Origin of Paul's Religion Chapter 2

8/14/2019 Origin of Paul's Religion Chapter 2

1/28

CHAPTER IITHE EARLY YEARS


2/28


3/28

CHAPTERUTHE BAlLLT TBAlUI

BEFou: examining the various hypotheses which have beenadvanced to account for the origin of Paulinism, the investigator must consider first the outline of Paul's l i f ~ at least sofar as the formative years are concerned. Paulinism has beenexplained by the in1iuence upon Paul of various features ofhis environment. I t is important, therefore, to determine atwhat points Paul came into contact with his environment.What, in view of the outline of his life, were his probable opportunities for acquainting himself with the historical Jesusand with the primitive Jerusalem Church? Whence did hederive his Judaism? Where, if at all, could he naturally havebeen in1iuenced by contemporary paganism? Such questions,it is hoped, may be answered by the two following chapters.In these chapters, the outline of Paul's life will be considered not for its own sake, but merely for the light that i tmay shed upon the origin of his thought and experience. Manyquestions, therefore, may be ignored. For example, it wouldhere be entirely aside from the point to discuss such intricatematters as the history of Paul's journeys to Corinth attestedby the Corinthian Epistles. The present discussion is concerned only with those events in the life of Paul which determined the nature of his contact with the surrounding world,both Jewish and pagan, and particularly the nature of hiscontact with Jesus and the earliest disciples of Jesus.Paul was born at Tarsus, the chief city of Cilicia. Thisfact is attested only by the Book of Acts, and formerly it didnot escape unchallenged. I t was called in question, for example, in 1890 by Krenkel, in an elaborate argument.1 ButKrenkel's argument is now completely antiquated, not merelybecause of the rising credit of the Book of Acts, but also be-

I Kreukel, BtritriJg. zwr ..4ufA.,'-9 tltr ONcAIeIU. utld t l tr Bri t f . t it,..41'01"" PGulu, 1890. pp. 1-17.43


4/28

.. THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONCAM the birth of Paul in a Greek city like Tarsus is in har-mony with modern reconstructions. Krenkel argued, lor example, that the apostle shows little acquaintance with Greekculture, and therefore could not have spent his youth in aGreek university city. Such assertions appear very strangeto-day. Recent philological investigation of the PaulineEpistles has proved that the author uses the Greek languagein such masterly lashion that he must have become familiarwith it very early in life; the language of the Epistles is certainly no Jewish-Greek jargon. With regard to the origin ofthe ideas, also, the tendency of recent criticism is directlycontrary to Krenkel; Paulinism is now olten explained asbeing based either upon paganism or else upon a HellenizedJ ~ d a i s m . . To such reconstructions it is a highly welcome pieceof information when the Book of Acts makes Paul a nativenot of Jerusalem but ol Tarsus. The author of Acts, it issaid, is here preserving a bit of genuine tradition, which isthe more trustworthy because it nins counter to the tendency,thought to be otherwise in evidence in Acts, which brings Paulinto the closest possible relation to Palestine. Thus, whetherfor good or lor bad reasons, the birth of Paul in Tarsus isnow universally accepted, and does not require defense.. A very interesting tradition preserved by Jerome does indeed make Paul a native of Gischala in Galilee; but no oneto-day would be inclined to follow Krenkel in giving credenceto Jerome rather than to Acts. The Gischala tradition doesnot look like a pure fiction, but it is evident that Jerome hasat any rate exercised his peculiar talent for bringing thingsinto confusion. Zahn 1 has suggested, with considerableplausibility, that the shorter reference to Gischala in thetreatise "De viris illustribus" I is a confused abridgment ofthe longer reference in the "Commentary on Philemon." I Thelatter passage asserts not that Paul himself but only that theparents of Paul came from Gischala. That assertion maypossibly be correct. I t would explain the Aramaic and Palestinian trUition which undoubtedly was preserved in the boyhood home ol Paul.

1 Bw.u . . , _ elM N .... TINt..... ste Ad I, 1808, pp. -.so (EnrUahTranslation, l.eroclt&ctioa '0 tM N _ T. . . . . . " ind ed . 1808.1, pp. 88-10).D. "',.. 411. & (ed. Vail U. 888). O ~ .. p1liJe.. is (ed. Vail vii, 761).


5/28

THE EARLY YEARSTarsUl W&8 an important city. Its commercial importance,though 01 course inlerior to that of places like Antioch orCorinth, was considerable; and it was also well known al a

center of intellectual lile. Although the dramatic possibilitia01 repreaenting the luture Christian missionary growiag upunknown under the shadow of a Greek university may some-timea have led to an exaggeration 01 the academic lame ofTarsUl, still it remains true that Tarsus was a real universitycity, and could boast of great names like that of Athenodorua,the Stoic philosopher, and others. The lile of Tuslls hasrecently been made the subject 01 two elaborate monographs,by Ramsay 1 and by Bohlig':' who have eollected a mass ofinformation about the birthplace of Paul. The nature 01 thepagan religioUl atmosphere which surrounded the lutureapostle is 01 peculiar intereat; but the amount of direct infor-mation which has come down to us should not be exaggerated.The social position 01 Paul's family in TabUl mUlt not beregarded &8 very humble; lor aceording to the Book 01 Actsnot only Paul himsell, but his lather before him, posseasedthe Roman citizenship, which in the provinces 19'&8 still in theBrllt century a highly prized privilege lrom which the greatm&8ses 01 the people were excluded. The Roman citizenship01 Paul is not attested by the Pauline Epistles, but the repre-sentation 01 Acts is at this point universally, or almost uni-versally, accepted. Only one objection might be urged againstit. I t Paul W&8 a Roman citizen, how could he have been sub-jected three timea to the Roman punishment 01 beating withrods (2 Cor. xi. 2lS), lrom which citizens were exempted bylawP The cti1Bculty is not insuperable. Paul may onsome occasions have been unwilling to appeal to a privi-lege wlaich separated him lrom his Jewish countrymen;or he may have wanted to avoid the delay which an appeal tohis privilege, with the subsequent investigation and trial, mighthave caused. At any rate, the cti1Bculty, whether easily re-movable or not, is quite inadequate to overthrow the abundantevidence lor the fact 01 Paul's Roman citizenship. That factis absolutely necessary to account lor the entire repreaentationwhich the Book 01 Acts givea 01 the journey 01 Paul &8 aprisoner to Rome, which representation, it will be remembered,

I T. . Ottlu of Bt. P..z, 1908, pp &&-1M. Dw a ..,.,,",,* lIOII TMIOI, 19l5.


6/28

M THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONis contained in the we-sections. The whole account of therelation between Paul and Roman authorities, which is contained in the Pauline Epistles, the Book of Acta, and trustworthy Christian tradition, is explicable only if Paul possessed the rights of citizenship.lBirth in a Greek university city and Roman citizenshipconstitute the two facts which bring Paul into early connection with the larger Gentile world of his day. Other facts,equally well-attested, separate him just as clearly from theGentile world and represent him as being from childhood astrict Jew. These facts might have been called in question, inview of the present tendency of criticism, if they had beenattested only by the Book of Acts. But fortunately it is justthese facts which are attested also by the epistles of Paul.In 2 Cor. xi. 22, Paul is declared to be a "Hebrew," andin Phil. iii. IS he appears as a "Hebrew of Hebrews." The word"Hebrew" in these passages cannot indicate merely Israelitishdescent or general adherence to the Jews' religion. I f it didso it would be a meaningless repetition of the other terms usedin the same passages. Obviously it is used in some narrowerI sense. The key to its meaning is found in Acts vi. 1, where,within Judaism, the "Hellenists" are distinguished. from the"Hebrews," the Hellenists being the Jews of the Dispersionwho spoke Greek, and the Hebrews the Jews of Palestine whospoke Aramaic. In Phil. iii. 5, therefore, Paul declares that he, was an Aramaic-speaking Jew and descended from Aramaicspeaking Jews; Aramaic was used in his boyhood home, and thePalestinian tradition was preserved. This testimony is notcontrary to what was said above about Paul's use of the Greeklanguage--not improbably Paul used both Aramaic and Greekin childhood-but it does contradict all those modern representations which make Paul fundamentally a Jew of the Dis-persion. Though he was born in Tarsus, he was, in the essential character of his family tradition, a Jew of Palestine.Even more important is the assertion, found in the sameverse in Philippians, that Paul was "as touching the law aPharisee." Conceivably, indeed, it might be argued. that hisPharisaism was not derived. from his boyhood home, but wasacquired later. But surely it requires no excessively favorableestimate of Acts to give credence to the assertion in Acta

I Compare Mommsen, "Die RechtBverhlltnis8e des Apostela Paulus," InZ.u.cArif' f9.r d.. ..."ICllfRltlClicM WiI,,.,cAa.f'. n. 1901, pp. 88-96.


7/28

THE EARLY YEARS 4;1XXl l l . 6 that Paul was not only a Pharisee but the "son 01Pharisees"; and it is exceedingly unlikely that this phraserelers, as Lightloot 1 suggested, to teachers rather than toancestors. For when Paul says in Gal. i. 141 that he advancedin the J elVS' religion beyond many of his contemporaries, be-ing more exceedingly zealous lor his paternal traditions, it issurely natural, whatever interpretation may be given to theword "paternal," to find a reference to the Pharisaic tradition.cultivated in his boyhood home.There is not the slightest evidence, therefore, for .upposingthat Paul spent his early years in an atmosphere 01 ''liberalJ udaism"-a Judaism really though unconsciously hospitableto pagan notions and predisposed to relax the strict requirements 01 the Law and break down the barrier that separatedIsraellrom the Gentile world. Whether such a liberal Judaismeven existed in Tarsus we do not know. At any rate, il it didexist, the household of Paul's lather was not in sympathy withit. Surely the definite testimony 01 Paul himsell is here worthmore than all modem conjectures. And Paul himsell declaresthat he was in language and in spirit a Jew 01 Palestine ratherthan 01 the Dispersion, and as touching the Law a Pharisee.According to the Book of Acts, Paul went at an early ageto Jerusalem, received instruction there from Gamaliel, thefamous rabbi, and finally, just before his conversion, persecuted the Jerusalem Church (Acts xxii. 8; vii. 58-viii. 1; ix. 1,etc.). In recent years, this entire representation has beenquestioned. I t has been maintained by Mommsen,2 Bousseta, Heitmtiller,4 and Loisy II that Paul never was in Jerusalem belore his conversion. That he persecuted the Church .is, of course, attested unequivocally by his own Epistles, butthe persecution, it is said, really took place only in such citiesa8 Damascus, and not at all in Palestine.This elimination of. he early residence 01 Paul in Jerusalem

S On PhIL W. 5.lOp. cU., pp. 85f.I E,rio, CArlltln, 1919, p. iii. BouSKt's doubt with regard to the earlyJet'Wla1em residence of Paul extended, explicitly at least, only to thepersecution in Jerusalem, and it was a doubt merely, not a positive denial.In hla supplementary work he bas admitted that hla doubt will! unjustUl.ed(J_ tUr HtIf'f', 1916, p. 81). "Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus," in ZtJitlcArift f ir tlw uut . ......,..IieA, WiI,. . lUJ.ft, mI, 1911i, pp. SiO-SS1.L'' ' ' 'r t f lU GGI4t. . 1916, pp. 68-18; Lu "."Ur" paiItu , t " _pUr,eA';,..., 1919, pp. 811-8iO.


8/28

.a THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONis no mere by-product of a generally skeptical attitude towardthe Book of Acts, but is important for the entire reconstructionof early Christian history which Bousset and Heitmiiller andLoisy propose; it is made to assist in explaining the originof the Pauline Christology. Paul regarded Jesus Christ as asupernatural person, come to earth for the redemption ofmen; and toward this divine Christ he assumed a distinctlyreligious attitude. How could he have formed such a conception of a human being who had died but a few years before?I f he had been separated from Jesus by several generations,so that the nimbus of distance and mystery would have hadtime to form about the figure of the Galilean prophet, then hislofty conception of Jesus might be explained. But as a matterof fact he was actually a contemporary of the Jesus whosesimple human traits he obscured. How could the "smell ofearth" have been so completely removed from the figure ofthe Galilean teacher that He could actually be regarded by oneof His contemporaries as a divine Redeemer? The questioncould perhaps be more easily answered if Paul, before his loftyconception of Christ was fully formed, never came into anyconnection with those who had seen Jesus subject to the pettylimitations of human life. Thus the elimination of the earlyJerusalem residence of Paul, by putting a geographical ifnot a temporal gulf between Jesus and Paul, is thought tomake the formation of the Pauline Christology more comprehensible. Peter and the original disciples, it is thought, nevercould have sepp.rated Jesus so completely from the limitationsof ordinary humanity; the simple memory of Galilean dayswould in their case have been an effective bamer againstChristological speculation. But Paul was subject to no suchlimitation; having lived far away from Palestine, in the company, for the most part, of tho.e who like himself had neverseen Jesus, he waB free to tran.pose to the Galilean teacher. attributes which to those who had known the real Jesus would

.' have seemed excessive or absurd.Before examining the grounds upon which this eliminationof Paul's early Jerusalem residence is based, it may first beobserved that even such heroic measures do not really bringabout the desired result; even this radical rewriting of the.tory of Paul's boyhood and youth will not serve to explainon naturalistic principles the origin of the Pauline Christology.


9/28

THE EARLY "YEARSEven i t before his conversion Paul got no nearer to Jerusalemthan Damascus, it still remains true that after his conversionhe conferred with Peter and lived in more or less extended intercourse with Palestinian disciples. The total lack of anyevidence of a conflict between the Christology of Paul and theviews of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of N azareth remains, for any n ~ t u r a l i s t i c reconstruction, a puzzlingfact. Even without the early Jerusalem residence, Paul remains too near to Jesus both temporally and geographicallyto have formed a conception of Him entirely without referenceto the historical person. Even with their radical treatmentof the Book of Acts, therefore, Bousset and Heitmiiller havenot succeeded at all in explaining how the Pauline Christologyever came to be attached to the Galilean prophet. "'But is the elimination of the early Jerusalem residence of \Paul historically justifiable? Mere congruity with a plausible \theory of development will not serve to justify it. For theJerusalem residence is strongly attested by the Book of Acts.The testimony of Acts can no longer be ruled out except forvery weighty reasons; the history of recent criticism has onthe whole exhibited the rise of a more and more favorableestimate of the book. And in the case of the early Jerusalemresidence of Paul the testimony is so insistent and so closelyconnected with lifelike details that the discrediting of it involves an exceedingly radical skepticism. The presence ofPaul at the stoning of Stephen is narrated in the Book of Actsin a concrete way which bears every mark of trustworthiness;the connection of Paul with Gamaliel is what might have beenexpected in view of the self-testimony of the apostle; the account of Paul's vision in the Temple (Ac\s uii. 17-21) isbased, in a manner which is psychologically very natural, uponthe fact of Paul's persecuting activity in Jerusalem; the pres-,ence of Paul's sister's son in Jerusalem, attested in a part ofthe narrative of which the eSllential historicity must be uni-versally admitted (Acts xxiii. 16-22), suggests that familyconnections may have facilitated Paul's residence in the city.Finally, the geographical details of the three narratives ofthe conversion, which place the event on a journey of Paulfrom Jerusalem to Damascus, certainly look as though theywere founded upon genuine tradition. One of the detailsthe place of the conversion itself-is confirmed in a purely


10/28

ISO TH E ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONincidental way by the Epistle to the Galatians, and the readerhas the impression that if Paul had happened to introduceother details in 'the Epistles the rest of the narrative in Act.would have been similarly confirmed. Except for Paul's inci-dental reference to Damascus in Gal. i. 17, the conversionmight have been put by Heitmiiller and others in a place evenmore conveniently remote than Damascus from the seene ofJesus' earthly labors. But the incidental confirmation of Actsat this point raises a 'distinct presumption in favor of theaccount as a whole. The main trend of modern criticism hasbeen favorable on the whole to the tradition embodied in theaccounts of the conversion; it is a very extreme form of skep-ticism which rejects the whole framework of the tradition byeliminating the journey from Jerusalem to Damascus.Enough has been said to show that the early Jerusalemresidence of Paul stood absolutely firm in the tradition usedby the author of Acts; the author has taken it as a matter ofcourse and woven it in with his narrative at many points.Such a tradition certainly cannot be lightly rejected; theburden of proof clearly rests upon those who would deny it.truthworthiness.The only definite proof which is forthcoming is found inGal. i. 22, where Paul says that after his departure for Syriaand Cilicia, three years after his conversion, he was "unknownby face to the churches of Judll!& which are in Christ." I fhe had engaged in active persecution of those churches, it isargued, how could he have been personally unknown to them?

By this argument a tremendous weight is hung upon oneverse. And, rightly interpreted, the verse will not bear theweight at all. In Gal. i. 22, Paul is not speaking so muchof what, took place before the departure for Syria and Cilicia,as of the condition which prevailed at the time of that depar-ture and during the immediately ensuing period; he is simplydrawing attention to the significance for his argument of thedeparture from Jerusalem. Certainly he would not have beenable to speak as he does if before he left Jerusalem he hadh&d extended intercourse with the Judean churches, but whenhe says that the knowledge of the Judll!&n churches about himin the period just succeeding his departure from Jerusalemwas a hearsay knowledge merely, it would have been pedanticfor him to think about the question whether some of the mem-


11/28

THE EARLY YEARS Inbers of those churches had or had not eeen him years before&8 a persecutor.Furthermore, it is by no means clear that the word "Jucbea"in Gal. i. 22 includes Jerusalem at all. In Mark iii. 7, 8, forexample, "Jerusalem" is clearly not included in "Judea,"but is distinguished from it; "Jucbea" means the countryoutside of the capital. It may well be so also in Gal. i. 22;and if so, then the verse does not exclude a personal acquain-tance of Paul with the Jerusalem Church. But even i t"Jwhea" is not used so as to exclude the capital, still Paul'swords would be natural enough. That the Jerusalem Churchformed an exception to the general assertion W&8 suggestedby the account of the visit in Jerusalem immediately preced-ing, and was probably well known to his Galatian readers.All that Paul means is that he went away to Syria and Cillciawithout becoming acquainted generally with the churches ofJuru... I t is indeed often said that since the whole pointof Paul's argument in Galatians was to show his lack of con-tact with the pillars of the Jerusalem Church, his acquaintanceor lack of acquaintance with the churches of Juru.. outsideof Jerusalem was unworthy of mention, so that he must atleast be including Jerusalem when he speaks of Juru... Butthis argument is not decisive. I f, &8 is altogether probable,the apostles except Peter were out of the city at the time ofPaul's visit, and were engaging in missionary work in Jucbeanchurches, then acquaintance with the Jucbean churches wouldhave meant intercourse with the apostles, so that it was verymuch to the point for Paul to deny that he had had suchacquaintance. Of course, this whole argument against theearly Jerusalem residence of Paul, based on Gal. i. 22, involvesa rejection of the account which the Book of Acts gives ofthe visit of Paul to Jerusalem three years after his conversion.I f Gal. i. 22 means that Paul was unknown by sight to theJerusalem Church, then he could not have gone in and outamong the disciples at Jerusalem as Acts ix. 28 represents,but must have been in strict hiding when he was in the city.Such is the account of the matter which is widely prevalent inrecent years. Not even so much correction of Acts is at allrequired by a correct understanding of Gal. i. 22. But it isa still more unjustifiable use of that verse when it is made toexclude even the persecuting activity of Paul in Jerusalem.


12/28

IS! THE oRlGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONH, however, the words of Galatiana are really to be taken

in the 8trictest and m08t literal 8ense, what i8 to be done withGal. i. 28, where (immediately after the words which have justbeen di8cu88ed) Paul 8ay8 that the churches of Judlea werereceiving the report, "He that persecuted us formerly i8 nowpreaching as a go8pel the faith which formerly he laid waste"?What i8 meant by the pronoun "us" in thi8 ver8e? Conceivablyit might be taken in a broad 8ense, as referring to all di8cipleswherever found; conceivably, therefore, the persecution referredto by the Judlean di8ciples might be persecution of theirbrethren in the faith in Tarsus or Damascus. But that is notthe kind of interpretation which has jU8t been applied to thepreceding verse, and upon which 8uch a vaet 8tructure hasbeen reared. I t may well be urged against Heitmiiller andth08e like him that i f Paul's words are to be taken so 8triCtlyin one ver8e they 8hould be taken in the 8ame way in the other;if the "Judlea" and ''unknown by face" of verse 22 are tobe .taken 80 8trictly, then the ''us'' of verse 28 8hould also betaken 8trictly, and in that case Paul is made to contradicthimself, which of course i8 absurd. Ver8e 28 certainly doesnot fully con8rm the representation of Act8 about the per8e-cuting activity of Paul in Judea, but at any rate it tends toconfirm that representation at lea8t as 8trongly as verse 22tends to discredit it.1

Thus the early Jerusalem residence of Paul i8 8tronglyattested by the Book of Acts, and is thoroughly in harmonywith everything that Paul saY8 about hi8 Phari8aiC past. I ti8 not 8Urpri8ing that Bous8et has now receded from hi8 orig-inal p08ition and admits that Paul was in .Jerusalem beforehi8 conversion and engaged in persecution of the JerusalemChurch.That admi88ion does not neces8arily carry with it an ac-ceptance of all that the Book of Act8 8ay8 about the Jerusalemperiod in Paul'8 life, particularly all that it 8ay8 about hi8having been a di8ciple of Gamaliel. But the deci8ive pointhas been gained. If. the entire account of the early Jerusalemresidence of Paul is not ruled out by the testimony of hi8 ownEpi8tles, then. there is at least no decisive objection againstthe testimony of Acts with regard to the details. Certainly

I Compare WeDha1l8eD, KritlIC1N .4..".. tier .4po1t." . 1dtJItt.. 1916,po 18.


13/28

THE EARLY YEARSthe common opinion to the effect that Paul went to Jerusalemto receive rabbinical training is admirably in accord witheverything that he says in his Epistles about his zeal for theLaw. I t is also in accord with his habits of thought and expression, which were transformed and glorified, rather thandestroyed, by his Christian experience. The decision aboutevery detail of course depends ultimately upon the particularconclusion which the investigator may have reached with regard to the Book of Acts. If that book was written by acompanion of Paul-an opinion which is gaining ground evenin circles which were formerly hosti1e---then there is everyreason to suppose that Paul was brought up in Jerusalem atthe feet of Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 8). Some important questionsindeed still remain unanswered, even with full acceptance ofthe Lucan testimony. I t can never be determined, for example, at exactly what age Paul went to Jerusalem. Thewords, ''brought up in this city," in Acts xxii. 8 might seemto suggest that Paul went to Jerusalem in early childhood, inwhich case his birthplace would be of comparatively littleimportance in his preparation for his lifework, and all theelaborate investigations of Tarsus, so far al they are intendedto shed light upon the environment of the apostle in his formative years, would become valueless. But the Greek word''brought up" or ''nourished'' might be used figuratively ina somewhat :flexible way; it remains, therefore, perfectly POIsible that Paul's Jerusalem training began, not in childhood,but in early youth. At any rate, an early residence in Jerusalem is not excluded by t h ~ masterly way in which the apostleuses the Greek language. I t must always be remembered that ,Palestine in the first century was a b i l i n ~ a l . CQWltl'Y; 1 the Ipresence of hosts of Greek-speaking Jews even in Jerus8.Iemis amply attested, for example, by the early chapters of Acts.Moreover, even after Paul's Jerusalem studies had begun, hilconnection with Tarlus need not have been broken off. The 'distance between the two cities was conliderable (lome fouror :five hundred miles), but travel in thole days was safe andeasy. A period of training in Jerusalem may have been followed by a long residence at Tarsus.

a See ZaIm, Bw .u - , . . dGI N . . . T. . . . . . " ste AufL, I, 1906, pp.i6-St, S9-4t'7 (EngUab Translation, 1.,ro4Mclloa 10 1M N. . T. . . . . . , .ind Ed., 191'7, I, pp. M-&8, a1 ... .


14/28

54 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONAt this point, an interesting question arises, which, however, can never be answered with any certainty. Did Paulever see Jesus before the crucifixion? In the light of what has

just been established about the outline of Paul's life, an afBrmative answer might seem to be natural. Paul was in Jerusalemboth before and after the public ministry of Jesus-before itwhen he was being "brought up" in Jerusalem, and alter itwhen he was engaged in persecution of the Jerusalem Church.Where was he during the interval? Where was he on thoseoccasions when Jesus visited J erusalem-especially at the timeof that last Passover? I f he was in Jerusalem, it seems probable that he would have seen the great prophet, whose comingcaused such a stir among the people. And that he was in thecity at Passover time would seem natural in view of his devotion to the Law. But the matter is by no means certain. Hemay have retumed to Tarsus, in the manner which has justbeen suggested.The question could only be decided on the basis of actualtestimony either in Acts or in the Epistles. One verse hasoften been thought to provide such testimony. In 2 Cor. v. 16,Paul says, "Even if we have known Christ after the fiesh, yetnow we know him so no longer." Knowledge of C ~ r i s t alterthe fiesh can only mean, it is said, knowledge of Him by theordinary use of the senses, in the manner in which one man inordinary human intercourse knows another. That kind ofknowledge, Paul says, has ceased to have significance for theChristian in his relation to other men; it has also ceased tohave significance for him in his relation to Christ. But it isthat kind of knowledge which Paul seems to predicate of him-self, as having existed in a previous period of his life. Hedoes not use the unreal form of condition; he does not say,''Even if we had known Christ after the fiesh (though as amatter of fact we never knew Him so at all), yet DOW we shouldknow Him so no longer." Apparently, then, when he says' 'if'' he means "although"; he means to say, "Although wehave known Christ after the fiesh, yet now we know Him sono longer." The knowledge of Christ after the fiesh is thusput as an actual fact in Paul's experience, and that can onlymean that he knew Him in the way in which His contemporaries knew Him in Galilee and in Jerusalem, a way which initself, Paul says, was altogether without spiritual significance.


15/28

THE EAIU.Y YEARSOne objection to this interpretation of the passage is thatit proves too much. U it means anything, it means that Paulhad edended personal acquaintance with Jesus before the

crucihion; for if Paul merely saw Him for a few momenta-for example, when the crowds were surging about Him at thetime of the last Passmer-he could hardly be said to have"known" Him. But, for obvious reasons, any extended intercourse between Paul and Jesus in Palestine is Bceedingly im-probable. I t is natural, therefore, to look for some otherinterp1'etation.Other interpretations undoubtedly are possible. Some ofthe iaterpretations that have been proposed must indeed beeliminated. For example, Paul cannot possibly be contrasting& former immature stage of his Christian Bperience with thepresent mature stage; he cannot possibly mean, "Even if inthe first period after my conversion I had a low view of Christ,which made of Him merely the son of David and the JewishMessiah, yet now I have come to a higher conception of Hisdivine nature." For the whole point of the passage is foundin the sharp break which comes in a man's experience whenhe appropriates the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyconsciousness . of a subsequent revolution in the thinking ofthe Christian is not only unsupported anywhere in the PaulineEpistles, but is absolutely excluded by the present passage.Another interpretation also must be eliminated. Paul cannotpoe81Dly be contrasting his pre-Christian notions about theMessiah with the higher knowledge which came to him withhi. ooDversion; he cannot possibly mean, ''Even if before Iknew the fulfillment of the Messianic promise I cherished camalnotions of what the Messiah was to be, even if I thought of'Him merely as an earthly ruler who was to conquer the enemiesof Israel, yet now I have come to have a loftier, more spiritualconception of Him." For the word "Christ," especially without the article, can hardly here be anything other than aproper name, and must refer not to the conception of Messiahahip but to the concrete person of Jesus. But another interpretation remains. The key to it is found in the ftmble useof the first person plural in the Pauline Epistles. Undoubtedly, the ''we'' of the whole passage in which 2 Cor. v. 16 iacontained refers primarily to Paul himself. But, especiallyin 2 Cor. v. 16, it may include also all true ambassadors for


16/28

36 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONChrist whose principles are the same as Paul's. Among suchtrue ambassadors there were no doubt to be found some whohad known Christ by way of ordinary intercourse in Palestine."But," says Paul, "even if some of us have known Christ inthat way, we know him so no longer." This interpretation islinguistically more satisfactory, perhaps, than that which explains the sentence as simply a more vivid way of presentinga condition contrary to fact. "Granted," Paul would sayaccording to this interpretation, "even that we have knownChrist according to the 'flesh (which as a matter of fact wehave not), yet now we know him so no longer." But our interpretation really amounts to almost the same thing so far asPaul is concerned. At any rate, the passage is not so clearas to justify any certain conclusions about Paul's life inPalestine; it does not clearly imply any acquaintance of Paulwith Jesus before the passion.

I f such acquaintance is to be established, therefore, it mustbe established on the basis of other evidence. J. Weiss 1 seeksto establish it by the very fact of Paul's conversion. Paul,Weiss believes, saw a vision of the risen Christ. How did heknow that the figure which appeared to him in the vision wasJesus? Why did he not think, for example, merely that itwas the Messiah, who according to one strain of Jewish Messianic expectation was already eDstent in heaven? Apparentlyhe recognized the person who appeared to him as Jesus ofNazareth. But how could he have recognized Him as Jesusunless he had seen Jesus before?

This argument depends, of course, altogether upon thenaturalistic conception of the conversion of Paul, which regards the experience as an hallucination. In the account ofthe conversion given in the Book of Acts, on the contrary, itis distinctly said that far from recognizing the person whoappeared to him, Paul was obliged to ask the question, ''Whoart thou, Lord?" and then received the answer, "I am Jesus."Such a conversation between Paul and the One who appearedto him is perfectly possible if there was a real appearance ofthe risen Christ, but it exceeds the ordinary limits of hallucinations. Weiss has therefore merely pointed out an additionalpsychological difficulty in explaining the experience of Paul

I P_lu tmd J . . . . 1909, pp. i i . is. Compare Ramsay. TAe THe . , 01Paw . . TBnnI 01 tAe Pr"nt Day, 1914, pp. 91-30.


17/28

THE EARLY YEARS 1S'1as an hallucination, a difficulty which, on naturalistic prin-ciples, may have to be removed by the assumption that Paulhad seen Jesus before the passion. But if Jesus really ap-peared to Paul in such a way as to be able to answer hisquestions, then it is not necessary to suppose that Paul recognized Him. The failure of Paul to recognize Jesus (accordingto the narrative in Acts) does not indeed positively excludesuch previous acquaintance; the two disciples on the road toEmmaus, for example, also failed to recognize the Lord, thoughthey had been acquainted with Him before. But, at any rate,if the supernaturalistic view of Paul's conversion be accepted,the experience sheds no light whatever upon any previous personal acquaintance with Jesus.Thus there is no clear evidence for supposing that Paulsaw Jesus before the passion. At the same time there is noevidence to the contrary, except the evidence that is to befound in the silence o( the Epistles.The argument from silence, precarious as it is, must herebe allowed a certain amount of weight. I f Paul had seenJesus before the crucifixion, would not so important a facthave been mentioned somewhere in the Epistles P The matteris by no means absolutely clear; a brief glimpse of Jesus inthe days of His flesh would perhaps not have seemed so important to Paul, in view of the richer knowledge which cameafterwards, as it would seem to us. The silence of the Epistlesdoes, however, render improbable any extended contact betweenPaul and Jesus, particularly any active opposition of theyouthful Paul toward Jesus. Paul was deeply penitent forhaving persecuted the Church; if he had committed the moreterrible sin of having helped bring the Lord Himself to theshameful cross, the fact would naturally have appeared inhis expressions of penitence. Even if Paul did see Jesus inPalestine, then, it is highly improbable that he was one ofthose who cried out to Pilate, "Crucify him, crucify him!"One thing, however, is certain. I f Paul never saw Jesusin Palestine, he certainly heard about Him. The ministry ofJesus caused considerable stir both in Galilee and in Jerusalem.These things were not done in a corner. The appearance ofJesus at the last Passover aroused the passions of the multitude, and evidently caused the deepest concern to the au--thorities. Even one who was indi1ferent to the whole matter


18/28

18 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONcould hardly have helped leaming lomething 01 the contentof JesQ8' teaching, and the main outline of the .tory 01 Hisdeath. But Paul, at least at a time only a very few yeanafter the crucifixion, W&I not indiiferent; for he W&8 an activepenecutor. U he W&8 in Palestine at all during the previousperiod, hi. interest probably began then. The outlines ofJesus' life and death were known to friend and foe alike, aDdcertainly were not unknown to Paul before hi. conver.ion, atthe time when he W&8 penecuting the Church. I t is only awoeful lack of historical imagination which can attribute toPaul, even before his convenion, a total ignorance of theearthly life 01 JesUi.The oppo.ite error, however, i. even more seriOUI. U Paulbefore hi. convenion W&8 not totally ignorant 01 JesUl, onthe other haud hi. knowledge only increased his opposition toJesQ8 and JClIIUI' followera. It is not true that before theconveraion Paul W&8 gradually coming ..earer to Chri.tianity.Againat any such suppo.ition .tands the explicit testimonyof the Epistles.Despite that testimony, various attempts have been madeto trace a plychological development in Paul which couldhave led to the conversion. Paul W&8 converted through avision of the ri.en Chri.t. According to the supernaturalisticview that vi.ion W&8 a "vision," not in any .pecialized meaning of the word, but in its original etymological meaning; Paulactually ".aw" the ri.en Lord. According to the modern naturali.tic view, which rejects any direct creative interpOlitionof God in the coune of nature, diiferent in kind from Hi.worb of providence, the vi.ion W&8 produced by the internalcondition of the .ubject, accompanied perhaPI by favorableconditions without-the heat of the SUD or a thunder .torm orthe like. But W&8 the condition of the .ubject, in the case 01Paul, really favorable to a vision of the ri.en Christ? I f thevi.ion of Christ W&8 an hallucination, &8 it i. held to be bymodern naturalistic historians, how may the genesi. of thispathological experience be explained?

In the first place, a certain basi. for the experience ioughtin the physical organism of the .ubject. According to theEpistles, it i . .aid, the apo.tle w.. subject to a recunentmalady; thi. malady is spoken of iD 2 Cor. xii. 1-8 in c0nnection with visions and revelations. In Gal. iv. 141, where it is


19/28

THE EARLY YEARS 69said that the Galatiaps, did not "spit out" when the apostlewas with them, an allusion is sometimes discovered to theancient custom of spitting to avoid contagion. A combination of this passage with the one in 2 Corinthians ia thoughtto establish a diagnosis of epilepsy, the effort being made toshow that "spitting out" was particularly prevalent in thecase of that disease. The visions then become an additionalsymptom of the epileptic seizures.1But the diagnosis rests upon totally insuftlcient data. Thevisions are not regarded in 2 Corinthians as part of the baI-fetings of the angel of Satan; on the contrary, the two thingsare sharply separated in Paul's mind; he rejoices in thevisions, but prays the Lord that the bufJ'etings may cease.I t is not even said that the visions and the bufJ'etings cameclose together; there is no real basis for the view that thebuB'etings consisted in nervous exhaustion following the visions.In Gal. iv. 141, the "spitting out" is probably to be takenfiguratively, and the object is "your temptation in my Sesh."The meaning then is simply, "You did not reject me or spue meout"; and there is no allusion to the custom of "spitting out"for the purpose of avoiding contagion. I t is unnecessary,therefore, to examine the elaborate argument of KrenkeJ. bywhich he sought to show that epilepsy was particularly thedisease against which spitting was practised as a prophylacticmeasure.There is t h ~ r e f o r e absolutely no evidence to show that Paulwas an epileptic, unless the very fact of his having visions bethought to furnish such evidence. But such a use of thevisions prejudges the great question at issue, which concernsthe objective validity of Paul's religious convictions. Further-more, the fact should always be borne in mind that Paul distinguished the visions very sharply from the experience whichhe had near Damascus, when he saw the Lord. The visionsare spoken of in 2 Corinthians apparently with reluctance,as something which concerned the apostle alone; the Damascusexperience was part of the evidence for the resurrection ofChrist, and had a fundamental place in the apostle" missionary preaching. All efforts to break down this distinctionhave failed. The apostle regarded the .Damascus experience

I See Krenkel, Btl '" ' ' _ .if.,Ii."-, tHr G"e'Aklt. tItId tHr Brief.tIH .ifflOl"" PCMtlw, 1890, pp. 401-li5.


20/28

60 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONas u n i q u ~ n o t a mystery like the experiences which are men-tioned in I Corinthians, but a plain, palpable fact capableof being understood by all.But if the Damascus experience is to be regarded as anhallucination, it is not sufficient to exhibit a hasis for it in thephysical weakness of the apostle. Even if Paul was constitu-tionally predisposed to hallucinations, the experience of thisparticular hallucination must be shown to be possible. Thechallenge has often been accepted by modern historians. I t ismaintained that the elements of Paul's new conviction must havebeen forming gradually in his mind; the Damascus experience,it is said, merely brought to light what was really already pres-ent. In this way, the enormous disparity between effect andcause is thought to be removed; the untold benefits of Paulin-ism are no longer to be regarded as due to the fortunate chanceof an hallucination, induced by the weakness of the apostleand the heat of the desert sun, but rather to a spiritual de-velopment which the hallucination merely revealed. Thus themodern view of Paul's conversion, it is thought, may facebravely the scorn of Beyschlag, who exclaimed, when speakingof the naturalistic explanation of Paul's vision, "Oh blesseddrop of blood which by pressing at the right momentupon the brain of Paul, produced such a moral wonder." 1The drop of blood, it is said, or whatever may have been thephysical basis of the Damascus experience, did not producethe wonders of the Pauline gospel; it merely brought into thesphere of consciousness a psychological process which had'really been going on before.The existence of such a psychological process, by whichthe apostle was coming nearer to Christ, is sometimes thoughtto receive documentary support in one verse of the New Testa-ment. In Acts xxvi. 1t, the risen Christ is represented assaying to Paul, " I t is hard for thee to kick against the goads."According to this verse, it is said, Paul had been resisting abetter conviction, gradually forming in his mind, that thedisciples might be right about Jesus and he might be wrong;that, it is said, was the goad which was really driving him.He had indeed been resisting vigorously; he had been stiffinghis doubts by more and more feverish activity in persecution.

S Beyschlag, "Die Bekehrung des AposteJs Paulus," in TbologUcA.Bttulift tHItl KrUit . . xxxvU, 18M, p. 9401.


21/28

THE EARLY YEARS 61But the 'resistance had not really brought peace; the goadwas really there. And at last, near Damascus, the resistancewas overcome; the subconscious conviction which had broughttumult into his soul was at last allowed to come to the surfaceand rule his conscious life.At this point, the historian is in grave danger of becominguntrue to his own critical principles. Attention to the Bookof Acts, it has been maintained, is not to be allowed to colorthe interpretation of the Pauline Epistles, which are the primary sources of information. But here the procedure is reversed. In the interests of a verse in Acts, standing, moreover, in a context which on naturalistic principles cannot beregarded as historical, the clear testimony of the Epistles isneglected. For Paul was certainly not conscious of any goadwhich before his conversion was forcing him into the new faith;he knows nothing of doubts which assailed him during theperiod of his activity in persecution. On the contrary, thevery point of the passage in Galatians, where he alludes to hispersecuting activity, is the suddenness of his conversion. Farfrom gradually coming nearer to Christ he was in the verymidst of his zeal for the Law when Christ called him. Thepurpose of the passage is to show that his gospel came to himwithout human intermediation. Before the conversion, hesays, there was of course no human intermediation, since hewas an active persecutor. He could not have spoken in thisway if before the conversion he had already become half convinced that those whom he was persecuting were right. Moreover, throughout the Epistles there appears in the apostlenot the slightest consciousness of his having acted againstbetter convictions when he persecuted the Church. In 1 Tim.i. 13 he distinctly says that he carried on the persecution inignorance; and even if Timothy be regarded as post-Pauline,the silence of the other epistles at least points in the samedirection. Paul was deeply penitent for having persecutedthe Church of God, but apparently he did not lay to his chargethe black sin of having carried on the persecution in the faceof better convictions. When he laid' the Church waste hethought he was doing God service. In the very midst of hismad persecuting activity, he says, apart from any teachingfrom men-apart, we may certainly infer, from any favorableimpressions formed in his mind-the Lord appeared to him


22/28

61 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONand gave him his gospel. Paul stakes everything upon theevidential value of the appearance, which was able suddenlyto overcome an altogether hostile attitude. Such is the self-testimony of the apostle. I t rest. as a serious weight uponall attempts at making the conversion the result of a psycho-logical process.Certainly the passage in Acts will not help to bear theweight. When the risen Christ says to Paul, "It is hard forthee to kick agamst the goads," He need not mean at all thatthe presence of the goad had been known to Paul before thathour. The meaning may be simply that the will of Christ isresistless; all oppo.ition is in vain, the appointed hour ofChrist has arrived. Conscious opposition on the part of Paulto a better conviction is certainly not at all implied. Nodoubt Paul was really mi.erable when he was a persecutor;all activity contrary to the plan of Christ brings misery. Butthat he had the slightest inkling of the source of his miseryor even of the fact of it need not be supposed. I t is even pos-sible that the "hardness" of resi.tance to the goad is to befound only in the very moment of the conversion. "All re-sistance," say. the risen Christ, "all hesitation, is as hopelessas for the ox to kick against the goad; instant obedience aloneis in place." .

The weight of the apostle's own testimony is therefore illno sense removed by Acts xxvi. 14. That testimony i . un-equivocally opposed to all attempt. at exhibiting a psycho-logical process culminating in the conversion. These attempts,however, because of the imporlance which has been attributedto them, must now be examined. In general, they are becomingless and less elaborate; contemporary scholars are usuallycontent to dismiss the psychological problem of the conversionwith a few general observations about the secret of personality,or, at the most, a brief word about the possible condition ofthe apostle's mind. Since the direct interposition of the ri.enChrist is rejected, it is held that there must have been somepsychological preparation for the Damascus experience, butwhat that preparation was remains hidden, it is said, in thesecret places of the soul, which no psychological analysis canever fully reveal.I f , however, the problem is not thus to be dismissed &8insoluble, no unanimity has been achieved among thoae who


23/28

THE EARLY YEARSattempt a 801ution. Two principal lines of 801ution of theproblem may perhaps be distinguilhed-that whichbegina withthe objective evidence as it presented itself to the per8ecutor,and that which 8taria with the 8eventh chapter of Roman8 andthe persecutOr'8 own 8enee of need. The former line was followed by Hollten, whose monograph8 ltill constitute the mOltelaborate exposition of the psychological process 8UPPOIedto lie back of the convenion.1 According to Houten, theprocess eentered in theconaideration of the Crosl of Christ.That couideration of coune resulted at fir8t in an attitudeof h08tility on the part of Paul. The Cross was a 8hamefulthiDa; the proclamation of a crucified Messiah appeared,therefore, to the devout Phari.ee a8 an outrageous bla8phemy.But the di8ciple8 represented the Crol8 a. in accordance withthe will of God, and 8Upported their contention by the evidencefor the resurrection; the resurrection wal made to overcomethe oft'ense of the Cro... But againlt the evidence for theresurrection, Houten believes, Paul was helples8, the po . bilityof reaurrection being lully recogniJed in hi8 Pharisaic training.What then if the resurrection really vindicated the claima ofJesus to be the Messiah? Paul was by no meau convinced,H o ~ t e n believes, that 8uch was the case. But the po81ibilitywas necessarily in his mind, if only for the purposes of refutation. At this point Paul began to advance, according toHouten, beyond the earlier di.ciples. On the aaaumption thatthe resurrection really did vindicate the claim8 of Jesus, theCrols would have to be explained. But an explanation layready to hand, and Paul applied this explanation with a thoroughnen which the earlier disciples had not attained. Theearlier di.ciples removed the ofFenle of the Cro.. by reprelentipg the Cro. . as part of the plan of God for the Mesliah;Paul exhibited the meaning of that plan much more clearlythan they. He exhibited the meaning of the Cross by applying to it the category of vicarious sufFering, which could befound, for example, in Isaiah liii. At this point the preChriatian development of Paul was over. The Pauline "pOli8

I Holsten, Z_ B"-U.'Itt", " . , PGtIlu -" de, P.t""" 1868. AplnatHoIaten, see Beyaehlaa. "Die Bekehrung des Apostels Paulus, mit besonderer JUleka1eht auf die Erkllrunp'Versuehe 'Von Baur und Holsten," InTAlologUcAl BttidlM . .d KrUlkn, xxxvU, 1864., pp. 191-1640; "Die VIalODlhypotbeae Ia ihrer neuaten Begrllndung. Elne DupUk g ep D. Holateu, .ibN1. DiU, 1810. pp. 1-ao, 189-1f1S.


24/28

THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONof the Cross" was already formed. Of course, before the con-version it was to Paul entirely a matter of supposition. Onthe supposition, still regarded as false, that the resurrectionhad really taken place, the Cross, far from being an offense,would become a glorious fact. All the essential elements ofPaul's gospel of the Cross were thus present in Paul's mindbefore the conversion; the validity of them had been posited byhim for the purposes of argument. The only thing that waslacking to make Paul a disciple of Jesus was conviction of the fact of the resurrection. That conviction was supplied bythe Damascus experience. The unstable equilibrium then wasover; the elements of the Pauline gospel, which were all presentbefore, fell at once into their proper places.The other way of explaining the conversion starts fromthe seventh chapter of Romans and the dissatisfaction whichPaul is thought to have experienced under the Law. Paul, it is said, was a Pharisee; he made every effort to keep the Lawof God. But he was too earnest to be satisfied with a merely. external obedience; and real obedience he had not attained.He was therefore tormented by a sense of sin. That senseof sin no doubt led him into a more and more feverish effortto keep the letter of the Law and particularly to show hiszeal by persecuting the disciples of Jesus. But all his effortswere vain; his obedience remained insufficient; the curse ofthe Law still rested upon him. What if the vain effort couldbe abandonedP What if the disciples of Jesus were rightP

\1 Of course, he believed, they were not right, but what if they. wereP What if the Messiah had really died for the sins ofI believers, in accordance with Isaiah liiiP What if salvation were, attainable not by merit but by divine graceP These questions,it is supposed, were in the mind of Paul. He answered themI still in the negative, but his misery kept them ever before his; mind. The Law was thus a schoolmaster to bring him to; Christ. He was ready for the vision.In both of these lines of explanation importance is often

attributed to the impression produced upon Paul's mind by the character of the disciples. Whence did they derive theirbravery and their joy in the midst of persecutionP Whencecame the fervor of their love, whence the firmness of theirfaithP The persecutor, it is said, was impressed against hiswill.


25/28

THE EARLY YEARS 615The fundamental objection to all these theories of psychological development is that they describe only what mighthave been or what ought to have been, and not what actually

was. No doubt Paul ought to have been coming nearer to 1Christianity; but as a matter of fact he was rather getting ,further away, and he records the fact in no uncertain termsin his Epistles. There are objections, moreover, to the varioustheories of development in detail; and the advocates of onetheory are often the severest critics of another.With regard to Holsten's exposition of the "gnosis ofthe Cross," for example, there is not the slightest evidencethat the pre-Christian Jews interpreted Isaiah liii of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah, or had any notion of theMessiah's vicarious death.1 I t is not true, moreover, asBeyschlag pointed out against Holsten, that Paul was helpless in the face of the evidence for the resurrection.2 According to Paul's Pharisaic training, the resurrection would comeonly at the end of the age; a resurrection like the resurrectionof Jesus, therefore, was by no means a matter of course, andcould be established only by positive evidence of the most directand unequivocal kind.With regard to the sense of sin as the goad which forcedPaul to accept the Saviour, there is no evidence that beforehis conversion Paul was under real conviction of sin. I t isvery doubtful whether Rom. vii. 7-215, with its account of thestruggle between the flesh and the higher nature of man, refersto the unregenerate rather than to t h ~ regenerate life; andeven if the former view is correct, it is doubtful whether thedescription is taken from the apostle's own experience. Atany rate, the struggle, even if it be a struggle in the unregenerate man, is described from the point of view of the regenerate; it is not implied, therefore, that before the entranceof the Spirit of God a man is fully conscious of his own helplessness and of the desperateness of the struggle. The passagetherefore, does not afford any certain information about thepre-Christian life of Paul. Undoubtedly before the conversionthe conscience of Paul was aroused; he was conscientious in

1 See Scharer, allcAicAte tlII jtJduclte. Volke" 4te Aufl., 11, 1901, pp.M8-661 (English Translation, ...4 Hutory of tM JevMlt Peopr., DivisionII, vol. II , 1885, pp. 184-187). Beyschlag,. "Die Vlalonshypothese In lhrer neuesten Begrtlndung," inTAeologilcM 8tdiefa -a KritikM, xWi, 1810, pp. 19-il.


26/28

66 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONhis devotion to the Law. Probably he was conscious of hisfailings. But that such consciousness of failure amounted toanything like that genuine conviction of sin which leads aman to accept the Saviour remains very doubtful. Recognizedfailure to keep the Law perfectly led in the case of Paul merelyto greater zeal for the Law, a zeal which was manifested especially in the persecution of a blasphemous sect whose teachingwas subversive of the authority of Moses.Finally, it is highly improbable that Paul was favorablyimpressed by the bravery of those whom he was persecuting.I t may seem strange at first sight that the same man whowrote the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthianl should havehaled helpless men and women to prison without a qualm, orlistened without pity to the dying words of Stephen, "Lord,lay not this sin to their charge.tt . But it is very dangerousto argue back from the Christian life of Paul to the life ofPaul the Pharisee. Paul himself was conscious of a completemoral transformation as having taken place in him when hesaw the Lord near Damascus. What was imposllDle for himafter that transformation may well have been possible before.Moreover, if, despite such considerations, we could argue backfrom Paul the disciple of Jesus to Paul the Pharisee, there isone characteristic of the apostle which would never have permitted him to persecute those by whom he "'as favorably im-pressed-namely, his c ~ m p l e t e sincerity. The picture of Saulthe doubter, torn by conflicting emotions, impresled by thecalmness and bravery and magnanimity of thole whom he waspersecuting, yet stifting such impressions by persecuting zeal,is very romantic, but very un-Pauline.But in attributing the conversion of Paul altogether tothe experience on the road to Damascus, are we not heapingup into one moment what must of very necessity in consciouslife be the work of years? Is it conceivable that ideal shouldhave been implanted in the mind of a perlon not by processesof acquisition but mechanically as though by a hypodermicsyringe? Would not such an experience, even i t it were pol-sible, be altogether destructive of personality?The objection serves to correct possible misunderstandings.The view of the conversion which has just been set forth doesnot mean that when Paul drew near to Damascus on thatmemorable day he was ignorant of the facts about J esua. U


27/28

THE EARLY YEARS 6"1he had never heard of JesUl, or i f having heard of Him heknew abaolutely nothing about Him, then perhaps the conversion would have been not only supernatural but inconceivable. But it is not the traditional view of the conversionwhich is guilty of such exaggeratiolll. They are the productrather of that separation of Paul from the historical Jesuswhich appears for example in Wrede and in Bousset. A c ~ r d -ing to any reasonable view of Paul'. pre-Chriatian experience,Paul was well acquainted, before the conversion, with manyof the facts about Jesus' life and death; what he received onthe road to Damascus was a new interpretation of the factsand a new attitude toward them. He had known the facts before. but tbey had 6l1ed him with hatred.; now his hatred waschanpd into love.Even after exaggerations have been removed, however, thechange wrought by the Damaacus experience remains revolutionary enough. Is that change conceivable? Could hatredhave been chanaecl into love merely by an experience whichcOQvinced Paul of the fact of the resurrection? The answerto this question depends altogether upon the nature of theDamascus experience. If that experience was merely an hal-lucination, the question must be answered in the negative;an hallucination could never have produced the profoundchange. in the personal life of Paul which have just beencontemplated; and the historian would be obliaecl to fall back,despite the unequivocal testimony of the Epistlest upon sometheory of p.ychological development of which the hallucinationwould only be the climax. But even those who maintain thesupernaturalistic view of the conversion have too often failedto do justice to the content of the experience. One fundamentalfeature of the experience has too often been forgotten-theappearance on the road to Damascus was the appearance ofa person. Sometimes the event has been regarded merely as a supernatural interposition of God intended to produce belief in the fact of the resurrection, as merely a sign. Undoubtedly it was a sign. But it was far more; it was contactbetween persons. But contact between persons, even---unOerordinary con8itions, is exceedingly mysterious; merely a lookor the tone of the voice sometimes produces astonishing results.Who has not experienced the transition from mere hearsayknowledge of a person to actual contact? One meeting is


28/28

68 THE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGIONoften su1licient to revolutionize the entire impression; indif-ference or hostility gives place at once to enthusiastic devotion.Those who speak of the transformation wrought in Paul bythe appearance of Jesus as magical or mechanical or incon-ceivable have never re1iected upon the. mysteries of personalintercourse.Only, it must have been a real person whom Paul met onthe road to Damascus-not a vision, not a mere sign. I f itwas merely a vision or a sign, all the objections remain inforce. But i f it was really Jesus, the sight of His face andthe words of love which He uttered may have been amply suf-ficient, provided the heart of Paul was renewed by the powerof God's Spirit, to transform hatred into love. To call suchan experience magic is to blaspheme all that is highest inhuman life. . God was using no unworthy instrument when, bythe personal presence of the Saviour, He transformed the lifeof Paul.There is, therefore, no moral or psychological objectionin the way of a simple acceptance of Paul's testimony aboutthe conversion. And that testimony is unequivocal. Paul wasnot converted by any teaching which he received from men;he was not converted as Christians are usually converted, bythe preaching of the truth or by that revelation of Christwhich is contained in the lives of His followers. Jesus Him-self in the case of Paul did in visible presence what He ordi-narily does by the means which He has appointed. Upon thisimmediateness of the conversion, Paul is willing to stake thewhole of his life; upon it he bases his apostolic authority.

Origin of Paul's Religion Chapter 2

Documents

Transcript of Origin of Paul's Religion Chapter 2