Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

INTEODUCTION. 15
The second of the above-mentioned hypothesis, which places the
apostle's journey to Macedonia, and the writing of the epistle, in the
period of his from two to three years' stay in Ephesus, and in particular
towards the end of this period, has most in its favour in the merely
external historical data. This is Wieseler's view, and he has developed
and defended it with great acuteness. With him agree
Mosheim and Schrader, so far as to place the journey in question
during the apostle's stay at Ephesus ; but the form which they have
given to this hypothesis is altogether untenable, in proof of which
we would here, for the sake of brevity, refer to what Wieseler has
said against it, p. 295, seq. His own view is as follows (comp. p,
316). " The first Epistle to Timothy was written by Paul, certainly
during his three years' stay at Ephesus (Acts xix.), previous to the
writing of the epistle to the Corinthians, which has not been preserved,
and the existing first epistle,—on the occasion of an intermediate
journey not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, either in
Macedonia or Achaia, in the years 54-57, most probably, however,
in the last year of his stay at Ephesus, a.d. 56." To this view it
has been objected, as appears to me justly, by Huther : 1. That
even were it admitted that the apostle had made a second journey
to Corinth during the period of his stay in Ephesus, it would still
be very doubtful that he was in Corinth shortly before the writing
of the first Epistle to Corinthians, as he could then have had no occasion
for writing ; which (referring to what has already been said
in the Introduction to the Epistle to Titus) I would rather express
thus—that the absence of all allusions to this visit in the epistle
written shortly after, is strange. 2. Huther observes, that in spite
of the safe position attempted to be taken by Wieseler, Acts xx. 29,
80, is still opposed to his view, inasmuch as there the error is spoken
of as something altogether future. Wieseler's assertion that elg
vfiac; in that passage refers only to the presbyters, while the error
was already present in the church, contradicts the context vers. 28
and 29, and is in itself scarcely conceivable : the apostle must have
in this case expressed himself quite differently. (Comp. Titus i. 9,
seq.) "And surely," says Huther justly, "Paul would not have
passed over the existence of such errors in Ephesus without notice,
if he knew the danger with which the church was threatened to be
so great that he had thought it necessary before this, to give Timothy
such earnest instructions with respect to these errors." The danger
which threatened the future is represented as the progressive development
of present appearances (Acts xx. 29 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1, seq.).
It is therefore strange that the Epistle to the Ephesians, which, according
to Wieseler, was intended for Ephesus, contains no trace of
the errors mentioned in our epistle. 3. Huther observes, that the
entire character of the epistle does not correspond to the view that