¹ Knox, J., “‘Fourteen Years Later:’ A Note on the Pauline Chronology,” Journal of Religion, XVI (1936), 341–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Pauline Chronology,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LVIII (1939), 15–29Google Scholar; Riddle, D. W., Paul, , Man of Conflict (Nashville, 1940)Google Scholar; Minear, P. S., “The Jerusalem Fund and Pauline Chronology,” Anglican Theological Review, XXV (1943), 389–96Google Scholar.

² Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (New York, 1927)Google Scholar.

³ I Cor. iii. 6: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” Cf. II Cor. x. 14: “We were the first to come as far as you in the gospel of Christ.”

⁴ The “previous letter” (mentioned in I Cor. v. 9 ff.) probably contained the first information about the collection and the mission of Timothy. It is abundantly clear that the Corinthians knew of the collection before they received I Corinthians, for that letter refers to the collection as a project already familiar to its readers.

⁵ It has been suggested that I Corinthians may not be a single letter (Weiss, J., History of Primitive Christianity (New York, 1937), I, pp. 323–41Google Scholar). The various theories of partition, however, do not affect the evidence given above, since there is no reason for suspecting the integrity of ch. xvi, which deals with the collection.

⁶ The evidence for and against the various partition theories of II Corinthians is presented conveniently by Schmiedel, P. W. in Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, II (Freiburg und Leipzig, 1893), pp. 74–90, 252–256, 267–270Google Scholar. Cf. also Lake, K., The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London, 1911), pp. 154 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷ It is probable that the section, vi.14–vii.1, is a fragment of another letter and has been copied in its present position by mistake. Arguments for the removal of either viii or ix (for which see Schmiedel, op. cit., pp. 252–256) are slender when taken separately; taken together they are hopelessly contradictory. It would seem that the solution to the problems of these two chapters lies rather in the exegesis of the text as it stands than in viewing either of them as a separate fragment.

⁸ K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 154 ff.

⁹ II Cor. xi.2 ff.

¹⁰ II Cor. x.13 ff.; xi.7 ff.; xi.21 ff.

¹¹ This man was not Paul's personal representative but was someone appointed by the churches. Accordingly he is not mentioned in xii.18, where at a later time Paul defends only Titus and the brother (the two who were his own representatives) against the charge of fraud.

¹² It is interesting to speculate whether the Corinthian situation to which I Clement is addressed nearly a half-century later had its roots in the situation described in II Cor. x-xiii.

¹³ Cf. Taylor, T. M., “The Place of Origin of Romans,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVII (1948), 281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where the weakness of the Corinthian origin is exposed and Philippi suggested as an alternative (after the completion of the collection, however).

¹⁴ On the total length of time involved see Emmet, C. W., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1912), pp. xviii f.Google Scholar; cf. also the works of Knox and Riddle referred to in note 1 above. It should be pointed out that the usual arguments in favor of a 17-year total are inconsistent in that they count the first 3-year period from the conversion instead of the return to Damascus and then, using exactly opposite reasoning, date the 14-year period from the former visit to Jerusalem. Consistency demands either a total elapsed time of 14 years (dating all events from the conversion) or an undetermined total of x + 3 + 14, where x equals the unspecified time spent in Arabia. The 17-year total is thus the least likely of all solutions.

¹⁵ It is a temptation to translate here, “they wanted us to continue to remember the poor” (taking the present subjunctive to indicate action that was to be habitual), “which very thing I began to busy myself with” (taking the aorist with the inceptive force which it normally bears in verbs of this kind).

¹⁶ If Paul had been to Galatia shortly before writing I Corinthians, then his reference to a Galatian visit as “the former occasion” (Gal. iv.13) is explained.

¹⁷ Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (10th ed., London, 1890), pp. 123–128Google Scholar.

¹⁸ C. W. Emmet, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, pp. xiv–xxii.

¹⁹ Jeremias, J., “Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, XXXVI (1937), 205–221Google Scholar. He states (p. 217): “It is today all but universally recognized that in Acts xi.30/xii.25 on the one hand and Acts xv.1–33 on the other hand one and the same Jerusalem visit of Paul is being described.” See also Schwartz, E., “Zur Chronologie des Paulus,” Göttingen Nachrichten, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1907, pp. 263–299Google Scholar.

²⁰ Shepherd, M. H. Jr., “A Venture in the Source Analysis of Acts,” Munera Studiosa, ed. by Shepherd, and Johnson, S. E. (Cambridge, 1946), pp. 92–105Google Scholar.

²¹ There can be little doubt that the reading “to Jerusalem” is correct. Not only is it found in the best MSS (B) but it also is impossible of explanation as a later variant of either ἀπό (D) or ἐξ (A), its two rivals. If ἀπό had been the original reading it is difficult to see how it could have given rise to both εἰς and ἐξ likewise, if ἐξ had been original it cannot be explained why both ἀπό and εἰς were substituted for it. But if εἰς is original, both ἀπό and ἐξ are quite simply explained as independent attempts to clear up the difficulty which it caused.

²² Lake, K., in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V (London, 1933), pp. 452–455Google Scholar; Gapp, K. S., “The Universal Famine under Claudius,” Harvard Theological Review, XXVIII (1935), 335–337Google Scholar. Knox (JBL, LVIII [1938], 25 n.) has already suggested that Paul's meeting with Priscilla and Aquila should be dated soon after 41 (cf. Lake, Beginnings, vol. V, pp. 459 f.). Bacon, B. W. (“Wrath ‘Unto the Uttermost,’” Expositor, XXIV [1922], 356–376Google Scholar) suggests the events of the early 40's as the background against which I Thess. ii.14 ff. was written. Cf. also Shepherd, op. cit., p. 96, n. 19.

²³ On the whole matter of source criticism of Acts, see the articles of J. Jeremias and M. H. Shepherd, Jr., referred to above.

²⁴ It is true that they are called Barnabas and Saul for the first few verses of this section and the transition to Paul and Barnabas is not made until the story is under way, but this phenomenon is probably the work of Luke, who retained for a few sentences of his new section the diction of the former source and made the transition of names as soon as it could be effected smoothly.

²⁵ These two sections are all the more striking for their mutual resemblance in that they both mention “women of high standing.”

²⁶ In this connection it should be pointed out that according to the third source Barnabas and Silas are not originally sent out from Jerusalem, whereas according to the Hellenist source Barnabas is a Jerusalem Christian who goes to Antioch as an emissary and Silas is one of the representatives of the Jerusalem apostles and elders (xv.22).

²⁷ Cf. Cadbury, H. J., “The Summaries in Acts,” Beginnings, vol. V, pp. 392–402Google Scholar.

²⁸ Paul in real life was in legal difficulties many more times than this. See II Cor. xi.23 ff.

²⁹ Compare his use of the rejection at Nazareth (Mk. vi.1–6) to introduce the Galilean ministry (Lk. iv.16–30).

³⁰ Enslin, M. S., “‘Luke’ and Paul,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, LVIII (1938), 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Knox, , Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago, 1942), pp. 132 ffGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Introduction to the New Testament (Chicago, 1937), pp. 210 ffGoogle Scholar.

³² Whether Luke himself was the author of the diary is an unanswerable question. He does not hesitate to use a section of the diary out of place (xvi.10–17, or its kernel, belongs in xx.1–3, where it is now replaced by a summary) but this may be simply his literary convention for telling the reader that he was present on the earlier occasion. See Cadbury, H. J., “The Purpose Expressed in Luke's Preface,” Expositor, XXI (1921), 431–441Google Scholar; “The Knowledge Claimed in Luke's Preface,” Expositor, XXIV (1922), 401–420Google Scholar.

³³ These are the earliest possible dates. The events may have happened a year or so later.

³⁴ If, as Knox has suggested, the 14 years of Gal. ii.1 is the same as the 14 years of II Cor. xii.2, then the shorter interval has preference.

³⁵ If Luke is correct in naming Gallio as the proconsul before whom Paul was tried in Corinth, then it is probable that Paul returned to Corinth shortly before the final trip to Jerusalem. The present position of the incident in Acts does not preclude this possibility, for Luke generally tells all incidents connected with a given town as though they occurred on Paul's first visit there.