fœditatis (see Buxtorfii Lex. Talmud. et Rabb. | sub, which root occurs in the Latin turpis). Onkelos renders Teraphim in Gen. xxxi. by .התרפים v0poros is formed from& De Tertio, scriba epistolæ Pauli ad Romanos, TERTULLUS (Tépruλos), the Roman orator or advocate employed by the Sanhedrim to sustain their accusation against Paul before the Roman governor (Acts xxiv. 1-8). The Jews, as well as the other peoples subject to the Romans, in their accusations and processes before the Roman magistrates, were obliged to follow the forms of the Roman law, of which they knew little. The different provinces, and particularly the principal cities, consequently abounded with persons who, at the same time advocates and orators, were equally ready to plead in civil actions or to harangue on public affairs. This they did, either in Greek or Latin, as the place or occasion required. , and Jonathan in Judges xvii. and xviii. by D, images. The Targum on Hosea iii. 4 has 1, indicans, expounder of oracles, where the Greek has dwv; and the Targum on 1 Sam. xv. 23, hy, idols. Goussetius, under , goes so far as to assert that the word Lud. de Dieu, and after him Spencer, in Leg. Rit. Hebr. Dissert. (vii. 1. 3, c. 3, s. 7), urges the frequent interchange of the sounds T and S and SH, in order to show that Teraphim and Seraphim are etymologically connected. Hottinger in his Smegma, and Athanasius Kircher in the first volume of his Edipus Ægyptiacus, exhibit the etymological progression thus: SoR ÁPIS (σwρ ά, ark of the ox), SARAPIS, SERAPIS, TERAPIS, TERAPHIM. The Arabic author, Aben Neph, also TETRARCH (TEтpάpxns), a prince or soveasserts the identity of TERAPHIM and SERAPIDES. reign who holds or governs a fourth part of a Others appeal to ND, Oeрameve, to heal (com- kingdom, without wearing the diadem, or bear pare Jo. Christ. Wichmannshausen, Dissertatio ing the title of king. Such was the original imde Teraphim; Witsius, Aegyptiac. i. 8; Ugo-port of the word, but it was afterwards applied to lino, Thes. tom. xii. p. 786). TESTAMENT. [BIBLE.] tetrarch, was from courtesy called a king. In the same manner what was only a tetrarchy was sometimes called a kingdom. any petty king or sovereign, and became synony. Cöln, in his Biblische Theologie, derives mous with ethnarch. The titles of tetrarch and teraphim from the Syriaca, percontari. king were often used indiscriminately. The tetrarch was sometimes a prince who possessed a Michaelis, in Commentationes Societati Gottin-half or only a third part, and though a mere gensi oblatæ, Brem., 1763, p. 5, sq., compares the teraphim to the Satyri and Sileni, referring to the statement of Pausanias (vi. 24. 6), that there were graves of Sileni in the country of the Hebrews. Creuzer asserts Theraphimis asiuinum aliquid infuisse,' that the Teraphim had something of asses in them (Commentationes Herod. i. 277; Symbolik, iii. 208, sq.). Creuzer appeals also (Symb. ii. 340) to Gen. xxxi., in order to prove the fertilizing, or rather fecundizing power of the D', which scarcely can be proved from ver. 19 (comp. here Rosenmülleri Scholia; Jahn, iii. 506, sq.) The dissertations of Wichmannshausen and of Pfeiffer, De Teraphim, are inserted in vol. xxiii. of Ugolini Thesaurus.-C. H. F. B. TEREBINTHUS. [ALAH.] TERTIUS. We learn from Rom. xvi. 22 (I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord'), that the Apostle Paul dictated that epistle to Tertius. Some writers say that Tertius was bishop of Iconium (see Fabricii Lux Evangelü, p. 117). F. Burmann and Lightfoot conjectured that Tertius and Silas were one and the same person; but this conjecture rests on an exceedingly feeble foundation, namely, the similarity merely of the consonants in the Hebrew numeral, three, to the consonants in the name Silas, while Tertius signifies in Latin the third. However, Zixas is the usual Greek contraction of the Roman name Silvanus, meaning nearly the same as the English name Forester or Woodman, just as Aoukas is a contraction of Lucanus, the meaning of which is nearly the same as that of Silas, and may be compared with the English name Groves. The scantiness of our information about Tertius has been a fruitful source of learned pedantry and petulant conjecture, such as that of F. Stosch in his Exercitatio de Tertio qua esse eum non alium ac ipsum Paulum probatur, p. 23-in the Fortges. nützl. Anmm. Samml. Compare also N. D. Briegleb, In the reign of Tiberius Cæsar Herod's kingdom of Judæa was divided into three parts, which were called tetrarchies, and the sovereigns tetrarchs. His sons were made the heirs to his kingdom. Archelaus became tetrarch of Judæa, Samaria, and Idumæa; Philip of Trachonitis and Ituræa; and Herod Antipas of Galilee and Peræa (Luke iii. 1). Herod Agrippa, the nephew of Herod Antipas, who afterwards obtained the title of king (Acts xxv. 13), was in the reign of Caligula invested with royalty, and appointed tetrarch of Abilene; to which was afterwards added Galilee and Peræa, Judæa and Samaria; until at length his dominion extended over the whole land of Palestine [HERODIAN FAMILY], The title of tetrarch was frequently conferred upon the descendants of Herod the Great by the Roman emperors (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 33).— G. M. B. THADDÆUS (@addaîos), a surname of the Apostle Jude, who was also called Lebbæus (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; comp. Luke vi. 16) [JUDE]. THAMMUZ. [TAMMUZ.] THEBES is a name borne by two of the most celebrated cities in the ancient world, Thebes in Baotia, and Thebes in Egypt. Of the latter it is that we have here to speak in brief, referring those who wish for detailed information to the works of Wilkinson, especially his Modern Egypt and Thebes. The name Thebes is corrupted from the Tápé of the ancient Egyptian language. In hiero glyphics it is written Ap, Ape, or with the feminine article, Tape, the meaning of which appears to be the head, Thebes being the capital of the Thebais in Upper Egypt. By the Septuagint it is generally termed Adoroλis, Diospolis (Magna), a name corresponding with that by which it is ་ spoken of in the Bible as in Ezek. xxx. 14, 1 will make Pathros (Pathyris, the western division of the city) desolate, and will execute judgments in No' (the name of the city, as it lay on the eastern bank of the Nile); see verses 15, 16, and compare xxix. 14, 15. So in Jerem. xlvi. 25, I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods and their kings; and I will deliver them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.' Here Thebes is denominated by the term No; in Nahum iii. 8, the name is made more specific, becoming No Amon, that is, the abode of Amon or Amun, who may be roughly described as the Egyptian Jupiter. There was indeed another place bearing the same name in Lower Egypt, just above Mendes, whose position near the Mediterranean would correspond very well with the language of Nahum (iii. 8), who has been thought by some (Kreenen, Nahumi Vaticinia Expos., 1808) to have intended this latter city; but the language employed by the prophet would answer equally well to the position of Thebes in Upper Egypt, situated as it was on both sides of the river Nile, still called el-Bahr, the sea, and having canals cutting the land in all directions, the waters of which (the Nile and its canals) would not only minister to the daily wants and to the affluence of the city, but form in case of attack a rampart and a wall.' The Thebes of Upper Egypt, which lay on both the eastern and western banks of the Nile, was probably the most ancieut city of Egypt, and the residence in very early ages of Egyptian kings who ruled the land during several dynasties. The plain was adorned not only by large and handsome dwellings for man, but by temples and palaces, of whose grandeur 6 520. [Thebes.-The palace-temple at Karnak.] words can give but a faint conception. Of these edifices there are still in existence ruins that astound and delight the traveller. The most ancient remains now existing are in the immense temple, or rather cluster of temples, of Karnak, the largest and most splendid ruin of which either ancient or modern times can boast, being the work of a number of successive monarchs, each anxious to surpass his predecessor by increasing the dimensions of the part he added. Osirtasen I., the contemporary of Joseph, is the earliest monarch whose name appears on the monuments of Thebes. The wealth of these temples was as ample as their architectural pretensions were great. They were served by a numerous and learned priesthood. On the western shore the chief points of interest are the palace and temple of Rameses II., erroneously called the Memnonium; the temples of Medinet Habu, the statue of Memnon, and the tombs of the kings. On the eastern shore are the temple of Luksor, and the temple of Karnak, already mentioned. It is impossible,' says Robinson (Bib. Researches, i. 29), 'to wander among these scenes and behold these hoary yet magnificent ruins without emotions of astonishment and deep solemnity. Everything around testifies of vastness and of utter desolation. Here lay once that mighty city whose power and splendour were proverbial throughout the ancient world.' Yet, like all earthly things, Thebes had her period of death. She sprang up, flourished, declined, and sank. Memphis rose to be her rival when Thebes began to part with her glory. She was plundered by Cambyses, and destroyed by Ptolemy Lathyrus. In Strabo's time the city was already fallen; yet its remains then covered eighty stadia, and the inhabited part was divided into many separate villages, as the ruins now are portioned out between nine hamlets. Thebes is thus described by Homer: Not all proud Thebes' unrivalled walls contain, | of the investigation in Biblical theology is nothing The world's great empress on th' Egyptian plain, That spreads her conquests o'er a thousand states, And pours her heroes through a hundred gates, Two hundred horsemen, and two hundred cars, From each wide portal issuing to the wars. But the countless generations of a city which well deserved to have Homer for its herald, have now passed for ever away, leaving their mighty works behind, to tell to wanderers from distant and unknown climes the story of her greatness and her fall. The desert hills around are filled with their corpses: on one spot Irby and Mangles counted in the side of the Libyan hills fifty mummy-pits, gaping with their open mouths, as if they would vomit forth their dusty contents, and showing how vain were the efforts which the Thebans made to preserve themselves from the dread decree-Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.' The period in which Thebes enjoyed the highest prosperity Robinson considers to have been coeval with the reigns of David and Solomon. This, however, appears too late a date. From the passage in Nahum (iii. 8, sq.), it would seem that in his day (according to Josephus, cir. 750 B.C.), the city had suffered a terrible overthrow-how long previously is not recorded, for we do not know what conquest or what conqueror was here intended by the prophet. The walls of all the temples at Thebes are covered with sculptures and hieroglyphics representing in general the deeds of the kings who founded or enlarged these structures. Many of these afford happy illustrations of Egyptian history. An interesting scene is thought to record the exploits of Sheshonk, the Shishak of the Scriptures, who made a successful expedition against Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, B.C. 971. These sculptures are on the exterior of the south-west wall of the great temple of Karnak.-J. R. B. THEBEZ (127; Sept. OhBns), a place near Shechem, where Abimelech met his death (Judg. ix. 50; 2 Sam. xi. 21). It seems to be the same with the place now called Tubas. THEOLOGY, BIBLICAL. The historical contemplation of the Bible consists of three parts, namely, first, of an examination of the Biblical books themselves, or of what 'is called Introduction [INTRODUCTION]; secondly, of the interpretation of these writings [INTERPRETATION]; and lastly, of the system of religious doctrines contained in the Bible. We may define Biblical theology as the scientific form of the religious opinions contained in the Bible. Biblical theology belongs, therefore, entirely to the historical branch of divinity, and differs essentially from Biblical dogmatics by keeping clear from all doctrinal predilections. Biblical theology and Biblical dogmatics are, however, so nearly related that they have frequently been confounded. Biblical dogmatics, in developing the religious system of the Bible, assume the doctrine of inspiration. Biblical theology, however, does not consider inspiration to be an historical starting-point of a science, but rather an ecclesiastical attribute of the Bible to which a purely historical contemplation of the Bible may ultimately lead, but which ought not to be pre-supposed. The basis else but historical truth. The moral nature of man claims a purely historical contemplation of the Bible, although this is opposed by hierarchical narrow-mindedness. The Bible itself consists of a variety of writings, the date of whose origin differs by centuries. Consequently, chronology is of great importance in Biblical theology. The mere division into the Old and New Testament does not suffice for the purposes of Biblical theology. In the history of Biblical literature before Christ, various periods are discernible, and the transition from the Old to the New Testament is such that we must suppose that there existed an intervening literature. The great space of time to which the writings of the Old Testament belong is conveniently subdivided into the periods of HEBRAISM, MOSAISM, and JUDAISM. I. During the whole history before the exile, that is, as long as the Hebrews were an independent nation, we find no allusion to the existence of the Mosaical law as we have it in the Pentateuch. This is especially remarkable in the earlier prophets. For this reason the whole period of Hebrew national independence has been called the age of Hebraism, or the Hebraic age. II. Simultaneously with the loss of national independence the Mosaic law gradually makes its appearance, expelling the freer religious enthusiasm which before that time had prevailed in the nation in the form of Prophetism. This period of the prevalence of the Mosaical law is the period of Mosaism. During this period of Mosaism a colony, chiefly from the tribe of Judah, gradually proceeded to Palestine; and in this colony the ancestral religion was further developed. This religion did not then seem the property of the whole nation, but to be restricted to the Jews alone. The new phasis into which the religion of the Old Testament then entered is characterized by the extinction of prophetic inspiration. Consequently the period of Mosaism extends from the commencement of the exile to the times immediately after the latest prophets, Zechariah and Malachi, or to about the year B.C. 400. III. The age of Judaism commences about the year B.c. 400. During this age the law and its interpretation remained paramount; but tradition took the place of the free inspiration of Jehovah. This tradition refers both to those writ ings which in the periods of Hebraism and Mosaism expressed the prevalence of the Divine Spirit, and also to some accounts said to be orally preserved. The oral tradition, following the spirit of the times, constantly imbibed new elements, and brought into subjection both the Mosaical law and the writings which were composed during the period of the prevalence of the Divine Spirit. The period of Judaism exhibits this new developement of the religion of the Old Testament, first, in its growth, and then in its maturity. There are no writings in the Old Testament canon which exhibit tradition in its maturity. The Old Testament canon contains a collection of the Mosaical laws, and of the books which were written under the Spirit of Jehovah. The Christian times, however, are directly con nected with the formation of Judaism in its second stage, and the New Testament rests on the basis of this latter form of contemplation. The New Testament presupposes, not so much the views and opinions of Hebraism and of Mosaism, but those of later Judaism, in which the canonical portion of the Bible leaves a gap, partly but imperfectly filled up by the Old Testament Apocrypha, and the writings of Philo and Josephus. Consequently we are frequently obliged to take from the New Testament itself the proofs requisite to convince us that certain opinions were prevalent in the Judaism of those times. The New Testament, containing a collection of the writings of the Apostles, comprehends a much shorter period than the Old Testament; nevertheless, in these Christian writings also there is a twofold mode of viewing religion, namely, the particularistic or Judaizing, which chronologically preceded the more universal or catholic, which is embodied in the writings of St. Paul and St. John. In exhibiting the doctrines of the New Testament we ought to keep in view the difference of these particularistic and catholic tendencies. Consequently Biblical theology consists of the following parts, which may be historically distinguished-Hebraism, Mosaism, Judaism, Judaizing Christianity, and Paulino-Johannic Christianity. From the union of the two Christian tendencies proceeds the catholic and apostolic church, the maxims of which are in the New Testament only indicated. | It is the problem of BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, first, to classify the Biblical books according to these periods or tendencies; secondly, to examine the writings of each author and of each tendency as much as possible in chronological succession-each by itself with reference to the religious doctrines contained therein--and also to sum up the results of each section, and thus to advance from Hebraism to Mosaism, and from Mosaism to Judaism, &c. | In this generical developement of Biblical doctrines, the investigator ought to keep in view what is common to all Biblical books in all periods; also what is characteristic in each author and in each period; and finally, he ought to render prominent that in which all the authors of the New Testament agree, because this alone constitutes what is really essential in Christianity. first attempted to bring Biblical theology into the form of a system (comp. G. T. Zachariæ, Biblischer Theologus oder Untersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, first published at Göttingen in 1771, in 2 vols. The third edition was published in 1786, in 4 vols., to which was added in the same year a fifth volume by Vollborth. Similar works are W. Fr. Hufnagel's Handbuch der biblischen Theologie, band i., Erlangen, 1782; band ii. Abtheilung i., 1789; Ammon's Biblische Theologie, Erlangen, 1792, band i. second edition, in 3 vols. 1801-1802; Storr's Doctrina Christianæ pars theoretica, e sacris literis repetita, Stuttgart, 1793, translated into German by T. Chr. Flatt, Stuttgart, 1803: a second, but incomplete edition, appeared in 1813. An English translation of this work, with additions, was published at Andover in America, by Dr. Schumacker, in 1836. The above works on Biblical Theology are too devoid of science, and do not rest upon the basis of a firm principle. F. Ph. Gabler, a pupil of Griesbach, first attempted to avoid these defects, in his Oratio de justo discrimine Theologiæ Biblice et Dogmaticæ regundisque recte utriusque finibus, Altorf, 1787; Opuscula, 1831, ii. 129, sq. In this work Biblical theology is established as a purely historical science. Gabler was followed by Georg Laurenz Baur and G. Ph. Chr. Kaiser, who, however, did not keep clear from mixing up with Biblical theology several not strictly historical, and therefore foreign, elements. Their works have been surpassed by those of De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. These writers, however, render history too much subservient to their philosophical opinions; comp. W. M. de Wette's Biblischer Dogmatik des Alten und Neuen Testamentes, Berlin, 1813, third edit. 1830; and Baumgarten-Crusius's Grundzüge der Biblischen Theologie, Jena, 1828. The idea of Biblical theology has been best understood and executed by Dan. Georg. Conrad von Colln (Biblische Theologie), Leipzig, 1836, 2 vols. The second volume, which relates to the New Testament, is, however, much inferior to the first. The science of Biblical theology, in this sense, The following works refer to parts of Biblical is only in its infancy. Its principles were disco-theology: Gramberg's Kritische Geschichte der vered after manifold errors and mistakes. A work comprehending the results of the historical investigation of the Bible, is still a desideratum. There exist, however, excellent preparatory works. The scientific description of Hebraism and Mosaism is further advanced than that of Judaism and the Biblical theology of the New Testament. The true cause of this fact is the greater internal definiteness of Hebraism and Mosaim. Formerly, the expression Theologia Biblica implied the whole sphere of exegetical divinity. About the end of the seventeenth century the term Theologia Biblica was employed in preference in order to express the exegetical interpretation of the dicta probantia, or those Biblical passages by which divines defended their system. Spener and his followers introduced the habit of contradistinguishing Biblical theology and symbolical dogmatics. About this period Biblical theology consisted chiefly in strings of Biblical passages. Towards the end of the eighteenth century a divine in Göttingen, Gotthilf Traugott Zachariæ, VOL. 11. Religions Ideen des Alten Testaments, Berlin, 1822 and 1830, 2 vols.; Vatke's Biblische Thelogie wissenschaftlich dargestellt, Berlin, 1835. Of this work the first volume alone has been published, which refers to the Old Testament, and is not so much an historical as a strictly Hegelian book. G. Fr. Ehler's Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testamentes, Stuttgart, 1845, is more an ecclesiastico-dogmatical than an historical book; Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu et Apostolorum ætate, Erlanga, 1811; Aug. Gfrörer's Philo und die Alexandrinische Theosophie, Stuttgart, 1831, 2 vols.; A. F. Dähne's Geschichtliche Darstellung der judisch Alexandrinischen Religions Philosophie, Halle, 1834, 2 parts; George, Ueber die neuesten Gegensätze in der Auffassung der jüdischen Religion, philosophie, in Illgen's Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, 1839, Heft 3 und 4; Usteri's Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, Zürich, 1824, 4th ed. 1832; Dähne, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, Halle, 1834; Frommann, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Leip 31 zig, 1839; K. R. Köstlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangelii und der Briefe des Johannis, Berlin, 1843. This book also is rather too Hegelian. In Matthæi's Religions-glaube der Apostel nach seinem Inhalte Ursprung und Werth, Göttingen, 1826-1830, Hegelian ideas predominate.*K. A. C. THEOPHILUS (Ocópios), a person of distinction, to whom St. Luke inscribed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1). The word means lover of God; whence some have fancied that it was to be taken as a general name for any or every lover of God. But there seems no foundation for this opinion, as the circumstance and style of address point to a particular person of honourable station, with whom Luke was acquainted. The title - KpάTLOTOS, translated 'most excellent,' is the same which is given to governors of provinces, as Felix and Festus (Acts xxiii. 26; xxvi. 25); whence he is conceived by some to have been a civil magistrate in some high office. Theophylact (Argument. in Luc.) supposes that he was of the senatorian order, and perhaps a nobleman or prince. THESSALONIANS, EPISTLES TO THE. -FIRST EPISTLE. The authenticity and canonical authority of this epistle have been from the earliest ages admitted; nor have these points ever been called in question, either in ancient or modern times, by those who have received any of Paul's epistles. Besides two probable quotations from it by Polycarp (Lardner, ii. 96, 8vo. ed.), it is certainly cited, and cited as the production of the apostle Paul, by Irenæus (v. 6, §1), by Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. § 19, p. 109, ed. Potter), by Tertullian (De Resur. Carnis, c. 21), by Caius (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 20), by Origen (Cont. Cels. lib. iii.), and by others of the ecclesiastical writers (Lardner, ii. pl. locc.). | others, are of opinion that, at least as respects Timothy, it did take place; and they infer that Paul again remanded him to Thessalonica, aud that he made a second journey along with Silas to join the apostle at Corinth. Hug, on the other hand, supposes only one journey, viz., from Thessalo nica to Corinth; and understands the apostle in 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, as intimating, not that he had sent Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica, but that he had prevented his coming to Athens by sending him from Berea to Thessalonica. Between these two opinions, there is nothing to enable us to judge with certainty, unless we attach weight to the expression of Luke, that Paul had desired the presence of Timothy and Silas in Athens &s Táxiσтa, 'as speedily as possible.' His desiring them to follow him thus, without loss of time, favours the conclusion that they did rejoin in Athens, and were thence sent to Thessalonica. But whatever view we adopt on this point, it seems indisputable that this epistle was not written until Paul met Timothy and Silas at Corinth. The ancient subscription, indeed, testifies that it was written at Athens; but that this could not be the case is clear from the epistle itself. I. In ch. i. 7, 8, Paul says that the Thessalonians had donia and Achaia: for from you (says he) sounded become ensamples to all that believe in Mace and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia God-ward is spread abroad. Now, for such an extensive diffusion of the fame of the Thessalo nian Christians, and of the Gospel by them, a much longer period of time must have elapsed than is allowed by the supposition that Paul wrote this epistle whilst at Athens; and besides, his re ference particularly to Achaia seems prompted by the circumstance of his being, at the time he wrote, in Achaia, of which Corinth was the chief city. 2. His language in ch. iii. 1, 2, favours the opinion This epistle has generally been regarded as the first written by Paul of those now extant. that it was not from Athens, but after he had left In the Acts of the Apostles (xvii. 5, sq.) we are told that Athens, that he wrote this epistle; it is hardly the turn which one living at Athens at the time Paul, after preaching the Gospel with success at Thessalonica, had to flee from that city in cousewould have given his words. 3. Is it likely that, quence of the malice of the Jews; that he thence during the short time Paul was in Athens, before betook himself to Berea, in company with Silas; writing this epistle (supposing him to have written that, driven by the same influence from Berea, he it there), he should have over and again' pur journeyed to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy posed to revisit the Thessalonians, but have been (the latter of whom had probably preceded him tained before writing this epistle, as we lear hindered? And yet such purposes he had enterto Berea) behind him; and that after remaining from ch. ii. 18; and this greatly favours the later in that city for some time, he went to Corinth, where he was joined by Timothy and Silas. It had come to him from Thessalonica with good date. 4. Before Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy appears also from this epistle (iii. 1, 2, 5), that tidings concerning the faith and charity of the whilst at Athens he had commissioned Timothy Christians there (iii. 6). But had Timothy fol to visit the infant church at Thessalonica; and lowed Paul to Athens from Berea, what tidings from Acts xvii. 15, 16, we learn that he expected could he have brought the apostle from Thessalo to be joined by Timothy and Silas in that city.nica, except such hearsay reports as would inform Whether this expected meeting ever took place there, is a matter involved in much uncertainty. Michaelis, Eichhorn, De Wette, Koppe, Pelt, and In the English language there are scarcely any works on Biblical Theology as defined in this article, except one or two which have been translated in America from the German. There are indeed several works of various merit on Biblical dogmatics, that is to say, doctrinal rather than historical, but they do not claim notice in this place.-EDIT. the apostle of nothing he did not already know! From these considerations, it follows that this epistle was not written from Athens. It must, however, have been written very soon after his arrival at Corinth; for, at the time of his writing, Timothy had just arrived from Thessalonica (pri AtorTOS Tμoléov, iii. 6), and Paul had not been long in Corinth before Timothy and Silas joined him there (Acts xvii. 1-5). Michaelis contends for a later date, but his arguments are destitute of weight. Before Paul could learn that the fame of the Thessalonian church, had spread through |