Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

254 INTRODUCTION.
lodgings points to a speedy coming, wLere could he have anticipated
this in Ce.sarea ? Meyer, indeed, states that Paul could have conceived
the idea" of coming to Asia quite as easily in Cesarea as in
Rome, and even more so, as he might hope to take Asia in his way
in his journey to and from Cesarea to Rome. And if, asks Meyer,
we know from Phil. ii. 24, that he wished from Rome to retread the
scene of his former labours^ why not also from Cesarea ? But it
must assuredly be conceded that the length of time is an important
element in the matter, and the change of the purpose intimated in
Acts XX. 25, finds a much more natural explanation, if the Roman
imprisonment with all its vicissitudes had intervened between that
intimation and the announcement of his return. The conversion
of Onesimus also accords better with his position at Rome than
at Cesarea.—There is absolutely no stringent ground in our epistle
for departing from the ancient tradition which assigns these epistles
collectively to Rome. And that this cannot be separated from the
others is indisputable. For it is brought into inseparable connexion
with the Epistle to the Colossians by Col. iv. 7-9, in which Onesimus
appears as the companion of Tychicus ; by the identity of
Paul's entire condition ; and especially by the identity of the friends
•who in each epistle surround him ; while again their contents,
their common bearer Tychicus, and the like situation of the apostle
in both, evince an equally close relation between the Epistles to the
Colossians and the Ephesians. We thus abide by our view expressed
in the Introduction to the Philippians, in regard to the date
of the composition of these epistles, and in particular to that before
us. We cannot, l^wever, fix the dates with more precision than we
have there done.
The genuineness of this epistle has not been called in question
either within or without the church ; for Jerome's notice of some
who denied its apostolic validity from its failure in matter of doctrinal
edification, we need scarcely mention. Its genuineness is attested
by the canon in Muratori, by that of Marcion, by Tertullian,
and others after him. Dr. Baur is the first, who after denying
the genuineness collectively of the other epistles which date from
them primarily on
the Roman imprisonment, has classed this with
account of its historical relation to them. Tiic fate of our epistle
then is bound up with that of those. Still Baur recognizes the propriety
of the claim that if not the probability, at least the possibility
of its non-apostolic origin is made out from the ej)istle itself.
Such a possibility he finds partly in the language, and still more in
the contents of the epistle. " The objections on the score of language,"
remarks De Wettc, " have but sliglit significancy." Nay,
they could not even, in most cases, have been made by Baur, unless
he had assumed in advance the spuriousness of the other epistles