Recently it has been pointed out afresh that in any investigation into Paul's life the Pauline letters must be taken as the primary source while Acts must be treated as of secondary rank. For although Luke may have been an eyewitness to some of the events which he narrates, his knowledge of most of the happenings in his book was derived either from the recollections of others or from written sources, and when historical information is transmitted in this way through several hands the possibility of misunderstanding and inaccuracy is greatly enlarged.

The story of Paul, the first man to be consecrated as bishop of Constantinople, has come down to us only in fragments. Le Nain de Tillemont made the first modern attempt to fit the fragments together into a biography. His work is characterized by a sagacity not always exhibited by more recent writers. An addition was made to the fragments previously known by the discovery of passages referring to Paul in the ‘codex Theodosianus’ belonging to the Chapter Library of Verona. This material was brought into use by E. Schwartz in the ninth of his now-famous articles “Zur Geschichte des Athanasius,” where he touches on Paul as an associate of Athanasius. The passages in the ‘codex Theodosianus’ are in Latin, but they derive ultimately from an Alexandrine work of ecclesiastical history otherwise almost wholly lost. This work, to judge from internal evidences, was composed in 368 to celebrate the forty-years' episcopate of Athanasius, and its theme might be called “The contendings for the faith of the bishops of Alexandria.” It is not obvious why such a work should contain anything about either Paul or Constantinople. And a comparison of the Paul passages with those that concern themselves with Alexandrine history is much to the disadvantage of the former.

Nearly all scholars who have studied the career of Robert Grosseteste are in agreement that he was a dominant figure in the intellectual life of thirteenth century England. Some of the ways in which this dominance was exercised are also clear: as bishop of Lincoln (1235–53) he was influential through his sermons, translations and other writings; as director of the Franciscan School at Oxford (ca. 1231–5) he set a standard of erudition which appears in such students as Thomas of York and the well known Roger Bacon. Even before this he must have had some influence upon the University of Oxford but the evidence is capable of different interpretations. This is unfortunate because he was a master as early as 1189 and thus the greater part of his early and middle life is involved in mystery. Outside of scattered items there is for this period a curious biography by a later medieval monk, Richard of Bardney, probably based in part upon an earlier biography. Then there is the very large number of writings which have been located and catalogued.