Colophon

Leiden - E. J. Brill 1890.

Introduction

For some years now questions have been raised about the authenticity of Paul’s Hauptbriefe, and with this also about the history of Paulinism in general.

I would like to make some contributions to answering these questions.

The first contribution is dedicated to an investigation of what can be and is allowed to be derived from the Acts of the Apostles independently of the Epistles for our knowledge of Paul and the movement named after him. It seemed to be especially desirable to me to investigate this: both with an eye on the presumed inauthenticity of all the Pauline epistles, and because it seems to me that the witness of Acts regarding Paul has not yet been properly explored.

In the older school, Acts and the Epistles were simply used together. "Apparent" contradictions were ignored or cleverly harmonized. In the worst case Acts and the Epistles were, silently, each in turn, invited to take precedence over the other.

Slowly this has changed and Paul has become the person in whom everyone places trust over Luke. Under the influence of the leaders and disciples of the Tuebingen school the authenticity of the Epistles became a weapon against every contradictory report in Acts, while usually everything that didn’t contradict, or didn’t appear to contradict, Paul’s own statements was considered to be historically correct and thus was included in the "life of Paul". Although J.W. Straatman in this respect was resistant against the arbitrariness of Baur and those of like mind, he in turn did the same himself. In the end he too held to what seemed plausible to him in Acts that was also in agreement with what the Epistles had told him regarding Paul, while he rejected everything else as unreliable. Most meanwhile followed the less decisive judgment made in Tuebingen about Acts; though it became a judgment of sharp condemnation as soon as it concerned a contradiction with the Epistles.

In this too the last years have brought change. The publication of new ideas about the development of earliest Christianity by A.D. Loman was an attempt to restore the reputation of Acts at the same time. Loman’s "Quaestiones Paulinae" repeatedly stated that this work gives us a more accurate picture of Paul than the Epistles, although it may not be an entirely correct representation in all cases. It was an opinion shared by Rudolf Steck, who recommended it explicitly in his "Galaterbrief".[1]. Since then there is the danger — although it was not the intention of Loman and Steck to work towards this — that without a reasonable opposition, Acts, independent of the Epistles, will be considered to as a reasonably reliable source for our knowledge of Paul’s life and works.

Or is it in fact inappropriate to speak of a danger because we are, perhaps, actually moving in the right direction?

The following pages attempt to give the answer to that question.

No one could disagree that in the present circumstances an investigation is very desirable into what Acts reports about Paul independently of the Epistles. But this investigation needs to be performed independently of our judgment concerning the authenticity or inauthenticity of any of the Epistles that have come to us as written by Paul. In fact it will in many cases not be possible to make noteworthy progress if we do not possess a decent theory concerning the origin of Acts. And exactly in this respect I believe I have to diverge from common interpretation; sometimes even rather widely.

In order to avoid having to interrupt the investigation repeatedly to deal with so-called introductory questions I first wish to discuss the origin of Acts. After this I can then more succinctly deal with what Acts, independently of the Epistles, can tell us about Paul. I flatter myself that in this way we create a path to surprising results and ensure ourselves invaluable support for our further investigations regarding Paulinism. But we should not go too far ahead in these matters. The judgment concerning this stays with the interested reader.

In a followup to this publication about Paul that forms a certain whole with this first one, I wish to concern myself with the Epistle to the Romans.

FIRST SECTION: The origin of Acts.

I. The unity of the work.

A single glance at the contents of Acts is sufficient to convince us that we are not looking at the work of a single eye and ear witness. We hear in turn about the experiences of Jesus' first disciples after his resurrection and ascension, about Peter and Paul, about Philip and Barnabas, about Stephen and James, about Jews and Christians in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Rome, and elsewhere. Repeatedly the author shares details that would have taken place at about the same time but in different locations. It is impossible to imagine someone who was present for all of it.

But there can also be no doubt about the unity of the work. It can in no way be considered to be a coincidental collection of different stories and episodes that have their origins with different individuals. It’s also not a simple sequence of material taken from different traditions or written documents. It is still common to incorrectly interpret Acts 1:8 as the indication of the plan or program of the author, while in this passage Jesus speaks strictly to the eleven. Paul — or more correctly, first Paul and Barnabas, then Paul and Silas or Paul by himself — contributed no less to the dissemination of the Gospel in Acts 13-28. It’s also doubtful whether Rome could be designated "the end of the Earth" and Acts in any case does not relate anything about the foundation of Christianity in Rome.

But even then it must be recognized: there is a common thread throughout the whole work. It gives us a fairly coherent sketch of the history of Christianity during the first years after the death of Jesus. While this sketch may be far from complete, it does offer us a rather well-organized whole in which there is certainly no jarring discontinuity between topics. The demands of chronology have been taken into account fairly well as much as they penetrated into the awareness of the author. Very gradually stories follow each other:

  • The last meeting of Jesus with the disciples; the ascension of the Master; the disposition of the waiting disciples and the addition of Matthew to the twelve. (Acts 1)

  • The pouring out of the holy spirit on Pentecost and the direct impact of this momentous event, concluding with a brief sketch of the first community. (Acts 2)

  • The activity of Peter and John in the temple in Jerusalem, their capture, interrogation and release, again concluding with a memory of the excellent qualities of the oldest community. (Acts 3, Acts 4)

  • The sad history of Ananias and Sapphira, the further activity of the apostles in Jerusalem, the support they enjoyed and the opposition that they experience. (Acts 5)

  • The appointing of deacons, the activity and martyr’s death of Stephen. (Acts 6, Acts 7)

  • A persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, the flight of many to the countries of Judea and Samaria, the activity there of Philip, and soon also of Peter and John, and the connected history of Simon Magus. (Acts 8)

  • The conversion of Paul, his activity as preacher of the Gospel, his becoming acquainted with the Jerusalem Christians. (Acts 9.1-31)

  • The further work of Peter outside Jerusalem, in particular in Lydda, Joppe and Caesarea, where he receives the god-fearing gentile Cornelius into the Christian community, a deed for which he gives a proper accounting in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:32-11:18)

  • The origin of a community from gentiles in Antioch, which is in part a result of the diaspora of Christians after the death of Stephen and her interaction with the parent community in Jerusalem. (Acts 11.19-29)

  • Herod’s activity against the Christians, how he has James killed, Peter captured, and how he dies a painful death himself. (Acts 12.1-23)

  • The return of Barnabas and Saul, mentioned at the end of Acts 11. (Acts 12.24; Acts 25)

  • Their apostolic journeys to Cyprus and Asia Minor. (Acts 13-14)

  • A meeting of Paul and Barnabas with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, necessitated by circumstances. (Acts 15:1-35)

  • The further fate of Paul until the end of his two year captivity in Rome. (Acts 15.36-28.31)

An eye is kept on the coherence of facts that aren’t mentioned in immediate sequence; for instance the connection between the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, mentioned in 8.1, and the founding of a gentile-Christian community in Antioch in 11.19-20, and between the staying behind of Silas and Timothy in 17.14-15 and their return to Paul in 18.5. When the coherence is broken, as in 11.30, it is deliberately restored in 12.25. Philip in Caesarea (21.8) and the Ephesian Trophimus (21.29) are old acquaintances of the author, which is also evidenced by 8.40 and 20.4. Repeatedly we find the author calling back to details that were related earlier (11.16 to 1.5; 11.19 to 8.1; 15.8 to 11.44-47; 15.38 to 13.13; 16.4 to 15.29; 19.1 to 18.23; 22.20 to 7.58 and 8.1)

There is momentum in the course of the related history. We see Christianity, initially limited to a small circle of the faithful (1) expand itself, first within the narrow boundaries of Jerusalem (2-7), after this in other parts of Judea, in Samaria (8); founded amongst former Jews in Damascus (9), brought to the god-fearing gentile Cornelius in Caesarea (10.1-11.18), to ordinary Greeks, non-Jewish, in Antioch (11.19-26), and finally frequently to Jews and gentiles wherever they may live the civilized world, in such a way that its actual destiny for the gentiles becomes clear (13-28). The Gospel for Jews and god-fearers, for Samaritans and gentiles! The parent community and her representatives, the apostles, gradually start to acknowledge this. Their outlook becomes increasingly liberal, and their perspective widens. Before the outpouring of the holy spirit takes place they believe they can take as a witness only one of the men who was a close acquaintance of Lord Jesus (1.21-22). Later on entirely different people are acknowledged and praised as "prophets and teachers" (13.1) for their efforts to spread the Gospel among the gentiles, among them some men from Cyprus and Cyrene (11.20) as well as "the apostles" Barnabas and Paul (14.14). When the story reaches Jerusalem for the first time that Samaritans have accepted the word of God, Peter and John are dispatched to see what is going on (8.14-15). When Peter is moved, not without difficulty, to go to the god-fearing Cornelius, and reaches out to him and then makes a report of his missionary work in Jerusalem, they don’t just accept what happened, but actually take it as an occasion to praise God (11.18). Barnabas, dispatched by the community in Jerusalem to investigate the circumstances of the conversion of gentiles in Antioch, goes one step further. He rejoices, fetches Paul from Tarsus and for one year dedicates himself with Paul to the expansion of the community of Christians from the gentiles in Antioch (11.22-26). Later those in Jerusalem take up the fight for both of them (15.6-29), and finally they receive Paul and those with him "gladly", while they do their best to protect the brothers from any difficulty (21.17-25).

It’s true that it’s possible to speak of the work as consisting of two parts, one so-called Petrine (1-12), and one Pauline (13-28), because Peter is indeed the main character in the most important stories of the first, and Paul in the second. But these two parts are not simply independent from each other; they interlock. You only have to look at how the Pauline reference to Barbanas (4.36-37), the matter concerning Stephen’s actions and death (6.8-15 and 7.51-8.3a), the story of Paul’s conversion and the events that are immediately connected to it (9.1-30), as well the story of foundation of a community from gentiles in Antioch (11.10-30 and 12.24-25), have each retained a position in the first part, while in turn the definitely non-Pauline story of the council of Jerusalem (15.1-35) is contained in the second part.

This second book by Luke, as we call its author for convenience, forms a fairly finished whole no less than his first work, our third Gospel. In addition to the overview that has already been supplied we should also pay attention to the introduction (1.1-2). Let it not go unnoticed that the book only has the appearance of being unfinished. It is said: the story of Paul is suddenly broken off. But then we fail to see that the author has indeed ended his story by making the reader feel much earlier that Paul is going to die in Rome (20.22-24; 21.4; 21.11-14; 27.23-24). Why then wouldn’t he tell us again clearly at the end of the book? He also doesn’t he give us the reason why he lets Peter, just saved from prison, retire permanently (except for his necessary appearance in Acts 15) with the remark "and he departed to another place". Perhaps there is a connection between the one and the other and he did not wish to describe Paul’s martyr death because the tradition did not speak of a violent death for Peter. But the most plausible explanation is that he didn’t mention the bloody end of the apostle to the gentiles because he didn’t want to antagonize the Romans while it was actually his aim to win their favor for Christianity.

[#page-10-and-11] His persistent pursuit of that target is also evidence for the unity of the work. As J. W. Straatman.[2] and H. U. Meiboom.[3] have conclusively proven, after Overbeck.[4], Rovers.[5] and others, following Schneckenburger and Zeller who had drawn attention to this point in passing: everything is set up to the defense of Christianity in the Roman world and to uphold their right to exist in it. With the Jews they are finished; they have to be spared no longer. Although Christianity is nothing but the lawful continuation of the best of what Israel possessed, the Jews have, to their shame, rejected it. The author does not tire of arguing this, by mouth of Peter on the first day of Pentecost (2.14-36), in the Jerusalem temple (3.11-26), before the Sanhedrin (4.8-12 and 5.29-32), to Cornelius in Caesarea (10.34-43), by mouth of Stephen shortly before his death (7.2-53), Paul against the leaders of the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia (13.16-41). None of these speakers neglects to make clear that the Romans did not crucify Jesus, although Pilate gave his permission for it, but that those guilty of the death of this innocent are none other than the Jews, who are accused of this repeatedly (2.23; 3.14; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52; 10.39; 13.28). They have displayed their deep contempt of the "Way", which they call a sect (αἵρεσις) (24.14), by mocking the work of the holy spirit (2.13), by first imprisoning Peter and John (4.1-4) and then the apostles (5.18), by killing Stephen (7.59), by the persecution of the community in Jerusalem (8.1), by the deliberation against Paul in Damascus (9.23-25), by their resistance against him and Barnabas in Antioch in Pisidia (13.45; 13.50), in Iconium (14.2), by stoning Paul in Lystra (14.19), by plotting against him and causing difficulty in his evangelizing in Thessalonica (17.5), in Beroea (17.13), in Corinth (18.6), in Ephesus (19.9), in Greece (20.3); by trying to kill him in Jerusalem (21.27-32), by becoming the cause of his capture and conveyance to Rome (21-28); and finally by showing their aversion to him there as well (28.23-28).

The Romans however, our historian argues continuously, had their eyes opened from the start to the value of Christianity and did not hesitate to give it their protection. Romans were among the first witnesses of the working of the holy spirit in Jerusalem (2.10). The first gentile converted by Peter was the noble Roman Cornelius in Caesarea, for whose sake the apostle travels and receives supernatural revelations (Acts 10). Similarly the first named individual who Paul won over to his view of the Gospel is a Roman official, the proconsul Sergius Paulus in Paphos on Cyprus (13.4-12). The Romans never engage in any persecution. Their contribution to the death of Jesus is actually put on the account of the Jews, as we have already seen. King Herod retained enough independence to kill a few of them under his own authority, including James, and, to please the Jews, imprison Peter (12.1-5). When the Roman government ends up imprisoning Paul and Silas in Philippi, it happens on the instigation of low individuals out for dirty profit, who were not ashamed to make false accusations (16.19-24). But barely have these gentlemen thought a little about what happened and heard who were captured on their orders, and they give the order to release them, indeed they even rush to the jail, take them out and request politely that they leave the city (16.35-39). In Corinth the proconsul Gallio refuses to consider a complaint against Paul, in whom he found no wrongdoing nor any crime (18.14-16). In Ephesus the town clerk takes up his defense (19.37). In Jerusalem, Lysias, the tribune of the cohort, takes him into temporary custody, in part due to a misunderstanding, in part to prevent worse from happening (21.31-40). The conveyance of the prisoner to Caesarea, under a particularly strong guard, has no other purpose than to protect Paul’s life, which is under threat (23.22-33). Lysias charges him with nothing that deserves death or imprisonment (23.29). Felix apparently doesn’t consider him guilty of any crime either (24.22-23). Festus doesn’t want to convict him without a hearing, nor send him against his will to Jerusalem (25.1-9). He declares to Agrippa that he can find nothing against the prisoner, which bothers him now that he has to send him to Rome (25.24-27). The king of the Jews, Agrippa, whose impartiality as a judge cannot be in doubt, agrees entirely with the Roman governor (26.31-32). What could be more powerful evidence of the innocence of Paul? He is only sent to Rome because he appealed to the emperor. But although he is a prisoner, he has freedom of movement aboard the ship. The centurion of the imperial cohort, Julius, gives Paul special treatment, rather more than makes sense (27.3, 27.11, 27.43). After the shipwreck he heals the father of Publius and other sick on Malta, who of course gratefully revere him (28.8-10). In Rome at last, his imprisonment is extremely light (28.16-30) and it’s repeated that the Romans actually wanted to release him because they could not find any guilt in him (28.17-18). In these ways it is argued that Christianity is not evil, and does no evil, even though "people everywhere are speaking against this sect" (28.22). Those Romans empowered to act and judge have acknowledged this all along. Why should one now behave differently against those whose great apostle, who moved amongst the gentiles, after all himself was a Roman citizen?

This attribution of Roman citizenship to Paul (16.37), and also to Silas, cannot be explained at all from a historical perspective but is of great importance in the history of Paul in Acts (see 16.21; 16.37; 16:38; 22.25-29; 23.27; 25.10-11; 26.32; 28.19). It is an eloquent plea against the persecution that Christians had to fear or endure from Romans. This continuous endeavour of Luke to defend Christianity in front of the Romans, a characteristic of Acts on which O. Pfleiderer.footnote[Das Urchristenthum, seine Schriften und Lehren, 1887, pg. 544-7 and 602] recently put a lot of emphasis, is therefore probably the reason why no deliberate reference is made here to the violent death that Paul according to tradition underwent in Rome. Such an ending would be in too cutting a contradiction with the intended aim.

The unity of the work becomes equally visible by the spirit which permeates it. It’s the same throughout as well: a spirit of earnestness and peace, of truth and love, of tolerance and appreciation. There is only one exception to this rule and this exception too keeps recurring. This involves the Jews. They are continuously attacked severely, for the position of the author allows no alternatives. Because he stands firm in the conviction: the Jews could have received Jesus and Christianity, but have deliberately rejected the founder and what he founded. See also the references on page 10 and 11 and also note how Paul angrily turns his back to the Jews each time and says: they are to blame that he has to go to the gentiles now (13.46; 18.6; 19.9; 28.25-28).

There is a friendly mood and a gentle judgment for everyone else, inside and outside the boundaries of the Christian community, as long as they’re not convicted sinners like Judas, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus and Elymas. The book is very pleased with Christianity, irregardless in what form it appears, older or newer. Petrism nor Paulinism do not speak here, to use familiar expressions, but rather a spirit of brotherhood between "Peter" and "Paul", a Catholicism that is on a path of reconciliation. That Peter and those with him are portrayed first is simply a result of the circumstance that they were active before Paul and his friends. The oldest leaders aren’t recognized as such anymore. Both receive equal honor; the acts of both are justified equally. It’s as if there are no differences in direction, as if no development took place in Christianity. Universalism is not objectionable in the estimation of Petrism; antinomianism isn’t a feature of Paulinism alone. The eleven, soon the twelve, especially Peter and John, and also James, and in general those in Jerusalem, are to be called "the apostles" par excellence (1.2; 1.26; 2:37; 2.42; 2.43; 4.33; 4.35; 4.6; 5.2; 5.12; 5.18; 5.29, etc); and Paul and Barnabas are also named as such (14.4; 14.14).

The eleven are promised (1.5, 1.8) and gifted the holy spirit (2.1 and continued), and Paul the same (9.17). They share it with others (8.15), and he does too (19.6).

They too are called by Jesus to preach to the ends of the Earth (1.8), and are conscious of their duty go to the gentiles. Already on the first day of Pentecost Peter assures his listeners that the promise is to Israel’s children καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν, ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν (and to all that are far off, all of whom are called by the Lord our God) (2.39). He approves of Philip’s preaching among the Samaritans (8.15); he himself recruits the first gentile, Cornelius; and defends this move (Acts 10-11), and later calls himself chosen to evangelize amongst the gentiles ἀφ’ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων (from the early days) (15.7). Earlier already those in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch and gave their seal of approval to the χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ (grace of God) that was visible there amongst the former gentiles (11.23). None of them that are in authority have any objection against the unjewish activity of Paul and Barnabas amongst the gentiles, even when this topic is deliberately brought up (Acts 15). The universalism and consecration of the holy spirit are no innovations by Paul or one of his kindred spirits. They are as old as Christianity itself, specifically as old as as the activity of Peter and his friends.

On the other hand Paul is not portrayed as hostile, with a sharp-edged antinomianism and as solely lead by the holy spirit, to the brothers of the parent community. He is rather taught immediately after his conversion by Ananias, who belongs to the older Christians; baptized and acquainted with the apostles in Jerusalem, where, so, to speak, he pops in regularly (9.1-30); fetched from Tarsus to Antioch by Barnabas, the trusted member of the Jerusalem community, who put him to work (11.26). Paul accompanies the capable preacher on his journeys as a second person, first to Jerusalem, to serve the brothers (11.30) and subsequently to Cyprus and through Asia Minor to preach the gospel (Acts 13-14). Only slowly he becomes the first and Barnabas steps into his shadow. In Antioch he belongs to those who "serve the Lord and fast" (13.2). He doesn’t speak to gentiles as a rule, unless the Jews force him to do so by their unwillingness. He is in a lively communion with the parent community from the start. He visits it continuously (9.26; 11.30; 15.2; 18.22, 21.15); helps with its relief (11.30); subjects himself to its pronouncements (15.1-35); does what it asks (9.30; 11.25; 16.1-4; 21.20-26); and continuously he shows himself to be full of reverence for the Law and its institutions and practices (16.1-4; 21.20-26; 23.2-5). What may still seem new in his actions can’t rightfully offend, because it is prepared by the activities of others: by Stephen (6.11-14), by Philip amongst Samaritans and with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), by some men of Cyprus and Cyrene in Antioch (11.20) and by Peter with Cornelius (Acts 10). He can therefore easily declare in front of the Sanhedrin that he’s always had a good conscience (23.1), that he isn’t persecuted for antinomianism, but περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (for the hope and the resurrection of the dead) (23.6). He declares in front of Felix that he traveled to Jerusalem "to worship" (24.11). He has done nothing offensive in the temple, in the synagogues or in the city (24.12, compare 24.6). He even believes in all that is written in Law and Prophets (24.14), and has returned after many years to Jerusalem to deliver alms and offerings, for which he had purified himself and gone to the temple (24.17-18). Before Festus he repeats the assertion that he had done nothing evil against the Jews (25.10). He and Agrippa hear that his preaching has always been accordance with the predictions of Moses and the Prophets (26.22-23). He says the same to the Jews in Rome: that he has never done anything against "the people or customs of our fathers" (28.17).

Finally we can add the witness of language and style to all this evidence for the unity of Acts. These too are generally the same in the entire book, even where different individuals speak. They betray a single hand. What Zeller.[6] and others, the most completely C. Nösgen, in his "Commentar über die AG (1882), have pointed out as particularities does not need to be repeated here. Nobody in the present day will hold Acts, with Schleiermacher and Schwanbeck, to be a simple collection of fragments taken from different sources. The book is a unity in form and content, the work of a single author.

This declaration should be empathized to prevent misunderstanding as well as to make us realize how difficult it will always remain to give a complete overview of the nature and scope of the tools that the author used when composing his work.

We cannot doubt the unity of the work. We are dealing with a book and not a simple collection of traditions and fragments. But it does not follow from this that we can now consider Acts to be, with Bruno Bauer.[7], a "Werk der Dichtung und Reflexion" (a work of poetry and reflection) which contains at most a few correct traditions concerning Paul’s journeys, but certainly not "Notizen oder Denkschriften über die Urzeit der Gemeinde und über die Geschichte des Heidenapostels" (notes or memoranda about the early days of the community and about the history of the apostle to the gentiles), while the miracles assigned to Peter and Paul are "absichtlich under mit vollem Bewusstsein den Wunderberichten der Evangelien nachgebilded" (intentional imitations with full awareness of the reports of miracles in the gospels) and all participating individuals "Geschöpfe" (creations), "freie Schöpfung" (free creation) by the author. Nor should we now revert with C. Nösgen to the opinion of the ancients, who did not consider written sources to explain the origin of Acts, because Luke could have taken from tradition all that he didn’t experience himself as eye and wear witness. Bleek-Mangold.[8] has sufficiently corrected him as well as C. Schmidt, who maintained the same while considering Acts 13-28 in the first part of his "Apostelgeschichte" (1882). The recognition of the unity of the work does not release us from the obligation to perform an intentional investigation into its composition.

End of Chapter I. Translation of chapter II is in preparation.


1. Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den Paulinischen Hauptbriefen (1888) (Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Galatians Epistle, and Critical Remarks on the Pauline Hauptbriefe)
2. Paulus, de ap. van J. C., zijn leven en werken, zijne leer en zijne persoonlijkheid. 1874.
3. Het Romeinsch burgerrecht van Paulus and Het getuigenis van Paulus te Jerusalem, included in Theologisch Tijdschrift 1879-81.
4. Kurze Erklär. der A.G. 1870. S. XXXII-XXXIII
5. Schets van de Gesch. der N. Test. lett 1876, III: 141, 2nd ed. page 205-6
6. Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch undersucht. 1854. Pg. 388-398, 414-425
7. Die Apostelgeschichte eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und des Judenthums innerhalb der christlichen Kirche. 1850. See pg. 126, 130, 135, 141.
8. Einl. Pg. 446-7