Part 18
Turner
2271 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Paul, the Apostle
(3) The death of Herod Agrippa I.—Here the point of contact between the Acts (12 1-4.19-23) and Jos (Ant, XIX, viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar vein the death of this king. Jos says that at the time of his death he had already completed the 3d year of his reign over the whole of Judaea (Ant, XIX, viii,
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" (Gal 1 18) as the period between his conversion and first visit to Jerus, though he does not necessarily mean 3 full years. In Gal 2 1, Paul speaks of another visit to Jerus "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 Jerus, 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 ep. 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 Epp.
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 Jerus from Antioch
(Acts 11 29 f) and their return to Antioch (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 (cf both in 15 4) may mean that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James (12 1 f ) and release of Peter we note that Peter "went to another place" (12 17). But the apostles are back again in Jerus in 15 4 ff. Lightfoot (Bib. 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 2d visit to Jerus according to Acts (9 26; 11 29 f) is the same as the "again" in Gal 2 1. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 59) identifies the visit in Gal 2 1 with that in Acts 11 29 f, but Lightfoot (Bib. Essays, 221) holds that it "must be identified with the third of the Acts" (15 4 ff). In Gal 1 and 2 Paul is not recording his visits to Jerus, but showing his independence of the apostles when he met them in Jerus. There is no proof that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in Acts 11 29 f. The point of Lightfoot is well taken, but we have no point of contact with the outside history for locating more precisely the date of the visit of Gal 2 1 and Acts 15 4 ff, except that it was after the first missionary tour of Acts 13 and 14.
(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 2. Crucial as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He Points had probably been thus active several years, esp. 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 32 f) 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. Jos {Ant, XVIII, v, 3; vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the authority of Aretas over Damascus from 35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions show Rom 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 Staats-
(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 Gr 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" (18 2) when Paul arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius (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 (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
alterth., I, 404 f) that it was passible for Aretas to have had po.ssession of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus 'S the same year as the
visit to Jerus, Paul's first after his conversion (Acts 9 26; Gal 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 Comm. on Gal gives 38 as the date of this first visit to Jerus, and 36 as the date of the conversion, taking "after 3 years" in a free way, but in his Bib. Essays, 221, he puts the visit in 37 and the conver-
sion in 34, and says "'after 3 years' must mean
three whole years, or substantially so." Thus we miss a sure date again.
Paul, the Apostle THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2272
the date of Paul's arrest in Jerus. Paul spent at
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
least a year and three months (Acta 19 8.10) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three years in Acts 20 31) . It took a year for him to reach Jerus, 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 Jerus apparently (Acts 18 21 f), and to Ephesus (19 1) from the summer of 51 (or 52) we go back two years to the beginning of the 2d missionary tour (Acts 16 1-6) as 49 (or 50). The Jerus 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 Jerus in Acts 11 29 f. Before that comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (11 26), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia, the "three years" after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia (Gal 1 17 f), 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 (Philem ver 9) when he wrote to Philemon from Rome in 61-63 AD.
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 quern 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 Epp. cannot be later than this date. Before the close of 52 AD, and probably 51, therefore must come the 2d missionary tour, the conference at Jerus, 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 6 f.—On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover). Ramsay figures (St. Paul the Traveller, 289 f) 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 Jerus. Lewin [Fasti Sacri, nos. 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, 352 f.
(7) Festus succeeding Felix.—When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schiirer, Jeutish People in the Time of Christ, I,
IV. His Equipment.—Ramsay chooses as the title of ch ii, in his St. Paul the Traveller, the words "The Origin of St. Paul." It is not possible to explain the work and teaching of Paul without a just conception of the forces that entered into his life. Paul himself is still woefully misunderstood by some. Thus A. Meyer (Jesus or Paxil, 1909, 119) says: "In spite of all that has been said, there is no doubt that St. Paul, with his peculiar personality, with his tendency to recondite gnostic speculation and rabbinic argument, has heavily encumbered the cause of Christianity. For many simple souls, and for many natures that are otherwise constituted than himself, he has barred the way to the simple Christianity of Jesus." That is a serious charge against the man who claimed to have done more than all the other apostles, and rightly, so far as we can tell (1 Cor 15 10), and who claimed that his interpretation of Jesus was the only true one (Gal
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 {Chronologic d. Paulus), since Jos 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, 349 ff. Eusebius overlooked 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
1 7-9). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 1910, 70) minimizes the effect of Paulinism: "The majority of Paul's distinctive conceptions were either misunderstood, or dropped, or modified, as the case might be, in the course of a few decades." "Paulinism as a whole stood almost as far apart from the Christianity that followed it as from that which preceded it" (ib, 73). "The aim of some scholars seems to be to rob every great thinker of his originality" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1). Ramsay (Pauline and Other Studies, 3 ff) boldly challenges the modern prejudice of some scholars against Paul by asking, "Shall we hear evidence or not?" Every successive age must study afresh the life and work of Paul (ib, 27) if it would understand him. Deissmann (St. Paul, 3 f) rightly sees that "St. Paul is spiritually the great power of the apostolic age." Hence "the historian, surveying the beginnings of Christianity, sees St. Paul as first after Jesus." Peine (Jesus Christus und Paidus, 1902, 298) claims that Paul grasped the essence of the ministry of Christ "auf das tiefsto." I own myself a victim to "the charm of Paul," to use Ramsay's phrase (Pauline and Other Studies,
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, art. "Paul" in new SchHerz Ejic; Schiirer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182 ff . 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"
(28 30) when Luke closes the Acts. On the basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the Pastoral Epp., Paul's death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero's death, and possibly in 67. On this point see later. Wo can now count back from 59 AD with reasonable clearness to 57 as
2273 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Paul, the Apostle
the crowning glory of Tarsus, the reason for its undying interest to the whole world, is that it produced the apostle Paul; that it was the one city which was suited by its equipoise between the Asiatic and the Western spirit to mold the character of the great Hellenist Jew; and that it nourished in him a strong source of loyalty and patriotism as the citizen of no mean city" (Ramsay, op. cit., 23.5). The city gave him a schooling in his social, political, intellectual, moral, and religious life, but in varying degrees, as we shall see. It was because Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city with "an amalgamated society" that it possessed the peculiar suitability "to educate and mold the mind of him who would in due time make the religion of the Jewish race intelligible to the Gr-Rom world"
27). In seeking to study "the shaping influences" in Paul's career (Alexander, The Ethics of Si. Paul,
1910, 27), we shall be in error if we seek to explain everything by heredity and environment and if we deny any influence from these sources. He is what he is because of original endowments, the world of his day, and his experience of Christ Jesus. He had both essential and accidental factors in his equipment (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 1910, 469 f ) . Let us note the chief factors in his religious development.
Geography plays an important part in any life. John the Baptist spent his boyhood in the hill country of Judaea in a small town
1. The City (Lk 1 39) and then in the wilderness. of Tarsus Jesus spent His boyhood in the town of Nazareth and the country round. Both John and Jesus show fondness for Nature in
(ib, 88). As a citizen of Tarsus Paul was a citizen of the whole world.
all its forms. Paul grew up in a great city and spent his life in the great cities of the Rom empire. He makes little use of the beauties of Nature, but he has a keen knowledge of men (cf Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, 12). Paul was proud of his great city (Acts 21 39). He was not merely a resident, but a "citizen" of this distinguished city. This fact shows that Paul's family had not just emigrated from Judaea to Tarsus a few years before his birth, but had been planted in Tarsus as part of a colony with full municipal rights (Ramsay, St. Paul the Tramller, 31 f). Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then a part of the province of Syria, but
It was no idle boast with Paul when he said, "But I am a Roman bom" (Acts 22 28). The chief captain might well be "afraid when he
2. Roman knew that he was a Roman, and beCitizenship cause he had bound him" (22 29). Likewise the magistrates at Philippi "feared when they heard that they were Romans" (Acts 16 39), and promptly released Paul and Silas and "asked them to go away from the city." "To the Roman his citizenship was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulties and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of municipal law and the injustice of local magistrates" (Lightfoot, Bib. Essays, 203). As a citizen of Rome, therefore, Paul stood above the common herd. He ranked with the aristocracy in any provincial town (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 31). He would naturally have a kindly feeling for the Rom government in return for this high privilege and protection. In its pessimism the Rom empire had come to be the world's hope, as seen in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 49). Paul would seize upon the Rom empire as a fit symbol of the kingdom of heaven. "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3 20); "Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellowcitizens with the saints" (Eph 2 19). So he interprets the church in terms of the body politic as well as in terms of the Israelite theocracy (Col 2 19). "All this shows the deep impression which the Rom institutions made on St. Paul" (Lightfoot, Bib. Essays, 205). Ramsay draws a striking parallel under the heading, "Paulinism in the Rom Empire"
it had the title of metropolis and was a free city, urhs libera (Pliny, NH, v. 27). To the ancient Gr the city was his "fatherland" (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 1908, 90). Tarsus was situated on the river Cydnus, and in a wide plain with the hill country behind and the snow-covered Taurus Mountains in the distance. It was subject to ma-
laria. Ramsay (ib, 117 ff) from Gen 10 4 f holds that the early inhabitants were Greeks mingled with Orientals. East and West flowed together here. It was a Rom town also with a Jewish colony (ib, 169 ff), constituting a city tribe to which Paul's family belonged. So then Tarsus was a typical city of the Gr-Rom civihzation.
The religions of the times all met there in this great mart of business. But it was one of the great seats of culture also. Strabo (xiv.6.73) even says that "Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature in general. " "Its great preeminence," he adds, "consists in this, that the men of learning here are aU natives." Accordingly, he and others have made up a long list of distinguished men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Gr learning : philosophers—of the Academy, of the Epicurean and Stoic schools—poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one might say, "you breathed the atmosphere of learning" (Lightfoot. Bib. Essaua, 205). But Kamsay (CthVs o/ S(. Paul, 231 f) cautions us not to misunderstand .Strabo. It was not even one of the three great universities of the world in point of equipment, fame, students from abroad, or general standing. It was not on a par with Athens and Alexandria, except that "it was rich in what constitutes the true excellence and strength of a university, intense enthusiasm and desire for knowledge among the students and great ability and experience among some at least of the teachers" (ib, 233). Strabo was very fond of Athenodorus, for instance. No students from abroad came to Tarsus, but they went from Tarsus elsewhere. But Philostratus represents Apollonius of Tyana as disgusted with the university and the town, and Dio Chrysostom describes Tarsus as an oriental and nonHellenic town.
(Cities of St. Paul, 70 ff). "A universal Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy the other." It was Paul's knowledge of the Rom empire that gave him his imperialism and statesmanlike grasp of the problems of Christianity in relation to the Rom empire. Paul was a statesman of the highest type, as Ramsay has conclusively shown (Pauline and Other Studies, 49-100). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) does say: "His perspective was not imperial-
istic," but he shows thereby a curious inability to understand Paul. The vision of Paul saw that the regeneration of the empire could come only through Christianity. Ramsay strikingly shows how the emperor dreaded the spiritual upheaval in Paulinism and fought it steadily till the time of Constan-
tine, when "an official Christianity was victorious, but Pauline Christianity had perished, and Paul was now a mere saint, no longer Paul but St. Paul, forgotten as a man or a teacher, but remembered as a sort of revivification of the old pagan gods" (Cities
Ramsay speaks of Tarsus in the reign of Augustus
as "the one example known in history of a state ruled by a university acting through its successive prin-
cipals." "It is characteristic of the general tendency of university life in a prosperous and peaceful empire, that the rule of the Tarsian University was marked by a strong reaction toward oligarchy and a curtailment of democracy; that also belongs to the
of St. Paul, 78). But, as Ramsay says, "it was not dead; it was only waiting its opportunity; it revived when freedom of thought and freedom of
life began to stir in Europe; and it guided^ and stimulated the Protestants of the Reformation."
oriental spirit, which was so strong in the city. But
Paul, the Apostle THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2274
Suffer Ramsay once more {Pauline and Other Studies, 100); "Barbarism proved too powerful for the Gr-Rom civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that
Stupendous Erudition of Paul"). This is, of course, absurd, as Lightfoot shows [Bih. Essays, 206). But we must not forget Paul lived in a Gr city and possessed Gr citizenship also (Ramsay, St. Paul
the Traveller, 33) . Certainly the Gr traits of adapt-
civilization was preserved or interest in it main-
tained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form." Paul would show the Rom genius for organ-
ability, curiosity, alertness, the love of investigation were marked features of his character, and Tarsus afforded wide opportunity for the acquiring
of these qualities {The Ethics of St. Paul, 39). He learned to speak the vernacular koine like a native and with the ease and swing displayed by no other NT writer save Luke and the author of He. He has a "poet's mastery of language," though with the passion of a soul on fire, rather than with the arti-
izing the churches established by him. Many of
his churches would be in Rom colonies (Antioch in
Pisidia, Philippi, Corinth, etc). He would address
his most studied ep. to the church in Rome, and Rome would be the goal of his ministry for many years (Findlay, HDB). He would show his conversance with Rom law, not merely in knowing how to take advantage of his rights as a citizen, but also in the use of legal terms like "adoption" (Gal 4 5 f), where the adopted heir becomes son, and heir and son are interchangeable. This was the obsolete Rom law and the Gr law left in force in the provinces (cf Gal 3 15). But in Rom 8 16 f the actual revocable Rom law is referred to by which "heirship
ficial rules of the rhetoricians of the day (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 239 f). Blass {Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunst-
prosa, 1905) holds that Paul wrote "rhythmically elaborated artistic prose—a singular instance of the great scholar's having gone astray" (Deissmann,
Light, etc, 64). But there is evidence that Paul was
familiar with the use of the diatribe and other common rhetorical devices, though he was very far from being tinged with Atticism or Asianism. It is cer-
is now deduced from sonship, whereas in Gal sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (cf He 9 15 ff which presupposes Rom law and the revocabihty of a will)" (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). So in Gal 3 24 the tutor or pedagogue presents a Gr custom preserved by the Romans. This personal guardian of the child (often a slave) led him to school, and was not the guardian of the child's property in Gal 4 2. See Ramsay, Gal, 337-93;
tain that Paul did not attend any of the schools of
rhetoric and oratory. Heinrici (Vorrede to 1 Cor
in Meyer's Krit. exeget. Komm.) argues that Paul's methods and expressions conform more nearly to the cynic and Stoic diatribe than to the rabbinical
dialectic; cf also Wendland und Kern, Philo u. d.
kynisch-stoische Diatribe, and Hicks, "St. Paul and Hellenism" in Stud. Bib., IV. How extensive was
Ball, St. Paul and the Rom Law, 1901, for further discussion. As a Roman, Paul would have "nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Rom
his acquaintance with Gr lit. is in doubt. Lightfoot says: "There is no ground for saying that St. Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An obvious maxim of practical life from Menander
officer who gave his family citntas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Rom names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen; there
(1 Cor 15 33), a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself a native of Tarsus (Acts 17 28), a pungent satire of Epimenides (Tit 1 12), with possibly a passage here and there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast learning" {Bib. Essays, 206); but Lightfoot admits that he obtained directly or indirectly from contact with Gr thought and learning lessons far wider and more useful for his work than a perfect style or a familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity. Even so, there is no reason to say that he made his few quotations from hearsay and read no Gr books (cf Zahn, Intro to the NT, 52). Certainly he knew the Gr OT and the Jewish Apoo and apocalypses in Gr. Garvie is only willing to admit that Paul had such knowledge of Gr lit. and philosophy as any Jew, living among Greeks, might pick up {Life and Teaching of Paul, 2), and charges Ramsay with "overstating the influence of the gentile environment on Paul's development" {Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 8). Ramsay holds that it is quite "possible that the philosophical school at Tarsus had exercised more influence on Paul than is commonly allowed" {St. Paul the Traveller, 354). Tarsus was the home of Athenodorus. It was a stronghold of Stoic thought. "At least five of the most eminent teachers of that philosophy were in the university" (Alexander, Ethics of St. Paul, 47). It is not possible to say whether Paul attended these or any lectures at the university, though it is hard to conceive that a brilliant youth like Saul could grow up in Tarsus with no mental stimulus from such a university. Garvie (ib, 6) asks when Paul could have studied at the university of Tarsus. He was probably too young before he went to Jerus to study under Gamaliel. But it ia not probable that he remained in Jerus continuously after completing his studies till we see him at the death of Stephen (Acts 7 58). He may have returned to Tarsus meanwhile and taken such
is no reason to think he was an Jimilius" (Ramsay,
St. Paul the Traveller, 31). It is probable, though not certain, that Paul spoke Latin (see Souter, Ex-
pos, April, 1911). He was at any rate a "Roman gentleman" (Findlay, HDB), as is shown by the dignity of his bearing before governors and kings and the respect accorded him by the proconsul Sergius Paulus, the procurator Porcius Festus, and the centurion Julius, whose prisoner he was in the voyage to Rome. His father, as a Rom citizen, probably had some means which may have come to Paul before the appeal to Rome, which was expensive (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 310 ff). Though a prisoner in Rome, he made Rome "his best vantage ground and his adoptive home," and
it was here that he rose to "his loftiest conceptions
of the nation and destiny of the universal church"
(Findlay, HDB) as "an ambassador in chains" (Eph 6 20). As a Rom citizen, according to tra-
dition, he was beheaded with the sword and not subjected to crucifixion, the traditional fate of Simon Peter. He saw the true pax Romana to be the peace that passeth all understanding (Phil 4
7; cf Rostron, The Christology of St. Paul, 1912,
19). It is not possible "to specify all the influences that worked on Paul in his youth" (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 79). We do not know all
3. Hellenthe life of the times. But he was ism subject to all that life in so far as any other Jewish youth was. "He was master of all the education and the opportunities
of his time. He turned to his profit and to the advancement of his great purpose all the resources of
civilization" (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies,
285) . I heartily agree with this conception of Paul's
ability to assimilate the life of his time, but one must not be led astray so far as Schramm who, in
1710, wrote De stupenda eruditione Pauli ("On the
2275 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Paul, the Apostle
guage assigns him "to an elevated class," and yet he insists that he wrote "large letters" (Gal 6 11) because he had "the clumsy, awkward writing of a workman's hand deformed by toil" (p. 51). I cannot agree that here Deissmann understands Paul. He makes "the world of St. Paul" on too narrow a scale.
studies. Another possibility is that he took advantage of the years in Tarsus after his conversion (Acts 9 30; Gal 1 21) to equip himself better for his mission to the Gentiles to which he had been called. There is no real difficulty on the score of time. The world was saturated with Gr ideas, and Paul could not escape them. He could not escape it unless he was innocent of all culture. Ramsay sees in Paul a love of truth and reality "wholly inconceivable in a more narrow Hebrew, and wholly inexplicable without an education in Gr philosophy" ("St. Paul and Hellenism," Cities of St. Paul, 34). Paul exhibited a freedom and universalism that he found in the Gr thought of the time which was not so decayed as some think. For the discussion between Garvie and Ramsay see Expos, April and December, 1911. Pfleiderer {Urchrislenihum, Vorwort, 174-78) finds a "double root" of Paulinism, a Christianized Hellenism and a Christianized Pharisaism. Harnack is more nearly correct in saying that "notwithstanding Paul's Gr culture, his conception of Christianity is, in its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism." The Hellenistic influence on Paul was relative and subordinate (Wendland, Die hel.-rom. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judenthum und Christenthum, 3te Aufl, 1912, 245), but it was real, as Kohler shows {Zum Verstdndnis des Apostels Paulus, 9). He had a "Gr inheritance" beyond a doubt, and it was not all unconscious or subliminal as Rostrou argues {Christology of St. Paul,
Was Paul influenced by Mithraism? H. A. A. Kennedy has given the subject very careful and thorough treatment in a series of pa4. The pers in Expos for 1912-13, already Mysterymentioned (see II, 5, above). His Religions arguments are conclusive on the whole against the wild notions of W. B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus; J. M. Robertson, Pagan Christs; A. Drews, Die Christus-Mylhe; and Lublinski, Die Entsiehung des Chrislenlums aus der antiken Kultur. A magic papyrus about 300 AD has "I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrew Jesu" (11. 3019 f), but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 256) refuses to believe this line genuine: "No Christian, still less a Jew, would have called Jesus 'the god of the Hebrews.' " Clemen (Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish Sources, 1912, 336) indorses this view of Deissmann and says that in the 1st cent. AD "one cannot speak of nonJewish influences on Christology." One may dismiss at once the notion that Paul "deified" Jesus into a god and made Him Christ under the influence of pagan myths. Certainly pagan idolatry was forced upon Paul's attention at every turn. It stirred his spirit at Athens to see the city full of idols (Acts 17 16), and he caught eagerly at the altar to an unknown god to give him an easy introduction to the true God (17 23); but no one can read Rom 1 and 2 and believe that Paul was carried away by the philosophy of vain deceit of his time. He does use the words "wisdom" and "mystery" often in 1 Cor, Col, and Eph, and in Phil 4 12, "I [have] learned the secret," he uses a word employed in the mystic cults of the time. It is quite possible that Paul took up some of the phrases of these mysteryreligions and gave them a richer content for his own purposes, as he did with some of the gnostic phraseology (Pleroma, "fulness," for instance). But Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 191 f) deals a fatal blow against the notion that the mysteryreligions had a formative influence on Paul. He urges, with point, that it is only in the 2d cent, that these cults became widely extended in the Rom empire. The dates and development are obscure, but it "is certain that Paul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they are known to us, because in this fully developed form they did not exist." Cumont (Les religions orientates dans le paganisme romain, 2d ed, 1909 [ET]) insists repeatedly on the difficulties in the way of assuming without proof that Mithraism had any influence on Paul. But in particular it is urged that Paul drew on the "mysteries" for his notions of baptism and the Lord's Supper as having magical effects. Appeal is made to the magical use of the name of Jesus by the strolling Jewish exorcists in Ephesus (Acts 18 13 ff). Kirsopp Lake (Earlier Epp. of St. Paul, 233) holds that at Corinth they all accepted Christianity as a mystery-religion and Jesus as "the Redeemer-God, who had passed through death to
17). It is true that in Athens the Stoics and Epicureans ridiculed Paul as a "picker up of learning's crumbs"— Browning's rendering (An Epistle) of
a-irepfw\6yos, spermoUgos. Paul shows a fine scorn of the sophistries and verbal refinements of the mere philosophers and orators in 1 Cor 1 and 2, but all the same he reveals a real apprehension of the true significance of knowledge and life. Dr. James Adam ( The Religious Teachers of Greece, 360) shows instances of "the real kinship of thought between Plato and St. Paul." He does not undertake to say how it came about. He has a Platonic expression, tA Sih ToO aiifiaTos, td did tou somatos, in 2 Cor 5
10, and uses a Stoic and cynic word in 2 Cor 9 8,
airdpKei.a.i', autdrkeian. Indeed, there are so many
similarities between Paul and Seneca in language and thought that some scholars actually predicate an acquaintance or dependence of the one on the other. It is far more likely that Paul and Seneca drew upon the common phrases of current Stoicismthan that Seneca had seen Paul's Epp. or knew him personally. Lightfoot has a classic discussion of the matter in his essay on "St. Paul and Seneca"
in the Coram, on Phil (see also Carr, "St. Paul's Attitude to Gr Philosophy," Expos, V, ix). Alexander finds four Stoic ideas (Divine Immanence, Wisdom, Freedom, Brotherhood) taken and glori-
fied by Paul to do service for Christ [Ethics of St. Paul, 49-55). Often Paul uses a Stoic phrase with a Christian content. Lightfoot boldly argues (Bib.
Essays, 207) that the later Gr lit. was a fitter handmaid for the diffusion of the gospel than the earlier.
Paul as the apostle to the Gr-Rom world had to "understand the bearings of the moral and religious
life of Greece as expressed in her literature, and this
lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully
at Tarsus in the days of her decline than at Athens
life, and offered participation in this new life to those who shared in the mysteries which He offered," viz. baptism and the Lord's Supper. But Kennedy (Expos, December, 1912, 548) easily shows how with Paul baptism and the Lord's Supper are not magi-
in the freshness of her glory" (ib). Ramsay waxes bold enough to discuss "the Pauline philosophy of history" (Cities of St. Paul, 10-13).^ I confess to sympathy with this notion and find it in all the Paul-
ine epp., esp. in Rom. Moffatt (Paul and Paulin-
cal sacraments producing new life, but symbolic pictures of death to sin and new life in Christ which the believer has already experienced. The battle is
ism, 66) finds "a religious philosophy of history" in Rom 9-11, throbbing with strong personal emotiori. Paul rose to the height of the true Christian phi-
still raging on the subject of the mystery-religions, but it is safe to say that so far nothing more than
losopher, though not a technical philosopher of the
schools. Deissmann (St. Paul, 53) admits his lan-
Paul, the Apostle THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2276
was a Jew of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew, of the seed of Abraham
illustrative material has been shown to be true of Paul's teaching from this source.
(2 Cor 11 22). He shared in full all the covenant blessings and privileges of his people (Rom 9 1-5), whose crowning glory was, that of them came Jesus the Messiah. He was proud of the piety of his ancestors (2 Tim 1 3), and made progress as a student of Judaism ahead of his fellows (Gal 1 14). His ancestry was pure, Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil 3 5), and so his family preserved the native Pales-
There is nothing incongruous in the notion that Paul knew as much about the mystery-religions as he did about incipient Gnosticism. Indeed the two things may have been to some extent combined in some places. A passage in Col 2 18 has long bothered commentators: "dwelling in the tilings which heliath seen.
' or (m) "taking his stand upon the things
' etc. Westcott and Hort even suspected an early error in the text, but the same word, e^^areutit, embateuo, has been found by Sir W. M. Ramsay as a result of investigations by Makridi Bey, of the Turkish Imperial Museum , in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros, a town on the Ionian coast. Some of the initiates here record the fact and say that being "enquirers, having been initiated, they entered" (emhateuo) . The word is thus used of one who, having been initiated, enters into the life of the initiate (cf Independent, 1913, 376). Clearly, then, Paul uses the word in that sense in Col 2 18.
, '
tinian traditions in Tarsus. His name Saul was a proof of loyalty to the tribe of Benjamin as his cognomen Paul was evidence of his Rom citizen-
ship. In his home he would be taught the law by
his mother (cf Gal 1 14), as was true of Timothy's mother and grandmother (2 Tim 15). In Tarsus he would go to the synagogue also. We know little of his father, save that he w^as a Rom citizen and so a man of position in Tarsus and possibly of some wealth; that he was a tent-maker and taught his son the same trade, as all Jewish fathers did, whatever their rank in life; that he was a Pharisee and brought up his son as a Pharisee (Acts 23 6), and that he sent the young Saul to Jerus to study at the
For further discussion see Jacoby, Die antiken Mys~ terienreligionen und das Christentum; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Rom Empire; Reitzenstein, Die hell. Mysterienreligionen; Friedlander, Rom Life and Manners under the Early Empire, III; Thorburn, Jesus Christ, Historical or Mythical.
M. Brtickner (Der slerbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr
Verhdltnis zum Christentum, 1908) says: "As in Christianity, so in many oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God
feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22 3). Paul always considered himself a Pharisee as distinct from the Sadducaic scepticism (23 6). Many of the Pharisaic doctrines were identical with those of Christianity. That Paul did not consider himself a Pharisee in all respects is shown later by his conflict with the Juda-
(sometimes as His Son) occupied a central place in the worship and cultus." To this Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 193) replies: "What manipulations the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra?" There we may leave the matter.
izers (Gal 2; Acts 15; 2 Cor 10-13). Paul says that he was reared as a strict Pharisee (Acts 26 5), though the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) was not so hard and narrow as that of Shammai. But all Pharisees were stricter than the Sadducees. So Jerus played an important part in the training of Saul (Acts 22 3), as Paul recognized. He was known in Jerus as a student. He knew Aram, as well as Gr (and Lat), and could speak in it so as to attract the attention of a Jewish audience (Acts 22
Paul was Gr and Rom, but not "pan-Bab," though he was keenly alive to all the winds of doc-
trine that blew about him, as we see
5. Judaism in Col, Eph, and the Pastoral Epp. But he was most of all the Jew, that
is, before his conversion. He remained a Jew, even though he learned how to be all things to
all men (1 Cor 9 22). Even though glorying in his mission as apostle to the Gentiles (Eph 3 8), he yet always put the Jew first in opportunity and peril (Rom 2 9 f) . He loved the Jews almost to the point of death (Rom 9 3). He was proud of his Jewish lineage and boasted of it (2 Cor 11 16-22; Acts 22 3 ff; 26 4ff; Phil 3 4-6). "His religious patriotism flickered up within his Christianity" (Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 66). Had he not been a Rom citizen with some Gr culture and his rich endowments of mind, he would probably not have been the "chosen vessel" for the work of Christ among the Gentiles (Garvie, Studies
2). Paul was fortunate in his great teacher Gama-
liel, who was liberal enough to encourage the study of Gr lit. But his liberality in defending the apostles against the Sadducees in Acts 5 34-39 must not be misinterpreted in comparison with the persecuting zeal of his brilliant pupil against Stephen
(7 68). Stephen had opened war on the Pharisees themselves, and there is no evidence that Gamaliel made a defence of Stephen against the lawless rage of the Sanhedrin. It is common for pupils to go farther than their teachers, but Gamaliel did not come to the rescue. Still Gamaliel helped Saul, who was undoubtedly his most brilliant pupil and probably the hope of his heart for the future of Judaism. Harnack (History of Dogma, I, 94) says: "Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission in the world when it produced^ this man." Unfortunately, Pharisaism did not die; in truth has never died, not even from Christianity. But young Saul was the crowning glory of Pharisaism. An effort has recently been made to restore Pharisaism to its former dignity. Herford {Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912) undertakes to show that the Gospels have slandered Pharisaism, that it was the one hope of the ancient world, etc. He has a chapter on "Pharisaism and Paul," in which he claims that Paul has not attacked the real Pharisaism, but has aimed his blows at an unreal creation of his own brain (p. 222). But, if Paul did not understand Pharisaism, he did not understand anything. He knew not merely the OT in the Heb and the LXX tr, for he quotes from both, though usually from the LXX, but he also knew the Jewish Apoc and apocalypses, as is shown in various ways in his writings (see arts, on these subjects). Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters) carries too far his idea that Paul and Jesus merely moved in the circle of Jewish eschatology. He
of Paul and His Gospel, 15). Had he not been the thorough Jew, he could not have mediated Christianity from Jew to Greek. "In the mind of Paul a universalized Hellenism coalesced with a universalized Hebraism" (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul,
43). Ramsay strongly opposes the notion of Harnack and others that Paul can be understood "as purely a Hebrew." So in Paul both Hebraism and Hellenism meet, though Hebraism is the main stock. He is a Jew in the Gr-Rom world and a part of it, not a mere spectator. He is the Hellenistic Jew, not the Aram. Jew of Pal (cf Simon Peter's vision on the house-top at Joppa, for instance). But Paul is not a Hellenizing Jew after the fashion of Jason and Menelaus in the beginning of the Maccabean conflict. Findlay (HDB) tersely says: "The Jew in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became." But it was not the narrowest type of Judaism in spite of his persecution of the Christians. He belonged to the Judaism of the Dispersion. As a Rom citizen in a Gr city he had departed from the narrowest lines of his people (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 47). His Judaism was pure, in fact, as he gives it to us in Phil 3 5. He
2277 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Paul, the Apostle
makes it explain everything, and that it cannot do. But Paul does show acquaintance with some of these books. See Kennedy, St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things (1904), for a sane and adequate discussion of this phase of the subject. Pfleiderer pursues the subject in his Paulinism, as does Kabisch in his Eschatologie. So Sanday and Headlam use this source in their Comm. on Rom. Paul knew Wisd, also, a book from the Jewish-Alexandrian theology with a tinge of Gr philosophy (see Goodrick, Book of Wisd, 398-403; cf also Jowett's essay on "St. Paul and Philo" in his Epp. of St. Paul). Paul knew how to use allegory (Gal 4 24) in accord with the method of Philo. So then he knew how to use the Stoic diatribe, the rabbinical diatribe and the Alexandrian allegory. "In his cosmology, angelology, and demonology, as well as eschatology, he remains essentially Jewish" (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 17). When he becomes a Christian he will change many of his views, for Christ must become central in his thinking, but his method learned in the rabbinical schools remains with him (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis, etc, 7). Here, then, is a man with a wonderfully rounded culture. What of his mental gifts?
small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel," and Ramsay (Church in the Rom Empire, 32) adds: "This plain and unflattering account of the apostle's personal appearance seems to embody a very early tradition,' and in ch xvi he argues that this story goes back to a document of the 1st cent. We may not agree with all the details, but in some respects
it harmonizes with what we gather from Paul's Epp. Findlay (HDB) notes that this description is confirmed by "the lifelike and unconventional figure of the Rom ivory diptych, 'supposed to date not later than the 4th cent.'" (Lewin's Life and Epp. of St. Paul, Frontispiece, and II, 211). At Lystra the natives took Barnabas for Jupiter and Paul for Hermes, "because he was the chief speaker" (Acts 14 12), showing that Barnabas had the more impressive appearance, while Paul was his spokesman. In Malta the natives changed their minds in the opposite direction, first thinking Paul a murderer and then a god because he did not die from the bite of the serpent (Acts 28 4-6). His enemies at Corinth sneered at the weakness of his bodily presence in contrast to the strength of his letters (2 Cor 10 9f). The attack was really on the courage of Paul, and he claimed equal boldness when present
Much as we can learn about the times of Paul
(cf Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900, for a brief sketch of Paul's world) , we know some-
(vs 11 f), but there was probably also a reflection on the insignificance of his physique. The terrible bodily sufferings which he underwent (2 Cor 11 23-26) left physical marks (a-Tly/juiTa, stigmata. Gal 6 17) that may have disfigured him to some extent. Once his illness made him a trial to the Galatians to whom he preached, but they did not scorn him (Gal 4 14). He felt the frailty of his body as an earthen vessel (2 Cor 4 7) and as a tabernacle in which he groaned (5 4). But the effect of all this weakness was to give him a fresh sense of dependence on Christ and a new influx of Divine power
6. Personal thing of the political structure of the CharacterRom world, the social life of the 1st
istics cent. AD, the religious condition of the age, the moral standards of the time, the intellectual tendencies of the period. New discoveries continue to throw fresh light on the life of the middle and lower classes among whom Paul chiefly labored. And, if Deissmann in his brilliant study {St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History) has pressed too far the notion that Paul the tent-maker ranks not with Origen, but with Amos the herdman (p. 6, on p. 52 he calls it a mistake "to speak of St. Paul the artisan as a proletarian in the sense which the word usually bears with us"), yet he is right in insisting that Paul is "a religious genius" and "a hero of piety" (p. 6). It is not possible to explain the personality and work of a man like Paul by his past and to refer with precision
(2 Cor 11 30; 12 9). But even if Paul was unprepossessing m appearance and weakened by illness, whether ophthalmia, which is so common in the East (Gal 4 15), or malaria, or recurrent headache, or epilepsy, he must have had a tough constitution to have endured such hardship to a good old age. He had one infirmity in particular that came upon him at Tarsus (2 Cor 12 1-9) in connection with the visions and revelations of the Lord then granted him. The affliction seems to have been physical (<TK6\oif/ tJ aapKl^ skolops it sarki, "a stake in the flesh" or "for the flesh"), and it continued with him thereafter as a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul and to keep him humble. Some think that this messenger of Satan was a demon that haunted Paul in his nervous state. Others hold it to be epilepsy or some form of hysteria superinduced by the visions and revelations which he had had. Cf Krenkel, Beitrage (pp. 47-125) , who argues that the ancients looked with such dread on epilepsy that those who beheld such attacks would "spit out" so as to escape the evil (cf modern "knocking on wood"); cf qui sputatur morbus in Plautus (Captivi, iii.4, 17). Reference is made to Gal 4 14, oiSi i^eirTicraTe, oude exeptusate, "nor did ye spit out," as showing that this was the
this or that trait to his Jewish or Gr training (Alexander, Ethics of St. Paul, 58).^ "We must allow something to his native originality" (ib). We are
all in a sense the children of the past, but some men have much more the power of initiative than others. Paul is not mere "eclectic patchwork" (Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, 218). Even if Paul was acquainted with Philo, which is not certain, that
fact by no means explains his use of PhUo, the repre-
sentative Jew of the Hellenistic age. "Both are Jews of the Dispersion, city-dwellers, with rnarked cosmopolitan traits. Both live and move in the LXX Bible. Both are capable of ecstatic and mystical experiences, and have many points of con-
tact in detail. And yet they stand in very strong
contrast to one another, a contrast which reminds us
of the opposition between Seneca and St. Paul Philo is a philosopher, St. Paul the fool pours out the vials of his irony upon the wisdom of the world"
affliction of Paul in Galatia. But epilepsy often
(Deissmann, St. Paul, 110). Deissmann, indeed,
cares most for "the living man, Paul, whom we hear speaking and see gesticulating, here playful, gentle
affects the mind, and Paul shows no sign of mental weakness, though his enemies charged him with insanity (Acts 26 24; 2 Cor 5 13; 12 11). It is urged in reply that Julius Caesar, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, and Napoleon all had epilepsy without loss of mental force. It is difficult to think headache or malaria could have excited the
as a father, and tenderly coaxing, so as to win the
hearts of the infatuated children—there thundermg and lightning with the passionate wrath of a Luther, with cutting irony and bitter sarcasm on his lips"
(1) Personal appearance.—We have no rehable
(ib, 16 f).
disgust indicated in Gal 4 14, where some trouble with the eyes seems to be indicated. The ministers
description of Paul's stature and looks. The Acts
of Satan (2 Cor 11 15) do not meet the requirements of the case, nor mere spiritual sins (Luther),
of Paul and Thecla (§3) have a protraiture thus: "Baldheaded, bowlegged, strongly built, a man
Paul, the Apostle THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2278
not afraid to oppose his friends when it is necessary for the sake of truth, as with Peter (Gal 2 11 fl^) and with Barnabas (Acts 15 35fl). "While God made Paul like the other apostles out of the clay whereof ordinary men are fashioned, yet we may say that He took extraordinary pains with his education" (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 471). If ever a man, full-blooded and open-eyed, walked the earth, it was Paul. It is a debatable question whether Paul was married or not. He certainly was not when he wrote (1 Cor 7 7; 9 5). But, If he was a member of the Sanhedrin when he cast his vote against the disciples (Acts 26 10), as his language naturaUj; means, then he had been married.
nor struggle with lust (Roman Catholic, stimulus carnis) . Garvie (Studies of Paul and His Oospel, 65, 80) thinks it not unlikely that "it was the recurrence of an old violent temptation," rather than mere bodily disease. "Can there be any doubt that this form of temptation is more likely to assail the man of intense emotion and intense affection, as Paul was?" But enough of what can never be settled. "St. Paul's own scanty hints admonish to caution" (Deissmann, St. Paul, 63). It is a blessing for us not to know, since we can all cherish a close bond with Paul. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 37 ff) calls special attention to the look of Paul. He "fastened his eyes on" the man (Acts 13 9; 14 9). He argues that Paul had a penetrating, powerful gaze, and hence no eye trouble. He calls attention also to gestures of Paul (Acts 20 24; 26 2). There were artists in marble and color at the court of Caesar, but no one of them cared to preserve a likeness of the poor itinerant preacher who turned out to be the chief man of the age (Deissmann, St. Paul, 58). "We are like the Christians of Colossae and Laodioea, who had not seen his face in the flesh" (Col 2 1).
There is in Paul the gift of leadership in a marked degree. He, though young, is already at the head of the opposition to Stephen (Acts 7 58) , and soon drives the disciples out of Jerus.
(3) His supernatural gifts.—He had his share of them. He had all the gifts that others could boast of at Corinth, and which he lightly esteemed except that of prophecy (1 Cor 14 18-29; . He had his visions and revelations, but would not tell what he had seen (2 Cor 12 1-9). He did the signs of an apostle (2 Cor 12 12-14). He had the power to work miracles (1 Cor 4 19-21) and to exercise discipline (1 Cor 5 4 f ; 2 Cor 13 1-3). But what he cared for most of all was the fact that Jesus had appeared to him on the road to Damascus and had called him to the work of preaching to the Gentiles (1 Cor 15 8). No other element in the equipment of Paul is comparable in importance to his conversion.
(2) His natural endowments.—In respect to his natural endowments we can do much better, for his epp. reveal the mind and soul of the man. He is difficult to comprehend, not because he conceals himself, but because he reveals so much of himself in his epp. He seems to some a man of contradictions. He had a many-sided nature, and his very humanness is in one sense the greatest thing about him. There are "great polar contradictions" in his nature. Deissmann (St. Paul, 62 if) notes his ailing body and his tremendous powers for work, his humility and his self-confidence, his periods of depression and of intoxication with victory, his tenderness and his sternness; he was ardently loved and furiously hated; he was an ancient man of his time, but he is cosmopolitan and modern enough for today. Findlay (HBD) adds that he was a man possessed of dialectical power and religious inspiration. He was keenly intellectual and profoundly mystical (cf Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907). He was a theologian and a man of affairs. He was a man of vision with a supreme task to which he held himself. He was a scholar, a sage, a statesman, a seer, a saint (Garvie, Studies in Paul and His Gospel, 68-84) . He was a man of heart, of passion, of imagination, of sensibility, of will, of courage, of sincerity, of vivacity, of subtlety, of humor, of adroitness, of tact, of genius for organization, of power for command, of gift of expression, of leadership "All these qualities and powers went to the making of Jesus Christ's apostle to the nations, the masterbuilder of the universal church and of Christian theology" (Findlay, HDB; see Lock, St. Paul the Master Builder, 1905; and M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, 1910).
(1) Preparation.—It was sudden,
7_. Converand yet God had led Saul to the state sion of mind when it could more easily happen. True, Saul was engaged in the very act of persecuting the believers in Jerus. His mind was flushed with the sense of victory. He was not conscious of any lingering doubts about the truth of his position and the justice of his conduct
till Jesus abruptly told him that it was hard for him to kick against the goad (Acts 26 14). Thus suddenly brought to bay, the real truth would flash upon his mind. In later years he tells how he had struggled in vain against the curse of the Law (Rom 7 7f). It is probable, though not certain, that Paul here has in mind his experience before his conversion, though the latter part of the chapter may refer to a period later. There is difRculty in either view as to the "body of this death" that made him so wretched (Rom 7 24). The Christian keeps up the fight against sin in spite of defeat (7 23), but he does not feel that he is "carnal, sold under sin" (7 14). But when before his conversion did Paul have such intensity of conviction? We can only leave the problem unanswered. His reference to it at least harmonizes with what Jesus said about the goad. The words and death of Stephen and the other disciples may have left a deeper mark than he knew. The question might arise whether after all the Nazarenes were right. His plea for his conduct made in later years was that he was conscientious (Acts 26 9) and that he did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Tim 1 13). He was not wilfully smnmg against the full light as he saw it. It will not do to say with Holsten that Saul was halfconvmced to jom the disciples, and only needed a jolt to turn him over. He was "yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9 1), and went to the high priest and asked for letters to Damascus demanding the arrest of the disciples there. His temper on the whole IS distinctly hostile to Christ, and the struggle against his course was in the subconscious mind. There a volcano had gathered ready to burst out.
I cannot agree with Garvie's charge of cowardice {Life and Teaching of Paul, 173) in the matter of the purifying rites (Acts 21 23) and the dividing of the Sanhedrin (23 6). The one was a mere matter of prudence in a nonessential detail, the other was justifiable sliill in resisting the attaclc of unscrupulous enemies. One does not understand Paul who does not understand his emotional nature. He was "quick, impetuous, strenuous, impassioned" (Bevan, St. Paul in the Light of Today, 1912, 26). His heart tlirobs through his epp., and he loves his converts like a mother or a lover (Findlay, HDB) rather than a pastor. We feel the surging emotion of his great spirit m 1 Thess, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Rom, PhU, 2 Tim in particular. He had the spiritual temperament and reaches his highest flights in his moments of rhapsody. He has elasticity and rebound of spirit, and comes up with the joy of victory in Christ out of the severest trials and disappointments. His ambition is great, but it is to serve Christ liis Lord. He is a man of faith and a man of prayer. For him to live is Christ. He has a genius for friendship and binds men to him with hooks of steel—men like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy. Luke, Titus (Speer, The Man Paul, 1900, lllfl). He is
• ^U^ S™P®'',.*° ^^'^ whether Paul had known Jesus in tne flesh but it is not easy to give a categorical reply. It is possible, though hardly likely, that Paul had come to Jerus to study when Jesus as a boy of 12 visited the temple, and so heard Jesus and the doctors. That could be true only in case Paul was born 5 or 6 BC, which is quite unlikely. It is pes-
2279 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Paul, the Apostle
(3) Effect on Paul.—His surrender to Jesus was instantaneous and complete: "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22 10). He could not see for the glory of that light (22 11), but he had already seen "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4 6). The god of this world could blind him no longer. He had seen Jesus, and all else had lost charm for Paul. There
sible again that Paul may have remained in Jerus after his graduation at the school of Gamaliel and so was present in Jerus at the trial and death of Jesus. Some of the ablest of modern scholars hold that Paul knew Jesus in the flesh. It will at once seem strange that we have no express statement to this effect in the letters of Paul, when he shows undoubted knowledge of various events in the life of Christ (cf Wynne, Fragmentary Records of Jesus of Nazareth, 1887). It is almost certain, as J. Weiss admits (.Paul and Jesus, 41), that in
1 Cor 9 1 Paul refers to the Risen Jesus. The passage in 2 Cor 5 16 is argued both ways: "Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh : even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." J. Weiss (ib, 41-55) argues strongly for the view that he knew Jesus in the flesh. But in the first clause of the sentence above Paul means by " after the flesh," not acquaintance, but standpoint. It is natural to take it in the same way as applied to Christ. He has changed his viewpoint of Christ and so of all men. Weiss pleads gb, p. 40) , at any rate, that we have no word saying that " Paul had not seen Jesus In person." It may be said in reply that the fact that Jesus has to tell Paul who He is (Acts 9 5) shows that Paul did not have personal acquaintance with Him. But the question may be left in abeyance as not vitally important. He certainly had not understood Jesus, It he knew Him.
is infinite pathos in the picture of the blind Saul led by the hand (Acts 9 8) into Damascus. All the pride of power is gone, all the lust for vengeance. The fierceness of the name of Saul is well shown in the dread that Ananias has and the protest that he makes to the Lord concerning him (9 10-14). Ananias doubtless thought that the Lord had made a strange choice of a vessel to bear the message of Christ to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of
Israel (9 15), but there was hope in the promise of chastisement to him (9 16). So he went, and calls him "Brother Saul." Saul was filled with the Ploly
Spirit, the scales fell from his eyes, he was baptized. And now what next? What did the world hold in store for the proud scion of Judaism who had renounced power, place, pride for the lowly Nazarene? He dared not go back to Jerus. The Jews
(2) Experience.—Space does not permit a discussion of this great event of Paul's conversion at
all commensurate with its significance. A literature of importance has grown up around it besides the lengthy discussions in the lives and theologies of Paul (see e.g. Lord Lyttleton's famous Observations on Saul's Conversion, 1774; Fletcher's A Study of the Conversion of St. Paul, 1910; Gardner,
in Damascus would have none of him now. Would the disciples receive him? They did. "And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus" (9 19). Ananias vouched for him by
his vision. Then Saul took his courage in his hands and went boldly into the synagogues and "proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God" (9 20). This was a public committal and a proclamation of
The Religious Experience of St. Paul, 1911; Maggs, The Spiritual Experience of St. Paul). All sorts of theories have been advanced to explain on natural-