SUMMARY OF THE PRECEDING RESULTS. A.D. 29. 18 Mar. The Passion. 8 May. Pentecost. Dec. or Jan. A.D. 30. Martyrdom of S. Stephen. 44. Passover. Imprisonment of S. Peter, preceded by the martyrdom Pentecost. Mission of Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles. 45. Autumn? Barnabas and Paul at Antioch. S. Peter, Gal. ii. 47. End (or 48 begin.) Council at Jerusalem. 48. Spring. S. Paul's second circuit in Asia: first in Galatia. 49. Spring. S. Paul called into Macedonia: residence of some weeks at Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroa, Athens. Jews expelled from Rome early in this year: 20,000 Jews lose their lives at the Passover. S. Paul at Corinth, about Midsummer. A. D. 50, end or 51 beg. S. Paul before Gallio. 51. Passover or Pentecost. S. Paul at Jerusalem: short stay at Antioch: third tour in Asia. 51, end or 52 beg. S. Paul at Ephesus. 54. Passover. S. Paul sends Timothy and Erastus before to Macedonia and Corinth: remains at Ephesus until Pentecost. Up roar of the artizans. Departure from Ephesus, tour through Macedonia, all the summer. 54. end. S. Paul winters at Corinth, three months: journeys overland to Philippi: 55. Passover at Troas. Pentecost: at Jerusalem. Autumn: voyage to Rome. Winter: in Malta. 56. Spring. Arrival at Rome. 58. End of the two years noted by S. Luke. SECTION II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES AND I. THE EPISTLES OF S. PAUL. (1.) THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. § 121. THE first recorded visit of S. Paul to Galatia occurred during the second circuit. If this was really the first visit, the Epistle to the Galatians cannot be placed earlier than A.D. 48. It is remarkable however, that this epistle contains no allusion to the decrees of the council: whence some have inferred that it was written before the council was held, i. e. in the heat of the disputes at Antioch which gave occasion to the council. The epistle, it is said, is addressed not exclusively to the churches of Galatia properly so called, which is first mentioned in S. Paul's history at Acts xvi. 6, but to Galatians in a wider sense of the term, which includes, according to Ptolemy v. 3, nearly the whole of Phrygia, Pisidia and Lycaonia. But Ptolemy's definition must surely be intended, not for Galatia as such, but for the territory subject to the kings or tetrarchs of Galatia. The last of these, Amyntas, who died A.D. 26, possessed proper Galatia and Pisidia with some districts of Lycaonia and Pamphylia, Dion. Cass. xlix. 32. Strabo, xii. 569. After his death, Galatia with Lycaonia formed one province, Dion. Cass. liii. 26, and this seems to have continued down to the time of Galba, when Galatia was united with Paphlagonia, Tacit. Hist. ii. 9. 1. Now since S. Luke and all contemporary writers (e. g. Plin. H.N. v. 25.) clearly distinguish Lycaonia and Pisidia from Galatia, it is very unlikely that S. Paul would address the churches of the two former regions under the name Galata. Were it necessary to suppose the epistle written before the second circuit in Asia, it were far less improbable to assume that the Galatæ of this epistle were converted while Paul and Barnabas preached in the περίχωρος Λύστρας καὶ Dépẞns, Acts xiv. 6, 7.—And doubtless the supposition that the Galatian churches were founded during the first circuit has this circumstance in its favour, that Barnabas is spoken of in this epistle as well known to the Galatians: for Barnabas was not with Paul on the second circuit. But the Apostle's silence on the subject of the decrees, is not hard to account for. He breaks off, from the tone of narrative, into expostulation and reproof, just where the next thing to be mentioned, after the notice of Peter's dissimulation, was the settling of the matter in controversy by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. (ii. 15, or iii. 1.) With respect to their knowledge of Barnabas, they may have had it in some other way: e.g. he may have visited them in the interval between S. Paul's first preaching and the epistle. On the whole, it must be admitted, I think, that the matter is doubtful; and I should content myself with saying, that the epistle was written at some time between A.D. 47, before the council, and A.D. 51. (S. Paul's third tour in Asia). Nor indeed do I see what objection could be conclusively urged against the view taken by Neander, Pfla. u. Leit. i. 291. viz. that it was written during the apostle's residence at Ephesus after the third tour in Asia. Mr. Greswell, I perceive, takes the same view, iv. 173. ff. but upon grounds which appear to me unsatisfactory'. (2.) THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. § 122. It is evident that the first epistle was written after S. Paul's stay at Athens, iii. 1, and after his arrival in Achaia, i. 7, 8, therefore some time in the year 49. The se cond epistle, having been written to obviate a misconception The point is not of sufficient importance for an examination of the arguments: but I may remark, that the argument derived from τὸ πρότερον, Gal. iv. 13, as if it must needs mean the former of two occasions, both of which were past, "and consequently must distinctly imply that he had been twice in Galatia, but neither more nor less than twice, before he wrote the epistle," is very weak. Πρότερος of course means the earlier of two, but whether both are past, or one present or in contemplation, the context must determine: and Tò Tрórepov here, as in innumerable other passages, is simply тò 'πpiv, "aforetime" (for the N. T. see Joh. vi. 62. ix. 8.) occasioned by the first, may be assigned to the same period, namely, to the year 49 or 50, before S. Paul's departure from Corinth. (Comp. supra § 118.) (3.) THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS'. $123. THIS epistle was written from Ephesus, (xvi. 8) where, at the time of writing, S. Paul purposed to tarry until Pentecost. 2 It is inferred from 1 Cor. v. 9, by most modern commentators, since Calvin, and by all recent German critics, that S. Paul had written an earlier epistle, which is now lost. So far as the article is concerned, the epistle spoken of may be that which the apostle was then writing: this is manifest from Rom. xvi. 22. Col. iv. 16. 1 Thess. v. 27. 2 Thess. iii. 14. There is nothing parallel to our passage in 2 Cor. vii. 7. (which is quoted as decisive), inasmuch as the context of that passage plainly shews that a former, not the present, letter is the subject of discourse. Neither does eypaya make any difficulty. It belongs to the epistolary style that the aorist of this verb is often used in reference to something immediately preceding, not instead of yéγραφα οι γράφω, by an “enallage of tenses," as the grammarians and critics of a former generation used to speak, but where one or other of those tenses might have been used with equal propriety. Of this we have clear instances in ix. 15. of this epistle, οὐκ ἔγραψα ταῦτα, referring to vv. 4-14. Philem. v. 19. ¿yw IIaûλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω, referring to v. 18. so ib. 21. Gal. vi. 11. Rom. xv. 15. 1 Pet. v. 12. 1 Joh. ii. 21. 26. v. 13. So in our passage eypaya may refer to the verses immediately preceding, 1-8. Not adverting to this very common use of the aorist, some critics have imagined that the thrice repeated eypaya in 1 Joh. ii. 13, 14. refers to an earlier writing of the apostle; to a lost epistle (Michaelis, Anmerk. in 1.) or to his gospel (Lange): others again have confounded it with Ypapw, thus obliterating the evidentlystudied emphasis of the passage: in fact, eypaya refers to the preceding context i. 5-ii. 11, as ypápw does to the subsequent context ii. 15-iii. 22. (See Lücke's ingenious and beautiful exposition of this passage). But, it is objected, év Tý ĚTLOToλn is "strangely superfluous" (Meyer in 1.) if the reference be to the verses immediately preceding. Not at all, if the apostle meant to intimate that the precept was delivered in this very epistle. If it had been "I wrote to you to separate from among you him that hath done this thing," the addition might have been superfluous for no one would fail to perceive that he was carrying on the subject on which he had begun to touch. On the other hand, if it had been, "I wrote to you not to keep company, &c." the readers might have asked, When? in some former, or in the present letter? What precedes is an injunction concerning an individual case: after a brief digression, he resumes the subject; and as the thought which he was about to express shaped itself in his mind in the form of a general rule, he might very naturally and not at all unnecessarily knit the general rule about to be enunciated to the specific direction just before given, by premising ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ: q. d. Ye see by this present letter-in that I have enjoined you to separate the evil-doer from among you that I enjoin you to The allusions to the paschal solemnity, v. 7, 8, imply that it was written about the time of the passover, but rather before than after it.-Apollos had been at Corinth, iii. 4, but was returned to Ephesus, xvi. 12.-Timothy was absent on a mission into Greece and was to be expected at Corinth. Now when S. Paul arrived at Ephesus, Apollos was at Corinth, xix. 1: i. e. in the beginning of A. D. 52. This epistle then was certainly not written before the second year of the residence at Ephesus, (A. D. 53.) And it follows from the mention of Timothy that it was written in the third year (A.D. 54.): for Acts xix. 22. ff. "Paul" (towards the close of his residence) "purposed when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem: so he sent into Macedonia Timothy and Erastus, but himself abode in Asia for a season."-We may therefore reasonably assign as the date of this epistle, the passover-time of A.D. 541. (4.) THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. $124. Ar the writing of this epistle, the Apostle had left Ephesus, i. 8, and had arrived in Macedonia by way of Troas, ii. 12, 13; vii. 5; viii. 1; ix. 2. Titus, whom he had sent before (perhaps as the bearer of the first epistle) and expected to meet at Troas, joined him in Macedonia, and brought intelligence of the wholsome effect produced by the former epistle. He writes to prepare the Corinthians for a second visit (xiii. 10), which took place that 2 have no company with fornicators.-The sense by this addition would become equivalent to this: Ταῦτα ἔγραψα, μη θέλων ὑμᾶς συναναμ. πόρνοις.—This passage therefore is inconclusive: it may refer, no doubt, to an earlier communication, but it admits, so far as the words go, of being referred to the very letter which the Apostle was then writing. The subscription in the Vulgate text, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων, was probably derived from xvi. 5, Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέρχομαι. Cod. Β. has εγράφη ἀπὸ Εφέσου. 2 Erasmus, Baronius, Mill, and many others of the elder commentators, infer from passages of this epistle that S. Paul had been already twice at Corinth before it was written: and this is the view of all the recent and contemporary German writers whom I have consulted. Paley, in his Hore Paulina (2 Cor. No xi.), treats this view as if it rested only on one passage (xiii. 1), and as if it required the epistle to be placed after the second of the two visits recorded |