move abruptly. It is much safer to take each upon its own merits as a living product of Paul's mood and duty at the time being, than to view them as documents which, for reasons of style and matter, are to be plausibly but unnaturally classified in certain groups. The main positive evidence for the later date of Philippians is drawn from the length of time required for the relations which the letter presupposes as existing between Paul and the Philippian church. They learn of Paul's arrival, send him funds by Epaphroditus, and hear of the latter's illness. Epaphroditus further is informed of their anxiety, which naturally implies that he had somehow received definite news from Philippi. All this requires a considerable time, and cannot be crushed into a few months. Further, the developed state of Christianity in the capital, with its propaganda and controversies, is an effect which is distinctly traced by Paul (112-14) as in part due to the stimulus of his presence there, and cannot be wholly set down to the previous exertions of the local Christians. The importance and extension of the church, as these are represented in Philippians, demand a space of time dating from the hour of Paul's entrance into the city, and thus involve a considerable retrospect. On the more difficult evidence drawn from the letter with regard to the particular stage of the trial at which Paul wrote, see the recent examination by R. R. Smith, The Epistle of St. Paul's First Trial (1899), where the epistle is placed at a somewhat advanced point in the legal process, but previously to the verdict. 1 This place of Philippians in the series has been disputed by Lightfoot ("Philippians," pp. 30-46), Farrar (St. Paul, ch. xlvi.), Hatch (article" Philippians," EB), and Hort ("Jud. Christianity," pp. 115-129; "Romans and Ephesians," p. 102). These, with some other critics (including Renan), put it earliest, partly on the ground of its coincidences with Romans, partly because the ideas of the church and of Christ's person in Col.-Ephes. are considered to mark a further stage of theological development. The former of these arguments has no more weight here than in regard to the similar question of the relationship between Galatians and Romans, and the latter epistle has equal affinities with Col.-Ephes. The latter argument is inconclusive. In Col.Ephes. a distinct advance in theology is patent. Philippians does not carry the theology to any higher expression, but this fact does not imply that the latter epistle must have preceded the former. It is a priori criticism to expect a graded development of thought in one epistle after another, instead of a mobile, versatile personality. The different tone of Philippians is perfectly credible when the change in Paul's situation is taken into account, along with the specially private relation to Philippi (225 418) which occupied his mind at the moment. Colossians is certainly to be placed before Ephesians (when the lastnamed is taken as genuine), though priority here carries with it very little significance. Both letters were written about the same time, and reflect essentially the same temper of mind; but Ephesians, as the wider expanded and less particular treatment of the topics, is more naturally understood as a subsequent writing. Upon any theory of its relation to Colossians, it presupposes that more concrete epistle. 2 1 So still Burton (RLA, 1895), Spitta (Urc, i. p. 34), Trenkle (Einl. pp. 49, 50), and Dr. Lock (DB, i. pp. 718, 719, article "Ephesians "). "On comprend qu'un catéchisme général puisse être tiré d'une lettre particulière, mais non qu'une lettre particulière puisse être tirée d'un catéchisme général " (Renan); Godet (INT, i. pp. 490-492) emphatically agrees. The note to Philemon falls with the Colossian letter. Apart from this connection there is no evidence forthcoming for its date. Jülicher, hesitating upon Ephesians, puts Philemon close to Philippians, i.e. 62-64 A.D. Weizsäcker, on the other hand, persists in considering it, with Colossians, as an allegorical product of the second century (AA, ii. pp. 245, 383), and Steck (JpTh (1891), p. 571 f.) finds it is an imitation of Pliny's ninth epistle, written between 125 and 150 A.D. But this theory of Philemon has been finally superseded by the recent verdict in favour of Colossians, and cannot be regarded as seaworthy. To the period of Paul's imprisonment under Felix at Caesarea, some of the Asiatic epistles have been occasionally assigned: Colossians +Philemon+Ephesians (by Meyer, Laurent, Hilgenfeld, Sabatier, pp. 225249, Reuss, and Weiss 1), Colossians + Philippians (part) + Philemon by Clemen, Chron. p. 249 f.), Philippians (by O. Holtzmann, ThLz (1890), p. 177; Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte (1895), pp. 133-134; Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 281; Urc. i. 34; and Macpherson, Ephesians, pp. 86-94). The difficulties of such hypotheses, however, have been rightly felt by the majority of scholars to be insuperable. The few indications which seem to refer to Caesarea are capable of being explained, without undue forcing, upon the usual Roman theory; and Rome gives a more satisfactory background 2 for the total phenomena of the letters. Negative and positive evidence alike point to the capital as the locus of the prison - letters. From Rome Paul wrote, in all likelihood, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, certainly Philippians. He may have taught in Rome, but he wrote for Asia Minor. B. Their Dates. Apart from the internal evidence, which is discussed in the respective editions and Introductions, the chronology of the epistles depends upon the chronology of the apostolic age, a matter which naturally did not specially interest that age itself, and is but obscurely reflected in the later sources. Here we have a question of considerable difficulty, involving the discussion of some half-dozen separate problems in Roman and Palestinian history which bear more or less upon the main issue, i.e. the rule of Aretas-the Nabataean monarch-in Damascus, the exact date of the famine in Claudius' reign, his interference with the Roman Jews, the period of Gallio's proconsulship in Achaia, the precise date of Felix's departure and Festus' arrival in Judaea; and finally the limits of the Neronic persecution. These events touch here and there the biography of Paul and the history of the early church. But while they might be expected to yield several fixed points in the chronology, the misfortune actually is that they themselves are not absolutely fixed. Even the most crucial point of all-the date of the change in the procuratorship— 1 So recently Haupt (-Meyer). But all the probabilities favour the Roman origin of Philemon (ep. recently Bernard, DB, iii. p. 833). Paul was far more accessible to outsiders in Rome than in Caesarea, and runaway slaves naturally took refuge amid the crowds of the metropolis (Sallust, Catil. 375; Tacit. Annal. 1516). And Philemon is contemporary with the others. Surely, too, had Col.-Ephes. been written at Caesarea, some mention of Paul's friend Philip (Ac 218-14) would have occurred among the list of his helpers and companions. 2 Philippians must be decisively placed in the Roman captivity, when 113 and 422 to say nothing of other passages-are fairly read. The past extent of his influence, his present situation, and his prospects, imperatively demand Rome as the place where this letter was written (vide Hort, "Rom. Ephes." p. 100 f.). lies in dispute. On one reckoning, that of the "accepted" chronology, the recall of Felix falls into the period 59-61 A.D.; on the other, that of the "new" or "Eusebian" chronology, it is usually thrown back to 55 1 or 56. Broadly speaking, we may say that a range of four or five years is thus possible for any of the chief dates in the life of Paul which depend upon conclusions drawn from this event. In the accompanying table the outstanding events of Paul's life are arranged according to the various schemes of several prominent authorities. Of these, the majority, it will be seen (in the main, apart from questions of detail), represent the "accepted chronology " upon the whole. Harnack and McGiffert, on the other hand, base their schemes on data taken from the "Eusebian" chronicle, which practically puts the arrival of Festus in the year Oct. 55-Oct. 56 A.D. This position has been advocated by (among others) O. Holtzmann (Neutestam. Zeitgesch. pp. 118-135), favoured by Blass (Acta Apostolorum, proleg. § 10, pp. 21-24), and criticised more or less adversely by Batiffol (Revue biblique, vi. pp. 423-432), Ramsay (Exp. v. p. 201 f.), Bacon (ibid. February 1898, Nov.-Dec. 1899), and Zahn (Einl. ii. pp. 628-639). 5 The accepted chronology is stated 2 admirably by Schürer (HJP. I. ii. p. 182 f.; ZwTh (1898), pp. 21-42), Sabatier ("Paul" (Eng. tr.), pp. 13-21), Beet (Corinthians, Dissertation iii.), or Wendt (-Meyer, Acts, $10). Mr. Turner's study (DB. i. 415 f.) is by far the most lucid and trustworthy discussion of the whole question which has yet appeared, and to it the reader is referred for the detailed evidence and arguments; although exception might be taken-as I find has been done by Professor Bacon (Exp. ii. p. 9 f.)—to the inadequate importance assigned in that article to Jewish authorities and evidence, e.g. upon the calendar. 6 The results upon which the tentative chronology of this volume is based, as compared with those of the earlier or Eusebian chronology,3 start from the crucifixion of Jesus in 29 A.D. The conversion of Paul can be approximately dated a year or so later. The narrative of 1 Co 153 certainly implies no long period between the earlier and later appearances of Jesus in the series, while upon the other hand some interval must be allowed between the death of Christ and Paul's visit to Damascus in order to admit of a sufficient development of Christianity. Hence the date of his conversion may be put roughly as 30 (31) A.D. To date it in the same year as the crucifixion is as unsatisfactory as to place it four or five year afterwards. Later on, a fixed point is gained in the accession of Festus, c. 59 A.D., which helps to determine some of the preceding and subsequent dates in Pauline chronology. With the close of Paul's imprisonment for two years in Rome, the curtain falls upon his life. Any reconstruction of his further career depends largely 1 E.g., by Weber in his monograph, Kritische Geschichte d. Exegese d. IX. Kap. d. Römerbriefs (1889), p. 177 f. A good conspectus of the whole question is given by Votaw (Bibl. World, xi. pp. 112 f., 177 f.). In a recent and careful monograph, which exposes blunders in Eusebius — "Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus u. Petrus" (TU, neue Folge, vierter Band, Heft 1, 1899)-C. Erbes fixes the arrival of Festus in Palestine and the journey of Paul to Rome, 60-61 A.D.; the apostle lost his case, and died on the 22nd of Feb. 63 A.D. Peter suffered a year later. Cp. Zahn (Einl. i. p. 435 f., ii. p. 16 f.) for a long defence of the traditional dates of Peter's and of Paul's martyrdom. 3 Besides one or two older scholars like Bengel, the adherents of this position include a Roman Catholic critic, Kellner, who is quoted in support of the Eusebian data (article "Felix" in Hergenrother's Kirchenlexicon, 2nd ed. iv. p. 1311 f.; Katholik (1887), p. 146 f.; Zeitschr. f. kath. Theologie (1888), p. 640 f.). Arrest in Jerus., Death of Paul,. 64 66-67 0. Holtzmann, Zahn, Einl. ii. pp. Von Soden, EBi, i. 799-819. pp. 67-91: 54-58 58 58-59 61 61-62 64 64 larly Laurent, 13f. The Professor E. re |