[xiii] THERE are many sentences and paragraphs which I should have liked to rewrite, had it been possible, not in order to alter the views expressed, but to improve the inadequate expression.

In the new edition, however, it was not possible to introduce any alterations affecting the arrangement of the printed lines; but some corrections and improvements have been made through the aid of valued correspondents and critics, especially Rev. F. Warburton Lewis, Rev. G. W. Whitaker, and the Athenaeum reviewer. Slight, but not insignificant verbal changes have been made in p. 18, l. 8, 10, 11; 19, l. 10; 27, l. 14; 34, l. 8; 62, l. 15; 98, l. 16; 1455, l. 5; 146, l. 6-7; 211, l. 11; 224, l. 6; 227, l. 3; 242, l. 31; 263, l. 12; 276, l. 27; 282, l. 1(footnote deleted); 307 n. 2 (Matt. XXVII 24, added); 330 l. 13-14; 363, l. 5. The punctuation has been improved in p. 28, l. 19, 21; and an [xiv] obscure paragraph p. 160, l. 10- 17 has been rewritten.

Besides correcting p. 141, l. 9, I must apologise for having there mentioned Dr. Chase incorrectly. I intended to cut out his name from the proof, but left it by accident, while hesitating between two corrections; and I did not know that it remained on that page, till he wrote me on the subject. On p. 27, l. 14, I quoted his opinion about the solitary point on which we seem to agree; but, as he writes that my expression "makes him responsible for what he has never maintained,"I have deleted the offending words. He adds, "may I very earnestly ask, if your work reaches a second edition, that, if you refer to me, you will give in some conspicuous place a reference to my papers in the Expositor, that those interested in the subject may have the chance of seeing what I have really said ."See "The Galatia of the Acts," Expositor, Dec., 1893, and May, 1894 the title shows deficient geographical accuracy on the part of my distinguished opponent, for Luke never mentions "Galatia,"but only "the Galatic Territory,"and [xv] there lies one of the fine points of the problem. After finishing the Church in the Roman Empire before 170, I had no thought of troubling the world with anything further on this subject; but Dr. Chase's criticism roused me to renewed work, and then came the Auburn invitation. With the Galatian question the date and authorship of Acts are bound up: the more I study, the more clearly I see that it is impossible to reconcile the "North-Galatian theory"with the first-century origin and Lukan authorship of Acts: that theory involves so many incongruities and inconsistencies, as to force a cool intellect to the view that Acts is not a trustworthy contemporary authority. But, on the "South-Galatian theory,"the book opens to us a fresh chapter in the history and geography of Asia Minor during the first century.

The form of Index II was suggested, and the details were collected in great part by Rev. F. Warburton Lewis (formerly of Mansfield College), and Indices III and IV were compiled, amid the pressure of his own onerous duties, by Rev. F. Wilfrid Osborn, Vice-Principal of the Episcopal [xvi] College, Edin burgh; and my warmest gratitude is due for their voluntary and valuable help.

I add notes on some contested points.

1. Reading the Agricola berfore a college class in 1893-4, I drew a parallel between its method and that of Luke in respect of careful attention to order of events, and inattention to the stating of the lapse of time; but in each case knowledge acquired from other sources, and attention to the author's order and method, enable us to fix the chronology with great accuracy; on p. 18 my lecture on this topic is summarized in a sentence.

2. The chronology established in this book is confirmed by the statement in an oration falsely ascribed to Chrysostom (Vol. VIII, p. 621, Paris, 1836), that Paul served God thirty-five years and died at the age of sixty-eight. As there can be little doubt that his martyrdom took place about A. D. 67 this fourth century authority (which bears the stamp of truth in its matter-of fact simplicity) proves that he was converted in 33 A. D., as wee have deduced from the statements of Luke and Paul (p. 376, and my article in Expositor, May, 1896). [xvii] If Paul died in the year beginning 23rd Sept., 67, his birth was in 1 A.D. (before 23rd Sept.). Now he evidently began public life after the Crucifixion, but before the death of Stephen; and he would naturally come before the public in the course of his thirtieth year; therefore his birth falls later than Passover A.D. 1.

3. The punctuation of Gal. II 1-4, for which an argument was advanced in Expositor, July, 1895, p. 105 ff., is assumed in the free translation on p. 55. The view taken my me of Gal. II 1-14 is controverted by the high authority of Dr. Sanday in Expositor, Feb., 1896, and defended March, 1896. Mr Vernon Bartlet informs me that Zhan dates Gal. II 11-14 between Acts XII 25 and XV 4 (as I do, p. 160), see Neue Kirchl. Zft., 1894, p. 435 f.

4. The phrase "the God" (p. 118, l. 5) refers, of course to v. 15.

5. While grateful for the publication of such essays by Lightfoot as that quoted on p. 199, I cannot hold that great scholar (of whose spirit in investigation I should be satisfied if I dared [xviii] hope to have caught a little) responsible for them in the same way as for works published by himself. (1) His lectures were not written out, but in great part spoken, and the notes taken by pupils are not a sufficient basis: a slight verbal change in the hurry of writing often seriously modifies the force of a lecturer's statement: moreover a speaker trusts to tone for many effects, which it requires careful study to express in written words. (2) Even those parts which were written out by himself, belong to an early stage in his career, and were not revised by himself in his maturity. (3) A writer often materially improves his work and proof: I know that some changes were made on the proofs even of the Ignatius, his maturest work. Hence the reader finds pages in Lightfoot's finest style side by side with some paragraphs, which it is difficult to believe that he expressed in this exact form, and impossible to believe that he would ever have allowed to go forth in print. The analogy with Acts I-V (see below, p. 370) is striking.

6. It seems to me one of the strangest things that almost all interpreters reject the interpretation which Erasmus's clear sense perceived to be neces- [xix]sary in XVI 22 (p. 217). Some of the many difficulties involved in the interpretation that the praetors rent the clothes of Paul and Silas are exposed by Spitta, Apostelgesch., p. 218 f. To discuss the subject properly would need a chapter. It is not impossible that the title "praetors"may have been even technically accurate; but I have not ventured to go beyond the statement that it was at least employed in courtesy.

7. The short paragraph about the poitarchs should be transferred from p. 227 to p. 229, 1. 6 ff.

8. The fact that Paul's friends were permitted free access to him in Rome and Caesareis (Acts XXVIII 30 and XXIV 23) cannot be taken as a proof of what would be the case in a convoy, which must have been governed with strict Roman discipline. The argument on P. 315 f. is consistent with the supposition that Julius learned that the two attendants of Paul were friends acting as slaves; but their presence in the convoy was legalized only under the guise of slavery.

9. My friend and former pupil, Mr. A. A. G. Wright, sends me a good note on p. 329, con- [xx] firming the interpretation (adopted from Smith) of {chalasavtes to skeuos} from the practice of the herring boats in the Moray Firth; these boats, fitted with a large lug-sail, are a good parallels to the ancient sailing ships. In Paul's ship the sailors "slackened the sail-tackle,"and thus lowered the yard some way, leaving a low sail, which would exercise less leverage on the hull (p. 328).

ABERDEEN,
25th March, 1896