The reasons which determined St. Paul to come to Corinth (over and above the discouragement he seems to have met with in Athens) were, probably, twofold. In the first place, it was a large mercantile city, in immediate connection with Rome and the West of the Mediterranean, with Thessalonica and Ephesus in the AEgean, and with Antioch and Alexandria in the East. (f1212) The Gospel once established in Corinth, would rapidly spread everywhere. And, again, from the very nature of the city, the Jews established there were numerous. Communities of scattered Israelites were found in various parts of the province of Achaia, — in Athens, as we have recently seen, (f1213) — in Argos, as we learn from Philo, — in Boeotia and Eubosa. But their chief settlement must necessarily have been in that city, which not only gave opportunities of trade by land along the Isthmus between the Morea and the Continent, but received in its two harbors the ships of the Eastern and Western Seas. A religion which was first to be planted in the Synagogue, and was thence intended to scatter its seeds over all parts of the earth, could nowhere find a more favorable soil than among the Hebrew families at Corinth. (f1214)

At this particular time there was a greater number of Jews in the city than usual; for they had lately been banished from Rome by command of the Emperor Claudius. (Acts 18:2.) The history of this edict is involved in some obscurity. But there are abundant passages in the contemporary Heathen writers which show the suspicion and dislike with which the Jews were regarded. (f1215) Notwithstanding the general toleration, they were violently persecuted by three successive Emperors; (f1216) and there is good reason for identifying the edict mentioned by St. Luke with that alluded to by Suetonius, who says that Claudius drove the Jews from Rome because they were incessantly raising tumults at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. (f1217) Much has been written concerning this sentence of the biographer of the Caesars. Some have held that there was really a Jew called Chrestus, who had excited political disturbances, others that the name is used by mistake for Christus, and that the disturbances had arisen from the Jewish expectations concerning the Messiah, or Christ. It seems to us that the last opinion is partially true; but that we must trace this movement not merely to the vague Messianic idea entertained by the Jews, but to the events which followed the actual appearance of the Christ. We have seen how the first progress of Christianity had been the occasion of tumult among the Jewish communities in the provinces; (f1218) and there is no reason why the same might not have happened in the capital itself. (f1219) Nor need we be surprised at the inaccurate form in which the name occurs, when we remember how loosely more careful writers than Suetonius express themselves concerning the affairs of the Jews. (f1220) Chrestus was a common name; (f1221) Christus was not: and we have a distinct statement by Tertullian and Lactantius (f1222) that in their day the former was often used for the latter. (f1223)

Among the Jews who had been banished from Rome by Claudius, and had settled for a time at Corinth, were two natives of Pontus, whose names were Aquila and Priscilla. (Acts 18:2.) We have seen before (Ch. 8.) that Pontus denoted a province of Asia Minor on the shores of the Euxine, and we have noticed some political facts which tended to bring this province into relations with Judaea. (f1224) Though, indeed, it is hardly necessary to allude to this: for there were Jewish colonies over every part of Asia Minor, and we are expressly told that Jews from Pontus heard St. Peter’s first sermon (Acts 2: 9.) and read his first Epistle. (1Peter 1:1.) Aquila and Priscilla were, perhaps, of that number. Their names have a Roman form; (f1225) and we may conjecture that they were brought into some connection with a Roman family, similar to that which we have supposed to have existed in the case of St. Paul himself. (f1226) We find they were on the present occasion forced to leave Rome; and we notice that they are afterwards addressed (Romans 16:3.) as residing there again; so that it is reasonable to suppose that the metropolis was their stated residence. Yet we observe that they frequently traveled; and we trace them on the Asiatic coast on two distinct occasions, separated by a wide interval of time. First, before their return to Italy ( Acts 18:18, 26; 1Corinthians 16:19), and again, shortly before the martyrdom of St. Paul (2Timothy 4:19), we find them at Ephesus. From the manner in which they are referred to as having Christian meetings in their houses, both at Ephesus and Rome, ( Romans 16:3; 1Corinthians 16:19.) we should be inclined to conclude that they were possessed of some considerable wealth. The trade at which they labored, or which at least they superintended, was the manufacture of tents, (f1227) the demand for which must have been continual in that age of traveling, — while the cilicium, (f1228) or hair-cloth, of which they were made, could easily be procured at every large town in the Levant.

See Notes on the First Epistle To The Thessalonians.

The strong expressions used in this letter concerning the malevolence of the Jews, lead us to suppose that the Apostle was thinking not only of their past opposition at Thessalonica, (f1239) but of the difficulties with which they were beginning to surround him at Corinth. At the very time of his writing, that same people who had "killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets," and had already driven Paul "from city to city," were showing themselves "a people displeasing to God, and enemies to all mankind," by endeavoring to hinder him from speaking to the Gentiles for their salvation (1Thessalonians 2:15, 16). Such expressions would naturally be used in a letter written under the circumstances described in the Acts (Acts 18:6), when the Jews were assuming the attitude of an organized and systematic resistance, (f1240) and assailing the Apostle in the language of blasphemy, (Compare Matthew 12:24- 31.) like those who had accused our savior of casting out devils by Beelzebub.

Now, therefore, the Apostle left the Jews, and turned to the Gentiles. He withdrew from his own people with one of those symbolical actions, which, in the East, have all the expressiveness of language, (f1241) and which, having received the sanction of our Lord Himself, (Mark 6:11.) are equivalent to the denunciation of woe. He shook the dust off his garments, (Acts 18:6.) and proclaimed himself innocent of the blood (See Acts 5:28, 20:26. Also Ezekiel 33:6, 9; and Matthew 27:24.) of those who refused to listen to the voice which offered them salvation. A proselyte, whose name was Justus, (f1242) opened his door to the rejected Apostle; and that house became thenceforward the place of public teaching. While he continued doubtless to lodge with Aquila and Priscilla (for the Lord had said (f1243) that His Apostle should abide in the house where the "Son of peace" was), he met his flock in the house of Justus. Some place convenient for general meeting was evidently necessary for the continuance of St. Paul’s work in the cities where he resided. So long as possible, it was the Synagogue. When he was exiled from the Jewish place of worship, or unable from other causes to attend it, it was such a place as providential circumstances might suggest. At Rome it was his own hired lodging ( Acts 28:30): at Ephesus it was the School of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). Here at Corinth it was a house "contiguous to the Synagogue," offered on the emergency for the Apostle’s use by one who had listened and believed. It may readily be supposed that no convenient place could be found in the manufactory of Aquila and Priscilla. There, too, in the society of Jews lately exiled from Rome, he could hardly have looked for a congregation of Gentiles; whereas Justus, being a proselyte, was exactly in a position to receive under his roof, indiscriminately, both Hebrews and Greeks.

Special mention is made of the fact, that the house of Justus was "contiguous to the Synagogue." We are not necessarily to infer from this that St. Paul had any deliberate motive for choosing that locality. Though it might be that he would show the Jews, as in a visible symbol, that "by their sin salvation had come to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy," (Romans 11:11.) — while at the same time he remained as near to them as possible, to assure them of his readiness to return at the moment of their repentance. Whatever we may surmise concerning the motive of this choice, certain consequences must have followed from the contiguity of the house and the Synagogue, and some incident resulting from it may have suggested the mention of the fact. The Jewish and Christian congregations would often meet face to face in the street; and all the success of the Gospel would become more palpable and conspicuous. And even if we leave out of view such considerations as these, there is a certain interest attaching to any phrase which tends to localize the scene of Apostolical labors. When we think of events that we have witnessed, we always reproduce in the mind, however dimly, some image of the place where the events have occurred. This condition of human thought is common to us and to the Apostles. The house of John’s mother at Jerusalem (Acts 12.), the proseucha by the water-side at Philippi (Acts 16.), were associated with many recollections in the minds of the earliest Christians. And when St. Paul thought, even many years afterwards, of what occurred on his first visit to Corinth, the images before the "inward eye" would be not merely the general aspect of the houses and temples of Corinth, with the great citadel overtowering them, but the Synagogue and the house of Justus, the incidents which happened in their neighborhood, and the gestures and faces of those who encountered each other in the street.

If an interest is attached to the places, a still deeper interest is attached to the persons, referred to in the history of the planting of the Church. In the case of Corinth, the names both of individuals and families are mentioned in abundance. The family of Stephanas is the first that occurs to us; for they seem to have been the earliest Corinthian converts. St. Paul himself speaks of that household, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (1Corinthians 16:15), as "the first- fruits of Achaia." (f1244) Another Christian of Corinth, well worthy of the recollection of the church of after-ages, was Caius (1Corinthians 1:14), with whom St. Paul found a home on his next visit (Romans 16:23), as he found one now with Aquila and Priscilla. We may conjecture, with reason, that his present host and hostess had now given their formal adherence to St. Paul, and that they left the Synagogue with him. After the open schism had taken place, we find the Church rapidly increasing. "Many of the Corinthians began to believe when they heard, and came to receive baptism." (Acts 18:8.) We derive some information from St. Paul’s own writings concerning the character of those who became believers. Not many of the philosophers, — not many of the noble and powerful (1Corinthians 1:26), — but many of those who had been profligate and degraded (1Corinthians 6:11), were called. The ignorant of this world were chosen to confound the wise, and the weak to confound the strong. From St. Paul’s language we infer that the Gentile converts were more numerous than the Jewish. Yet one signal victory of the Gospel over Judaism must be mentioned here, — the conversion of Crispus (Acts 18:8), — who, from his position as "ruler of the Synagogue," may be presumed to have been a man of learning and high character, and who now, with all his family, joined himself to the new community. His conversion was felt to be so important, that the Apostle deviated from his usual practice (1Corinthians 1:14-16), and baptized him, as well as Caius and the household of Stephanas, with his own hand.

Such an event as the baptism of Crispus must have had a great effect in exasperating the Jews against St. Paul. Their opposition grew with his success. As we approach the time when the second letter to the Thessalonians was written, we find the difficulties of his position increasing. In the first Epistle the writer’s mind is almost entirely occupied with the thought of what might be happening at Thessalonica: in the second, the remembrance of his own pressing trial seems to mingle more conspicuously with the exhortations and warnings addressed to those who are absent. He particularly asks for the prayers of the Thessalonians, that he may be delivered from the perverse and wicked men around him, who were destitute of faith. (See below, 2Thessalonians 3:2.) It is evident that he was in a condition of fear and anxiety. This is further manifest from the words which were heard by him in a vision vouchsafed at this critical period. (Acts 18:9, 10.) We have already had occasion to observe, that such timely visitations were granted to the Apostle, when he was most in need of supernatural aid. (f1245) In the present instance, the Lord, who spoke to him in the night, gave him an assurance of His presence, (Compare Matthew 28:20.) and a promise of safety, along with a prophecy of good success at Corinth, and a command to speak boldly without fear, and not to keep silence. Prom this we may infer that his faith in Christ’s presence was failing, — that fear was beginning to produce hesitation, — and that the work of extending the Gospel was in danger of being arrested. (f1246) The servant of God received conscious strength in the moment of trial and conflict; and the divine words were fulfilled in the formation of a large and flourishing church at Corinth, and in a safe and continued residence in that city, through the space of a year and six months.

Not many months of this period had elapsed when St. Paul found it necessary to write again to the Thessalonians. The excitement which he had endeavored to allay by his first Epistle was not arrested, and the fanatical portion of the church had availed themselves of the impression produced by St. Paul’s personal teaching to increase it. It will be remembered that a subject on which he had especially dwelt while he was at Thessalonica, (f1247) and to which he had also alluded in his first Epistle, (1Thessalonians 5:1-11.) was the second advent of our Lord. We know that our savior Himself had warned His disciples that "of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father only;" and we find these words remarkably fulfilled by the fact that the early Church, and even the Apostles themselves, expected (f1248) their Lord to come again in that very generation. St. Paul himself shared in that expectation, but, being under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, he did not deduce therefrom any erroneous practical conclusions. Some of his disciples, on the other hand, inferred that if indeed the present world were so soon to come to an end, it was useless to pursue their common earthly employments any longer. They forsook their work, and gave themselves up to dreamy expectations of the future; so that the whole framework of society in the Thessalonian Church was in danger of dissolution. Those who encouraged this delusion, supported it by imaginary revelations of the Spirit:(2Thessalonians 2:2.) and they even had recourse to forgery, and circulated a letter purporting to be written by St. Paul, (f1249) in confirmation of their views. To check this evil, St. Paul wrote his second Epistle. In this he endeavors to remove their present erroneous expectations of Christ’s immediate coming, by reminding them of certain signs which must precede the second advent. He had already told them of these signs when he was with them; and this explains the extreme obscurity of his description of them in the present Epistle; for he was not giving new information, but alluding to facts which he had already explained to them at an earlier period. It would have been well if this had been remembered by all those who have extracted such numerous and discordant prophecies and anathemas from certain passages in the following Epistle.

See Notes on the Second Epistle To The Thessalonians.

Such was the second of the two letters which St. Paul wrote to Thessalonica during his residence at Corinth. Such was the Christian correspondence now established, in addition to the political and commercial correspondence existing before, between the two capitals of Achaia and Macedonia. Along with the official documents which passed between the governors of the contiguous provinces, (f1250) and the communications between the merchants of the Northern and Western AEgean, letters were now sent, which related to the establishment of a "kingdom not of this world," (John 18:36.) and to "riches" beyond the discovery of human enterprise. (Ephesians 3:8.)

The influence of great cities has always been important on the wider movements of human life. We see St. Paul diligently using this influence, during a protracted residence at Corinth, for the spreading and strengthening of the Gospel in Achaia and beyond. As regards the province of Achaia, we have no reason to suppose that he confined his activity to its metropolis. The expression used by St. Luke (Acts 18:11.) need only denote that it was his headquarters, or general place of residence. Communication was easy and frequent, by land or by water, (f1251) with other parts of the province. Two short days’ journey to the south were the Jews of Argos, (f1252) who might be to those of Corinth what the Jews of Beroea had been to those of Thessalonica. (f1253) About the same distance to the east was the city of Athens, (f1254) which had been imperfectly evangelized, and could be visited without danger. Within a walk of a few hours, along a road busy with traffic, was the seaport of Cenchrea, known to us as the residence of a Christian community. (Romans 16: 1.) These were the "Churches of God" (2Thessalonians 1:4), among whom the Apostle boasted of the patience and the faith of the Thessalonians, (Compare 1Thessalonians 1:7, 8.) — the homes of "the saints in all Achaia" (2Corinthians 1:1), saluted at a later period, with the Church of Corinth, (f1255) in a letter written from Macedonia. These Churches had alternately the blessings of the presence and the letters — the oral and the written teaching — of St. Paul. The former of these blessings is now no longer granted to us; but those long and wearisome journeys, which withdrew the teacher so often from his anxious converts, have resulted in our possession of inspired Epistles, in all their freshness and integrity, and with all their lessons of wisdom and love.

Coin of Thessalonica. (f1256)

(f1209) At the close of the Republic, Corinth was entirely destroyed. Thus we find Cicero traveling, not by Corinth, but by Athens. But Julius Cesar established the city on the Isthmus, in the form of a colony; and the mercantile population flocked back to their old place; so that Corinth rose with great rapidity, till it was a city of the second rank in the Empire. The historical details will be given in the next chapter.

(f1210) Acts 18:12 shows that the province of Achaia was proconsular. See, under Cyprus, pp. 129-131.

(f1211) See the arguments below, p. 340, n. 6.

(f1212) For full details, see the next chapter.

(f1213) See the preceding chapter, p. 313.

(f1214) See what has been said above on Thessalonica.

(f1215) Tacitus, for instance, and Juvenal. See the quotation from Cicero, p. 262, n. 1.

(f1216) Four thousand Jews or Jewish proselytes were sent as convicts by Tiberius to the island of Sardinia. The more directly religious persecution of Caligula has been mentioned previously, Ch. 4. pp. 102, 103.

(f1217) The words are quoted p. 262, n. 2. Compare p. 287.

(f1218) In Asia Minor (Ch. 6.), and more especially in Thessalonica and Beroea (Ch. 9.).

(f1219) Christianity must have been more or less known in Rome since the return of the Italian Jews from Pentecost (Acts ch. 2.).

(f1220) Even Tacitus.

(f1221) Moreover, Christus and Chrestus are pronounced alike in Romaic.

(f1222) See the passages quoted by Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, 1:p. 430), who remarks that these tumults at Rome, excited by the mutual hostility of Jews and Christians, imply that Christianity must already have made considerable progress there.

(f1223) See pp. 111, 112, and Tac. Ann. 15:44.

(f1224) Especially the marriage of Polemo with Berenice, p. 23 and p. 213.

(f1225) See p. 136, also p. 44, From the mention of Priscilla as St. Paul’s "fellowlaborer," and as one of the instructors of Apollos, we might naturally infer that she was a woman of good education. Her name appears in 2Timothy 4:19 (also, according to the best MSS., in Romans 16:3), under the form "Prisca." So, in Latin authors, "Livia" and "Livilla," "Drusa" and "Drusilla,"are used of the same person. Prisca is well known as a Roman name.

It is well worthy of notice that in both cases St. Paul mentions the name of Priscilla before that of Aquila. This conveys the impression that she was the more energetic character of the two. See the notice of these two Christians by the Archdeacon Evans (Script. Biog.), and his remarks on the probable usefulness of Priscilla with reference to female converts, the training of Deaconesses, &c. Compare the note on Romans 16:3.

(f1226) p. 43.

(f1227) Many meanings have been given by the commentators to the word, — weavers of tapestry, saddlers, mathematical instrument-makers, ropemakers. But nothing is so probable as that they were simply makers of those hair-cloth tents, which are still in constant use in the Levant. That they were manufacturers of the cloth itself is less likely.

(f1228) An account of this cloth is given in Ch. 2. p. 44. See p. 150 and p. 284.

(f1229) See the various commentators.

(f1230) They were Christians, and able to instruct others, when St. Paul left them at Ephesus, on his voyage from Corinth to Syria. See Acts 18:18, 26.

(f1231) See p. 44.

(f1232) See what is said above in reference to his labors at Thessalonica, pp. 284, 285. We shall meet with the same subject again in the Epistles to the Corinthians.

(f1233) This is the sense of the imperfect.

(f1234) Acts 18:5. We may remark here that Silas and Timothy were probably the "brethren" who brought the collection mentioned 2Corinthians 11:9. Compare Philippians 4:15.

(f1235) There are some difficulties and differences of opinion, with regard to the movements of Silas and Timothy, between the time when St. Paul left them in Macedonia and their rejoining him in Achaia.

The facts which are distinctly stated are as follows.

1. Silas and Timothy were left at Beroea (Acts 17:14) when St. Paul went to Athens. We are not told why they were left there, or what commissions they received; but the Apostle sent a message from Athens (Acts 17:15) that they should follow him with all speed, and (Acts 17:16) he waited for them there.
2. The Apostle was rejoined by them when at Corinth (Acts 18:5). We are not informed how they had been employed in the interval, but they came "from Macedonia." It is not distinctly said that they came together, but the impression at first sight is that they did.
3. St. Paul informs us (1Thessalonians 3:1) that he was "left in Athens alone," and that this solitude was in consequence of Timothy having been sent to Thessalonica (1Thessalonians 3:2). Though it is not expressly stated that Timothy was sent from Athens, the first impression is that he was.

Thus there is a seeming discrepancy between the Acts and Epistles; a journey of Timothy to Athens, previous to his arrival with Silas at Corinth, appearing to be mentioned by St. Paul, and to be quite unnoticed by St. Luke.

Paley, in the Horoe Paulinoe, says that the Epistle "virtually asserts that Timothy came to the Apostle at Athens," and assumes that it is "necessary" to suppose this, in order to reconcile the history with the Epistle. And he points out three intimations in the history, which make the arrival, though not expressly mentioned, extremely probable:— first, the message that they should come with all speed; secondly, the fact of his waiting for them; thirdly, the absence of any appearance of haste in his departure from Athens to Corinth. "Paul had ordered Timothy to follow him without delay: he waited at Athens on purpose that Timothy might come up with him, and he staid there as long as his own choice led him to continue."

This explanation is satisfactory. But two others might be suggested, which would equally remove the difficulty.

It is not expressly said that Timothy was sent from Athens to Thessalonica. St. Paul was anxious, as we have seen, to revisit the Thessalonians; but since he was hindered from doing so, it is highly probable (as Hemsen and Wieseler suppose) that he may have sent Timothy to them from Beroea. Silas might be sent on some similar commission, and this would explain why the two companions were left behind in Macedonia. This would necessarily cause St. Paul to be "left alone in Athens." Such solitude was doubtless painful to him; but the spiritual good of the new converts was at stake. The two companions, after finishing the work entrusted to them, finally rejoined the Apostle at Corinth. [We should observe that the phrase is "from Macedonia," not "from Beroea."] That he "waited for them" at Athens need cause us no difficulty: for in those days the arrival of travelers could not confidently be known beforehand. When he left Athens and proceeded to Corinth, he knew that Silas and Timothy could easily ascertain his movements, and follow his steps, by help of information obtained at the synagogue.

But, again, we may reasonably suppose, that, in the course of St. Paul’s stay at Corinth, he may have paid a second visit to Athens, after the first arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia; and that during some such visit he may have sent Timothy to Thessalonica. This view may be taken without our supposing, with Bottger, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written at Athens. Schrader and others imagine a visit to that city at a later period of his life; but this view cannot be admitted without deranging the arguments for the date of 1Thessalonians , which was evidently written soon after leaving Macedonia.

Two further remarks may be added. (1.) If Timothy did rejoin St. Paul at Athens, we need not infer that Silas was not with him, from the fact that the name of Silas is not mentioned. It is usually taken for granted that the second arrival of Timothy (1Thessalonians 3:6) is identical with the coming of Silas and Timothy to Corinth (Acts 18:5); but here we see that only Timothy is mentioned, doubtless because he was most recently and familiarly known at Thessalonica, and perhaps, also, because the mission of Silas was to some other place. (2.) On the other hand, it is not necessary to assume, because Silas and Timothy are mentioned together (Acts 18:5), that they came together. All conditions are satisfied if they came about the same time. If they were sent on missions to two different places, the times of their return would not necessarily coincide. [Something may be implied in the form of the Greek phrase, "Silas as well as Timothy."] In considering all these journeys, it is very needful to take into account that they would be modified by the settled or unsettled state of the country with regard to banditti, and by the various opportunities of traveling, which depend on the season and the weather, and the sailing of vessels. Hinderances connected with some such considerations may be referred to in Philippians 4:10.

(f1236) The state of mind, whatever it was, is clearly connected with the coming of Timothy and Silas, and seems to imply increasing zeal with increasing opposition. "Instabat verbo." Compare [greek word] , 1Thessalonians 3:7. The A. V. rests on an incorrect reading, though the general result is the same. Hackett’s note is very much to the purpose. "He was engrossed with the word. The arrival of his associates relieved him from anxiety which had pressed heavily upon him; and he could now devote himself with unabated energy to his work."

(f1237) Acts 28:15. See above on his soli-tude in Athens, p. 313.

(f1238) See above, p. 331.

(f1239) See above, Chap. 9.

(f1240) St. Luke here uses a military term.

(f1241) See Acts 13:51 [p. 162].

(f1242) Nothing more is known of him. The name is Latin.

(f1243) Luke 10:6, 7. St. Paul "abode" (imp.) in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (v. 3), while it is merely said that he "went to" (aor.) that of Justus (V. 7).

(f1244) In Romans 16:5 we hold "Asia" to be undoubtedly the right reading. See note on the passage. If, however, the reading "Achaia" were retained, we should be at liberty to suppose that Epaenetus was a member of the household of Stephanas, and thus we might reconcile 1Corinthians 16:15 with Romans 16:5.

(f1245) See p. 243.

(f1246) Observe the strong expressions which St. Paul himself uses (1Corinthians 2:3) of his own state of mind during this stay at Corinth.

(f1247) As he himself reminds his readers (2Thessalonians 2:5), and as we find in the Acts (Acts 17:7). See p. 282.

(f1248) [Professor Ellicott, in his note on 1Thessalonians 4:15, deprecates the inference that the Apostle definitely expected the second Advent to occur in his own lifetime. — H.]

(f1249) 2Thessalonians 2:2. Compare 3:17. Perhaps, however, these expressions may admit of being explained as referring to the rumor of a letter.

(f1250) Cicero’s Cilician Correspondence furnishes many specimens of the letters which passed between the governors of neighboring provinces.

(f1251) Much of the intercourse in Greece has always gone on by small coasters. Pouqueville mentions traces of a pared road between Corinth and Argos.

(f1252) See pp. 17 and 335.

(f1253) See above, p. 293.

(f1254) We have not entered into the question of St. Paul’s journey from Athens to Corinth. He may have traveled by the coast road through Eleusis and Megara; or a sail of a few hours, with a fair wind, would take hint from the Piraeus to Cenchrea.

(f1255) It is possible that the phrase "in every place" (1Corinthians 1:2) may have the same meaning.

(f1256) From the British Museum. For a long series of coins of this character, lee Mionnet and the Supplement.