed be incorporated in I Tim.2.1-3.13 (beginning παρακαλῶ οῦν).
I Timothy more than any other epistle stresses the aspect παραγγελία or
pastoral 'order' (1.3, 5, 18; 4.11; 5.7; 6.13, 17), which had been a
distinctive feature of Paul's apostolic method from the beginning (I
Thess.4.11; II Thess.3.4, 6, 10, 12; I Cor.7.10; 11.17).
We should not therefore see anything un-Pauline or indeed novel here. If
the dating seems surprisingly early we must not forget that at this stage
Timothy is evidently still quite junior and is working closely under Paul's
supervision. Earlier the same year he had felt it necessary to say to the
Corinthians:
If Timothy comes, see that you put him at his ease; for it is the Lord's
work that he is engaged upon, as I am myself; so no one must slight him.
Send him happily on his way to join me, since I am waiting for him with
our friends (I Cor.16.10f.).
Now he writes to his protégé in very similar terms: (I Tim.4.11-15).
Let no one slight you because you are young, but make yourself an
example to believers in speech and behaviour, in love, fidelity, and
purity. Until I arrive... make these matters your business and your
absorbing interest, so that your progress may be plain to all.
It is not difficult to believe that these words were written six months apart.
Each of these three epistles appears to embody directions for an
immediate pastoral occasion. We tend to assume that Paul is appointing
Timothy and Titus to extended supervision over designated areas. But in
fact the instructions relate to specific short-term tours. In II Timothy
Timothy is to do his best to come back as soon as possible (II Tim. 4.9);
Titus is to be relieved whenever Paul can arrange for a replacement (Titus
3.12); and I Timothy is written only for the brief interval during which
Timothy is to stay on at Ephesus until Paul himself can come (I Tim.3.14;
261
4.13). They do not presuppose, nor do they require, long gaps.
They are more like the charges composed by a modern missionary bishop
for an archidiaconal visitation lasting weeks or months rather than years. It
is not unknown for a busy bishop to have these written for him. But in any
case their style is determined much more by their form and content than
by their date.
261. The same word that is used in Acts 18.18 for Paul staying on 'for some days' at
Corinth.

89
If Paul had need for such specialized and formal communications there is
no reason why he should not have put them together, or had them put
together, probably out of material prepared (as Acts would suggest) for
spoken exhortations to church leaders, in amongst, rather than after, his
other correspondence.
So it should not surprise us if they were not composed, as is usually
assumed, in a bloc by themselves. Nor is there valid recourse to explain
the change of style by the passage of years. For if our conclusions are
right, the whole of Paul's extant correspondence (not forgetting that as
early as II Thess.3.17 he spoke of 'all my letters') appears to fall within a
period of nine years - indeed apart from his early letters to the
Thessalonians within the astonishingly short span of four and a half years.
To clarify this we may end with a summary of the resultant dates:
50 (early) I Thessalonians
50 (or early 51) II Thessalonians
55 (spring) I Corinthians
55 (autumn) I Timothy
56 (early) II Corinthians
56 (late) Galatians
57 (early) Romans
57 (late spring) Titus
58 (spring) Philippians
58 (summer) Philemon
Colossians
Ephesians
58 (autumn) II Timothy
It must be stressed again that the absolute datings could be a year or so
out either way and that the schema is more tentative than it looks. But the
importance of these conclusions, which, except for the Pastoral Epistles,
are not particularly controversial, is threefold:
(a) They provide a reasonably fixed yardstick or time scale against which
to set other evidence.
(b) If in fact the whole of Paul's extremely diverse literary career occupied
so brief a span, this gives us some objective criterion of how much time
needs to be allowed for developments in theology and practice.
Though it may at first sight appear extraordinarily short, we should not
forget two other canons of measurement.
90
The whole of Jesus' teaching and ministry (which I believe to have
involved at least three fundamental shifts in the way he saw his person
262
and work) occupied at most three or four years. And the whole
development of early Christian thought and practice up to the death of
Stephen and the conversion of Paul, including the first Hellenistic
statement of the gospel, took place within something like the same
263
period. Indeed Hengel, in his important article 'Christologie und
264
neutestamentliche Chronologic', argues strongly that the crucial
stage in the church's basic understanding of Christ and his significance
was represented by the four to five 'explosive' years between 30 and 35.
These years included the tension between the groups in Jerusalem (c.31-
2), the murder of Stephen and the dispersion of the church apart from the
apostles (c.32-3), the conversion of Paul (c.32-4), and the first missionary
work in Judaea and Samaria, Phoenicia, Damascus and Antioch (c.33-5).
By the time of his first extant epistle (I Thessalonians) Paul's Christology,
Hengel maintains, is in all fundamentals complete, having reached its
essential shape in the years prior to any of his missionary journeys.
Speaking of the period up to the council of Jerusalem in 48 (and his dates
agree with ours), he says: 'Fundamentally more happened
christologically in these few years than in the following 700 years of
265
church history, A priori arguments from Christology to chronology,
and indeed from any 'development' to the time required for it, are almost
wholly unreliable.
(c) The working assumption we made to trust Acts until proved otherwise
has been very substantially vindicated. There is practically nothing in
Luke's account that clashes with the Pauline evidence, and in the latter
half of Acts the correspondences are remarkably close. Even in the
speeches attributed to Paul, and especially those at which Luke can be
presumed to have been present (Acts 20 and 22-5), there are parallels to
suggest that they are far from purely free compositions. This conclusion
must also be relevant as we turn now to consider how close in date Acts
stands to the events which it records.

262. Cf. my book The Human Face of God, 1973,80-4.

263. Cf. R. B. Rackham, Acts, 61912, Ixix.
264. In Baltensweiler and Reicke, News Testament und Geschichte, 43-67.
265. Hengel, op. cit., 58; cf. his Son of God, ET 1976, 2.

91
 Chapter IV
Acts and the Synoptic Gospels

WITH the Pauline chronology is bound up the question of Acts, and so of

Luke and the other synoptists. Whether, according to the unanimous
external tradition, Luke is the author of the third gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles is not directly our problem. Though a second-century date clearly
rules out a companion of Paul, the middle ground of 80-90 for which most
recent critics opt need not. In fact Goodspeed argues for the authorship of
266
Luke only if Acts is put late (c. 90). On the other hand, the earlier the
joint work is dated the less reason there is for questioning the ascription.
For if it is not by Luke, then it is by some other unknown figure who stood
as close to the events and for whom Paul was equally clearly the hero. It is
possible to deny, on theological grounds, that the author could have been
a close associate of Paul's and yet to come to exactly the same dating as
267
those who think that he was. I do not propose therefore to go into the
question of authorship, but simply record that with the majority of English
scholars I see no decisive reason against accepting the traditional
268
ascription.
If an author for the Gospel, in particular, were being invented or guessed
at there would have been the strongest possible reason for fastening on
an apostle or at any rate a disciple of the Lord. Moreover, the style of the
'we' sections of Acts (16.10-17; 20.5-15; 21.1-18; 27.1-28.16) is, as
Harnack showed, the style par excellence of the writer of the whole when
269
freely composing in his own hand. There is no real ground for arguing
that he is here using a source or travel-diary other than his own. The
discrepancies with Pauline teaching have in my judgment been much
270
exaggerated, and room must be allowed for two facts,
(a) Acts is presenting Paul for the most part addressing those outside the
church, in contrast with the epistles which deal with concerns between
Christians.

266. INT, 197-204.

267. Kummel, INT, 147-9, 179-87, and G. W. H. Lampe, PCB, 820f., 882f.
268. For a balanced assessment of the points at issue, cf. C. S. C. Williams, Acts,
introduction. In favour of Lukan authorship: Streeter, FG, 540-62; E. E. Ellis, Luke (NCB),
1966, 40-52. Against: Haenchen, Acts, 112-16; Kummel, INT, 147-50, 174-85
269. A. Harnack, Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, ET 1911, ch. i; cf. his earlier
Luke the Physician, ET 1907, ch. 2. Goodspeed and Williams here concur.
270. Emphasized by Haenchen, Acts, 112-16.

92
The only speech in Acts addressed by Paul to Christians is that to the
elders at Miletus in 20.17-38, which we have already seen contains some
271
remarkable parallels with the later Pauline writings. In Rom.1.18-2.16
Paul shows how far he is prepared to go in accepting pagan
presuppositions in addressing those outside the law; there is no
fundamental contrast with the speech put into his mouth at Athens in Acts
272
17.22-31.
(b) The author of Acts is an independent lay mind of Gentile upbringing
who presents himself (Luke 1.1-4) primarily as an historian, not a
273
professional theologian. Thus, Acts 13.39 ('It is through him that
everyone who has faith is acquitted of everything for which there was no
acquittal under the Law of Moses') is a typical 'lay' summary of a
theologian's position: inadequate in precision of statement (for it could be
taken to imply that for some things justification by the law was possible),
but sufficient in general intention.
The recent tendency to turn Luke into a 'theologian's theologian', is, I
believe, a misguided exercise and detracts from appreciation of his stated
purpose and, within his own terms, still profoundly theological
understanding of events. Absence of reference to the epistles of Paul
274
cannot be regarded as a decisive objection. For Luke is not writing his
'life and letters' any more than he is writing a biography of Jesus, and
Paul himself sees his letters as stop gaps or preparations for the visits,
and these are what Acts records. On the other hand, silence on the very
275
existence of the epistles is, as Kummel says, a formidable objection,
276
amongst many others, to a second-century date.

271. Pp. 80f. above.

272. For the historical setting of this, cf. T. D. Barnes, 'An Apostle on Trial', JTS n.s.20,
1969,407-19.
273. For the most recent assessment of Luke's intention, in the light of the Hellenistic
parallels, cf. W. C. van Unnik, 'Once more St Luke's Prologue', Neotestamentica 7, 1973,
7-26, and the literature there cited.
274. E.g. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St Luke, ET 1960. For a balanced corrective, cf.
I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, Exeter 1970. For a survey of recent views,
cf. C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study, 1961; 'Philadelphia 1970.
275. INT, 186; cf. Zahn, INT lll, 125f.
276. Cf. Harnack, whose knowledge of the field of early Christian literature was second to
none: 'It is a perfect mystery to me how men like Overbeck and now again P. W.
Schmidt can set the Acts of the Apostles in a line with the works of Justin Martyr! St
Luke's Christology simply cries out in protest against such procedure; nor is the case
different with other characteristics of this writer' (Dale of Acts, 109). He might now have
added John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, Chicago 1942, ch.5, who argues for a
date of Acts c. 140, andJ. C. O'Neill, The Theology of Acts, 1961, ch.1, dates it between
c.115 and 130.

93
It is unbelievable that a later writer should not have made use of them for
his reconstruction or at least alluded to them.
When we come to the issue of dating proper, we may note in passing that
one argument, namely, the supposed dependence of Acts on Josephus'
277
Antiquities, which would require a date after 93, seems to have been
278
almost totally abandoned. Apart from general considerations of the time
required for the development of the theological and historical perspective
of Luke-Acts, which are notoriously subjective, and in turn depend on
other datings, the three 'hard' pieces of evidence are:
(a) the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem in Luke;
(b) the dependence (according to the most widely held solution of
the synoptic problem) of the gospel of Luke upon that of Mark; and
(c) the fact that Acts ends where it does.
The first,
(a), we have already examined and concluded that these prophecies
afford no ground for supposing that they were composed or even written
up after the event. Rather, the contrary. This does not of course mean that
they could not have been incorporated, without change (though this in
itself would need explanation), into a gospel written later. But in
themselves they provide no evidence for a later dating. Indeed they afford
a presumption (from unfulfilled prophecy) of a dating not simply before
the fall of the city in 70 but before the flight of Christians to Pella prior to
the beginning of the war in 66.
The second,
(b), depends for its force on the fact (if it is a fact) that Luke is subsequent
to Mark and, of course, on the dating of Mark. The main reason for
supposing Luke to have been written after 70 even by those (like Dodd)
who agree that the prophecies do not demand it is that the dating of Mark
forces Luke later. This, however, must be considered on its own merits in
conjunction with the wider synoptic problem. It will be convenient then to
look first at the third piece of evidence, relating to the ending of Acts.
(c) The closing words of Acts (28.30f.). are:

277. Stressed, for instance, by F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission,
Edinburgh 1906, 109f.
278. Cf. F. J. Foakes Jackson, Acts (Mofiatt NTC), 1931, xivf.; Kummel, INT, 186; Lampe,
PCB, 883; Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, 641. Writing in 1910, Harnack
regarded this point as having been 'settled thirty-four years ago by Schurer'. Quoting the
latter's summary, 'Either St Luke had not read Josephus, or, if he had read him, he had
forgotten what he had read',Harnack said: 'Schurer here exactly hits the mark' (Date of
Acts, 114f.).

94
 279 280
He stayed there two full years at his own expense, with a welcome
for all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching
the facts about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and without hindrance
The question is: why does the account stop at this point?
281
As Harnack said,
Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely
interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the
end completely disappoint them — they learn nothing of the final result
of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of
one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with
his delivery to Pilate, because Jesus had now been brought up to
Jerusalem and had made his appearance before the chief magistrate in
the capital city!
282
Various reasons have been advanced to explain this ending. It is said
that it suits Luke's apologetic purpose to close with Paul preaching
'openly and without hindrance' to the Roman public. But this must
surely have been rendered less than cogent for Theophilus by glossing
over in silence the common knowledge that he and Peter and 'a vast
multitude' of other Christians in the city had within a few years been
mercilessly butchered. There is no hint of the Neronian persecution, which
because of its excesses won considerable sympathy for the Christians, as
283
Tacitus says.
Nor for that matter is there any hint of the death of James the Lord's
brother in 62, which took place at the hands of the Sanhedrin against the
authority of Rome. The high priest Ananus seized the opportunity of an
interregnum in the procuratorship after the death of Festus to exercise
capital jurisdiction for which the Sanhedrin had no authority. Agrippa took
immediate steps to put himself and the Jewish people in the right with
Rome by removing Ananus from office before the new procurator
284
arrived.
No incident could have served Luke's apologetic purpose better, that it
279. Paul
280. in his own lodging in Rome
281. Date of Acts, 95f.
282. For a summary of suggested solutions, cf. Lake and Cadbury in Beginnings IV, 349f.;
for Lake's own proposals, V, 326-32. R. P. C. Hanson, 'Interpolations in the "Western"
Text of Acts', NTS 12, 1965-6, 224-30, suggests merely that Luke did not need to go on
because his (Roman) readers knew the rest. But presumably they also knew about the two
previous years.
283. Am. 15.44.
284. Josephus, Ant. 20. 200-3.

95
was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel.
Yet there is not a hint of James ever falling foul of the Jewish authorities,
unlike his namesake, James the brother of John (Acts 12. if.) Nor is there
any shadow in Acts of the impending Jewish revolt, let alone of the
destruction of Jerusalem to bear out the earlier prophecies of the Gospel.
When last we hear of them, the representatives of Judaism, alike of
church (24.21.; 25.1-5) and state (25.13-26.32), are living in a condition of
courteous, if suspicious, detente with Rome. One could never guess from
Acts what was to break within a few years.
Other explanations, that Acts was left unfinished (yet never supplied with
an ending such as was deemed necessary for Mark) or that Luke intended
a third volume (for which there is no evidence whatever - and in any case
285
why break there? ), are recourses of desperation.
286
Harnack wrote again:
For many years I was content to soothe my intellectual conscience with
such expedients; but in truth they altogether transgress against inward
probability and all the psychological laws of historical composition. The
more clearly we see that the trial of St Paul, and above all his appeal to
Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of Acts, the more hopeless
does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does,
otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its
287
close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion.
Harnack is still worth quoting, not merely because he is one of the great
ones in the field, whose massive scholarship and objectivity of judgment
contrast with so many who have come after him, but because on this
subject he was forced slowly and painfully to change his mind. In his
288
Chronologic, itself, as he says in his preface, the product of fifteen
years' study, he dated Luke-Acts with some confidence between 78 and
289
93. By the time he wrote his Acts of the Apostles he personally felt
that an earlier date was far more probable but cautiously deferred to the
290
weight of contrary opinion:

285. So Zahn, INT III., 58-61.

286. Date of Acts, 96f.
287. Even Manson, op. cit., 67, who thinks Mark early enough to accommodate such a date
for Acts (see below, p. 111), struggles against this conclusion to the extent of saying that
Luke perhaps did not himself know the outcome of Paul's trial, or, granted that he must have
heard of his martyrdom if it had occurred 'anywhere near the dates usually given for it', is
ready to appeal to Luke's silence as evidence that it did not!
288. Chron; vi, dated 31 May 1896.
289. Chron., 250.
290. A. Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, originally Leipzig 1908; ET 1909.

96
 Therefore for the present we must be content to say: St Luke wrote
291 292
at the time of Titus or in the earlier years of Domitian , but
perhaps even so early as the beginning of the seventh decade
of the first century.
293
But three years later in his Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels he
concluded without reservation that it is 'in the highest degree probable'
that Acts was written at the stage at which the narrative terminates, i.
294
e., on our reckoning, if not his, in 62.
He argues that in 28.30 the aorist ἐνέµεινεν, rather than an imperfect,
suggests that the period of Paul's relative freedom was now closed, but
that if he had left Rome Luke could hardly have failed to mention it. He
therefore thinks that Acts was written very soon after this time of
unhindered evangelism was over and Paul was removed to the praetorium
295
to begin the process of his trial.
If the outcome of that trial (or a subsequent one) was already known, it is
surely incredible, as Harnack says, that no foreshadowing or prophecy of
it after the event is allowed to appear in the narrative. For earlier Agabus,
besides foretelling a famine (Acts 11.28), prophesies that Paul would be
bound by the Jews in Jerusalem and handed over to the Gentiles (21.11);
and Paul himself is represented as knowing in advance that he was
destined to appear safe before the emperor, with the lives of all that were
sailing with him (27.24).
Yet the only hint he gives of his ultimate fate is that 'imprisonment and
hardships' await him and that his friends at Miletus would 'never see his
face again' (20.24f, 38). What we should expect, but do not get, are such
clear predictions (whether genuine or not) as we find of the death of Peter
in John 21.18f. and II Peter 1.14.
291. 79-81
292. 81-96
293. Originally Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig 1911; ET, 90-135.
294. I raise the question, without having been able to document the answer, whether
Harnack may not have changed his mind on this too. According to his Chronologic, Paul left
Jerusalem in 56, arrived in Rome in 57, and the two years' detention there would have ended
in 59. Yet in The Date of Acts he argues for a date in the early 60s and quotes (92) with
approval a fellow German scholar who, on the basis of his own previous statement in The
Acts of the Apostles, dated it in 62. Despite the English title of his second book, he never
actually dates Acts. But it certainly looks as though, without mentioning it, he had moved
away from his previous (unsatisfactory) argument for an early dating for Festus' accession.
Bammel agrees and tells me it was probably due to Schurer's article, INT 41, 21-42, replying
to his Chronologic a year later.
295. Parry, The Pastoral Epistles, xvf, while agreeing with Harnack's conclusion on the
date, argues that the implication of the aorist is that Paul left Rome after two years. But
neither inference can be more than a guess, and indeed even to press the implications of the
tense at all is hazardous. See below p. 141.

97
Harnack goes on to adduce numerous positive indications of an early
296
dating of Acts derived from the primitive character of its terminology.
But none of these is proof against the argument that Luke is using the
language of his sources or consciously archaizing. Nor may we draw any
certain conclusion from the notable absence from Acts of subsequent
297
changes in Roman administration and law. Nevertheless, the burden of
proof would seem to be heavily upon those who would argue that it does
come from later, and there is nothing, as far as I can see, in the theology
or history of the Gospel or Acts that requires a later date if the prophecies
298
of the fall of Jerusalem do not.
From the internal evidence of the two books we should therefore conclude
299
(as did Eusebius) that Acts was completed in 62 or soon after, with the
300
Gospel of Luke some time earlier. But what of the repercussions of this
for the daring of the other synoptists, and in particular of Mark, which, on
the prevailing hypothesis of the priority of Mark, Luke was using? It is the
difficulty of squaring this conclusion with the dominant view that Mark
comes from the latter 60s (if not later) that has weighed most heavily
against its acceptance.
At this point one comes up against the synoptic problem and its solution.
In some circles there has of late been a vigorous revival, led by W. R.
301
Farmer, of the hypothesis first formulated by J.J. Griesbach in 1783
that Mark represents a conflation of Matthew and Luke, Luke himself being
dependent on Matthew. In this case there is no problem as far as the
dating of Mark is concerned, since it can be put as late after Luke as
desired.
296. Date of Acts, 103-14.
297. Cf. Sherwyn-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, especially 85, 120-2,172-93.
298. Cf. Reicke, 'Synoptic Prophecies', 134: 'The only reasonable explanation for the
abrupt ending of Acts is the assumption that Luke did not know anything of events
later than 62 when he wrote his two books.'J. Munck, Acts (Anchor Bible), New York
1967, xlvi-liv, added the weight of his authority to a dating at the beginning of the 60s,
concluding: 'It is simply not possible to use relative chronologies based on internal
comparison among the gospels as arguments against an early date for Luke-Acts,
until the datings proposed either by source critics or members of other schools can
be demonstrated beyond cavil to have a firmer foundation than is at present the
case' (liv). Gf. earlier Rackham, Acts, 1-lv; Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts, 66-8;
Bruce, Acts, 10-14.
299. HE 2. 22.6.
300. C. S. G. Williams, 'The Date of Luke-Acts', ExpT 64, 1952-3, 283f, and Acts, 12f.,
argues that Acts is early but Luke late. But this is an unnecessary expedient, which reverses
the author's clear indication that the first volume of his work was already with Theophilus by
the time that he undertook the sequel (Acts 1.1). There is no reason to believe that 'Proto-
Luke' (as Williams argues) was ever a sufficiently finished product to leave its author's
hands.
301. W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, New York and London 1964.

98
But a similar question then arises with the dating of Matthew which on this
hypothesis Luke used, and this for most scholars would present even
greater difficulties. It has even been argued that Luke was written first of
302
all, though this has not commended itself widely In any case, the
question of relative order is secondary to that of absolute dating. Reicke,
working with the hypothesis of Markan priority, is prepared to date all three
synoptists before 60, whereas the great majority of its other
representatives put all of them later.
On the other hand Farmer thinks them all to be late (with Mark possibly
303
even in the second century), while another exponent of the Griesbach
304
hypothesis, J. B. Orchard, would see Matthew as composed in the 40s
with Luke and Mark in the early 60s.
This is not the place to become involved in the synoptic problem for its
own sake. It is also a time when the state of opinion with regard to it is
more fluid than it has been for fifty years. The consensus frozen by the
success of the 'fundamental solution' propounded by Streeter has
305
begun to show signs of cracking.
Though this is still the dominant hypothesis, incapsulated in the textbooks,
its conclusions can no longer be taken for granted as among the 'assured
results' of biblical criticism. It is far too early yet to say what new patterns
or modifications of older patterns will establish themselves. The main thing
required is a suspension of former dogmatisms and an admission that
none of the various hypotheses so confidently advanced as overall
solutions may satisfy all the facts. As E. P. Sanders concludes in his
careful study, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition,
The evidence does not seem to warrant the degree of certainty with which
many scholars hold the two-document hypothesis. It would also seem to
forbid that a similar degree of certainty should be accorded to any other
hypothesis.... I believe our entire study of the Synoptic Gospels would
profit from a period of withholding judgments on the Synoptic problem
while the evidence is resitted.... I rather suspect that when and if a new
view of the Synoptic problem becomes accepted, it will be more flexible
306
and complicated than the tidy two-document hypothesis.

302. R. L. Lindsay, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, Jerusalem n.d. (1969),
and A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels, Jerusalem. 1971.
303. Op.cit.,227
304. J. B. Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976.
305. FG, chapter 7.
306. E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1969, 278f. In
the context of his argument the author italicized the first sentence.

99
With that judgment I should fully concur, and it has been borne out for me
by a test-study I have recently made on a small but representative sample,
307
the parable of the wicked husbandmen in Mark 12.1-12 and pars.
Though its conclusions do not depend upon any particular dating nor is the
dating dependent on them, I would refer the reader to it to indicate at one
point how the fresh openness for which I am pleading is not simply based
on a vague impression but demanded by a detailed analysis of the
evidence.
My conclusion is that we must be open to seeing that the most primitive
state of the triple, or 'Markan', tradition (as indeed most scholars would
agree in relation to the double, or 'Q', tradition) is not consistently or
exclusively to be found in any one gospel, to which we must then assign
overall temporal priority. Rather I believe that there was written (as well as
oral) tradition underlying each of them, which is sometimes preserved in
its most original form by Matthew, sometimes by Luke, though most often,
I would judge, by Mark. Hence the strength of the case for the priority of
Mark, which is nevertheless overstated when this gospel is itself regarded
as the foundation-document of the other two.
The gospels as we have them are to be seen as parallel, though by no
means isolated, developments of common material for different spheres of
the Christian mission, rather than a series of documents standing in simple
chronological sequence. This still allows the possibility that Matthew, say,
may have been affected by Mark in the course of the redactional process,
or indeed Luke by Matthew, without requiring us to believe that one is
simply to be dated after the other.
We have been accustomed for so long to what might be called linear
solutions to the synoptic problem, where one gospel simply 'used'
another and must therefore be set later, that it is difficult to urge a more
fluid and complex interrelation between them and their traditions without
being accused of introducing unnecessary hypotheses and modifications.
But if we have learnt anything over the past fifty years it is surely that
whereas epistles were written for specific occasions (though they might be
added to or adapted later), gospels were essentially for continuous use in
the preaching, teaching, apologetic and liturgical life of the Christian
communities.
They grew out of and with the needs. One can only put approximate
dates to certain states or stages and set a certain terminus ad quern for
them, according to what they do or do not reflect. And at any stage in this
development one must be prepared to allow for cross-fertilization between
the ongoing traditions.
307. See my article, 'The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: A Test of Synoptic
Relationships', NTS 21, 1974—5, 443—61.

100
This does not at all mean that all interrelationships are equally probable or
that rigorous sifting of various hypotheses to explain them is not required.
But in dealing with the dating of the gospels one is dealing not so much
with a succession of points in time as with potentially overlapping spans of
development in which oral and literary processes went on together and in
which the creative hand of the individual evangelist is not to be isolated
from the continuing pressures of community use. And one has always to
make allowance for the fact that the external evidence which speaks of the
'writing' or 'putting out' of the gospels, even if it reflects good tradition,
cannot with confidence be assigned to any one stage or state of this
process.
With these general observations, which can only be ratified by specific
studies, I would venture to sketch what would appear to be a plausible
account of how and when the gospel traditions took shape.
We may begin with the earliest external testimony which we have, the well
known words of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in the early part of the
second century, whom Irenaeus described as 'a hearer of John and a
308
companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times'. Papias is quoted
309
by Eusebius, first of all, with regard to Mark:
This also the elder used to say. Mark, indeed, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, howbeit not in order, all that he
310
recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he neither
heard the Lord, nor was he a follower of his, but, at a later date (as I
311
said), of Peter; who used to adapt his instructions to the needs , but
not with a view to putting together the dominical oracles in orderly
fashion: so that Mark did no wrong in thus writing some things as he
312
recalled them.
For he kept a single aim in view: not to omit anything of what he heard,
nor to state anything therein falsely. And, then, immediately

308. Adv. haer. 5. 33.4; cited Eusebius, HE 3. 39.1.

309. HE 3.39.15. For recent discussions of this, cf. H. E. W. Turner, 'The Tradition of
Mark's Dependence upon Peter', Exp T 71, 1959-60, 260-3; Martin, Mark: Evangelist and
Theologian, 52f., 80—3.
310. Lawlor and Oulton here translate ωενόµενος 'having been', implying that he was the
'late' interpreter of Peter, who was by then dead. But it is best not to prejudge this.
311. of the moment
312. For an attractive alternative interpretation of χρείαι (adopted by Farmer, op. cit., 266-
70, and Orchard) to mean brief biographical apophthegms for instructional purposes, cf. R.
O. P. Taylor, The Groundwork of the Gospels, Oxford 1946, 29f.) 75-90. He takes Papias
to mean: 'Peter drew up his lessons with a view to supplying maxims and anecdotes to
be learnt in order to be quoted' (30).

101
 313
afterwards , concerning Matthew: So then, Matthew compiled the
oracles in the Hebrew language; but everyone interpreted them as he was
able.
Papias here distinguishes the ad hoc instructions (διδασκαλίας) used for
preaching and teaching, which were adapted to the requirements of the
occasion, and the more orderly collection (σύνταξιν) of the sayings of the
Lord (τῶν κυριὰκῶν λογίων). The former were reflected, so he believed,
in the recollections of Mark, the latter in the compilation (συνετάξατο) of
Matthew. The former were, we may suppose, judging from the content of
St Mark's gospel, primarily stories ('of what was either said or done by
the Lord') culminating in the passion story, the latter primarily sayings.
These two elements are recognizably the building bricks of all the matter
represented in different proportions in our synoptic gospels.
Without pressing any hard and fast distinction, we may judge that the
dominant context in the life of the church for the preservation of the first
was kerygma or preaching, that for the second didache or teaching. The
needs of the former are reflected in such summaries as that in Acts 10.37-
41:
I need not tell you what happened lately all over the land of the Jews,
starting from Galilee after the baptism proclaimed by John. You know
about Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and
with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were
oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we can bear witness to
all that he did in the Jewish country-side and in Jerusalem. He was put
to death by hanging on a gibbet; but God raised him to life on the third
day, and allowed him to appear, not to the whole people, but to witnesses
whom God had chosen in advance - to us, who ate and drank with him
after he rose from the dead.
The needs of the latter will have led to such collections of sayings (and
how far and when they were written down is quite secondary) as we have
learnt to label for convenience 'Q' and (to the extent that they are sayings
314
rather than stories) 'M' and 'L'. This first stage must have gone back to
the earliest days of the Christian mission and the instruction of converts in
the 30s and 40s, and was doubtless perpetuated after the demand for
more complex formulations arose.
Secondly, out of these stories and sayings (under the influence of a variety

313. HE 3.39.16.
314. For this category of sayings-collections within and beyond our canonical gospels, cf. J.
M. Robinson, 'Logoi Sophon: On the Gattung of Q.', in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester,
Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia 1971, 71-113.

102
of motives, evangelistic, apologetic, catechetical, disciplinary and liturgical)
one may see emerging for the first time documents which could in a
proper sense be described, not indeed as 'gospels' in the plural, a use
not to be found until the last quarter of the second century, but as 'the
315
gospel' in writing. This is the usage that appears to be reflected in the
316
Didache:
As the Lord commanded in his Gospel, thus pray ye: Our Father... (8.2).
But concerning the apostles and prophets, so do ye according to the
ordinance of the Gospel. Let every apostle, when he cometh to you, be
received as the Lord... (11.3).
Reprove one another, not in anger but in peace, as ye find in the Gospel
(15.3).
But your prayers and your almsgivings and all your deeds so do ye as ye
find it in the Gospel of the Lord (15.4).
The reference is evidently to some document familiar and accessible to
the readers. Though closest to the Matthean tradition, the quotations
cannot be demonstrated to depend on the canonical gospel of Matthew.
The dating of the Didache is notoriously uncertain and we shall return to it
in ch. 10. Here I shall anticipate the findings of J. P. Audet's massive and
detailed investigation that though these passages come in his judgment
from the second stage of its composition they still reflect a period before
our gospels were completed and throw valuable light on their
317
prehistory. We may for the sake of argument call this document proto-
Matthew.
Its milieu is clearly Palestinian or Syrian and many have seen the most
probable locale both of the Didache and of Matthew to be Antioch. It is
likely to have represented the first formulated statement of 'the gospel'
used by the apostles, teachers and prophets to whom the Didache refers
(10.7-15.2), and whom Acts also mentions in connection with Antioch and
its missionary work (13.1-3; 14.14). Inasmuch as Paul went out in the first
instance as the delegate of this church, we may suppose that this was
primarily the tradition of the 'words of the Lord' which he took with him,
and it would explain the otherwise rather unexpected affinity alike in
318
doctrine and in discipline between Paul and Matthew, especially in early
315. For the evidence cf. G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 —
8, εὐαγγέλιον.
316. All translations of the Apostolic Fathers are fromJ. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers,
1891. His five-volume edition of the same title, 21889-90, will be distinguished by inclusion of
the volume number.
317. J.P. Audet, La Didache: Instructions des Apotres (Etudes Bibliques), Paris 1958.
318. Cf. B. C. Butler, 'St Paul's Knowledge and Use of St Matthew', DR 60, 1948, 363-83;
Dodd, 'Matthew and Paul', NT Studies, 53-66; D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the
Churches of Paul, Oxford 1971.

103
 319
writings like the Thessalonian epistles. (To the implications of this for
the dating of Matthew I shall return.)
If this is the case, it would go a long way to explain the external tradition
that Matthew was the first gospel. It has been widely recognized, even by
advocates of the priority of Matthew, that this cannot be true of our
canonical Matthew, which quite apart from its possible (indeed probable)
dependence on Mark, shows every sign of incorporating some of the latest
developments in the synoptic tradition. It is scarcely sufficient, either, to
make it refer to the λόγια mentioned by Papias as collected by Matthew in
the Hebrew tongue, which are much more likely to relate to a pre-gospel
320
stratum like 'Q’.
But it might reflect the composition which for the sake of a label we have
called proto-Matthew. This could have some relationship to what is
referred to by Irenaeus (assuming he had any tradition independent of
Papias) when he reports that 'Matthew published a gospel in writing
(γράφην ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγενίου) among the Hebrews in their own
language', though clearly what is being quoted by the Didache and used
321
at Antioch is in Greek. This stage may coincide with the needs of the
missionary expansion from Antioch in the second half of the 40s,
described in Acts 13 and 14.
What such a document contained it is, of course, impossible to be sure. All
that the Didache, as its name implies, is interested in citing is material
relating to liturgical, ethical and disciplinary instruction.
But the Didache, or 'the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', refers to it,
with deference, as 'the Gospel of the Lord' (or 'his Gospel'), as though it
were clearly different from teaching and nothing else. Dogmatism about
what a gospel 'must' have included at this stage is clearly out of place.
The 'Gospel of Thomas' is indeed no more than a collection of sayings,
but this title (confined to its colophon: at the beginning it describes itself as
'the secret words'), like that of 'The Gospel of Truth', may reflect the
polemical usage of heretical circles in the second century.
It could represent 'a flag under which various kinds of writings
circulated at a time when the canonical gospels and hence the title
322
"gospel" had gained wide acceptance in the orthodox church'.

319. Cf. J. B. Orchard, 'Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels', Bb 19, 1938, 19-42; J.
A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, 1957, 105-11.
320. For a strong statement of this, cf. Manson, Studies in the Gospels, 75-82.
321. Adv. haer. 3.1.1. The Greek is cited in Eusebius, HE 5.8.2. For further discussion of this
passage, see below p. 110.
322. J. M. Robinson in Robinson and Koestcr, op. cit., 76.

104
 323
Indeed this is what Irenaeus suggests.
Within the main stream of the church's tradition there is no suggestion that
'the gospel' centred on anything but what was 'proclaimed', the
kerygma - and that found its focus in the death and resurrection of
324
Christ. This is true of 'the gospel' that Paul himself received in the
earliest days (I Cor.15.1- 4), and it is still true when 'the gospel' comes to
have the overtones of a written book set alongside the Old Testament:
'Give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the
325
passion is shown to us and the resurrection is accomplished'. It is
a fair assumption then that what the Didachist deferred to as 'the Gospel'
contained, as well as the matter which he was interested in citing, the
story of Jesus up to and including his death and resurrection.
Now there is no evidence to suggest that the Matthean tradition, unlike the
Lukan and the Johannine, ever contained passion material (except of a
suspiciously secondary strain) independent of that which it shares with
326
Mark. Whatever the relationship between our Matthew and our Mark, it
is clear that there was common material (evidently, from the degree of
verbal agreement, in written form) which, as I read the evidence, goes
back behind them both and which Matthew on some occasions at least still
327
preserves in its most primitive state.
And this passion material is of a piece with other material in a common
order of which the same is true.
323. 'For indeed they go on to such great audacity as to entitle what they themselves
only recently wrote as "The Gospel of Truth", although it agrees at no point with the
gospels by the apostles, so that not even the gospel can be among them without
blasphemy. For if what they publish as of truth is the gospel, but is dissimilar to those
handed down to us by the apostles, persons who so wish can learn (as is shown from
the writings themselves), that what was handed down from the apostles is not the
gospel of truth' (Adv. haer. 3.11.9; quoted by J. M. Robinson, op. cit., 77).
324. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 'When is a Gospel not a Gospel?', BJRL 45, 1962-3, 310- 39: 'A
Gospel without a passion narrative is a contradiction in terms' (324).
325. Ignatius, Smyrn. 7.2; cf. Philad. 8.2 (cf. 9.2). Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei
den apostolischen Vdtern, Berlin 1957, 6- 12, argues that in Ignatius the reference of 'the
gospel' is still oral, though he agrees that there is a transition to written form in Did. 15.31. It
is remarkable that neither these passages nor those in the Didache are mentioned by
Koester in his discussion of the origins of the 'Gattung' gospel in Robinson and Koester, op.
cit., 158-66, nor again by W. Schneemelcher in his survey of the history of the term 'Gospel'
in E. Hennecke (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, ET 1963-5,1, 71-84.
326. E.g. stories like that of Pilate's wife's dream (Matt.27.19), his hand-washing (27.24f.),
and the guards at the tomb (27.62-6; 28.11-15).
327. I have argued this of Matt. 26.64 = Mark 14.62 = Luke 20.69 in my Jesus and His
Coming, 43-50. I contended there, on the assumption of the priority of Mark, for subsequent
alterations to the Markan text. But the evidence for this is not strong, and I would prefer now
to attribute the secondary features in Mark to editorial activity.

105
We normally call this 'the Markan tradition', since it is represented most
distinctly and usually, I would judge, most originally in our second gospel.
But I am persuaded that it goes back behind both our first two gospels
(and indeed the third). It may well be that it bears, as Papias believed,
through Peter a special relationship to Mark, just as the sayings collection
bore a special relationship to Matthew, without this 'P' tradition (if we may
so call it) any more than the 'Q' material being exclusively identified with
328
the gospels of Mark and Matthew as we now have them.
All we can say with reasonable confidence is that it was these two streams
that united, with other distinctively Palestinian matter, to produce (in
Greek) what I have called proto-Matthew and what the Didachist speaks
of as 'the Gospel' in his area. This in itself carries no implications for the
priority either of our Matthew or of our Mark, though it suggests, as Papias
implies, that the 'P' material was both apostolic and early. Indeed in his
version of the tradition there is no tying of it to Peter's preaching mission in
Rome, but rather to Peter's general evangelistic practice (ἐποιεῖτο),such
as Paul must certainly have intended to include in his reference to the
common apostolic proclamation: 'whether it be I or they' (I Cor.
329
15.11).
Elsewhere there were doubtless other attempts to set down in writing
presentations of the gospel in a form that lay between preachers' notes
and collections of sayings on the one hand and finished gospels on the
other. Luke in his preface refers indeed, no doubt with some exaggeration,
to a quantity of such:
Many writers have undertaken to draw up an account (διήγησιν) of the
events that have happened among us, following the traditions (καθῶς
παρέδοσαν) handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and
servants of the Gospel. And so I in my turn, your Excellency, as one who
has gone over the whole course of these events in detail, have decided to
write a connected narrative (καθεξῆς γράψαι) for you (1.1-3).
The fact that he contrasts these attempts at an 'account', alike with the
traditions that lie behind them and with his own connected narrative, may
suggest that we are here dealing with the stage of what we have labelled
proto-gospels, written statements of the gospel for local use which, in
retrospect, were 'accurate' but were felt to lack 'ordered presentation'.
328. In this I venture to follow my uncle J. Armitage Robinson, who, according to R. H.
Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels, 1935, 27, used this symbol in his
lectures at Cambridge, with 'Q' simply as the next letter in the alphabet for the sayings-
collection. (This is without prejudice to whether this was the origin of the symbol 'Q,', which
appears improbable; cf. Moule, Birth of the NT, 84.) 'P' may carry the overtones of
'preaching' or 'Petrine' if desired, but I would not wish to identify it simpliciter either with
Peter's preaching or with Mark's gospel.
329. Cf. Gal. 2.9 ('we and they'); I Cor.1.2 ('theirs and ours'); and Manson, op. cit., 192-4.

106
Indeed it may well be that the production to which the Elder gave this
description was not Mark's gospel as we now have it (which does not
strike us as lacking order) but a summary of Peter's mission-preaching,
which was to become later a proto-gospel for the Roman church. But it is
Luke himself who has provided occasion, in what Streeter called 'proto-
Luke', for the supposition of a stage in the construction of the gospels
which would correspond in a modern work to a first draft.
What, again, this consisted of, if it was ever a self-subsistent document,
will never be known; but it certainly fits much of the evidence (as Streeter
argued) to suppose that Luke used the 'P' material as a secondary source
to supplement the 'account' he in his turn had begun to put together
'following the traditions handed down' to him ('Q' and 'L') as a tentative
statement of the gospel for the Gentile mission.
Whatever these precursors, the next stage is the formulation, in response
to the changing and growing needs of the church, of the gospels as we
know them, basically in their present form, though not necessarily in their
final state.
Matthew represents the gospel for the Jewish-Christian church, equipping
it to define and defend its position over against the arguments and
institutions of the main body of Judaism. But, in contrast with the
Judaizers, it is a Jewish-Christian community open to the Gentile mission
and its tensions.
For while Matthew contains some of the most Judaistic (5.18f.; 10.5;
15.26; 18.17;23.2f.) texts in the gospels, it also contains the most
universalistic (21.43;24.14; 28.19). Antioch again seems a likely locale (cf.
e.g. the tension there described in Gal. 2.11-14), though the tradition
behind it is surely Palestinian.
Luke (followed by Acts) is, in contrast, essentially the gospel for that
imperial world evangelized by Paul 'from Jerusalem to Rome’ (Rom.
15.19-24), though not repudiating any more than Paul did its deep roots in
Judaism and the Septuagint.
Mark (in whatever order it comes) is the gospel for the 'Petrine centre',
serving a mixed community like the church in Rome which owes its origin
and ethos exclusively to neither wing but which has its own problems and
pressures.
The gospel of John must also, I believe, be seen as an integral part of the
same interconnected scene, being fashioned, out of a similar process, for
the church's mission among Greek-speaking Jews first in Palestine and
then in the diaspora. But I shall be deferring consideration of it to a later
chapter.
107
All these gospels will doubtless have continued to go through different
states (what we might anachronistically call editions) as the needs grew
and changed. This is probably least true of Luke, whose gospel is the
nearest equivalent to a modern book written and published for a single
individual and at a particular moment in time: 'I have decided (ἒδοξε) to
write... for you', he says to Theophilus (1.3).
330
As the Muratorian Canon puts it, Luke 'composed in his own name on
331
the basis of report'. Unlike the others it does not seem to have been put
together at the request, or for the purposes, of a group. Yet the evidence
for an original beginning with the formal dating at 3.1 suggests an earlier
state, and the whole work - with the collecting of the material for Acts -
may have occupied Luke for many years (cf.1.3: 'as one who has gone over
the whole course of events in detail').
Mark may have gone through more than one recension.
Thus I have suggested there are grounds for supposing that its present
eschatology (represented in ch.13) developed from one which originally
viewed the parousia as an exaltation scene in Galilee (prefigured at the
332
transfiguration), such as we still find in Matt. 28.16-18.
333
Indeed I am happy to discover that Goodspeed also thought that this
passage incorporated the 'lost ending' of Mark - or rather, let us say, the
'P' material missing, for whatever reason, from the end of the second
gospel. Later I shall be arguing that there were at least two 'editions' of
John (the second with the prologue and epilogue added), and most
scholars have detected more.
But it is Matthew that gives evidence of the longest formation history. It
has often been observed that Matthew is a 'collector', accumulating
diverse layers of tradition (e.g. of eschatology in 10.23; 24.29-31; 26.64;
28.20), which may reflect different states or stages of composition. If (as
those who abandon the 'two document' hypothesis have to assert) Luke
knew and used Matthew, and there was not merely a relationship through
'P' and 'Q', then it could be easier to explain the absence from Luke, or
the lack of influence upon Luke, of some of the more secondary features
of the special Matthean material and editorial additions on the hypothesis
of an earlier 'edition' of Matthew than by Luke's deliberate omission of
Jewish features that did not interest him.

330. the Gospel

331. Cadbury's translation, Beginnings II, 211. Cf. Manson, op. cit., 52f.
332. Jesus and His Coming, 128-36; cf. Trocme, Formation of Mark, ch.4; he argues that
chapters 14-16 belong to the 'second edition' (c. 85).
333. INT, 156.

108
These would include such things as the quotation-formulae, the
ecclesiastical and Petrine additions, some quasi-legendary stories, the
allegorization and embellishment of many of the parables, the
apocalyptization of the eschatology, and the 'prologue' of the first two
chapters answering the questions, for apologetic with Judaism, of the
genealogical and geographical origins of the Messiah. The 'school of
Matthew', to use K. Stendahl's phrase, may well have continued for
334
some time the process of bringing forth things old and new (13.52).
Matthew could therefore in a real sense turn out to be both the earliest and
the latest of the synoptists. This is interestingly reflected in a judgment of
Harnack's, who was certainly no advocate of the priority of Matthew in the
usual sense:
That the synoptic gospel which was most read should have received the
most numerous accretions, and should be the latest in date, is nothing
remarkable, but only natural. Moreover, it remains, in regard to form,
the oldest 'book of the Gospel'; the others have obtained the rank and
dignity of such a title because they have been set by the side of St
Matthew's gospel, which from the first, unlike the others, claims to be an
335
ecclesiastical book.
The process of what Harnack calls 'accretions' continued for a long time
336
in the textual tradition. But can we say when Matthew reached its
present canonical form?
We have looked at the arguments for dating it after 70 on the ground of its
possible references to the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem. The
addition to the parable of the great supper in 22.7 ('The king was furious,
he sent troops to kill those murderers and set their town on fire') we
agreed could, but by no means necessarily must, have been supplied ex
eventu.
But from the examination of the apocalyptic discourse in ch.24 we
concluded that there was no case for thinking that it was written for the
interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia: rather the
opposite. Indeed there was no reason for supposing that it reflected even
the beginning of the war: the flight to Pella prior to its outbreak is actually
contradicted by the instructions to take to the hills of Judaea. Is this
conclusion borne out or overturned by the evidence of the rest of the
gospel?

334. K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew, Uppsala 1954.

335. Date of Acts, 134f. He goes on: 'As the place of origin of the first gospel, Palestine
alone can come into consideration.' I would agree as far as the material is concerned,
though the concern for the Gentile mission perhaps suggests a more cosmopolitan place of
redaction.
336. The doxology to the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6.13) is an obvious example.

109
Matthew's gospel shows all the signs of being produced for a community
(and by a community) that needed to formulate, over against the main
body of Pharisaic and Sadducaic Judaism, its own line on such issues as
the interpretation of scripture and the place of the law, its attitude toward
the temple and its sacrifices, the sabbath, fasting, prayer, food laws and
purification rites, its rules for admission to the community and the
discipline of offenders, for marriage, divorce and celibacy, its policy toward
Samaritans and Gentiles in a predominantly Jewish milieu, and so on.
These problems reflect a period when the needs of co-existence force a
clarification of what is the distinctively Christian line on a number of
practical issues which previously could be taken for granted. It
corresponds to the period when the early Methodists were compelled by
events to cease to regard themselves as methodical Anglicans, loyal to
the parish church and its structures as well as to their own class meetings.
At this stage all kinds of questions of organization, ministry and liturgy,
doctrine and discipline, law and finance, present themselves afresh, as a
'society' or 'synagogue' takes on the burden of becoming a 'church'.
But uneasy co-existence does not necessarily imply an irrevocable break:
indeed John Wesley claimed that he lived and died a priest of the Church
of England. It is in some such interval that the gospel of Matthew seems
most naturally to fit. Its are not the problems of the first careless,
expansionist years. Yet for all the tension there is not the altercation of two
estranged and separated camps, such as followed the defeat of Judaism
337
and is reflected in the Epistle of Barnabas, the consolidation of rabbinic
Judaism at Jamnia, and the formal ban on Christians from the
338
synagogue. One may agree with Reicke when he says: 'The situation
presupposed by Matthew corresponds to what is known about
339
Christianity in Palestine between AD 50 and ca. 64.'
Two illustrations will indicate that the old status quo is still in operation.
Matthew is more concerned than any other evangelist with the
relationship of Christianity to the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices.
Typical is a passage peculiar to this gospel in the middle of a discussion,
common to the other synoptists, on the sabbath law:
Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the
temple break the Sabbath and it is not held against them? I tell you, there
is something greater than the temple here. If you had known what that
text means, 'I require mercy, not sacrifice', you would not have
condemned the innocent (12.5-7).

337. For the dating of this, see below, ch. x.

338. For a discussion of this, cf. pp. 272-4 below.
339. 'Synoptic Prophecies', 133.

110
Matthew alone has the same quotation from Hos.6.6, 'I require mercy,
not sacrifice' also in 9.13, while it may perhaps be significant that he
does not have that from I Sam.15.22 cited in Mark 12.33, where love of
God and neighbour is declared to be 'far more than any burnt offerings
or sacrifices'. Matthew's concern, like that of the author to the Hebrews,
is evidently to present Jesus as the substitute for Christians of all that the
temple stands for. Yet there is no more suggestion in the one than the
other that the levitical system is not still in active operation. Indeed
Matthew has seven references to the Sadducees (compared with one
340
each by Mark and Luke), warning against their influence. Since this was
a group whose power disappeared with the destruction of the temple,
preoccupation with them argues strongly for an earlier period.
The same applies to Matthew's characteristic interest in the Christian
community's attitude to the half-shekel tax for the upkeep of the temple
(17.24-7). The teaching of Jesus is taken to be that even though
Christians may rightly consider themselves free of any obligation to the
system, the tax should be paid, 'as we do not want to cause difficulty
for these people'. This certainly does not argue a situation of open
breach, but rather a concern not to provoke one. In any case, it clearly
points to a pre-70 milieu. For after that date this tax had to be paid to the
341
temple treasury of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome and would have had no
342
bearing on the Jewish question Jesus is represented as settling.
As H. W. Montefiore has said,
The difference between Jesus' voluntary payment of the upkeep of the
Jewish Temple and the Christians' payment under duress for the upkeep
of a pagan shrine is very great indeed. It is almost impossible to see how
a story about the former could have been constructed in order to give a
precedent about the latter.... It is easier to suppose that an earlier saying
had been adapted to meet the need of Christians in the period after AD
343
70.
It is surely easier still, unless we start, as he does, by saying 'it may be
assumed that St Matthew's Gospel was written sometime between
AD 70 and AD 96', to suppose that this 'adaptation' (which he describes
as 'far too inappropriate' for invention) did not need to be made at all.

340. See especially Matt.16.1-12.In the other gospels (Mark 8.11-15; Luke 12.1) it is the
Pharisees (and in Mark also Herod) who are singled out for warning.
341. Josephus BJ 7.218.
342. To be distinguished from the very different issue of the payment of tribute to Caesar
(Mark 12.13-17 and pars).
343. H. W. Montefiore, 'Jesus and the Temple Tax', NTS 11, 1964- 5,65.

111
The saying (which basically, he argues, goes back to Jesus) was very
relevant to the pre-70 situation of the Jewish-Christian church: it was quite
344
irrelevant afterwards. As the Mishnah specifically says, the Shekel
345
dues... apply only such time as the Temple stands.'
Finally, there are two arguments which carry no weight in themselves but
which may confirm an early date for Matthew if this is on other grounds
probable.
In a study of the parallels between the apocalyptic material in
346
Thessalonians and the synoptic gospels, I recorded what then seemed
to me the bizarre conclusion that the closest connections were between
what appeared to be the earliest material in the epistles and the latest
developments in the synoptic tradition, the editorial matter in Matthew. Of
these developments, characteristic of the distinctively Matthean treatment
both of 'P' and 'Q' material, I wrote:
The tendencies which produced them set in much earlier than the
Gospels by themselves would lead us to expect. Already, it appears, by the
year 50, the Church was thinking in a manner reflected in the Synoptic
347
material only in its latest strands.
Dating Matthew, as I then did, well after the fall of Jerusalem, I attributed
this to an (unexplained) time lag. But what if these tendencies were
already those of the Matthean community and its version of the gospel by
348
the time Paul left Antioch after the council of Jerusalem in 49? For the
same connections are to be found with the apocalypse in the Didache
(16), which we have already had occasion to associate with this period
and place. Obviously these arguments for dating are circular, and we shall
have to return to the dating of the Didache in particular. But the evidence
of Thessalonians at any rate shows that this way of thinking was rife in the
year 50. The marks of it in Matthew 24 cannot therefore be used to
require any later date for that gospel.
Secondly, there is an argument from silence to which no importance can
be attached on its own but which is perhaps just worth including since it
supports the same conclusion.
344. The laws concerning
345. Shek. 8.8. All translations of the Mishnah are from H. Danby, The Mishnah, Oxford
IW9. Oxford 1933.
346. Jesus and His Coming, 105-11.
347. Op. cit., 105.
348. Orchard, Bb 19, 39, draws the conclusion that Paul knew Matt.23.31-25.46 and that
"this passage is something absolutely primordial and must be dated somewhere between 40
and 50 AD'. But this goes with his belief in the priority of Matthew in its present form and
seems to me to be pushing the evidence much too far.

112
After the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother in 62, which itself has
left no echo in the New Testament (as we might have expected if so
349 350
much of it had been written later), Eusebius records , on the
authority of Hegesippus, that he was succeeded as bishop of Jerusalem
by Symeon, the son of Clopas, Joseph's brother. There is much in this
tradition that is evidently hagiographical. But it seems likely that the
succession would be kept within the family, the lineage necessarily for a
Jew being traced through the father's side.
Moreover, if a name was being invented later, one would have expected
one to be supplied from among those mentioned in scripture. But the
'Mary wife of Clopas' mentioned in John 19.25, and referred to in this
351
connection by Eusebius , who is probably (though not certainly) to be
352
identified with 'the other Mary' (Matt.27.61) at the cross and tomb, is
described as the mother of James and Joseph (Mark 15.40; Matt.27.56),
or of the one (Mark 16.1; Luke 24.10), or the other (Mark 15.47), but never
of Symeon. If Symeon was the son who after 62 achieved leadership of
the mother church one might at least have expected his mention,
especially in the Palestinian tradition.
For Mark goes to the trouble of naming the sons of Simon of Cyrene,
Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15.21), perhaps because, like their mother,
Rufus was a member of the Christian congregation in Rome (Rom.16.13),
and Matthew alone identifies Salome with the mother of the sons of
Zebedee (Matt.27.56, as well as introducing her in 20.20). For what little it
is worth, it suggests again that the first gospel is prior to this date. In this
case we have pushed Matthew back at any rate before 62, which is
exactly the date to which we were driven for Acts, with Luke a little earlier.
This would mean that the final stage of the formation of the synoptic
gospels roughly coincided with the end of the 50s. Our argument so far
would therefore yield the following provisional schema:
1. Formation of stories- and sayings-collections
'L''M'('P', 'Q:, ): 30’s and 40’s +
2. Formation of 'proto-gospels': 40’s and 50’s +
3. Formation of our synoptic gospels: 50 - 60 +
But how, finally, does Mark fit into this, from the question of whose dating
we started?
349. It rates a long chapter in Eusebius, HE 2.23, who gives an extensive quotation from
Hegesippus, as well as being recorded by Josephus, Ant. 20. 200-3.
350. HE 3.11; 3.32. 1-6; 4.22.4.
351. HE 3.11.
352. Cf. A. Meyer and W. Bauer in Hennecke, NTApoc. 1,425f.

113
It is a curious phenomenon that for the gospel that was least read or
esteemed in the early church there is more tradition relating to its date of
composition than any other. For the rest there are statements about the
sequence in which they were written, which for the most part merely reflect
or rationalize the canonical order. The only exception is that of Clement of
353
Alexandria, who is reported by Eusebius to have inserted into his
Hypotyposeis 'a tradition of the primitive elders' that 'those gospels
were first written which include the genealogies' (i.e. Matthew and
Luke).
As Mark was honoured as the first bishop of Alexandria there would seem
to be no motive there in deliberately putting his gospel last of the
354
synoptists. But this tradition can scarcely be used, as it is by Farmer, in
support of his hypothesis that Mark represents a literary conflation of
Matthew and Luke, since the same tradition went on to say of the origin of
355
the gospel of Mark :
When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit
had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted
Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered
what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he
did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And
that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly
356
forbade it nor urged it forward.
It is natural to regard this tradition as being the same as that quoted from
357
Papias earlier: indeed elsewhere Eusebius says that Papias
358
'corroborates' the testimony. Yet the matter common to both is
actually limited to the bare fact of Mark being a follower of Peter who wrote
down what he recalled of his teaching.
It is Clement who links it to a particular preaching mission in Rome, and to
the production and distribution of a book to which Peter's reaction is
recorded - clearly implying that Peter was still alive (though absent) at the

353. HE 6. 14.5.
354. Op. cit., 226.
355. HE 6.14.6f.
356. The text here is probably corrupt. The Greek reads
ὃπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς µύτε κωλῦσαι µύτε κωλῦσαι µύτε
προτρέψασθαι. The repetition προτρεπτικῶς ... προτρέψασθαι
is odd to say the least. An amendment πνευµατικῶς has been suggested, in line with the
similar statement ('by revelation of the Spirit') in HE 2.15.2 (cited p. 108 below). The Latin
version has 'postmodum' ('later').
357. Pp. 95 above.
358. HE 2. 15.2.

114
 359
time of its writing. Both passages however tend to damn Mark's efforts
with faint praise, and Peter's neutral attitude towards it may reflect no
more than the church's doubts about the value of St Mark's gospel for the
canon. In his other account of it Eusebius relates a more enthusiastic
response, which suggests a desire to reinforce the apostolic authority of
360
the second gospel:
So brilliant was the light of piety that shone upon the minds of Peter's
361
hearers , that they were not content to be satisfied with hearing him
once and no more, nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine
message; but besought with all kinds of entreaties Mark, whose Gospel is
extant, a follower of Peter, that he would leave them in writing also a
memoir of the teaching they had received by word of mouth; nor did they
relax their efforts until they had prevailed upon the man; and thus they
became the originators of the book of the Gospel according to Mark, as it
is called. Now it is said that when the apostle learnt, by revelation of the
Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the men's zeal, and
authorized the book to be read in the churches.
Jerome also mentions the authorization of the gospel by Peter, citing
Clement and Papias, but he is evidently merely copying Eusebius
362
without checking his references. For the two passages conflict.
Moreover the affirmative response of the apostle is introduced by the
words, 'now it is said' (φασί), suggesting that Eusebius is at this point
reporting popular tradition rather than Clement's words. The passages,
particularly the second, tell us nothing reliable about Peter's attitude to the
gospel of Mark, but they both presuppose, if there is anything in them at
all, that Peter was alive, though no longer present in Rome, when it was
first committed to writing.
Moreover there are two further passages extant from Clement himself
which describe Mark as writing while Peter was still in Rome. The first is
preserved only in Latin translation:
Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching (praedicante)
publicly the gospel at Rome in the presence of certain of Caesar's
knights and was putting forward many testimonies concerning Christ,
being requested by them that they might be able to commit to memory the

359. Thus contradicting the implication Lawlor and Oulton find in Papias' statement that
Mark's link with Peter lay in the past.
360. HE 2.15.1f.; quoting Clement, Hypotyp. 6.
361. in Rome
362. De sir. ill. 8. Indeed elsewhere (Ep. 120 ad Hedib. 11) he has Peter narrating as Mark
writes! Origen (apud Euseb. HE 6.25.5) says that Mark wrote 'in accordance with Peter's
instructions'.

115
 things which were being spoken, wrote from the things which were
363
spoken by Peter the Gospel which is called according to Mark.
The other passage (whose genuineness has yet to be established, though
it seems to be coming to be accepted as Clement's) is from a letter of
364
Clement recently published:
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome (κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου
ἐν Ῥώµη διατριβήν) wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not,
however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but
selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those
who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came
over to Alexandria,365 bringing both his own notes (ὑποµνήµατα) and
those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things
suitable to whatever makes for progress towards knowledge (γνῶσιν).
Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were
366
being perfected.
363. Adumbr., on I Peter 5.13.
364. Text and translation from Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel
of Mark, Cambridge, Mass., 1973, 446-53. Reviewing the book, R. M. Grant, ATR 56, 1974,
58, writes: 'Smith definitely proves that the incomplete letter ... was written by Clement.'
365. According to Eusebius, HE 2.16.1, 'It is said that this Mark journeyed to Egypt and
was the first to preach (there) the Gospel, which also he had written; and that he was
the first to form churches at Alexandria itself.' Eusebius, evidently relying on hearsay
tradition, places this immediately after his account of the writing of the gospel in Rome during
the reign of Claudius. In 2.24 he says 'Now when Nero was in the eighth year of his reign
(i.e. 62), Annianus succeeded, first after Mark the evangelist, to the ministry of the
community at Alexandria.' He does not actually say that the change was due to Mark's
death. But…
Jerome (De vir. ill. 8) takes it so: 'Taking the gospel which he had completed, he came
to Egypt, and proclaiming Christ first in Alexandria, established the church in such
doctrine and continence of life that he induced all the followers of Christ to follow his
example.' After describing Mark as a teacher ('doctor') there, he concludes: 'But he died in
the eight year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.' This
dating is clearly incompatible, not only with what Clement says about Mark's going to
Alexandria after Peter's martyrdom, but with Irenaeus* tradition (also preserved by Eusebius,
HE 5.8.3) that Mark outlived Peter and Paul (see below p. no). More importantly, it is
irreconcilable with I Peter 5.13 (also adduced by Eusebius, HE 2.15.2, as evidence of Mark's
stay with Peter in Rome), if, as in all probability (see ch.vi below), this epistle comes from 65.
Whatever the truth about Mark's association with Alexandria, Eusebius' dating is evidently
unreliable.
. 366. Clement goes on: 'Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be
uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories
already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings (λόγια)
of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the
innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum he prepared
matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his
composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded,
being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.'

116
The gospel for catechumens of which Clement speaks is evidently our
canonical Mark, for he refers subsequently to a passage inserted into its
text between 10.34 and 35, which he quotes verbatim.
So this new fragment supports the dating of Mark during Peter's lifetime,
though it could also help to explain other traditions now to be examined
which seem to put it after the death of Peter.
There is first the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (dated by D. de
367 368 369
Bruyne and Harnack in 160-80, but perhaps much later) which
says of Mark:
He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death (post excessionem) of
Peter himself he wrote down this same Gospel in the regions of Italy.
370
Then there is the statement of lrenaeus:
Matthew published a Gospel in writing also, among the Hebrews in their
own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and
371
founding the church in Rome."
But after their decease (ἒξοδον) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter - he also transmitted to us in writing the things which Peter used to
preach. And Luke too, the attendant of Paul, set down in a book the
Gospel which Paul used to preach. Afterwards John, the disciple of the
Lord, the same who leant back on his breast - he too set forth the Gospel,
while residing at Ephesus in Asia.
372
It is very doubtful if Irenaeus had access to any independent tradition
and his chronology merely reflects the canonical order.

367. D. de Bruyne, 'Les plus anciens prologues latins des Evangiles', RBen 40, 1928,
193-214.
368. A. Harnack, 'Die altesten Evangelien-Prologe und die Bildung des Neuen
Testaments', Sitzmgsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-
hist. Klasse, 1928, 322-41; cf. Bacon, 'The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John', JBL 49,
'930, 43-54; W. F. Howard, 'The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels', ExpT 47,
1935-6, 534-8; Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, 48-51.
369. R. G. Heard, 'The Old Gospel Prologues', J TS n.s. 6, 1955,1-16; Haenchen, Acts,
10f.
370. Adv. haer. 3.1.1; as quoted in Eusebius, HE 5. 8.2-4, who supplies the Greek.
371. Cf. Harnack: 'The genitive absolute is not temporal; it does not imply that the
gospel of St Matthew was written at that time; it simply contrasts the ministry of the
two great Apostles with that of St Matthew'. He argues (Date of Acts, 130f.), following
Dom John Chapman ('St Irenaeus on the Dates of the Gospels', JTS 6, 1905, 563-9), that
the purpose of this passage in the context of Irenaeus' argument was not to provide
chronology but 'to prove that the teaching of the four chief apostles did not perish with
their death, but that it has come down to us in writing'.
372. Harnack regarded the testimony of Irenaeus as having been derived from Papias and
the Anti-Marcionite Prologue. Dependence on the former is certain.

117
He evidently meant ἒξοδον to refer to the death of Peter and Paul (as
must be its primary meaning in II Peter 1.15). Yet neither this nor the
'excessionem' of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue need originally have meant
more than 'departure'. Manson, after examining the matter carefully,
concluded:
If Peter had paid a visit to Rome some time between 55 and 60; if Mark
had been his interpreter then; if after Peter's departure from the city
Mark had taken in hand - at the request of the Roman hearers - a written
record of what Peter had said; then the essential points in the evidence
373
would all be satisfied.
He added:
If there is anything in this, it suggests that the date of Mark may be a few
years earlier than is usually thought likely. A date before 60 would be
374
quite possible.
But what of the date of Peter's visit to Rome? Manson's estimate seems
merely to be a guess. For if we are to take any of this tradition seriously
we must also take into account Eusebius' clear statements that the
preaching visit from which all this followed occurred in the reign of
375
Claudius (4I-54). Peter is said to have come to Rome on the heels of
Simon Magus, whom Justin (himself from Samaria and a resident of
376
Rome) twice tells us arrived in Rome in the days of Claudius Caesar -
though he does not mention Peter.
377
There is obviously much legend here, fully exploited later in the
378
Pseudo-Clementines. But that Simon met Peter in Rome is attested by
379
Hippolytus (also from the same city), and there would seem no good
ground for denying that Peter could have gone to Rome during Claudius'
380
reign.
We know that he had in all probability been in Corinth during the early 50s
373. Op. cit., 40. He is quoted and supported by Bruce, NT History, 375, and Martin, Mark,
53.
374. Cf. his concluding words, 45: 'The composition of the Gospel may be put several
years earlier than the date commonly accepted.'
375. HE 2.14.6; 17.1. There is no indication that he derived this part of the tradition from
Clement, who mentions no date for the visit.
376. Apol. 1. 26 and 56.
377. Eusebius repeats {HE 2.13.3) what has been demonstrated to be Justin's error in
supposing that the inscription in Rome 'Simons deo sancto' was evidence of his presence
there. In fact it evidently referred to an altar to Semo Sanctus, a Sabine god. Cf. Lawlor and
Oulton, ad loc., op. cit., II, 65.
378. Recog. 3.63.
379. Refut. 6.15.
380. Cf. Harnack, Chron., 244: 'Whether the old tradition that brings Peter to Rome
already under Claudius is completely unusable is to me questionable.'

118
for long enough for some there to regard him as their leader (I Cor.1.12;
381
3.22; cf. 9.4) - though we should never have guessed this from Acts. It
is possible too that Paul's reluctance to go to Rome earlier because he did
not wish to build on another's foundation (Rom. 15.20) may reflect a
382
knowledge of Peter's work there - though it is inconceivable that Peter
could still have been in the city at the time of the writing of Romans (in 57)
without being mentioned in the letter or its greetings.
383 384
In the Latin version of his Chronicle, followed by Jerome, Eusebius
indeed dates Peter's arrival in Rome in the second year of Claudius (42),
making him 'bishop' of Rome for 25 years. Clearly this does not imply
continuous residence - not even Eusebius can have thought that — but it
might be compatible with general apostolic oversight, in the same sense
385
that he is said to have been 'bishop' of Antioch at an earlier stage.
The natural reaction of scholars has been to dismiss the dating of this visit
386
as groundless. But there is a sizable body of evidence, both in
inscriptions and literary tradition, to suggest an association of Peter with
387
Rome a good deal longer than the brief stay at the end of his life (for
388
which last the case is agreed to be very strong). It is assembled by G.
Edmundson in his Bampton Lectures for 1913, The Church in Rome in
389
the First Century, a scholarly study which has been almost
completely ignored, having had the bad luck to be swamped by the first
390
world war.
381. Cf. later Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, apud Euseb. HE 2.25.8, who says that Peter and
Paul both taught at Corinth.
382. Cf. Lake, Earlier Epistles, 378f.
383. The Armenian version dates it in the third year of Caligula (39), which is quite
impossible.
384. De vir. ill. i.
385. Origen, In Luc. 6; Eusebius, HE 3.36.2; Jerome, De vir. ill. i. The Liber Pontificalis
and Gregory, Epp, 7.40, have this lasting seven years. G. Edmundson, The Church in
Rome in the First Century, 1913, 77, argues that these were the seven years 47-54 (prior
to Peter's second visit to Rome) during which he made Antioch the centre of his work (cf.
Gal.2.11).
386. E.g. B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church, 1929, 10-14.
387. At the earliest this could not have begun till after the last year covered by Acts (62), and
the very latest date for Peter's martyrdom is 68. But it was probably a good deal less. Cf. pp.
140-50 below.
388. Cf. e.g. H. Lietzmann, Petrus und Paulus inRom, Berlin 2I927; O. Cullmann, Peter:
Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, ET 21962, ch.3; E. Dinkier, 'Die Petrus-Rom-Frage', TO 25,
1959, 189-230.
389. Op. cit., 47-56.
390. It was not even reviewed in the Journal of Theological Studies (uniquely for Bampton
Lectures?) or in the Journal of Roman Studies. It received a brief notice of contents only in
ExpT 25, 1913-14, 242f., and but little more in TLZ 40, 1915,9-11, where W. Bauer
dismissed it as showing 'more learning than critical sense'.

119
He proceeds to sift the various traditions and by careful historical methods
391
reaches surprisingly conservative conclusions. He believes, and his
392
position has a good deal of support from Harnack, that there are in fact
sound reasons for accepting a visit by Peter and Mark to Rome after
393
Peter's disappearance from Jerusalem in 42.
394
This visit could have lasted a couple of years, till Herod's death in 44
made Judaea safe again. Peter was back in Jerusalem in any case by the
time of the council in 48: Edmundson thinks by 46, but he identifies Gal.
2.1-10 with the famine visit. He then goes on to argue ingeniously but I
believe persuasively that Peter and Barnabas went on to Rome for a
395
second time in 55 from Corinth after the death of Claudius in October
54 (when Jews, expelled by him from Rome in 49, were once more free to
return) for a supplementary visit to strengthen the church there and to
396
appoint elders.
391. Op. cit., 59-86. He has the great merit of citing his sources, with references, in the
original.
392. Chron., 243f. For a recent statement of the same case, cf.J. W. Wenham, 'Did Peter
go to Rome in AD 42?', Tyndale Bulletin 23, 1972,94-102.
393. This date would fit with what Harnack took seriously as the 'very old and well attested'
tradition (Clement, Strom. 6.5.43, quoting the lost Kerygma Petri; Apollonius (c. 200),
'relying on tradition', apud Euseb. HE 5.18.14; Ada Petri 5; etc.) that the apostles were to
stay in Jerusalem for twelve years after the crucifixion. The narrative of Acts would indeed
suggest that the death of James and the flight of Peter took place just before the death of
Herod Agrippa I, i.e. in 44. But there is nothing to indicate that what was seen by the church
as a judgment of God for his attack on the apostles followed immediately upon it. (The
argument propter hoc ergo instanter post hoc is a familiar one. Cf. Hegesippus, on the
death of James the Lord's brother, apud Euseb. HE 2.23.18: 'He has become a true
witness both to Jew and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian
attacked them.' Josephus sets a five-year gap between the two events.) The time links in
this section of Acts are, as we have seen, very vague. The 'about this time' of Acts 12.1 is
almost certainly referring to a moment before the 'during this period' of 11.27, since the
famine did not take place till c. 46, after the death of Herod. There is ground therefore for
thinking that Edmundson may be right in dating the death of James and the imprisonment of
Peter in the spring of 42 as part of Herod's attempt to ingratiate himself with the Jews (cf.
Josephus, Ant. 19.2931.) on his return to Jerusalem from Rome late in 41, where he had
been instrumental in promoting the peaceful accession of Claudius and been rewarded with a
large extension to his kingdom (Ant. 19.265-77; BJ 2.206- 17). His residence at Caesarea
and death there (Acts 12.19-23) did not occur till 44, 'after the completion of the third year
of his reign…over the whole of Judaea' (Ant. 19.343-51; BJ 2.219). It looks as if Luke
may have elided the two in the transitional καὶ of Acts 12.19. Peter's departure to 'another
place' in 12.17 is of course entirely vague, but if he was to put himself beyond Herod's new
jurisdiction he would have had to have left Palestine.
394. Eusebius' Chronicle makes Peter go to Rome in the second year of Claudius and to
Antioch two years later.
395. Cf. I Cor. 9.6 for the Corinthians' acquaintance with Barnabas. He was also, of course, a
cousin of Mark's (Col. 4.10), which makes a further connection.
396. Such as are mentioned later in I Peter 5.1-4, where the apostle (1.1) addresses them
fraternally as a 'fellow-elder'. For a discussion of this epistle and its Roman location, see ch.
VI below.
120
By 57 Paul felt himself at liberty to propose a passing visit to Rome (Rom.
15.23f), put off many times (Rom. 1.13; 15.22), because by then again
there was no danger of interfering with 'another's work'. Edmundson's
argument is scrupulously documented, and if he gives more credence to
what lies at the bottom of the traditions than most it is certainly not without
judicious weighing of the evidence.
One must therefore, I believe, be prepared to take seriously the tradition
that Mark, at whose home in Jerusalem Peter sought refuge before
making his hurried escape (Acts 12.12-17) and whom later in Rome he
was to refer to with affection as his 'son' (I Peter 5.13), accompanied
397
Peter to Rome in 42 as his interpreter and catechist, and that after
Peter's departure from the capital he acceded to the reiterated request for
398
a record of the apostle's preaching, perhaps about 45.
Mark himself was certainly back in Jerusalem by the end of the famine
visit, in 46 or 47 (Acts 12.25).
We have no record of his being in Rome again till the mid-60s (to
399
anticipate the date and place of I Peter), though this silence proves
nothing, since from ch.15 onwards Acts is solely concerned with Paul's
companions, among whom it is made clear at that time Mark was not (Acts
15.37-9).
Where then does this leave us? The 'unordered' transcripts of Peter's
400
preaching to which Papias refers (perhaps, as Edmundson said,
anticipating the form critics, as 'a set of separate lections intended for
public exposition and for instruction') could well correspond to what
401
earlier we called 'P'.
397. For a wider sense of 'interpreter' than 'translator' cf. Zahn, INT II., 454-6; R. O. P.
Taylor, Groundwork of the Gospels, 20- 30, 36-45. Coming from a family of some standing
in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12.121.), John Mark had both a Jewish and a Roman name,
suggesting a foot in both cultures. Cf. Silas, alias Silvanus, who was a leading Jerusalem
disciple (Acts 15.22) and a Roman citizen (i6.37f.) and, like Mark, served both Paul (Acts
15.40; I Thess. 1.1; II Thess. 1.1; II Cor. 1.19; etc.) and Peter (I Peter 5.12).
398. For a similar date, though not place of origin, for the gospel, cf. W. C. Alien, StMark,
1915, 51.
399. In 58, according to our chronology, he was in Asia Minor (Col.4.10; II Tim4.11).
400. Op. cit., 67.
401. For evidence of Petrine reminiscences embodied in the Markan tradition, cf. Manson,
Studies in the Gospels, 40-3, who took seriously and elaborated the suggestions ofC. H.
Turner in C. Gore, H. L. Goudge and A. Guillaume (edd.), A New Commentary on Holy
Scripture, 1928, 47-50. D. E. Nineham, St Mark (Pelican NTC), 2I968, 26f., while conceding
'the fact that much of the information in the Gospel is of a kind that seems unlikely to
have come from anyone but Peter', stresses that 'St Mark's material bears all the signs
of having been community tradition and cannot therefore be derived directly from St
Peter or any other eyewitness' (italics his). But these two statements are not
incompatible.

121
This record certainly cannot simply be equated with our present gospel of
Mark, which reflects wider and more developed church tradition. But the
earlier document could well, as Clement said, have been 'distributed' by
Mark 'among those who asked him'. It is not at all improbable that it
should have been among the 'traditions' which Luke lists in his prologue
as having been 'handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and
servants (ὑπηρέται) of the Gospel' (1.2), the two categories by which in
402
Acts he describes, respectively, Peter (1.21f.) and Mark (13.5).
At what stage or stages Mark wrote up these notes into his statement of
'the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God', to use his own title (1.1),
we shall never know. Luke could well have seen and used this too in some
stage of its development as one of the earlier 'accounts' to which he
refers. If our argument in the last chapter was correct, there would have
been no need for him to have waited to find the gospel till he reached
Rome in 60; he had direct access to Mark at Caesarea (Col.4.10, 14;
Philem.24). It is possible indeed that the final form of the Markan gospel
may not have taken shape till after the Lukan and could reflect the needs
of the Roman church as it faced the threat of the Neronian
403
persecution - though there is certainly nothing specific enough to
require this. Or it could be, if Farmer should turn out to be right, that Mark
represents the first harmony of the gospels, conflating Matthew and Luke.
In this case it would be the last of the synoptists - though there is still
nothing to suggest that it reflects the fall of Jerusalem or even the flight to
404
Pella before the war.
Perhaps we shall conclude that the evidence for Mark's association with
Peter or with Rome is altogether too tenuous to be trusted. In this case we
shall simply be thrown back on guesswork and have to fit Mark into
whatever chronology we are led to for Matthew and Luke. But this I am
persuaded would represent excessive scepticism. For if we trust, however
critically, the clues that have been left (and, I said, there are a surprising
number of them for Mark), then I believe that they point independently to
402. Cf. Edmundson, op. cit., 68: 'He would find the Marcan lections, embodying as they
did the teaching of St Peter, almost certainly in the possession of such a leader
among the Hellenist teachers as Philip the Evangelist, who was residing at Caesarea
at the same time as Luke' (cf. Acts 21.8: 'We went to the home of Philip the Evangelist,
who was one of the Seven, and stayed with him'). It looks too as if Luke may have got
from him the traditions in Acts 8.5-40 (which also link Philip both with Caesarea (8.40) and
with Peter and Simon Magus (8.9-24) and possibly 6.1-8.3 and 10.1-11.18 (so Zahn, INT III,
128).
403. So e.g. Martin, Mark, 65-70.
404. For trenchant criticism of the theory of Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 102-16, that it
comes from Galilee (so 'fluidly' interpreted as to include Pella!) in the period 66-70, cf.
Martin, Mark, 70-5.
405. Eusebius, HE 6. 14.6.

122
the same span of development at which we arrived provisionally for
Matthew and Luke. It may well be (as Papias' imperfect tense would
suggest) that Peter's preaching material was committed to writing by Mark
independently of any specific visit to Rome (by which time Clement says
405
he had already 'followed him for a long time') , and it could have been
combined with the sayings collections and the independent Matthean and
Lukan traditions at almost any stage.
But on the assumption that Mark initially put pen to paper after the first
preaching mission of Peter in Rome (c.45), gave it limited circulation as
what we called 'P', and subsequently put it out in more ordered form as
'proto-Mark', this would fit well with the dates already suggested for the
first drafts of the Matthean and Lukan gospels. The final stages of the
three synoptic gospels as we have them would then have occupied the
406
latter 50s or early 60s. In any case, whatever precise pattern of
synoptic interdependence will prove to be required or suggested by the
evidence, all could quite easily be fitted in to comport with the writing of
Acts in 62+.
The objection will doubtless still be raised that all this allows too little time
for the development in the theology and practice of the church
presupposed by the gospels and Acts. But this judgment is precariously
subjective. It is impossible to say a priori how long is required for any
development, or for the processes, communal and redactional, to which
scholarly study has rightly drawn attention. We have noted how much
could happen within three years of the crucifixion - and we are allowing a
further thirty for the full flowering of the synoptic tradition.
There is nothing, I believe, in the theology of the gospels or Acts or in the
organization of the church there depicted that requires a longer span,
which was already long enough, if we are right, for the creation of the
whole Pauline corpus, including the Pastoral Epistles. Of course, if Acts is
held to reflect a long look back on church history and the distant
perspective of another century, then the development of the rest of the
New Testament can and will be stretched to fit in. But if the production of
the synoptic gospels and Acts does in fact cover the years 30 to 60+
which the latter records (the gradual committal to writing occupying
perhaps the period 40 to 60+), then this in turn provides a valuable
yardstick by which to assess the chronology of the documents that remain
for us still to consider.

406. C. F. Nolloth, The Rise of the Christian Religion, 1917, 12-24, also put all the synoptic
gospels between 50 and 60, arguing for the same basic dependence on the 'two ancient
documents' that we called 'P' and 'Q'. He is one of the few scholars to refer, en passant, to
Edmundson's work.
407. Cf. K. and S. Lake, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1938, 164: 'As far as its

123
 Chapter V
The Epistle of James

The Epistle of James the writings reviewed so far, those of Paul,

Acts and the synoptic gospels, all of which are linked through the person
of Luke, constitute virtually three-quarters of the New Testament. Yet,
apart from the possibility of a Petrine background to St Mark, none is
associated with any of the so-styled 'pillars' of the early church whom
Paul met in Jerusalem - James, Cephas and John.
The literature attributed to these figures is a good deal more problematic,
both in regard to date and authorship, than anything we have hitherto
considered. The literary problem, in the narrow sense of who precisely
penned the documents we now have, is not our direct concern.
Authorship is relevant only as attribution, whether genuine or fictional, is a
factor in assessing the probability of a particular dating. In practice the two
issues are intimately connected. Yet methodologically we shall start from
the question of chronology and ask how the traditional ascription of the
writings relates to this. We may take the three names mentioned - James,
Cephas and John - in the order Paul lists them, including others on the
way, like Jude and the author to the Hebrews, as they become relevant.
The epistle of James is one of those apparently timeless documents that
407
could be dated almost anywhere and which has indeed been placed
at practically every point in the list of New Testament writings. Thus
408 409
Zahn and Harnack, writing in the same year, 1897, put it first and
last but one - at an interval of nearly a hundred years! It contains reference
to no public events, movements or catastrophes. The 'conflicts and
quarrels' it speaks of are the perennial ones of personal aggressiveness
(4.1f.), not the datable wars and rumours of wars between nations or
groups. Its calendar is determined by the natural cycle of peace-time
agriculture (5.7) and the social round of petit-bourgeois society (4.11- 5.6).
There are no place names, and no indication of destination or
dispatch, whether in address or greetings.

contents go, it might, as has been said, have been written any time from the second
century BC to the eighteenth century AD' !
408. Zahn boldly gives it pride of place as the first book to be treated in his INT (I, 73-151).
His dating (c. 50) would be earlier still on our chronology since he docs not put the council of
Jerusalem till 52.
409. Chron., 485-9. He dates it 120-140.

124
In fact there are no proper names of any kind except that of James himself
in the opening verse and stock Old Testament characters like Abraham
and Isaac, Rahab, Job and Elijah.
As a form of literature too it stands in that almost undatable tradition of
Judaeo-Christian practical wisdom which includes Proverbs,
Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, the Qumran Manual of Discipline, the Epistle of Barnabas, the
Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.
Yet though the links, backwards and forwards, are evident, there is no
decisive evidence for literary dependence in either direction that could fix
410
the epistle of James in time or space.
The only clear frontier which this stream of tradition crosses is that
between Judaism and Christianity - and even this boundary is less marked
here than in any other genre of literature. Indeed there is general
agreement that James is only just across the line, and some have argued
411
that originally it belonged on the Jewish side of it.
There are only two explicit references to Jesus Christ (1.1; 2.1), and it has
been held - without the support of any textual evidence - that these are
interpolations. However scholars from very different standpoints agree in
thinking that the Christian character of the epistle is much more pervasive
of the whole than anything that could be added or subtracted by isolated
412
phrases. It is manifestly Christian, yet the marks of difference are not
emphasized nor the lines of demarcation clearly drawn.
This absence of any clear-cut frontier between Christianity and Judaism
introduces the first of many points at which the epistle is primarily
significant for what it does not mention or contain. And these have
chronological implications as important as the specific references that we
look for and lack. Arguments from silence are notoriously suspect, but
cumulatively they can be impressive as pointers.

410. For the fullest list of (possible) literary connections, see J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of
James, 1892, 31910, Ixx-cxxvii. Cf. more briefly, the introductions to R.J. Knowling, St
James, 1904; J. H. Ropes, St James (ICC), Edinburgh 1916; Reicke, James, Peter and
Jude (Anchor Bible), New York 1963; E. M. Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter (NGB),
1967.
411. So F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums II, Gottingen 1896,
1-239; L. Massebieau, 'L'Epitre de Jacques, est-elle l'oeuvre d'un Chretien?', RHR 32,
1895, 249-83. Cf. A. Meyer, Das Ratsel des Jakobusbriefes, Giessen 1930, who argued
that it is a Christian adaptation of an allegory on Jacob's farewell address to his twelve sons!
412. So Harnack, Chron., 4891.; Mayor, James, cxciiiccv; Zahn, INT I, 141-6; Knowling,
James, xv-xxiv; H. Windisch, Die katholischen Briefen (HNT 15), Tubingen 2I930, 3;
Reicke, James, Peter and Jude, 9f.; Kiimmel, INT, 407-10; Guthrie, NTI, 756f.; Moule, Birth
of the NT, 166.

125
One or two things not referred to may be insignificant and explicable.
But when none of the indicators are present which we should expect from
a particular period we may be reasonably confident that we should be
looking elsewhere.
The lack of opposition, or indeed distinction, between Christianity and
Judaism is in marked contrast, for instance, to the gospel of Matthew, with
which it has so much else in common. There are no signs such as we
noted in that gospel of the church having to formulate or justify its own
stand over against the main body of non - Christian Judaism. There is no
polemic or even apologetic directed towards Judaism - merely attacks on
the exploiting classes in the manner of the Old Testament prophets or of
Jesus himself. There is no sense of 'we' and 'they' such as we find, say,
on the subject of sacrifice in Heb.13.10 ('our altar is one from which the
priests of the sacred tent have no right to eat') or fasting in Did. 8.1
(where 'the hypocrites' keep the second and fifth days of the week,
Christians the fourth and sixth).
Still less is there any indication of a permanent breach with a Judaism
desolated by national defeat, such as marks the Epistle of Barnabas. Not
only does the fall of Jerusalem receive no mention (for which arguably
there would be no occasion), but the reference to rich landowners
withholding the wage of their reapers (5.1-6) is noted by many
commentators as reflecting a situation in Palestine which disappeared
for good with the war of 66-70. And it is Palestine which such climatic
and social conditions as are mentioned would suggest is the background
of the writer, whatever the location of his readers. Though many of the
allusions would be relevant throughout the Mediterranean, some have
been seen to apply more peculiarly to Palestine (e.g., 1.11; 3.11f.; 5.7,
17f). Thus, the reference to 'the former and the latter rains' (5.7), so
familiar from the Old Testament (Deut.11.4; Jer.5.24; Joel 2.23;
Zech.10.1), would seem to point specifically to the climate of Palestine and
413
southern Syria.
The author appears to be a Christian voice addressing Israel, like one of
its own prophets or teachers, from within. Indeed it has seriously, but not I
414
think convincingly, been argued that he is writing for both Christians
and Jews and is deliberately ambiguous in his choice of phrases. For he is
still conscious of being of one body with his unbelieving compatriots. The
local Christian gathering is spoken of as a 'synagogue' within Judaism
(2.2; cf. Acts 6.9).
413. Cf. especially. Ropes, James, 295-7; and D. Y. Hadidian, 'Palestinian Pictures in the
Epistle of James', ExpT 63, 1951-2, 227f.
414. McNeile-Williams, INT, 206-8.

126
The basis of everything he says is the fundamental Jewish doctrine of the
unity of God (2.19), who is invoked as 'the Lord of Sabaoth' (5.4).
Abraham is 'our father' (2.21) - and there is no need to add, as Paul
must, 'according to the flesh' (Rom. 4.1), for no such distinction arises.
The appeal is to the Jewish law and its giver (2.9-11; 4.1 if.), and there is
not a hint that the Christian message represents anything but its fulfilment.
Social justice, prayer, alms-giving and sick visiting are the
(characteristically Jewish) scope of Christian good works. Hell is
represented by Gehenna - only here in the New Testament outside the
teaching of Jesus.
There is indeed nothing that conflicts with or goes beyond the best of
415
mainstream Judaism. Even when the inspiration of James' message is
clearly the teaching of Jesus, there is no suggestion of its being offered or
defended on his authority. In fact never once - in contrast with Paul's
usage - is a 'word of the Lord' appealed to or cited.
Even the source of the opposition that Christians have to face is not
apparently organized Judaism (as in Paul), let alone the civic authorities
(as in I Peter) or the state machine (as in Revelation). Those who 'drag
you into court and pour contempt on the honoured name by which
God has claimed you' (2.61.) are doubtless Jews; but they are attacked
not because they are Jews (as already in I Thess.2.14), but because they
are rich. The readers of the epistle are harassed and oppressed, facing
'trials of many kinds' (1.2), yet in the same way that the righteous poor
always are, and the reassurance given is that of the psalmist that 'the rich
man shall wither away as he goes about his business' (1.11).
Christians indeed are particularly subject to such treatment because of
'the name' (2.7; cf. Acts 5.41) - yet apparently, as in Acts (24.5, 14;
28.22), as a sect or party within Judaism comparable with αἱρέσεις of the
Sadducees (5.17) or Pharisees (15.5; 26.5). In fact there is nothing in
James that goes outside what is described in the first half of Acts.
There too it is the Jewish aristocracy that opposes this new lower-class
movement (Acts 4-5) and it is 'the women of standing who were
worshippers' together with 'the leading men of the city' who are incited
to persecute it (13.50). The court actions against Christians (James 2.6)
do not go further than anything described in Acts 8.1, 3; 9.2 (cf.26.10f.);
11.19 - intact, not as far. For the πειρασµοί in James seem to come, not
from any wave of terror or organized persecution, but from the regular
opposition which any Christian must be prepared to expect and accept
with patience and joy, as part of that faithful belonging to the true Israel of
God to which the epistle is addressed.
415. For the strong Jewish colouring of the whole epistle, cf. especially W. O. E. Oesterley,
James in W. R. Nicoll (ed.), The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1897-1910, IV, 393-7,
405f'., 408-13

127
The wording of the address, to 'the Twelve Tribes dispersed throughout
the world' (1.1), has been variously interpreted. It recalls the phrase in
Acts 26.7, 'our twelve tribes', for whose hope Paul, as a Christian and a
Jew, saw himself on trial, and of which Jesus had appointed his apostles
'judges' (Matt.19.28). The διασπορά does not appear here, as in John
7.35, to be contrasted with metropolitan Judaism, nor, as in I Peter 1.1, to
stand for scattered Christians, many if not most of whom had never been
Jews (cf. I Peter 2.10). Like 'the twelve tribes that inhabit the whole
world' in the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. 9.17.1f.), it is a way rather of
describing 'the whole Israel of God', for whose peace Paul prayed (Gal.
6.16).
James is addressing all who form the true, spiritual Israel, wherever they
are. And he can address them in such completely Jewish terms not
because he is singling them out from Gentile Christians but because, as
far as his purview is concerned, there are no other Christians. In Zahn's
416
words, 'the believing Israel constituted the entire Church’ - and that was
true only for a very limited period of Christian history.
There is no suggestion throughout the epistle of a Gentile presence. Even
the peripatetic businessmen who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go off
to such and such a town and spend a year there trading and making
money', are evidently Jews (like Aquila and Priscilla) who, as pious
Israelites, should preface their plans with the phrase, 'If it be the Lord's
will' (4.13-17).
There is no discussion of the Christian's relation to heathen masters,
such as concerns Paul (Col.3.22-5; Eph.6.5- 8) and Peter (I Peter 2.18-
20). Even within the church there is no sign of a Gentile mission, no
mention of its claims, no evidence of the conflicts and tensions arising
from it. Above all there is no hint of Judaizing, as opposed to Jewish,
attitudes. For these become relevant only in the context of a demand that
Gentile Christians shall 'live like Jews' (Gal. 2.14).
There is not a mention in the epistle of the issues that formed the heart of
this controversy - of circumcision, dietary rules and ritual law. There is
no discussion of the Christian's attitude to the temple, the sacrifices, or
'the customs handed down... by Moses' (contrast the altercation in Acts
6.13f.). Equally there is no reference to the characteristic dangers of a
Gentile environment such as fornication and the pollution of idols (Acts
417
15.20). We are dealing with Jewish abuses and temptations.

416. INT 1,77.

417. Contrast the early compromise of Did. 6.3 (reflecting the situation in the mixed society of
Antioch?): 'Concerning eating, bear that which thou art able; yet abstain by all means
from meat sacrificed to idols; for it is the worship of dead gods.'

128
 418
As Knowling says,
The sins and weaknesses which the writer describes are exactly those
faults which our Lord blames in his countrymen... the excessive zeal for
the outward observance of religious duties, the fondness for the office of
teacher, the false wisdom, the overflowing of malice, the pride, the
hypocrisy, the respect of persons.
They are the faults which John the Baptist and Paul also found
characteristic of the Jew, the fatal trust in religious privilege and the gap
between profession and practice (Matt.3.7-10 and par; Rom.2.17-24). The
sins attacked are not particularly sophisticated, nor such as could have
arisen only in second-generation Christians.
There are no warnings against relapse or loss of early love, which
feature so markedly in Hebrews and the Apocalypse and even in
Galatians. There are no signs of heresy or schism, as are inveighed
against in the later Paul and the Johannine epistles; no marks of
419
incipient gnosticism, whether speculative or even, as we might
expect in this epistle, moral (with the telltale swing between asceticism
and licence), such as is characteristic of Jewish Christianity in the latter
half of the New Testament (Colossians, the Pastorals, the epistles of John,
Jude and II Peter).
On the doctrinal side, there is equally no sign of christological
sophistication or controversy. 'Our Lord Jesus Christ of glory' (2.1) is
the epistle's most theologically advanced statement. There is no reference
to the death or resurrection of Christ, and one is left with what one
commentator describes as 'the impression of an almost precrucifixion
420
discipleship'. A 'patient and stout-hearted' trust is urged in the
speedy coming of the Lord (5.7-11), but there is no elaborated
eschatology nor any hint of reappraisal prompted by the delay of the
parousia. Equally there is no preoccupation with doctrinal orthodoxy -
rather its depreciation (2.19) - and no defence of 'the faith once
delivered', such as marks the Pastorals and Jude. Indeed, as Ropes
421
points out,
The post-apostolic notion sometimes ascribed to James, of Christianity as
a body of doctrine to be believed ('the faith', 'fides quae creditur'),

418. James, xiii. So, in further detail, Zahn, INT 1, 90f.

419. Allusions to gnostic tendencies have been seen e.g. in the antithesis between the true
and false wisdom (3.13-18), in the word ψυχική (3.18), and in the use of τέλειος (1.4, 17,
25; 3.2). But none of these need imply anything more than can be found in the Jewish
wisdom literature or in Philo or, for example, in I Cor. 2.12-14; 15.44-6. Cf. particularly
Ropes, ad locc.
420. Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter, 14.
421. James, 37.

129
 and correspondingly of faith as an 'intellectualistic' acceptance of
422
propositions, is not at all the 'dead' faith of which James speaks. The
demons' faith in one God stands, in fact, at the opposite pole from this
'intellectualism'; for as a faith in God's existence and power it is
sincere and real, its fault lies in its complete divorce from love or an
obedient will. When we make a comparison with the Apostolic Fathers
the positive traits which give definite character to the thinking of every
one of them are all lacking in James.
The same applies if we put to the epistle another test of later development,
namely, the state of concern for liturgy and the ministry. In contrast again
with the Didache, there are no instructions about worship or the
sacraments, and James' 'manual of discipline', to use Reicke's
423
designation of its brief finale in 5.12-20, contents itself with simple
injunctions on swearing, ministry to the sick, mutual confession, prayer,
and the reclamation of erring brothers. There is no reference to orders of
Christian ministry like bishops and deacons (contrast Phil.1.1, the
Pastorals and again the Didache), merely to elders (5.14), which were
evidently taken over direct from Judaism (cf. Acts 4.5, 8, 23; 6.12; etc. of
Judaism; 11.30; 14.23; 15.2; etc. of the church), and to teachers (3.1; cf.
Acts 13.1; Heb.5.12). But the last do not seem to be part of a hierarchy of
ministries (as e.g. in I Cor.i2.28; Eph.4.n; Did. 13.2; 15.1f.; Hermas,
Vis.3.5.1 et passim).
Rather James' injunction against wanting to become teachers seems to be
more in line with Jesus' quashing of the desire to be called 'rabbi' and
'teacher' and thus win honour from men (Matt. 23.6-11). 'The greatest
among you', Jesus goes on, 'must be your servant' (23.12); and it is
simply as 'a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ' (James 1.1) that
James, even though he does stand in the relationship to them of teacher
(3.1), chooses to address his readers.
The simplicity of the address suggests no crisis of authority or need to
resort to credentials, such as Paul was driven to at Corinth. Its unaffected
spiritual directness is all part of the uncomplicated but decisive message
he conveys. Like his master, he speaks with authority: he does not cite
authorities - not even that of his master. Yet there is no doubt that it is
Jesus' teaching, particularly as found in the Sermon on the Mount and the
424
Matthean tradition, that lies behind everything James says.
422. He adds in a footnote at this point: 'This error is common and has led to many
unwise inferences about relative dates.'
423. James, Peter and Jude, 8.
424. The parallels are set out by Mayor, James, Ixiif., with the comment: 'Close as is the
connection of sentiment and even of language in many of these passages, it never
amounts to an actual quotation.' For simple comparison, cf. Sidebottom, James, Jude
and 2 Peter, 8-11I.

130
But he appears to be quoting from or referring his readers to no written
book (in contrast, again with Did. 15.31., 'as you find in the Gospel'). No
case can be demonstrated for literary dependence on our gospel of
425 426
Matthew (or indeed on Luke and John). His contacts rather are with
427
the pre-Matthean Palestinian tradition. As Ropes says with some
perceptiveness, 'James was in religious ideas nearer to the men who
collected the sayings of Jesus than to the authors of the Gospels':
what is conspicuous, for all the common matter, is the 'omission of some
428
of the chief motives which have produced the Synoptic Gospels'.
Indeed, James exhibits not one distinctly marked individual theological
tendency which would set him in positive relation to any of the strong
429
forces either of the apostolic or of the post-apostolic period.
These words have still greater significance today than when Ropes was
writing at Harvard during the first world war. For almost all the 'motives'
and 'tendencies' subsequently fastened on by the form critics and
redaction critics appear to have bypassed James. The influences -
kerygmatic, apologetic, polemical, liturgical and the rest - which have
rightly been seen as selecting and shaping the traditions about Jesus to
the uses of the church can scarcely be illustrated by any convincing
examples from this epistle. Factors such as Jeremias isolates as
430
moulding the parabolic teaching of Jesus, like allegorization, or the
changed situation of the church in the Hellenistic world, or the Gentile
mission, or the delay of the parousia, do not feature in James.
Even the evidence for common catechetical patterns, which should above
all be relevant to his subject-matter, is far weaker than in the other New
Testament epistles. In the essay of over a hundred pages which Selwyn
431
devotes to this in his commentary on I Peter, the material he can garner
from James is extraordinarily meagre.
In his central section on the General Catechumen Virtues he admits that
432
'James is difficult to bring into the picture' and the common citation
425. M. H. Shepherd, 'The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew', JBL 75, 1956,
40- 51, argues the case for dependence, putting James into the second century, but admits
that there is no proof.
426. For the parallels here, cf. Knowling, James, xxi-iv.
427. So Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter, 141.
428. James.sg.
429. Ibid., 37.
430. Ropes, ibid., 37, also drew attention to 'the entire absence of allegory' as one of the
most notable contrasts between James and the sub-apostolic literature -particularly the
Shepherd of Hermas, to which in other respects it stands closest.
431. Op. cit., 363-466.
432. Ibid., 407.

131
in I Peter 5.51. and in James 4.6, 10 of Prov. 3.34 ('God opposes the
arrogant and gives grace to the humble') and the conclusions drawn from it
433
'can be accounted for without reference to any underlying code'.
The remaining scattered verses containing topics in some way common to
other New Testament epistles (James 1.3, i2, 18, 21, 27; 3.13-18; 4.71.;
5.7-11) provide no evidence for the teaching patterns to be found, for
example in I Thess. 5, Col. 3, Eph. 5-6, and I Peter 5. The one issue of
controversy which could, on the face of it, be used to place the epistle
within the developing life of the church is the debate between faith and
works in 2.14-26.
But the reference of this is far from self-evident, as the divergence
between the commentators has shown. Some have seen it as a direct
reply to Paul's teaching on justification by faith; others, since it so crudely
misinterprets him, as a riposte ( a quick retort ) from a later age when the
controversy was no longer understood. On the other hand, others have
viewed the relationship just the other way round, with what Paul says in
Galatians and particularly in Romans as a rebuttal of James; while yet
others have seen no direct connection between them at all.
We may begin with the truth in the last position. It is natural, in view of
later controversy, to assume that what we are overhearing is an internal
Christian debate. But in the first instance James, here as elsewhere, is
evidently taking up an attack, begun by Jesus and the Baptist before him,
on the inadequacies of contemporary Judaism. Being a hearer of the word
without doing the works, or claiming the heritage of Abraham without the
fruits to show for it, or merely saying 'I go' or 'Lord, Lord' - these are the
failings constantly condemned in the gospels (Matt.3.8- 10; 7.16-27;
12.33-5; 21.28-31; 25.31-46; etc.). The debate about what 'justified' a
man before God was already being argued within Judaism, and Jesus'
words about this (Matt. 12.37; Luke 16.15; 18.14) precede the controversy
434
within the church.
Was it works (as in Prov.24.12 and Jer.32.19) or was it faith (as in Gen.
15.6 and Hab.2.4) that would see a man through at the last ? The
inseparability of the two for salvation is stressed in I Macc. 2.5 if. (where
first among 'the works' of the fathers is cited, as in James, Abraham's
435
faithfulness in temptation) and later in II Esd.7.34; 9.7; 13.23.

433. Ibid., 426.

434. For a defence of this last statement, cf. Jeremias, 'Paul and James', ExpT 66, 1954- 5)
368-71, who however takes a different view of the relation of James to Paul from that argued
below.
435. For the Jewish rather than the Christian background to this debate, cf. Knowling,
James, xli-v, and Oesterley, EGT IV, 411-13 and ad loc.

132
We now know that the Qumran community interpreted Hab.2.4 ('the
righteous man will live by being faithful') to include both deeds and faith in
the teacher of righteousness as the interpreter of the law (1Qp_Hab.8.1-3).
The discussion in James takes its place within the ongoing Jewish and
Christian debate as to how to combine the conviction, on which Paul was
equally insistent, that while a man might be justified through faith he would
be judged by works. And the faith from which James, like Jesus (cf. Mark
5.34; 9.23; 11.22-4; etc.), takes his departure is the common Jewish faith
in God (2.19, 23).
He is not, like Paul, contrasting the works of the law with faith in Christ
(Gal. 2.16). He is saying, with Paul, to his fellow-Jews that 'it is not by
hearing the law, but by doing it, that men will be justified before
God' (Rom.2.13); that being a Jew has value 'provided you keep the law; but
if you break the law, then circumcision is as if it had never been' (2.25); and
that 'the true Jew is the one who is such inwardly, and the true circumcision is
of the heart' (2.29).
He is also insisting, as Paul does, to Christians that 'the only thing that
counts is faith active in love' (Gal. 5.6), 'faith that has shown itself in action' (I
Thess.1.3; cf. I Cor.13.2); for 'faith divorced from deeds is barren..., lifeless as
a corpse' (James 2.20, 26).
Yet though the starting-point of the debate is Jewish and the common
ground is indisputable, it is difficult to believe that there is no connection
with the Christian battle Paul is waging in Galatians and Romans. This is
especially true when in Rom 4 at and James 2.23f. Paul and James cite
precisely the same scripture, 'Abraham put his faith in God and that faith
was counted to him as righteousness' (Gen. 15.6), and draw from it
diametrically different conclusions.
The question arises, Who is answering whom? - though the degree of
correspondence (let alone of mutual understanding) is not such as
requires one to have read the other or be quoting from his epistle. It is
impossible to be dogmatic on this (and the interrelationship will obviously
depend on wider judgments about dating and authorship).
But I am impressed by Mayor's contention that Paul's reasoned argument
in Rom. 4.2-5 (that 'if Abraham was justified by anything he had done, then he
has ground for pride', whereas the very word 'counted' excludes any
notion of credit) reads more intelligibly as an answer to James rather than
vice versa. As a reply to Paul's position James' argument totally misses
the point; for Paul never contended for faith without works. But as a reply,
not indeed to James, but to the use made of him by the Judaizers in a
subtly different context (that of the basis of salvation for Gentiles), the
argument of Rom 4 is very effective.

133
If, as Mayor says, James is writing after Paul,
How inconceivable is it that he should have made no attempt to guard his
position against such an extremely formidable attack! Again if St James
was really opposed to St Paul and desired to maintain that man was
saved, not by grace, but by obedience to the law of Moses, which was
incumbent alike on Gentile and on Jew, why has he never uttered a
syllable on the subject, but confined himself to the task of proving that a
436
faith which bears no fruit is a dead faith?
The answer to this last question, as the whole of the rest of the epistle
bears out, is that James is not concerned with the controversy between
Jews and Gentiles in the church. Yet, whatever its original intention or
context, what he had to say clearly was brought into and applied to that
controversy.
In fact it has plausibly been suggested that, when 'certain persons who had
come down from Judaea began to teach the brotherhood that those who were
not circumcised in accordance with Mosaic practice could not be saved' (Acts
15.1), what they were doing, 'without' indeed, as James and the apostles
say, 'any instructions from us' (15.24), was pushing to its logical conclusion
teaching like that in James 2.10:
'If a man keeps the whole law apart from one single point, he is guilty of
breaking all of it.' At any rate it is certainly in reaction to 'certain persons
come from James' (Gal.2.12) that Paul has later to insist that 'no man is ever
justified by doing what the law demands, but only through faith in Christ
Jesus' (2.16). But this argument depends on the assumption that the
epistle is by the same James and is as early as its primitive features have
suggested. The issue of authorship can be postponed no longer.
The sole indication of who the writer was is the bald greeting in 1.1: 'From
James the servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ'. It is also this alone that
turns what is otherwise a pastoral homily into a letter; for there are no
greetings or even a grace at the end. There have been those, including
437 438
Harnack, who have regarded the opening verse as a later addition.
But there is no textual evidence for this, and, as many have pointed out,
the play on words χαίρειν and χαράν connecting vv.1 and 2 speaks
against it. It has found little support either amongst those who would
defend the authorship of James or amongst those who would not.

436. James, xcviii. Zahn, INT I, 124-8, sees the dependence lying in the same direction.
437. Chron., 489f.
438. So too L. E. Elliott-Binns, Galilean Christianity (SBT 16), 1956, 471.; unlike Harnack,
he regards the work itself as very primitive. There seems no positive evidence for his
association of it with Galilee, though admittedly it breathes a rural rather than a metropolitan
air.

134
There is general agreement too that whether the ascription is genuine or
not the James intended must be James the Lord's brother, who alone of
the five men of that name in the New Testament is regularly referred to
without further specification. As Kummel says,
Without doubt James claims to be written by him, and even if the letter is
not authentic, it appeals to this famous James and the weight of his
439
person as authority for its content.
There is no one else who could so speak without need of introduction or
explanation. Similarly, when the writer of the epistle of Jude introduces
himself as 'brother of James' (1.1), nothing more requires to be said. The
very simplicity of the address speaks forcibly against pseudonymity.
For if this device was felt to be necessary to give the epistle 'apostolic
440
aegis it is incredible that he was not described as 'the brother of the
441
Lord' or 'bishop of Jerusalem' or even, as later in the address of the
pseudo-Clementine Letter to James, 'bishop of bishops'.
If it is reasonable to ask why, if he stood in this special relationship to
Jesus, he mentions nothing of his life, death or resurrection, it is still more
difficult to explain why such details were not inserted later, to add
442
credence and verisimilitude. For the Gospel of the Hebrews elaborates
the personal appearance to James, mentioned casually in I Cor.15.7, and
443
the legendary description of James 'the Just' given by Hegesippus
shows the lengths that hagiography had reached by the second century.
444
Yet, as Zahn says, the epistle 'does not bring out a single one of those
characteristics by which James is distinguished in history and legend.' In fact
the argument for pseudonymity is weaker here than with any other of the
New Testament epistles. At least the Pastorals and the Petrines are
claiming to be written by men calling themselves apostles, and a case can
be made for their being put out in the name of authorities from the past to
say things that require to be said in the conflicts or controversies of a later
age.
439. Kummel, INT, 412.
440. I use the term without prejudice to whether James was actually regarded as an apostle
or not. Gal.1.19, 'without seeing any other of the apostles, except (or but only) James
the Lord's brother', is notoriously ambiguous. Certainly by the Pauline test (I Cor.9.i)
James had 'seen the Lord' (cf. I Cor.15.7: 'Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to
all the apostles'). In I Cor.9.5 'the rest of the apostles' are distinguished from 'the Lord's
brother' - but also from Cephas.
441. As in a spurious letter of James, translated from the Armenian by P. Vetter,
Literarische Rundschau, 1896, 259; cf. Ep. Petr.1.1: 'Peter to James, the lord and bishop of
the holy church' (Hennecke, NTApoc. II, 111).
442. Hennecke, NT Apoc. I, 165.
443. Quoted by Eusebius, HE 2. 23. 4-18.
444. INT I, 140.

135
But why produce a non polemical Jewish-Christian epistle that is not even
taking the position of the Judaizers but simply giving a call, as the NEB
heads it, to 'practical religion' ?
And if it was to oppose Paul and all his works, why is he not more
specifically attacked and why is there no stress on the unique and
unrepeatable status of the writer as the brother of the Lord himself? It
would seem easier to believe that it was the work of another completely
445
unknown James.
Before considering the very real objections to the attribution of the epistle
to a brother of Jesus, there are the parallels to be taken into account with
the Acts story and in particular with the speech of James and the apostolic
letter in Acts 15. Much has been made of these and indeed on purely
statistical grounds the number of verbal parallels between these brief
446
passages and the short epistle of James is remarkable.
The initial salutation (James 1.1; Acts 15.34) is used by no other apostolic
writer, the only other occurrence in the New Testament being in the
address of Lysias to Felix in Acts 23.26. The phrase 'listen, my
brothers' (James 2.5) is paralleled in Acts 15.13, 'men and brothers, listen'.
The expression 'the... name which was called upon you' (James 2.7) occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament except in the quotation from Amos
9.12 in Acts 15.17. In James 1.27 there is the exhortation to the Christian
to 'keep himself untarnished by the world' and in Acts 15.29 the closing
injunction, 'If you keep yourselves free from these things you will be doing
right.' There are also a number of isolated words in common:
ἐπισκέπτεσθαι James 1.27; Acts 15.14), ἐπιστρέφειν (James 5.19f.; Acts
15.19), ἀγαπητός (James 1.16, 19, 25; Acts 15.25).
None of these parallels is however particularly impressive in itself. χαίρειν
is a stock epistolatory greeting in Hellenistic practice. It is used frequently
in letters in Maccabees, including those by Jews (I Macc.12.6; II
Macc.1.10), and in verbal greetings by Christians in II John 10f. 'Men and
brothers, listen' (Acts 15.13) is again a fixed formula and in fact is more
exactly paralleled in Stephen's speech in Acts 7.2 and Paul's in Acts 22.1
than in James 2.5. The calling of the name of God upon his people is so
regular an Old Testament usage (e.g., Deut.28.10; Isa.63.19; etc.) as to
be quite unremarkable in a Jewish writer (cf. II Macc. 8.15: 'called by his
holy and glorious name').
445. Moffatt, ILNT, 472-5, sees the objections to pseudonymity and indeed to every other
alternative so forcibly that he is reduced to concluding: 'The phenomena of criticism upon the
Jacobean homily are perplexing, but they are not to be taken as discrediting the science of
New Testament literary research' (475)!
446. All possible connections with Acts 15, and with James' words in Acts 21.24, are set out
by Mayor, James, iiif.

136
The idea of keeping oneself holy or unspotted finds closer parallels in I
Tim.5.2 2 and 6.14 than in James. Both ἐπισκέπτεσθαι and ἐπιστπέφειν
are used in markedly different contexts in Acts and James and represent
in fact characteristic Lukan usage rather than anything distinctive of
James; while ἀγαπητός is overwhelmingly common in all the New
Testament epistles (Paul, John, I and II Peter, Jude). Nothing therefore
can be built on such parallels. All that can be said is that they certainly do
not stand against the writing of James by someone in the main stream of
apostolic Christianity.
But what of the objections to James' authorship, which to many modern
commentators have seemed decisive? They may be considered under
three headings.
1. The attitude to the law in the epistle is not, it is said, that which fits the
position of James. If by this position is meant the legalistic attitude
adopted by Paul's Judaizing opponents, then even at the height of the
controversy there is nothing in Paul or Acts to identify James with it. In
Galatians Paul distinguishes the attitude of James himself (2.9) from that
of 'certain persons... from James' (2.12). In Acts too it is made clear that
James is no Judaizer (15.13-21), and he decisively dissociates himself
from 'some of our number' who speak 'without any instructions from
us' (15.24). Later also James welcomes the news of Paul's missionary
activity and seeks to disarm the misrepresentation of him by his own more
zealous adherents (21.18-26).
If, on the other hand, the point of the critics is that 'keeping the law'
means for James observing its ritual requirements (as in Acts 21.24), then,
to be sure, the emphasis in the epistle is very different. For there the
stress is entirely on moral righteousness. If the epistle is set in the context
of the controversy described in Acts and Galatians and its crucial passage,
2.18-26, is viewed as James' answer to Paul, then indeed we are dealing
not only with quite a different concept of faith but with quite a different
understanding of law and works.
However, if we set it not against the debate over the admission of Gentiles
to the church but against the kind of Jewish formalism condemned by
Jesus, then James' understanding of the law is entirely consistent.
447
So far from its being, as Harnack supposed , a notion of law 'which he
has distilled for himself', his is that inner delight in the perfect law of
liberty which inspired Ps.119 (cf. especially vv. 7, 32, 45) and which Paul
himself would have been the first to say was the mark of 'the true
Jew' (Rom.2.25-29). Even subsequently circumcision and ritualism were
not the heart of the matter for James.

447. Chron., 486.

137
When that issue arose, circumcision was waived as a condition of church
membership (Acts 15.19, 28), and ritual observance was urged as a
matter not of principle but of tact, in a way that Paul himself was perfectly
prepared to fall in with (21.21-26).
The attitude to the law in the epistle can scarcely therefore be urged as an
objection to Jacobean authorship, though it is certainly an argument
against placing it in the context of the Judaizing controversy.
2. There is the relatively weak external evidence for the epistle's
acceptance in the early church. Yet this cannot, it would be agreed, be
decisive against arguments from the internal evidence, since citation and
attestation are so fortuitous a matter.
Even those like Origen and Eusebius who refer to the doubts about the
epistle in parts of the church themselves accept it and use it as
448
scripture. Moreover, the reasons for questioning or neglecting it,
whether in the early church or later by Luther, are by no means simply to
449
be identified with the issue of authorship. As Sparks puts it ,
The fact that the Epistle is a Jewish-Christian document, whoever wrote
it, may have been in itself sufficient to discredit it in the eyes of Gentile
Christians; while its essentially practical attitude would inevitably make
it seem of little consequence to those whose main interests were
theological. Accordingly, its neglect by the early Church is by no means
an insuperable barrier to accepting the Lord's brother as the author.
The conclusion must be that this evidence does not point decisively in
either direction: it cannot be used to establish or to discredit apostolic
authorship.
3. Much the most serious objection is the language in which the epistle is
written. For it combines being one of the most Jewish books in the New
Testament with what has been described as a 'high koine' Greek style. At
any stage, indeed, this is a conjunction that requires explanation, and the
difficulties do not disappear by relegating them to the second century or an
unknown author. But the combination would certainly appear to be made
more difficult by the supposition that the author was a first-century
'Galilean peasant'.
This is an issue that will present itself again in the cases of Peter and
John, but there it may be softened by putting down the style of I Peter to
Silvanus (I Peter 5.12) and the Greek of the fourth gospel (which in any
case is not that idiomatic) to a writer other than his apostolic source.

448. For a summary of this evidence, cf. Kummel, INT, 405f; Guthrie, NTI, 736-9.
449. Formation of the NT, 129.

138
These possibilities we shall examine in due course. But in James there is
no suggestion of another hand at work.
The epistle presents a test case of whether a non-literary lower-class
Palestinian in the period before 70 could or would have spoken or written
450
such good (though still limited and Semitic) Greek. It is so seen in the
most extensive study of this issue to date, J. N. Sevenster's Do You
Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians have
Known? He devotes virtually his entire introduction to the question posed
451
by the epistle of James.
He dismisses recourse to the hypothesis of a secretary (to whom there is
no allusion in any form) as highly improbable. He thinks pseudonymity (in
the absence of any deliberate pose) or attribution to an otherwise
unknown writer equally unlikely. So he is left with the question, Could
James have written such Greek? He assembles and sifts the now
considerable evidence from literary and archaeological sources, outside
and inside Palestine, at different cultural levels. His conclusion is that
there is in fact no reason why Jesus or the first apostles or James should
not have spoken Greek as well as their native Aramaic.
It is no longer possible to refute such a possibility by recalling that these
were usually people of modest origins. It has now been clearly
demonstrated that a knowledge of Greek was in no way restricted to the
upper circles, which were permeated with Hellenistic culture, but was to
be found in all circles of Jewish society, and certainly in places
452
bordering on regions where Greek was much spoken, e.g. Galilee.
He argues that Christian Jews often probably had a better knowledge of
Greek (certainly they were from the start more cosmopolitan than the
Qumran covenanters) and that there is no reason why a church-leader like
450. For the limitations of James' Greek, cf. Zahn, INT I, 117f. He certainly does not have the
facility of a genuinely bilingual man like Paul.
451. J. N. Sevenster, Do you Know Greek? (Nov Test Suppl. 19), Leiden 1968, 3-21.
452. Op. cit., 190. Cf. among others all coming to much the same conclusion: G. Dalman,
Jesus-Joshua, ET 1929, 1-7; J. Weiss, The History of Primitive Christianity, ET 1937,
165f; he makes the point that 'the crowd on the temple square expected that Paul would
address them in Greek (Acts 22.2) and were agreeably surprised when he spoke to them in
Aramaic'; S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 1942; R. O. P. Taylor,
Groundwork of the Gospels, 91-105; R. H. Gundry, 'The Language Milieu of First Century
Palestine', JBL 83, 1964, 404-8; and The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's
Gospel, Leiden 1967, 174-8; N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament,
Edinburgh 1965, 174- 88; J. A. Fitzmyer, 'The Languages of Palestine in the First Century
ad', CBQ 32, 1970, 501-31; J. Barr, 'Which Language did Jesus Speak?', BJRL 53, 1970-1,
9-29 (especially 91.); Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, especially I, 58-65, 103-6 (he
speaks of 'the Judaism of Palestine as "Hellenistic Judaism" '); A. W. Argyle, 'Greek among
the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times', NTS 20, 1973-4, 87- 9; he draws the
analogy: 'To suggest that a Jewish boy growing up in Galilee would not know Greek would
be rather like suggesting that a Welsh boy brought up in Cardiff would not know English.'

139
James (or Peter) could not have taken the trouble, like Josephus, to
acquire a reasonable command of literary Greek. Indeed Zahn, who long
453
ago argued strongly in the same direction , made the point that Greek-
speaking Christians were probably in the majority in the earliest period.
According to the notices of Acts, which are the only sources we have, the
membership of the Church from the start consisted predominantly of
Hellenists. The first three thousand converts (Acts 2.41) to gather about
the personal disciples of Jesus, who were mainly Galileans, were not
natives of Jerusalem and Palestine. From the names of their home
countries one must infer that the language 'in which most of them were
454
born' was Greek.
And these 'devout Jews drawn from every nation' were permanent residents
(κατοικοῦντες; Acts 2.5, 14) in Jerusalem, not temporary visitors up for
the feast (contrast the παροιλεῖς Ἰερουσαλήµ; of Luke 24.18). Of their
seven leaders appointed subsequently (Acts 6.5) only Nicolas of Antioch is
described as a foreigner or as a proselyte: they were indigenized, born
Jews who spoke Greek. It was only with the growing accession of
'Hebrews' or Aramaic-speaking converts that the 'Hellenists' or Greek-
speaking majority felt their position in the church threatened (Acts 6.1).
Zahn maintained that it would have been impossible for the early
Christian leaders to have fulfilled the immediate duties of their office, such
as are described in Acts 8.14-25 or 9.32-11.18, let alone done anything
beyond Palestine, 'without a good deal of readiness in speaking
455
Greek' . Certainly James' position, as we see it later in Acts 21.18-29,
as head of the church in a city visited by thousands of Greek-speaking
Jewish pilgrims would have made this highly desirable, if not essential.
456
Sevenster's cautious conclusion with regard to the epistle of James is
that:
Even though absolute certainty cannot be attained on this point; in view
of all the data made available in the past decades the possibility can no
longer be precluded that a Palestinian Jewish Christian of the first
century AD wrote an epistle in good Greek.
457
Or, as the most recent writer puts it :
There may be valid arguments against the ascription of apostolic
authorship to I Peter and James, but the linguistic argument can no
longer be used with any confidence among them.

453. INT1, 34-72.

454. Ibid., 43.
455. Ibid., 45.
456. Op. cit. 191.
457. Argyle, NTS 20,89.

140
Clearly this is as far as the evidence from language can take us. It can
prove nothing, but equally it holds open the possibility of apostolic
authorship, and with it of early dating.
So finally we come back to the question of chronology from which we
started. There are three main possibilities.
1. The epistle comes from an unknown Christian (whether or not he is
claiming to be James the brother of the Lord) from the first half of the
second century or the end of the first.
458
Harnack argued , as we have seen, for a date as late as 120-140 on
the ground that the degeneracy of the church implies a state of affairs
459
comparable only with that envisaged in the Shepherd of Hermas.
460
Quite apart from when that document should be dated , I agree with
461
Mayor, in his very astringent analysis of Harnack's position , that what
he calls this hangover of 'the old Tubingen tradition, from which he has
receded in regard to many of the other documents of the New
Testament' is incredible.
There is no situation in the reign of Hadrian, whether before or after the
final Jewish revolt under Bar-Cochba in 132, that begins to fit the many
signs of primitiveness noted earlier. Yet a date of 125 - 150 is still favoured
by A. E. Barnett in the article on James in The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible, on the ground that the author of the epistle knew Romans, I
Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians ('which means that he knew them
as members of a published collection') as well as Matthew, Luke,
Hebrews, I Peter, Hermas and Clement!
There seems to be no limit to the circularity of arguments from literary
462
dependence.
463
More soberly, Reicke agrees that there is no polemic against Paul in
the epistle, which must, he argues, have come into existence 'before
Paul's ministry, or a considerable time after'.

458. Chron., 485-91.

459. He takes James a.6f., 'Are not the rich your oppressors? Is it not they who drag you into
court and pour contempt on the honoured name by which God has claimed you?', to refer to
internecine quarrels between churchmen. But it is not implied that these oppressors are
Christian: it is 'you' over whom 'the name' has been called, not 'they'. Contrast Hermas, Sim.
8.6.4: 'These are the renegades and traitors to the Church, that blasphemed the Lord in their
sins, and still further were ashamed of the Name of the Lord, which was invoked upon them.'
For the differences between James and Hermas, cf. Mayor, James, cxcf.
460. See pp. 319-22 below.
461. James, clxxviii-cxcii.
462. Contrast Kummel, INT, 410: 'No clearly perceptible literary connection with other early
Christian writings exists.'
463. James, Peter and Jude, 5f.

141
He goes on, 'It is practically impossible, however, that the work is pre-
Pauline', and he concludes that it comes from the reign of Domitian,
464
c.90. The absence of any reference to the defeat of Judaism or to the
final break between the church and the synagogue (the supposed
evidence for which in the fourth gospel is also said to point to the reign of
465
Domitian!) seems to me to make this supposition highly improbable.
But what are the reasons he gives for an early date being 'practically
impossible'? The first is that 'the persecutions mentioned in 1.2f., 12f.;
2.6; 4.6; 5.10f. refer to Christians outside Palestine, but none are
known prior to Paul's time'.
But this presupposes that the address to 'the twelve tribes dispersed
throughout the world' applies only to Christians living outside Palestine. On
the contrary, as we have argued, it would appear to be a designation for
'the whole Israel of God', and the conditions referred to point time and
again to those of Palestine.
Moreover, the violent persecution that followed the death of Stephen had
'scattered' Christians not only throughout Judaea and Samaria (Acts 8.1,
4) but to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (11.19). It is to such 'scattered'
Christians facing trials of many kinds that the epistle of James is
addressed (1.1f.).
The other details in the epistle adduced by Reicke as indicating a stage of
development 'a considerable time after' Paul's ministry would seem to
prove nothing. Denunciations of the rich (1.2-7; 4.13-5.6) are as old as
Jesus and as the prophets before him. The need to distinguish between
the true wisdom from above and that which is 'earth-bound, sensual and
demonic' (3.15) could come from any time in the period of late Judaism.
The need to be patient 'for the coming of the Lord is near' (5.8) can
scarcely be said to require an advanced date (especially from a scholar
who would now put all the synoptic gospels, with their much more specific
injunctions, before the Jewish war!), while the instructions about bringing
back 'those who stray from the truth' (5.19f.) might have come straight out
of the teaching of Qumran or of Jesus.
If therefore the arguments for a later date are not compelling there are two
further positions, both of which are compatible with apostolic authorship,
though naturally they do not require it.

464. Kummel, INT, 414, will be no more specific than 'toward the end of the first century' -
arguing from 'the conceptual distance from Paul'. But how long is that? Earlier critics were for
the same reason putting it in the middle of the second century. Conceptual distance is hardly
amenable to quantitative measurement.
465. See below pp. 272-4.

142
2. Since there is no reference to the fall of Jerusalem or the Jewish revolt
466
and since James was put to death in 62, this latter date provides a
natural terminus ad quem. If the passage about faith and works reflects
argument with Paul, then it would seem to come from about the same time
as Romans or a little after.
467 468
This was the position of F.J. A. Hort and Parry, who dated James
469
c.60. It has been the mediating position taken by a number of English
470 471
scholars and also by P. Feine , whose work Kummel revised and at
472
this point reversed, and by Klijn. It was also the view that I originally
accepted. One advantage of it is that it enables us, if we wish to, to think
of James as already having been in the Greek diaspora. For in I Cor.9.5
Paul asks, with reference to missionary travel, 'Have I no right to take a
Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and the Lord's
brothers, and Cephas?', and it seems he would hardly have put the Lord's
473
brothers before Cephas unless, as in Gal.2.9, they included James. But
there is no evidence that James was married, unlike Jude, and it is in any
474
case highly speculative.
The real difficulty of this dating is that it presupposes that James was
written at a time (on our reckoning, about that of Ephesians) when the
issue of Jew and Gentile in the church and the resulting antagonism
between Jews and Christians very much dominated the scene and when
Paul, as a direct result of it, lay imprisoned in Caesarea. Yet the epistle
makes absolutely no reference even to the existence of the Gentile
mission, let alone to the tensions it occasioned for both Jews and
Christians.
466. Josephus, Ant. 20. 200f. Hegesippus (apud Euseb. HE 2.23.18) says that Vespasian's
attack on the Jews (in 67) followed 'immediately' upon it, but this, as we have seen, is
probably a case of translating sureness of judgment into temporal immediacy - or of running
together sources. Josephus' circumstantial account of the opportunity afforded by the
interregnum between Festus and Albinus is certainly to be preferred. In his Chronicle
Eusebius himself dates it in 62.
467. F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, Cambridge and London 1894, 148f.; St James,
1909, xxivf.
468. R. St J. Parry, A Discussion of the General Epistle of St James, 1903,99f.
469. G. H. Rendall, The Epistle of St James and Judaic Christianity, Cambridge 1927, 87,
argued that it comes just before Romans, between 49 and 55.
470. E.g. A. T. Cadoux, The Thought of St James, 1944; C. L. Mitton, The Epistle of
James, 1966, who interestingly believes James wrote James, but not Paul Ephesians nor
Peter I Peter; and Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter, 19f.
471. P. Feine, Einleitung in das neue Testament, Leipzig 5I930, 200.
472. INT, 151.
473. Kummel, INT, 290, allows the force of this as a conjecture.
474. Cf. Hegesippus (apud Euseb. HE 3.20.1),who however gives a very different impression
of James as an extreme ascetic (HE 2.23.5f.). In all the references to the dominical family
(HE 3.1 if., 19, 20.1-8, 32.6; 4.22.4) no mention is made of any progeny of James.

143
I agree with Reicke in finding this impossible. I am therefore driven,
against my initial expectation, to take seriously the third and still more
conservative position.
3. This places the epistle of James, as its 'primitive' character at so many
points would suggest, very early indeed, before the controversy about
circumcision and the terms of Gentile admission. This does not mean that
there was by then no Gentile mission, only that it had not as yet become
divisive. For there was doubtless a period, as both Paul (Gal. 2.2) and
Luke (Acts 13-14) indicate, when missionary work went on among
Gentiles on a scale that provoked no crisis of principle.
It was only when 'certain persons who had come down from Judaea began to
teach the brotherhood that those who were not circumcised in accordance with
Mosaic practice could not be saved' (Acts 15.1) that conflict broke out.
This can be dated fairly exactly to c. 48. Now James seems to have
occupied some position of leadership in Jerusalem, if not from c. 35 (cf.
Gal. 1.19), at least since 42 (or at the latest 44) when Peter went into
hiding (cf. Acts 12.17, 'report this to James'). But the indications are that
the epistle is more likely to belong to the end of this period than to its
beginning. To address a pastoral homily to the whole church (such as it
then was) presupposes that James had already established the spiritual
authority to do so, without having, apparently, any need to assert it.
The argument too whether justification is by faith or works, even if
conducted still within a Jewish frame of reference, could very well reflect
garbled reports (cf. Gal. 2.4) of 'the gospel' that Paul 'preached to the
Gentiles' during his first mission of 47-48, which he subsequently felt it
desirable to clear, privately, with James and the others in Jerusalem (Gal.
2.2). Moreover, if anything in James' letter (e.g., as we have suggested,
2.10) had been taken to mean that Christians must observe the whole law
or nothing - and the need for an official denial (Acts 15.24) makes this
more than possible - then it is likely to have been written not long before
the incident of Acts 15.1.
Perhaps therefore we should date the epistle of James early in 48 - not
later, and possibly a year or so earlier: let us say 47-8. In this case the
similarities of language with James' speech and the apostolic letter in Acts
15, though not probative, are certainly interesting.
This early dating has had surprisingly persistent support. Mayor argues for
475
it strongly, citing many earlier writers, including B. Weiss and Zahn.
476
Knowling also supported it, adding other names .

475. For a list of the others, see Mayor, James, cl.

476. James, Ixviii-lxxii.

144
More recently it has been favoured in a notable series of articles by G.
477 478 479 480
Kittel, and also by Heard , Michaelis and Guthrie . The
problem of a letter written in Greek to an audience inside as well as
outside Palestine remains. But it is no more difficult then than ten years
later, and we shall return to this question in connection with the fourth
481
gospel.
If, as we argued in the previous chapter, the gospel of Matthew, whose
tradition is closest to that of this epistle, was also beginning to take shape,
in Greek, in a similar milieu at the same time, then the epistle of James will
no longer be an anomalous exception. It can take its natural place,
alongside other literature in the process of formation in the second decade
of the Christian mission, as the first surviving finished document of the
church.

477. G. Kittel, 'Die Stellung desJakobus zu Judentum und Heidenchristentum', ZNW 30,
1931, 145-57; 'Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes', ZNW 41, 1942, 71-105; 'Die
Jakobusbrief und die apostolischen Vater', ZNW 43, 1950-1, 54-112.
478. INT, 167.
479. Einleitung, 282.
480. NTI, 761-4.
481. Pp. 293-301 below.

145
 Chapter VI
The Petrine Epistles and Jude

whether either of the epistles ascribed to Peter or that attributed to Jude

are by the apostle or the Lord's brother respectively is again not our
primary concern. While the issues of chronology and authorship are, here
more than ever, inextricably connected, it is the former that must continue
to have priority in determining our approach. The best way therefore will
be to adopt the same procedure as with the Pauline epistles. This is to
attempt to construct a chronological framework, into which the epistles of
Peter can be fitted if they are genuine or into which they will purport to fit if
they are not. The epistle of Jude comes into this picture because of its
manifest interdependence - one way or the other - with II Peter.
The reconstruction of the chronological framework may be begun where
that for Paul left off, with the point at which Acts ends. But mention of Acts
merely underlines our previous reliance on it. When it stops, we find
ourselves almost wholly lost. Whatever framework is reconstructed, it must
be said at once that it is bound to be extremely hypothetical and sketchy,
for the evidence is simply insufficient. What we miss in particular are the
intervals, which it is Luke's particular contribution to supply.
In fact the situation is now reversed. Whereas before we were strong on
relative dates but very weak on absolute dates (the proconsulship of Gallic
being about the only really secure one, and that by a fortuitous discovery),
we now are strong on absolute dates, but extremely weak on relative
ones. Thus we have quite precise datings for two cardinal events, the fire
of Rome, which broke out on 19 July 64, and the suicide of Nero, which
occurred on 9 June 68.
But how, within or around that period, happenings or writings of relevance
to the Christian church are to be placed in relation either to each other or
to these fixed points is highly problematic. Let us begin by trying to round
off the life of Paul. On the basis of the aorist ἐνέµεινεν rather than the
imperfect in Acts 28.30 it will be recalled that Harnack argued that at the
end of two years Paul's situation changed: it was not simply that the
482
narrative ceased, for whatever reason.
This could well be true; but the inference is precarious, since the aorist

482. Cf. L. P. Pherigo, 'Paul's Life after the Close of Acts', JBL 70, 1951, 277-84: 'Since the
author of Acts seems to have known the duration of the imprisonment, it certainly seems to
follow that he knew also of its termination' (277; italics his).

146
would in any case have been a natural choice of tense: for two years he
stayed (ἐνέµεινεν)and during that period he used to receive (ἀπεδέχετο).
Nor of course does it tell us how Paul's situation changed - whether, as
Harnack guessed, it was because he was then transferred to stand trial
483
(whatever the outcome) or whether, as Lake and Cadbury argued , the
case lapsed because the statutory two-year period expired within which
the accusers had to appear. Sherwin-White criticizes the latter theory on
484
the ground that there is no real evidence for such a limit. Paul may
have been released by an act of clemency, or simply to clear the lists, but
there is no reason to construe Acts to mean that he was released at all.
All theories which reconstruct this period either from hopes expressed in
the Captivity Epistles or from plans in the Pastorals presuppose that the
former come from his Roman imprisonment and the latter (genuinely or
supposedly) from the period subsequent to it. If our previous argument
was sound, neither of these presuppositions holds. In particular, the
decisive reference in II Tim.4.16 to his 'first hearing' refers not to
anything in Rome but to the first trial under Felix in Caesarea.
It is difficult to be certain whether any of the later tradition reflects more
than deductions from a combination of Paul's hope to visit Spain (Rom.
15.23, 28) and the Pastoral Epistles interpreted as Roman in origin.
Certainly it is the latter that supply the basis for everything that Eusebius
485
has to say on the subject.
The fragment of the Muratorian Canon (coming from Rome at the end of
the second century?) simply says that 'from the city he proceeded to
486
Spain', but this could merely be part of the presumption we observed
before that (despite the evidence of II Corinthians!) Paul's plans were
always fulfilled. Much the most important piece of evidence is that of I
Clem. 5.6f., which asserts that, after he had preached both in the east and
the west, he reached the 'extreme west' (το τέρµα τῆς δύσεως). I would
487 488
agree with Lightfoot and Zahn that to interpret this in a writer living
in Rome to mean Rome itself is incredible.

483. Beginnings V, 325-36.

484. Roman Society and Roman Law, 108-19; cf. F. F. Bruce, 'St Paul in Rome', BJRL 46.
' 964, 343-5; Ogg, Chronology of the Life of Paul, l80f.
485. HE 2. 22.
486. Zahn, INT II, 621., 73-5, and F. F. Bruce, 'St Paul in Rome: 5. Concluding
Observations', BJRL 50, 1968, 272f., argue that its remark that Luke omits 'the passion of
Peter, as well as Paul's journey when he set out from Rome for Spain' suggests that it is here
dependent on the Acts of Peter which includes both of these (Hennecke, NTApoc., II, 279-82,
314-22).
487. AF I.2, 30f.
488. INT11, 72. Similarly Phengo, JBL 70, 279-82.

147
We must assume it means Spain, and depending on the date and weight
489
we attach to the evidence of I Clement, it speaks in favour of a release
from Rome and further travel (though only to the west). Beyond that we
are in the dark. Clement clearly refers to Paul having perished in the
490
same persecution as Peter and a 'great multitude of the elect', which
491
cannot be other than that under Nero.
But Paul appears to have stood alone as he 'gave witness before
rulers', and the subsequent tradition, that, whereas Peter was
492
crucified, Paul (as a Roman citizen) was executed, strongly suggests
that this was as a result of a separate judicial action, not of mass violence
such as Tacitus describes. Again, in the first-century Ascension of Isaiah
493
4.2f. it is only 'one of the Twelve' who 'will be delivered into his
494
hands': there is no mention of Paul. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, says
in c. 170 that Peter and Paul 'having taught together in Italy, suffered
495
martyrdom at (or about) the same time' (κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν).
496
This comes to be interpreted, first in the Liberian Catalogue of 354, to
mean 'on the same day', namely, 29 June. But this day is almost certainly
the one which in the year 258 saw some veneration of their joint
memories, possibly the translation of their relics from the Vatican and the
Ostian Way to a catacomb on the Appian Way for safety during the
497
Valerian persecution. Indeed, despite the great influence of Jerome (c.
498
342-420), who said that they suffered in the same year, the tradition still
499 500
survived in Prudentius (348-c. 410) and Augustine (354-430) that
489. It has often been argued that Clement's details may be explained entirely from Acts. But
Zahn, INT II, 68-73, is still convincing to the contrary, as is Lightfoot. For a recent defence of
Clement's tradition, cf. Dinkier, TR 25, 207-14.
490. I Clem.5f.; cf. the similar phrase in Tacitus, Ann.15,. 44 of the Neronian persecution.
491. So Tertullian, Scorp. 15.
492. Cf. John 21.18f.; Tertullian, Scorp. 15; Praescript. 36, Adv. Marc.4.5. This is
independent of the elaboration of the tradition that he was crucified upside down (Acta Petr.
37f.; Origen apud Euseb. HE 3.1.2).
493. viz. Nero's
494. For the dating of this passage, cf. pp. 239f. below. It could come from not long after the
event.
495. Quoted by Eusebius, HE 2.25.8. If, as Munck argued (Petrus und Paulus in der
Offenbarung Johannis, Copenhagen 1950), the vision of the two witnesses in Rev. 11.3-12
alludes to the deaths of Peter and Paul, this would be early evidence for their simultaneous
martyrdom. But this theory is at best extremely hypothetical. Cf. p. 241 below.
496. For the evidence, cf. Edmundson, The Church in Rome, 149f.
497. For a discussion of this, cf. Cullmann, Peter, 123-31; Bruce, BJRL 50, 1968, 273-9.
498. De vir. ill. 5. He based it on his own Latin translation of Eusebius' Chronicle (see below
pp. 147- 50).
499. Περιστεφάνων, hymn 12, quoted by Edmundson, op. cit., 150.
500. Serm. 296-7.

148
 501
Paul died exactly a year after Peter - evidence which is worthless as a
positive indicator but useful as a corrective. When we come to the
question of the date, or dates, of their deaths, we are equally in the dark.
There are two separate issues:
(a) Did the Neronian persecution follow immediately upon the fire of
Rome?; and
(b) Did Peter and/or Paul perish in that first assault?
If we could answer 'Yes' to both these questions, our chronological
problems would be over and everything could be dated in 64.
Unfortunately, however, it is not so simple. Indeed if it had been as simple
as the textbooks tend to make it, it is difficult to explain how the
divergences could have arisen. The presumption must be that there was a
tendency to conflate not only the day but the year, and that, other things
being equal, preference should be given to the less tidy solution. But let us
first look at what evidence there is for answering the two questions.
(a) So indelibly etched upon the common memory is the association
between the fire of Rome and the persecution of Christians that it comes
as a surprise to realize that the entire connection rests upon one
unsupported piece of evidence - a single chapter in Tacitus' Annals
(15.44). To this important, and excellent, source we must return in detail.
But first it is worth stressing the point that it stands alone not only in
502
classical but in Christian literature - until it itself is quoted.
In classical literature the only other reference to the persecution of
Christians is in Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars, which because
it rests so obviously on independent tradition is important corroborative
testimony. But the persecution is brought into no connection with the
503
fire (which by itself, of course, is often mentioned subsequently).
The fire is described in Nero 38, but the persecution of Christians is
alluded to briefly in Nero 16 among a variety of public acts, chiefly
504
legislative. As Hort dryly observed,
'It comes between regulations about what might be sold in the cooks'
shops and others about restraining the license of charioteers and the
factions of clowns.'
More remarkably there is no memory of its association with the fire
preserved in any early Christian writer.

501. Cf. also the quotation from Acta SS. Jun. 5,4230, in Zahn, INT ll, 76.
502. This is well brought out by E. T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History, 1924,ch. 4.
503. E.g. Pliny, Nat. hist. 17.5; Dio Cassius, Hist. 61.16-18.
504. F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St John I-III, 1908, xxv.

149
None of the early references to the Neronian persecution, in Clement of
505 506 507 508
Rome , Melito of Sardis , Tertullian , Lactantius ,
509 510
Eusebius or Jerome , makes any mention of the fire.
511
The first link is in Sulpicius Severus, whose Chronicle was completed
c. 403 and which quotes Tacitus. In Eusebius' Chronicle the two events
are separated by four years. But we must return to the evidence of
Tacitus, which is important enough to be set out in full. After giving a
graphic and detailed description of the ravages of the fire and the
immediate relief operations for the temporary re-housing of some
hundreds of thousands of homeless (Ann. 15.38-41), he proceeds
(15.421.) to describe the rebuilding of the capital to a carefully thought-out
plan with built-in fire precautions for the future, together with the
construction by Nero of a palace for himself of unrivalled magnificence, the
512
celebrated Domus Aurea. Then, in 15.44, he goes on:
So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now
means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the
Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered to
Vulcan, Ceres, and Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons,
first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea-shore, where water
was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess. Ritual
banquets and all-night vigils were celebrated by women in the married
state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the
modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the
fire had taken place by order.
Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and
punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed
for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of
the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by
sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition
was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in
Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things
horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.
First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their
disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of
505. I Clem. 5f.
506. In his Petition to Marcus Aurelius, cited by Eusebius, HE 4.26.9.
507. Apol 5.3f.; Ad nat. 1.7; Scorp. 15.
508. De mort. persec. 2.
509. HE 2.25.
510. De vir. ill. 5.
511. Chronic. 2.29.
512. Described by Suetonius, Nero 31.

150
 arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their
end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs;
or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned to
serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle,
and gave an exhibition in his circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of
a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had
earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity,
due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of
513
the state but to the ferocity of a single man.
It is quite clear from this account that a considerable interval of time must
have elapsed before in desperation Nero rounded on the Christians. There
is no need to assume that the building works were by then completed:
indeed none was finished before Nero's death, and the Domus Aurea
(Nero’s Golden House) was demolished, uncompleted, by Vespasian.
Yet in so far as we have any evidence for a connection between the fire
and the persecution - and there is no good reason to question it - it is for a
delayed reaction. At the very least, an interval of many months must be
allowed for the various stages described by Tacitus, which from the time
the fire finally died down at the end of July 64 brings us into 65 at the
earliest. Yet almost universally, not only in the textbooks, but by giants like
Lightfoot, Harnack and Zahn, the Neronian persecution is dated in 64.
I myself became convinced that this could not be right, but it is one of the
many merits of Edmundson's Church in Rome in the First Century that he
exposes in careful argument what he calls this 'fundamental error on the
514
part of almost every writer upon the subject'.
It is characteristic of the neglect of his book that what he says should also
have been ignored ever since. He demonstrates that it is no objection that
Tacitus' treatment of the events of the year 65 appears to begin only at
ch. 48, since it is this historian's practice, like that of others, 'to group
together so as to form a single and complete episode in his narrative a series of
events having close connection with one another but really spread over a
515
considerable space of time'.
515A
He shows how this applies to his compression of the Pisonian
513. Tr. J. Jackson, Loeb Classical Library, 1937. For assessments of the passage by
classical scholars, cf. B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero,
1903, 237-53. 434-49; H. Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus II, Oxford 1907, 416-27.
514. Op. cit., 125; cf. 123-44.
515. Ibid., 126.
515A. The conspiracy of Gaius Calpurnius Piso in AD 65 represented one of the major
turning points in the reign of the Roman emperor Nero (54–68). The plot signified the growing
discontent among the upper social strata of the Roman state with regards to Nero's
increasingly despotic leadership, and as a result is a significant event in the road towards his
eventual suicide, and the chaos that followed.

151
conspiracy into the events of 65; it is described as 'no sooner hatched
516 517
than full-grown', though it actually began in 63 and might well have
518
led to the death of Nero during the fire of 64.
Certainly the ambitious programme for the rebuilding of Rome described
519
under the events of 64 could scarcely have got off the drawing-boards
of Severus and Celer by the end of that year.
Among the points Edmundson makes are three which, he argues, help to
date the spectacle in Nero's gardens as not earlier than the spring of 65.
The first is the weather.
One thing... may be regarded as certain: that such a nocturnal spectacle
would not have been planned so long as the night air was chilly, nor
would Nero with his scrupulous care for the preservation of his divine
520
voice have appeared at night in the open on a car in the garb of a
521
charioteer in cold weather.
The second is an argument, which he admits is speculative, that the
account in Ann. 15.58 of 'continuous columns of manacled men
dragged and deposited at the garden doors', which greatly exaggerates
the actual numbers involved in the trial of the Pisonian conspirators in
April 65, may have been confused by merger with the round-up of
Christians at the same time. Thirdly, he draws attention to the fact that the
522
Christian historian Orosius, a younger contemporary of Sulpicius
Severus, who had access to Tacitus., Tacitus and Josephus, follows his
account of the fire and persecution with the words:
Soon calamities in heaps began on every side to oppress the wretched
state, for in the following autumn so great a pestilence fell upon the city
523
that according to the registers of Libitina there were thirty thousand
funerals.
Edmundson comments:
524
These last words are a direct quotation from Suetonius, who however
as usual gives no date to the pestilence.

516. Ann. 15.48.

517. Ann. 14.65.
518. Ann. I5.50.
519. Ann. 15.42f.
520. Cf. Suetonius, Nero 20; Pliny, Nat. hist. 19.6; 24.18; Tacitus, Ann. 15.22.
521. Op. cit., 141.
522. Hist. adv. pagan. 7.7.
523. in the temple
524. Nero 39.

152
 This is however given by Tacitus, who thus concludes his narrative of
525
the events of 65 AD : 'The Gods also marked by storms and diseases a
year made shameful by so many crimes. Campania was devastated by a
hurricane... the fury of which extended to the vicinity of the City, in
which a violent pestilence was carrying away every class of human
beings.... Houses were filled with dead bodies, the streets with
526
funerals.'
None of this adds up to a demonstration that the persecution of Christians
was in 65. It could have been later, though the plausibility of linking it with
the crime of arson would steadily have diminished as the interval grew.
But it may help to reinforce the strong inherent probability that it could
hardly have been earlier. Tentatively then we may answer our first
question by dating this initial assault upon the church in the spring of
527
65.
(b) Did Peter and/or Paul perish in this first attack? One could get the
impression from I Clem. 5f. that Peter and Paul were actually in the van of
the martyrs, but it is doubtful whether anything more than eminence
causes their names to be put first. The other sources, when they mention
names at all, do not discriminate, with the exception of Sulpicius
528
Severus, who says:
Thus a beginning was made of violent persecution of Christians.
Afterwards also laws were enacted and the religion was forbidden. Edicts
were publicly published: 'No one must profess Christianity.' Then Paul
529
and Peter were condemned to death. The former was beheaded, Peter
was crucified.
530
We shall have to come back to the legal enactments in another context.
The separation in so late a document of the deaths of the apostles from
the initial violence would scarcely be significant if it were not for the
somewhat confused evidence of the Chronicle of Eusebius. In his
531
History he mentions no dates, despite dating other events in the
chapters that precede and follow. In the Chronicle we have varying
532
evidence in the two versions.
525. Ann. 16.13.
526. Edmundson, op. cit., 143.
527. B. Reicke, The New Testament Era, ET 1969, 249, puts it 'around the beginning of 65'.
528. Chronic. 2.29.3. Tr. J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the
History of the Church to AD 557, 1957, 6.
529. But Barrett, NT Background, 17, translates 'at that time', thus eliminating the suggested
interval.
530. P. 234 below.
531. HE 2.25.
532. For convenient comparison in parallel columns, cf. Schoene (ed.), II, 154-7.

153
The Armenian puts the fire of Rome (or rather 'many fires in Rome') in 63
and Nero's 'beginning of the persecution of Christians in which Peter
533
and Paul suffer martyrdom at Rome' in 67.
This however is rendered doubtful by a previous entry for 66, when Linus
is recorded as succeeding Peter as Bishop of Rome. In Jerome's Latin
version 'Nero sets fire to most of Rome' in 64, and the 'first
persecution of Christians by Nero in which Peter and Paul perished
gloriously in Rome' is in 68, and in the same year 'Linus becomes
Bishop of Rome after Peter'.
534
The Latin version is recognized to be generally the more reliable, and in
the reign of Nero it usually shows greater approximation to the dates
supplied by Tacitus or Josephus. Indeed for two only, the earthquake at
Laodicea and the murder of Octavia, where it is four and five years out
respectively, is there a discrepancy of more than a year or two.
The one thing that emerges clearly is that Eusebius does not associate
the persecution with the fire (in both versions they are four years apart),
but does associate the deaths of Peter and Paul with the general
persecution. There is nothing in Tacitus actually to rule out a four-year
interval between the fire and the persecution, though such a gap would
have made any connection with the charge of arson incredible. The
circumstantial, and much older, evidence of Tacitus must be preferred at
this point, with the general persecution beginning, in all probability, in 65.
But what of the later date for the apostles' death?
There is absolutely no way of being certain, and Lightfoot, despite an
535
exhaustive discussion of the early Roman episcopal succession,
declined to commit himself to choosing between 64 (as he dated the
536
persecution) and 67 or 68. Wisdom perhaps should dictate leaving it
there, and there is certainly no place for Harnack's dogmatic assertion
537
that the martyrdom of Paul in July 64 is 'an assured fact'.

533. Eusebius' dates are expressed in terms of the regnal years of Nero. Working
backwards, the last, Nero 14, must be 68, with Nero 1 as 54, and this calculation is
supported by Finegan, HBC, 308. Lightfoot, AF I.I, 230, puts all the dates a year earlier; C.
H. Turner, 'The Early Episcopal Lists', JTS 1, 1900, 187-92, a year later. Turner ingeniously
works out that Eusebius must calculate the regnal year 1 of any emperor from about the 15th
September following his accession. Since Nero did not become emperor till October 54 this
means that Nero 1= September 55-September 56. But on this calculation Nero 14 becomes
September 68-9 and Nero would then not kill himself till 9 June 69 (during the reign of
Vitellius!).
534. So Lightfoot, AF I. 1.232; Turner, op. cit., JTS I, 184-7; Finegan, HBC, 155f.
535. AF 1.1, 201-345.
536. af 1.1.
537. Chron., 240.

154
But there are certain observations of greater or lesser probability that can
be made.
1. It is questionable whether Eusebius had any basis for his dating except
guesswork, and on the date of the general Neronian persecution he was
almost certainly wrong by some three years. The limitation of a chronicle is
that it allows no room for genuine uncertainty. In a history one can slur
over one's ignorance; in an annual record one is forced to place things in
one year or another. As we have seen, in his History Eusebius offers no
date for the persecution, which may suggest that he did not have one.
There are two reasons why in his Chronicle he could have decided to put it
at the end of Nero's reign. In the Armenian version (and the Latin is
similar) his entry for the persecution reads: 'On top of his other crimes
Nero was the first to provoke persecutions of Christians; under him
the apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome.' Zahn
538
comments:
Eusebius himself knows no more than what he says, namely, that Peter
and Paul died under Nero, and does not intend that 67 shall be regarded
as the year in which both apostles died, as is proved also by his remark at
the year preceding (66) that Linus succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. It
was only his way of looking at the history, according to which the slaying
of the Christians was the climax of Nero's crimes (HE 2.25. 2- 5), that
caused him in his Chronicum to place the persecution of the Christians
539
at the end of that emperor's reign.
540
The other reason, on which Harnack fastened, is that the year 67 looks
suspiciously as if it may be influenced by combining the traditions of a
twelve year stay of the apostles in Jerusalem and a twenty-five year
'episcopate' of Peter over Rome (30 + 12 = 42 + 25 = 67). Unlike the date
42, it is supported by no other evidence than that of Eusebius himself,
and is therefore unreliable.
2. The evidence of Sulpicius Severus, though late, could be based on
better sources. His reference to decrees is, as we shall see, borne out by
Tertullian. Unlike Eusebius, he certainly had access to Tacitus, whose
account he clearly echoes.

538. INT II, 78.

539. There may also have been the motive we have encountered before, which reappears in
the Acts of Peter and Paul (ed. L. F. K. Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, Leipzig
1851, 38), of suggesting that the death of Nero followed speedily upon his killing of the
apostles: 'Know ye that this Nero will be utterly destroyed not many days hence and his
kingdom given to another'; quoted by Ogg, Chronology of Paul, 199, who also doubts the
evidence of Eusebius.
540. Chron., 241f.

155
But Tacitus had nothing about the death of Peter and Paul, and this may
be the reason for Sulpicius' adding the notice of it apparently as a
separate item at the end, following the decrees.
In any case, if he intended an interval after the initial onslaught, there is
absolutely no indication of its duration. It could have been but a few
weeks.
3. As far as the death of Peter is concerned, the evidence points to its
being associated with the mass violence of 65. Death by being 'fastened
to crosses' is among the horrors listed by Tacitus, and the 'Quo Vadis?'
541 542
legend, to which we shall return, and to which, Edmundson
543
argues, considerable credibility attaches, speaks of Peter seeking to
save his life by leaving the city, only to be turned back by the vision of
Christ to face crucifixion.
This suggests that though he escaped the initial round-up mentioned by
Tacitus he met his death before the end of the purge. There is no
suggestion in any tradition that this was prolonged beyond the year
(indeed in 66 Nero went to Greece and did not return till 68). So tentatively
we may agree with Edmundson that the death of Peter took place 'some
544
time during the summer of 65'.
4. By contrast there is nothing specifically to connect the death of Paul
with the Neronian pogrom. It was apparently a judicial execution following
a trial and could have occurred at any time before, during, or after it. For
what little it is worth, the evidence is in favour of Paul's death being
545
somewhat later than that of Peter.
But many modern reconstructions, unlike those of the ancients who
allowed only for a visit to Spain (which could easily have been fitted in

541. Acta Petr. 35 (Hennecke, NTApoc. II, 3171.). Quo vadis? is a Latin phrase meaning
"Where are you going?" or "Whither goest thou?" The modern usage of the phrase refers
to Christian tradition, related in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (Vercelli Acts XXXV), in which
Saint Peter meets Jesus as Peter is fleeing from likely crucifixion in Rome. Peter asks Jesus
the question "Quo vadis?" Jesus's answer, "I am going to Rome to be crucified
again" (Romam vado iterum crucifigi.), prompts Peter to gain the courage to continue his
ministry and eventually become a martyr.
542. P. 214 below.
543. Op. cit., 151-3.
544. Ibid., 152.
545. Cf. p. 143, nn. 17-19, above; also Acta Petr. 40, which places Paul's return to Rome
from Spain after Peter's death. It has been argued (cf. Cullmann, Peter, 94f.) that since the
Old Testament examples of jealousy in I Clem. 4 are in chronological order, the mention of
Peter before Paul implies that Peter died first. This is possible; but it would logically follow
that both died before the mass of the martyrs, which is specifically denied by Sulpicius
Severus. Cullmann never even discusses the question of dates.

156
 546
between 62 and the Neronian persecution), have been affected by the
desire to leave time for further journeys east so as to satisfy the supposed
547
requirements of the Pastoral Epistles. There is really no way of telling.
All we can say is that it was near enough to the death of Peter to be
regarded by Clement as part of the same attack and later by Dionysius to
have occurred 'about the same time'. Probably we shall not be far out in
settling for some time in 66, or 67 at the latest. It must be stressed again
that all this is no more than a very tentative reconstruction in the absence
of any firm evidence. It can but provide a provisional framework, which
may have to be modified by the evidence from the Petrine epistles, to
which we must turn.
1 Peter
There is no question at any rate that the epistle claims to be by the apostle
Peter (1.1) and purports therefore to be written during his lifetime. It is
addressed to 'those of God's scattered people who lodge for a while in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia', and, in contrast with the epistle of
James, the Christian diaspora evidently now includes a majority (probably)
who were once Gentiles (1.14, 18; 2.9f.; 3.51.; 4.3). The other thing that is
reasonably certain is that it was written, or purports to have been written,
from Rome.
The 'greetings from her who dwells in Babylon, chosen by God like you' (5.13)
is almost universally agreed to be a disguise for the church in Rome. The
pseudonym is indisputable in the book of Revelation (14.8; 16.19; 17.5;
18.2, 10, 21) as it is in other late-Jewish and Christian writings (II
Bar.10.1f; 11.1; 67.7; II Esd.3.1f., 28, 31; Orac. Sib.5. 143, 159f.), and it
548
was so understood here as early as Papias. There is no need to spend
549
time discussing alternative locations in Mesopotamia or Egypt.
546. So Gunther, op. cit., 147, who suggests not without plausibility (following Pherigo, JBL
70, 278) that Paul's imprisonment in Rome was terminated by a sentence of relegatio or
temporary exile to a place of his choice. This would account for the 'exile' mentioned in I
Clem. 5.6, which is otherwise difficult to fit in, and is in line with the tradition in Acta Petr….
1: 'Quartus, a prison officer, ... gave leave to Paul to leave the city (and go) where he
wished. ... And when he had fasted for three days and asked of the Lord what was right for
him, Paul then saw a vision, the Lord saying to him, "Paul, arise and be a physician to
those who are in Spain" ' (Hennecke, NT Apoc. II, 279). Subsequently, in 66, as
Edmundson, op. cit., 160-2, points out, Apollonius of Tyana was also banished from Rome
and 'turned westwards to the land which they say is bounded by the Pillars' (Philostratus, Vit.
Apol.4.47.).
547. Thus Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 223) puts Paul's death on these grounds in the spring
of 68 (?); Zahn (INT II, 67) in late 66-June 68; Edmundson (op. cit., 160-3 and 240) in 67.
548. Eusebius, HE 2.15.
549. A. Schlatter, The Church in the New Testament Period, ET 1955, 253-7, and J.
Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, ET 1959, 275, are among those who have
believed that Peter visited the Babylonian dispersion. But there is no other evidence for this -
while there is plenty that he was in Rome.

157
The only question is why the disguise was felt to be necessary - as it
never is, for instance, in the writings of Paul.
The obvious answer is that it was resorted to for the same reason as in the
Apocalypse, namely, that of security (however thin the veil). But this at
once leads into a discussion of the main, and indeed the only,
circumstantial evidence in the epistle which is relevant to its dating, the
menace of persecution that everywhere pervades it.
Let it be said at once that this evidence proves nothing by way of dating.
The references are such as could be explained by the kind of harassment
at the hands of Jews and local magistrates that meets us constantly in
Acts and Paul, and which might have occurred at any time or place. This
550
has been emphasized by a number of recent writers, for instance
551 552 553 554 555
Selwyn, Moule, Kelly, Best, and van Unnik. The last
concludes:
Once we rule out the possibility of identifying these sufferings with some
particular persecution, we are left with no direct indication as to the date.
The situation reflected in the letter could have happened at any time in
the first or second century wherever a Christian group was found.
Indeed F. L. Cross goes so far as to say that 'the supposed references
556
to persecution are false trails', since he argues that the theme of
suffering is supplied by the church's liturgical season rather than by
external events.
But, even granting that there is a liturgical setting, this is surely to present
a false either/or. Moreover, though these are salutary warnings against
identifying the references with any datable official persecution — and still
more against the dogmatism of precluding a date because there is no
record of a persecution in that particular area — it does seem that there is
perhaps more to be said. For the preoccupation with suffering, and with
Christian behaviour under it, is unique to I Peter. There is nothing quite
like it in the Pauline epistles, or in any others, with the exception perhaps
of Hebrews. But in Hebrews the persecution lies, partly at least, in the
past, and the concern is for the danger of relapse it has brought in its train.

550. And earlier by Zahn, INT11, 178-85.

551. E. G. Selwyn, 'The Persecutions in I Peter', Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas
Bulletin, 1950, 39-50.
552. C. F. D. Moule, 'The Nature and Purpose of I Peter', NTS 3, 1956-7, 1-11; Birth of the
NT, 114.
553. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Black's NTC), 1969, 5-11, 29.
554. E. Best, I Peter, 1971, 39-42.
555. IDB III, 762.
556. F. L. Cross, I Peter; A Paschal Liturgy, 1954, 42.

158
Here it is potential, imminent or incipient (1.6; 2.12, 19f.; 3.13-17; 4.12-19;
5.8-10). What situation is reflected in Hebrews we must go on to discuss
in the next chapter, but that it reflects a particular situation can hardly be
doubted. So in I Peter, at least in 4.12, 'Do not be bewildered by the fiery
ordeal that is upon you' (or is happening to you, ὐµῖν γινοµένη), it seems
evident that something specific is in mind. And while it is not limited to the
recipients of the letter (5.9), it is nevertheless a new situation (4.17) for
which they are not prepared (4.12).
It may not be an official persecution, but it is clear that things are building
up to a climax, indeed, in the author's view, to the final climax (4.7).
Perhaps the nearest historical parallel to the kind of social and religious
harassment that I Peter seems to presuppose is the phenomenon of anti-
semitism; and this characteristically manifests itself in waves, erupting
from time to time in sharp pogroms (whether or not officially 'inspired').
It is clear too that this persecution of Christians is not the sort that Paul
mentions in I Thess.2.14-16, and which Acts chronicles so frequently, as
instigated specifically by Jews. Jews may have been involved, but there is
nothing to say so. It is pagans who malign them as wrongdoers (2.12) and
vilify them as spoilsports (4.3f.); it is the criminal code and the standards of
good citizenship which they must be careful not to offend (2.12, 151.;
3.16f.; 4.14f.), not the Mosaic law or Jewish susceptibilities.
Above all there is a wariness with regard to the state authorities (2.131.)
that suggests that Christians must be particularly careful to afford them no
handle. If they have to suffer, they must be sure not to put themselves the
wrong side of the law (4.141.) and so give excuse to the adversary who is
'looking for someone to devour' (5.8). The parallel today might be a warning
to Christians in South Africa to make certain that, if they are going to
oppose apartheid (as of course they must), they do not allow themselves
to be convicted for doing wrong rather than for doing good.
And this approach, of being, in Jesus' words, as wise as serpents and
harmless as doves, is entirely compatible with advocating and
encouraging all proper respect for the state and its powers (2.13-17; cf.
3.15). The situation here is not that reflected in the book of Revelation,
where the time is past when Christians can expect that such respect will
bring them justice. Moreover, in contrast again with the Apocalypse, there
is as yet no evidence of martyrdom or banishment, or indeed of any
physical violence.
Though hostility would obviously not be limited to insulting words (cf. 2.20,
of the beating of slaves), the attack upon them 'as Christians' seems to
have consisted primarily of slander and calumny.

159
 557
As Zahn pointed out:
Whenever a specific injury is mentioned which they suffered at the hands
of the heathen, it is always of this character:- καταλαλεῖν, (2.12; 3.16),
λοιδορεῖν (3.9) And ἐπηρεάζειν τὴν ἀγαθ΄θν ἐν ἀναστροφήν (3.16);
βλασφηµεῖν (4.4) and ὀνειδίζειν (4.14). They are to silence their
slanderers by good conduct (2.15); they are to put them to shame (3.16);
above all, they are not to answer reviling with reviling, but with blessing
(3.9). The very first condition of a comfortable life is to refrain from evil
and deceitful words (3.10). Even in the passage where the suffering of
Christ is held up as an example especially to slaves, it is not said that he
refused to use his power to defend himself against violence (Matt. 26.51-
5; 27.40-4; John 18.36; Heb. 12.2f.); but that when he was reviled he
reviled not again, and did not give vent to threatening words when he
was compelled to suffer (2.23).
To sum up, there is no evidence of open state persecution. Yet there is a
sense of tension with regard to the civic authorities which is missing from
even the latest epistles of Paul and the end of Acts. I believe therefore that
those are right who look for some climacteric to which a date may be put.
Can we be more specific?
Three main possibilities have been suggested, the situations under Trajan,
Domitian and Nero.
1. We may begin with that under Trajan because we have a parallel which
558
looks almost too good to be true. In his oft-quoted letter to the Emperor
Pliny the younger, who was governor of Bithynia-Pontus, a province
specifically mentioned in the address of I Peter, asks whether, in dealing
with those brought before him 'as Christians', 'punishment attaches to the
mere name apart from secret crimes, or to the secret crimes connected with the
name'; and he cites the oath by which Christians bound themselves, 'not
for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery or adultery'.
This seems to parallel closely the situation described in 4.14-16:
If Christ's name is flung in your teeth as an insult, count yourselves
happy.... If you suffer, it must not be for murder, theft, or sorcery, nor
for infringing the rights of others. But if anyone suffers as a Christian,
he should feel it no disgrace, but confess that name to the honour of
God.
Many have concluded with F. W. Beare that 'it would therefore seem
unnecessary to look further for the persecution which called forth our

557. INT II, 180f.

558. Epp. 10.96. Trajan replies in 10.97.

160
 559
letter', and he dates it at the same time. J. W. C. Wand admits that this
560
identification 'seems powerfully attractive'. Yet both from Pliny's practice
and from the Emperor's reply it is presupposed that Christianity is already
a religio illicita [ approved religion ] and that this is nothing new -
561
conditions that cannot be presumed from I Peter.
562
As Moule says, it is illegitimate to draw the inference from 4.15 that
being a Christian is itself a capital offence comparable with murder. To
take care that you suffer unambiguously as a Christian no more implies
this than it does in the parallel we suggested from South Africa today.
Suffering for 'the name' is of course already to be found in Acts 5.41;
9.14; and Mark 13.13; and the wording of Matt. 5.11, 'How blest are you,
when you suffer insults and persecution and every calumny for my sake', is
particularly close to the situation in I Peter. The term 'Christian' too had
563
become established well before this date (Acts 11.28; 26.28).
These parallels are the more significant if, as we have argued, Acts and
the synoptic gospels are all to be dated before the mid-60’s. The Trajanic
setting would be compelling if there were any other reason to suggest a
second-century date or if no other Sitz im Leben [ setting in life] looked
possible. Otherwise it cannot be said to be necessary, or indeed probable.
(It is notable that the most thorough English commentary on the epistle in
recent years, that of Selwyn, does not even mention it - Trajan comes into
the index only in a quotation from Dante!) It will be proper therefore to
suspend judgment until we have examined the evidence for the other
alternatives.
2. The placing of I Peter under Domitian is really a compromise for those
who can put it at neither of the other dates. Thus Kummel, who has
already ruled out apostolic authorship, writes:
The reign of Domitian should probably be taken as the time of writing,
since the mention of the persecution 'as Christians' (4.16) is not
sufficient ground for going down as late as the beginning of the second
century, or even to the time of the persecution under Trajan. 90-5 is,
564
therefore, the most probable time of composition.

559. F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford 1958, 14. Similarly, J. Knox, "Pliny and
I Peter: A Note on I Peter 4.14-16 and 3.15', JBL 72, 1953, 187-9; and A. R. C. Leaney, The
Letters of Peter and Jude, Cambridge 1967, 8-10. Streeter, PC, 115-36, saw the epistle as
republished (under the pseudonym of Peter) to meet this situation.
560. J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, 1934, 15.
561. For a careful study of the nature of the early persecutions of Christians, cf. A. N.
Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, Oxford 1966, 772-87.
562. Birth of the NT, 1 13f. For other points in the same direction, cf. A. F. Walls in The New
Bible Dictionary, edd.J. D. Douglas et al., 1962, 975.
563. For a survey of the evidence inside and outside the New Testament, cf. Zahn, INT 11,
191-4. 564. INT, 425

161
The reason, of course, for selecting the last years of Domitian's reign is
that this is the only other period apart from the latter 60’s associated in the
tradition with the persecution of the church. What in fact this persecution
amounted to we must examine more closely when we come to the book of
565
Revelation, which is usually connected with it. But there is no evidence
566
that it affected Asia Minor - and in this it is in exactly the same position
as the Neronian persecution - except for the evidence of the Apocalypse.
But equally, if the Apocalypse comes from the times of Nero, then its
evidence, including the use of the pseudonym 'Babylon', would support a
similar date for I Peter. For the moment therefore we must leave this
evidence on one side. In any case, as we have seen, the state of affairs in
I Peter is clearly not yet that of the Apocalypse.
567
Reicke makes the point that
sacrifices to the emperor are not mentioned in First Peter as a problem
confronting the Christians. If the epistle had been written during
Domitian's persecution that well-known, grave issue could not have been
passed over.
This is, of course, an equally valid objection to the Trajanic date, since
Pliny specifically mentions 'supplication with incense and wine' to the
statue of the emperor as an alternative to execution; and of this there is no
hint in I Peter. Indeed it is scarcely credible that under either Trajan or
Domitian the writer could have linked 'reverence to God' and 'honour to
the emperor' in the positive and unqualified manner of 2.17. There is in
fact really nothing to be said for a date in Domitian's reign except as a last
568
resort. I cannot resist quoting Wand's comment in this connection,
since it bears out what I have come to feel at many points in the course of
this investigation:
Is there not some danger of Domitian's reign becoming rather
overloaded with otherwise undated bits of Christian literature? The
Apocalypse, Hebrews and I Clement, to say nothing of Barnabas and the
Didache, have all been ascribed to this period. It has in fact become the
favourite dumping-ground for doubtful writings with a hint of
persecution about them.
But he is too modest in his list. The reign has also been pressed into
service to accommodate Ephesians, Luke, Acts, Matthew, John and the

565. Pp. 231-3 below.

566. Unless it be the straw at which some have (quite seriously) grasped, that Pliny reports
that a number of those he was investigating had given up their Christianity 'some three years
before, some a longer time, one or two even twenty years ago' (italics mine). The last date
would bring us back to c. 95.
567. James, Peter and Jude, 72.
568. Peter and Jude, 16.

162
Johannine epistles, and by many too James, Jude and the Pastoral
Epistles! This is not because all these writings have common factors (not
even persecution): they are widely different. Nor is it because we have
such detailed information of the circumstances of the reign that we can
see how and why they fit in. Indeed, from a Christian point of view, it is
one about which we know remarkably little. Hence its attractiveness as a
depository: it can accommodate almost anything. So let us pass on, to see
whether we are really forced by lack of alternative to bring it into use for I
Peter.
3. With a date under Nero the issue of authorship becomes a decisive
factor - though in fact it is equally tied to the other two hypotheses, which
are viable only on the assumption of pseudonymity or original anonymity
(the name of Peter being subsequently attached). Inevitably, however, the
arguments that it cannot be by the apostle tend to be held (or are capable
of being stated) more decisively, not to say dogmatically, than the
arguments that it must be by the apostle.
For it is easier to preclude authorship than to prove it. Arguments against
apostolicity are therefore often used (e.g. by Kummel) to rule out a
Neronian dating without further discussion. Beare, who commits himself to
the statement that 'there can be no possible doubt that "Peter" is a
569
pseudonym', effectively dismisses this date on the sole ground that there
570
is no evidence that this persecution extended to the provinces.
There is, to be sure, no evidence that the persecution of Nero had
repercussions in Asia Minor (unless of course the Apocalypse does
come - somewhat later -from this period). But the happy accident that so
remote a province as Bithynia-Pontus had an exceptionally literary
governor in the second decade of the second century whose
correspondence has survived and touches at one point on the treatment of
Christians can scarcely be used as an argument that silence elsewhere
implies that there was nothing of the sort going on. In any case, the kind of
suppressed tension which I Peter reflects, in contrast with open state
persecution, is hardly likely to have featured prominently in the history
books.
The issue is whether the terror that erupted under Nero is the sort of which
this situation could be the build-up, whether or not it also broke out openly
in Asia Minor.

569. I Peter, 25.

570. Ibid., 10-13. He appends some other arguments from W. Ramsay, The Church in the
Roman Empire before AD 170, 1893, 196-295, which are about as unsubstantiated as that
writer's eccentric conclusion that it was written c. 75-80 by Peter, who lived on into the reign
of Vespasian!

163
And here Tacitus' words in Ann. 15.44 already quoted deserve closer
571
scrutiny.
Apart from the obviously trumped-up charge of arson, there are two counts
mentioned. One is 'hatred of the human race' (odium humani generis;
cf. Tacitus' comment on the Jews in Hist.5.5, 'adversos omnes alios
hostile odium') [ "cherishing hatred against all others" ]
This is clearly a catch-all indictment (and the word 'convicti' seems to
imply that it was framed as a legal charge) such as can succeed only if it
can feed on, and foment, latent popular resentment and hostility (as with
Hitler's incrimination of the Jews after the Reichstag fire). And this is
precisely the kind of lurking, or rather prowling (5.8), hostility that I Peter
reflects.
Secondly, says Tacitus, 'first those were arrested who confessed' (primum
correpti qui fatebantur). The context shows that this cannot mean
confessed to arson, of which it is made clear they were innocent, but to
572
their faith. The situation was the same as with Pliny: 'I asked them
whether they were Christians, and if they confessed, I asked them a second and
third time with threats of punishment' - though Nero's procedures were
certainly not designed to give them an incentive to recant, but rather to
inform on their coreligionists.
Admission to being a Christian was all that was needed. And, says the
author of I Peter, let commission of this crime be all that they can find
against you: 'If anyone suffers as a Christian, he should feel no disgrace, but
confess that name to the honour of God (4.16). The parallel with the time of
Nero is as close as with that of Trajan, and, assuming that open
persecution has not yet broken out, the attitude of wary respect and
duly discriminating honour for the authorities,' whether it be to the
emperor as supreme or to the governor as his deputy' (2.14-17), is at this
stage entirely explicable.
But such language, and even more that of 3.13, 'Who is going to wrong you
if you are devoted to what is good?', would be incredible if the Neronian
573
terror had already struck - or even if Paul had by then been executed.
And this is perhaps a further indication that the martyrdom of Paul did not
precede the persecution. All that is lacking (unless the Apocalypse
supplies it) is specific evidence from Asia Minor. But is the clue to the
writer's language to be sought in the epistle's destination - or in its source?
571. I am indebted for this comparison to the notable article on I Peter by F. H. Chase in
HDB III, 784f Cf. H. Fuchs, 'Tacitus uber die Christen', VC 4, 1950, 65- 93.
572. This is generally agreed among the commentators. Jackson in the Loeb edition
translates 'the confessed members of the sect'.
573. So C. Bigg, The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude (ICC), Edinburgh 1901,85.

164
There is no suggestion that he speaks from personal acquaintance with
his readers. We cannot tell whether he has ever paid them a visit, and he
574
holds out no prospect of one.
Certainly he does not claim to have brought them the gospel: that has
been the work of other preachers (1.12). But there is the further
consideration, which many commentators have noted, that the epistle
reads like material composed in the first instance as a homily - or more
than one homily. The unity of the epistle is not our direct concern, but the
resumption at 4.12, after a doxology, with matter that appears to reflect a
more imminent or actual situation of persecution has suggested to some
575
that two letters have been combined.
Absence of any textual evidence for this (in contrast to the very varied
position of the doxology at the end of Romans) must weigh against any
theory of literary division; but that the material represents addresses given
on different occasions or to different groups is entirely plausible. Yet here
the implications of the place of delivery are more relevant. For if it is
material prepared in the first instance for speaking (however much it was
adapted subsequently), then the situation it reflects will primarily be that of
Rome rather than the obscurer parts of Asia Minor.
There have indeed been attempts to pin the occasion down still more
576
specifically, notably by Cross, who, however, makes no attempt to
draw out the geographical implications for the situation of suffering, which,
as we have seen, he regards as a false trail. There is no need here to go
into the details of his theory that I Peter is originally material composed for
the bishop's part at a paschal baptismal liturgy in Rome. They have been
577
sharply criticized, though I am inclined to think at some points he could
have stated his case more cogently and in a form less open to
578
objection.
574. There is a somewhat greater probability that Mark sends his greetings (5.13) because
he is known to them. Edmundson, op. cit., 12 if, suggests that Mark visited at least some of
them after his visit to Colossae (Col.4.10); though cf. II Tim.4.11. In any case there is no
ground for thinking, with Edmundson, that he met Peter there. Speculations about the
interrelationship at the time of Peter and Paul via Silvanus (Chase, HDB III, 790-2; cf. Zahn,
INT 11, 160- 2) are fruitless.
575. So Moule, op. cit., NTS 3, 1-11; cf.J. H. A. Hart, EGTV, 291.
576. 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy, building on, and applying to the Passover, the baptismal
setting of I Peter argued by Perdelwitz, Bornemann, Windisch, Streeter, Beare and Preisker,
references to whose works are given in the footnotes to Cross, op. cit., 28.
577. E.g. by Moule, NTS 3, 1-11; W. C. van Unnik, 'Christianity according to I Peter', ExpT
66, 1956-7, 79-83; T. C. G. Thornton, 'I Peter, a Paschal Liturgy?', JTS n.s.12, 1961, 14-26.
578. Rather than the references to suffering being occasioned purely by the church's year, I
believe the preacher is using the opportunity this provides to give teaching which is very
much related to his hearers' condition. Similarly, the sermon, while presupposing the...PTO

165
But whether this theory (or any modification of it) is necessary as an
explanation of the epistle (and clearly it is not), it is at least worth
considering the implications of some of the phraseology on the
assumption that what shaped it was the experience of the writer's own
pastoral situation in Rome rather than that of his distant, and highly
diverse, readers. I believe there may be several hints of this, especially in
the closing section of the epistle, which may have been addressed more
specifically to the immediate needs of the local congregation as a whole.
The most striking phrase is that in 4.12 about 'the fiery ordeal that is
Upon you' (τῆ ἐν ὑµῖν τυρώσει πρὸς πειρασµὸν ὑµῖν γινοµένη). It is
indeed difficult to apply this to a general situation in every part of Asia
Minor north and west of the Taurus mountains. Hence the theories that it
may have been added for a particular province or church, though there is
nothing else to suggest or confirm this. We must be wary of taking the
metaphor too literally, since the πύρωσις takes up the metaphor of the
assayer's fire in 1.7 (though why it was chosen there is still relevant). The
use of the symbolism of 'the fire of testing' (τὴν πύρωσιν τῦς
δοκιµασίας) for the eschatological ordeal occurs also in Did. 16.5, as, of
course, in Paul (I Cor. 3.15) and elsewhere.
Nevertheless 'the fiery trial' would be a grimly appropriate image for the
Neronian terror, sparked off as it was by the fire of Rome and culminating
in 'Christians fastened on crosses, and... burned to serve as lamps
by night'. If this part of the epistle does reflect a more circumstantial
account of what had already begun in Rome (though not yet in Asia
Minor), there could also be an echo of it in 5.8.
There in a vivid metaphor (cf. I Cor.i5.32; II Tim. 4.17) the Christians'
ἀντίδικος, or adversary in court, is viewed as the devil (incarnate in the
imperial power?) who, 'like a roaring lion prowls around looking for someone
to devour'. Tacitus does not indeed specify the lions of the amphitheatre,
but he does say that the Christians were 'covered with wild beasts' skins
and ‘torn to death by dogs'.

external actions and imagery of the liturgy, is concerned to draw out the inward and spiritual
meaning of the sacramental acts, many striking parallels for which are to be found in the later
record of the early Roman rite in Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition. Thus in 3.3f. the stress is on
'not in outward adornment'. The women have to plait their hair undone for the baptism,
refasten the jewellery they have taken off, and put on their new robes: all this is part of the
rite - now it has to be done not just externally but 'in the inmost centre of our being'. So in 2.2
the milk they have received is interpreted as spiritual (λογικόν), and in 2.5 the structure of
the church and the θυσίαι (oblations?) as πνευµατικαί. Finally in 3.21 baptism is seen not
as a mere washing away of the bodily pollution but (if this is the right translation) a pledge to
God proceeding from a good conscience. But, though the different moments of the rite
provide the occasion for the teaching, there is no need (with Cross) to assume that the
sermon was tied synchronistically to them.

166
Finally, with great hesitation, I offer a suggestion on which nothing turns
and which indeed I throw out mainly for a classicist with more knowledge
than myself to refute or confirm. The phrase in the following verse, 5.9,
translated in the NEB, 'remember that your brother Christians are
going through the same kinds of suffering while they are in the
world', or, in the RSV, 'throughout the world', has long struck me as
579
odd. From opposite extremes of the critical spectrum Bigg and Beare
agree that 'this clause is full of difficulties; almost every word offers a
580
problem'. Yet neither of them, nor as far as I have discovered anyone
else, observe the oddness in the phrase ἐν κόσµω. It has to be
paraphrased to mean either 'while still in the world' or 'in the rest of the
world' or 'in the whole world'. Yet when Paul wants to say this to Rome,
he says it quite clearly: ἒν ὃλω τῶ κόσµω. (Rom. 1.8).
Could it possibly be a stock phrase (without the article) to mean the
opposite of 'in town'? And if so is it a Latinism reflecting the usage of the
581
place where Peter's successor still makes his allocution 'urbi et orbi' ?
Was there anywhere else except 'the City where one could speak of the
582
provinces as 'the world' without qualification’ ? If so, it would be a
further subtle pointer to the original context of the phraseology being
supplied not by Asia Minor but by Rome.
The objection to this whole thesis is that it is inconceivable how, in
Moule's words,
a liturgy-homily, shorn of its rubrics... but with its changing tenses and
broken sequences all retained, could have been hastily dressed up as a
letter and sent off (without a word of explanation) to Christians who had
583
not witnessed its original setting.
But this objection loses much of its force on two conditions. The first is that
one does not press the points in the argument that make it into a liturgy
584 585
proper but treats it more, with Reicke, as 'a confirmation sermon'

579. Peter and Jude, ad loc.

580. I Peter, ad loc.
581. I confess I have made no progress in tracing this phrase back to the first century, but I
am grateful for the negative results of my friends, particularly Dr Robert Sharpies of the
Department of Latin, University College, London.
582. This usage for Rome (as for London) is of course well established. Cf. the derivation of
the name Istanbul, which is a corruption of the modern Greek for εἰς τὴν πόλιν
583. NTS 3, 4.
584. In particular I would question the forced interpretation of νῦν (1.12; 2.10, 25; 3.21) and
ἂρτι (1.6, 8; 2.2) to indicate 'a rite in actual progress' (Cross, op. cit., 30). 1.6 and 8 are
surely impossible to take this way in any case.
585. James, Peter and Jude, 74f.; cf. Streeter, PC, 123.

167
comparable, he suggests, with Ephesians (another Asian encyclical).
Secondly, one must bear in mind that, as I read them, the circumstances
are far from normal. The homily turned into a circular letter is dispatched,
via Silvanus, 'our trusty brother, as I hold him', with the message 'I am
saying very little in writing' (5.12), because, like Tychicus in Eph.6.21, he
586
will 'tell all' (πάντα γνωρίσει). The situation is one of great urgency
and danger, in a city that must already be disguised as 'Babylon', as the
Neronian terror breaks. When would this be? We shall not be far wrong, I
think, if we guess the spring of 65. Indeed if the paschal associations of I
587
Peter, as of I Corinthians (cf. I Cor.5.7f.; 16.8), are granted, whatever
its literary form, we may be more specific still. Passover that year was late,
falling on April 12.
588
If Edmundson is right, who argues for this same dating of I Peter, the
rounding up of Christians after the first 'confessions' became mixed up
with the retribution vented on the Pisonian conspirators. This also came
to a head, according to Tacitus, in April 65. We may then envisage
Silvanus leaving hastily for Pontus on his round of the Asian churches
589
perhaps towards the end of that month.
But at this point we must reckon with factors which have seemed to many
to make such a dating impossible. They focus mainly on the issue of
authorship, but, first, what of any other indications in the epistle, or out of
it, which might suggest a later date?
As regards external attestation, there is nothing to suggest that it was not
known as early as almost any New Testament book. It is quoted several
times (though not by name) in the epistle of Polycarp from the first part of
the second century. Possible connections with Ephesians, Hebrews,
James and I Clement are (it is now widely agreed) too sketchy or too
general for asserting literary dependence either way. In any case the
arguments are circular, depending on judgements made of the dates of
590
these other documents.
586. Cf. Acts 15.27, also of Silvanus: 'We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, who will
themselves confirm this by word of mouth'.
587. See Cross, op. cit., 23-7. He cites in particular (and so interprets): 1.3-12, 13-21, 18f.;
2.9f., 11. Cf. A. R. C. Leaney, 'I Peter and the Passover: An Interpretation', NTS 10, 1963-4,
238-51 (especially 244- 51).
588. Op. cit., 118-44.
589. Cf. F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of Peter (1.1-2.17), 1898, 157-85, for the itinerary
reflected in the order of the districts named.
590. Thus E.J. Goodspeed, New Solutions of New Testament Problems, Chicago 1927,
115, regards I Peter as a response to Hebrews and puts both of them in the reign of
Domitian. C. L. Mitton, 'The Relationship of I Peter and Ephesians', JTS n.s. i, 1950, 67-73,
sees I Peter as dependent on Ephesians which, like Goodspeed, he also places in the same
reign. Beare, / Peter, 91., 195f., follows him. Kummel, INT, 423, though supporting a Late….

168
With regard to the internal evidence, it is remarkable how little even those
like Beare who regard an early date as impossible can point to traits of
doctrine or organization to support them. In fact, apart from asserting that
the epistle's teaching on baptismal regeneration is (at some unspecified
date) 'borrowed from the contemporary Hellenistic modes of
591
thought,' he fastens on the fact that the Spirit of God is mentioned only
four times, which he interprets to mean that
a writing in which the sense of the active presence of the Spirit has fallen
into eclipse as it has in First Peter betrays by that indication alone that it
is the product of a later generation. It is utterly inconceivable that to
Peter, or to Silvanus for that matter, the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit
was wholly unknown, or was not of the first importance for the moral life
592
of the Christian.
Seldom can the argument from silence have been made to cover so much.
One might as well argue the same for Colossians, which does not refer to
the Holy Spirit once.
Cross, on the contrary, as a scholar at home both in the biblical and the
patristic periods, has no doubt as to the world to which I Peter belongs. I
quote the summary that concludes his study:
First, the theology of I Peter betrays many signs of great antiquity. There
is a marked absence of later theologoumena, e.g. in the undeveloped
doctrine of the Trinity in 1.2; while there are indications that the
593
ordering of the Christian ministry is that of a very early date.
Secondly, the eschatological structure of the thought, with its close inter-
penetration of future hope and present realization, suggests the same
conclusions.
The ethics is still in the atmosphere of the last things, and we find that
remarkable co-presence of the End as future and yet as already here,
date, dismisses literary dependence on Romans and Ephesians as 'improbable', 'because
the linguistic contacts can be explained on the basis of a common catechetical tradition'.
591. I Peter, 38. He toys (16-19) with theories of associations with the mystery cults of
Cybele, especially the Taurobolium. He has to admit that the direct evidence is far too late,
but still uses it to give substance to the statement that 'one is inclined to feel that he is indeed
in the religious atmosphere of the second century'.
592. I Peter, 36.
593. The only reference to the ministry is in fact in 5.1-4, where the author, despite claiming
to be an apostle (1.1), addresses the elders as a fellow-elder, exhorting them as shepherds
of the flock under Christ, the chief shepherd, who is also in 2.25 the shepherd and
ἐπίσκοπος of their souls. The contrast with the epistles of Ignatius, also from Asia Minor in
the reign of Trajan, is very marked. Even if (contrary to the neb) ἐπισκοποῦντες were part
of the true text in 5.2, the function of ἐπισκοπή would be that of the presbyters, as in the
whole of the New Testament.

169
 with no suggestion of the clear distinction between the Prote and the
Deutera Parousia of Christ as we find it from Justin onwards, which is
a mark of very early times. And thirdly, the whole tone of the work. If we
ask: 'Does it breathe the spirit of the other Biblical writings which we use
day by day in our Christian worship, or is it that of later days whose
ethos, however sublime, is not that of the New Testament?' I think that
most will have a ready answer; and it is this that matters most. Whether it
is the work of Peter or of Silvanus or of someone else I will not here try
594
to say.
In the same way, Moffatt, who argues for a late first - or early second-
century date for Ephesians, the Pastorals, Hebrews and James, is equally
clear that this period does not fit I Peter:
An early date is favoured by the absence of any heretical tendencies
595A
among the readers, the naive outlook on the imminent end (4.17f.),
and the exercise of charismatic gifts (4.10);... and by common consent it
has the stamp of primitive Christianity more than any other, not only of
the writings in the Petrine New Testament (Gospel, Acts, Epp., Apoc.),
595
but of the post-Pauline writings.
But what, finally, of the question of authorship, which is our concern only in
so far as it rules out or reinforces the daring? First, it is worth noting that
while some, as we have seen, speak as though apostolic authorship
(whether direct or through an amanuensis) were out of the question, there
are other scholars supporting it here who deny it in other comparable
cases. Indeed, if we leave out such questioned but nevertheless widely
accepted letters as Colossians and II Thessalonians, this, with the
possible exception of James, is the least likely New Testament epistle to
be pseudonymous.
596
Even Harnack, who decided against apostolicity, nevertheless found
the case of pseudonymity 'weighed down' by such insuperable difficulties
that, if his own theory were unacceptable, he said that he would opt for
Petrine authorship. This theory was of an originally anonymous writing
(from between 82 and 93 - though conceivably some twenty years earlier)
which was later (c. 150-175) attributed to Peter by the addition of 1.1f. and
5.12-14. These verses are certainly detachable and may well be what
originally turned a liturgical sermon into a letter.
594. Op. cit., 43f. Kelly, another patristic scholar, concurs (Peter and Jude, 30). Moule, NTS
3, 11, after disagreeing with most of Cross's thesis, ends by saying: 'I am in whole hearted
agreement with the last two pages of Dr Cross's lecture, where he argues that at any rate the
theology, the ethics and the "tone" of the writing are all in keeping with an early period of the
Christian Church's existence.'
595. ILNT, 344. 595A. It was not naïve but the second Advent was in AD 70. Ed. PB
596. Chron., 457-65.

170
But there is absolutely no textual or external evidence for the theory, and it
597
leaves most of the problems where they are. It has won little support,
598
and, as Chase comments in his perceptive summary and critique of it, it
is another sign (noticed by Mayor of Harnack's treatment of James) of the
remnants of the Tubingen presuppositions from which Harnack at the
time had not shaken himself free:
It essentially belongs to a period of transition. It is the product, on the
one hand, of the lingering influence of an older criticism, too thoroughly
bent upon negative results to retain much delicacy of perception; and, on
the other hand, of a keen literary and spiritual sense of the significance
of a writer's matter and manner.
The objections to pseudonymity felt by Harnack are nowhere better stated
599
than by Chase himself:
A close study of the document itself reveals no motive, theological,
controversial, or historical, which explains it as a forgery. It denounces
no heresy. It supports no special system of doctrine. It contains no rules
as to Church life or organization. Its references to the words and the life
of Christ are unobtrusive. It presents no picture of any scene in St
Peter's earlier life, and does not connect itself with any of the stories
current in the early Church about his later years.
Why, moreover, should a forger... represent Silvanus as the amanuensis
or the bearer of St Peter's letter, though in the Acts he nowhere appears
as in any way connected with that apostle, but both in the Acts and in
three Epistles (I and II Thess., II Cor.) as the companion of St Paul?
Why, above all, should a forger give to Pauline thoughts and to Pauline
language a prominent place in an Epistle bearing the name of St Peter?
Attempts have legitimately been made to defuse the suggestions of
600 601
'forger' (e.g. by Beare and Leaney ). The question of whether or not
pseudonymity was an accepted literary convention which deceived (or
attempted to deceive) no one will best be kept for the discussion of II
Peter. All one can say here is that whatever the intention, it seems in this
602
case a particularly motiveless exercise, which in fact (unlike II Peter)
deceived everyone until the nineteenth century.
597. Cf. Beare, I Peter, 24: 'It has no positive evidence to support it, and very little to
commend it.'
598. HDB III, 786f.
599. Ibid., 785f.
600. I Peter, 291.
601. Peter and Jude, 1.1f.
602. Kiimmel, INT, 424, concludes: 'The fact of pseudonymity is not contradicted by our
inability to perceive the motive for it.' But it is precisely this 'fact' that has to be established
and rendered plausible.

171
But what are the improbabilities (Harnack) or impossibilities (Beare and
Kummel) in the way of apostolic authorship? Apart from the
circumstances of persecution already considered, they may be
summarized briefly under three heads.
1. If the epistle were by an intimate associate of Jesus we should expect
more direct references to his life and words. This is a very subjective
expectation, and ironically it is precisely because II Peter does contain
such explicit reference that it is discredited. Certainly the fact that any
claims or allusions are so indirect argues more strongly against
pseudonymity than authenticity. In any case to say that it is inconceivable
that Peter should not 'have referred to the example of Jesus in some way
603
is not merely subjective but wrong. The reference in 2.23 to the
example of Jesus under trial is a clear allusion to the passion story.
604
Indeed it is one of a number of passages which Selwyn cites as
605
evidence of 'apostolic testimony'.
None of these, he admits, is unambiguous, and they will strike different
people with different force. But two others, I think, are worth repeating.
They are 1.8: You have not seen him, yet you love him; and trusting in him
now without having seen him, you are transported with a joy too great for
words. It has been well remarked that Paul never writes, nor could ever
have written, such words, with their implied contrast in status between
606
writer and readers. Selwyn cites Hoskyns and Davey's comment on
the similar word of Jesus to the twelve in John 20.29:
Those who have not seen and yet have believed are what they are
because there once were men who believed because they did actually
see. The other passage is the highly ambiguous one of 5.1: I appeal...
as... a witness of Christ's sufferings, and also a partaker in the splendour
that is to be revealed. It is difficult to believe that this refers merely to the
common experience of all Christians described in 4.13 ('It gives you a share
in Christ's sufferings... and when his glory is revealed your joy will be
triumphant').
A 'witness' would naturally imply more, as in Peter's words in Acts 1.22
607
and 2.32. And this is fortified by Selwyn's interpretation of the following
phrase, 'who have also had experience of the glory that is to be
603. Kummel, INT, 424.
604. 1 Peter, 27-33.
605. Cf. also R. H. Gundry, ' "Verba Christi" in I Peter', NTS 13, 1966-7, 336-50, who argues
that the underlying allusions to the 'words of Christ' are specially connected with narrative
contexts in the Gospels where Peter is an active participant.
606. E. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Fourth Gospel, 21947, 97.
607. I Peter, ad loc.

172
revealed', as a reference to the transfiguration, viewed (as G. H. Boobyer
608
has cogently argued) as an anticipated vision of the parousia. If so, the
veiled allusion, in contrast with the unmistakable reference in II Peter 1.16-
18, fits with the modesty of the author's whole approach in 5.1 ('I appeal to
you as a fellow-elder'), though scarcely with the pretensions of one falsely
claiming to be an apostle.
2. It is said that the Paulinism of the doctrine is incompatible with the
known position of Peter. This 'Paulinism' has in any case been much
exaggerated, when, as Selwyn says, 'we reflect that the Epistle is without
allusion to what are commonly regarded as the characteristic ideas of St Paul' -
and he lists justification; the contrast between faith and works, gospel and
law; the distinctive Pauline connotations of grace and sin, the atonement
609
and the body of Christ; and much in the ethical field.
For the rest he has persuasively demonstrated that the similarities reflect
610
the common stock of early Christian teaching and catechetical patterns.
In any case, apart from one regrettable but temporary lapse (Gal.2.11-14),
neither in the Pauline epistles (cf. especially Gal.2.6-10; I Cor.1.121.; 15.3-
11) nor in Acts (cf. especially 15.6-11, where Peter puts the Pauline case)
is the Petrine position regarded as fundamentally different from Paul's.
If Peter had read Romans (which if it was sent to Rome some eight years
before is more than likely) and indeed other Pauline epistles (as II Peter
3.15 at any rate says that he had), there is no reason why he should not
reflect the thinking of one who was on all the evidence the more creative
611
theologian.
But this is not to deny that he also had a theological position, particularly in
612
regard to the sufferings and death of Christ, distinctively his own -
whether or not we allow any weight to the significant connections between
613
I Peter and the Petrine speeches in Acts.
3. Finally, there is the vital question again of language. One objection over

608. G. H. Boobyer, St Mark and the Transfiguration Story, 1942; 'The Indebtedness of II
Peter to I Peter' in A. J. B. Higgins (cd.), New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T.
W. Manson, Manchester 1959,43. Cf. my Jesus and His Coming, 133.
609. I Peter, 20f. Similarly Kelly, Peter and Jude, 11-15; and earlier Bigg, Peter and Jude,
16-21; 52-67; Chase, HDB III, 788f.; Wand, Peter and Jude, 17-21.
610. I Peter, 365-466.
611. Cf. Zahn, INT 11, 175-7.
612. Cf. Cullmann, Peter, 65-9.
613. Cf. Wand, Peter and Jude, 26-8; Selwyn, I Peter, 33-6; and most recently S. S.
Smalley, "The Christology of Acts Again' in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (edd.), Christ and
Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge 1973, especially 84-
93. The parallels are certainly more substantial than those between James and Acts.

173
which time need not be spent is the fact that the Old Testament
quotations follow the LXX rather than the Hebrew text. For, naturally, if
a man is writing to Greek-speaking readers he follows 'their' Bible.
614
'Besides', as van Unnik observes from experience, 'a foreigner writing
in another language will usually stick to the standard translation for literal
quotations and not dare to change it to suit his own text.' Beare's
615
assumption, that there would be no occasion for Peter to have used the
Greek scriptures except in addressing Gentiles (and that late in life) is
astonishing. But, quotations apart, could Peter have written the Greek of I
Peter?
Again there is no way of saying dogmatically. Many of the issues are the
same as those already discussed in relation to James, though the Greek
of I Peter has perhaps a somewhat more 'classical' touch.
But against the possibility or at least the probability of this there are two
further arguments. The first is that, according to Acts 4.13, Peter and John
were described by the high priests as ἀγράµµατοι, though whether this
means 'illiterate' or more likely, as in the NEB, 'untrained' (in the Law)
cannot finally be determined. In any case, what struck the authorities was
what they were capable of despite this. The second is that according to
616
Papias
Peter had Mark as his 'interpreter' (ἑρµηνευτής), though again whether
617
this means 'translator' is uncertain. In any case, the purpose of the
quotation is to stress Mark's closeness to Peter, not to provide information
about Peter's linguistic abilities. It is noticeable that in none of Clement of
618
Alexandria's references to this tradition is this aspect mentioned: Peter
preaches 'publicly' in Rome (with no mention of an interpreter) and Mark
his follower 'remembers' and subsequently writes down what he said.
But even if at one stage Peter used a translator, this incident may come
from an earlier period. As we have seen, the only person to date it,
619
Eusebius, places it back in the reign of Claudius, and in his Chronicle
as early as 42. Whatever Peter's educational limitations immediately after
Pentecost, it is inconceivable that he can have exercised any kind of
leading ministry in Antioch or even Jerusalem, let alone in Rome, without
the use of Greek. Whether this means that he could or did write the good
Greek of I Peter is, naturally, another matter.

614. IDB III, 764.

615. I Peter, 26f.
616. Eusebius, HE 3. 39.15.
617. For Jerome (see n. 137 below) 'interpretes' meant amanuensis.
618. See above, pp. 108-10.
619. HE 2. 14.6- 15.1.

174
Suspension of judgment appears to be the only prudent course, and the
fact that eminent authorities can be found on both sides of the argument
suggests humility rather than dogmatism.
But, in contrast with the epistle of James, there is the ready way out (on
which many have seized) of an amanuensis or ghost-writer in the person
of Silvanus (5.13) - not, be it noted, Mark, who is mentioned in the next
verse and whom on the basis of Papias' tradition one would have
620
expected a pseudepigrapher to select. But the question is, What is the
meaning of διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ... ἒγραψα? Is Silvanus the carrier or the scribe
(and therefore by extension the writer) of the letter? It would be safe to say
that he is in any case envisaged as delivering the letter and is commended
to the churches for this purpose. But did he also write it at Peter's dictation
or behest?
On the analogy of the opening verses of I and II Thessalonians, one might
expect Silvanus to have shared in the address if he was part-author, or to
have added his own greeting, like Tertius in Rom. 16.22, if he was the
amanuensis, though obviously these parallels cannot be pressed. The
bearer of Romans is evidently Phoebe, who is similarly commended to the
congregation (16.1f.), and it is significant that the subscription added to
later manuscripts describes the epistle as ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Κορίνθου διὰ
Φοίβης. It was her activity, not that of Tertius, that the scribes thought was
properly described by the preposition διά. This is one of a number of
621
parallels given by Chase in a careful note on the subject which seems
to have been conspicuously ignored (or misinterpreted) by those who have
not agreed with its conclusion.
The only other example in the New Testament (also as it happens
associated with Silvanus) is in Acts 15.23 where γράφαντες διὰ χειρὸς
αὐτῶν must in the context (cf.15.22, 27) refer to the sending of the
apostolic letter, via Judas Barsabbas and Silas, and mean, as the NEB
rightly renders it, 'gave them the letter to deliver'.
The same applies to the Epistle of Polycarp 14, 'I write these things to
you by (per) Grescens, whom I commended to you recently and now
commend to you', and to the only unambiguous instance in the letters of
lgnatius: 'I write these things to you from Smyrna by the hand of (διά)
622
the Ephesians who are worthy of all felicitation' (Rom. 10.1).

620. Jerome, Epp.120.11, uses the same word 'interpretes' for the different amanuenses to
whom he attributed the diverse styles and vocabulary of I and II Peter. But he does not
mention Silvanus or Mark.
621. HDB III, 790.
622. For discussion of this and the other instances (Philad. 11.2; Smym.l2.1) see Chase.

175
On the other side only two parallels, as far as I know, have been cited.
623
One is the letter from Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans, where he
describes I Clement as having been written from the Roman church διὰ
Κλέµεντος. But this means not that Clement was the amanuensis of some
other author, but the representative of his church.
Similarly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 20 the church in Smyrna writes to
the church in Philomelium and elsewhere 'through our brother
Marcianus', and he is distinguished from Euarestus who 'wrote the letter'
and, like Tertius in this capacity, sends his own greeting. Marcianus again
is evidently the spokesman of the church and thus corresponds to Peter
rather than Silvanus: he is no one's secretary. So Kummel seems to be
right in saying that 'no one has yet proved that γράφω διά τινος can
624
mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing',
Until this can be shown, then to rely upon Silvanus as the real composer
625
of the Greek is extremely hazardous. It could be so. Yet Peter as the
author (as the very personal address of 5.1ff. would suggest) must really
be prepared to stand on his own feet. The doubts and difficulties will
remain, and it seems impossible that they could ever be finally resolved
either way. In the last resort I can only say that I find nothing decisive to
outweigh the many other considerations to suggest that, whoever actually
penned it, the epistle comes from Peter's lifetime and that he is in the
fullest sense 'behind' it. I see therefore no reason from the evidence of
the authorship to go back on the previous assessment of a date for the
dispatch of the letter somewhere around the end of April 65.
II PETER AND JUDE
Turning to II Peter, we move into a much more complex set of problems
and an area of the New Testament that from every point of view, including
that of chronology, is a good deal murkier. We cannot expect it to shed
much light on anything else; it is a question of what light other things can
shed on it. II Peter cannot be considered except in conjunction with the
epistle of Jude, with which, all would agree, it has a literary connection
of some kind. What that is, and what is the relationship between them
and I Peter, and whether either Jude or II Peter can sustain the claim to be
written by the persons in whose name they stand, raise acutely debated
issues which may not be burked.

623. Eusebius, HE 4.23.11.

624. INT, 424.
625. Selwyn's attempt, 1 Peter, 369-75, to show Silvanus to be the common literary factor
between I Peter, I and II Thessalonians, and the decree of Acts 15.29, cannot be said to
have succeeded. Cf. the telling criticisms of the whole 'Silvanus hypothesis' by Beare, I
Peter, 188-92.

176
But with dating as our primary concern it may be helpful to come at the
matter from a different angle from that which has led to the concentration
of the debate on the issue of pseudepigraphy.
Let us begin by leaving on one side for the time being the questions of
authorship and literary dependence and look at the documents for the
clues they afford which are relevant to placing them in 'period'.
I deliberately put it that way, because neither II Peter nor Jude contains
any positive indication of absolute dating.
It is a question of where they belong in relation to other comparable
literature, and more than usually therefore the arguments are in danger of
being circular. If this other literature itself is dated late, then these epistles
will follow; if early, then the same will be true. Yet II Peter has continued to
remain an exception to almost every chronological scheme; and
exceptions have value in proving a rule. If it is an exception, to what is it
an exception, and why?
In asking what these two documents may have to tell us about dating,
without prejudice to their interrelationship, we must begin with one or the
other. Since the majority of scholars give priority to Jude over II Peter, let
us start with the epistle of Jude, though keeping an open mind on the
question.
Jude follows James, whose brother he claims to be (and there is general
agreement that it is of this James that the claim is made), in calling himself
simply a 'servant of Jesus Christ' (1.1; cf. James 1.1, 'servant of God and the
Lord Jesus Christ') and in giving no other details either about himself or of
those with him, or of the place of origin or destination of the letter. In fact it
is even less informative.
While there are clues in James that point, as we saw, to a Palestinian
milieu, there is nothing in Jude that affords any hint of where the author is
living. And while James at least indicates that the destination of his epistle
is not a single locality, Jude appears to be addressing a particular group of
Christians but gives absolutely no indication of where they might be.
The one thing that is clear is the occasion of the epistle, which was of
sufficient urgency to make him turn aside from other more leisurely literary
activity:
My friends, I was fully engaged in writing to you about our salvation -
which is yours no less than ours - when it became urgently necessary to
write at once and appeal to you to join the struggle in defence of the
faith, the faith which God entrusted to his people once and for all. It is in
danger from certain persons who have wormed their way in (3f.).

177
The whole of the rest of the epistle, up to the notable doxology in 24f., is
given over to an attack on these anonymous persons, referred to
constantly as 'these men'. Almost all that can be said about them is
summarized in the opening description:
They are the enemies of religion (ἀσεβεῖς); they pervert the free favour
of our God into licentiousness (ἀσέλγειαν), disowning (ἀρνούµενοι)
Jesus Christ, our only Master and Lord (4).
Their menace, in other words, is religious, moral and doctrinal. It is also
clear from the terms in which they are condemned and the warnings given
from the past, that both they and the writer and presumably those to whom
he is writing belong to a dominantly, if not exclusively, Jewish-Christian
milieu within the Hellenistic world. Yet we are a long way from the
'primitive' atmosphere of the epistle of James, where no problems of
heresy or schism have seriously arisen. Here we are in a silver-age
situation, where reversion and perversion are the dangers and where
purity of doctrine and discipline are imperilled. It is evident too that the
menace arises from a sort of gnosticizing Judaism.
Like those in Corinth with whom Paul had to deal, these men 'draw a line
between spiritual and unspiritual persons', despising others as ψυχικοί
(19; cf. I Cor.2.6-3.4; 8.1-3). Like them too, they take liberty for licence (4;
cf. I Cor.6.12; 10.23) and end up slaves of sensuality (8, 10, 16, 23; cf. I
Cor.6.9-20; II Cor.12.21). Like them, they 'eat and drink without reverence'
at the Christian love-feast (12; cf. I Cor.11.17-43). Like them again, they
flout the authority of those set over them in the Lord (8, 12; cf. I Cor.4.8-
13; 9.1-12) and themselves claim leadership (cf. II Cor.11.13; 12.11). As
'shepherds who take care only of themselves' (12) they earn the
condemnation of Israel's self-styled leaders (cf. Ezek.34.8).
Yet though there are these reflections of the situation in Corinth in the mid-
50s, things are evidently far further gone. In Pauline terms, the parallels
are more with the Pastoral Epistles, where we have the same falling back
upon the authorized deposit of 'the faith' (3, 20; cf. I Tim.1.3; 4.6; II
Tim.1.13f.; 2.2; Titus 1.9) - though even this was for Paul by no means a
wholly new emphasis (cf. Rom. 6.17; 10.8; 16.17; I Cor.11.2; Gal.1.23;
6.10; Eph.4.5; Phil.1.27; I Thess.2.13; II Thess.2.15; 3.6).
The danger from false brethren who insinuate themselves (3), though
again not new (cf. Gal.2.4), is especially characteristic of the later
apostolic age (Acts 20.30; Phil.3.2; II Tim.3.6; I John 2.18f.; 4.1; II John
7f.; Rev.2.20f.; cf. Ignatius, Eph.7.1; 9.1); and they have to be dealt with
both firmly and with discrimination (22f.; cf. I Cor.5; II Thess.3.141.; I John
4.1-6; II John 7-11; and Did. 2.7; Ignatius, Smyrn.4.1).

178
Yet if we ask what precisely these heretics taught it is impossible to form
any clear impression. We read that they 'deny Jesus Christ, our only Master
and Lord' (4). But whether this was by faithlessness, like those referred to
in Heb.6.6 and 10.29 or II Tim. 2.12f. (cf. Titus 1.16; Rev.2.13), or by
doctrinal error, like those attacked in Col.2.8 and I John 2.22f. and 5.6-12,
or by dishonouring conduct, it is impossible to tell. But there is no
reference to theoretical speculation and nothing to suggest any of the
626
gnostic systems of the second century.
To infer from the phrases 'our only Master and Lord' (4) and 'the only God
our Saviour' (25) that they believed in other mediators or a second God or
626A
Demiurge is eisegesis rather than exegesis. Their threat seems to
have been far more moral and religious than theological.
If there is a parallel with other known sectarian groups it is not (as many
earlier commentators tended to argue without our present knowledge of
the gnostic texts) with the later forms of heresy listed by Irenaeus such as
627
the Carpocratians, but with those gnosticizing libertines attacked in the
letters to the seven churches of the Apocalypse who 'hold to the teaching of
Balaam' (Rev.2.14; cf. Jude 11) and 'pollute their clothing' with immorality
(Rev.3.4; cf. Jude 23).
There are no other distinctive characteristics of second-century
Christianity. There is no stress on the authority of the organized ministry,
or even reference to it (in marked contrast at this point with the Pastoral
Epistles), and the agape or love-feast still appears to be one with the
eucharistic assembly.
628
There are those who have found in Jude 5 a reference to the
destruction of Jerusalem: 'Let me remind you how the Lord, having once
delivered the people of Israel out of Egypt, next time destroyed those who were
guilty of unbelief.'
629
But the natural interpretation in the context is to refer this to the
destruction of faithless Israel in the wilderness, as in the closely parallel
warning of I Cor.10.5-10. Again, to interpret πάλαι προγεγραµµένοι in
630
Jude 4 of long past Christian writings is wholly arbitrary : it evidently
refers to the warnings that follow from 'scripture' (as the NEB rightly
translates).

626. Kummel, INT, 426, concurs. 626A. Personal interpretation of a text using your own ideas
627. for the differences here, cf. already Zahn, INT II, 292f.
628. E.g. Zahn, INT ll, 252-5.
629. So J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter, 1907, ad
loc.
630. Again with Zahn, INT, 251f.

179
The references in v. 9, apparently, to the Assumption of Moses and in v.
14, certainly, to I Enoch carry in themselves no implication for a late date,
since both these documents were in existence well before the middle
of the first century - though the free use made of them indicates that they
had not come under the later suspicion of apocrypha felt by the
631
church.
The only passage which suggests a post-apostolic situation is that in 17f.:
But you, my friends, should remember the predictions made by the
apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the warning they gave you:
'In the final age there will be men who pour scorn on religion, and
follow their own godless lusts.'
This could indeed imply that the apostolic age was now closed, but it
cannot be said that it necessarily does so. From one who makes no claim
to be an apostle (or indeed to kinship with Jesus, which later interest in the
632
person of Jude would surely have exploited), it could refer to the sort of
warnings of which the later apostolic age is full (Acts 20.29f; I Tim.4.1; II
Tim. 3.1-5; 4.3; I John 2.18f. - leaving out of account for the moment II
Peter 2.1-3; 3.3). The ἒλεγον ὑµῖν would most naturally refer to oral
teaching, as in the parallel warning of Phil. 3.18f.:
As I have often told you ἒλεγον ὑµῖν and now tell you with tears in my
eyes, there are many whose way of life makes them enemies of the cross
of Christ. They are heading for destruction, appetite is their god, and
they glory in their shame (cf.Rom.16.18).
But even if reference were to written warnings, none of these other
documents (leaving aside the Johannine epistles whose date we have yet
to consider), excludes a dating in the 60s. Indeed as a provisional
conclusion, on the scanty evidence of the epistle itself, I would concur with
633
the estimate of Chase:
The general tone of the Epistle harmonizes best with a date
somewhat late in the apostolic age. We shall not be far wrong if
we suppose that it was written within a year or two of the Pastoral
Epistles (assuming their genuineness), the Apocalypse (assuming
634
the earlier date), the First Epistle of St Peter, and the Epistle to
the Hebrews.

631. Cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. 4.

632. Cf. the story from Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius, HE 3.19f., whose point lies in this
link.
633. HDB II, 804.
634. I.e., a date from the Neronian rather than the Domitianic persecution. For a discussion
of this, cf. ch.viii below.

180
Beyond that we cannot go until we have taken into account the link with II
Peter, to which we must now turn.
II Peter affords as little direct information about its origin and destination
as Jude, and its occasion is less specific.
It purports to be From Simeon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ
share our faith and enjoy equal privilege with ourselves (1.1).
To the significance of 'Simeon Peter', in contrast with 'Peter' in I Peter
1.1, we must return. But on the face of it the form looks, or is intended to
look, both Jewish and primitive. 'Servant and apostle' brings together the
'servant' of James 1.1 and Jude 1 and the 'apostle' of I Peter 1.1, but in
itself is a typical apostolic greeting (Rom. 1.1; Titus 1.1) without
significance for dating. There are no indications, in contrast with I Peter, of
where the epistle was written to or from. The distinction implied in 'those
who... enjoy equal privilege with ourselves' appears to be between readers
and apostle, as in I John 1.3 ('so that you and we together may share in a
common life'), rather than between Jews and Gentiles, as in Acts 11.17;
Col. 1.25-9; Eph.2.11-3.6.
Indeed it is impossible to be certain whether the recipients are Jewish or
Gentile Christians, though (in contrast again with I Peter) the dominant
atmosphere (as in Jude) appears to be Jewish-Christian. In 2.20 the
words, 'They had once escaped the world's defilements through the knowledge
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ', have been taken to mean that the
converts (or is it the heretics?) have come from what the NEB
paraphrases in 2.18 as a 'heathen environment'.
But the language no more necessarily implies a Gentile origin than when
Paul says of his fellow-Jews in Eph.2.3, 'We too were of their number: we all
lived our lives in sensuality, and obeyed the promptings of our own instincts and
notions', or when the writer of I John speaks to his predominantly Jewish-
Christian readers of the evil world and its blandishments from which they
have passed.
The prevailing atmosphere, as in Jude, is still that of the Pastoral Epistles,
reflecting the same usage of πίστις and σωτήρ and εὐσέβια, with
particular stress on true insight and knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις)
(1.2f, 5f., 8; 2.20; 3.18), which characterizes not only the Pastorals (I
Tim.2.4; 6.20; II Tim.2.25; 3.7; Titus 1.1) but Colossians(1.9f; 2.2f.; 3.10)
and Ephesians(1.17; 3.19; 4.13) and, in verbs rather than nouns, the
Johannine epistles (passim but especially I John 2.2of.).
The epistle's most distinctive phrase in this regard is 'partakers of the divine
nature' (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως) in 1.4, but it has been shown that this,
181
like the whole so-called 'Asian' style in which II Peter is written, in no way
635
lies outside the range of first-century Hellenistic Judaism. Indeed, like
the language of τὸ πλήρωµα in Col. 1.19 and 2.19 or σπέρµα θεοῦ in I
636
John 3.9, it may well be being taken over and given Christian meaning.
In content it is not essentially different from the Christian's κοινωνία with
the Father and the Son and his transformation into the divine likeness
claimed by I John (1.3; 3.2). And this goal is achieved not, as in Platonism
and later gnosticism, by escaping from matter as evil, but by moral union,
having escaped (ἀποφυγόντες) from 'the corruption with which lust
has infected the world'. The dualism, as in the Johannine writings, is not
637
material and metaphysical but moral and eschatological.
The use of 'the world' is the same as that in John (e.g. I John 2.15-17)
and does not imply any depreciation of the flesh per se. In fact neither in
Jude nor in II Peter is there any sign of the ascetical denial of the flesh as
evil (in contrast to its indulgence as indifferent) such as we find in
638
Col.2.18f. and I Tim.4.3f., or of the docetic denial of matter as unreal of
the Johannine epistles (I John 4.2; II John 7).
In this again the persons attacked in II Peter as in Jude stand nearer to the
libertines of Corinth: they promise freedom but the result is sensual
slavery (2.19f.). In fact apart from their questioning of the parousia (3.4;
cf.1.16), there is nothing that suggests that the heretics in II Peter were
any different from those in Jude or more 'advanced' in their teaching. The
'artfully spun tales' (µήθοι) abjured in 1.16 recall the 'myths' attacked in
I Tim.1.4; 4.7; II Tim.4.4; and Titus 1.14, which are linked with an interest
in genealogies and angelology, and in the last passage specifically called
'Jewish'.
635. Cf. e.g. Philo and Josephus and in particular the Decree of Stratonicea in Caria to the
honour of Zeus and Hecate, dated AD 22 (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum II, 2715). For
the references and discussion, cf. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, ET Edinburgh 1901, 360-8;
Mayor, Jude and II Peter, cxxvii-cxxx and ad loc; E. M. B. Green, II Peter Reconsidered,
1961, 23; II Peter and Jude, 1968, 16-19; Reicke, James, Peter and Jude, 146f., 184;
Kelly, Peter and Jude, ad loc.
636. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 304, quotes C. H. Dodd's comment, The Johannine Epistles,
1946, on I John3.2, that the writer 'is naturalizing within Christian theology a widely diffused
mystical tradition'.
637. This point is made strongly and correctly by Green, II Peter Reconsidered, 14-21 and
II Peter and Jude, 24f., against Kasemann, 'An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology',
Essays in New Testament Themes, 169-95, and especially such a remark as: 'It would be
hard to find in the whole New Testament a sentence which, in its expression, its individual
motifs and its whole trend, more clearly marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic
dualism' (179f.).
638. How near the two apparently opposite extremes are is illustrated by the story Eusebius,
HE 3.29, quotes from Clement of Alexandria about the founder of the Nicolaitans, who
offered his young and lovely wife to others 'to renounce his passion': 'It was self-control ...
that taught him to say "abuse the flesh" .'

182
As in Jude, we are in the sphere of a gnosticizing Judaism, countered
by warning examples from Israel's history (2.1-16). We are not dealing
with the developed systems of second-century Christian heresies.
639
Summing up the teaching common to both epistles, Zahn concluded:
While there were numerous parties and sects representing libertinistic
theories and practices in the second and third centuries, there is none
that so closely resembles the seducers described in II Peter and Jude as
the libertinistic movement with which we become acquainted in I
Corinthians, and as the Nicolaitans of whom we learn hints in
640
Revelation.
So far then there would be nothing to cause us to date II Peter any later
than Jude. It is, however, in the distinctive material of the epistle,
particularly in three passages, 1.12-18; 3.1-4; and 3.15f., that the doubts
641
arise.
1. Taken at its face value, the first passage actually contains nothing that
would in itself require us to put the writing after the death of Peter. Yet it is
the passage which has given greatest ground for suspicion that a forger is
at work, inserting biographical detail for the sake of specious
verisimilitude*. Whether or not he is doing so cannot be decided except in
relation to the whole question of authorship and pseudepigraphy from
which at the moment we are prescinding. But let us examine the details
without prejudgment.
I will not hesitate to remind you of this again and again, although you
know it and are well grounded in the truth that has already reached you.
Yet I think it right to keep refreshing your memory so long as I still lodge
in this body. I know that very soon I must leave it; indeed our Lord Jesus
Christ has told me so. But I will see to it that after I am gone you will
have means of remembering these things at all times.
It was not on tales artfully spun that we relied when we told you of the
power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming; we saw him with our
own eyes in majesty, when at the hands of God the Father he was

639. INT II, 283.

640. Rev.2.6, 15. They are evidently closely associated with those who hold to the teaching
of Balaam (2.14; cf. II Peter 2.15f.; Jude 11) and with others who falsely claim both to be
Jews (2.9; 3.9) and to be apostles of the church (2.2; cf. Jude 12).
641. This point is made strongly and correctly by Green, II Peter Reconsidered, 14-21, and
II Peter and Jude, 24f., against Kasemann, 'An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology',
Essays on New Testament Themes, 169-95, and especially such a remark as: 'It would be
hard to find in the whole New Testament a sentence which, in its expression, its individual
motifs and its whole trend, more clearly marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic
dualism' (179f.). * something that appears to be true

183
 invested with honour and glory, and there came to him from the sublime
Presence a voice which said: 'This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my
favour rests'. This voice from heaven we ourselves heard; when it came,
we were with him on the sacred mountain (1.12-18).
Peter (it would be otiose to keep putting the name in inverted commas -
any more than Jude or John) here uses the metaphor of the body as a tent
(already found in Wisd.9.15 and Philo, and of course widely in pagan
literature) which Paul uses in II Cor.5.1-4, and, like Paul, he combines it
with that of taking off clothes. In his case, he knows, this putting off is to be
ταχινή (swift), which could be interpreted to mean either 'soon' or
'sudden'.
642
Zahn argued strongly that it here refers to a sudden end, and this is
supported by the only other occurrence of the word in the epistle (2.1) and
indeed in the New Testament. The intimation upon which it is based, 'as
our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me', appears (whether factually or
fictionally) to be that alluded to in John 21.18f., where Jesus foretells that
Peter will die an unchosen death when he has grown old (ὃταν γηράσης).
By the seventh decade of the century this latter condition could already be
said to obtain, but the concern to leave a record of his teaching behind him
might be prompted by the expectation of an unprepared as much as by
that of an imminent death.
All we can say is that these are the words of a man for whom death is
much in mind, and this would fit the 60’s as the period when they were
either written or supposed to be written.
What he had in mind to leave, so that 'after I am gone you will have means
of remembering these things', is equally unclear.
643
Some have seen in this a reference to St Mark's gospel (and the origin
of the Papias legend). But the gospel of Mark can hardly be described as
a reminder of 'these things', that is, the teaching of the present epistle (cf.
1.12). It would appear too to demand a writing by Peter (as the later
pseudepigrapha like the Preaching of Peter and the Gospel of Peter
644
supplied). Kelly thinks that 'almost certainly the reference is to the
epistle itself, though he admits that the future, σπουδάσω (according to the
most probable reading), is difficult.
It would naturally suggest a further document. For our purposes we may
be content to suspend judgment, noting only that if a forger is at work he
has laid some very elusive clues.

642. INT II, 212-14.

643. E.g. Bigg, Peter and Jude, ad loc.; Mayor, Jude and II Peter, cxlii and ad loc.
644. Peter and Jude, 315.

184
In the descriptive passage that follows, the transfiguration is regarded as
an anticipation and pledge of the parousia, in the way that we argued it
was, far less explicitly, in I Peter 5.1. It has also been said that the word
ἐπόπται, eyewitnesses, echoes the ἐποπταύοντες of I Peter 2.12 and 3.2;
but this is very doubtful, since there it simply refers to pagans 'observing'
the conduct of Christians.
If the word has any overtones, it is more likely to take up the language of
the mysteries and the claims of the heretics that in their visions (cf. the
dreams or trances of Jude 8) they had direct experience of the deep things
of God (cf. Rev. 2.24). But its immediate reference is to apostolic
eyewitness, to which I John 1.1-3 also appeals in similar circumstances. It
is generally accepted that the wording of the account of the transfiguration
is independent of any of our gospel texts.
The omission of the injunction 'hear him', common to them all, and of any
reference to Moses and Elijah or to the three tents (σκηναί), which one
would have thought irresistible after the σκηνώµατος of 1.14, tells heavily
against the use of the synoptists by a later hand. The only other touch,
'the holy mountain', which is said to betray veneration of the sacred site
(for which there is in fact no evidence till much later), is hardly decisive for
dating. As regularly with Zion or Sinai in the Old Testament, any mountain
with which theophany is associated is for the Jew 'holy'.
The really significant parallel for daring purposes is that with the
645
Apocalypse of Peter. This document is usually put in the first half of the
second century, perhaps c. 135. It is quite palpably dependent on the
646
synoptic gospels, particularly Matthew.
This is true too of its section on the transfiguration (15-17), which includes
a highly elaborated account of the vision of the appearances of Moses and
Elijah and quotes Peter's comment verbatim from the version in
Matt.17.4: 'My Lord, wilt thou that I make here three tabernacles, one for thee,
one for Moses and one for Elias?'. By contrast its only verbal contact with
the account in II Peter is the reference (and that in the Ethiopic version
only) to 'the holy mountain'.
If there is dependence either way, it seems quite clear that the Apocalypse