Ephesia, and celebrated at Ephesus in honour of Diana, is a well-attested facts; and concerning the time of the year when they were celebrated, it seems to be certain that it coincided with the spring or the summer. There is a coin of Ephesush which relates to games there celebrated, and bears the inscription, ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ. ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ. ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑ. ΟΙΚΟΥ

g Vide Meursii Græcia Feriata. h Eckhel, ii. 521. Vide also Philostratus, Vite Sophistarum, i. 530. D : 533. D : 541. A : Polemo.

MENIKA. from which title we may infer that their proper time synchronised probably with the same part of the year, as the recurrence of the Olympiads; that is, with the first full moon after the summer solstice. This full moon, A. D. 55, U. C. 808, when the moon was eclipsed on July 27, at 5. 30, in the morning, could not fall earlier than June 27, previously: about which time we have shewn that, upon other grounds, it is probable St. Paul was still in Ephesus. To proceed then with the course of our subject.

After the departure of St. Paul from Asia, there is mention made of a residence of his in Macedonia, before the next visit to Greece; and after the arrival in Greece, of a three months' residence there, before the return to Macedonia again; and after this return, of his spending the days of unleavened bread at Philippi, before his departure finally to Troas, upon his way to Jerusalem. The Passover or Easter spent at Philippi was consequently the Passover next after the departure from Ephesus; that is, just one year from the Passover of U. C. 808, in the first of Nero alluded to above; and therefore was just three years after the first Passover dated with the time of the arrival originally, U. C. 806. It was consequently the Passover of U. C. 809, in the middle of the second of Nero. How the time between that Passover and the departure from Ephesus, U. C. 808, was spent, will appear presently from the Epistles. By the ensuing Pentecost, St. Paul was in Jerusalem: he was consequently in Jerusalem at the Pentecost of U. C. 809: and in U. C. 809, at the Pentecost of that year, in the midsummer of the second of Nero, we have already determined, on other and independent data, that he must have been there.

All these conclusions we may further establish and i Acts xx. 2, 3, 6.

place beyond a question, by shewing their agreement with the internal evidence furnished by the Epistles of St. Paul, such as I consider to have been written before this visit to Jerusalem; which are in my opinion the following six, stated in the order of succession; the First and the Second to the Thessalonians; the First and the Second to the Corinthians; the Epistle to the Romans, or the Epistle to the Galatians. Each of these we will consider in its turn.

I. On the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

It must be evident from those parts of this Epistle which mention the preaching of the Gospel in Macedonia in general, and also at Philippi in particulark, that it could not have been written before St. Paul's visit to Philippi', and to other parts of Macedonia, U. C. 802; and from iii. 1, that it could not have been written before his arrival at Athens, even after that"; and from i. 1, 7, 8, (compared with 2 Cor. i. 18, 19.) which mentions Achaia as well as Macedonia, that it could not have been written before the visit to Corinth, U. C. 803", of which it must be superfluous to prove that it was the first, which St. Paul had yet made to the peninsula of Greece.

Notwithstanding, therefore, the prima facie evidence of 1 Thess. iii. 1, compared with Acts xvii. 15, 16, which proves that St. Paul both came to, and for a time was left at Athens; the Epistle could not have been written from Athens: and the allusion in it to his being in Athens would still be true, if he had been there, and had sent Timothy to Thessalonica from thence, though he afterwards wrote the letter in which he speaks of these things from some other place.

k i. 7, 8. ii. 2.

1 Acts xvi. 12.

m xvii. 15.

n xviii. I.

Now when he was first brought to Athens, he was brought alone; but he sent back a message by those who brought him, to Silas (or Silvanus) and Timothy, whom he had left at Beroa, that they should come and join him without delay. We may justly suppose they would comply with this wish; especially as it is said that he waited for them". Yet it is not mentioned that they did; on the contrary, they are said to have joined him, only when he was at Corinth P. In order to reconcile these different intimations together even in the Acts, we should be obliged to suppose that, after rejoining St. Paul at Athens, according to his desire, either Timothy or Silvanus, or both, were sent out by him somewhere again, before his own departure thence, and did not return to him a second time except at Corinth. This is precisely that state of the case which the first Epistle proves to have happened; for Timothy had actually rejoined Paul at Athens, and actually been sent again from thence to Thessalonica, before he himself left it: and Timothy had rejoined him alone; or what is equally probable Silvanus had rejoined him at Athens also, and been sent again to some other quarter, while Timothy was despatched to Thessalonica; (otherwise St. Paul could not have said he had thought proper or rather been content to be left at Athens alone ;) and Timothy had rejoined him a second time only recently, either at Athens, or if not there at some other place, whither St. Paul had proceeded in his absence; after this very errand to Thessalonica, and before the Epistle was written'. The same thing is implied of Silvanus; for both Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, who are all joined in the salutation at the head of the Epistles, must all have been together when it was written.

o Acts xvii. 16.

p xviii. 5.

q iii. 1, 2.

r iii. 6.

si. 1.

Now, after Acts xviii. 5, when both these last are said to have come to him at Corinth, it is manifest they would be together in that place at least; where also it is proved by the Second Epistle to the Corinthians that they continued together throughout: and they are there said to have rejoined him from Macedonia generally; as the Epistle itself proves that Timothy in particular rejoined him from Thessalonica; which is the same thing. And if we compare all these places with 2 Cor. xi. 9, and Philipp. iv. 15, 16, we shall consider it more than probable that, when Timothy rejoined Paul from Thessalonica, Silvanus also rejoined him from Philippi; which too would be from Macedonia.

These coincidences place it beyond a question, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after the arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, and after the return of Timothy and of Silvanus to him there; and consequently was written from Corinth itself: for there is no proof that St. Paul during this visit preached in any other part of Achaia. Moreover, if 1 Thess. iii. 6, 7, be compared with Acts xviii. 5. xviii. 11, we shall conclude that it must have been written at the very beginning of the visit; and not at some later period, when the year and nine or ten months, during which we supposed his stay to have lasted, were more or less advanced in their progress. Nor is ii. 18 any objection : for the emphasis laid on the ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος clearly implies that he had wished this once or twice to rejoin them in person, and not merely by a messenger; and coming between ii. 17, which speaks of a separation pòs kaipòv pas-(that is, a very recent and as it might be supposed about to prove a very brief separation*) and iii. 1, 2, which speaks of the mission

* As indeed it was, if Timothy was sent to them in Paul's

stead from Athens, so soon after his departure from Thessalonica.

ti. 19.