[1] It is probable that Paul was at this time settled in Damascus rather than Jerusalem. If so, which synagogue in Jerusalem did he frequent? That of the Cilicians as a native of Tarsus? [2] Unless this story is misplaced and ought to come before Acts ix. 32. [3] Acts xi. 27 ff. [4] Acts xii. 25-xiv. 28. [5] Acts xv. [6] See especially O. W. Emmet, _The Eschatological Question in the Gospels and other Studies_, pp. 191 ff., and K. Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, pp. 274 ff. [7] The most important names in the first period are Koenigsmann, Schleiermacher, Gfroerer, and Schwanbeck, especially the last; in the second period B. Weiss, Wendt, Sorof, Juengst, J. Weiss, Spitta, Clemen, Hilgenfeld. In general the work of this group is inferior in value to that of their predecessors. A clear and invaluable summary of both is given by W. Heitmuller in the _Theologische Rundschau_ for 1899, pp. 47 ff. [8] Perhaps Norden's name should be added, but interesting and stimulating though his book _Agnostos Theos_ be, it suffers from ignorance of early Christianity, and has little permanent value for the criticism of Acts. [9] A. von Harnack, _Untersuchungen zu den Schriften des Lukas_; E. Schwartz, "Zur Chronologie des Paulus," in the _Goettingische Nachrichten_, 1907, pp. 263 ff.; C. C. Torrey, "The Composition and Date of Acts," in the _Harvard Theological Studies_, i. The most damaging criticism of Torrey is that of F. C. Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, Oct. 1919, but I do not think that he answers Torrey's case. [10] Especially 1 Cor. xv. and 1 Thess. iv. [11] See p. 76. [12] The reference is to certain American institutions, connected in the main with evangelising movements. {73} IV CORINTH Christianity had been profoundly changed by its passage from Galilee to Jerusalem. Whereas the teaching of Jesus had been the announcement of the kingdom of God, the illustration of its character, and the insistent call to men to repent, the central teaching of the disciples in Jerusalem became the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. But the passage from Jerusalem to Antioch had produced still greater changes. After all, the teaching of the disciples in Jerusalem contained no elements foreign to Judaism. It was probably considered by the Jewish authorities as the erroneous application to Jesus of opinions which, rightly or wrongly, were widely held among the Jews; but nothing in it represented concession to Hellenism. As soon as Hellenism was suspected the Christians were at once driven out. In Antioch, on the other hand, much that was distinctly Jewish was abandoned, and Hellenistic thought adopted, so that Jesus became the divine centre of a cult. It is incredible that he should have been so regarded by the Jews of {74} Jerusalem; it is impossible that he should not have been by Gentiles.