[43] _Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil_, 1900. [44] "Galatians the Earliest of the Pauline Epistles," in _Expositor_, 7th Series, vol. ix, 1910, pp. 242-254 (reprinted in _The Eschatological Question in the Gospels_, 1911, pp. 191-209); _St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians_, 1912, pp. xiv-xxii. [45] _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 265-304. In a later book, Lake has modified his views about the relation between Galatians and Acts. The historicity of Acts xv. 1-29 is now abandoned. See _Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity_, 1920, pp. 63-66. [46] Ramsay, "Suggestions on the History and Letters of St. Paul. I. The Date of the Galatian Letter," in _Expositor_, VIII, v, 1913, pp. 127-145. [47] Plooij, _De chronologie van het leven van Paulus_, 1918, pp. 111-140. [48] Maurice Jones ("The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians," in _Expositor_, VIII, vi, 1913, pp. 193-208) has adduced from the Book of Acts various arguments against the early date of Galatians, which, though worthy of attention, are not quite decisive. One objection to the early dating of Galatians is derived from the close relation between that epistle and the Epistle to the Romans. If Galatians was written before the Apostolic Council it is the earliest of the extant epistles of Paul and is separated by a period of some six or eight years from the epistles of the third missionary journey with which it has ordinarily been grouped. Thus the order of the Epistles would be Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. This order seems to tear asunder the epistles which naturally belong together. The objection was partially overcome by a bold hypothesis of Lake, who suggested that the Epistle to the Romans was first composed at an early time as an encyclical letter, and that later, being modified by the addition of a Roman address and other suitable details, it was sent to the Church at Rome.[49] On this hypothesis Galatians and the substance of Romans would be kept together because both would be placed early. The hypothesis can appeal to the interesting textual phenomenon in Rom. i. 7, where the words "in Rome" are omitted by a few witnesses to the text. But the evidence is insufficient. And even if Lake's hypothesis were correct, it would not altogether overcome the difficulty; for both Galatians and Romans would be removed from what has usually been regarded as their natural position among the epistles of the third missionary journey. In reply, it could be said that reconstructions of an author's development, unless supported by plain documentary evidence, are seldom absolutely certain; the simplicity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, as over against the great soteriological epistles, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, is no doubt due to the immaturity of the Thessalonian Church rather than to any immaturity in Paul's thinking. There is therefore no absolutely decisive objection