8 f.) with the apostle's hope and plan of visiting Rome on a subsequent missionary tour.5 Rom.
In both, also, Tychicus carries the letter, and in almost identical language the readers are told that he will by word of mouth give fuller information about the apostle's affairs (Eph.
At any rate the extant epistle is the answer to one received from the Philippian Christians, who had evidently desired information about the apostle's health and prospects (i.
20 a special letter addressed to some inner circle of the apostle's friends (in spite of iv.
It would be natural for Mark to set himself to make his record soon after the Apostle's death; and in confirmation of the view that he did so it may be pointed out that in the form of the prophecy in ch.
Philemon is of course a pure letter, and Philippians mainly so; the Pastorals, as their name implies, contain advice and instructions to the apostle's lieutenants, Timothy and Titus, in the temporary charge committed to them of churches that the apostle could not visit himself.
I Peter, if genuine, must date from the end of the apostle's career (for the early composition claimed for it by B.
Attempts have been made to find a setting for the epistle within the apostle's life previous to his Roman imprisonment (as recorded in Acts), but by common consent s it is now held that the epistle (if written by the apostle) must fall later, during the period of missionary enterprise which is supposed to have followed his release from the first captivity.
Like the epistles to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus thus belongs to a phase of the apostle's life for which we possess no other contemporary evidence.
That he acted to some degree as Peter's interpreter or dragoman (ip,usp Ein), owing to the apostle's imperfect mastery of Greek, is held by some but denied by others (e.g.
He appears to have been among the apostle's earliest converts, being first mentioned (Gal.
"There I shall once more make the Apostle's voice heard in the Church of Corinth.
The splendid and unfettered' prospects of faith, which thus break on the apostle's vision, only serve to deepen his distress in one direction.'
He says that it was written in Hebrew; but in all probability he regarded the Greek Gospel, which stood first in his, as it does in our, enumeration, as in the strict sense a translation of the Apostle's work; and this was the view of it universally taken till the 16th century, when some of the scholars of the Reformation maintained that the Greek Gospel itself was by Matthew.
One of the chief documents, however, here referred to seems to correspond in character with the description given in Papias' fragment of a record of the compilation of "the divine utterances" made by Matthew; and the 'use made of it in our first Gospel may explain the connexion of this Apostle's name with it.
We need not, therefore, see a reference to the Apostle's laxity on this crucial point in the story (Horn.