|
Homepage |
|
|
|
Grace Children Home |
|
|
|
Kids for Jesus |
|
|
|
Our Indian counterpart |
|
|
|
Guestbook |
|
|
|
Paul, the Apostle |
|
|
|
Paul - II |
|
|
|
Paul - III |
|
|
|
Serving God |
|
|
|
Peter |
|
|
|
Bible Timeline |
|
|
|
Lord's Supper |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Paul, the Apostle
PAUL, THE APOSTLE
Contents:
I. Sources
1. The Acts
2. The Thirteen Epistles
(1) Pauline Authorship
(2) Lightfoot's Grouping
(3) Paul's Conception of His Epistles
(4) Development in Paul's Epistles
II. Modern Theories about Paul
1. Criticism Not Infallible
2. The Tubingen Theory
3. Protest against Baur's View
4. Successors to Baur
5. Appeal to Comparative Religion
6. The Eschatological Interpretation
III. Chronology of Paul's Career
1. Schemes
2. Crucial Points
(1) The Death of Stephen
(2) The Flight from Damascus
(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I
(4) The First Missionary Tour
(5) The First Visit to Corinth
(6) Paul at Troas according to Acts 20:6f
(7) Festus Succeeding Felix
IV. His Equipment
1. The City of Tarsus
2. Roman Citizenship
3. Hellenism
4. The Mystery-Religions
5. Judaism
6. Personal Characteristics
(1) Personal Appearance
(2) Natural Endowments
(3) Supernatural gifts
7. Conversion
(1) Preparation
(2) Experience
(3) Effect on Paul
V. Work
1. Adjustment
2. Opposition
3. Waiting
4. Opportunity
5. The First Great Mission Campaign
6. The Conflict at Jerusalem
7. The Second Mission Campaign
8. The Third Mission Campaign
9. Five Years a Prisoner
10. Further Travels
11. Last Imprisonment and Death
VI. Gospel
LITERATURE
(1) General Works
(2) Introductions
(3) Commentaries
(4) Lives and Monographs
(5) Teaching
PAUL, THE APOSTLE
I. Sources.
1. The Acts:
For discussion of the historical value of the Acts of the Apostles see the article on
that subject. It is only necessary to say here that the view of Sir W.M. Ramsay in general
is accepted as to the trustworthiness of Luke, whose authorship of the Acts is accepted
and proved by Harnack (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles,
translation by Wilkinson, 1909; Neue Untersuch. zur Ap., 1911; The Date of the Acts
and of the Synoptic Gospels, translations by Wilkinson, 1911). The proof need not be
given again. The same hand appears in the "we" sections and the rest of the book. Even
Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 311) admits the Lukan
authorship though dating it in 100 AD instead of 60-62 AD, against Harnack. The Acts
is written independently of the Epistles of Paul, whether early or late, and supplements
in a wonderful way the incidental references in the epistles, though not without lacunae
and difficulties.
2. The Thirteen Epistles:
(1) Pauline Authorship.
See the articles on each epistle for detailed criticism. It is here assumed that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, though Pauline in point of view. One
cannot stop to prove every statement in an article like this, else a large book would be
needed. Criticism is not an infallible science. One can turn easily from the Hatch-Van
Manen article on "Paul" in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902) to the Maclean article on "Paul
the Apostle" in the Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (single volume) (1909). Van-
Manen's part of the one denies all the thirteen, while Maclean says: "We shall, in what
follows, without hesitation use the thirteen epistles as genuine." It is certain that Paul
wrote more epistles, or "letters," as Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 225) insists
on calling all of Paul's epistles. Certainly Philera is a mere "letter," but it is difficult to
say as much about Romans. Deissmann (St. Paul, 22) admits that portions of Romans
are like "an epistolary letter." At any rate, when Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament, 64-82) carefully justifies the Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2
Thessalonians, it is clear that the case against them cannot be very strong, especially as
Moffatt stands out against the genuineness of Ephesians (op. cit., 393) and the Pastoral
Epistles (p. 414).
Bartlet, who was once at a loss to know what to do with the Pastorals on theory that
Paul was not released from the Roman imprisonment (Apostolic Age, 1899, 200), is now
quite willing to face the new facts set forth by Ramsay (Expos, VII, viii-ix, VIII, i), even
if it means the admission of a second Roman imprisonment, a view that Bartlet had
opposed. He now pleads for "the fresh approach from the side of experience, by men
who are in touch with the realities of human nature in all its variety, as well as at home
in the historical background of society in the early Roman empire, that has renovated the
study of them and taken it out of the old ruts of criticism in which it has moved for the
most part in modern times" (Expos, January, 1913, 29). Here Bartlet, again, now
eloquently presents the view of common-sense criticism as seen by the practical
missionary better than by a life "spent amid the academic associations of a professor's
chair," though he pauses to note as an exception Professor P. Gardner's The Religious
Experience of Paul (1912). We may quote Bartlet once more (Expos, January, 1913, 30):
"In the recovery of a true point of view a vital element has been the newer conception of
Paul himself and so of Paulinism. Paul the doctrinaire theologian, or at least the prophet
of a one-sided gospel repeated with fanatical uniformity of emphasis under all
conditions, has largely given place to Paul the missionary, full indeed of inspired insight
on the basis of a unique experience, but also of practical instinct, the offspring of
sympathy with living men of other types of training. When the Pastorals are viewed
anew in the light of this idea, half their difficulties disappear." One need not adopt
Deissmann's rather artificial insistence on "letters" rather than "epistles," and his undue
depreciation of Paul's intellectual caliber and culture as being more like Amos than
Origen (St. Paul, 1912, 6), in order to see the force of this contention for proper
understanding of the social environment of Paul. Against Van Manen's "historical Paul"
who wrote nothing, he places "the historic Paul" who possibly wrote all thirteen. "There
is really no trouble except with the letters to Timothy and Titus, and even there the
difficulties are perhaps not quite so great as many of our specialists assume" (St. Paul,
15). See PASTORAL EPISTLES. Deissmann denies sharply that Paul was an
"obscurantist" who corrupted the gospel of Jesus, "the dregs of doctrinaire study of Paul,
mostly in the tired brains-of gifted amateurs" (p. 4). But A. Schweitzer boldly proclaims
that he alone has the key to Paul and Jesus. It is the "exclusively Jewish eschatological"
(Paul and His Interpreters, 1912, ix), conception of Christ's gospel that furnishes
Schweitzer's spring-board (The Quest of the Historical Jesus). Thus he will be able to
explain "the Hellenization of the gospel" as mediated through Paul. To do that
Schweitzer plows his weary way from Grotius to Holtzmann, and finds that they have all
wandered into the wilderness. He is positive that his eschatological discovery will rescue
Paul and some of his epistles from the ruin wrought by Steck and Van Manen to whose
arguments modern criticism has nothing solid to offer, and the meager negative crumbs
offered by Schweitzer ought to be thankfully received (ibid, 249).
(2) Lightfoot's Grouping.
(Compare Biblical Essays, 224.) There is doubt as to the position of Galatians.
Some advocates of the South-Galatian theory make it the very earliest of Paul's Epistles,
even before the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. So Eramet, Commentary on Galatians
(1912), ix, who notes (Preface) that his commentary is the first to take this position. But
the North Galatian view still has the weight of authority in spite of Ramsay's powerful
advocacy in his various books (see Historical Commentary on Galatians), as is shown by
Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90ff. Hence, Lightfoot's
grouping is still the best to use.
(a) First Group (1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians):
1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth, 52-53 AD. Harnack's view that 2
Thessalonians is addressed to a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica while 1
Thessalonians is addressed to a Gentilechurch is accepted by Lake (Earlier Epistles of
Paul, 1911, 83ff) but Frame (International Critical Commentary, 1912, 54) sees no need
for this hypothesis. Milligan is clear that 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians
(Commentary, 1908, xxxix) and is the earliest of Paul's Epistles (p. xxxvi). The accent
on eschatology is in accord with the position of the early disciples in the opening
chapters of Acts. They belong to Paul's stay in Corinth recorded in Acts 18.
(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans):
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, 55-58 AD. This is the great
doctrinal group, the four chief epistles of Baur. They turn about the Judaizing
controversy which furnishes the occasion for the expansion of the doctrine of
justification by faith in opposition to the legalistic contention of the Judaizing Christians
from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-3; Galatians 2:1-10). The dates of these epistles are not
perfectly clear. 1 Corinthians was written shortly before the close of Paul's 3 years' stay
at Ephesus (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor. 16:8; Acts 20:1f). 2 Corinthians was written a few
months later while he was in Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:13; 2 Cor. 7:5, 13; 2 Cor. 8:16-24).
Romans was written from Corinth (Romans 16:23; Acts 20:2f) and sent by Phoebe of
Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). The integrity of Romans is challenged by some who deny in
particular that Romans 16 belongs to the epistle Moffatt (Intro, 134-38) gives an able,
but unconvincing, presentation of the arguments for the addition of the chapter by a later
hand. Deissmann (St. Paul, 19) calls Romans 16 "a little letter" addressed to the
Christians at Ephesus. Von. Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 78) easily
justifies the presence of Romans 16 in the Epistle to the Romans: "These greetings,
moreover, were certainly intended by Paul to create bonds of fellowship between the
Pauline Christians and the Roman community, and to show that he had not written to
them quite exclusively in his own name." A common-sense explanation of Paul's
personal ties in Rome is the fact that as the center of the world's life the city drew people
thither from all parts of the earth. So, today many a man has friends in New York or
London who has never been to either city. A much more serious controversy rages as to
the integrity of 2 Corinthians. Semler took 2 Cor. 10-13 to be a separate and later ep.,
because of its difference in tone from 2 Cor. 1-9, but Hausrath put it earlier than 2 Cor. 1-
9, and made it the letter referred to in 2:4. He has been followed by many scholars like
Schmiedel, Cone, McGiffert, Bacon, Moffatt, Kennedy, Rendall, Peake, Plummer. Von
Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 50) accepts the partition-theory of 2
Corinthians heartily: "It may be shown with the highest degree of probability that this
letter has come down to us in 2 Cor. 10:1-13:10." But the unity of the epistle on theory
that the change in tone is a climax to the disobedient element of the church is still
maintained with force and justice by Klopper, Zahn, Bachmann, Denhey, Bernard, A.
Robertson, Weiss, Menzies. The place of the writing of Galatians turns on its date.
Lightfoot (in loc.) argues for Corinth, since it was probably written shortly before
Romans. But Moffatt (Introduction, 102) holds tentatively to Ephesus, soon after Paul's
arrival there from Galatia. So he gives the order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Romans. In so much doubt it is well to follow Lightfoot's logical argument. Galatians
leads naturally to Romans, the one hot and passionate, the other calm and contemplative,
but both on the same general theme.
(c) Third group (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians):
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. Date 61-63, unless Paul reached
Rome several years earlier. This matter depends on the date of the coming of Festus to
succeed Felix (Acts 24:27). It was once thought to be 60 AD beyond any doubt, but the
whole matter is now uncertain. See "Chronology," III, 2, (2), below. At any rate these
four epistles were written during the first Roman imprisonment, assuming that he was set
free.
But it must be noted that quite a respectable group of scholars hold that one or all of
these epistles were written from Caesarea (Schultz, Thiersch, Meyer, Hausrath, Sabatier,
Reuss, Weiss, Haupt, Spitta, McPherson, Hicks). But the arguments are more specious
than convincing. See Hort, Romans and Ephesians, 101-10. There is a growing opinion
that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were written from Ephesus during a possible
imprisonment in Paul's stay of 3 years there. So Deissmann (Light from the Ancient
East, 229; Paul, 16); Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900); M. Albertz (Theol. Studien und
Kritiken, 1910, 551ff); B. W. Bacon (Journal of Biblical Lit., 1910, 181ff). The strongest
argument for this position is that Paul apparently did not know personally the readers of
Ephes. 1:15; compare also Col. 1:4. But this objection need not apply if the so-called
Ephesian Epistle was a circular letter and if Paul did not visit Colosse and Laodicea
during his 3 years at Ephesus. The theory is more attractive at first than on reflection. It
throws this group before Romans—a difficult view to concede.
But even so, the order of these epistles is by no means certain. It is clear that
Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent together. Tychicus was the bearer of
Colossians (Col. 4:7f) and Ephesians (Ephes. 6:21f). Onesimus carried the letter to
Philemon 1:10, 13 and was also the companion of Tychicus to Colosse (Col. 4:9). So
these three epistles went together from Rome. It is commonly assumed that Philippians
was the last of the group of four, and hence later than the other three, because Paul is
balancing life and death (Phil. 1:21ff) and is expecting to be set free (Phil. 1:25), but he
has the same expectation of freedom when he writes Philemon 1:22. The absence of
Luke (Phil. 2:20) has to be explained on either hypothesis. Moffatt (Introduction, 159) is
dogmatic, "as Philippians was certainly the last letter that he wrote," ruling out of court
Ephesians, not to say the later Pastoral Epistles. But this conclusion gives Moffatt
trouble with the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) which he can only call "the
enigmatic reference" and cannot follow Rutherford (St. Paul's Epistles to Colosse and
Laodicea, 1908) in identifying the Laodicean Epistle with Ephesians, as indeed Marcion
seems to have done. But the notion that Ephesians was a circular letter designed for
more than one church (hence, without personalities) still holds the bulk of modern
opinion.
Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 294) is as dogmatic as Wrede or
Van Manen: "All which has hitherto been said concerning this epistle, its form, its
content, its ideas, its presuppositions, absolutely excludes the possibility of a Pauline
authorship." He admits "verbal echoes of Pauline epistles"
Lightfoot puts Philippians before the other three because of its doctrinal affinity with
the second group in chapter 3 as a reminiscence, and because of its anticipation of the
Christological controversy with incipient Gnosticism in chapter 2. This great discussion
is central in Colossians and Ephesians. At any rate, we have thus a consistent and
coherent interpretation of the group. Philemon, though purely personal, is wondrously
vital as a sociological document. Paul is in this group at the height of his powers in his
grasp of the Person of Christ.
(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy):
1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are still hotly disputed, but there
is a growing willingness in Britain and Germany to make a place for them in Paul's life.
Von Soden bluntly says: "It is impossible that these epistles as they stand can have been
written by Paul" (History of Early Christian Literature, 310). He finds no room for the
heresy here combated, or for the details in Paul's life, or for the linguistic peculiarities in
Paul's style. But he sees a "literary nicety"—this group that binds them together and
separates them from Paul. Thus tersely he puts the case against the Pauline authorship.
So Moffatt argues for the "sub-Pauline environment" and "sub-Pauline atmosphere" of
these epistles with the advanced ecclesiasticism (Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament, 410ff). Wrede thrusts aside the personal details and argues that the
epistles give merely the tendency of early Christianity (Ueber Aufgabe und Metbode der
Sogen. New Testament Theologie, 1897, 357). The Hatch-Van Manen article in
Encyclopedia Biblica admits only that "the Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly
with the various affairs of the churches within `Pauline circles.' "
Moffatt has a vigorous attack on these letters in Encyclopaedia Biblica, but he
"almost entirely ignores the external evidence, while he has nothing to say to the
remarkable internal evidence which immediately demands our attention" (Knowling,
Testimony of Paul to Christ, 3rd edition, 1911, 129). Moffatt (Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament, 414) holds that the Pastoral Epistles came from one
pen, but the personality and motives are very vague to him. The personal details in 2
Tim. 1:14-18; 2 Tim. 4:9-22 are not on a paragraph with those in The Acts of Paul and
Thekla in the 2nd century. Many critics who reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles admit the personal details in 2 Timothy, but it is just in such matters that
forgeries are recognizable. To admit these fragments is logically to admit the whole
(Maclean in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (single volume)), as Moffatt sees (Intro,
414), however much he seeks to tone down the use of Paul's name as "a Christian form
of suasoriae," and "a further and inoffensive development of the principle which sought
to claim apostolic sanction for the expanding institutions and doctrines of the early
church" (ibid., 415). The objection against these epistles from differences in diction has
been grievously overdone. As a matter of fact, each of the four groups has words
peculiar to it, and naturally so. Style is a function of the subject as well as a mark of the
man. Besides, style changes with one's growth. It would have been remarkable if all four
groups had shown no change in no change in vocabulary and style. The case of
Shakespeare is quite pertinent, for the various groups of plays stand more or less apart.
The Pastoral Epistles belong to Paul's old age and deal with personal and ecclesiastical
matters in a more or less reminiscential way, with less of vehement energy than we get in
the earlier epistles, but this situation is what one would reasonably expect. The
"ecclesiastical organization" argument has been greatly overdone. As a matter of fact,
"the organization in the Pastoral Epistles is not apparently advanced one step beyond
that of the church in Philippi in 61 AD" (Ramsay, The Expositor, VII, viii, 17). The
"gnosis" met by these epistles (1 Tim. 6:20; Titus 1:14) is not the highly developed type
seen in the Ignatian Epistles of the 2nd century. Indeed, Bartlet ("Historic Setting of the
Pastoral Epistles," The Expositor, January, 1913, 29) pointedly says that, as a result of
Hort's "Judaistic Christianity" and "Christian Ecclesia" and Ramsay's "Historical
Commentary on the Epistles of Timothy" (Expos, VII, vii, ix, VIII, i), "one feels the
subject has been lifted to a new level of reality and that much criticism between Baur
and Julicher is out of date and irrelevant." It is now shown that the Pastoral Epistles are
not directed against Gnosticism of advanced type, but even of a more Jewish type (Titus
1:14) than that in Colossians. Ramsay (Expos, VIII, i, 263) sweeps this stock criticism
aside as "from the wrong point of view." It falls to the ground. Lightfoot ("Note on the
Heresy Combated in the Pastoral Epistles," Biblical Essays, 413) had insisted on the
Jewish character of the Gnosticism attacked here. As a matter of fact, the main objection
to these epistles is that they do not fit into the story in Acts, which breaks off abruptly
with Paul in Rome. But it is a false premise to assume that the Pastoral Epistles have to
fit into the events in Acts. Harnack turns the objection that Paul in Acts 20:26 predicted
that he would never see the Ephesian elders again into a strong argument for the date of
Luke's Gospel before 2 Tim. 4:21 (The Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, 103). Indeed,
he may not have revisited Ephesus after all, but may have seen Timothy at Miletus also
(1 Tim. 1:3). Harnack frankly admits the acquittal and release of Paul and thus free play
for the Pastoral Epistles Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 24) acknowledges the Pastoral
Epistles as genuine. So also Findlay, article "Paul," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible
(five volumes); Maclean in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (single volume); Denney in
Standard BD. Sanday (Inspiration, 364) comments on the strength of the external
evidence for the Pastoral Epistles. Even Holtzmann (Einl(3), 291) appears to admit
echoes of the Pastoral Epistles in the Ignatian Epistles Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, "Date
of the Pastoral Epistles," 399-437) justifies completely the acceptance of the Pauline
authorship. Deissman (St. Paul, 15) has a needed word: "The delusion is still current in
certain circles that the scientific distinction of a Bible scholar may be estimated in the
form of a percentage according to the proportion of his verdicts of spuriousness. .... The
extant letters of Paul have been innocently obliged to endure again a fair share of the
martyrdom suffered by the historic Paul."
» See: PASTORAL EPISTLES
(3) Paul's Conception of His Epistles
Assuming, therefore, the Pauline authorship of the thirteen epistles, we may note that
they, reveal in a remarkable way the growth in Paul's apprehension of Christ and
Christianity, his adaptation to varied situations, his grasp of world-problems and the
eternal values of life. Paul wrote other epistles, as we know. In 1 Cor. 5:9 there is a clear
reference to a letter not now known to us otherwise, earlier than 1 Corinthians. The use
of "every epistle" in 2 Thes. 3:17 naturally implies that Paul had written more than two
already. It is not certain to what letter Paul refers in 2 Cor. 2:4—most probably to one
between 1 and 2 Corinthians, though, as already shown, some scholars find that letter in
2 Cor. 10-13. Once more Paul (Col. 4:16) mentions an epistle addressed to the church at
Laodicea. This epistle is almost certainly that which we know as Ephesians. If not, here
is another lost epistle. Indeed, at least two apocryphal Epistles to the Laodiceans were
written to supply this deficiency. As early as 2 Thes. 2:2 forgers were at work to palm,
off epistles in Paul's name, "or by epistle as from us," to attack and pervert Paul's real
views, whom Paul denounces. It was entirely possible that this "nefarious work" would
be continued (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 191), though, as
Gregory argues, Paul's exposure here would have a tendency to put a stop to it and to put
Christians on their guard and to watch for Paul's signature to the epistles as a mark of
genuineness (2 Thes. 3:17; 1 Cor. 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Col. 4:18). This was all the
more important since Paul evidently dictated his letters to amanuenses, as to Tertius in
the case of Romans 16:22. In the case of Philemon 1:19, Paul probably wrote the whole
letter. We may be sure therefore that, if we had the other genuine letters of Paul, they
would occupy the same general standpoint as the thirteen now in our possession. The
point to note here is that the four groups of Paul's Epistles fit into the historical
background of the Acts as recorded by Luke, barring the fourth group which is later than
the events in Acts. Each group meets a specific situation in a definite region or regions,
with problems of vital interest. Paul attacks these various problems (theological,
ecclesiastical, practical) with marvelous vigor, and applies the eternal principles of the
gospel of Christ in such fashion as to furnish a norm for future workers for Christ. It is
not necessary to say that he was conscious of that use. Deissmann (St. Paul, 12f) is
confident on this point: "That a portion of these confidential letters should be still extant
after centuries, Paul cannot have intended, nor did it ever occur to him that they would
be." Be that as it may, and granted that Paul's Epistles are "survivals, in the sense of the
technical language employed by the historical method" (ibid., 12), still we must not
forget that Paul attached a great deal of importance to his letters and urged obedience to
the teachings which they contained: "I adjure you by the, Lord that this epistle be read
unto all the brethren" (1 Thes. 5:27). This command we find in the very first one
preserved to us. Once more note 2 Thes. 3:14: "And if any man obeyeth not our word by
this ep., note that man, that ye have no company with him." Evidently therefore Paul
does not conceive his epistles as mere incidents in personal correspondence, but
authoritative instructions for the Christians to whom they are addressed. In 1 Cor. 7:17,
"And so ordain I in all the churches," he puts his epistolary commands on a paragraph
with the words of Jesus quoted in the same chapter. Some indeed at Corinth (2 Cor.
10:9f) took his "letters" as an effort to "terrify" them, a thing that he was afraid to do in
person. Paul (2 Cor. 10:11) does not deny the authority of his letters, but claims equal
courage when he comes in person (compare 2 Cor. 13:2, 10). That Paul expected his
letters to be used by more than the one church to which they were addressed is clear
from Col. 4:16: "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read
also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." If
the letter to Laodicea is our Ephesians and a sort of circular letter (compare Galatians),
that is clear. But it must be noted that Colossians, undoubtedly a specific letter to
Colosse, is likewise to be passed on to Laodicea. It is not always observed that in 1 Cor.
1:2, though the epistle is addressed "unto the church of God which is at Corinth," Paul
adds, "with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord
and ours." Philemon is, of course, a personal letter, though it deals with a sociological
problem of universal interest. The Pastoral Epistles are addressed to two young
ministers and have many personal details, as is natural, but the epistles deal far more
with the social aspects of church life and the heresies and vices that were threatening the
very existence of Christianity in the Roman empire. Paul is eager that Timothy shall
follow his teaching (2 Tim. 3:10ff), and "the same commit thou to faithful men, who
shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). It is this larger view of the future of
Christianity that concerns Paul very keenly. The very conception of his ministry to the
Gentiles (Romans 15:16; Ephes. 3:7ff) led Paul to feel that he had a right to speak to all,
"both to Greeks and to Barbarians" (Romans 1:14), and hence, even to Rome (Romans
1:15f). It is a mistake to limit Paul's Epistles to the local and temporary sphere given
them by Deissmann.
(4) Development in Paul's Epistles
For Paul's gospel or theology see later. Here we must stress the fact that all four
groups of Paul's Epistles are legitimate developments from his fundamental experience
of grace as conditioned by his previous training and later work. He met each new
problem with the same basal truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, revealed to
Paul on the way to Damascus. The reality of this great experience must here be assumed
(see discussion later). It may be admitted that the Acts does not stand upon the same
plane as the Pauline Epistles as a witness concerning Paul's conversion (Fletcher, The
Conversion of Paul, 1910, 5). But even so, the Epistles amply confirm Luke's report of
the essential fact that Jesus appeared to Paul in the same sense that He did to the apostles
and 500 Christians (1 Cor. 15:4-9). The revelation of Christ to Paul and in Paul (dí děďß,
en emoŚń, Galatians 1:16) and the specific call connected therewith to preach to the
Gentiles gave Paul a place independent of and on a paragraph with the other apostles
(Galatians 1:16f; Galatians 2:1-10). Paul's first preaching (Acts 9:20) "proclaimed Jesus,
that he is the Son of God." This "primitive Paulinism" (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul,
1893, 113) lay at the heart of Paul's message in his sermons and speeches in Acts.
Professor P. Gardner regards Luke as a "careless" historian ("The Speeches of Paul in
Acts," Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 386), but he quite admits the central place of
Paul's conversion, both in the Acts and the Epistles (ib; compare also The Religious
Experience of Paul).
We cannot here trace in detail the growth of Paulinism. Let Wernle speak
(Beginnings of Christianity, 1903, I, 224) for us: "The decisive factor in the genius of
Paul's theology was his personal experience, his conversion on the road to Damascus."
This fact reappears in each of the groups of the Epistles. It is the necessary implication
in the apostolic authority claimed in 1 Thes. 2:4-6; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Thes. 3:6, 14. "We
might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ" (1 Thes. 2:6). For the second group
we need only refer to 1 Cor. 9:1f and 15:1-11, where Paul justifies his gospel by the fact
of having seen the risen Jesus. His self-depreciation in 1 Cor. 15:9 is amply balanced by
the claims in 1 Cor. 15:10. See also 2 Cor. 10-13 and Galatians 1 and 2 for Paul's formal
defense of his apostolic authority. The pleasantry in Romans 15:14 does not displace the
claim in Romans 15:16, 23f. In the third group note the great passage in Phil. 3:12-14,
where Paul pointedly alludes to his conversion: "I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ," as
giving him the goal of his ambition, "that I may lay hold"; "I count not myself yet to
have laid hold." This concentration of effort to come up to Christ's purpose in him is the
key to Paul's life and letters, "I press on toward the goal." So the golden cord reappears
in Ephes. 3:2-13: "How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I
wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in
the mystery of Christ." In the fourth group he still recalls how Christ Jesus took pity on
him, the blasphemer, the persecutor, the chief of sinners, and put him into the ministry,
"that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample
of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life" (1 Tim. 1:16). He kept
up the fight to the end (2 Tim. 4:6f), for the Lord Jesus stood by him (2 Tim. 4:17), as on
the road to Damascus. So the personal note of experience links all the epistles
together.They reveal Paul's growing conception of Christ. Paul at the very start
perceived that men are redeemed by faith in Jesus as the Saviour from sin through His
atoning death, not by works of the Law (Acts 13:38f). In the first group there are
allusions to the "work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus
Christ" (1 Thes. 1:3). He speaks of "election" (1 Thes. 1:4) and "our gospel" (1 Thes.
1:5) and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Thes. 1:10). The Father, Son and Spirit cooperate in
the work of salvation (2 Thes. 2:13f), which includes election, belief, sanctification,
glorification. It is not necessary to press the argument for the conception of salvation by
faith in Christ, grace as opposed to works, in the second group. It is obviously present in
the third and the fourth. We seem forced to the view therefore that Paul's experience
was revolutionary, not evolutionary. "If we consider the whole history of Paul as it is
disclosed to us in his letters, are we not forced to the conclusion that his was a
catastrophic or explosive, rather than a slowly progressive personality?" (Garvie,
Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911, 32). "His gospel was included in his conversion,
and it was meditation that made explicit what was thus implicit in his experience" (same
place) . This is not to say that there was no "spiritual development of Paul" (Matheson,
1890). There was, and of the richest kind, but it was a growth of expression in the
successive application of the fundamental Christian conception. The accent upon this or
that phase of truth at different stages in Paul's career does not necessarily mean that the
truth is a new one to him. It may simply be that the occasion has arisen for emphasis and
elaboration.
In a broad generalization the first group of the epistles is eschatological, the second
soteriological, the third Christological, and the fourth pastoral (Garvie, Studies of Paul
and His Gospel, 22). But one must not get the notion that Paul did not have a full gospel
of salvation in the first group, and did not come to the true motive of the person of Christ
as Lord till the second, or understand the pastoral office till the fourth. See emphasis on
Paul's work as pastor and preacher in 1 Thes. 2 (first group), and the Lordship of Christ
also (1 Thes. 1:1, 3; 2 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 2:13f), on a paragraph with the Father.
There was a change of accent in each group on questions of eschatology, but in each
one Paul cherishes the hope of the second coming of Christ up to the very end when he
speaks of his own death (2 Tim. 4:8, 18). Paul has a whole gospel of grace in all his
epistles, but he presses home the special phase of truth needed at the moment, always
with proper balance and modification, though not in the form of a system of doctrine. In
the first group he relieves the minds of the Thessalonian Christians from the
misapprehension into which they had fallen concerning his position on the immediate
coming of Christ. In the second group Paul vindicates the gospel of grace from the
legalistic addition of the Judaizers who sought to rob the Gentiles of their freedom by
insisting that they become Jews as well as Christians. This ringing battle is echoed in
Acts 15 and is the mightiest conflict of Paul's career. We hear echoes of it in Phil. 3, but
he had won his contention. In the third group the battle with error has shifted to the
province of Asia, especially the Lycus Valley, where a mystic mixture of Judaism
(Essenism) and heathen mystery-religions and philosophies (incipient Gnosticism) was
so rife in the 2nd century (the various forms of Gnosticism which combined with some
aspects of Christianity). It is possible also that Mithraism was already a foe of
Christianity. The central position and essential deity of Jesus Christ was challenged by
these new and world-old heresies, and Paul attacks them with marvelous skill in
Colossians and Ephesians and works out in detail his teaching concerning the person of
Christ with due emphasis on the soteriological aspects of Christ's work and on Christian
life. Bruce (St. Paul's Conception of Christianity) conceives that Paul gives us his entire
conception of Christianity in the four great epistles of the second group, while B. Weiss
(Biblical Theology of the New Testament) sees a more developed doctrine in the third
group. He is in his prime in both groups. In the fourth group the same struggle lingers on
with variations in Crete and even in Ephesus. The Jewish phase of the heresy is more
decided (perhaps Pharisaic), and recalls to some extent the Judaistic controversy in the
second group. Paul is older and faces the end, and Christianity has enemies within and
without. He turns to young ministers as the hope of the future in the propagation of the
gospel of the happy God. The fires have burned lower, and there is less passion and heat.
The tone is now fierce, now tender. The style is broken and reminiscent and personal,
though not with the rush of torrential emotion in 2 Corinthians, nor the power of logic in
Galatians and Romans. Each epistle fits into its niche in the group. Each group falls into
proper relation to the stage in Paul's life and justly reveals the changes of thought and
feeling in the great apostle. It is essential that one study Paul's Epistles in their actual
historical order if one wishes to understand the mind of Paul. Scholars are not agreed, to
be sure on this point. They are not agreed on anything, for that matter. See two methods
of presenting Paul's Epistles in Robertson, Chronological New Testament (1904), and
Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901).
II. Modern Theories about Paul.
1. Criticism Not Infallible:
Findlay (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), "Paul") utters a needed
warning when he reminds us that the modern historical and psychological method of
study is just as liable to prepossession and prejudice as the older categories of scholastic
and dogmatic theology. "The focus of the picture may be displaced and its colors
falsified by philosophical no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles" (same place).
Deissmann (St. Paul, 4f) sympathizes with this protest against the infallibility of modern
subjective criticism: "That really and properly is the task of the modern student of Paul:
to come back from the paper Paul of our western libraries, Germanized, dogmatised,
modernized, to the historic Paul; to penetrate through the `Paulinism' of our New
Testament theologies to the Paul of ancient reality." He admits the thoroughness and the
magnitude of the work accomplished in the 19th century concerning the literary
questions connected with Paul's letters, but it is a "doctrinaire interest" that "has gone
farther and farther astray." Deissmann conceives of Paul as a "hero of piety first and
foremost," not as a theologian. "As a religious genius Paul's outlook is forward into a
future of universal history." In this position of Deissmann we see a return to the pre-
Baur time. Deissmann would like to get past all the schools of criticism, back to Paul
himself.
2. The Tubingen Theory:
Baur started the modern critical attitude by his Pastoralbriefe (1835, p. 79), in which
he remarked that there were only four epistles of Paul (Galatians 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Romans) which could be accepted as genuine. In his Paulus (1845) he expounded this
thesis. He also rejected the Acts. From the four great epistles and from the pseudo-
Clementine literature of the 2nd century, Baur argued that Paul and Peter were bitter
antagonists. Peter and the other apostles were held fast in the grip of the legalistic
conception of Christianity, a sort of Christianized Pharisaism. Paul, when converted, had
reacted violently against this view, and became the exponent of Gentile freedom.
Christianity was divided into two factions, Jewish Christians (Petrinists) and Gentile
Christians (Paulinists). With this "key" Baur ruled out the other Pauline epistles and Acts
as spurious, because they did not show the bitterness of this controversy. He called them
"tendency" writings, designed to cover up the strife and to show that peace reigned in the
camp. This arbitrary theory cut a wide swath for 50 years, and became a fetich with
many scholars, but it is now dead. "It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make a
theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts it"
(Maclean in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (single volume)). Ramsay (The First
Christian Century, 1911, 195) contends that the perpetuation of the Baur standpoint in
Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament is an anachronism: "We
are no longer in the 19th century with its negations, but in the 20th century with its
growing power of insight and the power of belief that springs therefrom." Van Marten
(Encyclopedia Biblica) calls the Baur view that of the "old guard" of liberal theology in
Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, and, to some extent, in Britain.
3. Protest against Baur's View:
But even in Germany the older conservative view of Paul has always had champions.
The most consistent of the recent opponents of Baur's views in Germany is Th. Zahn
(compare his Einlin das New Testament, 2 volumes, 1897-99; Introduction to the New
Testament, 3 volumes, 1910). In Britain the true successor of Lightfoot as the chief
antagonist of the Tubingen School is Sir W.M. Ramsay, whose numerous volumes
(Church in the Roman Empire, 1893; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895; Paul the
Traveler, 1896; Pauline and Other Studies, 1906; Cities of Paul, 1908; Luke the
Physician and Other Studies, 1908; Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; The First
Christian Century, 1911) have given the finishing touches to the overthrow of Baur's
contention.
4. Successors to Baur:
But even so, already the Baur school had split into two parts. The ablest
representatives, like H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Julicher, Lipsius, von Soden,
were compelled to admit more of Paul's Epistles as genuine than the four principal ones,
till there are left practically none to fight over but Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles.
This progress eliminated completely Baur's thesis and approached very nearly to the
position of Lightfoot, Ramsay and Zahn. Von Soden (Early Christian Literature, 324)
still stands out against 2 Thessalonians, but Harnack has deserted him on that point. But
the old narrow view of Baur is gone, and von Soden is eloquent in his enthusiasm for
Paul (ibid., 119): "As we gaze upon the great literary memorials of the Greeks we may
well question whether these Pauline letters are not equal to them—indeed, do not surpass
them—in spiritual significance, in psychological depths and loftiness of ideal, above all
in the art of complete and forcible expression." The other wing of Baur's school Findlay
(Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)) calls "ultra-Baurians." It is mainly a
Dutch school with Loman and Van Manen as its main exponents, though it has support
in Germany from Steck and Volter, and in America from W. B. Smith. These writers do
not say that Paul is a myth, but that our sources (Acts and the 13 epistles) are all
legendary. It is a relentless carrying of Baur's thesis to a reductio ad absurdum. Van
Manen (Encyclopedia Biblica) says of "the historical, Paul" as distinct from "the
legendary Paul": "It does not appear that Paul's ideas differed widely from those of the
other disciples, or that he had emancipated himself from Judaism or had outgrown the
law more than they." When one has disposed of all the evidence he is entirely free to
reconstruct the pictures to suit himself. Quite arbitrarily, Van Manen accepts the "we"-
sections in Acts as authoritative. But these give glimpses of the historical Jesus quite as
truly as the Pauline Epistles, and should therefore be rejected by advocates of the
mythical Jesus. So the pendulum swings back and forth. One school destroys the other,
but the fact of Paul's personality remains. "The new start is one of such importance that
we must distinguish the pre-Pauline from the post-Pauline Christianity, or, what amounts
to the same thing, the Palestinian sect and the world-religion" (Wernle, Beginnings of
Christianity, I, 159).
5. Appeal to Comparative Religion:
In his Paulus (1904), Wrede finds the explanation of Paul's theology in late Jewish
apocalyptic views and in the oriental mystery religions. Bousset (Die Religion des
Judenthums im New Testament Zeitalter, 1903) seeks to find in the "late Jewish
apocalyptic" "conceptions from the Babylonian and the Irano-Zarathustrian religions"
(Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 173). According to Wrede's view, Paul is one of
the creators of "Christ" as distinct from the Jesus of history (compare "Jesus or Christ,"
HJ, suppl., January, 1909). "Wrede's object is to overthrow the view predominant in
modern theology, that Paul loyally and consistently expounded and developed theology
of Jesus" (J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909, 2). J. Weiss in this book makes a careful reply
to Wrede as others have done; compare A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul (1909), who concludes
(p. 134) dramatically: "Paul—just one who points the way to Jesus and to God!" See also
Julicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907); Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); Kolbing, Die
geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu und Paulus (1906). The best reply to Wrede's
arguments about the mystery-religion is found in articles in the The Expositor for 1912-
13 (now in book form) by H.A.A. Kennedy on "St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions."
The position of Wrede is carried to its logical conclusion by Drews (Die Christus-Mythe,
1909), who makes Paul the creator of Christianity. W. B. Smith (Der vorchristliche
Jesus, 1906) tries to show that "Jesus" was a pre-Christian myth or god. Schweitzer (Paul
and His Interpreters, 235) sums the matter up thus: "Drews's thesis is not merely a
curiosity; it indicates the natural limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates
of comparative religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest."
6. The Eschatological Interpretation:
Schweitzer himself may be accepted as the best exponent of the rigid application of
this view to Paul (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912) that he had made to Jesus (The Quest
of the Historical Jesus, 1910). He glories in the ability to answer the absurdities of Steck,
Loman and Van Manen and Drews by showing that the eschatological conceptions of
Paul in his epistles are primitive, not late, and belong to the 1st century, not to the 2nd
(Paul and His Interpreters, 249). He thus claims to be the true pupil of Baur, though
reaching conclusions utterly different. There is undoubtedly an element of truth in this
contention of Schweitzer, but he loses his case, when he insists that nothing but
eschatology must be allowed to figure. "The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen," he
proclaims (p. viii), but he demands that in its place we allow the "exclusively Jewish-
eschatological" (p. ix) interpretation. There he slips, and his theory will go the way of
that of Baur. C. Anderson Scott ("Jesus and Paul," Cambridge Biblical Essays, 365)
admits that Paul has the same eschatological outlook as Jesus, but also the same ethical
interest. It is not "either ..... or," but both in each case. See a complete bibliography of
the "Jesus and Paul" controversy in J. G. Machens' paper on "Jesus and Paul" in Biblical
and Theological Studies (1912, 547f). As Ramsay insists, we are now in the 20th century
of insight and sanity, and Paul has come to his own. Even Wernle (Beginnings of
Christianity, I, 163) sees that Paul is not the creator of the facts: "He merely transmits
historical facts. God—Christ—Paul, such is the order." Saintsbury (History of Criticism,
152) says: "It has been the mission of the 19th century to prove that everybody's work
was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most useless task of the 20th to
betake itself to more profitable inquiries."
Continued from . . .
»Paul, The Apostle
III. Chronology of Paul's Career.
1. Schemes:
There is not a single date in the life of Paul that is beyond dispute, though several are
narrowed to a fine point, and the general course and relative proportion of events are
clear enough. Luke gave careful data for the time of the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1f), for
the entrance of the Baptist on his ministry (Luke 3:1f), and the age of Jesus when He
began His work (Luke 3:23), but he takes no such pains in the Acts with chronology.
But we are left with a number of incidental allusions and notes of time which call for
some discussion. For fuller treatment see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910, 181) gives a comparative table
of the views of Harnack, Turner, Ramsay and Lightfoot for the events from the
crucifixion of Christ to the close of Acts. The general scheme is nearly the same,
differing from one to four years here and there. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, xi) gives a
good chronological scheme. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New
Testament, 62 f) gives theories of 23 scholars:
Turner, "Chronology," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); Neteler,
Untersuchung New Testament Zeitverhaltnisse, 1894; O. Holtzmann, New Testament
Zeitgeschichte, 1895, changed in 2nd edition, 1906; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, xiii f;
Cornely (compare Laurent), New Testament Studien; Harnack, Chron. d. altchristl. Lit.
bis Eusebius, 233-329; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 164, 172; Zahn, Intro, III, 450 f;
Ramsay, "The Pauline Chronology," Pauline and Other Studies, 345 f; Lightfoot,
Biblical Essays, 213-33; Wendt, Acts, 53-60, Meyer, Commentary; Renan, Paul;
Bornemann, Thes., 17 f, Meyer, Commentary; Clemen, Paulus, I, 411; Giffert, Student's
Life of Paul, 242-59; Weiss, Intro, I, 154 f; Sabatier, Paul, 13 f; Julicher, Einl6, 31 f;
Findlay, "Paul" in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); Farrar, Paul,
Appendix; Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift; Steinmann, Abfassungszeit d. Galatians, 169;
Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Paulus.
Let us look at the dates given by ten of this list:
Turner Bartlet Harnack McGiffert Zahn
Conversion 35-36 31-32 30 31-32 35
1st visit to Jerusalem 38 34-35 33 34-45 38
2nd visit to Jerusalem 46 46 44 45 44
1st missionary tour 47 47 45 before 45 50- 51
Meeting in Jerusalem 49 49 46-47 45 52
2nd missionary tour 49 49 46-47 46 52
3rd missionary tour 52 52 50 49 54
Arrest in Jerusalem 56 56 53-54 53 58
Arrival in Rome 59 59 56-57 56 61
Death of Paul 64-65 61-62 64 58 66- 67
Ramsay Lightfoot Clemen Findlay Hoennicke
Conversion 32 34 31 36 33-35
1st visit to Jerusalem 34 37 34 39 36-38
2nd visit to Jerusalem 45 45 .. .. 45-46
1st missionary tour 46-48 48 46 46 49?
Meeting in Jerusalem 50 51 48 49 50-52
2nd missionary tour 50-53 51 49-52 49 ..
3rd missionary tour 52 53-57 54 53-59 53 ..
Arrest in Jerusalem 57 58 59 57 ..
Arrival in Rome 60 61 62 60 60-62
Death of Paul 67 67 64 67 ..
This table shows very well the present diversity of opinion on the main points in
Paul's life. Before expressing an opinion on the points at issue it is best to examine a few
details. Paul himself gives some notes of time. He gives "after 3 years" (Galatians 1:18)
as the period between his conversion and first visit to Jerusalem, though he does not
necessarily mean 3 full years. In Galatians 2:1, Paul speaks of another visit to Jerusalem
"after the space of 14 years." Then again Luke quotes him as saying to the Ephesian
elders at Miletus that he had spent "3 years" at Ephesus (Acts 20:31). These periods of
time all come before Paul's last visit and arrest in Jerusalem, and they do not embrace all
the time between his conversion and arrest. There is also another note of time in 2 Cor.
12:2, where he speaks in an enigmatic way of experiences of his "14 years" ago from the
writing of this epistle from Macedonia on the third tour. This will take him back to
Tarsus before coming to Antioch at the request of Barnabas, and so overlaps a bit the
other "14" above, and includes the "3 years" at Ephesus. We cannot, therefore, add these
figures together for the total. But some light may be obtained from further details from
Acts and the Epistles.
2. Crucial Points:
(1) The Death of Stephen.
Saul is "a young man" (Acts 7:58) when this event occurs. Like other young Jews he
entered upon his life as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He had probably been thus active
several years, especially as he was now in a position of leadership and may even have
been a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10). Pontius Pilate was not deposed from his
procuratorship till 36 AD, but was in a state of uneasiness for a couple of years. It is
more probable, therefore, that the stoning of Stephen would take place after his
deposition in the interregnum, or not many years before, when he would be afraid to
protest against the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders. He had shown timidity at the death
of Jesus, 29 or 30 AD, but some of the forms of law were observed. So nothing decisive
is here obtained, though 35 AD seems more probable than 32 or 33.
(2) The Flight from Damascus.
Paul locates this humiliating experience (2 Cor. 11:32f) when "the governor under
Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes." Aretas the Arabian, and not the
Roman, has now control when Paul is writing. The likelihood is that Aretas did not get
possession of Damascus till 37 AD, when Tiberius died and was succeeded by Caligula.
It is argued by some that the expression "the city of the Damascenes" shows that the city
was not under the control of Aretas, but was attacked by a Bedouin chieftain who lay in
wait for Paul before the city. That to me seems forced. Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 3; Ant.,
XVIII, vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the authority of Aretas over Damascus from
35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions show Roman rule over the city between 35 and
62 AD. Ramsay, however ("The Pauline Chronology," Pauline and Other Studies, 364),
accepts the view of Marquardt (Romische Staatsalterth., I, 404f) that it was possible for
Aretas to have had possession of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus is
the same year as the visit to Jerusalem, Paul's first after his conversion (Acts 9:26;
Galatians 1:18). If we knew the precise year of this event, we could subtract two or
three years and reach the date of his conversion. Lightfoot in his Commentary on
Galatians gives 38 as the date of this first visit to Jerusalem, and 36 as the date of the
conversion, taking "after 3 years" in a free way, but in his Biblical Essays, 221, he puts
the visit in 37 and the conversion in 34, and says " `after 3 years' must mean three whole
years, or substantially so." Thus we miss a sure date again.
(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I.
Here the point of contact between the Acts 12:1-4, 19-23 and Josephus (Ant., XIX,
viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar vein the
death of this king. Josephus says that at the time of his death he had already completed
the 3rd year of his reign over the whole of Judea (Ant., XIX, viii, 2). He received this
dignity soon after Claudius began to reign in 41 AD, so that makes the date 44 AD. He
died after the Passover in that year (44), for Peter was imprisoned by him during that
feast (Acts 12:3). But unfortunately Luke sandwiches the narrative about Herod Agrippa
in between the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem from Antioch (Acts 11:29f) and
their return to Antioch (Acts 12:25). He does not say that the events here recorded were
exactly synchronous with this visit, for he says merely "about that time." We are
allowed therefore to place this visit before 44 AD or after, just as the facts require. The
mention of "elders" in Acts 11:30 instead of apostles (compare both in Acts 15:4) may
mean that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James (Acts
12:1f) and release of Peter we note that Peter "went to another place" (Acts 12:17). But
the apostles are back again in Jerusalem in Acts 15:4ff. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 216)
therefore places the visit "at the end of 44, or in 45." Once more we slip the connection
and fail to fix a firm date for Paul. It is disputed also whether this 2nd visit to Jerusalem
according to Acts (Acts 9:26; Acts 11:29f) is the same as the "again" in Galatians 2:1.
Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 59) identifies the visit in Galatians 2:1 with that in Acts
11:29f, but Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 221) holds that it "must be identified with the
third of the Acts" 15:4ff. In Galatians 1 and 2 Paul is not recording his visits to
Jerusalem, but showing his independence of the apostles when he met them in
Jerusalem. There is no proof that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in Acts
11:29f. The point of Lightfoot is well taken, hut we have no point of contact with the
outside history for locating more precisely the date of the visit of Galatians 2:1 and Acts
15:4ff, except that it was after the first missionary tour of Acts 13 and 14.
(4) The First Missionary Tour.
Sergius Paulus is proconsul of Cyprus when Barnabas and Saul visit the island (Acts
13:7). The proconsul Paulus is mentioned in a Greek inscription of Soloi (Hogarth,
Devia Cypria, 1889, 114) and Lucius Sergius Paulus in CIL, VI, 31, 545, but, as no
mention of his being proconsul is here made, it is probably earlier than that time. The
Soloi inscription bears the date 53 AD, but Sergius Paulus was not proconsul in 51 or 52.
Hence, he may have been proconsul in 50 or the early part of 51 AD.It could not be later
and may have been earlier.
(5) The First Visit to Corinth.
The point to note here is that Gallio becomes proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12). Paul
has been apparently in Corinth a year and six months when Gallio appears on the scene
(Acts 18:11). Aquila and Priscilla had "lately come from Italy" (Acts 18:2) when Paul
arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2).
On the arrival of Gallio the Jews at once accuse Paul before him; he refuses to interfere,
and Paul stays on for a while and then leaves for Syria with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts
18:18). Deissmann (St. Paul, Appendix, I, "The Proconsulate of L. Junius Gallio") has
shown beyond reasonable doubt that Gallio, the brother of Seneca, became proconsul of
Achaia about July, 51 AD (or possibly 52). On a stone found at Delphi, Gallio is
mentioned as proconsul of Achaia according to the probable restoration of part of the
text. But the stone mentions the fact that Claudius had been acclaimed imperator 26
times. By means of another inscription we get the 27th proclamation as imperator in
connection with the dedication of an aqueduct on August 1, 52 AD. So thus the 26th
time is before this date, some time in the earlier part of the year. We need not follow in
detail the turns of the argument (see Deissmann, op. cit.). Once more we do not get a
certain date as to the year. It is either the summer of 51 or 52 AD, when Gallio comes.
And Paul has already been in Corinth a year and a half. But the terminus ad quem for
the close of Paul's two years' stay in Corinth would be the early autumn of 52 AD, and
more probably 51 AD. Hence, the 2 Thessalonian Epistles cannot be later than this date.
Before the close of 52 AD, and probably 51, therefore must come the 2nd missionary
tour, the conference at Jerusalem, the first missionary tour, etc. Deissmann is justified in
his enthusiasm on this point. He is positive that 51 AD is the date of the arrival of
Gallio.
(6) Paul at Troas according to Acts 20:6f.
On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover). Ramsay
figures (St. Paul the Traveler, 289f) that Paul had his closing service at Troas on Sunday
evening and the party left early Monday morning. Hence, he argues back to the Passover
at Philippi and concludes that the days as given by Luke will not fit into 56, 58, or 59
AD, but will suit 57. If he is correct in this matter, then we should have a definite year
for the last trip to Jerusalem. Lewin (Fasti Sacri, numbers 1856, 1857) reaches the same
conclusion. The conclusion is logical if Luke is exact in his use of days in this passage.
Yet Lightfoot insists on 58 AD but Ramsay has the advantage on this point. See Pauline
and Other Studies, 352f.
(7) Festus Succeeding Felix.
When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schurer, Jewish
People in the Time of Christ, I, ii, 174). He was already ruler "many years" (Acts 24:10)
when Paul appears before him in Caesarea. He holds on "two years" when he is
succeeded by Festus (Acts 24:27). But in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian text) it is
stated that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius, or 54 AD. But this is
clearly an error, in spite of the support given to it by Harnack (Chronologie d. Paulus),
since Josephus puts most of the rule of Felix in the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 1-9; BJ,
II, xii, 8-14), not to mention the "many years" of Paul in Acts 24:10. But the error of
Eusebius has now been explained by Erbes in his Todestage Pauli und Petri, and is made
perfectly clear by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies, 349ff. Eusebius over-looked
the interregnum of 6 years between the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and the first
year of Herod Agrippa II in 50 AD. Eusebius learned that Festus came in the 10th year
of Herod Agrippa II. Counting from 50 AD, that gives us 59 AD as the date of the recall
of Felix. This date harmonizes with all the known facts. "The great majority of scholars
accept the date 60 for Festus; but they confess that it is only an approximate date, and
there is no decisive argument for it" (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 351). For
minute discussion of the old arguments see Nash, article "Paul" in new Sch-Herz Enc;
Schurer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182ff. But if Erbes and Ramsay are correct, we
have at last a date that will stand. So then Paul sails for Rome in the late summer of 59
AD and arrives at his destination in the early spring ("had wintered," Acts 28:11) of 60
AD. He had been "two whole years in his own hired dwelling" (Acts 28:30) when Luke
closes the Acts. On the basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the
Pastoral Epistles, Paul's death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero's death,
and possibly in 67. On this point see later. We can now count back from 59 AD with
reasonable clearness to 57 as the date of Paul's arrest in Jerusalem. Paul spent at least a
year and three months (Acts 19:8, 10) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three years in
Acts 20:31). It took a year for him to reach Jerusalem, from Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8) to
Pentecost (Acts 20:16). From the spring of 57 AD we thus get back to the end of 53 as
the time of his arrival in Ephesus (Acts 19:1). We have seen that Gallio came to Corinth
in the summer of 51 AD (or 52), after Paul had been there a year and a half (Acts 18:11),
leaving ample time in either case for the journeys from Corinth to Ephesus, to Caesarea,
to Jerusalem apparently (Acts 18:21f), and to Ephesus (Acts 19:1) from the summer of
51 (or 52) we go back two years to the beginning of the 2nd missionary tour (Acts 16:1-
6) as 49 (or 50). The Jerusalem Conference was probably in the same year, and the first
missionary tour would come in the two (or three) preceding years 47 and 48 (48-49).
The stay at Antioch (Acts 14:28) may have been of some length. So we come back to
the end of 44 or beginning of 45 for the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:29f. Before that
comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (Acts 11:26), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia, the
"three years" after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia (Galatians 1:17f), Paul's first
appearance at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58). These early dates are more conjectural,
but even so the facts seem to indicate 35 AD as the probable year of Saul's conversion.
The year of his birth would then be between 1 and 5 AD, probably nearer 1. If so, and if
his death was in 67 or 68 AD, his age is well indicated. He was "Paul the Aged"
(Philemon 1:9) when he wrote to Philemon from Rome in 61-63 AD.
IV. His Equipment.
Ramsay chooses as the title of chapter ii, in his Paul the Traveler, the words "The
Origin of Paul." It is not
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
