{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43503/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43503","id":"gutenberg_43503","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43503","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Theology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Paul, the Apostle, Saint"],"text":"THE ORIGIN OF\n  PAUL'S RELIGION\n\n  THE JAMES SPRUNT LECTURES\n  DELIVERED AT UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY\n  IN VIRGINIA\n\n  BY\n\n  J. GRESHAM MACHEN, D.D.\n\n  _Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and\n  Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary_\n\n  New York\n  THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n  1921\n\n  _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n  PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n  Copyright, 1921,\n  BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.\n\n  Set up and printed. Published October, 1921.\n\n  Press of\n  J. J. Little & Ives Company\n  New York, U. S. A.\n\n\n\n\n  TO\n  WILLIAM PARK ARMSTRONG\n\n  MY GUIDE\n  IN THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n  AND IN ALL GOOD THINGS\n\n\n\n\nTHE JAMES SPRUNT LECTURES\n\n\nIn 1911 Mr. James Sprunt of Wilmington, North Carolina, gave to\nThe Trustees of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia the sum\nof thirty thousand dollars, since increased by his generosity to\nfifty thousand dollars, for the purpose of establishing a perpetual\nlectureship, which would enable the institution to secure from time\nto time the services of distinguished ministers and authoritative\nscholars, outside the regular Faculty, as special lecturers on\nsubjects connected with various departments of Christian thought\nand Christian work. The lecturers are chosen by the Faculty of the\nSeminary and a committee of the Board of Trustees, and the lectures\nare published after their delivery in accordance with a contract\nbetween the lecturer and these representatives of the institution.\nThe ninth series of lectures on this foundation is presented in this\nvolume.\n\nW. W. MOORE, _President_.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAPTER                                           PAGE\n\n  I. INTRODUCTION                                      3\n\n  II. THE EARLY YEARS                                 43\n\n  III. THE TRIUMPH OF GENTILE FREEDOM                 71\n\n  IV. PAUL AND JESUS                                 117\n\n  V. THE JEWISH ENVIRONMENT                          173\n\n  VI. THE RELIGION OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE            211\n\n  VII. REDEMPTION IN PAGAN RELIGION AND IN PAUL      255\n\n  VIII. THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS                        293\n\n  INDEX                                              319\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF PAUL'S RELIGION\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe following discussion is intended to deal, from one particular\npoint of view, with the problem of the origin of Christianity. That\nproblem is an important historical problem, and also an important\npractical problem. It is an important historical problem not\nonly because of the large place which Christianity has occupied\nin the medieval and modern world, but also because of certain\nunique features which even the most unsympathetic and superficial\nexamination must detect in the beginnings of the Christian movement.\nThe problem of the origin of Christianity is also an important\npractical problem. Rightly or wrongly, Christian experience has\nordinarily been connected with one particular view of the origin\nof the Christian movement; where that view has been abandoned, the\nexperience has ceased.\n\nThis dependence of Christianity upon a particular conception of\nits origin and of its Founder is now indeed being made the object\nof vigorous attack. There are many who maintain that Christianity\nis the same no matter what its origin was, and that therefore\nthe problem of origin should be kept entirely separate from the\npresent religious interests of the Church. Obviously, however, this\nindifference to the question as to what the origin of Christianity\nwas depends upon a particular conception of what Christianity now\nis; it depends upon the conception which makes of Christianity\nsimply a manner of life. That conception is indeed widespread,\nbut it is by no means universal; there are still hosts of earnest\nChristians who regard Christianity, not simply as a manner of life,\nbut as a manner of life founded upon a message--upon a message with\nregard to the Founder of the Christian movement. For such persons\nthe question of the origin of Christianity is rather to be called\nthe question of the truth of Christianity, and that question is to\nthem the most important practical question of their lives. Even if\nthese persons are wrong, the refutation of their supposed error\nnaturally proceeds, and has in recent years almost always proceeded,\nprimarily by means of that very discussion of the origin of the\nChristian movement which is finally to be shorn of its practical\ninterest. The most important practical question for the modern\nChurch is still the question how Christianity came into being.\n\nIn recent years it has become customary to base discussions of\nthe origin of Christianity upon the apostle Paul. Jesus Himself,\nthe author of the Christian movement, wrote nothing--at least\nno writings of His have been preserved. The record of His words\nand deeds is the work of others, and the date and authorship and\nhistorical value of the documents in which that record is contained\nare the subject of persistent debate. With regard to the genuineness\nof the principal epistles of Paul, on the other hand, and with\nregard to the value of at least part of the outline of his life\nwhich is contained in the Book of Acts, all serious historians\nare agreed. The testimony of Paul, therefore, forms a fixed\nstarting-point in all controversy.\n\nObviously that testimony has an important bearing upon the question\nof the origin of Christianity. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He\nattached himself to Jesus' disciples only a very few years after\nJesus' death; according to his own words, in one of the universally\naccepted epistles, he came into early contact with the leader among\nJesus' associates; throughout his life he was deeply interested (for\none reason or another) in the affairs of the primitive Jerusalem\nChurch; both before his conversion and after it he must have had\nabundant opportunity for acquainting himself with the facts about\nJesus' life and death. His testimony is not, however, limited to\nwhat he says in detail about the words and deeds of the Founder of\nthe Christian movement. More important still is the testimony of\nhis experience as a whole. The religion of Paul is a fact which\nstands in the full light of history. How is it to be explained? What\nwere its presuppositions? Upon what sort of Jesus was it founded?\nThese questions lead into the very heart of the historical problem.\nExplain the origin of the religion of Paul, and you have solved the\nproblem of the origin of Christianity.\n\nThat problem may thus be approached through the gateway of the\ntestimony of Paul. But that is not the only way to approach it.\nAnother way is offered by the Gospel picture of the person of\nJesus. Quite independent of questions of date and authorship and\nliterary relationships of the documents, the total picture which\nthe Gospels present bears unmistakable marks of being the picture\nof a real historical person. Internal evidence here reaches the\npoint of certainty. If the Jesus who in the Gospels is represented\nas rebuking the Pharisees and as speaking the parables is not a\nreal historical person living at a definite point in the world's\nhistory, then there is no way of distinguishing history from\nfiction. Even the evidence for the genuineness of the Pauline\nEpistles is no stronger than this. But if the Jesus of the Gospels\nis a real person, certain puzzling questions arise. The Jesus of the\nGospels is a supernatural person; He is represented as possessing\nsovereign power over the forces of nature. What shall be done with\nthis supernatural element in the picture? It is certainly very\ndifficult to separate it from the rest. Moreover the Jesus of the\nGospels is represented as advancing some lofty claims. He regarded\nHimself as being destined to come with the clouds of heaven and be\nthe instrument in judging the world. What shall be done with this\nelement in His consciousness? How does it agree with the indelible\nimpression of calmness and sanity which has always been made by His\ncharacter? These questions again lead into the heart of the problem.\nYet they cannot be ignored. They are presented inevitably by what\nevery serious historian admits.\n\nThe fundamental evidence with regard to the origin of Christianity\nis therefore twofold. Two facts need to be explained--the Jesus\nof the Gospels and the religion of Paul. The problem of early\nChristianity may be approached in either of these two ways. It\nshould finally be approached in both ways. And if it is approached\nin both ways the investigator will discover, to his amazement, that\nthe two ways lead to the same result. But the present discussion is\nmore limited in scope. It seeks to deal merely with one of the two\nways of approach to the problem of Christianity. What was the origin\nof the religion of Paul?\n\nIn discussing the apostle Paul the historian is dealing with a\nsubject important for its own sake, even aside from the importance\nof what it presupposes about Jesus. Unquestionably Paul was a\nnotable man, whose influence has been felt throughout all subsequent\nhistory. The fact itself cannot be called in question. But since\nthere is wide difference of opinion about details, it may be well,\nin a brief preliminary word, to define a little more closely the\nnature and extent of the influence of Paul.\n\nThat influence has been exerted in two ways. It was exerted, in the\nfirst place, during the lifetime of Paul; and it has been exerted,\nin the second place, upon subsequent generations through the medium\nof the Pauline Epistles.\n\nWith regard to the second kind of influence, general considerations\nwould make a high estimate natural. The Pauline Epistles form a\nlarge proportion of the New Testament, which has been regarded as\nfundamental and authoritative in all ages of the Church. The use of\nthe Pauline Epistles as normative for Christian thought and practice\ncan be traced back to very early times, and has been continuous\never since. Yet certain considerations have been urged on the other\nside as indicating that the influence of Paul has not been so great\nas might have been expected. For example, the Christianity of the\nOld Catholic Church at the close of the second century displays a\nstrange lack of understanding for the deeper elements in the Pauline\ndoctrine of salvation, and something of the same state of affairs\nmay be detected in the scanty remains of the so-called \"Apostolic\nFathers\" of the beginning of the century. The divergence from Paul\nwas not conscious; the writers of the close of the second century\nall quote the Pauline Epistles with the utmost reverence. But the\nfact of the divergence cannot altogether be denied.\n\nVarious explanations of this divergence have been proposed. Baur\nexplained the un-Pauline character of the Old Catholic Church as\ndue to a compromise with a legalistic Jewish Christianity; Ritschl\nexplained it as due to a natural process of degeneration on purely\nGentile Christian ground; Von Harnack explains it as due to the\nintrusion, after the time of Paul, of Greek habits of thought.\nThe devout believer, on the other hand, might simply say that the\nPauline doctrine of grace was too wonderful and too divine to be\nunderstood fully by the human mind and heart.[1]\n\n  [1] Compare \"Jesus and Paul,\" in _Biblical and Theological Studies_\n  by Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, 1912,\n  pp. 553 f.\n\nWhatever the explanation, however, the fact, even after\nexaggerations have been avoided, remains significant. It remains\ntrue that the Church of the second century failed to understand\nfully the Pauline doctrine of the way of salvation. The same lack\nof understanding has been observable only too frequently throughout\nsubsequent generations. It was therefore with some plausibility that\nVon Harnack advanced his dictum to the effect that Paulinism has\nestablished itself as a ferment, but never as a foundation, in the\nhistory of doctrine.[2]\n\n  [2] Harnack, _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, 4te Aufl., i, 1909, p.\n  155. (English Translation, _History of Dogma_, i, 1895, p. 136.)\n\nIn the first place, however, it may be doubted whether the dictum\nof Von Harnack is true; for in that line of development of theology\nwhich runs from Augustine through the Reformation to the Reformed\nChurches, Paulinism may fairly be regarded as a true foundation. But\nin the second place, even if Von Harnack's dictum were true, the\nimportance of Paul's influence would not be destroyed. A ferment is\nsometimes as important as a foundation. As Von Harnack himself says,\n\"the Pauline reactions mark the critical epochs of theology and of\nthe Church.... The history of doctrine could be written as a history\nof the Pauline reactions in the Church.\"[3] As a matter of fact\nthe influence of Paul upon the entire life of the Church is simply\nmeasureless. Who can measure the influence of the eighth chapter of\nRomans?\n\n  [3] Harnack, _loc. cit._\n\nThe influence of Paul was also exerted, however, in his own\nlifetime, by his spoken words as well as by his letters. To estimate\nthe full extent of that influence one would have to write the entire\nhistory of early Christianity. It may be well, however, to consider\nbriefly at least one outstanding aspect of that influence--an aspect\nwhich must appeal even to the most unsympathetic observer. The\nChristian movement began in the midst of a very peculiar people; in\n35 A.D. it would have appeared to a superficial observer to be a\nJewish sect. Thirty years later it was plainly a world religion.\nTrue, the number of its adherents was still small. But the really\nimportant steps had been taken. The conquest of the world was now a\nmere matter of time. This establishment of Christianity as a world\nreligion, to almost as great an extent as any great historical\nmovement can be ascribed to one man, was the work of Paul.\n\nThis assertion needs to be defended against various objections, and\nat the same time freed from misinterpretations and exaggerations.\n\nIn the first place, it might be said, the Gentile mission of Paul\nwas really only a part of a mighty historical process--the march of\nthe oriental religions throughout the western world. Christianity\nwas not the only religion which was filling the void left by the\ndecay of the native religions of Greece and Rome. The Phrygian\nreligion of Cybele had been established officially at Rome since 204\nB.C., and after leading a somewhat secluded and confined existence\nfor several centuries, was at the time of Paul beginning to make\nits influence felt in the life of the capital. The Greco-Egyptian\nreligion of Isis was preparing for the triumphal march which it\nbegan in earnest in the second century. The Persian religion of\nMithras was destined to share with Isis the possession of a large\npart of the Greco-Roman world. Was not the Christianity of Paul\nmerely one division of a mighty army which would have conquered even\nwithout his help?\n\nWith regard to this objection a number of things may be said. In\nthe first place, the apostle Paul, as over against the priests of\nIsis and of Cybele, has perhaps at least the merit of priority; the\nreally serious attempt at world-conquest was made by those religions\n(and still more clearly by the religion of Mithras) only after the\ntime of Paul. In the second place, the question may well be asked\nwhether it is at all justifiable to class the Christianity of Paul\nalong with those other cults under the head of Hellenized oriental\nreligion. This question will form the subject of a considerable\npart of the discussion which follows, and it will be answered with\nan emphatic negative. The Christianity of Paul will be found to\nbe totally different from the oriental religions. The threat of\nconquest made by those religions, therefore, only places in sharper\nrelief the achievement of Paul, by showing the calamities from\nwhich the world was saved by his energetic mission. If except for\nthe Pauline mission the world would have become devoted to Isis or\nMithras, then Paul was certainly one of the supreme benefactors of\nthe human race.\n\nEven apart from any detailed investigation, however, one difference\nbetween the religion of Paul and the oriental religions is perfectly\nobvious. The oriental religions were tolerant of other faiths; the\nreligion of Paul, like the ancient religion of Israel, demanded an\nabsolutely exclusive devotion. A man could become initiated into the\nmysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former\nbeliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according\nto the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviours for\nthe Lord Jesus Christ. The difference places the achievement of\nPaul upon an entirely different plane from the successes of the\noriental mystery religions. It was one thing to offer a new faith\nand a new cult as simply one additional way of obtaining contact\nwith the Divine, and it was another thing, and a far more difficult\nthing (and in the ancient world outside of Israel an unheard-of\nthing), to require a man to renounce all existing religious beliefs\nand practices in order to place his whole reliance upon a single\nSaviour. Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world,\nthe religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely\nalone. The successes of the oriental religions, therefore, only\nplace in clearer light the uniqueness of the achievement of Paul.\nThey do indeed indicate the need and longing of the ancient world\nfor redemption; but that is only part of the preparation for the\ncoming of the gospel which has always been celebrated by devout\nChristians as part of the divine economy, as one indication that\n\"the fullness of the time\" was come. But the wide prevalence of the\nneed does not at all detract from the achievement of satisfying the\nneed. Paul's way of satisfying the need, as it is hoped the later\nchapters will show, was unique; but what should now be noticed is\nthat the way of Paul, because of its exclusiveness, was at least far\nmore difficult than that of any of his rivals or successors. His\nachievement was therefore immeasurably greater than theirs.\n\nBut if the successes of the oriental religions do not detract from\nthe achievement of Paul, what shall be said of the successes of\npre-Christian Judaism? It must always be remembered that Judaism,\nin the first century, was an active missionary religion. Even\nPalestinian Judaism was imbued with the missionary spirit; Jesus\nsaid to the Pharisees that they compassed sea and land to make one\nproselyte. The Judaism of the Dispersion was no doubt even more\nzealous for winning adherents. The numberless synagogues scattered\nthroughout the cities of the Greco-Roman world were not attended,\nas Jewish synagogues are attended to-day, only by Jews, but were\nalso filled with hosts of Gentiles, some of whom had accepted\ncircumcision and become full Jews, but others of whom, forming the\nclass called in the Book of Acts \"God-fearers\" or \"God-worshipers,\"\nhad accepted the monotheism of the Jews and the lofty morality of\nthe Old Testament without definitely uniting themselves with the\npeople of Israel. In addition to this propaganda in the synagogues,\nan elaborate literary propaganda, of which important remnants have\nbeen preserved, helped to carry on the missionary work. The question\ntherefore arises whether the preaching of Paul was anything more\nthan a continuation, though in any case a noteworthy continuation,\nof this pre-Christian Jewish mission.\n\nHere again, as in the case of the longing for redemption which is\nattested by the successes of the oriental religions, an important\nelement in the preparation for the gospel must certainly be\ndetected. It is hard to exaggerate the service which was rendered\nto the Pauline mission by the Jewish synagogue. One of the most\nimportant problems for every missionary is the problem of gaining a\nhearing. The problem may be solved in various ways. Sometimes the\nmissionary may hire a place of meeting and advertise; sometimes\nhe may talk on the street corners to passers-by. But for Paul\nthe problem was solved. All that he needed to do was to enter\nthe synagogue and exercise the privilege of speaking, which was\naccorded with remarkable liberality to visiting teachers. In the\nsynagogue, moreover, Paul found an audience not only of Jews but\nalso of Gentiles; everywhere the \"God-fearers\" were to be found.\nThese Gentile attendants upon the synagogues formed not only an\naudience but a picked audience; they were just the class of persons\nwho were most likely to be won by the gospel preaching. In their\ncase much of the preliminary work had been accomplished; they were\nalready acquainted with the doctrine of the one true God; they had\nalready, through the lofty ethical teaching of the Old Testament,\ncome to connect religion with morality in a way which is to us\nmatter-of-course but was very exceptional in the ancient world.\nWhere, as in the market-place at Athens, Paul had to begin at the\nvery beginning, without presupposing this previous instruction on\nthe part of his hearers, his task was rendered far more difficult.\n\nUndoubtedly, in the case of many of his converts he did have to\nbegin in that way; the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, for\nexample, presupposes, perhaps, converts who turned directly from\nidols to serve the living and true God. But even in such cases the\nGod-fearers formed a nucleus; their manifold social relationships\nprovided points of contact with the rest of the Gentile population.\nThe debt which the Christian Church owes to the Jewish synagogue is\nsimply measureless.\n\nThis acknowledgment, however, does not mean that the Pauline mission\nwas only a continuation of the pre-Christian missionary activity\nof the Jews. On the contrary, the very earnestness of the effort\nmade by the Jews to convert their Gentile neighbors serves to\ndemonstrate all the more clearly the hopelessness of their task.\nOne thing that was fundamental in the religion of the Jews was its\nexclusiveness. The people of Israel, according to the Old Testament,\nwas the chosen people of God; the notion of a covenant between\nGod and His chosen people was absolutely central in all ages of\nthe Jewish Church. The Old Testament did indeed clearly provide a\nmethod by which strangers could be received into the covenant; they\ncould be received whenever, by becoming circumcised and undertaking\nthe observance of the Mosaic Law, they should relinquish their\nown nationality and become part of the nation of Israel. But this\nmethod seemed hopelessly burdensome. Even before the time of Paul\nit had become evident that the Gentile world as a whole would never\nsubmit to such terms. The terms were therefore sometimes relaxed.\nCovenant privileges were offered by individual Jewish teachers to\nindividual Gentiles without requiring what was most offensive, like\ncircumcision; merit was sought by some of the Gentiles by observance\nof only certain parts of the Law, such as the requirements about the\nSabbath or the provisions about food. Apparently widespread also\nwas the attitude of those persons who seem to have accepted what\nmay be called the spiritual, as distinguished from the ceremonial,\naspects of Judaism. But all such compromises were affected by a\ndeadly weakness. The strict requirements of the Law were set forth\nplainly in the Old Testament. To cast them aside, in the interests\nof missionary activity, meant a sacrifice of principle to practice;\nit meant a sacrifice of the zeal and the good conscience of the\nmissionaries and of the true satisfaction of the converts. One of\nthe chief attractions of Judaism to the world of that day was the\npossession of an ancient and authoritative Book; the world was\neagerly searching for authority in religion. Yet if the privileges\nof the Old Testament were to be secured, the authority of the Book\nhad to be set aside. The character of a national religion was\ntherefore too indelibly stamped upon the religion of Israel; the\nGentile converts could at best only be admitted into an outer circle\naround the true household of God. What pre-Christian Judaism had to\noffer was therefore obviously insufficient. Perhaps the tide of the\nJewish mission had already begun to ebb before the time of Paul;\nperhaps the process of the withdrawal of Judaism into its age-long\nseclusion had already begun. Undoubtedly that process was hastened\nby the rivalry of Christianity, which offered far more than Judaism\nhad offered and offered it on far more acceptable terms. But the\nprocess sooner or later would inevitably have made itself felt.\nWhether or not Renan was correct in supposing that had it not been\nfor Christianity the world would have been Mithraic, one thing is\ncertain--the world apart from Christianity would never have become\nJewish.\n\nBut was not the preaching of Paul itself one manifestation of that\nliberalizing tendency among the Jews to which allusion has just been\nmade and of which the powerlessness has just been asserted? Was not\nthe attitude of Paul in remitting the requirement of circumcision,\nwhile he retained the moral and spiritual part of the Old Testament\nLaw--especially if, as the Book of Acts asserts, he assented upon\noccasion to the imposition of certain of the less burdensome\nparts even of the ceremonial Law--very similar to the action of a\nteacher like that Ananias who was willing to receive king Izates of\nAdiabene without requiring him to be circumcised? These questions\nin recent years have occasionally been answered in the affirmative,\nespecially by Kirsopp Lake.[4] But despite the plausibility of\nLake's representation he has thereby introduced a root error into\nhis reconstruction of the apostolic age. For whatever the teaching\nof Paul was, it certainly was not \"liberalism.\" The background of\nPaul is not to be sought in liberal Judaism, but in the strictest\nsect of the Pharisees. And Paul's remission of the requirement of\ncircumcision was similar only in form, at the most, to the action of\nthe Ananias who has just been mentioned. In motive and in principle\nit was diametrically opposite. Gentile freedom according to Paul\nwas not something permitted; it was something absolutely required.\nAnd it was required just by the strictest interpretation of the\nOld Testament Law. If Paul had been a liberal Jew, he would never\nhave been the apostle to the Gentiles; for he would never have\ndeveloped his doctrine of the Cross. Gentile freedom, in other\nwords, was not, according to Paul, a relaxing of strict requirements\nin the interests of practical missionary work; it was a matter of\nprinciple. For the first time the religion of Israel could go forth\n(or rather was compelled to go forth) with a really good conscience\nto the spiritual conquest of the world.\n\n  [4] _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 16-28, especially\n  p. 24. Compare Lake and Jackson, _The Beginnings of Christianity_,\n  Part I, vol. i, 1920, p. 166.\n\nThus the Pauline mission was not merely one manifestation of the\nprogress of oriental religion, and it was not merely a continuation\nof the pre-Christian mission of the Jews; it was something new. But\nif it was new in comparison with what was outside of Christianity,\nwas it not anticipated within Christianity itself? Was it not\nanticipated by the Founder of Christianity, by Jesus Himself?\n\nAt this point careful definition is necessary. If all that is meant\nis that the Gentile mission of Paul was founded altogether upon\nJesus, then there ought to be no dispute. A different view, which\nmakes Paul rather than Jesus the true founder of Christianity, will\nbe combated in the following pages. Paul himself, at any rate, bases\nhis doctrine of Gentile freedom altogether upon Jesus. But he bases\nit upon what Jesus had done, not upon what Jesus, at least during\nHis earthly life, had said. The true state of the case may therefore\nbe that Jesus by His redeeming work really made possible the Gentile\nmission, but that the discovery of the true significance of that\nwork was left to Paul. The achievement of Paul, whether it be\nregarded as a discovery made by him or a divine revelation made to\nhim, would thus remain intact. What did Jesus say or imply, during\nHis earthly ministry, about the universalism of the gospel? Did He\nmake superfluous the teaching of Paul?\n\nThe latter question must be answered in the negative; attempts at\nfinding, clearly expressed, in the words of Jesus the full doctrine\nof Gentile freedom have failed. It is often said that Jesus, though\nHe addressed His teaching to Jews, addressed it to them not as Jews\nbut as men. But the discovery of that fact (whenever it was made)\nwas no mean achievement. Certainly it was not made by the modern\nwriters who lightly repeat the assertion, for they have the benefit\nof the teaching of Paul and of nineteen centuries of Christian\nexperience based upon that teaching. Even if Jesus did address not\nthe Jew as a Jew, but the man in the Jew, the achievement of Paul\nin the establishment of the Gentile Church was not thereby made a\nmatter of course. The plain man would be more likely to stick at\nthe fact that however Jesus addressed the Jew He did address the\nJew and not the Gentile, and He commanded His disciples to do the\nsame. Instances in which He extended His ministry to Gentiles are\nexpressly designated in the Gospels as exceptional.\n\nBut did He not definitely command His disciples to engage in the\nGentile work after His departure? Certainly He did not do so\naccording to the modern critical view of the Gospels. But even if\nthe great commission of Matt. xxviii. 19, 20 be accepted as an\nutterance of Jesus, it is by no means clear that the question of\nGentile liberty was settled. In the great commission, the apostles\nare commanded to make disciples of all the nations. But on what\nterms were the new disciples to be received? There was nothing\nstartling, from the Jewish point of view, in winning Gentile\nconverts; the non-Christian Jews, as has just been observed, were\nbusily engaged in doing that. The only difficulty arose when the\nterms of reception of the new converts were changed. Were the\nnew converts to be received as disciples of Jesus without being\ncircumcised and thus without becoming members of the covenant people\nof God? The great commission does not answer that question. It does\nindeed mention only baptism and not circumcision. But might that\nnot be because circumcision, for those who were to enter into God's\npeople, was a matter of course?\n\nIn a number of His utterances, it is true, Jesus did adopt\nan attitude toward the ceremonial Law, at least toward the\ninterpretation of it by the scribes, very different from what was\ncustomary in the Judaism of His day. \"There is nothing from without\nthe man,\" He said, \"that entering into him can defile him: but the\nthings which come out of him, those are they that defile the man\"\n(Mark vii. 15). No doubt these words were revolutionary in their\nultimate implications. But there is no evidence that they resulted\nin revolutionary practice on the part of Jesus. On the contrary,\nthere is definite reason to suppose that He observed the ceremonial\nLaw as it was contained in the Old Testament, and definite\nutterances of His in support of the authority of the Law have been\npreserved in the Gospels.\n\nThe disciples, therefore, were not obviously unfaithful to the\nteachings of Jesus if after He had been taken from them they\ncontinued to minister only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\nIf He had told them to make disciples of all the nations, He had\nnot told them upon what terms the disciples were to be received or\nat what moment of time the specifically Gentile work should begin.\nPerhaps the divine economy required that Israel should first be\nbrought to an acknowledgment of her Lord, or at least her obduracy\nestablished beyond peradventure, in accordance with the mysterious\nprophecy of Jesus in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen,[5] before\nthe Gentiles should be gathered in. At any rate, there is evidence\nthat whatever was revolutionary in the life and teaching of Jesus\nwas less evident among His disciples, in the early days of the\nJerusalem Church. Even the Pharisees, and at any rate the people\nas a whole, could find nothing to object to in the attitude of the\napostles and their followers. The disciples continued to observe\nthe Jewish fasts and feasts. Outwardly they were simply loyal Jews.\nEvidently Gentile freedom, and the abolition of special Jewish\nprivileges, had not been clearly established by the words of the\nMaster. There was therefore still need for the epoch-making work of\nPaul.\n\n  [5] Matt. xxi. 41, and parallels. This verse can perhaps hardly be\n  held to refer exclusively to the rejection of Jesus by the rulers;\n  it seems also to apply to a rejection by the people as a whole. But\n  the full implications of so mysterious an utterance may well have\n  been lost sight of in the early Jerusalem Church.\n\nBut if the achievement of Paul was not clearly anticipated in the\nteaching of Jesus Himself, was it not anticipated or at any rate\nshared by others in the Church? According to the Book of Acts,\na Gentile, Cornelius, and his household were baptized, without\nrequirement of circumcision, by Peter himself, the leader of the\noriginal apostles; and a free attitude toward the Temple and the\nLaw was adopted by Stephen. The latter instance, at least, has\nordinarily been accepted as historical by modern criticism. Even\nin founding the churches which are usually designated as Pauline,\nmoreover, Barnabas and Silas and others had an important part; and\nin the founding of many churches Paul himself was not concerned.\nIt is an interesting fact that of the churches in the three most\nimportant cities of the Roman Empire not one was founded by Paul.\nThe Church at Alexandria does not appear upon the pages of the New\nTestament; the Church at Rome appears fully formed when Paul was\nonly preparing for his coming by the Epistle to the Romans; the\nChurch at Antioch, at least in its Gentile form, was founded by\ncertain unnamed Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene. Evidently, therefore,\nPaul was not the only missionary who carried the gospel to the\nGentile world. If the Gentile work consisted merely in the\ngeographical extension of the frontiers of the Church, then Paul did\nnot by any means stand alone.\n\nEven in the geographical sphere, however, his achievements must\nnot be underestimated; even in that sphere he labored far more\nabundantly than any other one man. His desire to plant the gospel\nin places where it had never been heard led him into an adventurous\nlife which may well excite the astonishment of the modern man. The\ncatalogue of hardships which Paul himself gives incidentally in the\nSecond Epistle to the Corinthians shows that the Book of Acts has\nbeen very conservative in its account of the hardships and perils\nwhich the apostle endured; evidently the half has not been told.\nThe results, moreover, were commensurate with the hardships that\nthey cost. Despite the labors of others, it was Paul who planted the\ngospel in a real chain of the great cities; it was he who conceived\nmost clearly the thought of a mighty Church universal which should\nembrace both Jew and Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free\nin a common faith and a common life. When he addressed himself to\nthe Church at Rome, in a tone of authority, as the apostle to the\nGentiles who was ready to preach the gospel to those who were at\nRome also, his lofty claim was supported, despite the fact that\nthe Church at Rome had itself been founded by others, by the mere\nextent of his labors.\n\nThe really distinctive achievement of Paul, however, does not\nconsist in the mere geographical extension of the frontiers of the\nChurch, important as that work was; it lies in a totally different\nsphere--in the hidden realm of thought.[6] What was really standing\nin the way of the Gentile mission was not the physical barriers\npresented by sea and mountain, it was rather the great barrier of\nreligious principle. Particularism was written plain upon the pages\nof the Old Testament; in emphatic language the Scriptures imposed\nupon the true Israelite the duty of separateness from the Gentile\nworld. Gentiles might indeed be brought in, but only when they\nacknowledged the prerogatives of Israel and united themselves with\nthe Jewish nation. If premonitions of a different doctrine were to\nbe found, they were couched in the mysterious language of prophecy;\nwhat seemed to be fundamental for the present was the doctrine of\nthe special covenant between Jehovah and His chosen people.\n\n  [6] For what follows, compare the article cited in _Biblical and\n  Theological Studies_, pp. 555-557.\n\nThis particularism of the Old Testament might have been overcome\nby practical considerations, especially by the consideration\nthat since as a matter of fact the Gentiles would never accept\ncircumcision and submit to the Law the only way to carry on the\nbroader work was quietly to keep the more burdensome requirements\nof the Law in abeyance. This method would have been the method\nof \"liberalism.\" And it would have been utterly futile. It would\nhave meant an irreparable injury to the religious conscience; it\nwould have sacrificed the good conscience of the missionary and the\nauthoritativeness of his proclamation. Liberalism would never have\nconquered the world.\n\nFortunately liberalism was not the method of Paul. Paul was not a\npractical Christian who regarded life as superior to doctrine, and\npractice as superior to principle. On the contrary, he overcame the\nprinciple of Jewish particularism in the only way in which it could\nbe overcome; he overcame principle by principle. It was not Paul\nthe practical missionary, but Paul the theologian, who was the real\napostle to the Gentiles.\n\nIn his theology he avoided certain errors which lay near at\nhand. He avoided the error of Marcion, who in the middle of the\nsecond century combated Jewish particularism by representing the\nwhole of the Old Testament economy as evil and as the work of a\nbeing hostile to the good God. That error would have deprived\nthe Church of the prestige which it derived from the possession\nof an ancient and authoritative Book; as a merely new religion\nChristianity never could have appealed to the Gentile world. Paul\navoided also the error of the so-called \"Epistle of Barnabas,\"\nwhich, while it accepted the Old Testament, rejected the entire\nJewish interpretation of it; the Old Testament Law, according to\nthe Epistle of Barnabas, was never intended to require literal\nsacrifices and circumcision, in the way in which it was interpreted\nby the Jews. That error, also, would have been disastrous; it would\nhave introduced such boundless absurdity into the Christian use of\nthe Scriptures that all truth and soberness would have fled.\n\nAvoiding all such errors, Paul was able with a perfectly good\nconscience to accept the priceless support of the Old Testament\nScriptures in his missionary work while at the same time he rejected\nfor his Gentile converts the ceremonial requirements which the Old\nTestament imposed. The solution of the problem is set forth clearly\nin the Epistle to the Galatians. The Old Testament Law, according\nto Paul, was truly authoritative and truly divine. But it was\ntemporary; it was authoritative only until the fulfillment of the\npromise should come. It was a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to\nChrist; and (such is the implication, according to the Epistle to\nthe Romans) it could also be a schoolmaster to bring every one to\nChrist, since it was intended to produce the necessary consciousness\nof sin.\n\nThis treatment of the Old Testament was the only practical solution\nof the difficulty. But Paul did not adopt it because it was\npractical; he adopted it because it was true. It never occurred to\nhim to hold principle in abeyance even for the welfare of the souls\nof men. The deadening blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his\nsoul.\n\nThe Pauline grounding of the Gentile mission is not to be limited,\nhowever, to his specific answer to the question, \"What then is the\nlaw?\" It extends rather to his entire unfolding of the significance\nof the Cross of Christ. He exhibited the temporary character of the\nOld Testament dispensation by showing that a new era had begun, by\nexhibiting positively the epoch-making significance of the Cross.\n\nAt this point undoubtedly he had precursors. The significance of\nthe Cross of Christ was by no means entirely unknown to those who\nhad been disciples before him; he himself places the assertion that\nChrist \"died for our sins according to the Scriptures\" as one of the\nthings that he had \"received.\" But unless all indications fail Paul\ndid bring an unparalleled enrichment of the understanding of the\nCross. For the first time the death of Christ was viewed in its full\nhistorical and logical relationships. And thereby Gentile freedom,\nand the freedom of the entire Christian Church for all time, was\nassured.\n\nInwardly, indeed, the early Jerusalem disciples were already free\nfrom the Law; they were really trusting for their salvation not to\ntheir observance of the Law but to what Christ had done for them.\nBut apparently they did not fully know that they were free; or\nrather they did not know exactly why they were free. The case of\nCornelius, according to the Book of Acts, was exceptional; Cornelius\nhad been received into the Church without being circumcised, but\nonly by direct command of the Spirit. Similar direct and unexplained\nguidance was apparently to be waited for if the case was to be\nrepeated. Even Stephen had not really advocated the immediate\nabolition of the Temple or the abandonment of Jewish prerogatives in\nthe presence of Gentiles.\n\nThe freedom of the early Jerusalem Church, in other words, was\nnot fully grounded in a comprehensive view of the meaning of\nJesus' work. Such freedom could not be permanent. It was open to\nargumentative attacks, and as a matter of fact such attacks were not\nlong absent. The very life of the Gentile mission at Antioch was\nthreatened by the Judaizers who came down from Jerusalem and said,\n\"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be\nsaved.\" Practical considerations, considerations of church polity,\nwere quite powerless before such attacks; freedom was held by but a\nprecarious tenure until its underlying principles were established.\nChristianity, in other words, could not live without theology. And\nthe first great Christian theologian was Paul.\n\nIt was Paul, then, who established the principles of the Gentile\nmission. Others labored in detail, but it was he who was at the\nheart of the movement. It was he, far more than any other one man,\nwho carried the gospel out from Judaism into the Gentile world.\n\nThe importance of the achievement must be apparent to every\nhistorian, no matter how unsympathetic his attitude toward the\ncontent of Christianity may be. The modern European world, what may\nbe called \"western civilization,\" is descended from the civilization\nof Greece and Rome. Our languages are either derived directly from\nthe Latin, or at any rate connected with the same great family. Our\nliterature and art are inspired by the great classical models. Our\nlaw and government have never been independent of the principles\nenunciated by the statesmen of Greece, and put into practice by\nthe statesmen of Rome. Our philosophies are obliged to return ever\nanew to the questions which were put, if not answered, by Plato and\nAristotle.\n\nYet there has entered into this current of Indo-European\ncivilization an element from a very diverse and very unexpected\nsource. How comes it that a thoroughly Semitic book like the Bible\nhas been accorded a place in medieval and modern life to which the\nglories of Greek literature can never by any possibility aspire? How\ncomes it that the words of that book have not only made political\nhistory--moved armies and built empires--but also have entered into\nthe very fabric of men's souls? The intrinsic value of the Book\nwould not alone have been sufficient to break down the barriers\nwhich opposed its acceptance by the Indo-European race. The race\nfrom which the Bible came was despised in ancient times and it is\ndespised to-day. How comes it then that a product of that race\nhas been granted such boundless influence? How comes it that the\nbarriers which have always separated Jew from Gentile, Semite from\nAryan, have at one point been broken through, so that the current of\nSemitic life has been allowed to flow unchecked over the rich fields\nof our modern civilization?\n\nThe answer to these questions, to the large extent which the\npreceding outline has attempted to define, must be sought in the\ninner life of a Jew of Tarsus. In dealing with the apostle Paul we\nare dealing with one of the moving factors of the world's history.\n\nThat conclusion might at first sight seem to affect unfavorably the\nspecial use to which it is proposed, in the present discussion, to\nput the examination of Paul. The more important Paul was as a man,\nit might be said, the less important he becomes as a witness to the\norigin of Christianity. If his mind had been a blank tablet prepared\nto receive impressions, then the historian could be sure that what\nis found in Paul's Epistles about Jesus is a true reflection of what\nJesus really was. But as a matter of fact Paul was a genius. It\nis of the nature of genius to be creative. May not what Paul says\nabout Jesus and the origin of Christianity, therefore, be no mere\nreflection of the facts, but the creation of his own mind?\n\nThe difficulty is not so serious as it seems. Genius is not\nincompatible with honesty--certainly not the genius of Paul. When,\ntherefore, Paul sets himself to give information about certain\nplain matters of fact that came under his observation, as in the\nfirst two chapters of Galatians, there are not many historians\nwho are inclined to refuse him credence. But the witness of Paul\ndepends not so much upon details as upon the total fact of his\nreligious life. It is that fact which is to be explained. To say\nmerely that Paul was a genius and therefore unaccountable is no\nexplanation. Certainly it is not an explanation satisfactory to\nmodern historians. During the progress of modern criticism, students\nof the origin of Christianity have accepted the challenge presented\nby the fact of Paul's religious life; they have felt obliged to\naccount for the emergence of that fact at just the point when it\nactually appeared. But the explanations which they have offered, as\nthe following discussion may show, are insufficient; and it is just\nthe greatness of Paul for which the explanations do not account. The\nreligion of Paul is too large a building to have been erected upon a\npin-point.\n\nMoreover, the greater a man is, the wider is the area of his\ncontact with his environment, and the deeper is his penetration\ninto the spiritual realm. The \"man in the street\" is not so good an\nobserver as is sometimes supposed; he observes only what lies on\nthe surface. Paul, on the other hand, was able to sound the depths.\nIt is, on the whole, certainly no disadvantage to the student of\nearly Christianity that that particular member of the early Church\nwhose inner life stands clearest in the light of history was no mere\nnonentity, but one of the commanding figures in the history of the\nworld.\n\nBut what, in essence, is the fact of which the historical\nimplications are here to be studied? What was the religion of Paul?\nNo attempt will now be made to answer the question in detail; no\nattempt will be made to add to the long list of expositions of the\nPauline theology. But what is really essential is abundantly plain,\nand may be put in a word--the religion of Paul was a religion of\nredemption. It was founded not upon what had always been true, but\nupon what had recently happened; not upon right ideas about God and\nHis relations to the world, but upon one thing that God had done;\nnot upon an eternal truth of the fatherhood of God, but upon the\nfact that God had chosen to become the Father of those who should\naccept the redemption offered by Christ. The religion of Paul was\nrooted altogether in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Jesus for\nPaul was primarily not a Revealer, but a Saviour.\n\nThe character of Paulinism as a redemptive religion involved a\ncertain conception of the Redeemer, which is perfectly plain on the\npages of the Pauline Epistles. Jesus Christ, Paul believed, was a\nheavenly being; Paul placed Him clearly on the side of God and not\non the side of men. \"Not by man but by Jesus Christ,\" he says at the\nbeginning of Galatians, and the same contrast is implied everywhere\nin the Epistles. This heavenly Redeemer existed before His earthly\nlife; came then to earth, where He lived a true human life of\nhumiliation; suffered on the cross for the sins of those upon whom\nthe curse of the Law justly rested; then rose again from the dead by\na mighty act of God's power; and is present always with His Church\nthrough His Spirit.\n\nThat representation has become familiar to the devout Christian, but\nto the modern historian it seems very strange. For to the modern\nhistorian, on the basis of the modern view of Jesus, the procedure\nof Paul seems to be nothing else than the deification by Paul of a\nman who had lived but a few years before and had died a shameful\ndeath.[7] It is not necessary to argue the question whether in\nRom. ix. 5 Paul actually applies the term \"God\" to Jesus--certainly\nhe does so according to the only natural interpretation of his\nwords as they stand--what is really important is that everywhere\nthe relationship in which Paul stands toward Jesus is not the\nmere relationship of disciple to master, but is a truly religious\nrelationship. Jesus is to Paul everywhere the object of religious\nfaith.\n\n  [7] H. J. Holtzmann (in _Protestantische Monatshefte_, iv, 1900, pp.\n  465f., and in _Christliche Welt_, xxiv, 1910, column 153) admitted\n  that for the rapid apotheosis of Jesus as it is attested by the\n  epistles of Paul he could cite no parallel in the religious history\n  of the race.\n\nThat fact would not be quite so surprising if Paul had been of\npolytheistic training, if he had grown up in a spiritual environment\nwhere the distinction between divine and human was being broken\ndown. Even in such an environment, indeed, the religion of Paul\nwould have been quite without parallel. The deification of the\neastern rulers or of the emperors differs _in toto_ from the Pauline\nattitude toward Jesus. It differs in seriousness and fervor; above\nall it differs in its complete lack of exclusiveness. The lordship\nof the ruler admitted freely, and was indeed always accompanied by,\nthe lordship of other gods; the lordship of Jesus, in the religion\nof Paul, was absolutely exclusive. For Paul, there was one Lord and\none Lord only. When any parallel for such a religious relationship\nof a notable man to one of his contemporaries with whose most\nintimate friends he had come into close contact can be cited in the\nreligious annals of the race, then it will be time for the historian\nto lose his wonder at the phenomenon of Paul.\n\nBut the wonder of the historian reaches its climax when he remembers\nthat Paul was not a polytheist or a pantheist, but a Jew, to whom\nmonotheism was the very breath of life.[8] The Judaism of Paul's day\nwas certainly nothing if not monotheistic. But in the intensity of\nhis monotheism Paul was not different from his countrymen. No one\ncan possibly show a deeper scorn for the many gods of the heathen\nthan can Paul. \"For though there be that are called gods,\" he says,\n\"whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords\nmany,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all\nthings, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are\nall things, and we by him.\" (I Cor. viii. 5, 6.) Yet it was this\nmonotheist sprung of a race of monotheists, who stood in a full\nreligious relation to a man who had died but a few years before; it\nwas this monotheist who designated that man, as a matter of course,\nby the supreme religious term \"Lord,\" and did not hesitate to apply\nto Him the passages in the Greek Old Testament where that term was\nused to translate the most awful name of the God of Israel! The\nreligion of Paul is a phenomenon well worthy of the attention of the\nhistorian.\n\n  [8] Compare R. Seeberg, _Der Ursprung des Christusglaubens_, 1914,\n  pp. 1f.\n\nIn recent years that phenomenon has been explained in four different\nways. The four ways have not always been clearly defined; they have\nsometimes entered into combination with one another. But they are\nlogically distinct, and to a certain extent they may be treated\nseparately.\n\nThere is first of all the supernaturalistic explanation, which\nsimply accepts at its face value what Paul presupposes about Jesus.\nAccording to this explanation, Jesus was really a heavenly being,\nwho in order to redeem sinful man came voluntarily to earth,\nsuffered for the sins of others on the cross, rose from the dead,\nascended to the right hand of God, from whence He shall come to\njudge the quick and the dead. If this representation be correct,\nthen there is really nothing to explain; the religious attitude of\nPaul toward Jesus was not an apotheosis of a man, but recognition as\ndivine of one who really was divine.\n\nThe other three explanations are alike in that they all reject\nsupernaturalism, they all deny the entrance into human history of\nany creative act of God, unless indeed all the course of nature be\nregarded as creative. They all agree, therefore, in explaining the\nreligion of Paul as a phenomenon which emerged in the course of\nhistory under the operation of natural causes.\n\nThe most widespread of these naturalistic explanations of the\nreligion of Paul is what may be called the \"liberal\" view. The name\nis highly unsatisfactory; it has been used and misused until it\nhas often come to mean almost nothing. But no other term is ready\nto hand. \"Ritschlian\" might possibly describe the phenomenon that\nis meant, but that term is perhaps too narrow, and would imply a\ndegree of logical connection with the Ritschlian theology which\nwould not fit all forms of the phenomenon. The best that can be\ndone, therefore, is to define the term \"liberal\" in a narrower way\nthan is sometimes customary and then use it in distinction not only\nfrom traditional and supernaturalistic views, but also from various\n\"radical\" views, which will demand separate consideration.\n\nThe numerous forms of the liberal view differ from other\nnaturalistic hypotheses in that they attribute supreme importance\nin the formation of the religion of Paul to the influence of the\nreal historic person, Jesus of Nazareth, and to the experience which\nPaul had near Damascus when he thought he saw that person risen\nfrom the dead. Jesus of Nazareth, according to the liberal view,\nwas the greatest of the children of men. His greatness centered in\nHis consciousness of standing toward God in the relation of son to\nFather. That consciousness of sonship, at least in its purity, Jesus\ndiscovered, was not shared by others. Some category was therefore\nneeded to designate the uniqueness of His sonship. The category\nwhich He adopted, though with reluctance, and probably toward the\nend of His ministry, was the category of Messiahship. His Messianic\nconsciousness was thus not fundamental in His conception of His\nmission; certainly it did not mean that He put His own person into\nHis gospel. He urged men, not to take Him as the object of their\nfaith, but only to take Him as an example for their faith; not to\nhave faith in Him, but to have faith in God like His faith. Such was\nthe impression of His personality, however, that after His death\nthe love and reverence of His disciples for Him not only induced\nthe hallucinations in which they thought they saw Him risen from\nthe dead but also led them to attribute to His person a kind of\nreligious importance which He had never claimed. They began to make\nHim not only an example for faith but also the object of faith. The\nMessianic element in His life began now to assume an importance\nwhich He had never attributed to it; the disciples began to ascribe\nto Him divine attributes. This process was somewhat hindered in the\ncase of His intimate friends by the fact that they had seen Him\nunder all the limitations of ordinary human life. But in the case of\nthe apostle Paul, who had never seen Him, the process of deification\ncould go on unchecked. What was fundamental, however, even for\nPaul, was an impression of the real person of Jesus of Nazareth;\nthat impression was conveyed to Paul in various ways--especially by\nthe brave and pure lives of Jesus' disciples, which had impressed\nhim, against his will, even when he was still a persecutor. But\nPaul was a child of his time. He was obliged, therefore, to express\nthat which he had received from Jesus in the categories that were\nready to hand. Those categories as applied to Jesus constitute the\nPauline theology. Thus Paul was really the truest disciple of Jesus\nin the depths of his inner life, but his theology was the outer\nand perishable shell for the precious kernel. His theology was the\nproduct of his time, and may now be abandoned; his religion was\nderived from Jesus of Nazareth and is a permanent possession of the\nhuman race.\n\nSuch in bare outline is the liberal view of the origin of Paulinism\nand of Christianity. It has been set forth in so many brilliant\ntreatises that no one may be singled out as clearly representative.\nPerhaps Von Harnack's \"What is Christianity?\"[9], among the popular\nexpositions, may still serve as well as any other. The liberal\nview of the origin of Christianity seemed at one time likely\nto dominate the religious life of the modern world; it found\nexpression in countless sermons and books of devotion as well as\nin scientific treatises. Now, however, there are some indications\nthat it is beginning to fall; it is being attacked by radicalism\nof various kinds. With some of these attacks it will not now be\nworth while to deal; it will not be worth while to deal with\nthose forms of radicalism which reject what have been designated\nas the two starting-points for an investigation of the origin of\nChristianity--the historicity of Jesus and the genuineness of\nthe major epistles of Paul. These hypotheses are some of them\ninteresting on the negative side, they are interesting for their\ncriticism of the dominant liberal view; but when it comes to their\nown attempts at reconstruction they have never advanced beyond the\npurest dilettantism. Attention will now be confined to the work\nof historians who have really attempted seriously to grapple with\nthe historical problems, and specifically to those who have given\nattention to the problem of Paul.\n\n  [9] Harnack, _Das Wesen des Christentums_, 1900. (English\n  Translation, _What is Christianity?_, 1901.)\n\nTwo lines of explanation have been followed in recent years by those\nwho reject, in the interest of more radical views, the liberal\naccount of the origin of Paulinism. But these two lines run to a\ncertain point together; they both reject the liberal emphasis upon\nthe historic person of Jesus as accounting for the origin of Paul's\nreligion. The criticism of the customary view was put sharply by W.\nWrede in 1904[10], when he declared that Paul was no disciple of\nJesus, but a second founder of Christianity. The religious life of\nPaul, Wrede insisted, was not really derived from Jesus of Nazareth.\nWhat was fundamental for Paul was not the example of Jesus, but\nHis redeeming work as embraced in the death and resurrection,\nwhich were regarded as events of a cosmic significance. The\ntheology of Paul--his interpretation of the death and resurrection\nof Jesus--cannot, therefore, be separated from his religion; on\nthe contrary, it is in connection with the theology, and not in\nconnection with any impression of the character of Jesus, that the\nfervor of Paul's religious life runs full and free. Theology and\nreligion in Paul, therefore, must stand or fall together; if one\nwas derived from extra-Christian sources, probably the other must\nbe so derived also. And such, as a matter of fact, Wrede concludes\nis the case. The religion of Paul is not based at all upon Jesus of\nNazareth.\n\n  [10] Wrede, _Paulus_, 1904. (English Translation, _Paul_, 1907.)\n\nSuch, in true import, though not in word or in detail, was the\nstartling criticism which Wrede directed against the liberal account\nof the origin of Paulinism. He had really only made explicit a type\nof criticism which had gradually been becoming inevitable for some\ntime before. Hence the importance of his little book. The current\nreconstruction of the origin of Christianity had produced a Jesus\nand a Paul who really had little in common with each other. Wrede,\nin his incomparably succinct and incisive way, had the courage to\nsay so.\n\nBut if Paulinism was not derived from Jesus of Nazareth, whence was\nit derived? Here the two lines of radical opinion begin to diverge.\nAccording to Wrede, who was supported by M. Br\u00fcckner,[11] working\ncontemporaneously, the Pauline conception of Christ, which was\nfundamental in Paul's religious thought and life, was derived from\nthe pre-Christian conception of the Messiah which Paul already had\nbefore his conversion. The Messiah, in the thought of the Jews,\nwas not always conceived of merely as a king of David's line;\nsometimes he was regarded rather as a mysterious, pre\u00ebxistent,\nheavenly being who was to come suddenly with the clouds of heaven\nand be the judge of all the earth. This transcendent conception\nwhich is attested by the Jewish apocalypses like the Ethiopic\nBook of Enoch, was, Wrede maintained, the conception of the Jew,\nSaul of Tarsus. When, therefore, Paul in his Epistles represents\nChrist as pre\u00ebxistent, and as standing close to the Supreme Being in\nrulership and judgment, the phenomenon, though it may seem strange\nto us, is not really unique; it is exactly what is found in the\napocalypses. What was new in Paul, as over against pre-Christian\nJudaism, was the belief that the heavenly Messiah had already come\nto earth and carried out a work of redemption. This belief was\nnot derived, Wrede maintained, from any impression of the exalted\nmoral character of Jesus; on the contrary, if Paul had really come\ninto any close contact with the historical Jesus, he might have\nhad difficulty in identifying Him so completely with the heavenly\nMessiah; the impression of the truly human character of Jesus and\nof His subjection to all the ordinary limits of earthly life would\nhave hindered the ascription to Him of the transcendent attributes.\nJesus, for Paul, merely provided the one fact that the Messiah had\nalready come to earth and died and risen again. Operating with that\nfact, interpreting the coming of the Messiah as an act of redemption\nundertaken out of love for men, Paul was able to develop all the\nfervor of his Christ-religion.\n\n  [11] _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie_, 1903; \"Zum\n  Thema Jesus und Paulus,\" in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche\n  Wissenschaft_, vii, 1906, pp. 112-119; \"Der Apostel Paulus als\n  Zeuge wider das Christusbild der Evangelien,\" in _Protestantische\n  Monatshefte_, x, 1906, pp. 352-364.\n\nIn very recent years, another account of the origin of Paulinism is\nbecoming increasingly prevalent. This account agrees with Wrede in\nrejecting the liberal derivation of the religion of Paul from an\nimpression of the historical person of Jesus. But it differs from\nWrede in its view of the source from which the religion of Paul\nis actually to be derived. According to this latest hypothesis,\nPaulinism was based not upon the pre-Christian Jewish conception of\nthe Messiah, but upon contemporary pagan religion.\n\nThis hypothesis represents the application to the problem of\nPaulinism of the method of modern comparative religion. About twenty\nyears ago that method began to be extended resolutely into the New\nTestament field, and it has been becoming increasingly prevalent\never since. Despite the prevalence of the method, however, and the\nvariety of its application, one great comprehensive work may now\nfairly lay claim to be taken as summing up the results. That work is\nthe book of W. Bousset, entitled \"Kyrios Christos,\" which appeared\nin 1913.[12] It is perhaps too early as yet to estimate the full\nimportance of Bousset's work. But unless all indications fail, the\nwork is really destined to mark an epoch in the history of New\nTestament criticism. Since the days of F. C. Baur, in the former\nhalf of the nineteenth century, there has been no such original,\ncomprehensive, and grandly conceived rewriting of early Christian\nhistory as has now appeared in Bousset's \"Kyrios Christos.\" The\nonly question is whether originality, in this historical sphere, is\nalways compatible with truth.\n\n  [12] Compare also Bousset, _Jesus der Herr_, 1916.\n\nAccording to Bousset, the historicity of Jesus is to be maintained;\nJesus was really a religious teacher of incomparable power. But\nBousset rejects much more of the Gospel account of Jesus' life than\nis rejected in the ordinary \"liberal\" view; Bousset seems even to be\ndoubtful as to whether Jesus ever presented Himself to His disciples\nas the Messiah, the Messianic element in the Gospels being regarded\nfor the most part as a mere reflection of the later convictions of\nthe disciples. After the crucifixion, the disciples in Jerusalem,\nBousset continues, were convinced that Jesus had risen from the\ndead, and that He was truly the Messiah. They conceived of His\nMessiahship chiefly under the category of the \"Son of Man\"; Jesus,\nthey believed, was the heavenly being who in their interpretation of\nthe Book of Daniel and in the apocalypses appears in the presence\nof the supreme God as the one who is to judge the world. This\nheavenly Son of Man was taken from them for a time, but they looked\nwith passionate eagerness for His speedy return. The piety of the\nearly Jerusalem Church was therefore distinctly eschatological; it\nwas founded not upon any conviction of a present vital relation to\nJesus, but on the hope of His future coming. In the Greek-speaking\nChristian communities of such cities as Antioch and Tarsus, Bousset\ncontinues, an important additional step was taken; Jesus there\nbegan to be not only hoped for as the future judge but also adored\nas the present Lord. He came to be regarded as present in the\nmeetings of the Church. The term \"Lord,\" with the conception that\nit represents, was never, according to Bousset, applied to Jesus in\nthe primitive Palestinian Church; it was first applied to Him in\nHellenistic Christian communities like the one at Antioch. And it\nwas there derived distinctly from the prevalent pagan religion. In\nthe type of religion familiar to the disciples at Antioch, the term\n\"Lord\" was used to denote the cult-god, especially in the so-called\n\"mystery religions\"; and the Antioch disciples naturally used the\nsame term to designate the object of their own adoration. But with\nthe term went the idea; Jesus was now considered to be present in\nthe meetings of the Church, just as the cult-gods of the pagan\nreligions were considered to be present in the worship practiced by\nthose religions. An important step had been taken beyond the purely\neschatological piety of the Jerusalem disciples.\n\nBut how about Paul? Here is to be found one of the boldest\nelements in all the bold reconstruction of Bousset. Paul, Bousset\nbelieves, was not connected in any intimate way with the primitive\nChristianity in Palestine; what he \"received\" he received rather\nfrom the Hellenistic Christianity, just described, of cities like\nAntioch. He received, therefore, the Hellenistic conception of\nJesus as Lord. But he added to that conception by connecting the\n\"Lord\" with the \"Spirit.\" The \"Lord\" thus became present not only in\nthe meetings of the Church for worship but also in the individual\nlives of the believers. Paulinism as it appears in the Epistles was\nthus complete. But this distinctly Pauline contribution, like the\nconception of the Lordship of Jesus to which it was added, was of\npagan origin; it was derived from the mystical piety of the time,\nwith its sharp dualism between a material and a spiritual realm\nand its notion of the transformation of man by immediate contact\nwith the divine. Paulinism, therefore, according to Bousset, was a\nreligion of redemption. But as such it was derived not at all from\nthe historical Jesus (whose optimistic teaching contained no thought\nof redemption) but from the pessimistic dualism of the pagan world.\nThe \"liberal\" distinction between Pauline religion and Pauline\ntheology, the attempt at saving Paul's religion by the sacrifice\nof his theology, is here abandoned, and all that is most clearly\ndistinctive of Paulinism (though of course some account is taken of\nthe contribution of his Jewish inheritance and of his own genius) is\nderived from pagan sources.\n\nThe hypothesis of Bousset, together with the rival reconstructions\nwhich have just been outlined, will be examined in the following\ndiscussion. But before they can be examined it will be necessary to\nsay a word about the sources of information with regard to the life\nof Paul. No discussion of the literary questions can indeed here be\nundertaken. Almost all that can be done is to set forth very briefly\nthe measure of agreement which has been attained in this field, and\nthe bearing of the points that are still disputed upon the subject\nof the present investigation.\n\nThe sources of information about Paul are contained almost\nexclusively in the New Testament. They are, first, the Pauline\nEpistles, and, second, the Book of Acts.\n\nFour of the Pauline Epistles--Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians,\nand Romans--were accepted as certainly genuine by F. C. Baur,\nthe founder of the \"T\u00fcbingen School\" of criticism in the former\nhalf of the nineteenth century. This favorable estimate of the\n\"major epistles\" has never been abandoned by any number of\nreally serious historians, and three of the other epistles--1\nThessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon--have now been added to the\n\"homologoumena.\" Seven epistles, therefore, are accepted as genuine\nto-day by all historians except a few extremists. Of the remaining\nepistles, Colossians is accepted by the majority of investigators\nof all shades of opinion, and even in the case of 2 Thessalonians\nand Ephesians, the acceptance of the hypothesis of genuineness is\nno longer regarded as a clear mark of \"conservatism,\" these two\nepistles being regarded as genuine letters of Paul by some even of\nthose who are not in general favorable to the traditional view of\nthe New Testament.\n\nWith regard to the Pastoral Epistles--1 and 2 Timothy and Titus--the\nissue is more clearly drawn. These epistles, at least in their\nentirety, are seldom regarded as genuine except by those who\nadopt in general the traditional view of the New Testament and\nthe supernaturalistic conception of the origin of Christianity.\nThat does not mean that the case of the Pastoral Epistles is\ndesperate--certainly the present writer is firmly convinced that the\nepistles are genuine and that a denial of their genuineness really\nimpoverishes in important respects our conception of the work of\nPaul--but it does mean that with regard to these epistles the two\ngreat contending views concerning the New Testament come into sharp\nconflict; common ground, in other words, cannot here be found, as\nin the case of the major epistles, between those who hold widely\ndivergent views as to the origin of Christianity.\n\nIt would be out of place in the present connection to discuss the\nquestion of the genuineness of the Pastorals. That question is\nindeed enormously important. It is important for the view which\nis to be held concerning the New Testament canon; it is important\nfor any estimate of Christian tradition; it is important even for\na complete estimate of the work of Paul. But it is not directly\nimportant for the question as to the origin of Paulinism; for all\nthe essential features of Paulinism, certainly all those features\nwhich make Paulinism, upon naturalistic principles, most difficult\nof explanation, appear plainly in the accepted epistles.\n\nThe question of the Book of Acts, on the other hand, is of vital\nimportance even for the present investigation. Even that question,\nhowever, must here be dismissed with a word, though it is hoped that\nlight may be shed upon it by the whole of the following discussion.\n\nLiterary evidence of peculiar strength may be adduced in favor of\nthe view that the Book of Acts was really written, as tradition\naffirms, by a companion of Paul. This evidence is based primarily\nupon the presence in the book of certain sections where the\nnarrative is carried on in the first person instead of the third. It\nis generally or even universally admitted that these \"we-sections\"\nare the work of an eyewitness, an actual traveling companion of\nPaul. But according to the common-sense view--according to the\nfirst impression made upon every ordinary reader--the author of\nthe we-sections was also the author of the whole book, who when he\ncame in his narrative to those parts of the missionary journeys of\nPaul where he had actually been present with the apostolic company\nnaturally dropped into the use of the first person instead of the\nthird. If this common-sense view be incorrect, then a later author\nwho produced the completed book has in the we-sections simply\nmade use of an eyewitness source. But this hypothesis is fraught\nwith the most serious difficulty. If the author of the completed\nbook, writing at a time long after the time of Paul, was in the\nwe-sections using the work of a companion of Paul, why did he not\neither say that he was quoting or else change the \"we\" of the\nsource to \"they.\" The first person plural, used without explanation\nby a writer of, say, 100 A.D. in a narrative of the journeys of\nPaul, would be preposterous. What could be the explanation of so\nextraordinary a procedure?\n\nOnly two explanations are possible. In the first place, the author\nmay have retained the \"we\" with deceitful intent, with the intent\nof producing the false impression that he himself was a companion\nof Paul. This hypothesis is fraught with insuperable difficulty\nand is generally rejected. In the second place, the author may\nhave retained the \"we\" because he was a mere compiler, copying\nout his sources with mechanical accuracy, and so unable to make\nthe simple editorial change of \"we\" to \"they.\" This hypothesis is\nexcluded by the striking similarity of language and style between\nthe we-sections and the rest of Luke-Acts, which shows that if\nthe author of the completed double work is in the we-sections\nmaking use of a source written by some one else, he has revised\nthe source so as to make it conform to his own style. But if he\nrevised the source, he was no mere compiler, and therefore could not\nhave retained the first person plural which in the completed book\nproduced nonsense. The whole hypothesis therefore breaks down.\n\nSuch considerations have led a number of recent scholars--even of\nthose who are unable to accept the supernaturalistic account which\nthe Book of Acts gives of the origin of Christianity--to return to\nthe traditional view that the book was actually written by Luke the\nphysician, a companion of Paul. The argument for Lucan authorship\nhas been developed with great acumen especially by Von Harnack[13].\nAnd on the basis of purely literary criticism the argument is\ncertainly irrefutable. It can be refuted, if at all, only through a\nconsideration of the historical contents of the book.\n\n  [13] _Lukas der Arzt_, 1906 (English Translation, _Luke the\n  Physician_, 1907); _Die Apostelgeschichte_, 1908 (English\n  Translation, _The Acts of the Apostles_, 1909); _Neue Untersuchungen\n  zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen\n  Evangelien_, 1911 (English Translation, _The Date of the Acts and of\n  the Synoptic Gospels_, 1911).\n\nSuch attempts at refutation have not been lacking; the Lucan\nauthorship of Acts is still rejected by the great majority of those\nwho maintain the naturalistic view of the origin of Christianity.\nThe objections may be subsumed under two main heads. The Book of\nActs, it is said, is not the kind of book that could have been\nwritten by a companion of Paul, in the first place because it\ncontains an account of miracles, and in the second place, because\nit contradicts the Pauline Epistles, particularly in the account\nwhich it gives of the relations between Paul and the Jerusalem\nChurch.\n\nThe former objection is entirely valid on the basis of any\nnaturalistic account of the origin of Christianity. Efforts have\nindeed been made by Von Harnack, C. C. Torrey, and others, to\novercome the objection. Belief in miracles, it is said, was very\ngeneral in the ancient world; a miraculous interpretation could\ntherefore be placed upon happenings for which the modern man would\nhave no difficulty in discovering a natural cause. Luke was a child\nof his time; even in the we-sections, Von Harnack insists, where the\nwork of an eyewitness is universally recognized, a supernaturalistic\ninterpretation is placed upon natural events--as, for example, when\nPaul excites the wonder of his companions by shaking off into the\nfire a viper that was no doubt perfectly harmless. Why, then, should\nthe presence of the supernatural in the rest of the book be used to\nrefute the hypothesis of the Lucan authorship, if it is not so used\nin the we-sections?[14]\n\n  [14] Harnack, _Die Apostelgeschichte_, 1908, pp. 111-130 (English\n  Translation, _The Acts of the Apostles_, 1909, pp. 133-161).\n\nThis method of refuting the objection drawn from the presence of the\nsupernatural in Luke-Acts has sometimes led to a curious return to\nthe rationalizing method of interpretation which was prevalent one\nhundred years ago. By that method of interpretation even the details\nof the New Testament miracles were accepted as historical, but it\nwas thought that the writers were wrong in regarding those details\nas miraculous. Great ingenuity was displayed by such rationalists\nas Paulus and many others in exhibiting the true natural causes of\ndetails which to the first observers seemed to be supernatural.\nSuch rationalizing has usually been thought to have received\nits death-blow at the hands of Strauss, who showed that the New\nTestament narratives were either to be accepted as a whole--miracles\nand all--or else regarded as myths, that is, as the clothing of\nreligious ideas in historical forms. But now, under the impulsion of\nliterary criticism, which has led away from the position of Baur and\nStrauss and back to the traditional view of the authorship and date\nof the New Testament books, the expedients of the rationalizers have\nin some cases been revived.\n\nThe entire effort of Von Harnack is, however, quite hopeless. The\nobjection to the Lucan authorship of Acts which is drawn from the\nsupernatural element in the narrative is irrefutable on the basis\nof any naturalistic view of the origin of Christianity. The trouble\nis that the supernatural element in Acts does not concern merely\ndetails; it lies, rather, at the root of the whole representation.\nThe origin of the Church, according to the modern naturalistic\nreconstruction, was due to the belief of the early disciples in the\nresurrection of Jesus; that belief in turn was founded upon certain\nhallucinations in which they thought they saw Jesus alive after\nHis passion. In such experiences, the optic nerve is affected not\nby an external object but by the condition of the subject himself.\nBut there are limitations to what is possible in experiences of\nthat sort, especially where numbers of persons are affected and\nat different times. It cannot be supposed, therefore, that the\ndisciples of Jesus thought they had any extended intercourse with\nHim after His passion; momentary appearances, with possibly a few\nspoken words, were all that they could have experienced. This view\nof the origin of the Church is thought to be in accord with the\nall-important testimony of Paul, especially in 1 Cor. xv. 3-8 where\nhe is reproducing a primitive tradition. Thus desperate efforts\nare made to show that the reference by Paul to the burial of Jesus\ndoes not by any means confirm the accounts given in the Gospels\nof events connected with the empty tomb. Sometimes, indeed, in\nrecent criticism, the fact of the empty tomb is accepted, and then\nexplained in some naturalistic way. But at any rate, the cardinal\nfeature of the modern reconstruction is that the early Church,\nincluding Paul, had a spiritual rather than a physical conception of\nthe risen body of Jesus; there was no extended intercourse, it is\nsupposed; Jesus appeared to His disciples momentarily, in heavenly\nglory.\n\nBut this entire representation is diametrically opposed to the\nrepresentation in the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts. If\nthere is any one writer who emphasizes the plain, physical character\nof the contact between the disciples and their risen Lord, it\nis the author of Luke-Acts. In proof, it is only necessary to\npoint to Acts x. 41, where it is said that the risen Jesus held\ntable-companionship with His disciples after He was risen from the\ndead! But that is only one detail. The author of Acts is firmly\nconvinced that the contact of the risen Jesus with His disciples,\nthough not devoid of mysterious features, involved the absence of\nthe body of Jesus from the tomb and an intercourse (intermittent, it\nis true, but including physical proofs of the most definite kind)\nextending over a period of forty days. Nothing could possibly be\nmore directly contrary to what the current critical view regards as\nthe real account given in the primitive Jerusalem Church and by the\napostle Paul.\n\nYet on the basis of that modern critical view, Von Harnack and\nothers have maintained that the book in which so false an account is\ngiven of the origin of the Church was actually the work of a man of\nthe apostolic age. It is no wonder that Von Harnack's conclusions\nhave evoked an emphatic protest from other naturalistic historians.\nLuke was a close associate of Paul. Could he possibly have given an\naccount of things absolutely fundamental in Paul's gospel (1 Cor.\nxv. 1-8) which was so diametrically opposed to what Paul taught?\nHe was in Jerusalem in 58 A.D. or earlier, and during years of\nhis life was in close touch with Palestinian disciples. Could he\npossibly have given an account of the origin of the Jerusalem Church\nso totally at variance with the account which that church itself\nmaintained? These questions constitute a complete refutation of Von\nHarnack's view, when that view is taken as a whole. But they do not\nat all constitute a refutation of the conclusions of Von Harnack\nin the sphere of literary criticism. On the contrary, by showing\nhow inconsistent those conclusions are with other elements in the\nthinking of the investigator, they make only the more impressive\nthe strength of the argument which has overcome such obstacles.\nThe objection points out the antinomy which exists between the\nliterary criticism of Von Harnack and his naturalistic account of\nthe origin of Christianity. What that antinomy means is merely that\nthe testimony of Acts to the supernatural origin of Christianity,\nfar from being removed by literary criticism, is strongly supported\nby it. A companion of Paul could not have been egregiously mistaken\nabout the origin of the Church; but literary criticism establishes\nLuke-Acts as the work of a companion of Paul. Hence there is some\nreason for supposing that the account given in this book is\nessentially correct, and that the naturalistic reconstruction of the\norigin of Christianity must be abandoned.\n\nThe second objection to the Lucan authorship of Acts is based upon\nthe contradiction which is thought to exist between the Book of\nActs and the Epistles of Paul.[15] The way to test the value of a\nhistorical work, it is said, is to compare it with some recognized\nauthority. With regard to most of the narrative in Acts, no such\ncomparison is possible, since there is no account parallel to\nActs by which it may be tested. But in certain places the Book\nof Acts provides an account of events which are also narrated in\nthe isolated biographical parts of the Pauline Epistles--notably\nin the first two chapters of Galatians. Here at last is found the\nlong-sought opportunity for comparison. And the comparison, it is\nsaid, results unfavorably to the Book of Acts, which is found to\ncontradict the Epistle to the Galatians, not merely in details, but\nin the whole account which it gives of the relation between Paul\nand the Jerusalem Church. But if the Book of Acts fails to approve\nitself in the one place where it can be tested by comparison with\na recognized authority, the presumption is that it may be wrong\nelsewhere as well; in particular, it is quite impossible that a book\nwhich so completely misrepresents what happened at a most important\ncrisis of Paul's life could have been written by a close friend of\nthe apostle.\n\n  [15] For what follows, compare \"Jesus and Paul,\" in _Biblical and\n  Theological Studies_ by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton\n  Theological Seminary, 1912, pp. 553f.; \"Recent Criticism of the Book\n  of Acts,\" in _Princeton Theological Review_, xvii, 1919, pp. 593-597.\n\nThis argument was developed particularly by Baur and Zeller and\ntheir associates in the \"T\u00fcbingen School.\" According to Baur, the\nmajor epistles of Paul constitute the primary source of information\nabout the apostolic age; they should therefore be interpreted\nwithout reference to any other source. When they are so interpreted,\nthey show that the fundamental fact of apostolic history was a\nconflict between Paul on one side and the original apostles on the\nother. The conflict, Baur maintained further, is particularly plain\nin the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians, which emphasize\nthe complete independence of Paul with reference to the pillars\nof the Jerusalem Church, and his continued opposition to the\nefforts of Jewish Christians to bring the Gentiles into subjection\nto the Jewish Law--efforts which must have been supported to some\nextent by the attitude of the original apostles. This conflict,\nBaur supposed further, continued up to the middle of the second\ncentury; there was a Gentile Christian party appealing to Paul\nand a Jewish Christian party appealing to Peter. Finally however,\nBaur continued, a compromise was effected; the Pauline party gave\nup what was really most distinctive in the Pauline doctrine of\njustification, while the Petrine party relinquished the demand of\ncircumcision. The New Testament documents, according to Baur, are\nto be dated in accordance with the position that they assume in\nthe conflict; those documents which take sides--which are strongly\nanti-Pauline or strongly anti-Petrine--are to be placed early, while\nthose which display a tendency toward compromise are to be placed\nlate, at the time when the conflict was being settled. Such was the\n\"tendency-criticism\" of Baur. By that criticism the Book of Acts\nwas dated well on in the second century, because it was thought to\ndisplay a tendency toward compromise--an \"irenic tendency.\" This\ntendency, Baur supposed, manifested itself in the Book of Acts in\na deliberate falsification of history; in order to bring about\npeace between the Petrine and the Pauline parties in the Church,\nthe author of Acts attempted to show by a new account of the\napostolic age that Peter and Paul really were in perfect agreement.\nTo that end, in the Book of Acts, Paul is Petrinized, and Peter is\nPaulinized; the sturdy independence of Paul, which actually kept\nhim long away from Jerusalem after his conversion, gives place,\nin Acts, to a desire of contact with the Jerusalem Church, which\nbrought him early to Jerusalem and finally led him even to accept\nfor his Gentile converts, at the \"Apostolic Council,\" a portion of\nthe ceremonial law. Peter, on the other hand, is represented in Acts\nas giving expression at the Apostolic Council to Pauline sentiments\nabout the Law; and all through the book there is an elaborate and\nunhistorical parallelism between Peter and Paul.\n\nThe theory of Baur did not long maintain itself in its entirety.\nIt received a searching criticism particularly from A. Ritschl.\nThe conflict of the apostolic age, Ritschl pointed out, was not a\nconflict between Paul and the original apostles, but between all the\napostles (including both Paul and Peter) on the one side, and an\nextreme Judaizing party on the other; that conflict did not continue\nthroughout the second century; on the contrary, specifically Jewish\nChristianity soon ceased to be influential, and the legalistic\ncharacter of the Old Catholic Church of the end of the second\ncentury, in which Christianity was conceived of as a new law, was\ndue not to any compromise with the legalism of the Judaizers but to\na natural process of degeneration from Paulinism on purely Gentile\nChristian ground.\n\nThe T\u00fcbingen dating of the New Testament documents, moreover,\nhas been abandoned under a more thorough investigation of early\nChristian literature. A study of patristics soon rendered it\nimpossible to string out the New Testament books anywhere throughout\nthe second century in the interest of a plausible theory of\ndevelopment. External evidence has led to a much earlier dating\nof most of the books than Baur's theory required. The T\u00fcbingen\nestimate of the Book of Acts, in particular, has for the most\npart been modified; the book is dated much earlier, and it is no\nlonger thought to be a party document written in the interests of a\ndeliberate falsification of history.\n\nNevertheless, the criticism of Baur and Zeller, though no longer\naccepted as a whole, is still influential; the comparison of Acts\nand Galatians, particularly in that which concerns the Apostolic\nCouncil of Acts xv, is still often thought to result unfavorably\nto the Book of Acts. Even at this point, however, a more favorable\nestimate of Acts has been gaining ground. The cardinal principle\nof Baur, to the effect that the major epistles of Paul should be\ninterpreted entirely without reference to the Book of Acts, is being\ncalled in question. Such a method of interpretation, it may well be\nurged, is likely to result in one-sidedness. If the Book of Acts\ncommends itself at all as containing trustworthy information, it\nshould be allowed to cast light upon the Epistles. The account which\nPaul gives in Galatians is not so complete as to render superfluous\nany assistance which may be derived from an independent narrative.\nAnd as a matter of fact, no matter what principles of interpretation\nare held, the Book of Acts simply must be used in interpreting\nthe Epistles; without the outline given in Acts the Epistles would\nbe unintelligible.[16] Perhaps it may turn out, therefore, that\nBaur produced his imposing reconstruction of the apostolic age\nby neglecting all sources except Galatians and the Corinthian\nEpistles--and then by misinterpreting these.\n\n  [16] J. Weiss, _Urchristentum_, 1914, p. 107: \"It is simply\n  impossible for us to erase it [the Book of Acts] so completely from\n  our memory as to read the Epistle to the Galatians as though we had\n  never known Acts; without the Book of Acts we should simply not be\n  able to understand Galatians at all.\"\n\nThe comparison of Acts and the Pauline Epistles will be reserved\nfor the chapters that deal with the outline of Paul's life. It will\nthere be necessary to deal with the vexed question of the Apostolic\nCouncil. The question is vital for the present discussion; for if it\ncan really be shown that Paul was in fundamental disagreement with\nthe intimate friends of Jesus of Nazareth, then the way is opened\nfor supposing that he was in disagreement with Jesus Himself. The\nquestion raised by Baur with regard to the Book of Acts has a most\nimportant bearing upon the question of the origin of Paulinism.\n\nAll that can now be done, however, is to point out that the tendency\nat the present time is toward a higher and higher estimate of\nthe Book of Acts. A more careful study of the Pauline Epistles\nthemselves is exhibiting elements in Paul's thinking which justify\nmore and more clearly the account which the Book of Acts gives of\nthe relations of Paul to Judaism and to Jewish Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE EARLY YEARS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE EARLY YEARS\n\n\nBefore examining the various hypotheses which have been advanced to\naccount for the origin of Paulinism, the investigator must consider\nfirst the outline of Paul's life, at least so far as the formative\nyears are concerned. Paulinism has been explained by the influence\nupon Paul of various features of his environment. It is important,\ntherefore, to determine at what points Paul came into contact with\nhis environment. What, in view of the outline of his life, were his\nprobable opportunities for acquainting himself with the historical\nJesus and with the primitive Jerusalem Church? Whence did he\nderive his Judaism? Where, if at all, could he naturally have been\ninfluenced by contemporary paganism? Such questions, it is hoped,\nmay be answered by the two following chapters.\n\nIn these chapters, the outline of Paul's life will be considered not\nfor its own sake, but merely for the light that it may shed upon the\norigin of his thought and experience. Many questions, therefore, may\nbe ignored. For example, it would here be entirely aside from the\npoint to discuss such intricate matters as the history of Paul's\njourneys to Corinth attested by the Corinthian Epistles. The present\ndiscussion is concerned only with those events in the life of Paul\nwhich determined the nature of his contact with the surrounding\nworld, both Jewish and pagan, and particularly the nature of his\ncontact with Jesus and the earliest disciples of Jesus.\n\nPaul was born at Tarsus, the chief city of Cilicia. This fact is\nattested only by the Book of Acts, and formerly it did not escape\nunchallenged. It was called in question, for example, in 1890 by\nKrenkel, in an elaborate argument.[17] But Krenkel's argument is\nnow completely antiquated, not merely because of the rising credit\nof the Book of Acts, but also because the birth of Paul in a Greek\ncity like Tarsus is in harmony with modern reconstructions. Krenkel\nargued, for example, that the apostle shows little acquaintance\nwith Greek culture, and therefore could not have spent his youth\nin a Greek university city. Such assertions appear very strange\nto-day. Recent philological investigation of the Pauline Epistles\nhas proved that the author uses the Greek language in such masterly\nfashion that he must have become familiar with it very early in\nlife; the language of the Epistles is certainly no Jewish-Greek\njargon. With regard to the origin of the ideas, also, the tendency\nof recent criticism is directly contrary to Krenkel; Paulinism is\nnow often explained as being based either upon paganism or else upon\na Hellenized Judaism. To such reconstructions it is a highly welcome\npiece of information when the Book of Acts makes Paul a native not\nof Jerusalem but of Tarsus. The author of Acts, it is said, is here\npreserving a bit of genuine tradition, which is the more trustworthy\nbecause it runs counter to the tendency, thought to be otherwise\nin evidence in Acts, which brings Paul into the closest possible\nrelation to Palestine. Thus, whether for good or for bad reasons,\nthe birth of Paul in Tarsus is now universally accepted, and does\nnot require defense.\n\n  [17] Krenkel, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe\n  des Apostels Paulus_, 1890, pp. 1-17.\n\nA very interesting tradition preserved by Jerome does indeed make\nPaul a native of Gischala in Galilee; but no one to-day would be\ninclined to follow Krenkel in giving credence to Jerome rather\nthan to Acts. The Gischala tradition does not look like a pure\nfiction, but it is evident that Jerome has at any rate exercised\nhis peculiar talent for bringing things into confusion. Zahn[18]\nhas suggested, with considerable plausibility, that the shorter\nreference to Gischala in the treatise \"De viris illustribus\"[19] is\na confused abridgment of the longer reference in the \"Commentary on\nPhilemon.\"[20] The latter passage asserts not that Paul himself but\nonly that the parents of Paul came from Gischala. That assertion may\npossibly be correct. It would explain the Aramaic and Palestinian\ntradition which undoubtedly was preserved in the boyhood home of\nPaul.\n\n  [18] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, 3te Aufl., i, 1906, pp.\n  48-50 (English Translation, _Introduction to the New Testament_, 2nd\n  ed., 1909, i, pp. 68-70).\n\n  [19] _De vir. ill._ 5 (ed. Vall. ii, 836).\n\n  [20] _Comm. in Philem._ 23 (ed. Vall. vii, 762).\n\nTarsus was an important city. Its commercial importance, though\nof course inferior to that of places like Antioch or Corinth, was\nconsiderable; and it was also well known as a center of intellectual\nlife. Although the dramatic possibilities of representing the\nfuture Christian missionary growing up unknown under the shadow of\na Greek university may sometimes have led to an exaggeration of the\nacademic fame of Tarsus, still it remains true that Tarsus was a\nreal university city, and could boast of great names like that of\nAthenodorus, the Stoic philosopher, and others. The life of Tarsus\nhas recently been made the subject of two elaborate monographs,\nby Ramsay[21] and by B\u00f6hlig,[22] who have collected a mass of\ninformation about the birthplace of Paul. The nature of the pagan\nreligious atmosphere which surrounded the future apostle is of\npeculiar interest; but the amount of direct information which has\ncome down to us should not be exaggerated.\n\n  [21] _The Cities of St. Paul_, 1908, pp. 85-244.\n\n  [22] _Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos_, 1913.\n\nThe social position of Paul's family in Tarsus must not be regarded\nas very humble; for according to the Book of Acts not only Paul\nhimself, but his father before him, possessed the Roman citizenship,\nwhich in the provinces was still in the first century a highly\nprized privilege from which the great masses of the people were\nexcluded. The Roman citizenship of Paul is not attested by the\nPauline Epistles, but the representation of Acts is at this point\nuniversally, or almost universally, accepted. Only one objection\nmight be urged against it. If Paul was a Roman citizen, how could he\nhave been subjected three times to the Roman punishment of beating\nwith rods (2 Cor. xi. 25), from which citizens were exempted by\nlaw? The difficulty is not insuperable. Paul may on some occasions\nhave been unwilling to appeal to a privilege which separated\nhim from his Jewish countrymen; or he may have wanted to avoid\nthe delay which an appeal to his privilege, with the subsequent\ninvestigation and trial, might have caused. At any rate, the\ndifficulty, whether easily removable or not, is quite inadequate\nto overthrow the abundant evidence for the fact of Paul's Roman\ncitizenship. That fact is absolutely necessary to account for the\nentire representation which the Book of Acts gives of the journey\nof Paul as a prisoner to Rome, which representation, it will be\nremembered, is contained in the we-sections. The whole account of\nthe relation between Paul and Roman authorities, which is contained\nin the Pauline Epistles, the Book of Acts, and trustworthy Christian\ntradition, is explicable only if Paul possessed the rights of\ncitizenship.[23]\n\n  [23] Compare Mommsen, \"Die Rechtsverh\u00e4ltnisse des Apostels Paulus,\"\n  in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ii, 1901,\n  pp. 88-96.\n\nBirth in a Greek university city and Roman citizenship constitute\nthe two facts which bring Paul into early connection with the larger\nGentile world of his day. Other facts, equally well-attested,\nseparate him just as clearly from the Gentile world and represent\nhim as being from childhood a strict Jew. These facts might have\nbeen called in question, in view of the present tendency of\ncriticism, if they had been attested only by the Book of Acts. But\nfortunately it is just these facts which are attested also by the\nepistles of Paul.\n\nIn 2 Cor. xi. 22, Paul is declared to be a \"Hebrew,\" and in Phil.\niii. 5 he appears as a \"Hebrew of Hebrews.\" The word \"Hebrew\"\nin these passages cannot indicate merely Israelitish descent or\ngeneral adherence to the Jews' religion. If it did so it would be a\nmeaningless repetition of the other terms used in the same passages.\nObviously it is used in some narrower sense. The key to its meaning\nis found in Acts vi. 1, where, within Judaism, the \"Hellenists\"\nare distinguished from the \"Hebrews,\" the Hellenists being the\nJews of the Dispersion who spoke Greek, and the Hebrews the Jews\nof Palestine who spoke Aramaic. In Phil. iii. 5, therefore, Paul\ndeclares that he was an Aramaic-speaking Jew and descended from\nAramaic-speaking Jews; Aramaic was used in his boyhood home, and the\nPalestinian tradition was preserved. This testimony is not contrary\nto what was said above about Paul's use of the Greek language--not\nimprobably Paul used both Aramaic and Greek in childhood--but it\ndoes contradict all those modern representations which make Paul\nfundamentally a Jew of the Dispersion. Though he was born in Tarsus,\nhe was, in the essential character of his family tradition, a Jew of\nPalestine.\n\nEven more important is the assertion, found in the same verse\nin Philippians, that Paul was \"as touching the law a Pharisee.\"\nConceivably, indeed, it might be argued that his Pharisaism was not\nderived from his boyhood home, but was acquired later. But surely\nit requires no excessively favorable estimate of Acts to give\ncredence to the assertion in Acts xxiii. 6 that Paul was not only a\nPharisee but the \"son of Pharisees\"; and it is exceedingly unlikely\nthat this phrase refers, as Lightfoot[24] suggested, to teachers\nrather than to ancestors. For when Paul says in Gal. i. 14 that he\nadvanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of his contemporaries,\nbeing more exceedingly zealous for his paternal traditions, it\nis surely natural, whatever interpretation may be given to the\nword \"paternal,\" to find a reference to the Pharisaic traditions\ncultivated in his boyhood home.\n\n  [24] On Phil. iii. 5.\n\nThere is not the slightest evidence, therefore, for supposing that\nPaul spent his early years in an atmosphere of \"liberal Judaism\"--a\nJudaism really though unconsciously hospitable to pagan notions and\npredisposed to relax the strict requirements of the Law and break\ndown the barrier that separated Israel from the Gentile world.\nWhether such a liberal Judaism even existed in Tarsus we do not\nknow. At any rate, if it did exist, the household of Paul's father\nwas not in sympathy with it. Surely the definite testimony of Paul\nhimself is here worth more than all modern conjectures. And Paul\nhimself declares that he was in language and in spirit a Jew of\nPalestine rather than of the Dispersion, and as touching the Law a\nPharisee.\n\nAccording to the Book of Acts, Paul went at an early age to\nJerusalem, received instruction there from Gamaliel, the famous\nrabbi, and finally, just before his conversion, persecuted the\nJerusalem Church (Acts xxii. 3; vii. 58-viii. 1; ix. 1, etc.). In\nrecent years, this entire representation has been questioned. It has\nbeen maintained by Mommsen,[25] Bousset[26], Heitm\u00fcller,[27] and\nLoisy[28] that Paul never was in Jerusalem before his conversion.\nThat he persecuted the Church is, of course, attested unequivocally\nby his own Epistles, but the persecution, it is said, really took\nplace only in such cities as Damascus, and not at all in Palestine.\n\n  [25] _Op. cit._, pp. 85f.\n\n  [26] _Kyrios Christos_, 1913, p. 92. Bousset's doubt with regard to\n  the early Jerusalem residence of Paul extended, explicitly at least,\n  only to the persecution in Jerusalem, and it was a doubt merely, not\n  a positive denial. In his supplementary work he has admitted that\n  his doubt was unjustified (_Jesus der Herr_, 1916, p. 31).\n\n  [27] \"Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus,\" in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die\n  neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiii, 1912, pp. 320-337.\n\n  [28] _L'\u00e9pitre aux Galates_, 1916, pp. 68-73; _Les myst\u00e8res pa\u00efens\n  et le myst\u00e8re chr\u00e9tien_, 1919, pp. 317-320.\n\nThis elimination of the early residence of Paul in Jerusalem is no\nmere by-product of a generally skeptical attitude toward the Book\nof Acts, but is important for the entire reconstruction of early\nChristian history which Bousset and Heitm\u00fcller and Loisy propose;\nit is made to assist in explaining the origin of the Pauline\nChristology. Paul regarded Jesus Christ as a supernatural person,\ncome to earth for the redemption of men; and toward this divine\nChrist he assumed a distinctly religious attitude. How could he\nhave formed such a conception of a human being who had died but a\nfew years before? If he had been separated from Jesus by several\ngenerations, so that the nimbus of distance and mystery would have\nhad time to form about the figure of the Galilean prophet, then his\nlofty conception of Jesus might be explained. But as a matter of\nfact he was actually a contemporary of the Jesus whose simple human\ntraits he obscured. How could the \"smell of earth\" have been so\ncompletely removed from the figure of the Galilean teacher that He\ncould actually be regarded by one of His contemporaries as a divine\nRedeemer? The question could perhaps be more easily answered if\nPaul, before his lofty conception of Christ was fully formed, never\ncame into any connection with those who had seen Jesus subject to\nthe petty limitations of human life. Thus the elimination of the\nearly Jerusalem residence of Paul, by putting a geographical if\nnot a temporal gulf between Jesus and Paul, is thought to make the\nformation of the Pauline Christology more comprehensible. Peter and\nthe original disciples, it is thought, never could have separated\nJesus so completely from the limitations of ordinary humanity; the\nsimple memory of Galilean days would in their case have been an\neffective barrier against Christological speculation. But Paul was\nsubject to no such limitation; having lived far away from Palestine,\nin the company, for the most part, of those who like himself had\nnever seen Jesus, he was free to transpose to the Galilean teacher\nattributes which to those who had known the real Jesus would have\nseemed excessive or absurd.\n\nBefore examining the grounds upon which this elimination of Paul's\nearly Jerusalem residence is based, it may first be observed that\neven such heroic measures do not really bring about the desired\nresult; even this radical rewriting of the story of Paul's boyhood\nand youth will not serve to explain on naturalistic principles the\norigin of the Pauline Christology. Even if before his conversion\nPaul got no nearer to Jerusalem than Damascus, it still remains\ntrue that after his conversion he conferred with Peter and lived in\nmore or less extended intercourse with Palestinian disciples. The\ntotal lack of any evidence of a conflict between the Christology of\nPaul and the views of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of\nNazareth remains, for any naturalistic reconstruction, a puzzling\nfact. Even without the early Jerusalem residence, Paul remains too\nnear to Jesus both temporally and geographically to have formed\na conception of Him entirely without reference to the historical\nperson. Even with their radical treatment of the Book of Acts,\ntherefore, Bousset and Heitm\u00fcller have not succeeded at all in\nexplaining how the Pauline Christology ever came to be attached to\nthe Galilean prophet.\n\nBut is the elimination of the early Jerusalem residence of Paul\nhistorically justifiable? Mere congruity with a plausible theory\nof development will not serve to justify it. For the Jerusalem\nresidence is strongly attested by the Book of Acts. The testimony\nof Acts can no longer be ruled out except for very weighty reasons;\nthe history of recent criticism has on the whole exhibited the\nrise of a more and more favorable estimate of the book. And in the\ncase of the early Jerusalem residence of Paul the testimony is so\ninsistent and so closely connected with lifelike details that the\ndiscrediting of it involves an exceedingly radical skepticism. The\npresence of Paul at the stoning of Stephen is narrated in the Book\nof Acts in a concrete way which bears every mark of trustworthiness;\nthe connection of Paul with Gamaliel is what might have been\nexpected in view of the self-testimony of the apostle; the account\nof Paul's vision in the Temple (Acts xxii. 17-21) is based, in a\nmanner which is psychologically very natural, upon the fact of\nPaul's persecuting activity in Jerusalem; the presence of Paul's\nsister's son in Jerusalem, attested in a part of the narrative of\nwhich the essential historicity must be universally admitted (Acts\nxxiii. 16-22), suggests that family connections may have facilitated\nPaul's residence in the city. Finally, the geographical details of\nthe three narratives of the conversion, which place the event on a\njourney of Paul from Jerusalem to Damascus, certainly look as though\nthey were founded upon genuine tradition. One of the details--the\nplace of the conversion itself--is confirmed in a purely incidental\nway by the Epistle to the Galatians, and the reader has the\nimpression that if Paul had happened to introduce other details\nin the Epistles the rest of the narrative in Acts would have been\nsimilarly confirmed. Except for Paul's incidental reference to\nDamascus in Gal. i. 17, the conversion might have been put by\nHeitm\u00fcller and others in a place even more conveniently remote than\nDamascus from the scene of Jesus' earthly labors. But the incidental\nconfirmation of Acts at this point raises a distinct presumption in\nfavor of the account as a whole. The main trend of modern criticism\nhas been favorable on the whole to the tradition embodied in the\naccounts of the conversion; it is a very extreme form of skepticism\nwhich rejects the whole framework of the tradition by eliminating\nthe journey from Jerusalem to Damascus.\n\nEnough has been said to show that the early Jerusalem residence of\nPaul stood absolutely firm in the tradition used by the author of\nActs; the author has taken it as a matter of course and woven it in\nwith his narrative at many points. Such a tradition certainly cannot\nbe lightly rejected; the burden of proof clearly rests upon those\nwho would deny its truthworthiness.\n\nThe only definite proof which is forthcoming is found in Gal. i.\n22, where Paul says that after his departure for Syria and Cilicia,\nthree years after his conversion, he was \"unknown by face to the\nchurches of Jud\u00e6a which are in Christ.\" If he had engaged in active\npersecution of those churches, it is argued, how could he have been\npersonally unknown to them?\n\nBy this argument a tremendous weight is hung upon one verse. And,\nrightly interpreted, the verse will not bear the weight at all. In\nGal. i. 22, Paul is not speaking so much of what took place before\nthe departure for Syria and Cilicia, as of the condition which\nprevailed at the time of that departure and during the immediately\nensuing period; he is simply drawing attention to the significance\nfor his argument of the departure from Jerusalem. Certainly he would\nnot have been able to speak as he does if before he left Jerusalem\nhe had had extended intercourse with the Jud\u00e6an churches, but when\nhe says that the knowledge of the Jud\u00e6an churches about him in the\nperiod just succeeding his departure from Jerusalem was a hearsay\nknowledge merely, it would have been pedantic for him to think about\nthe question whether some of the members of those churches had or\nhad not seen him years before as a persecutor.\n\nFurthermore, it is by no means clear that the word \"Jud\u00e6a\" in Gal.\ni. 22 includes Jerusalem at all. In Mark iii. 7, 8, for example,\n\"Jerusalem\" is clearly not included in \"Jud\u00e6a,\" but is distinguished\nfrom it; \"Jud\u00e6a\" means the country outside of the capital. It may\nwell be so also in Gal. i. 22; and if so, then the verse does not\nexclude a personal acquaintance of Paul with the Jerusalem Church.\nBut even if \"Jud\u00e6a\" is not used so as to exclude the capital,\nstill Paul's words would be natural enough. That the Jerusalem\nChurch formed an exception to the general assertion was suggested\nby the account of the visit in Jerusalem immediately preceding,\nand was probably well known to his Galatian readers. All that Paul\nmeans is that he went away to Syria and Cilicia without becoming\nacquainted generally with the churches of Jud\u00e6a. It is indeed often\nsaid that since the whole point of Paul's argument in Galatians\nwas to show his lack of contact with the pillars of the Jerusalem\nChurch, his acquaintance or lack of acquaintance with the churches\nof Jud\u00e6a outside of Jerusalem was unworthy of mention, so that he\nmust at least be including Jerusalem when he speaks of Jud\u00e6a. But\nthis argument is not decisive. If, as is altogether probable, the\napostles except Peter were out of the city at the time of Paul's\nvisit, and were engaging in missionary work in Jud\u00e6an churches, then\nacquaintance with the Jud\u00e6an churches would have meant intercourse\nwith the apostles, so that it was very much to the point for Paul\nto deny that he had had such acquaintance. Of course, this whole\nargument against the early Jerusalem residence of Paul, based on\nGal. i. 22, involves a rejection of the account which the Book of\nActs gives of the visit of Paul to Jerusalem three years after his\nconversion. If Gal. i. 22 means that Paul was unknown by sight to\nthe Jerusalem Church, then he could not have gone in and out among\nthe disciples at Jerusalem as Acts ix. 28 represents, but must\nhave been in strict hiding when he was in the city. Such is the\naccount of the matter which is widely prevalent in recent years.\nNot even so much correction of Acts is at all required by a correct\nunderstanding of Gal. i. 22. But it is a still more unjustifiable\nuse of that verse when it is made to exclude even the persecuting\nactivity of Paul in Jerusalem.\n\nIf, however, the words of Galatians are really to be taken in the\nstrictest and most literal sense, what is to be done with Gal.\ni. 23, where (immediately after the words which have just been\ndiscussed) Paul says that the churches of Jud\u00e6a were receiving\nthe report, \"He that persecuted us formerly is now preaching as\na gospel the faith which formerly he laid waste\"? What is meant\nby the pronoun \"us\" in this verse? Conceivably it might be taken\nin a broad sense, as referring to all disciples wherever found;\nconceivably, therefore, the persecution referred to by the Jud\u00e6an\ndisciples might be persecution of their brethren in the faith in\nTarsus or Damascus. But that is not the kind of interpretation\nwhich has just been applied to the preceding verse, and upon which\nsuch a vast structure has been reared. It may well be urged against\nHeitm\u00fcller and those like him that if Paul's words are to be taken\nso strictly in one verse they should be taken in the same way in the\nother; if the \"Jud\u00e6a\" and \"unknown by face\" of verse 22 are to be\ntaken so strictly, then the \"us\" of verse 23 should also be taken\nstrictly, and in that case Paul is made to contradict himself, which\nof course is absurd. Verse 23 certainly does not fully confirm the\nrepresentation of Acts about the persecuting activity of Paul in\nJud\u00e6a, but at any rate it tends to confirm that representation at\nleast as strongly as verse 22 tends to discredit it.[29]\n\n  [29] Compare Wellhausen, _Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte_,\n  1914, p. 16.\n\nThus the early Jerusalem residence of Paul is strongly attested\nby the Book of Acts, and is thoroughly in harmony with everything\nthat Paul says about his Pharisaic past. It is not surprising that\nBousset has now receded from his original position and admits\nthat Paul was in Jerusalem before his conversion and engaged in\npersecution of the Jerusalem Church.\n\nThat admission does not necessarily carry with it an acceptance of\nall that the Book of Acts says about the Jerusalem period in Paul's\nlife, particularly all that it says about his having been a disciple\nof Gamaliel. But the decisive point has been gained. If the entire\naccount of the early Jerusalem residence of Paul is not ruled out\nby the testimony of his own Epistles, then there is at least no\ndecisive objection against the testimony of Acts with regard to the\ndetails. Certainly the common opinion to the effect that Paul went\nto Jerusalem to receive rabbinical training is admirably in accord\nwith everything that he says in his Epistles about his zeal for the\nLaw. It is also in accord with his habits of thought and expression,\nwhich were transformed and glorified, rather than destroyed, by\nhis Christian experience. The decision about every detail of\ncourse depends ultimately upon the particular conclusion which the\ninvestigator may have reached with regard to the Book of Acts. If\nthat book was written by a companion of Paul--an opinion which is\ngaining ground even in circles which were formerly hostile--then\nthere is every reason to suppose that Paul was brought up in\nJerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 3). Some important\nquestions indeed still remain unanswered, even with full acceptance\nof the Lucan testimony. It can never be determined, for example, at\nexactly what age Paul went to Jerusalem. The words, \"brought up in\nthis city,\" in Acts xxii. 3 might seem to suggest that Paul went to\nJerusalem in early childhood, in which case his birthplace would\nbe of comparatively little importance in his preparation for his\nlifework, and all the elaborate investigations of Tarsus, so far as\nthey are intended to shed light upon the environment of the apostle\nin his formative years, would become valueless. But the Greek word\n\"brought up\" or \"nourished\" might be used figuratively in a somewhat\nflexible way; it remains, therefore, perfectly possible that Paul's\nJerusalem training began, not in childhood, but in early youth.\nAt any rate, an early residence in Jerusalem is not excluded by\nthe masterly way in which the apostle uses the Greek language. It\nmust always be remembered that Palestine in the first century was\na bilingual country;[30] the presence of hosts of Greek-speaking\nJews even in Jerusalem is amply attested, for example, by the early\nchapters of Acts. Moreover, even after Paul's Jerusalem studies had\nbegun, his connection with Tarsus need not have been broken off. The\ndistance between the two cities was considerable (some four or five\nhundred miles), but travel in those days was safe and easy. A period\nof training in Jerusalem may have been followed by a long residence\nat Tarsus.\n\n  [30] See Zahn, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, 3te Aufl., i,\n  1906, pp. 24-32, 39-47 (English Translation, _Introduction to the\n  New Testament_, 2nd Ed., 1917, i, pp. 34-46, 57-66).\n\nAt this point, an interesting question arises, which, however, can\nnever be answered with any certainty. Did Paul ever see Jesus before\nthe crucifixion? In the light of what has just been established\nabout the outline of Paul's life, an affirmative answer might seem\nto be natural. Paul was in Jerusalem both before and after the\npublic ministry of Jesus--before it when he was being \"brought up\"\nin Jerusalem, and after it when he was engaged in persecution of the\nJerusalem Church. Where was he during the interval? Where was he on\nthose occasions when Jesus visited Jerusalem--especially at the time\nof that last Passover? If he was in Jerusalem, it seems probable\nthat he would have seen the great prophet, whose coming caused such\na stir among the people. And that he was in the city at Passover\ntime would seem natural in view of his devotion to the Law. But the\nmatter is by no means certain. He may have returned to Tarsus, in\nthe manner which has just been suggested.\n\nThe question could only be decided on the basis of actual testimony\neither in Acts or in the Epistles. One verse has often been thought\nto provide such testimony. In 2 Cor. v. 16, Paul says, \"Even if\nwe have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no\nlonger.\" Knowledge of Christ after the flesh can only mean, it is\nsaid, knowledge of Him by the ordinary use of the senses, in the\nmanner in which one man in ordinary human intercourse knows another.\nThat kind of knowledge, Paul says, has ceased to have significance\nfor the Christian in his relation to other men; it has also ceased\nto have significance for him in his relation to Christ. But it is\nthat kind of knowledge which Paul seems to predicate of himself,\nas having existed in a previous period of his life. He does not\nuse the unreal form of condition; he does not say, \"Even if we had\nknown Christ after the flesh (though as a matter of fact we never\nknew Him so at all), yet now we should know Him so no longer.\"\nApparently, then, when he says \"if\" he means \"although\"; he means to\nsay, \"Although we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know\nHim so no longer.\" The knowledge of Christ after the flesh is thus\nput as an actual fact in Paul's experience, and that can only mean\nthat he knew Him in the way in which His contemporaries knew Him\nin Galilee and in Jerusalem, a way which in itself, Paul says, was\naltogether without spiritual significance.\n\nOne objection to this interpretation of the passage is that it\nproves too much. If it means anything, it means that Paul had\nextended personal acquaintance with Jesus before the crucifixion;\nfor if Paul merely saw Him for a few moments--for example, when the\ncrowds were surging about Him at the time of the last Passover--he\ncould hardly be said to have \"known\" Him. But, for obvious reasons,\nany extended intercourse between Paul and Jesus in Palestine is\nexceedingly improbable. It is natural, therefore, to look for some\nother interpretation.\n\nOther interpretations undoubtedly are possible. Some of the\ninterpretations that have been proposed must indeed be eliminated.\nFor example, Paul cannot possibly be contrasting a former immature\nstage of his Christian experience with the present mature stage;\nhe cannot possibly mean, \"Even if in the first period after my\nconversion I had a low view of Christ, which made of Him merely\nthe son of David and the Jewish Messiah, yet now I have come to a\nhigher conception of His divine nature.\" For the whole point of\nthe passage is found in the sharp break which comes in a man's\nexperience when he appropriates the death and resurrection of\nChrist. Any consciousness of a subsequent revolution in the thinking\nof the Christian is not only unsupported anywhere in the Pauline\nEpistles, but is absolutely excluded by the present passage. Another\ninterpretation also must be eliminated. Paul cannot possibly be\ncontrasting his pre-Christian notions about the Messiah with the\nhigher knowledge which came to him with his conversion; he cannot\npossibly mean, \"Even if before I knew the fulfillment of the\nMessianic promise I cherished carnal notions of what the Messiah\nwas to be, even if I thought of Him merely as an earthly ruler who\nwas to conquer the enemies of Israel, yet now I have come to have a\nloftier, more spiritual conception of Him.\" For the word \"Christ,\"\nespecially without the article, can hardly here be anything\nother than a proper name, and must refer not to the conception\nof Messiahship but to the concrete person of Jesus. But another\ninterpretation remains. The key to it is found in the flexible use\nof the first person plural in the Pauline Epistles. Undoubtedly, the\n\"we\" of the whole passage in which 2 Cor. v. 16 is contained refers\nprimarily to Paul himself. But, especially in 2 Cor. v. 16, it may\ninclude also all true ambassadors for Christ whose principles are\nthe same as Paul's. Among such true ambassadors there were no doubt\nto be found some who had known Christ by way of ordinary intercourse\nin Palestine. \"But,\" says Paul, \"even if some of us have known\nChrist in that way, we know him so no longer.\" This interpretation\nis linguistically more satisfactory, perhaps, than that which\nexplains the sentence as simply a more vivid way of presenting a\ncondition contrary to fact. \"Granted,\" Paul would say according to\nthis interpretation, \"even that we have known Christ according to\nthe flesh (which as a matter of fact we have not), yet now we know\nhim so no longer.\" But our interpretation really amounts to almost\nthe same thing so far as Paul is concerned. At any rate, the passage\nis not so clear as to justify any certain conclusions about Paul's\nlife in Palestine; it does not clearly imply any acquaintance of\nPaul with Jesus before the passion.\n\nIf such acquaintance is to be established, therefore, it must be\nestablished on the basis of other evidence. J. Weiss[31] seeks to\nestablish it by the very fact of Paul's conversion. Paul, Weiss\nbelieves, saw a vision of the risen Christ. How did he know that the\nfigure which appeared to him in the vision was Jesus? Why did he not\nthink, for example, merely that it was the Messiah, who according\nto one strain of Jewish Messianic expectation was already existent\nin heaven? Apparently he recognized the person who appeared to him\nas Jesus of Nazareth. But how could he have recognized Him as Jesus\nunless he had seen Jesus before?\n\n  [31] _Paulus und Jesus_, 1909, pp. 22, 23. Compare Ramsay, _The\n  Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day_, 1914, pp. 21-30.\n\nThis argument depends, of course, altogether upon the naturalistic\nconception of the conversion of Paul, which regards the experience\nas an hallucination. In the account of the conversion given in the\nBook of Acts, on the contrary, it is distinctly said that far from\nrecognizing the person who appeared to him, Paul was obliged to ask\nthe question, \"Who art thou, Lord?\" and then received the answer,\n\"I am Jesus.\" Such a conversation between Paul and the One who\nappeared to him is perfectly possible if there was a real appearance\nof the risen Christ, but it exceeds the ordinary limits of\nhallucinations. Weiss has therefore merely pointed out an additional\npsychological difficulty in explaining the experience of Paul as\nan hallucination, a difficulty which, on naturalistic principles,\nmay have to be removed by the assumption that Paul had seen Jesus\nbefore the passion. But if Jesus really appeared to Paul in such a\nway as to be able to answer his questions, then it is not necessary\nto suppose that Paul recognized Him. The failure of Paul to\nrecognize Jesus (according to the narrative in Acts) does not indeed\npositively exclude such previous acquaintance; the two disciples on\nthe road to Emmaus, for example, also failed to recognize the Lord,\nthough they had been acquainted with Him before. But, at any rate,\nif the supernaturalistic view of Paul's conversion be accepted,\nthe experience sheds no light whatever upon any previous personal\nacquaintance with Jesus.\n\nThus there is no clear evidence for supposing that Paul saw Jesus\nbefore the passion. At the same time there is no evidence to the\ncontrary, except the evidence that is to be found in the silence of\nthe Epistles.\n\nThe argument from silence, precarious as it is, must here be\nallowed a certain amount of weight. If Paul had seen Jesus before\nthe crucifixion, would not so important a fact have been mentioned\nsomewhere in the Epistles? The matter is by no means absolutely\nclear; a brief glimpse of Jesus in the days of His flesh would\nperhaps not have seemed so important to Paul, in view of the richer\nknowledge which came afterwards, as it would seem to us. The silence\nof the Epistles does, however, render improbable any extended\ncontact between Paul and Jesus, particularly any active opposition\nof the youthful Paul toward Jesus. Paul was deeply penitent for\nhaving persecuted the Church; if he had committed the more terrible\nsin of having helped bring the Lord Himself to the shameful cross,\nthe fact would naturally have appeared in his expressions of\npenitence. Even if Paul did see Jesus in Palestine, then, it is\nhighly improbable that he was one of those who cried out to Pilate,\n\"Crucify him, crucify him!\"\n\nOne thing, however, is certain. If Paul never saw Jesus in\nPalestine, he certainly heard about Him. The ministry of Jesus\ncaused considerable stir both in Galilee and in Jerusalem. These\nthings were not done in a corner. The appearance of Jesus at the\nlast Passover aroused the passions of the multitude, and evidently\ncaused the deepest concern to the authorities. Even one who was\nindifferent to the whole matter could hardly have helped learning\nsomething of the content of Jesus' teaching, and the main outline\nof the story of His death. But Paul, at least at a time only a very\nfew years after the crucifixion, was not indifferent; for he was an\nactive persecutor. If he was in Palestine at all during the previous\nperiod, his interest probably began then. The outlines of Jesus'\nlife and death were known to friend and foe alike, and certainly\nwere not unknown to Paul before his conversion, at the time when he\nwas persecuting the Church. It is only a woeful lack of historical\nimagination which can attribute to Paul, even before his conversion,\na total ignorance of the earthly life of Jesus.\n\nThe opposite error, however, is even more serious. If Paul before\nhis conversion was not totally ignorant of Jesus, on the other\nhand his knowledge only increased his opposition to Jesus and\nJesus' followers. It is not true that before the conversion Paul\nwas gradually coming nearer to Christianity. Against any such\nsupposition stands the explicit testimony of the Epistles.\n\nDespite that testimony, various attempts have been made to trace\na psychological development in Paul which could have led to the\nconversion. Paul was converted through a vision of the risen\nChrist. According to the supernaturalistic view that vision was a\n\"vision,\" not in any specialized meaning of the word, but in its\noriginal etymological meaning; Paul actually \"saw\" the risen Lord.\nAccording to the modern naturalistic view, which rejects any direct\ncreative interposition of God in the course of nature, different in\nkind from His works of providence, the vision was produced by the\ninternal condition of the subject, accompanied perhaps by favorable\nconditions without--the heat of the sun or a thunder storm or the\nlike. But was the condition of the subject, in the case of Paul,\nreally favorable to a vision of the risen Christ? If the vision\nof Christ was an hallucination, as it is held to be by modern\nnaturalistic historians, how may the genesis of this pathological\nexperience be explained?\n\nIn the first place, a certain basis for the experience is sought in\nthe physical organism of the subject. According to the Epistles,\nit is said, the apostle was subject to a recurrent malady; this\nmalady is spoken of in 2 Cor. xii. 1-8 in connection with visions\nand revelations. In Gal. iv. 14, where it is said that the\nGalatians did not \"spit out\" when the apostle was with them, an\nallusion is sometimes discovered to the ancient custom of spitting\nto avoid contagion. A combination of this passage with the one in\n2 Corinthians is thought to establish a diagnosis of epilepsy, the\neffort being made to show that \"spitting out\" was particularly\nprevalent in the case of that disease. The visions then become an\nadditional symptom of the epileptic seizures.[32]\n\n  [32] See Krenkel, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der\n  Briefe des Apostels Paulus_, 1890, pp. 47-125.\n\nBut the diagnosis rests upon totally insufficient data. The visions\nare not regarded in 2 Corinthians as part of the buffetings of\nthe angel of Satan; on the contrary, the two things are sharply\nseparated in Paul's mind; he rejoices in the visions, but prays\nthe Lord that the buffetings may cease. It is not even said that\nthe visions and the buffetings came close together; there is no\nreal basis for the view that the buffetings consisted in nervous\nexhaustion following the visions. In Gal. iv. 14, the \"spitting\nout\" is probably to be taken figuratively, and the object is \"your\ntemptation in my flesh.\" The meaning then is simply, \"You did\nnot reject me or spue me out\"; and there is no allusion to the\ncustom of \"spitting out\" for the purpose of avoiding contagion. It\nis unnecessary, therefore, to examine the elaborate argument of\nKrenkel by which he sought to show that epilepsy was particularly\nthe disease against which spitting was practised as a prophylactic\nmeasure.\n\nThere is therefore absolutely no evidence to show that Paul was an\nepileptic, unless the very fact of his having visions be thought to\nfurnish such evidence. But such a use of the visions prejudges the\ngreat question at issue, which concerns the objective validity of\nPaul's religious convictions. Furthermore, the fact should always be\nborne in mind that Paul distinguished the visions very sharply from\nthe experience which he had near Damascus, when he saw the Lord. The\nvisions are spoken of in 2 Corinthians apparently with reluctance,\nas something which concerned the apostle alone; the Damascus\nexperience was part of the evidence for the resurrection of Christ,\nand had a fundamental place in the apostle's missionary preaching.\nAll efforts to break down this distinction have failed. The apostle\nregarded the Damascus experience as unique--not a mystery like\nthe experiences which are mentioned in 2 Corinthians, but a plain,\npalpable fact capable of being understood by all.\n\nBut if the Damascus experience is to be regarded as an\nhallucination, it is not sufficient to exhibit a basis for it in the\nphysical weakness of the apostle. Even if Paul was constitutionally\npredisposed to hallucinations, the experience of this particular\nhallucination must be shown to be possible. The challenge has often\nbeen accepted by modern historians. It is maintained that the\nelements of Paul's new conviction must have been forming gradually\nin his mind; the Damascus experience, it is said, merely brought to\nlight what was really already present. In this way, the enormous\ndisparity between effect and cause is thought to be removed; the\nuntold benefits of Paulinism are no longer to be regarded as due to\nthe fortunate chance of an hallucination, induced by the weakness\nof the apostle and the heat of the desert sun, but rather to a\nspiritual development which the hallucination merely revealed.\nThus the modern view of Paul's conversion, it is thought, may face\nbravely the scorn of Beyschlag, who exclaimed, when speaking of\nthe naturalistic explanation of Paul's vision, \"Oh blessed drop of\nblood ... which by pressing at the right moment upon the brain of\nPaul, produced such a moral wonder.\"[33] The drop of blood, it is\nsaid, or whatever may have been the physical basis of the Damascus\nexperience, did not produce the wonders of the Pauline gospel; it\nmerely brought into the sphere of consciousness a psychological\nprocess which had really been going on before.\n\n  [33] Beyschlag, \"Die Bekehrung des Apostels Paulus,\" in\n  _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, xxxvii, 1864, p. 241.\n\nThe existence of such a psychological process, by which the apostle\nwas coming nearer to Christ, is sometimes thought to receive\ndocumentary support in one verse of the New Testament. In Acts xxvi.\n14, the risen Christ is represented as saying to Paul, \"It is hard\nfor thee to kick against the goads.\" According to this verse, it\nis said, Paul had been resisting a better conviction, gradually\nforming in his mind, that the disciples might be right about Jesus\nand he might be wrong; that, it is said, was the goad which was\nreally driving him. He had indeed been resisting vigorously; he\nhad been stifling his doubts by more and more feverish activity\nin persecution. But the resistance had not really brought him\npeace; the goad was really there. And at last, near Damascus, the\nresistance was overcome; the subconscious conviction which had\nbrought tumult into his soul was at last allowed to come to the\nsurface and rule his conscious life.\n\nAt this point, the historian is in grave danger of becoming\nuntrue to his own critical principles. Attention to the Book of\nActs, it has been maintained, is not to be allowed to color the\ninterpretation of the Pauline Epistles, which are the primary\nsources of information. But here the procedure is reversed. In the\ninterests of a verse in Acts, standing, moreover, in a context\nwhich on naturalistic principles cannot be regarded as historical,\nthe clear testimony of the Epistles is neglected. For Paul was\ncertainly not conscious of any goad which before his conversion was\nforcing him into the new faith; he knows nothing of doubts which\nassailed him during the period of his activity in persecution. On\nthe contrary, the very point of the passage in Galatians, where\nhe alludes to his persecuting activity, is the suddenness of his\nconversion. Far from gradually coming nearer to Christ he was in\nthe very midst of his zeal for the Law when Christ called him.\nThe purpose of the passage is to show that his gospel came to him\nwithout human intermediation. Before the conversion, he says, there\nwas of course no human intermediation, since he was an active\npersecutor. He could not have spoken in this way if before the\nconversion he had already become half convinced that those whom he\nwas persecuting were right. Moreover, throughout the Epistles there\nappears in the apostle not the slightest consciousness of his having\nacted against better convictions when he persecuted the Church. In\n1 Tim. i. 13 he distinctly says that he carried on the persecution\nin ignorance; and even if Timothy be regarded as post-Pauline, the\nsilence of the other epistles at least points in the same direction.\nPaul was deeply penitent for having persecuted the Church of God,\nbut apparently he did not lay to his charge the black sin of having\ncarried on the persecution in the face of better convictions. When\nhe laid the Church waste he thought he was doing God service. In the\nvery midst of his mad persecuting activity, he says, apart from any\nteaching from men--apart, we may certainly infer, from any favorable\nimpressions formed in his mind--the Lord appeared to him and gave\nhim his gospel. Paul stakes everything upon the evidential value of\nthe appearance, which was able suddenly to overcome an altogether\nhostile attitude. Such is the self-testimony of the apostle. It\nrests as a serious weight upon all attempts at making the conversion\nthe result of a psychological process.\n\nCertainly the passage in Acts will not help to bear the weight.\nWhen the risen Christ says to Paul, \"It is hard for thee to kick\nagainst the goads,\" He need not mean at all that the presence of\nthe goad had been known to Paul before that hour. The meaning may\nbe simply that the will of Christ is resistless; all opposition\nis in vain, the appointed hour of Christ has arrived. Conscious\nopposition on the part of Paul to a better conviction is certainly\nnot at all implied. No doubt Paul was really miserable when he was\na persecutor; all activity contrary to the plan of Christ brings\nmisery. But that he had the slightest inkling of the source of his\nmisery or even of the fact of it need not be supposed. It is even\npossible that the \"hardness\" of resistance to the goad is to be\nfound only in the very moment of the conversion. \"All resistance,\"\nsays the risen Christ, \"all hesitation, is as hopeless as for the ox\nto kick against the goad; instant obedience alone is in place.\"\n\nThe weight of the apostle's own testimony is therefore in no sense\nremoved by Acts xxvi. 14. That testimony is unequivocally opposed to\nall attempts at exhibiting a psychological process culminating in\nthe conversion. These attempts, however, because of the importance\nwhich has been attributed to them, must now be examined. In general,\nthey are becoming less and less elaborate; contemporary scholars\nare usually content to dismiss the psychological problem of the\nconversion with a few general observations about the secret of\npersonality, or, at the most, a brief word about the possible\ncondition of the apostle's mind. Since the direct interposition of\nthe risen Christ is rejected, it is held that there must have been\nsome psychological preparation for the Damascus experience, but\nwhat that preparation was remains hidden, it is said, in the secret\nplaces of the soul, which no psychological analysis can ever fully\nreveal.\n\nIf, however, the problem is not thus to be dismissed as insoluble,\nno unanimity has been achieved among those who attempt a solution.\nTwo principal lines of solution of the problem may perhaps be\ndistinguished--that which begins with the objective evidence as\nit presented itself to the persecutor, and that which starts with\nthe seventh chapter of Romans and the persecutor's own sense of\nneed. The former line was followed by Holsten, whose monographs\nstill constitute the most elaborate exposition of the psychological\nprocess supposed to lie back of the conversion.[34] According to\nHolsten, the process centered in the consideration of the Cross\nof Christ. That consideration of course resulted at first in an\nattitude of hostility on the part of Paul. The Cross was a shameful\nthing; the proclamation of a crucified Messiah appeared, therefore,\nto the devout Pharisee as an outrageous blasphemy. But the disciples\nrepresented the Cross as in accordance with the will of God, and\nsupported their contention by the evidence for the resurrection;\nthe resurrection was made to overcome the offense of the Cross. But\nagainst the evidence for the resurrection, Holsten believes, Paul\nwas helpless, the possibility of resurrection being fully recognized\nin his Pharisaic training. What then if the resurrection really\nvindicated the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah? Paul was by no\nmeans convinced, Holsten believes, that such was the case. But the\npossibility was necessarily in his mind, if only for the purposes\nof refutation. At this point Paul began to advance, according to\nHolsten, beyond the earlier disciples. On the assumption that the\nresurrection really did vindicate the claims of Jesus, the Cross\nwould have to be explained. But an explanation lay ready to hand,\nand Paul applied this explanation with a thoroughness which the\nearlier disciples had not attained. The earlier disciples removed\nthe offense of the Cross by representing the Cross as part of the\nplan of God for the Messiah; Paul exhibited the meaning of that\nplan much more clearly than they. He exhibited the meaning of the\nCross by applying to it the category of vicarious suffering, which\ncould be found, for example, in Isaiah liii. At this point the\npre-Christian development of Paul was over. The Pauline \"gnosis of\nthe Cross\" was already formed. Of course, before the conversion it\nwas to Paul entirely a matter of supposition. On the supposition,\nstill regarded as false, that the resurrection had really taken\nplace, the Cross, far from being an offense, would become a glorious\nfact. All the essential elements of Paul's gospel of the Cross were\nthus present in Paul's mind before the conversion; the validity\nof them had been posited by him for the purposes of argument. The\nonly thing that was lacking to make Paul a disciple of Jesus was\nconviction of the fact of the resurrection. That conviction was\nsupplied by the Damascus experience. The unstable equilibrium then\nwas over; the elements of the Pauline gospel, which were all present\nbefore, fell at once into their proper places.\n\n  [34] Holsten, _Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus_, 1868.\n  Against Holsten, see Beyschlag, \"Die Bekehrung des Apostels Paulus,\n  mit besonderer R\u00fccksicht auf die Erkl\u00e4rungsversuche von Baur und\n  Holsten,\" in _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, xxxvii, 1864, pp.\n  197-264; \"Die Visionshypothese in ihrer neuesten Begr\u00fcndung. Eine\n  Duplik gegen D. Holsten,\" _ibid._, xliii, 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-263.\n\nThe other way of explaining the conversion starts from the seventh\nchapter of Romans and the dissatisfaction which Paul is thought to\nhave experienced under the Law. Paul, it is said, was a Pharisee; he\nmade every effort to keep the Law of God. But he was too earnest to\nbe satisfied with a merely external obedience; and real obedience he\nhad not attained. He was therefore tormented by a sense of sin. That\nsense of sin no doubt led him into a more and more feverish effort\nto keep the letter of the Law and particularly to show his zeal by\npersecuting the disciples of Jesus. But all his efforts were vain;\nhis obedience remained insufficient; the curse of the Law still\nrested upon him. What if the vain effort could be abandoned? What if\nthe disciples of Jesus were right? Of course, he believed, they were\nnot right, but what if they were? What if the Messiah had really\ndied for the sins of believers, in accordance with Isaiah liii? What\nif salvation were attainable not by merit but by divine grace? These\nquestions, it is supposed, were in the mind of Paul. He answered\nthem still in the negative, but his misery kept them ever before his\nmind. The Law was thus a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He was\nready for the vision.\n\nIn both of these lines of explanation importance is often attributed\nto the impression produced upon Paul's mind by the character of\nthe disciples. Whence did they derive their bravery and their joy\nin the midst of persecution? Whence came the fervor of their love,\nwhence the firmness of their faith? The persecutor, it is said, was\nimpressed against his will.\n\nThe fundamental objection to all these theories of psychological\ndevelopment is that they describe only what might have been or what\nought to have been, and not what actually was. No doubt Paul ought\nto have been coming nearer to Christianity; but as a matter of fact\nhe was rather getting further away, and he records the fact in no\nuncertain terms in his Epistles. There are objections, moreover, to\nthe various theories of development in detail; and the advocates of\none theory are often the severest critics of another.\n\nWith regard to Holsten's exposition of the \"gnosis of the\nCross,\" for example, there is not the slightest evidence that\nthe pre-Christian Jews interpreted Isaiah liii of the vicarious\nsufferings of the Messiah, or had any notion of the Messiah's\nvicarious death.[35] It is not true, moreover, as Beyschlag pointed\nout against Holsten, that Paul was helpless in the face of the\nevidence for the resurrection.[36] According to Paul's Pharisaic\ntraining, the resurrection would come only at the end of the age; a\nresurrection like the resurrection of Jesus, therefore, was by no\nmeans a matter of course, and could be established only by positive\nevidence of the most direct and unequivocal kind.\n\n  [35] See Sch\u00fcrer, _Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes_, 4te Aufl., ii,\n  1907, pp. 648-651 (English Translation, _A History of the Jewish\n  People_, Division II, vol. ii, 1885, pp. 184-187).\n\n  [36] Beyschlag, \"Die Visionshypothese in ihrer neuesten Begr\u00fcndung,\"\n  in _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, xliii, 1870, pp. 19-21.\n\nWith regard to the sense of sin as the goad which forced Paul to\naccept the Saviour, there is no evidence that before his conversion\nPaul was under real conviction of sin. It is very doubtful whether\nRom. vii. 7-25, with its account of the struggle between the\nflesh and the higher nature of man, refers to the unregenerate\nrather than to the regenerate life; and even if the former view is\ncorrect, it is doubtful whether the description is taken from the\napostle's own experience. At any rate, the struggle, even if it be\na struggle in the unregenerate man, is described from the point of\nview of the regenerate; it is not implied, therefore, that before\nthe entrance of the Spirit of God a man is fully conscious of his\nown helplessness and of the desperateness of the struggle. The\npassage therefore, does not afford any certain information about\nthe pre-Christian life of Paul. Undoubtedly before the conversion\nthe conscience of Paul was aroused; he was conscientious in his\ndevotion to the Law. Probably he was conscious of his failings. But\nthat such consciousness of failure amounted to anything like that\ngenuine conviction of sin which leads a man to accept the Saviour\nremains very doubtful. Recognized failure to keep the Law perfectly\nled in the case of Paul merely to greater zeal for the Law, a zeal\nwhich was manifested especially in the persecution of a blasphemous\nsect whose teaching was subversive of the authority of Moses.\n\nFinally, it is highly improbable that Paul was favorably impressed\nby the bravery of those whom he was persecuting. It may seem strange\nat first sight that the same man who wrote the thirteenth chapter\nof 1 Corinthians should have haled helpless men and women to prison\nwithout a qualm, or listened without pity to the dying words of\nStephen, \"Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.\" But it is very\ndangerous to argue back from the Christian life of Paul to the life\nof Paul the Pharisee. Paul himself was conscious of a complete moral\ntransformation as having taken place in him when he saw the Lord\nnear Damascus. What was impossible for him after that transformation\nmay well have been possible before. Moreover, if, despite such\nconsiderations, we could argue back from Paul the disciple of Jesus\nto Paul the Pharisee, there is one characteristic of the apostle\nwhich would never have permitted him to persecute those by whom\nhe was favorably impressed--namely, his complete sincerity. The\npicture of Saul the doubter, torn by conflicting emotions, impressed\nby the calmness and bravery and magnanimity of those whom he was\npersecuting, yet stifling such impressions by persecuting zeal, is\nvery romantic, but very un-Pauline.\n\nBut in attributing the conversion of Paul altogether to the\nexperience on the road to Damascus, are we not heaping up into one\nmoment what must of very necessity in conscious life be the work\nof years? Is it conceivable that ideas should have been implanted\nin the mind of a person not by processes of acquisition but\nmechanically as though by a hypodermic syringe? Would not such an\nexperience, even if it were possible, be altogether destructive of\npersonality?\n\nThe objection serves to correct possible misunderstandings. The\nview of the conversion which has just been set forth does not mean\nthat when Paul drew near to Damascus on that memorable day he was\nignorant of the facts about Jesus. If he had never heard of Jesus,\nor if having heard of Him he knew absolutely nothing about Him, then\nperhaps the conversion would have been not only supernatural but\ninconceivable. But it is not the traditional view of the conversion\nwhich is guilty of such exaggerations. They are the product rather\nof that separation of Paul from the historical Jesus which appears\nfor example in Wrede and in Bousset. According to any reasonable\nview of Paul's pre-Christian experience, Paul was well acquainted,\nbefore the conversion, with many of the facts about Jesus' life\nand death; what he received on the road to Damascus was a new\ninterpretation of the facts and a new attitude toward them. He had\nknown the facts before, but they had filled him with hatred; now his\nhatred was changed into love.\n\nEven after exaggerations have been removed, however, the change\nwrought by the Damascus experience remains revolutionary enough. Is\nthat change conceivable? Could hatred have been changed into love\nmerely by an experience which convinced Paul of the fact of the\nresurrection? The answer to this question depends altogether upon\nthe nature of the Damascus experience. If that experience was merely\nan hallucination, the question must be answered in the negative; an\nhallucination could never have produced the profound changes in the\npersonal life of Paul which have just been contemplated; and the\nhistorian would be obliged to fall back, despite the unequivocal\ntestimony of the Epistles, upon some theory of psychological\ndevelopment of which the hallucination would only be the climax.\nBut even those who maintain the supernaturalistic view of the\nconversion have too often failed to do justice to the content of\nthe experience. One fundamental feature of the experience has too\noften been forgotten--the appearance on the road to Damascus was the\nappearance of a person. Sometimes the event has been regarded merely\nas a supernatural interposition of God intended to produce belief\nin the fact of the resurrection, as merely a sign. Undoubtedly it\nwas a sign. But it was far more; it was contact between persons.\nBut contact between persons, even under ordinary conditions, is\nexceedingly mysterious; merely a look or the tone of the voice\nsometimes produces astonishing results. Who has not experienced\nthe transition from mere hearsay knowledge of a person to actual\ncontact? One meeting is often sufficient to revolutionize the\nentire impression; indifference or hostility gives place at once\nto enthusiastic devotion. Those who speak of the transformation\nwrought in Paul by the appearance of Jesus as magical or mechanical\nor inconceivable have never reflected upon the mysteries of personal\nintercourse.\n\nOnly, it must have been a real person whom Paul met on the road to\nDamascus--not a vision, not a mere sign. If it was merely a vision\nor a sign, all the objections remain in force. But if it was really\nJesus, the sight of His face and the words of love which He uttered\nmay have been amply sufficient, provided the heart of Paul was\nrenewed by the power of God's Spirit, to transform hatred into love.\nTo call such an experience magic is to blaspheme all that is highest\nin human life. God was using no unworthy instrument when, by the\npersonal presence of the Saviour, He transformed the life of Paul.\n\nThere is, therefore, no moral or psychological objection in the way\nof a simple acceptance of Paul's testimony about the conversion.\nAnd that testimony is unequivocal. Paul was not converted by any\nteaching which he received from men; he was not converted as\nChristians are usually converted, by the preaching of the truth or\nby that revelation of Christ which is contained in the lives of His\nfollowers. Jesus Himself in the case of Paul did in visible presence\nwhat He ordinarily does by the means which He has appointed. Upon\nthis immediateness of the conversion, Paul is willing to stake the\nwhole of his life; upon it he bases his apostolic authority.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE TRIUMPH OF GENTILE FREEDOM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE TRIUMPH OF GENTILE FREEDOM\n\n\nAfter the conversion, according to the Book of Acts, Paul received\nthe ministrations of Ananias, and was baptized.[37] These details\nare not excluded by the Epistle to the Galatians. In the Epistle,\nPaul says that after God had revealed His son in him he did not\nconfer with flesh and blood;[38] but the conference with flesh\nand blood which he was concerned to deny was a conference with\nthe original apostles at Jerusalem about the principles of the\ngospel, not a conference with humble disciples at Damascus.\nAn over-interpretation of Galatians would here lead almost to\nabsurdity. Is it to be supposed that after the conversion Paul\nrefused to have anything whatever to do with those who were now his\nbrethren? In particular, is it to be supposed that he who afterwards\nplaced baptism as a matter of course at the beginning of the new\nlife for every Christian should himself not have been baptized? The\nEpistle to the Galatians does not mention his baptism, but that\nomission merely illustrates the incompleteness of the account. And\nif the baptism of Paul, which certainly must have taken place, is\nomitted from Galatians, other omissions must not be regarded as\nany more significant. The first two chapters of Galatians are not\nintended to furnish complete biography. Only those details are\nmentioned which were important for Paul's argument or had been\nmisrepresented by his Judaizing opponents.\n\n  [37] Acts ix. 10-19; xxii. 12-16.\n\n  [38] Gal. i. 16.\n\nAfter God had revealed His son in him, Paul says, he went away\ninto Arabia. Apparently this journey to Arabia is to be put very\nsoon after the revelation, though the construction of the word\n\"immediately\" in Gal. i. 16 is not perfectly clear. If that word\ngoes merely with the negative part of the sentence, then nothing\nis said about the time of the journey to Arabia; Paul would say\nmerely that in the period just after the revelation of God's Son he\ndid not go up to Jerusalem. There would then be no difficulty in\nthe assertion of Acts which seems to put a stay in Damascus with\npreaching activity in the synagogues immediately after the baptism.\nThis interpretation is adopted by a number of modern commentators,\nnot only by B. Weiss and Zahn, who might be suspected of a bias in\nfavor of the Book of Acts, but also by Sieffert and Lipsius and\nBousset. Perhaps more naturally, however, the word \"immediately\" in\nGalatians is to be taken grammatically with the positive part of\nthe sentence or with the whole sentence; the sentence would then\nmean, \"Immediately, instead of conferring with flesh and blood\nor going up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, I\nwent away into Arabia and again I returned to Damascus.\" Even so,\nhowever, there is no real contradiction with Acts. When Paul tells\nwhat happened \"immediately\" after the revelation he is thinking in\nterms not of days but of journeys. The very first journey after the\nconversion--and it took place soon--was not to Jerusalem but to\nArabia. When taken in the context the sentence does not exclude a\nbrief preaching activity in Damascus before the journey to Arabia.\nGrammatically the word \"immediately\" may go with the positive part\nof the sentence, but in essential import it goes rather with the\nnegative part. What Paul is really concerned about is to deny that\nhe went up to Jerusalem soon after his conversion.\n\nThe Book of Acts does not mention the journey to Arabia and does\nnot make clear where it may be inserted. Sometimes it is placed in\nthe middle of Acts ix. 19, before the words, \"And he was with the\ndisciples in Damascus some days.\" In that case the discussion about\nthe word \"immediately\" in Gal. i. 16 would be unnecessary; that\nword could be taken strictly with the positive part of the sentence\nwithout contradicting the Book of Acts; the journey to Arabia would\nhave preceded the preaching activity in Damascus. Or the journey\nmay be placed before Acts ix. 22; it would then be the cause of the\ngreater vigor of Paul's preaching. Finally, it may be placed simply\nwithin the \"many days\" of Acts ix. 23. The phrase, \"many days,\" in\nActs apparently is used to indicate fairly long periods of time. It\nmust be remembered that the author of Acts is not concerned here\nabout chronology; perhaps he did not trouble himself to investigate\nthe exact period of time that elapsed before the journey to\nJerusalem. He was content merely to record the fact that before Paul\nwent to Jerusalem he engaged for a considerable time in preaching\nin the Damascus synagogues. Certainly he must here be acquitted of\nany attempt at subserving the interests of harmony in the Church by\na falsification of history. It is generally recognized now, against\nthe T\u00fcbingen contentions, that if the author of Acts contradicts\nGalatians, his contradiction is na\u00efve rather than deliberate; the\ncontradiction or apparent contradiction at least shows the complete\nindependence of his account. He is not deliberately shortening up\nthe time before Paul's first conference with Peter in the interests\nof a compromise between a Pauline and a Petrine party in the Church;\nif he had had the \"three years\" of Paul before him as he wrote he\nwould have had no objection to using the detail in his history. But\ninvestigation of the chronology did not here seem to be important.\nThe detail of the three years was vastly important for Paul's\nargument in Galatians, where he is showing that for a considerable\nperiod after the conversion he did not even meet those from whom\nhe was said to have received his gospel, but it was not at all\nimportant in a general history of the progress of the Church.\n\nThe extent of the journey to Arabia, both geographically and\ntemporally, is entirely unknown. \"Arabia\" included not only very\nremote regions but also a territory almost at the gates of Damascus;\nand all that may be determined about the length of the Arabian\nresidence is that it was less than three years. Possibly Paul\nremained only a few weeks in Arabia. In that case the omission of\nthe journey from the general narrative in Acts is very natural.\nThe importance of Arabia in Paul's argument is due simply to the\nfact that Arabia was not Jerusalem; Paul mentions the journey to\nArabia simply in contrast with a journey to Jerusalem which he\nis excluding in the interests of his argument. The only thing\nthat might seem to require a considerable stay in Arabia is the\nnarrative of Paul's first Jerusalem visit in Acts ix. 26-30; the\ndistrust of Paul displayed by the Jerusalem Christians is more\neasily explicable if after his conversion he had been living for the\nmost part in a region more remote than Damascus from Jerusalem. A\nsimilar consideration might possibly suggest that in Arabia Paul\nwas engaged in meditation rather than in missionary activity; he had\nnot yet become so well known as a preacher that the Christians of\nJerusalem could begin to glorify God in him, as they did a little\nlater. Possibly also there is an implied contrast in Gal. i. 16, 17\nbetween conference with the original apostles and direct communion\nwith Christ; possibly Paul means to say, \"Instead of conferring with\nflesh and blood in Jerusalem, I communed with the Lord in Arabia.\"\nDespite such considerations, the matter is by no means perfectly\nclear; it is perfectly possible that Paul engaged in missionary work\nin Arabia. But at any rate, even if that view be correct, he also\nengaged in meditation. Paul was never a mere \"practical Christian\"\nin the modern sense; labor in his case was always based upon\nthought, and life upon doctrine.\n\nThe escape of Paul from Damascus just before his first visit to\nJerusalem is narrated in Acts ix. 23-25 and in 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33.\nThe mention of the ethnarch of Aretas the Nabatean king as having\nauthority at or near Damascus causes some difficulty, and might not\nhave passed unchallenged if it had been attested by Acts. But as a\nmatter of fact, it is just this detail which appears, not in Acts,\nbut in an epistle of Paul.\n\nThe first visit of Paul to Jerusalem after the conversion is\ndescribed in Acts ix. 26-30; xxii. 17-21; Gal. i. 18, 19. In itself,\nthe account in Acts bears every mark of trustworthiness. The only\ndetail which might seem surprising is that the Jerusalem Christians\nwould not at first believe that Paul was a disciple; must not a\nnotable event like the conversion of so prominent a persecutor have\nbecome known at Jerusalem in the course of three years? But if Paul\nhad spent a large part of the three years in Arabia, whence news\nof him could not be easily obtained, the report of his conversion\nmight have come to seem like a remote rumor; the very fact of his\nwithdrawal might, as has been suggested, have cast suspicion upon\nthe reality of his conversion. Emotion, moreover, often lags behind\ncold reasoning; the heart is more difficult to convince than the\nmind. The Jerusalem Christians had known Paul only as a cruel and\nrelentless persecutor; it was not so easy for them to receive him\nat once as a brother. This one detail is therefore not at all\nsufficient to reverse the favorable impression which is made by the\nLucan account of the visit as a whole.\n\nThe chief objection to the account is usually found in a comparison\nwith what Paul himself says in Galatians. In itself, the account is\nnatural; but does it agree with Paul's own testimony? One apparent\ndivergence may indeed soon be dismissed. In Acts ix. 27 it is said\nthat Paul was introduced to \"the apostles,\" whereas in Gal. i. 19 it\nis said that Paul saw only James, the brother of the Lord (who was\nnot among the Twelve), and Peter. But possibly the author of Acts is\nusing the term \"apostle\" in a sense broad enough to include James,\nso that Paul actually saw two \"apostles\"--Peter and James--or else\nthe plural is used merely in a generic sense to indicate that Paul\nwas introduced to whatever representative or representatives of the\napostolic body may have happened to be present.\n\nMuch more weight is commonly attributed to an objection drawn from\nthe general representation of the visit. According to Acts, Paul\nwas associated publicly with the Jerusalem disciples and engaged\nin an active mission among the Greek-speaking Jews; according to\nGalatians, it is argued, he was in strict hiding, since he did not\nbecome acquainted personally with the churches of Jud\u00e6a (Gal. i.\n22). But the objection, as has already been observed, depends upon\nan over-interpretation of Gal. i. 22. Whether or no \"Jud\u00e6a\" means\nthe country in sharp distinction from the capital, in either case\nall that is necessarily meant is that Paul did not become acquainted\ngenerally with the Jud\u00e6an churches. The capital may well have formed\nan exception. If Paul had meant in the preceding verses that he had\nbeen in hiding in Jerusalem he would have expressed himself very\ndifferently. Certainly the modern representation of the visit is\nin itself improbable. The picture of Paul entering Jerusalem under\ncover of darkness or under a disguise and being kept as a mysterious\nstranger somewhere in a secret chamber of Peter's house is certainly\nmuch less natural than the account which the Book of Acts gives of\nthe earnest attempt of Paul to repair the damage which he had done\nto the Jerusalem Church. It is very doubtful whether concealment\nof Paul in Jerusalem would have been possible even if Paul had\nconsented to it; he was too well-known in the city. Of course this\nlast argument would be answered if, as Heitm\u00fcller and Loisy suppose,\nPaul had never been in Jerusalem at all, even as a persecutor. But\nthat hypothesis is faced by absolutely decisive objections, as has\nalready been observed.\n\nThe whole modern representation of the first visit, therefore, is\nbased solely upon a very doubtful interpretation of one verse, and\nis in itself highly unnatural. Surely it is much more probable that\nthe real reason why Paul saw only Peter and James among the leaders\nwas that the others were out of the city, engaged in missionary work\nin Jud\u00e6a. Their presence in the churches of Jud\u00e6a would explain the\nmention of those churches in Gal. i. 22. Paul is indicating the\nmeagerness of his direct contact with the original apostles. The\nchurches of Jud\u00e6a would become important in his argument if they\nwere the scene of the apostles' labors. Against a very doubtful\ninterpretation of the account in Galatians, which brings it into\ncontradiction with Acts, may therefore be placed an entirely\nconsistent interpretation which, when the account is combined with\nActs, produces a thoroughly natural representation of the course of\nevents.\n\nPaul says nothing about what happened during his fifteen-day\nintercourse with Peter. But it is highly improbable, as even Holsten\npointed out, that he spent the time gazing silently at Peter as\nthough Peter were one of the sights of the city.[39] Undoubtedly\nthere was conversation between the two men, and in the conversation\nthe subject of the life and death of Jesus could hardly be avoided.\nIn the Epistle to the Galatians Paul denies, indeed, that he\nreceived his gospel from men. But the bare facts about Jesus did\nnot constitute a gospel. The facts were known to some extent to\nfriend and foe alike; Paul knew something about them even before his\nconversion and then increased his knowledge through intercourse with\nthe disciples at Damascus. The fifteen days spent in company with\nPeter could hardly have failed to bring a further enrichment of his\nknowledge.\n\n  [39] Holsten, _op. cit._, p. 118, Amn.: \"Aber nat\u00fcrlich kann in dem\n  \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd nicht liegen, Paulus sei nach Jerusalem gegangen, um den\n  Petrus f\u00fcnfzehn tage lang stumm anzuschauen. Die beiden m\u00e4nner\n  werden miteinander \u00fcber das evangelium Christi geredet haben.\"\n\nIn 1 Cor. xv. 3-7, Paul gives a summary of what he had\n\"received\"--the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of\nJesus. The vast majority of modern investigators, of all shades of\nopinion, find in these verses a summary of the Jerusalem tradition\nwhich Paul received from Peter during the fifteen days. Undoubtedly\nPaul knew some if not all of these facts before he went to\nJerusalem; the facts were probably common property of the disciples\nin Damascus as well as in Jerusalem. But it is inconceivable that\nhe should not have tested and supplemented the tradition by what\nPeter, whose name stands first (1 Cor. xv. 5) in the list of the\nappearances, said in Jerusalem. Recently, indeed, an attempt has\nbeen made by Heitm\u00fcller to represent the tradition as being derived\nmerely from the Christian communities in Damascus or Antioch, and\nat best only indirectly from Jerusalem; these communities are thus\ninterposed as an additional link between Paul and the Jerusalem\nChurch.[40] But the very purpose of the passage in 1 Corinthians is\nto emphasize the unity of teaching, not between Paul and certain\nobscure Christians in Hellenistic communities, but between Paul\nand the \"apostles.\" \"Whether therefore,\" Paul says, \"it be I or\nthey, so we preach and so ye believed\" (1 Cor. xv. 11). The attempt\nat separating the factual basis of the Pauline gospel from the\nprimitive tradition shatters upon the rock of 1 Corinthians and\nGalatians. In Galatians, Paul says he was in direct intercourse with\nPeter, and in 1 Corinthians he emphasizes the unity of his teaching\nwith that of Peter and the other apostles.\n\n  [40] Heitm\u00fcller, \"Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus,\" in _Zeitschrift\n  f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiii, 1912, pp. 320-337,\n  especially p. 331.\n\nAfter leaving Jerusalem Paul went into the regions of Syria and\nof Cilicia; the Book of Acts, more specifically, mentions Tarsus\n(Cilicia) and Antioch (Syria). The period which Paul spent in Tarsus\nor in its vicinity is for us altogether obscure. In all probability\nhe engaged in missionary work and included Gentiles in his mission.\nCertainly at the conclusion of the Cilician period Barnabas thought\nhim suitable for the specifically Gentile work at Antioch, and it\nis probable that he had already demonstrated his suitability. His\napostolic consciousness, also, as attested both by the Book of Acts\nand by Galatians, suggests that the beginning of his life-work as\napostle to the Gentiles was not too long deferred.\n\nAt Antioch, the disciples were first called \"Christians\" (Acts xi.\n26). The objections, especially linguistic, formerly urged against\nthis assertion of Acts have now for the most part been silenced.\nThe assertion is important as showing that the Church was becoming\nso clearly separate from the synagogue that a separate name had\nto be coined by the Gentile population. Tremendous importance is\nattributed to the Christian community at Antioch by Bousset and\nHeitm\u00fcller, who believe that the religion of that community had\ndiverged in fundamental respects from the religion of the primitive\nJerusalem Church, and that this extra-Palestinian Christianity, and\nnot the Christianity of Jerusalem, is the basis of the religion\nof Paul. According to this hypothesis, the independence of Paul\nwhich is attested in Galatians is apparently to be regarded as\nindependence merely over against the intimate friends of Jesus;\napparently Paul had no objection against taking over the teaching of\nthe Greek-speaking Christians of Antioch. This representation is out\nof accord with what has just been established about the relations\nbetween Paul and the Jerusalem Church. It must be examined more in\ndetail, however, in a subsequent chapter.\n\nAfter at least a year--probably more--Barnabas and Saul, according\nto Acts xi. 30; xii. 25, were sent up to Jerusalem to bear the\ngifts of the Antioch Church, which had been collected in view of\nthe famine prophesied by Agabus. This \"famine visit\" is the second\nvisit of Paul to Jerusalem which is mentioned in Acts. The second\nvisit which is mentioned in Galatians is the one described in Gal.\nii. 1-10, at which Paul came into conference with the pillars of the\nJerusalem Church. May the two be identified? Is Gal. ii. 1-10 an\naccount of the visit which is mentioned in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25?[41]\n\n  [41] For what follows, compare \"Recent Criticism of the Book of\n  Acts,\" in _Princeton Theological Review_, xvii, 1919, pp. 597-608.\n\nChronology opposes no absolutely insuperable objection to the\nidentification. The apparent objection is as follows. The famine\nvisit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 took place at about the same time\nas the events narrated in Acts xii, since the narrative of those\nevents is interposed between the mention of the coming of Barnabas\nand Paul to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30) and that of their return to\nAntioch (Acts xii. 25). But the events of Acts xii include the\ndeath of Herod Agrippa I, which certainly occurred in 44 A.D. The\nfamine visit, therefore, apparently occurred at about 44 A.D. But\nthe visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 took place fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1)\nafter the first visit, which in turn took place three years (Gal. i.\n18) after the conversion. Therefore the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 took\nplace seventeen (3 + 14) years after the conversion. But if that\nvisit be identified with the famine visit and the famine visit took\nplace in 44 A.D., the conversion must have taken place seventeen\nyears before 44 A.D. or in 27 A.D., which of course is impossible\nsince the crucifixion of Jesus did not occur till several years\nafter that time. At first sight, therefore, it looks as though\nthe identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with the famine visit were\nimpossible.\n\nCloser examination, however, shows that the chronological data all\nallow a certain amount of leeway. In the first place, it is by no\nmeans clear that the famine visit took place at exactly the time\nof the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. The author of Acts has\nbeen carrying on two threads of narrative, one dealing with Antioch\nand the other dealing with Jerusalem. In Acts xi. 19-30 he has\ncarried the Antioch narrative on to a point beyond that reached in\nthe Jerusalem narrative. Now, when the two narratives are brought\ntogether by the visit of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem, the author\npauses in order to bring the Jerusalem narrative up to date; he\ntells what has been happening at Jerusalem during the period in\nwhich the reader's attention has been diverted to Antioch. The\nevents of Acts xii may therefore have taken place some time before\nthe famine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; the famine visit may have\ntaken place some time after 44 A.D. Information in Josephus with\nregard to the famine,[42] combined with the order of the narrative\nin Acts, permits the placing of the famine visit as late as 46 A.D.\nIn the second place, it is by no means certain that the visit of\nGal. ii. 1-10 took place seventeen years after the conversion. The\nancients sometimes used an inclusive method of reckoning time, in\naccordance with which \"three years\" might mean only one full year\nwith parts of two other years; January, 1923, would thus be \"three\nyears\" after December, 1921. According to this method of reckoning,\nthe \"fourteen years\" of Gal. ii. 1 would become only thirteen; and\nthe \"three years\" of Gal. i. 18 would become only two years; the\nvisit of Gal. ii. 1-10 would thus be only fifteen (13 + 2) instead\nof seventeen (14 + 3) years after the conversion. If, then, the\nvisit of Gal. ii. 1-10 be identified with the famine visit, and the\nfamine visit took place in 46 A.D., the conversion took place in\n31 A.D. (46 - 15), which is a possible date. Moreover, it is not\ncertain that the \"fourteen years\" of Gal. ii. 1 is to be reckoned\nfrom the first visit; it may be reckoned from the conversion, so\nthat the \"three years\" of Gal. i. 18 is to be included in it and\nnot added to it. In that case, the conversion took place only\nfourteen (or, by the inclusive method of reckoning, thirteen) years\nbefore the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10; or, if the visit of Gal. ii.\n1-10 be identified with the famine visit, fourteen (or thirteen)\nyears before 46 A.D., that is, in 32 A.D. (or 33 A.D.), which is a\nperfectly possible date.\n\n  [42] Josephus, _Antiq._ XX. v. 2. See Sch\u00fcrer, _Geschichte des\n  j\u00fcdischen Volkes_, 3te u. 4te Aufl., i, 1901, p. 567 (English\n  Translation, _A History of the Jewish People_, Division I, vol. ii,\n  1890, pp. 169f.).\n\nBut of course chronology does not decide in favor of the\nidentification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; at\nbest it only permits that identification. Chronologically it is\neven slightly more convenient to identify Gal. ii. 1-10 with a\nvisit subsequent to the famine visit. The only subsequent visit\nwhich comes seriously in question is the visit at the time of the\n\"Apostolic Council\" of Acts xv. 1-29. The advantages of identifying\nGal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25, therefore, must be compared\nwith those of identifying it with Acts xv. 1-29.\n\nIf the former identification be adopted, then Paul in Galatians has\nnot mentioned the Apostolic Council of Acts xv. 1-29. Since the\nApostolic Council dealt with the same question as that which was\nunder discussion in Galatians, and since it constituted an important\nstep in Paul's relations with the original apostles, it is a little\ndifficult to see how Paul could have omitted it from the Epistle.\nThis objection has often weighed against the identification of Gal.\nii. 1-10 with the famine visit. But in recent years the objection\nhas been removed by the hypothesis which places the writing of\nGalatians actually before the Apostolic Council; obviously Paul\ncould not be expected to mention the Council if the Council had not\nyet taken place. This early dating of Galatians has been advocated\nby a German Roman Catholic scholar, Weber,[43] and recently it has\nwon the support of men of widely divergent points of view, such as\nEmmet,[44] Kirsopp Lake,[45] Ramsay,[46] and Plooij.[47] Of course\nthis hypothesis depends absolutely upon the correctness of the\n\"South Galatian\" theory of the address of the Epistle, which finds\n\"the Churches of Galatia\" of Gal. i. 2 in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,\nLystra and Derbe; for the churches in \"North Galatia,\" if there were\nany such, were not founded till after the Apostolic Council (Acts\nxvi. 6).[48]\n\n  [43] _Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil_, 1900.\n\n  [44] \"Galatians the Earliest of the Pauline Epistles,\" in\n  _Expositor_, 7th Series, vol. ix, 1910, pp. 242-254 (reprinted in\n  _The Eschatological Question in the Gospels_, 1911, pp. 191-209);\n  _St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians_, 1912, pp. xiv-xxii.\n\n  [45] _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 265-304. In a\n  later book, Lake has modified his views about the relation between\n  Galatians and Acts. The historicity of Acts xv. 1-29 is now\n  abandoned. See _Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity_,\n  1920, pp. 63-66.\n\n  [46] Ramsay, \"Suggestions on the History and Letters of St. Paul. I.\n  The Date of the Galatian Letter,\" in _Expositor_, VIII, v, 1913, pp.\n  127-145.\n\n  [47] Plooij, _De chronologie van het leven van Paulus_, 1918, pp.\n  111-140.\n\n  [48] Maurice Jones (\"The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians,\"\n  in _Expositor_, VIII, vi, 1913, pp. 193-208) has adduced from the\n  Book of Acts various arguments against the early date of Galatians,\n  which, though worthy of attention, are not quite decisive.\n\nOne objection to the early dating of Galatians is derived from\nthe close relation between that epistle and the Epistle to the\nRomans. If Galatians was written before the Apostolic Council it\nis the earliest of the extant epistles of Paul and is separated by\na period of some six or eight years from the epistles of the third\nmissionary journey with which it has ordinarily been grouped. Thus\nthe order of the Epistles would be Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,\n1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. This order seems to tear asunder\nthe epistles which naturally belong together. The objection was\npartially overcome by a bold hypothesis of Lake, who suggested\nthat the Epistle to the Romans was first composed at an early time\nas an encyclical letter, and that later, being modified by the\naddition of a Roman address and other suitable details, it was sent\nto the Church at Rome.[49] On this hypothesis Galatians and the\nsubstance of Romans would be kept together because both would be\nplaced early. The hypothesis can appeal to the interesting textual\nphenomenon in Rom. i. 7, where the words \"in Rome\" are omitted by\na few witnesses to the text. But the evidence is insufficient. And\neven if Lake's hypothesis were correct, it would not altogether\novercome the difficulty; for both Galatians and Romans would be\nremoved from what has usually been regarded as their natural\nposition among the epistles of the third missionary journey.\nIn reply, it could be said that reconstructions of an author's\ndevelopment, unless supported by plain documentary evidence, are\nseldom absolutely certain; the simplicity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians,\nas over against the great soteriological epistles, Galatians, 1\nand 2 Corinthians, Romans, is no doubt due to the immaturity of\nthe Thessalonian Church rather than to any immaturity in Paul's\nthinking. There is therefore no absolutely decisive objection\nagainst putting the Epistle to the Galatians, with its developed\nsoteriology, before the Thessalonian Epistles.\n\n  [49] Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 361-370.\n\nOn the whole, it may be said that the identification of Gal. ii.\n1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 is perhaps most plausible when it is\nconnected with the early dating of Galatians, before the Apostolic\nCouncil. But that identification, whether with or without the early\ndating of the Epistle, must now be considered on its merits. Is Gal.\nii. 1-10 to be identified with the famine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii.\n25, or with the Apostolic Council of Acts xv?\n\nThe former identification possesses one obvious advantage--by it the\nsecond visit in Galatians is the same as the second visit in Acts;\nwhereas if Gal. ii. 1-10 is identified with Acts xv. 1-29 Paul has\npassed over the famine visit without mention. The identification\nwith the famine visit may therefore conveniently be considered first.\n\nAccording to this identification, Paul had two conferences with the\nJerusalem leaders, one at the time of the famine visit and one some\nyears afterwards at the time of the Apostolic Council. Could the\nsecond conference conceivably have followed thus upon the former? If\nthe conference between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders described in\nGal. ii. 1-10 took place at the time of the famine visit, then would\nnot the Apostolic Council seem to be a mere meaningless repetition\nof the former conference? If the matter of Gentile freedom had\nalready been settled (Gal. ii. 1-10) at the famine visit, how could\nit come up again _de novo_ at the Apostolic Council?\n\nThis objection is by no means insuperable. The meeting described\nin Gal. ii. 1-10 may have been merely a private meeting between\nPaul and the original apostles. Although the presence of Titus, the\nuncircumcised Gentile, was no doubt a matter of public knowledge,\nit need not necessarily have given rise to any public discussion,\nsince it was not unprecedented, Cornelius also having been received\ninto the Church without circumcision. But if the famine visit\nbrought merely a private conference between Paul and the original\napostles, Gentile freedom was still open to attack, especially if,\nafter the famine visit, there was (as is in any case probable) an\ninflux of strict legalists into the Christian community. There\nwas no public pronouncement of the original apostles to which\nthe advocates of freedom could appeal. There was therefore still\nurgent need of a public council such as the one described in Acts\nxv. 1-29, especially since that council dealt not only with the\ngeneral question of Gentile freedom but also with the problem of\nmixed communities where Jews and Gentiles were living together. The\nApostolic Council, therefore, may well have taken place in the way\ndescribed in Acts xv. 1-29 even if the conference of Gal. ii. 1-10\nhad been held some years before.\n\nNo absolutely decisive objection, therefore, has yet been found\nagainst the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii.\n25. But the _prima facie_ evidence has usually been regarded as\nfavoring the alternative identification, since Gal. ii. 1-10 bears\nmuch more resemblance to Acts xv. 1-29 than it does to Acts xi.\n30; xii. 25. Resemblance to Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 is not, indeed,\naltogether lacking. In both Galatians ii. 1-10 and Acts xi. 30; xii.\n25, Barnabas is represented as going up with Paul to Jerusalem; in\nboth passages there is reference to gifts for the Jerusalem Church;\nand the revelation referred to in Gal. ii. 2 as the occasion of the\njourney may be discovered in the revelation of the famine made to\nAgabus (Acts xi. 28). But the relief of the Jerusalem Church, which\nis put as the sole purpose of the journey in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25,\nis quite subordinate in Gal. ii. 1-10; Barnabas is with Paul in Acts\nxv. 1-29 just as much as he is in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; and it may\nbe questioned whether in Gal. ii. 2 it is not more natural to think\nof a revelation coming to Paul rather than one coming through the\nmouth of Agabus. The strongest argument, however, for identifying\nGal. ii. 1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 is that the main purpose of\nPaul's visit seems to be the same according to both passages;\naccording to both the matter of circumcision of Gentiles was under\ndiscussion, and according to both the result was a triumph for\nthe cause of freedom. This identification must now be considered.\nVarious objections have been raised against it. These objections\nlead, according to the point of view of the objector, either to an\nacceptance of the alternative identification (with Acts xi. 30; xii.\n25) or else to a rejection of the historicity of the Book of Acts.\n\nThe first objection is derived from the fact that if Gal. ii.\n1-10 is to be identified with Acts XV. 1-29, Paul has passed over\nthe famine visit without mention. Could he have done so honestly,\nif that visit had really occurred? In the first two chapters of\nGalatians Paul is establishing the independence of his apostolic\nauthority; he had not, he says, as the Judaizers maintained,\nreceived his authority through mediation of the original apostles.\nAt first, he says, he came into no effective contact with the\napostles; it was three years after his conversion before he saw\nany of them; then he saw only Peter (and James) and that only for\nfifteen days. Then he went away into the regions of Syria and of\nCilicia without ever becoming known by face to the Churches of\nJud\u00e6a; then after fourteen years again he went up to Jerusalem (Gal.\nii. 1). Is it not the very point of the passage that after his\ndeparture to Syria and Cilicia it was fourteen long years before\nhe again went up to Jerusalem? Would not his entire argument be\ninvalidated if there were an unmentioned visit to Jerusalem between\nthe first visit (Gal. i. 18, 19) and the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10?\nIf such a visit had taken place, would he not have had to mention\nit in order to place it in the proper light as he had done in the\ncase of the first visit? By omitting to mention the visit in a\ncontext where he is carefully tracing the history of his relations\nwith the Jerusalem leaders, would he not be exposing himself to\nthe charge of dishonest suppression of facts? Such considerations\nhave led a great number of investigators to reject the historicity\nof the famine visit; there never could have been, they insist, a\nvisit between the first visit and the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10; for\nif there had been, Paul would have been obliged to mention it, not\nonly by his own honesty, but also because of the impossibility\nof deception. This is one of the points where the narrative in\nActs has been most insistently criticized. Here and there, indeed,\nthere have been discordant notes in the chorus of criticism; the\ninsufficiency of the objection has been admitted now and then even\nby those who are far removed from any concern for the defense of\nthe Book of Acts. Baur himself, despite all his T\u00fcbingen severity\nof criticism, was clear-sighted enough not to lay stress upon this\nparticular objection;[50] and in recent years J. Weiss has been\nequally discerning.[51] In Galatians Paul is not giving a complete\nenumeration of his visits to Jerusalem, but merely singling out\nthose details which had formed the basis of the Judaizers' attack,\nor afforded peculiar support to his own contentions. Apparently the\nJudaizers had misrepresented the first visit; that is the time,\nthey had said, when Paul came under the authority of the original\napostles. In answer to this attack Paul is obliged to deal carefully\nwith that first visit; it came three years after the conversion, he\nsays, and it lasted only fifteen days--surely not long enough to\nmake Paul a disciple of Peter. Then Paul went away into the regions\nof Syria and Cilicia. Probably, for the first readers, who were\nfamiliar with the outlines of Paul's life, this departure for Syria\nand Cilicia clearly meant the entrance by Paul into his distinctive\nGentile work. He was well launched upon his Gentile work, fully\nengaged in the proclamation of his gospel, before he had ever had\nsuch contact with the original apostles as could possibly have given\nhim that gospel. At this point, as J. Weiss[52] well observes, there\nis a transition in the argument. The argument based on lack of\ncontact with the original apostles has been finished, and now gives\nplace to an entirely different argument. In the first chapter of\nGalatians Paul has been showing that at first he had no such contact\nwith the original apostles as could have made him a disciple of\ntheirs; now, in the second chapter he proceeds to show that when he\ndid come into conference with them, they themselves recognized that\nhe was no disciple of theirs but an independent apostle. Apparently\nthis conference, like the first visit, had been misrepresented\nby the Judaizers, and hence needed to be singled out for special\ntreatment. It must be admitted that Paul is interested in the late\ndate at which it occurred--fourteen years after the first visit or\nfourteen years after the conversion. Probably, therefore, it was the\nfirst real conference which Paul held with the original apostles on\nthe subject of his Gentile work. If the famine visit had involved\nsuch a conference, probably Paul would have mentioned that visit.\nBut if (as is not improbable on independent grounds) the apostles\nwere away from Jerusalem at the time of the famine visit, and if\nthat visit occurred long after Paul had been well launched upon his\ndistinctive work, and if it had given the Judaizers so little basis\nfor their contentions that they had not thought it worth while to\ndraw it into the discussion, then Paul was not obliged to mention\nit. Paul is not constructing an argument which would hold against\nall possible attacks, but rather is meeting the attacks which had\nactually been launched. In the second chapter, having finished\nproving that in the decisive early period before he was well engaged\nin his distinctive work there was not even any extended contact with\nthe original apostles at all, he proceeds to the telling argument\nthat the very men who were appealed to by the Judaizers themselves\nhad admitted that he was entirely independent of them and that they\nhad nothing to add to him. If the famine visit had occurred in the\nearly period, or if, whenever it occurred, it had involved the\nimportant event of a conference with the apostles about the Pauline\ngospel, in either case Paul would probably have been obliged to\nmention it. But, as it is, the visit, according to Acts xi. 30; xii.\n25, did not occur until Paul had already been engaged in the Gentile\nwork, and there is no reason to suppose that it involved any contact\nwith the original apostles. The omission of the famine visit from\nGalatians, therefore, as a visit distinct from Gal. ii. 1-10, does\nnot absolutely require either the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10\nwith that famine visit or the denial of the historicity of Acts.\n\n  [50] Baur, _Paulus_, 2te Aufl., 1866, pp. 130-132 (English\n  Translation, _Paul_ i, 1873, pp. 118-120). Baur does maintain that\n  Gal. ii. 1 renders improbable a second visit of Paul to Jerusalem\n  before the conference with the apostles which is narrated in Gal.\n  ii. 1, but points out that in itself the verse is capable of a\n  different interpretation.\n\n  [51] J. Weiss, _Urchristentum_, 1914, p. 147, Anm. 2.\n\n  [52] _Loc. cit._\n\nCertain other difficulties emerge, however, when Gal. ii. 1-10 is\ncompared with Acts xv. 1-29 in detail.\n\nIn the first place, the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, it is said,\nare represented in Acts xv. 1-29 as maintaining Pauline principles,\nwhereas in Gal. ii. 1-10 it appears that there was really a\nfundamental difference between them and Paul. This difficulty\nconstitutes an objection not against the identification of Gal. ii.\n1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 but against the historicity of Acts, for if\nat any time there was a really fundamental difference of principle\nbetween Paul and the original apostles then the whole representation\nin Acts is radically incorrect. But the objection disappears\naltogether when Galatians is correctly interpreted. The Epistle to\nthe Galatians does not represent the conference between Paul and the\npillars of the Jerusalem Church as resulting in a cold agreement to\ndisagree; on the contrary it represents those leaders as giving to\nPaul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. And Gal. ii. 11-21,\nrightly interpreted, attests positively a real unity of principle as\nexisting between Paul and Peter.\n\nThe one objection that remains against the identification of Gal.\nii. 1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 concerns the \"Apostolic Decree\" of Acts\nXV. 28, 29 (compare Acts XV. 19, 20; xxi. 25). According to the\nEpistle to the Galatians the apostles at the time of the conference\n\"added nothing\" to Paul (Gal. ii. 6); according to the Book of Acts,\nit is argued, they added something very important indeed--namely,\nthe requirements of the Apostolic Decree that the Gentile Christians\nshould \"refrain from things offered to idols and from blood and from\nthings strangled and from fornication.\" Since these requirements are\npartly at least ceremonial, they seem to constitute an exception to\nthe general principle of Gentile freedom, and therefore an addition\nto Paul's gospel. If when Paul presented to the original apostles\nthe gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles, involving the\nfree offer of salvation apart from the Law, the apostles emended\nthat gospel by requiring at least certain parts of the ceremonial\nLaw, were they not \"adding\" something to Paul?\n\nBut are the provisions of the decree really ceremonial? Apparently\nthey are in part ceremonial if the so-called \"Neutral text\" attested\nby the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus be correct.\nAccording to this text, which here lies at the basis of all forms of\nour English Bible, \"blood\" can hardly refer to anything except meat\nthat has the blood left in it or else blood that might be prepared\nseparately for food; for \"things strangled\" certainly refers to a\nclosely related provision of the ceremonial Law about food. But at\nthis point an interesting textual question arises. The so-called\n\"Western text\" of the Book of Acts, attested by the Codex Bezae and\nthe usual companion witnesses, omits the word translated \"things\nstrangled\" or \"what is strangled\" in Acts XV. 20, 29; xxi. 25, and\nin the first two of these three passages adds the negative form of\nthe Golden Rule. Thus the Western text reads in Acts XV. 28, 29 as\nfollows: \"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to\nlay no further burden upon you except these necessary things--that\nyou refrain from things offered to idols and from blood and from\nfornication, and that you do not to another whatsoever things you\ndo not wish to be done to you.\" It is generally agreed that the\nGolden Rule has here been added by a copyist; but the omission of\n\"things strangled\" is thought by many modern scholars to preserve\nthe reading of the autograph. If this short text without \"things\nstrangled\" be correct, then the provisions of the Decree need not\nbe regarded as ceremonial at all, but may be taken as simply moral.\n\"Things offered to idols\" may refer to idolatry in general; \"blood\"\nmay refer to murder; and \"fornication\" may be meant in the most\ngeneral sense. But if the provisions of the Decree were simply\nmoral, then plainly they did not constitute any \"addition\" to the\nmessage of freedom which Paul proclaimed among the Gentiles. Paul\nhimself had of course enjoined upon his converts the necessity\nof leading a true moral life. If when the original apostles were\nurged by the Judaizers to impose upon the Gentile converts the\nrequirements of the ceremonial Law, they responded, \"No; the only\nrequirements to be imposed upon the Gentiles are that they refrain\nfrom deadly sins like idolatry, murder and fornication,\" that\ndecision constituted merely a most emphatic confirmation of Paul's\ngospel of freedom.\n\nThe textual question cannot here be discussed in detail. In favor\nof the Western text, with its omission of \"things strangled,\" may\nbe urged not only the general principle of textual criticism that\nthe shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer, but also the\nspecial consideration that in this particular passage the shorter\nreading seems to account for the origin of the two additions; (1)\nthe word translated \"things strangled,\" and (2) the Golden Rule. The\nshort text, supposing it to be the original, was ambiguous; it might\nbe taken either as ceremonial (\"blood\" meaning the eating of blood)\nor as moral (\"blood\" meaning the shedding of blood or murder).\nThose copyists who took it as ceremonial, it is maintained, fixed\nthe meaning by adding \"things strangled\" (because animals that were\nstrangled had the blood still in them, so that the eating of them\nconstituted a violation of the ceremonial Law); whereas those who\ntook the Decree as moral fixed the meaning by adding the Golden Rule\nas the summation of the moral law.[53]\n\n  [53] See Lake, _op. cit._, pp. 51-53.\n\nOn the other side may be urged the connection which seems to exist\nbetween the omission of \"things strangled\" and the manifest gloss\nconstituted by the Golden Rule. Documentary attestation of a short\ntext, without the Golden Rule and without \"things strangled,\" is\nexceedingly scanty if not non-existent--Kirsopp Lake can point only\nto the witness of Iren\u00e6us. The omission of \"things strangled,\"\ntherefore, may be only a part of a moralizing of the Decree (carried\nout also in the addition of the Golden Rule), which would be\nquite in accord with that habit of scribes by which they tended\nto ignore in the interests of moral commonplaces what was special\nand difficult in the text which they were copying. In reply, Lake\ninsists that just at the time and at the place where the short\ntext (without \"things strangled\") was prevalent, there was a food\nlaw for which the long text (with \"things strangled\") would have\nafforded welcome support. Why should the text have been modified\njust where in its original form it supported the prevailing practice\nof the Church? The conclusion is, Lake believes, that if the Western\ntext prevailed, despite the welcome support which would have been\nafforded by the other text, it was because the Western text was\ncorrect.[54]\n\n  [54] _Op. cit._, pp. 57-59.\n\nDecision as to the textual question will depend to a considerable\nextent upon the conclusion which is reached with regard to the\nWestern text as a whole. The radical rejection of that text which\nwas advocated by Westcott and Hort has by no means won universal\napproval; a number of recent scholars are inclined at least to\npursue an eclectic course, adopting now the Western reading and\nnow the Neutral reading on the basis of internal evidence in the\nindividual cases. Others believe that the Western text and the\nNeutral text are both correct, since the Western text is derived\nfrom an earlier edition of the book, whereas the Neutral text\nrepresents a revised edition issued by the author himself.[55] But\nthis hypothesis affords absolutely no assistance in the case of the\nApostolic Decree; for the Western reading (if it be interpreted in\nthe purely non-ceremonial way) presents the Decree in a light very\ndifferent from that in which it appears according to the Neutral\nreading. It is impossible that the author could have contradicted\nhimself so directly and in so important a matter. Therefore, if\none of the two readings is due to the author, the other is due to\nsome one else. Cases like this weigh heavily against the hypothesis\nof two editions of the book; that hypothesis can be saved only by\nsupposing either that the Western documents do not here reproduce\ncorrectly the original Western form of the book, or else that the\nother documents do not here reproduce the original revised edition.\nIn other words, despite the manuscript evidence, the two editions of\nthe book must here be supposed to have been in harmony. At any rate,\nthen, whether or no the hypothesis of two editions be accepted, a\nchoice must here be made between the Neutral reading and the Western\nreading; they cannot both be due to the author, since they are\ncontradictory to each other.\n\n  [55] An elaborate attempt has recently been made by Zahn, in\n  addition to former attempts by Blass and Hilgenfeld, to reproduce\n  the original form of the Western text, which Zahn believes to be\n  the earlier edition of the book. See Zahn, _Die Urausgabe der\n  Apostelgeschichte des Lucas_, 1916 (_Forschungen zur Geschichte des\n  neutestamentlichen Kanons_, ix. Teil).\n\nOn the whole, it must be said that the Western text of the Book of\nActs does not commend itself, either as the one genuine form of\nthe book, or as an earlier edition of which the Neutral text is\na revision. The Western readings are interesting; at times they\nmay contain genuine historical information; but it seems unlikely\nthat they are due to the author. Here and there indeed the Western\ndocuments may preserve a genuine reading which has been lost in\nall other witnesses to the text--even Westcott and Hort did not\naltogether exclude such a possibility--but in general the high\nestimate which Westcott and Hort placed upon the Neutral text is\njustified. Thus there is a possibility that the short text of the\nApostolic Decree, without \"things strangled,\" is genuine, but it is\na possibility only.\n\nIf then, the Neutral text of the Decree is correct, so that the\nrequirements of the Decree are partly ceremonial, must the Book of\nActs here be held to contradict the Epistle to the Galatians? If the\nDecree really was passed at the Apostolic Council, as Acts xv. 29\nrepresents, would Paul have been obliged to mention it in Gal. ii.\n1-10? Answering these questions in the affirmative, a great many\nscholars since the days of Baur have regarded the account which the\nBook of Acts gives of the Apostolic Council as radically wrong; and\nsince the book has thus failed to approve itself at the point where\nit runs parallel to a recognized authority, it must be distrusted\nelsewhere as well. The Apostolic Council, especially the Apostolic\nDecree, has thus become, to use a phrase of B. W. Bacon, the \"crux\nof apostolic history.\"[56]\n\n  [56] B. W. Bacon, \"Acts versus Galatians: the Crux of Apostolic\n  History,\" in_American Journal of Theology_, xi, 1907, pp. 454-474.\n  See also \"Professor Harnack on the Lukan Narrative,\" _ibid._, xiii,\n  1909, pp. 59-76.\n\nIt is exceedingly unlikely, however, at any rate, that the Decree\nhas been made up \"out of whole cloth\"; for it does not coincide\nexactly with the usage of the later Church, and seems to be framed\nin view of primitive conditions. Even those who reject the narrative\nof Acts as it stands, therefore, often admit that the Decree was\nreally passed by the early Jerusalem Church; but they maintain that\nit was passed after Paul's departure from Jerusalem and without his\nconsent. This view is thought to be supported by Acts xxi. 25, where\nJames, it is said, is represented, at the time of Paul's last visit\nto Jerusalem, as calling attention to the Decree as though it were\nsomething new. Acts xxi. 25 is thus thought to preserve a bit of\nprimitive tradition which is in contradiction to the representation\nof the fifteenth chapter. Of course, however, the verse as it stands\nin the completed book can only be taken by the unsophisticated\nreader as referring to what Paul already knew; and it is a grave\nquestion whether the author of Acts was unskillful enough to allow\ncontradictory representations to stand unassimilated in his book,\nas the hypothesis demands. Acts xxi. 25, therefore, is at any rate\nnot opposed to the view that the Decree was actually passed with the\nconsent of Paul, as the fifteenth chapter represents.\n\nBut is this representation really in contradiction to the Epistle\nto the Galatians? Does Gal. ii. 1-10 really exclude the Apostolic\nDecree? In order to answer these questions, it will be necessary to\nexamine the nature of the Decree.\n\nThe Apostolic Decree, according to Acts xv. 1-29, did not constitute\na definition of what was necessary for the salvation of the Gentile\nChristians, but was an attempt to solve the problem of a limited\ngroup of mixed communities where Jews and Gentiles were living\ntogether. Such seems to be the implication of the difficult verse,\nActs xv. 21, where James, after he has proposed the substance of the\nDecree, says, \"For Moses has from ancient generations in the several\ncities those who proclaim him, being read in the synagogues every\nSabbath.\" These words seem to mean that since there are Jews in the\ncities, and since they are devoted to the Law of Moses, the Gentile\nChristians, in order to avoid offending them, ought to refrain\nfrom certain of those features of the Gentile manner of life which\nthe Jews would regard as most repulsive. The Law of Moses had been\nread in the cities from ancient generations; it was venerable; it\ndeserved at least respect. Such a respectful attitude toward the\nJewish way of life would contribute not only to the peace of the\nChurch but also to the winning of the non-Christian Jews.\n\nWas this procedure contrary to the principles of Paul? He himself\ntells us that it was not. \"For though I was free from all men,\" he\nsays, \"I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the\nmore. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews;\nto them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself\nunder the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to\nthem that are without law, as without law, not being without law\nto God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are\nwithout law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak;\nI am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save\nsome.\"[57] The Apostolic Decree was simply a particular case of\nbecoming to the Jews as a Jew that Jews might be gained. Indeed\nit was a rather mild case of that kind; and the conjecture may be\nventured that Paul was often very much more accommodating than the\nDecree would demand. Paul was not the man to insist upon blatant\ndisregard of Jewish feelings where Jews were to be won to Christ.\n\n  [57] 1 Cor. ix. 19-22, American Revised Version.\n\nIt must be remembered that Paul, according to his Epistles, did\nnot demand that Jewish Christians should give up keeping the Law,\nbut only required them not to force the keeping of the Law upon\nthe Gentiles. No doubt the observance of the Law on the part of\nJewish Christians was to be very different in spirit from their\npre-Christian legalism; they were no longer to regard the Law as\na means of salvation. But after salvation had been obtained, they\nmight well believe that it was God's will for them to continue to\nlive as Jews; and Paul, according to his Epistles, had no objection\nto that belief. But how were the Jewish Christians to carry out\ntheir observance of the Law? Various requirements of the Law were\nheld to imply that Israelites should keep separate from Gentiles.\nHow then could the Jewish Christians live in close brotherly\nintercourse with the Gentile members of the Christian community\nwithout transgressing the Law of Moses? There is no reason to\nbelieve that Paul from the beginning had a hard and fast solution of\nthis problem. Undoubtedly, the tendency of his practice led toward\nthe complete abandonment of the ceremonial Law in the interests of\nChristian unity between Jews and Gentiles. He was very severe upon\nthose Jewish Christians who, though convinced in their hearts of the\nnecessity of giving precedence to the new principle of unity, yet\nseparated themselves from the Gentiles through fear of men (Gal.\nii. 11-21). But there is no reason to think that he condemned on\nprinciple those who truly believed that Jewish Christians should\nstill keep the Law. With regard to these matters he was apparently\ncontent to wait for the clearer guidance of the Spirit of God,\nwhich would finally work out the unity of the Church. Meanwhile\nthe Apostolic Decree was an attempt to solve the problem of mixed\ncommunities; and that attempt was in harmony with the principles\nwhich Paul enunciated in 1 Cor. ix. 19-22.\n\nMoreover, the Apostolic Decree was in accord with Paul's principle\nof regard for the weaker brother (1 Cor. viii; Rom. xiv). In\nCorinth, certain brethren were offended by the eating of meat which\nhad been offered to idols. Paul himself was able to eat such food;\nfor he recognized that the idols were nothing. But for some of the\nmembers of the Christian community the partaking of such food would\nmean the deadly sin of idolatry; and out of regard for them Paul is\nready to forego his freedom. The case was very similar in the mixed\ncommunities contemplated in the Apostolic Decree. The similarity,\nof course, appears on the surface in the first prohibition of the\nDecree, which concerns things offered to idols. But the two other\nprohibitions about food are not really very different. The use of\nblood was intimately associated with heathen cults, and the eating\nof meat with the blood still in it (\"things strangled\") would also,\nbecause of deep-seated religious ideas, seem to a devout Jew to\ninvolve idolatry. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether those\nprohibitions of the Decree which we are accustomed to designate as\n\"ceremonial\" were felt to be ceremonial by those for whose benefit\nthe Decree was adopted. They were probably not felt to be ceremonial\nany more than the prohibition of things offered to idols was felt to\nbe ceremonial by the weaker brethren at Corinth. Rather they were\nfelt to involve the deadly sin of idolatry.\n\nFinally, the Apostolic Decree was of limited range of application;\nit was addressed, not to Gentile Christians generally, but only\nto those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts xv. 23). The Book\nof Acts, it is true, does declare, after the mention of Derbe and\nLystra in connection with the beginning of the second missionary\njourney, that Paul and Silas \"as they went on their way through\nthe cities ... delivered them the decrees to keep which had been\nordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem\" (Acts\nxvi. 4). According to this passage the observance of the Decree\ndoes seem to have been extended into Lycaonia, and thus beyond\nthe limits set forth in the Decree itself. But if Paul chose to\nmake use of the document beyond the range originally contemplated,\nthat does not alter the fact that originally the Jerusalem Church\nundertook to deal only with Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. In Acts\nxxi. 25, indeed, the reference of James to the Decree does not\nmention the geographical limitation. But James was thinking no doubt\nparticularly of those regions where there were the largest bodies\nof Jews, and he does not say that the Jerusalem Church, even if the\nDecree represented its own desires for all Gentiles, had actually\nsent the Decree to all. The general reference in Acts xxi. 25 may\ntherefore fairly be interpreted in the light of the more particular\ninformation given in Acts xv. 23. It is thus unnecessary to follow\nWendt, who, after a careful examination of all the objections which\nhave been urged against the historicity of the Decree, concludes\nthat the Decree was actually passed by the Jerusalem Church in the\npresence of Paul as the Book of Acts represents, but supposes\nthat the author of Acts has erred in giving the decision a wider\nrange of application than was really contemplated.[58] A correct\ninterpretation of the passages in question will remove even this\nlast vestige of objection to the Lucan account.\n\n  [58] Wendt, _Die Apostelgeschichte_, 1913, in Meyer,\n  _Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar \u00fcber das Neue Testament_, 9te\n  Aufl., p. 237.\n\nBut if the Decree was addressed only to Antioch and Syria and\nCilicia, it was not imposed upon specifically Pauline churches. The\nGentile work at Antioch had not been started by Paul, and it is a\nquestion how far he regarded the churches of Syria and Cilicia in\ngeneral as belonging to his peculiar province. Undoubtedly he had\nlabored long in those regions, but others had shared his labors and\nin some places had even preceded him. These other missionaries had\ncome from Jerusalem. Paul may well therefore have recognized the\nauthority of the Jerusalem leaders over the churches of Syria and\nCilicia in a way which would not have been in place at Ephesus or\nCorinth, especially since the Jewish Christian element in the Syrian\nand Cilician churches was probably very strong.\n\nThe adoption of the Apostolic Decree by the Jerusalem Church was\nthus not derogatory in general to the apostolic dignity of Paul,\nor contrary to his principles. But is the Decree excluded, in\nparticular, by the words of Paul in Galatians? Paul says that the\npillars of the Jerusalem Church \"added nothing\"[59] to him (Gal. ii.\n6). The meaning of these words must be examined with some care.\n\n  [59] \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nUndoubtedly the word here translated \"added\"--it may perhaps be\nbetter translated \"imparted nothing to me in addition\"--is to be\nunderstood in conjunction with Gal. ii. 2, where the same Greek word\nis used, but without the preposition which means \"in addition.\"\nThe sense of the two verses--they are separated by the important\ndigression about Titus--is thus as follows: \"When I laid my gospel\nbefore the leaders, they laid nothing before me in addition.\" That\nis, they declared, after listening to Paul's gospel, that they had\nnothing to add to it; Christ had given it to Paul directly; it was\nsufficient and complete. The question, therefore, in connection\nwith the Apostolic Decree is not whether the Decree was or was not\nsomething important that the Jerusalem leaders imparted to Paul,\nbut only whether it constituted an addition to his gospel. If it\nconstituted an addition to his gospel, then it is excluded by\nPaul's words in Galatians, and is unhistorical. But as it has been\ninterpreted above, it certainly did not constitute an addition to\nPaul's gospel. Paul's gospel consisted in the offer of salvation to\nthe Gentiles through faith alone apart from the works of the law.\nThe Jerusalem leaders recognized that gospel; they had absolutely\nnothing to add to it; Paul had revealed the way of salvation to\nthe Gentiles exactly as it had been revealed to him by God. But\nthe recognition of the Pauline gospel of salvation by faith alone\ndid not solve all the practical problems of the Christian life; in\nparticular it did not solve the problem of the mixed churches. It\nwould have been unnatural if the conference had not proceeded to\na consideration of such problems, and Paul's words do not at all\nexclude such consideration.\n\nCertainly some sort of public pronouncement on the part of the\nJerusalem leaders was imperatively demanded. The Judaizers had made\ntrouble in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia--that much of the account\nin Acts is generally admitted to be historical and is certainly\nnecessary to account for the very fact that Paul went to Jerusalem,\nthe revelation which came to him being given by God in relation\nto a very definite situation. Against his inclination Paul went\nto Jerusalem in order to stop the propaganda of the Judaizers by\nobtaining a pronouncement from the very authorities to which they\nappealed. Is it to be supposed that he returned to Antioch without\nthe pronouncement which he had sought? If he had done so his journey\nwould have been in vain; the Judaizers would have continued to\nmake trouble exactly as before. Some kind of public pronouncement\nwas therefore evidently sought by Paul himself from the Jerusalem\nleaders. No doubt the very seeking of such a pronouncement was\nopen to misunderstanding; it might seem to involve subordination\nof Paul to the authorities to whom apparently he was appealing\nas to a higher instance. Paul was keenly aware of such dangers,\nand waited for definite guidance of God before he decided to make\nthe journey. But if he had come back from Jerusalem without any\nsuch pronouncement of the authorities as would demonstrate the\nfalsity of the Judaizers' appeal to them, then the disadvantages\nof the conference would have been incurred in vain. In all\nprobability, therefore, the conference of Gal. ii. 1-10, if it\ntook place at the time reached by the narrative at the beginning\nof the fifteenth chapter of Acts, resulted in a pronouncement from\nthe Jerusalem Church. And the Apostolic Decree was just such a\npronouncement as might have been expected. It was public; it was\nan emphatic vindication of Gentile freedom and an express rebuke\nof the Judaizers; and it dealt with some at least of the practical\ndifficulties which would result from the presence of Jews and\nGentiles in the churches of Syria and Cilicia.\n\nThe identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xv. 1-29, therefore,\ndoes not raise insuperable difficulties against the acceptance as\nhistorical of the narrative in Acts. But it must be remembered that\nthe alternative identification--with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25--is also\npossible. The comparison between Acts and Galatians, therefore, has\ncertainly not resulted disastrously for the Book of Acts; there are\nthree ways in which Acts can be shown to be in harmony with Paul.\nThese three possibilities may now conveniently be summed up in the\nlight of the examination of them in the preceding pages.\n\n(1) Galatians ii. 1-10 may be regarded as an account of the\nfamine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; and on the basis of this\nidentification the Epistle may be dated before the Apostolic Council\nof Acts xv. 1-29. The course of events would then be somewhat as\nfollows: First there was a private conference between Paul and\nthe original apostles (Gal. ii. 1-10) at the time of the famine\nvisit (Acts xi. 30; xii. 25). Then followed the first missionary\njourney of Paul and Barnabas to Southern Galatia (Acts xiii, xiv).\nThat journey brought a great influx of Gentiles into the Church\nand aroused the active opposition of the Judaizers. The trouble\nseems to have been accentuated by the coming to Antioch of certain\nmen from James (Gal. ii. 11-13). It is not clear whether they\nthemselves were to blame, or whether, if they were, they had any\ncommission from James. At any rate, Peter was induced to give up\nthe table companionship with Gentile Christians which formerly he\nhad practiced at Antioch, and Barnabas also was carried away. Paul\nrebuked Peter publicly. But the Judaizers continued to disturb\nthe peace of the Church, and even demanded, as a thing absolutely\nnecessary to salvation, that the Gentile Christians should be\ncircumcised and should keep the Law of Moses. The Judaizing\nactivity extended also into Galatia, and Paul wrote the Epistle\nto the Galatians in the midst of the conflict. At Antioch it was\nfinally determined to bring the matter to the attention of the\nJerusalem leaders in order to show that the Judaizers had no right\nto appeal to those leaders, and in order to silence the Judaizers by\na public pronouncement of the Jerusalem Church. A revelation induced\nPaul to agree to this plan. The result was the Apostolic Council of\nActs xv. 1-29.\n\nUndoubtedly this account of the matter overcomes certain\ndifficulties. It has won considerable support, and can no longer be\nregarded as a mere apologetic expedient.\n\n(2) The Western text of the Apostolic Decree may be regarded as\ncorrect. The Decree may then be taken as forbidding only the three\ndeadly sins of idolatry, murder, and fornication, so that it cannot\nby any possibility be taken as a limitation of Gentile freedom or\nan addition to Paul's gospel of justification by faith alone. This\nsolution has been adopted by Von Harnack and others; and by Kirsopp\nLake,[60] certainly without any \"apologetic\" motive, it has actually\nbeen combined with (1).\n\n  [60] In _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911. It will be\n  remembered that Lake has now radically modified his views. See\n  above, p. 81, footnote 3.\n\n(3) Finally, Gal. ii. 1-10 being identified with Acts xv. 1-29, and\nthe Neutral text of the Apostolic Decree being adopted, harmony\nbetween Acts and Galatians may be established by that interpretation\nof both passages which has been proposed above. According to\nthis interpretation, the Decree was not regarded as necessary to\nsalvation or intended as an addition to Paul's gospel, but was an\nattempt to solve the special and temporary problem of the mixed\ncommunities in Syria and Cilicia.\n\nThis last solution being adopted provisionally (though (1) certainly\nhas much in its favor), the outcome of the Apostolic Council must be\nconsidered in connection with the events that followed. Apparently\nPaul in Galatians is telling only what happened in a private\nconference between himself and the Jerusalem leaders, the account\nof the public action of the Church being found in Acts. James and\nPeter and John recognized the independence of Paul's apostleship;\nPaul had been intrusted with the apostleship to the Gentiles as\nPeter with that to the circumcision. After listening to Paul's\naccount of the wonderful works of God by which his ministry had\nbeen blessed, and after coming into direct contact with the grace\nwhich had been given to him, the pillars of the Jerusalem Church\ngave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that they\nshould go to the Gentiles while the Jerusalem leaders should go to\nthe circumcision. This division of labor has often been egregiously\nmisinterpreted, especially by the T\u00fcbingen school and all those in\nsubsequent years who have not been able to throw off the shackles\nof T\u00fcbingenism. The question has often been asked whether the\ndivision was meant geographically or ethnographically. Was Paul to\npreach everywhere outside of Palestine both to Jews and Gentiles,\nwhile the original apostles were to labor in Palestine only; or\nwas Paul to preach to Gentiles wherever found, while the original\napostles were to labor for Jews wherever found? In other words, to\nwhose province were assigned the Jews of the Dispersion--to the\nprovince of Paul and Barnabas, or to the province of the original\napostles? It has sometimes been maintained that Paul understood the\ndivision geographically, but that the Jerusalem leaders understood\nit ethnographically; so that Peter transgressed Paul's geographical\ninterpretation when he went to labor in Antioch. But the very\nraising of the whole question is in itself a fundamental error. The\ndivision was not meant in an exclusive or negative sense at all; it\nwas not intended to prevent Peter from laboring among Gentiles or\nPaul from laboring among Jews. The same gospel was being preached\nby both Paul and Peter; they gave each other the right hand of\nfellowship. What was meant was simply a general recognition of the\ndispensation of God which had so far prevailed. By that dispensation\nPaul and Barnabas had been sent particularly to the Gentiles and\nthe Jerusalem apostles to the Jews. If either group was hindered in\nits work, the interests of the Church would suffer. Both groups,\ntherefore, were absolutely necessary in order that both Jews and\nGentiles should be won.\n\nIn one particular, indeed, the Jerusalem leaders requested expressly\nthat the division of labor should not be taken too strictly; they\nhoped that Paul would not be so much engrossed in his Gentile\nwork as to forget the poor of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. ii. 10).\nIt should be observed very carefully that this request about\nthe poor forms an exception, not at all to the full recognition\nof Paul's gospel, but only to the division of labor as between\nJews and Gentiles. It does not go with the remote words of verse\n6 (\"for to me those who were of repute added nothing\"), but with\nthe immediately adjacent words in verse 9. Paul does not say,\ntherefore, \"To me those of repute added (or imposed) nothing except\nthat I should remember the Jerusalem poor.\" If he had said that,\nthen perhaps it would be difficult to explain the omission of the\nApostolic Decree; for the Decree as much as the request for aid of\nthe Jerusalem poor was something that the Jerusalem leaders laid\nupon him. But the fact is that neither the Decree nor the request\nabout the poor has anything whatever to do with Paul's gospel or the\nattitude of the Jerusalem leaders toward it. What is really meant\nby the request for aid is simply this: \"You are the apostle to the\nGentiles; it is a great work; we wish you Godspeed in it. But even\nin so great a work as that, do not forget your needy Jewish brethren\nin Jerusalem.\"\n\nAfter the conference at Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas returned to\nAntioch. According to the Book of Acts the letter of the Jerusalem\nChurch was joyfully received; it meant a confirmation of Gentile\nfreedom and relief from the attacks of the Judaizers. But new\ndisturbances began, and Peter was concerned in them. He had gone to\nAntioch. There is not the slightest reason to think that his arrival\noccasioned anything but joy. The notion that Paul was jealously\nguarding his rights in a Gentile church and resented the coming of\nPeter as an intrusion has not the slightest basis either in Acts\nor in the Pauline Epistles. But at Antioch Jews and Gentiles were\nliving together in the Church, and their juxtaposition presented\na serious problem. The Gentile Christians, it will be remembered,\nhad been released from the obligation of being circumcised and of\nundertaking to keep the Mosaic Law. The Jewish Christians, on the\nother hand, had not been required to give up their ancestral mode\nof life. But how could the Jewish Christians continue to live under\nthe Law if they held companionship with Gentiles in a way which\nwould render the strict observance of the Law impossible? Should the\nprecedence be given to the observance of the Law on the part of the\nJewish Christians or to the new principle of Christian unity? This\nquestion had not been settled by the Apostolic Council, for even\nif the Gentile Christians observed the provisions of the Apostolic\nDecree, table companionship with them would still have seemed to\ninvolve a transgression of the Law. Peter, however, took a step\nbeyond what had already been settled; he relaxed the strictness\nof his Jewish manner of life by eating with the Gentiles. He was\nconvinced of the revolutionary change wrought by the coming of\nChrist, and gave practical expression to his conviction by holding\nfull companionship with all his brethren. After a time, however, and\nperhaps during an absence of Paul from the city, certain men came\nfrom James, and their coming occasioned difficulty. It is not said\nthat these men were commissioned by James, and some readers have\nthought that \"from James\" means merely \"from Jerusalem,\" James being\nnamed merely as representative of the church over which he presided.\nBut even if the newcomers stood in some closer relationship to\nJames, or even had been sent by him, it is an unwarranted assumption\nthat James was responsible for the trouble that they caused, or\nhad sent them to Antioch with the purpose of limiting the freedom\nof Peter's conduct. They may have abused whatever commission they\nhad received. Moreover, it must be remembered that they are not\nexpressly blamed by Paul. If they clung conscientiously to the\nkeeping of the Law, as they had been accustomed to do at Jerusalem,\nPaul would perhaps not necessarily condemn them; for he did not\non principle or in all circumstances require Jewish Christians to\ngive up the keeping of the Law. But Peter had really transcended\nthat point of view; and when, therefore, he now, from fear of these\nnewcomers, withdrew from the Gentiles, he was concealing his true\nconvictions. It was the inconsistency of his conduct that Paul felt\ncalled upon to rebuke. That inconsistency could not fail to have\na bad effect upon the Gentile Christians. Peter had received them\ninto true fellowship. But now apparently he regarded such liberal\nconduct as a thing to be ashamed of and to be concealed. The Gentile\nChristians could not help drawing the conclusion that they were at\nbest only on the outskirts of the Christian community; the chief\nof the original apostles of Jesus was apparently ashamed of his\nassociation with them. Despite the liberty granted by the Apostolic\nCouncil, therefore, the Gentile Christians were again tempted\nto remove the disabilities which rested upon them, by accepting\ncircumcision and so becoming full members of the Church. Evidently\nthe keeping of the Law on the part of Jewish Christians was a\nhalf-way position. But when it was pursued conscientiously, as a\nduty still resting upon men of Jewish descent, it might possibly be\ndealt with gently by Paul. When, however, it was undertaken for fear\nof men, in the face of better understanding, it became \"hypocrisy\"\nand was rebuked sharply. If the transcending of the Law, in the\ninterests of Christian unity, had once been grasped as a necessary\nconsequence of the redemption wrought by Christ, then to repudiate\nit was to bring discredit upon Christ Himself, and make His death of\nnone avail.\n\nThe influence of Peter's withdrawal from the Gentile Christians soon\nbegan to make itself felt; other Jewish Christians followed Peter's\nexample, and even Barnabas was carried away. A serious crisis had\narisen. But God had not deserted His Church. The Church was saved\nthrough the instrumentality of Paul.\n\nTo Paul had been revealed the full implications of the gospel; to\nhim the freedom of the Gentiles was a matter of principle, and\nwhen principle was at stake he never kept silent. Regardless of\nall petty calculations about the influence that might be lost or\nthe friendships that might be sacrificed, he spoke out boldly for\nChrist; he rebuked Peter openly before the assembled Church. It\nshould always be observed, however, that it was not the principles\nof Peter, but his conduct, which Paul was rebuking. The incident\nis therefore misused when it is made to establish a fundamental\ndisagreement between Paul and Peter. On the contrary, in the\nvery act of condemning the practice of Peter, Paul approves his\nprinciples; he is rebuking Peter just for the concealment of\nhis correct principles for fear of men. He and Peter, he says,\nwere perfectly agreed about the inadequacy of the Law, and the\nall-sufficiency of faith in Christ; why then should Peter act in\ncontradiction to these great convictions? The passage, Gal. ii.\n11-21, therefore, far from establishing a fundamental disagreement\nbetween Peter and Paul really furnishes the strongest possible\nevidence for their fundamental unity.\n\nBut how did Peter take the rebuke which was administered to him?\nThere should be no real doubt about the answer to this question.\nDetails, indeed, are uncertain; it may perhaps be doubtful when\nPeter acquiesced or how he expressed his acquiescence. But that\nhe acquiesced at some time and in some manner is indicated by the\nwhole subsequent history of the Church. A contrary conclusion has,\nindeed, sometimes been drawn from the silence of Paul. If Peter\nwas convinced by Paul at Antioch, would not Paul have been sure\nto mention so gratifying a result? Would he not have appealed,\nagainst the contentions of the Judaizers in Galatia, to so signal\na recognition of his apostolic authority? This argument ignores\nthe true character of the passage. During the writing of Gal. ii.\n11-21 Paul has altogether ceased to think of Peter. What he had said\nto Peter at Antioch happened to be exactly the same thing that he\ndesired to say, at the time of the writing of the letter, to the\nGalatians. In reporting, not with pedantic verbal accuracy but in\nsubstance, what he had said to Peter at Antioch, he has entered\nupon the very heart of his gospel, which had been despised by the\nJudaizers in Galatia. Long before the end of the glorious passage,\nGal. ii. 11-21, he has forgotten all about Peter and Barnabas and\nAntioch, and is thinking only about the grace of Christ and the\nway in which it was being made of none effect by those who would\ndesert it for a religion of works. To expect him to descend from\nthe heights in order to narrate the outcome of the incident at\nAntioch is to do woeful injustice to the character of the apostle's\nmind and the manner of his literary activity. Gal. ii. 11-21 forms\na transition between the first main division of the Epistle, in\nwhich Paul is answering the personal attack of the Judaizers, and\nthe second main division, in which he is defending the contents of\nhis gospel. Before the end of the passage Paul has plunged into\nthe principal thing that he wanted to say to the Galatians, who\nwere making void the cross of Christ. The presentation in Gal. ii.\n11-21 of what Bengel[61] called the \"marrow of Christianity\" leads\ninevitably, therefore, not to a pedantic narration of what Peter\ndid, but to the exclamation of Gal. iii. 1, \"O foolish Galatians,\nwho did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set\nforth crucified?\"\n\n  [61] On Gal. ii. 19.\n\nThus the silence of Paul about the outcome of the incident at\nAntioch does not at all establish the outcome as unfavorable. But\nthere are positive indications on the other side. Of course, if Gal.\nii. 1-10 were identified with the famine visit, the whole question\nwould be settled. In that case, the incident of Gal. ii. 11-21 would\nhave been followed by the Apostolic Council, at which the harmony of\nPeter and Paul found full expression. But even if the identification\nof Gal. ii. 1-10 with the Apostolic Council be adopted, there are\nstill plain indications that the outcome of the Antioch incident was\nfavorable.\n\nIn the first place, Paul mentions Peter in 1 Cor. ix. 5 with\nrespect, as an apostle to whose example appeal may be made; in 1\nCor. iii. 22 he classes Peter with himself and with Apollos as a\npossession of all Christians;[62] and in 1 Cor. xv. 1-11 he includes\nas part of his fundamental missionary preaching the appearance of\nthe risen Christ to Peter, and appeals to the unity which existed\nbetween his own preaching and that of the other apostles (verses 5,\n11).[63]\n\n  [62] Knowling, _The Witness of the Epistles_, 1892, p. 14, note 1.\n\n  [63] Knowling, _loc. cit._\n\nIn the second place, Paul concerned himself earnestly, according\nto 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans, with the collection for the\nJerusalem poor. If the incident at Antioch had meant a repudiation\nof the \"right hand of fellowship\" which Peter in common with\nJames and John had given to Paul at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 9), it is\ndifficult to see how Paul could have continued to engage in a form\nof brotherly service which was the most touching expression of that\nfellowship. If there was a permanent breach between Peter and Paul,\nthe contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem could hardly have\nbeen collected.\n\nIn the third place, the agitation of the Judaizers seems to have\ndied down during the third missionary journey. It appears, indeed,\nat Corinth, according to the Corinthian Epistles, but seems there\nto have lacked that insistence upon the keeping of the Law which\nhad made it so dangerous in Galatia. In the epistles of the\ncaptivity--Colossians and Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians--it\nappears, if at all, only in the obscure reference in Phil. iii.\n2ff., which may relate to non-Christian Judaism rather than to\nJewish Christianity. This subsidence of the Judaizing activity is\ndifficult to understand if the benefits of the Jerusalem conference\nhad been annulled by a serious breach at Antioch.\n\nFinally, the whole subsequent history of the Church is explicable\nonly if there was fundamental unity between Peter and Paul. Ever\nsince the formation of the Old Catholic Church at the close of the\nsecond century the Church was founded upon the twin pillars of\nPeter and Paul. How was this unity produced if in the apostolic\nage there was fundamental disunion? The existence of this problem\nwas fully recognized by F. C. Baur, and the recognition of it\nconstitutes one element of greatness in Baur's work. But the\nelaborate solution which Baur proposed has had to be abandoned. Baur\nsupposed that the harmony between Pauline and Petrine Christianity\nwas produced by a gradual compromise effected during the second\ncentury. Subsequent investigation has pushed the harmony very\nmuch further back. The unity between Peter and Paul appears, for\nexample, plainly expressed in the letter of Clement of Rome (about\n95 A. D.), who appeals to the two great apostles as though both\nwere of recognized authority; it appears also in the first Epistle\nof Peter, which even if not genuine is important as attributing\nto Peter, as though the attribution were a matter of course, a\nconception of the gospel thoroughly in harmony with that of Paul;\nit appears in the early traditional account of John Mark, by which\nMark is made to be a follower of Peter (compare 1 Peter v. 13) and\nto have received from Peter the substance of his Gospel, so that\nwhen his cordial relations with Paul are remembered (Col. iv. 10;\nPhilem. 24) he constitutes an important link between Peter and\nPaul. What is more important, however, than all details, is the\nundoubted fact that before the end of the first century epistles\nof Paul and genuine tradition about Jesus, which latter must at\nfirst have been connected with the Jerusalem Church, appear side\nby side as possessing high authority in the Church. Finally, the\ntestimony of the Book of Acts is now admitted to be at any rate very\nmuch earlier than Baur supposed; and that testimony, so far as the\nharmony between Paul and Peter is concerned, is unequivocal. Thus\nthe explanation which Baur proposed for the final healing of the\nsupposed breach between Peter and Paul is unsatisfactory. But no\nother explanation has been discovered to take its place. The very\nexistence of the Church would have been impossible if there had been\na permanent breach between the leader in the Gentile mission and the\nleader among the original disciples of Jesus.\n\nThe Book of Acts does not mention the difficulty which arose\nat Antioch with regard to table companionship between Jews and\nGentiles. But it does mention another disagreement between Paul and\nBarnabas. Barnabas desired to take John Mark along on the second\nmissionary journey, while Paul was unwilling to take with him again\nthe one who had turned back on the former journey and had not gone\nto those South Galatian churches which it was now proposed to\nrevisit. It was maintained by the T\u00fcbingen school of criticism that\nthe lesser quarrel has here been inserted by the author of Acts with\nthe express purpose of covering up the more serious disagreement\nwhich was the real reason for the separation of Barnabas and Paul.\nBut the insertion of a quarrel is rather an unnatural way to cover\nup the fact that there was another quarrel; it would have been\nbetter to keep altogether silent about the disagreement. Moreover,\nthe good faith of the author is now generally accepted. There is\nanother possible way of explaining the omission of the incident\nof Gal. ii. 11-21 from the Book of Acts. It may be surmised that\nthe incident was so unimportant in its consequences, Peter and\nBarnabas were so quickly convinced by Paul, that a historian who was\nconcerned, not with personal details about the relations between\nPaul and the other leaders, but with the external progress of the\ngospel, did not find it necessary to mention the incident at all.\n\nAfter the separation of Barnabas from Paul at the beginning of the\nsecond missionary journey, it is not recorded that the two men\nwere ever associated again in missionary work. But in 1 Cor. ix. 6\nBarnabas is spoken of with respect--\"Or I only and Barnabas, have\nwe not a right to forbear working.\" Evidently Paul was interested\nin the work of Barnabas, and was not ashamed to appeal to his\nexample. In Col. iv. 10, moreover, \"Mark, the cousin of Barnabas\"\nis mentioned, and is commended to the attention of the Colossian\nChristians. Mark here forms a link between Paul and Barnabas as he\ndoes between Paul and Peter. Evidently the estrangement at Antioch\nwas not permanent even in the case of Mark, against whom there was\nthe special objection that he had withdrawn from the work at Perga.\nAccording to 2 Tim. iv. 11, Mark became exactly what he had not been\nat Perga, \"useful\" to Paul \"for ministering.\" And if the testimony\nof 2 Timothy be rejected, the same cordial relationship between\nPaul and Mark appears also in Col. iv. 10, 11; Philem. 24. The\nscanty indications all point very decidedly away from any permanent\nestrangement as resulting from the incidents at Antioch.\n\nDuring the second and third missionary journeys, the agitation of\nthe Judaizers, as has already been observed, seems to have subsided.\nIn Corinth, indeed, according to 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul appears\nin deadly conflict with certain men who sought to undermine his\napostolic authority. Baur made much of this conflict; indeed, he\nbased his reconstruction of apostolic history upon the Corinthian\nEpistles almost as much as upon Galatians. The starting-point of\nhis investigation was found in the party watchwords mentioned in\n1 Cor. i. 12, \"I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;\nand I of Christ.\" The \"Christ-party\" of the verse, identified with\nthe opponents attacked in 2 Cor. x-xiii, Baur believed to have\nbeen an extreme Judaizing party. This extreme Judaizing party,\nBaur maintained, appealed with some show of reason to the original\napostles in Jerusalem. Thus the Corinthian Epistles like the\nEpistle to the Galatians were made to establish what was to Baur\nthe fundamental fact of apostolic history, a serious conflict of\nprinciple between Paul and the original apostles.[64]\n\n  [64] Baur, \"Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde,\" in\n  _T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie_, 1831, 4 Heft, pp. 61-206.\n\nSubsequent investigation, however, has cast at least serious doubt\nupon the T\u00fcbingen exegesis, even where it has not discredited it\naltogether. The whole matter of the Christ-party of 1 Cor. i.\n12 is felt to be exceedingly obscure, so obscure that J. Weiss,\nfor example, in his recent commentary on 1 Corinthians, has felt\nconstrained to cut the Gordian knot by regarding the words, \"And I\nof Christ\", as an interpolation.[65] Where this heroic measure has\nnot been resorted to, various interpretations have been proposed.\nSometimes, for example, the Christ-party has been thought to have\nconsisted of those who rejected the other watchwords, but in such\na proud and quarrelsome way that the watchword, \"I am of Christ,\"\nwhich should have belonged to all, became only the shibboleth of\nanother party. Sometimes, again, the Christ-party has been regarded\nas a gnosticizing party which boasted of direct communications\nwith the risen Christ. At any rate, it is very difficult to find\nin the words \"I am of Christ\" any clear designation of Judaizers\nwho appealed against Paul to James or to their own connections with\nJesus in Palestine. On the contrary, the reader of the first four\nchapters of 1 Corinthians may well be doubtful whether there were\nany distinct parties at all. It looks rather as though what Paul\nwas rebuking were merely a spirit of division, which manifested\nitself now in one watchword and now in another. The Corinthian\nChristians seem to have been \"sermon-tasters\"; they were proud of\ntheir \"wisdom,\" and laid undue stress upon the varying form of the\ngospel message to the neglect of the content. It is noteworthy\nthat in 1 Cor. i-iv Paul does not enter upon any anti-Judaistic\npolemic, but addressed himself to those who in a spirit of pride and\nquarrelsomeness sought after wisdom. \"If you would be truly wise and\ntruly 'spiritual,'\" he says, \"then cease your contentions.\" Paul\nwas perhaps combating not any definite parties, but only the party\nspirit.\n\n  [65] J. Weiss, _Der erste Korintherbrief_, 1910, in Meyer, _op.\n  cit._, 9te Aufl., p. xxxviii.\n\nIt must be admitted that there were in the Corinthian Church persons\nwho emphasized against Paul the advantages of Palestinian origin and\nof direct connection with Jesus. But there is no reason to bring\nthese opponents of Paul into any close relation to the original\napostles and to James. The letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1)\nmay have come elsewhere than from the apostles; indeed the mention\nof letters from the Corinthians as well as to them would seem to\nmake the passage refer to a general habit of credential-bearing\nrather than to any special credentials from Jerusalem. The opponents\ndesired to push themselves into other men's spheres of labor; and\nin order to do so they were in the habit of arming themselves with\ncommendatory epistles. The reference is quite general and to us\nquite obscure; it is only by exceedingly bold specialization that\nit can be made to attest the existence of letters of commendation\nfrom the Jerusalem leaders. Moreover, even if the opponents did have\nsome sort of endorsement from Jerusalem, they may have abused the\nconfidence which had been reposed in them. The T\u00fcbingen exegesis\nof 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11, by which \"the chiefest apostles\" were\nidentified with the pillars of the Jerusalem Church should be\nrejected; and the phrase (which is rather to be translated \"those\nwho are apostles overmuch\") should be taken as designating simply\nthe Corinthian agitators themselves. Thus, the \"apostles overmuch\"\nof 2 Cor. xi. 5 become the same as the \"false apostles\" of verse\n13, the latter verse being used in order to interpret the former.\nIn 1 Cor. i. 12, Peter is mentioned as being appealed to by one\nof the \"parties\" in the Corinthian Church. It has sometimes been\nmaintained, on the basis of this verse, that Peter had actually been\npresent in Corinth as had Apollos and Paul, who appear in two of the\nother party watchwords. But the matter is at least very doubtful.\nAs chief of the original disciples of Jesus Peter might well have\nevoked the special admiration of certain members of the Corinthian\nChurch without having ever been personally present. There does not\nseem to be the slightest evidence for supposing that the admirers of\nPeter mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12 were extreme Judaizers; and there\nis no decisive reason for identifying them with the opponents who\nappear in 2 Cor. x-xiii. Certainly there is no reason for making\nPeter responsible for the factiousness of those who used his name.\nIt must be remembered that Paul rebukes the \"Paul party\"--if it\nbe a party--as much as any of the others, and distinctly commends\nApollos, who was appealed to by the \"Apollos party.\" Evidently the\nfaults of the \"parties\" were not due at all to those whose names\nthe parties used. In 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, Paul says, \"All things are\nyours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas.\" Here Peter is put as\npart of the common possession of all Christians. There could not\npossibly be a clearer recognition of the complete fellowship which\nPaul regards as existing between himself and Peter. Finally, in 1\nCor. xv. 11, Paul calls attention expressly to the fundamental unity\nbetween himself and the other apostles: \"Whether then it be I or\nthey, so we preach, and so ye believed.\"[66] The Corinthian Epistles\ncertainly lend no support to the T\u00fcbingen contention; they certainly\nprovide no evidence of a breach between Paul and the original\ndisciples of Jesus.\n\n  [66] See Knowling, as cited above, p. 104, footnotes 1 and 2.\n\nAt the time of his last visit to Jerusalem, Paul came again into\ncontact with James, the brother of the Lord, and with the Jerusalem\nChurch. The arrival at Jerusalem is narrated in one of the\nwe-sections of the Book of Acts, and it is there said, \"The brethren\nreceived us gladly\" (Acts xxi. 17). The use of the first person\nplural disappears after the following verse, where the meeting of\nPaul with James is described, but it is very difficult to separate\nActs xxi. 20, for example, from the we-section. Of course there\ncould be no use of the \"we\" when the narrator did not participate\nin what was being described. In Acts xxi. 20, it is said that James\nand the presbyters \"glorified God\" on account of what had been done\namong the Gentiles through the ministry of Paul. Whatever view may\nbe taken of the composition of Acts, therefore, the warm reception\nof Paul on the part of the Jerusalem leaders seems to be attested by\nan eyewitness. Such a reception would be very difficult to explain\nif the relations between Paul and Jerusalem had been what they are\nrepresented as being by the T\u00fcbingen scholars.\n\nAccording to Acts xxi. 20-26, James brought to Paul's attention the\nscruples of the Jewish Christians, who were \"zealous for the law.\"\nThese Jewish Christians had been told that Paul was teaching the\nJews of the Dispersion not to circumcise their children or to walk\n\"in the customs.\" With regard to the Gentile Christians, James has\nnothing to say except to call attention to the Apostolic Decree\nwhich the Jerusalem Church itself had adopted. But in order to allay\nthe suspicions of the Jewish Christians, James suggests that Paul\nshould participate in a Jewish vow. According to Acts xxi. 26, Paul\ncomplied with the request.\n\nSuch compliance was regarded by the T\u00fcbingen scholars as absolutely\nincompatible with Paul's character, and therefore as unhistorical.\nBut recent criticism has been becoming, to say the least, less\ncertain about the matter. The incident is narrated in a concrete\nway which creates a most favorable impression; indeed, the passage\nseems even to belong to the supposed we-section source. Moreover,\na sober study of the Pauline Epistles has shown that the attitude\nof Paul toward Judaism and toward the Law was by no means what\nBaur and Zeller, through a one-sided interpretation of the polemic\nof Galatians, had supposed. In particular, the sharing of Paul in\na Jewish vow is only an exemplification of the principle which\nPaul lays down in 1 Cor. ix. 19-22 of becoming all things to all\nmen. Where could the principle possibly have applied if it did not\napply to the situation in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's last\nvisit? Where, if not there, could Paul have felt bound to become\nto the Jews as a Jew in order that he might gain Jews (1 Cor. ix.\n20)? There seems to have been no attempt at that time to force\nthe Law upon Gentiles, and no tendency to regard it even for Jews\nas necessary to salvation. Compliance with Jewish custom would\ntherefore not be open to the misunderstanding which might have made\nit inadvisable during the midst of the Judaistic controversy. The\ndevotion of the Jewish Christians to the Law seems never to have\nbeen condemned by Paul on principle. Should he then run counter to\nJewish feeling by pursuing a crassly Gentile manner of life in the\nvery midst of Judaism, when the national life, in the troublous\nyears before the Jewish war, was running high? The answer to this\nquestion is at any rate not so simple as was formerly supposed.\nParticipation by Paul in a Jewish vow in Jerusalem is not beyond\nthe limits of that devotion to the Jewish people which the Epistles\nundoubtedly attest. And it is not really derogatory to the character\nof Paul. Where the truth of the gospel was concerned, Paul was\nabsolutely unswerving and absolutely without regard for personal\nconsiderations; but when the \"weaker brethren\" of his own nation\ncould be won without sacrifice of principle, he was fully capable of\nbecoming to the Jews as a Jew.\n\nWhile Paul was in prison in Jerusalem and in C\u00e6sarea, what was the\nattitude of James and of the Jerusalem Church? The Book of Acts does\nnot say, and far-reaching conclusions have sometimes been drawn\nfrom its silence. The Jerusalem leaders, it is said, were at least\nlukewarm in their defense of Paul; they themselves were zealous for\nthe Law, and they had only been half-convinced of the loyalty of\nPaul; it is no wonder, then, that they were not anxious to bring\nJewish disfavor upon themselves by championing the cause of Paul.\n\nThis representation can find no support whatever in the sources.\nCertainly it is not supported by the silence of Acts. The disciples\nof Jesus were certainly not in positions of political influence\nat Jerusalem; indeed only a few years later even James, despite\nhis strict Jewish manner of life, fell victim to the fury of\nhis enemies. If at such a time and under such circumstances the\nJerusalem disciples accomplished nothing for Paul, the fact does not\nattest any coldness in their sympathy, or any repentance for the\njoy with which, on the unequivocal testimony of a we-section, they\nhad greeted him on his arrival.\n\nThe Book of Acts does not mention the collection which according to\n1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans Paul carried up to Jerusalem for the\npoor of the Jerusalem Church, except perhaps in the bare allusion\nin Acts xxiv. 17. But no great significance is to be attached to\nthe omission. It must be remembered that the Book of Acts is not\nconcerned primarily with the inner development of the churches, but\nrather with the external progress of the gospel out from Jerusalem\nto the Gentile world. How meager, for example, as compared with the\nCorinthian Epistles, is the account which Acts gives of affairs at\nCorinth! To infer, therefore, from the silence of Acts about the\ncollection that the collection was not graciously received is to\nmake use of the argument from silence in a most adventurous and\nunwarranted manner. The inference is definitely opposed, moreover,\nby the testimony of a we-section in Acts xxi. 17, where Paul is\nsaid to have been warmly received on his arrival in Jerusalem. That\nverse refers perhaps to the reception of Paul merely in a little\ngroup at the house of Mnason. But the warmth of his reception there\nwas at least of good presage for the reception which took place the\nnext day in the assembly of the elders. Rom. xv. 31 is sometimes\nthought to indicate anxious solicitude on the part of Paul lest the\ncollection should not be acceptable to the Jerusalem Church. But the\nwords will not bear the weight which is hung upon them. When Paul\nasks his readers to pray that he may be rescued from them that are\ndisobedient in Jud\u00e6a (that is, the non-Christian Jews), and that the\noffering which he is carrying to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the\nsaints, he certainly does not indicate any fear lest the offering\nmay not be acceptable. The offering had been much on his heart;\nit was being carried to Jerusalem at the imminent risk of life;\nthese perils were being encountered out of love for the Jerusalem\nbrethren. Surely it is natural for the bearer of such an offering\nto wish that it may be acceptable. That wish is natural in the\ncase of any gift, no matter how certain the giver may be that the\nrecipient will be grateful. It was still more natural in the case of\nthe Pauline collection. Moreover, even if Paul was solicitous about\nthe reception of the gift, his solicitude may well have concerned\nmerely those members of the Jerusalem Church mentioned in Acts xxi.\n20-22, who were suspicious of Gentile Christianity. There is no\nreason, therefore, for connecting the solicitude of Paul with the\noriginal apostles or with James.\n\nIt will not be necessary for the present purpose to attempt any\nreview of the missionary journeys of Paul. The outline of Paul's\nlife is here being considered merely for its bearing upon the\nrelations which Paul sustained (1) to the original disciples of\nJesus, (2) to Judaism, and (3) to paganism. The first of these\nrelationships has been chiefly in view. Enough has, however, perhaps\nbeen said to establish the following propositions:\n\n(1) The relation between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus\nwas cordial; there is no reason to interpret the \"right hand of\nfellowship\" which the leaders of the Jerusalem Church gave to Paul\nin any other than its full meaning, and no reason to suppose that\nthe good relationship was broken off at any later time.\n\n(2) The early training of Paul was thoroughly Jewish, and was\nfundamentally Palestinian, not Hellenistic; and Paul never\nrelinquished his attachment to his own people.\n\n(3) Paul's attitude toward paganism, after the conversion as well\nas before it, was an attitude of abhorrence. If common ground was\never sought with his pagan hearers, it was only as a starting-point\nfor the denunciation of idolatry and the proclamation of a revealed\ngospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nPAUL AND JESUS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nPAUL AND JESUS[67]\n\n  [67] In the present chapter there are some coincidences of thought\n  and expression with the paper by the same author entitled \"Jesus and\n  Paul\" in _Biblical and Theological Studies_ by the Members of the\n  Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, 1912, pp. 547-578.\n\n\nThe review of Paul's life has prepared the way for the principal\nsubject of investigation. What was the origin of the religion of\nPaul?\n\nThe most obvious answer to that question is that the religion of\nPaul was based upon Jesus. That is the answer which has always been\ngiven in the Church. The Church has always accepted the apostle\nPaul, not at all as a religious philosopher, but simply and solely\nas a witness to Jesus. If he was not a true disciple of Jesus, then\nthe authority which he has always possessed and the influence which\nhe has wielded have been based upon a misconception.\n\nBut exactly the same answer was given by Paul himself. Paul\nregarded himself as a servant of Christ, and based his whole life\nupon what Christ had done and what Christ was continuing to do.\n\"It is no longer I that live,\" he says, \"but Christ liveth in me.\"\nUnquestionably this Christ, upon whom Paul based his life, was\nidentified by Paul with Jesus of Nazareth, a person who had lived\nin Palestine a few years before. A mighty change in the mode of\nexistence of Jesus had indeed, Paul believed, been wrought by the\nresurrection; a life of humiliation had given place to a life of\nglory. But it was the same person who lived throughout. There is in\nthe Pauline Epistles not a trace of any distinction between \"Jesus\"\nand \"Christ,\" as though the former were the name of the historic\npersonage who lived in Galilee and the latter the name of the risen\nLord. On the contrary, the name Jesus is applied freely to the risen\nLord, and the name Lord--the loftiest of all titles--is applied\nto the Jesus who suffered and died. It was \"the Lord of glory,\"\naccording to Paul, who was crucified (1 Cor. ii. 8). The same\nphenomenon appears everywhere in the Epistles: the Lord of glory\nlived the life of a servant on earth; and Jesus, the man who had\nrecently lived in Palestine, was to be worshiped by all in heaven\nand on earth (Phil. ii. 10, 11).\n\nThere is, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles not the slightest\ntrace of any gnosticizing separation between Jesus the historic\nperson, and Christ the divine Lord. There is, moreover, as W. Morgan\nrightly observes,[68] not the slightest trace of any \"adoptionist\nChristology,\" by which a man Jesus could be conceived of either as\ngrowing up gradually into divinity or as received into divinity by a\ncatastrophic event like the resurrection. On the contrary, Paul says\nexpressly that the Jesus who lived in Palestine existed, before His\nappearance upon earth, in the form of God; and the entrance of that\nperson upon human life is represented as a voluntary act of love.\nHis higher nature, therefore, existed from the beginning; indeed He\nwas, according to Paul, the instrument in the creation of the world.\n\n  [68] W. Morgan, _The Religion and Theology of Paul_, 1917.\n\nFinally, there is no trace in Paul of any doctrine of \"kenosis,\"\nby which the higher nature of Christ might have been regarded as\nso relinquished while He was on earth that the words and deeds of\nthe historic person would become matter of indifference. Such a\nrepresentation is refuted not only by what has just been said about\nthe application of the term \"Lord\" to the historic Jesus, but also\nby the references of Paul to actual words and deeds of Jesus. These\nreferences are few; their scantiness may require explanation. But\nthey are sufficient to show that Paul regarded the words of the\nhistoric Jesus as possessing absolute authority and His example as\nnormative for the Christian life.\n\nThus the testimony of Paul is plain. He regarded Christ as Lord\nand Master, and he identified that Christ fully with the Jesus who\nhad lived but a few years before. This testimony must be faced and\ninvalidated by those who would find the origin of Paul's religion\nelsewhere than in Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nSuch is the testimony of Paul. But what was the testimony of his\ncontemporaries? In the environment of Paul were to be found some\nmen who had been intimate friends of Jesus; presumably they were\nacquainted with Jesus' character and teaching. What was their\nattitude toward Paul? Did they regard him as an innovator with\nrespect to Jesus, or did they admit him to the company of Jesus'\ntrue disciples? Since they knew both Jesus and Paul, their testimony\nas to the relationship between the two is obviously worth having. At\nthis point appears the importance of Baur's work. It is the merit\nof Baur that however faulty his solution he placed at least in the\nforefront of interest the problem of the relationship between Paul\nand the intimate friends of Jesus. That relationship, Baur believed,\nwas fundamentally a relationship of conflict; Paul and Peter,\naccording to Baur, established at best only a _modus vivendi_, an\nagreement to disagree; really they were separated by a deep-seated\ndifference of principle. But at this point a further problem arises.\nIf Paul and Peter were really in disharmony, how did they ever come\nto be regarded as in harmony? If there was a deep-seated difference\nof principle between Paul and Peter, how did it come about that the\nCatholic Church was founded not upon Paul taken alone, or upon Peter\ntaken alone, but upon Paul and Peter taken together?\n\nHere, again, Baur displayed his true intellectual greatness by\ndetecting and facing the problem. He saw clearly what has seldom\nbeen seen with equal clearness since his day, that the historian\nmust explain the transition not only from the historical Jesus to\napostolic Christianity, but from apostolic Christianity to the Old\nCatholic Church. And for this latter problem he proposed a solution\nwhich was not wanting in grandeur. But his solution, despite its\ngrandeur, has succumbed. Baur's reconstruction of the second\ncentury, with the supposed gradual compromise between Pauline and\nPetrine Christianity, resulting finally in the Christianity of the\nOld Catholic Church, was one of the first elements in his system\nwhich had to be abandoned; it was destroyed, in the first place,\nby the criticism of A. Ritschl, and, in the second place, by the\npainstaking labors of Lightfoot, Zahn, Von Harnack and others,\nby which, through a study of second-century documents and their\nliterary relationships, it was shown that the New Testament books\ncannot be scattered at will anywhere throughout the second century\nin the interests of a theory of development. Ritschl showed that the\nimportance of specifically Jewish Christianity had been enormously\nexaggerated by Baur; and the study of patristics tended to place\nthe New Testament books much earlier than the late dating which the\ntheory of Baur required.\n\nThus Baur did not succeed in overcoming the fundamental objection\nraised against him by the very existence of a Church that appealed\nboth to Peter and to Paul. If Peter and Paul were really in\nfundamental disharmony, how did the Church come to bring them\ntogether so confidently and at such an early time? This question\nhas never been answered. The very existence of the Church is a\nrefutation of Baur; the Church never could have existed unless the\napostles had been in fundamental agreement.\n\nBut Baur may also be refuted directly, in a purely exegetical way,\nby an examination of the sources to which he himself appealed. Baur\nestablished his hypothesis of a conflict between Paul and Peter on\nthe basis of the Pauline Epistles. Subsidiary evidence, thought to\nbe found in other books of the New Testament, was soon shown to\nbe illusory. Thus Baur and the early T\u00fcbingen scholars detected\nan anti-Pauline polemic in the Book of Revelation, which they\nattributed to John the son of Zebedee. This use of the Apocalypse\nwas soon abandoned even by Baur's own disciples. The theory of Baur,\ntherefore, stands or falls with his interpretation of the Pauline\nEpistles, especially 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians.\n\nThe Corinthian Epistles, as has been observed in the last chapter,\nafford no real support to the hypothesis of an inter-apostolic\nconflict. There is not the slightest reason to connect the\ntroublemakers at Corinth with the original apostles or with James;\nand the whole subject of the \"Christ-party\" in 1 Cor. i. 12 is now\nfelt to be very obscure. The evidence of an apostolic conflict\nnarrows down, therefore, to the second chapter of Galatians.\n\nUndoubtedly there are expressions in that chapter which if taken\nalone might indicate ill-will between Paul and the Jerusalem\nleaders. In Gal. ii. 2, 6, for example, James and Peter and John\nare called \"those who seemed,\"[69] and in the latter verse the\nphrase is explained by the fuller designation, \"those who seemed\nto be something.\" In Gal. ii. 9, the same persons are designated\nas \"those who seemed to be pillars.\" In themselves these words\nare capable of an interpretation which would be derogatory to the\npersons so designated. The meaning might conceivably be that the\nJerusalem leaders only \"seemed\" or \"were thought\" to be something,\nor only thought themselves to be something (compare Gal. vi. 3),\nwhereas they really were nothing. But this interpretation is, of\ncourse, quite impossible, since Paul certainly recognized Peter and\nJohn as genuine apostles and James the brother of the Lord as a man\nof real authority in the Church. The most that may be maintained,\ntherefore, is that the choice of the peculiar phrases indicates a\ncertain irritation of Paul against the Jerusalem leaders; instead of\ncalling them pillars (which certainly he recognized them as being)\nhe shows his irritation, it is said, by calling them \"those who were\nthought to be pillars.\"\n\n  [69] \u1f41\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThe presence of indignant feeling in the passage must clearly be\nadmitted; but the question is whether the indignation is directed\nagainst the Jerusalem leaders themselves or only against the\nJudaizers who falsely appealed to them. The latter view is correct.\nIt must be remembered that what Paul in Gal. ii. 1-10 desires most\nof all to prevent is the impression that he is appealing to the\nJerusalem apostles as to a higher instance. He is not basing the\nauthority of his preaching upon any authorization that the apostles\ngave him; he is not saying that he has a right to be heard because\nthose who were the pillars of the Church endorsed his message. Such\na representation of the conference would have cast despite upon all\nthe work which he had done before, and would have made it necessary\nfor him in the future to prove constantly against all Judaizers and\nother opponents his agreement with the Jerusalem authorities. The\nprofound consciousness which he had of his apostolic authority did\nnot permit any such course of action; and such restrictions would\nhave hindered his work wherever he went. It was absolutely essential\nin the economy of God that the leader of the Gentile work should\nhave independent authority and should not be obliged to appeal again\nand again to authorities who were far away, at Jerusalem. Hence what\nPaul desires to make clear above all in Gal. ii. 1-10 is that though\nhe appealed to the Jerusalem authorities it was not necessary for\nhis own sake for him to appeal to them. They were great, but their\ngreatness had absolutely nothing to do with his authority; for they\nadded nothing to him. It was therefore not the real greatness of the\noriginal apostles which caused him to appeal to them (for he needed\nno authorization from any man no matter how great), but only the\ngreatness which was attributed to them by the Judaizers. They really\nwere great, but it was only the false use which had been made of\ntheir greatness by the Judaizers which caused him to lay his gospel\nbefore them. The Judaizers were to be refuted from the lips of the\nvery authorities to whom they appealed.\n\nIt should be observed that the terms which are now under discussion\nare incapable of real translation into English. The equivalent\nEnglish words might seem to imply that the reputed greatness of the\nJerusalem leaders was not also a real greatness. There is no such\nimplication in the Greek. The shortest of the phrases, which may\nbe paraphrased \"those of repute,\" was used in Greek sometimes in a\nway thoroughly honorable to the persons designated. Possibly the\nrepetition of the phrases, which seems somewhat strange, was due to\nthe employment of the same phrases by the Judaizing opponents. The\npeculiarities of the passage may perhaps be due partly to the fact\nthat Paul is here using catchwords of his adversaries.\n\nAt any rate, if the reader refuses to interpret these expressions\nin a way derogatory to the original apostles, such refusal is\nnot due merely to a pious desire to preserve harmony in the\napostolic college; it is due rather to the way in which Paul\nhimself everywhere speaks of the apostles, and to the \"right hand\nof fellowship\" which according to this very passage they extended\nto him. It is good exegetical method to interpret things that are\nobscure by things that are plain; but what is plainest of all in\nthis passage is that the very authorities to whom the Judaizers\nappealed against Paul recognized the hand of God in his work and\nbade him Godspeed.\n\nIf Gal. ii. 1-10 affords no support to the theory of Baur, the\nlatter part of the same chapter (Gal. ii. 11-21) is not really any\nmore favorable. This passage does indeed attest a rebuke which\nPaul administered to Peter at Antioch. Peter is even accused of\n\"hypocrisy.\" The Greek word[70] is indeed not quite so harsh as\nthe English word derived from it; it means the \"playing of a part\"\nand so here the concealment of true convictions. Nevertheless, the\nincident remains regrettable enough; evidently real moral blame was\nattached by Paul to Peter's conduct. But what is really significant\nis that in the very act of condemning Peter's practice Paul commends\nhis principles; he appeals to a great fund of Christian conviction\nwhich he and Peter had in common (Gal. ii. 14-21). It will not do to\nsay that in this passage Paul is giving no report of what he said to\nPeter, but is expounding his own views to the Galatians. For in Gal.\nii. 14 he begins to tell what he said to Peter \"before them all\";\nand there is not the slightest indication of a break before the end\nof the chapter. Certainly the break cannot come after verse 14; for\nthe thought of that verse is quite incomplete in itself and becomes\nintelligible only when explained by what follows. The passage\nis best explained, therefore, if it be taken as embodying the\nsubstance of what Paul said to Peter at Antioch, though doubtless\nthere is no attempt at verbal reproduction of the language. At\nany rate, however much of Gal. ii. 14-21 be a report of what was\nsaid at Antioch, and however much be what Paul now wishes to say\nto the Galatians, one thing is clear--when Paul begins in verse\n14 to report what he said to Peter, he means to call attention to\nsomething in which he and Peter were agreed; he means to say: \"You\nand I, though we had all the advantages of the Law, relinquished\nsuch advantages, in order to be justified by faith in Christ. How\nthen can we force the Gentiles to seek salvation by a way which\neven in our own case was futile?\" Whatever else Paul said to Peter,\nthis much he certainly said. The context makes the matter perfectly\nclear. It must always be remembered that Paul blames Peter not\nfor false opinions, but for \"hypocrisy\"--that is, for concealment\nof true opinions. In verse 14, moreover, he says expressly that\nPeter was living after a Gentile manner. The verb is in the present\ntense--\"if thou being a Jew livest as do the Gentiles and not as do\nthe Jews.\" Paul means to say that a principle essentially similar\nto that of the Gentile Christians, according to which in their\ncase the keeping of the Mosaic Law was relinquished, was the fixed\nbasis of Peter's life. Peter's present withdrawal from the Gentiles\nwas a mere temporary aberration. Before the coming of the men from\nJames, he had seen clearly that the great new principle of faith\nin Christ took precedence of the Law, even for Jewish Christians;\nand after the departure of the men he would presumably revert to\nhis old freedom. Indeed even now, even while he was withdrawing\nhimself from his Gentile brethren, the real principle of his life\nhad not been changed; he was still \"living as do the Gentiles.\" But\nhe was concealing his real life for fear of men. The very nature\nof the charge which Paul brought against Peter, therefore, attests\na fundamental unity of principle between the two apostles. Paul\ncondemned Peter for \"hypocrisy\"; not for false principles, but for\nconcealment of true principles. In principle, therefore, Paul and\nPeter were agreed.\n\n  [70] \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nAccordingly, even the very passage which at first sight lends most\ncolor to the hypothesis of Baur, really, when it is correctly\ninterpreted, provides the most striking refutation of that\nhypothesis. The very chapter which attests the appeal of Paul's\nbitter opponents to the original apostles, and records a sharp\nrebuke which Paul administered to Peter, really furnishes the\nbest evidence of apostolic unity. It is the second chapter of\nGalatians which mentions the right hand of fellowship extended to\nPaul by James and Peter and John, and it is the second chapter of\nGalatians which represents the divergence between Paul and Peter as\ndivergence of practice, not of principle. Even if the Epistle to the\nGalatians stood alone, it would establish the fundamental unity of\nthe apostles. But as a matter of fact, the Epistle to the Galatians\ndoes not stand alone; it must be interpreted in the light of other\nsources. The one-sided interpretation of Galatians, with neglect of\nother epistles of Paul and of the Book of Acts, has been one of the\nmost fruitful causes of error in the study of the apostolic age.\nFor example, Gal. ii should never be read except in the light of 1\nCor. xv. 1-11. The two passages emphasize two different aspects of\nPaul's relation to those who had been apostles before him; and only\nwhen both the two aspects are considered is the full truth attained.\nGal. ii emphasizes the independence of Paul's gospel; Paul had not\nreceived it through the instrumentality of men. 1 Cor. xv. 1-11\nemphasizes the harmony of Paul's gospel with that of the original\napostles, whom Christ had commissioned as directly and as truly as\nHe had commissioned Paul. Both passages are contained in sources\nadmitted by all to be sources of primary importance; yet either\npassage might be misunderstood if it were taken alone.\n\nThus the danger of interpreting Gal. ii entirely without reference\nto anything else is signally manifested by a comparison with 1 Cor.\nxv. 1-11. The First Epistle to the Corinthians must be allowed to\ncast light upon Galatians. But if so, may not the same privilege be\ngranted to the Book of Acts? As a matter of fact, the privilege is\nbeing granted to the Book of Acts by a larger and larger number of\nmodern scholars. Baur demanded that the Pauline Epistles should be\ninterpreted by themselves, entirely without reference to Acts. But\nas J. Weiss[71] pertinently remarks, such interpretation is quite\nimpossible; the Epistles taken by themselves are unintelligible;\nthey can be interpreted only when placed in the biographical\noutline provided by the historian. Of course, that outline might be\ndiscredited by a comparison with the Epistles; the divergences might\nreally be contradictions. Comparison of Acts with the Epistles is\ntherefore a matter of fundamental importance. But that comparison,\nas it has been undertaken at some length in the two preceding\nchapters of the present discussion, has resulted favorably to the\nBook of Acts. The divergences between Acts and Pauline Epistles are\nno more to be regarded as contradictions than are the divergences\nbetween various passages in the Epistles themselves; and at many\npoints the historical work casts a flood of light upon the words of\nPaul.\n\n  [71] See p. 40, footnote 1.\n\nThus the imposing construction of Baur was erected by neglecting\nall sources except Galatians and Corinthians, and then by\nmisinterpreting these. When all the available sources are used,\nand estimated at their true value, the hypothesis of a fundamental\nconflict between Paul and the original apostles disappears. There\nwas indeed a bitter conflict in the apostolic age, but, as Ritschl\nobserved against Baur, it was a conflict not between Paul and the\noriginal apostles, but between all the apostles, including both\nPaul and Peter, on the one side, and an extreme Judaizing party on\nthe other. The extreme Judaizing party, not having the support of\nthe original disciples of Jesus, soon ceased to be influential. The\nvarious sects of schismatic Jewish Christians which appear in the\nsecond century--\"Ebionites\" and the like--if they had any roots at\nall the apostolic age (which is more than doubtful), could trace\ntheir spiritual descent not from the original apostles, but from the\nJudaizers. It is no wonder then that they were left behind in the\nmarch of the Church. They were left behind not because Peter was\nleft behind--for Peter appears as at least one of the foundations\nupon which the Old Catholic Church was built--but because Peter had\nleft them behind, or rather because Peter had never given them his\nsupport at all. They were left behind because from the beginning\ntheir spiritual ancestors in the apostolic age had not really\nbelonged with apostolic Christianity, but had been \"false brethren\nprivily brought in.\"\n\nOne fact, indeed, still requires explanation. If Paul and the\noriginal apostles were in such perfect agreement, how is it that the\nJudaizers in the apostolic age could appeal to the original apostles\nagainst Paul? The existence of that appeal cannot altogether be\ndenied. The exact nature of the appeal is not indeed altogether\nclear. It is by no means clear that the Judaizers appealed to\nthe original apostles in support of the content of the Judaizing\nmessage; it is by no means clear that they made Peter or James teach\nthe necessity of the Mosaic Law for salvation. What is clear is only\nthat they appealed to the original apostles in their personal attack\nagainst Paul; they contrasted Paul, who had become a disciple only\nafter the crucifixion, with those who had been intimate with Jesus.\nThey used Peter to discredit the apostolic authority of Paul, but\nit is not so clear that they used Peter to discredit the content of\nPaul's message.\n\nIf, however, they did appeal to Peter in this latter way, if they\ndid appeal to Peter in support of their legalistic contentions, such\nan appeal does not overthrow the conclusions which have just been\nreached about the harmony of Peter and Paul; it does not really make\nPeter an advocate of legalism. For even if Peter was not an advocate\nof legalism the appeal of the Judaizers to him can be explained.\nIt can be explained not by the principles of Peter, but by his\npractice. The early disciples in Jerusalem continued to observe the\nJewish fasts and feasts; they continued in diligent attendance upon\nthe Temple services. Outwardly, they were simply devout Jews; and\nthe manner of their life might therefore have given some color to\nthe Judaizing contentions.\n\nInwardly, it is true, the early disciples were not simply devout\nJews; they were really trusting for their salvation no longer to\ntheir observance of the Law but to Jesus their Saviour. The whole\nspirit of their lives, moreover, was quite different from that which\nprevailed in legalistic Judaism; anxious thought for the morrow,\ngloomy contemplation of the triumphs of the oppressor, had given\nplace to exultant joy. The early disciples, indeed, like the Jews,\nwere still waiting for the establishment of the kingdom of God. But\ntheir waiting was no longer full of sorrow. The Messiah was taken\nfrom them for a time; but He had already appeared and had brought\nsalvation.\n\nThus the early Jerusalem Church was really quite distinct from\ncontemporary Judaism; the real principle of its life was fresh and\nnew. But to a superficial observer, on account of the continuance of\nold customs, the new principle might not appear; to a superficial\nobserver, the observance of Jewish customs on the part of the early\ndisciples might seem to be legalism. And certainly the Judaizers\nwere superficial. Apparently they had come into the Church in the\nperiod of quiet that followed the persecution of Stephen; they had\ncome in from the sect of the Pharisees, and they continued to be\nPharisees at heart. As Pharisees they welcomed the coming of the\nMessiah, but they did not understand the teaching of this Messiah.\nThey looked for a continuance of the prerogatives of Israel. Jesus\nwas the Messiah, but was He not the Jewish Messiah, would He not\nbring about the triumph of the chosen people? Would not all the\npeoples of the earth come to do obeisance to Israel by submitting to\nIsrael's Law? To such observers, the Jewish practice of the original\napostles would furnish welcome support; these observers would not\ncare to look beneath the surface; they would say simply to the\nGentile Christians of Galatia: \"The original disciples of Jesus obey\nthe Mosaic Law; must not you do likewise?\"\n\nAt a later time such an appeal could not have been made; at a later\ntime even the practice of the original apostles ceased to conform to\nJewish custom. The tradition according to which the apostle Peter\nfinally went to Rome is emerging triumphant[72] from the fires of\ncriticism; and if Peter went to Rome, it is inconceivable that\nhe separated himself from Gentile Christians. Even in the early\ndays, in Antioch, he had begun to abandon his Jewish manner of\nlife; surely he must have abandoned it more fully when he went to\nthe capital of the Gentile world. The tradition as to the Ephesian\nresidence of the apostle John also points to the abandonment of the\nLaw on the part of the original apostles, and to their definite\nentrance upon the Gentile mission. That tradition has been rejected\nonly by attending to late and dubious evidence to the neglect of\nwhat is plain. But it is not necessary to appeal to details. All\nthat has been said above about the position of Peter in the mind of\nthe Church shows that even the practice of the original apostles\nfinally adapted itself to the needs of the expanding Gentile work.\n\n  [72] See, for example, Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_, 1915.\n\nBut in the early period, in Jerusalem, before it had become evident\nthat the Jewish people as such was to reject the gospel message,\nthe apostles continued to observe the Law. And by doing so, they\ngave the Judaizers some color of support. Thus if the Judaizers\ndid appeal to the original apostles in support of their legalistic\nclaims, the appeal does not establish any real unity of principle\nbetween them and the original apostles, or any divergence of\nprinciple between the original apostles and Paul. But as a matter\nof fact it is by no means perfectly clear that the appeal was made;\nit is by no means clear that the Judaizers appealed to the original\napostles for the content of their legalistic message rather than\nmerely for their attack upon the independent apostleship of Paul. It\nis possible that they said no more than this: \"Paul was not one of\nthe original disciples of Jesus; his authority is merely a derived\nauthority; he is, therefore, no more worthy to be heard than we; and\nwe can tell you something new--the followers of the Messiah must\nunite themselves with the chosen people and obey the Law of God.\"\n\nAt any rate, even if the Judaizers did appeal to the original\napostles for the content of their message, the appeal was a false\nappeal; the original apostles repudiated the Judaizers, and\nrecognized Paul as a true apostle, with authorization as direct as\ntheir own.\n\nThus Baur was wrong. But suppose Baur were right about the point\nwhich has just been discussed; suppose even the most impossible\nadmissions be made; suppose it be granted that the original apostles\ndiffered fundamentally from Paul. Even then the testimony of the\noriginal apostles to the true connection between Paul and Jesus\nis not invalidated. For even if the original apostles differed\nfundamentally from Paul, the difference concerned only the place\nof the Mosaic Law in the Christian economy, and did not concern\nthe Pauline conception of the person of Christ. So much at least\nmust be insisted upon against Baur. The really astounding fact,\nwhich emerges from all discussion of the apostolic age, is that the\nPauline conception of the person of Christ, whatever may be said of\nthe Pauline doctrine of Gentile freedom, was never criticized by\nthe original apostles. Indeed, so far as can be seen, it was never\ncriticized even by the Judaizers themselves. Apparently it never\noccurred to Paul that his conception of the heavenly Christ required\ndefense. About other things there was controversy; the doctrine of\nChristian freedom, for example, had to be defended against all sorts\nof objections and by the use of all sorts of evidence. But about the\nperson of Christ there was not one word of debate. \"Not by man but\nby Jesus Christ,\" Paul says at the beginning of Galatians. Evidently\nthe Judaizers said, \"Not by Jesus Christ but by man.\" But apparently\nit never occurred to Paul that any one might say, \"By Jesus Christ\nand therefore by man.\" The Judaizers, apparently, as well as Paul,\nrecognized the alternative between Jesus Christ and man; like Paul\nthey separated Jesus Christ from ordinary humanity and placed Him\non the side of God. The same phenomenon appears everywhere in the\nPauline Epistles--the tremendous doctrine of the person of Christ is\nnever defended, but always assumed. Indeed, in the earlier epistles\nthe doctrine is never even set forth in any systematic way; it is\nsimply presupposed. In Colossians, indeed, it is more definitely\nset forth, and apparently in opposition to errorists who failed\nto recognize its full implications. Even in Coloss\u00e6, however, the\ndoctrine does not seem to have been denied; the errorists apparently\ndid not deny the supreme place of Jesus in the scale of being, but\nmerely erred in attaching undue importance to other beings. What is\nreally significant in Colossians is the character of the errorists.\nEvidently they were not conservative disciples, who appealed\nagainst the heavenly Christ of Paul to the facts about the historic\nJesus. On the contrary, they were gnostics, engaged in unhistorical\nspeculations, and as far removed as possible from anything that\nprimitive Palestinian Christianity might conceivably have been. So\nwhen Paul first has to defend his doctrine of the exclusive and\nsupreme importance of Christ, he defends it not against conservative\ndisciples, who could appeal either with or without reason to the\noriginal apostles, but against gnostic speculation. With regard to\nthe person of Christ Paul appears everywhere in perfect harmony with\nall Palestinian Christians.\n\nThe fact is of such importance that it must be examined in the\nlight of all possible objections. Is there any trace in the Pauline\nEpistles of a primitive view of Jesus different from the lofty\nChristology of Paul?\n\nOne such trace has occasionally been found in 2 Cor. v. 16. In that\nverse, after Paul has spoken of the complete break that comes in a\nman's life when he accepts the benefits of Christ's death, he says:\n\"Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though\nwe have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no\nmore.\" Some interpreters have discovered in the words, \"even though\nwe have known Christ after the flesh,\" a reference to a fleshly\nconception of Christ which laid stress upon His Davidic descent, His\nconnection with the Jewish people, and in general His ordinary human\nrelationships, to the neglect of His higher, divine nature. That\nfleshly conception of Christ might then be regarded as the primitive\nconception, which Paul himself shared until a mature stage of his\nChristian life. But this latter suggestion is excluded not only\nby the whole tenor of the Epistles (in which Paul never displays\nthe slightest consciousness of any such revolution in his idea of\nChrist), but also especially by the present passage. The passage\ndeals with the complete and immediate break which comes in a man's\nway of thinking when the death of Christ becomes representative\nof him--that is, at the beginning of his Christian life. It is\ntherefore entirely out of accord with the context to suppose that\nPaul is contrasting an immature stage of his own Christian life\nwith the present mature stage. But he is also not alluding to\nany lower, fleshly conception of Christ as being held by others.\nThe interpretation which finds in the passage a human Messiah in\ncontrast to the divine Christ of Paul, errs fundamentally in making\nthe words \"according to the flesh\" modify \"Christ,\" whereas as a\nmatter of fact they clearly modify the verb \"know.\" Paul says not,\n\"Even if we have known a Christ according to the flesh, we know\nsuch a Christ no longer,\" but, \"Even if we have known Christ with\na fleshly kind of knowledge, we know Him in such a way no longer.\"\nHe is not speaking of two different conceptions of Christ, but of\ntwo different ways of knowing Christ. There is in the passage,\ntherefore, not the slightest reference to any primitive conception\nof the person of Christ different from Paul's conception.\n\nIn 2 Cor. xi. 4 Paul speaks of \"another Jesus\" whom his opponents in\nCorinth were proclaiming or might proclaim. Was this \"other Jesus\"\nthe historical Jesus, in distinction from the heavenly Christ of\nPaul? Does this verse refer to a primitive, Palestinian conception\nof Jesus different from the conception held by Paul?\n\nThe verse is certainly very difficult; it constitutes a famous _crux\ninterpretum_. But just for that reason, it should not be made the\nfoundation for far-reaching theories. There is not the slightest\nhint elsewhere in 2 Corinthians that the opponents presented a view\nof the person of Christ different from that of Paul; indeed what\nis characteristic of the polemic in this Epistle is that doctrinal\nquestions are absent. There is not even any evidence that the\nopponents, though apparently they laid stress upon Jewish descent,\nPalestinian connections, and the like, and so may perhaps loosely\nbe called \"Judaizers,\" insisted upon the keeping of the Mosaic Law.\nApparently Paul does not feel required to defend the content of his\ngospel at all. Certainly he does not feel required to defend his\ndoctrine of the person of Christ. But if the opponents had really\nproclaimed a human Jesus different from the divine Christ of Paul,\nit is inconceivable that Paul should not have defended his view. If\nthere is one thing that is fundamental in the religion of Paul, it\nis his conception of Christ as divine Redeemer. Any denial of that\nconception would certainly have called forth anathemas at least as\nsevere as those which were hurled against the legalists in Galatia.\nYet in 2 Cor. x-xiii, though these chapters contain perhaps the\nbitterest polemic to be found anywhere in the Pauline Epistles,\nthere is no trace of any defense of the Pauline conception of the\nperson of Christ. The natural suggestion is that such defense\nis absent because it was not called forth by anything that the\nopponents said. It is adventurous exegetical procedure to hang a\nheavy weight upon the very obscure verse, 2 Cor. xi. 4.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, the obscurities of that verse are\nnot hopeless, and rightly interpreted the verse contains no hint\nof a primitive conception of Jesus different from that which was\nproclaimed by Paul. The translation of the American Revised Version\nmay first be presented as a basis of discussion, though it is\nprobably incorrect in important particulars. In that version the\nthree verses 2 Cor. xi. 4-6[73] read as follows: \"For if he that\ncometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye\nreceive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different\ngospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him. 5 For\nI reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6\nBut though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge; nay, in\nevery way have we made this manifest unto you in all things.\" By a\nmodification of this translation at the end of verse 4, the whole\npassage might mean: \"Bear with me in my boasting. I am 'boasting' or\ndefending myself only in order that you may not be deceived by the\nopponent who comes to you. For if he comes arrogantly proclaiming\nanother Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel, ye bear with him\nonly too well. Bear with _me_ then when I defend myself. For I am\nnot a bit behind these 'pre\u00ebminent' apostles,[74] since despite what\nthey say I have really made the whole truth known to you.\"\n\n  [73] 4. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f43\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50k \u1f10\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\n  \u1f23 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f23 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43 \u03bf\u1f50k\n  \u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. 5. \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. 6. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 t\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb'\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb'\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2.\n\n\n  [74] The translation preferred in the American Revision, \"very\n  chiefest apostles,\" seems to be based upon the mistaken view\n  that the \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 are the original apostles at Jerusalem.\n  This view is rejected in the above paraphrase, which diverges\n  from the American Revision in other ways also.\n\nEven according to this interpretation there is no real reference to\na Jesus of the opponents different from Paul's Jesus. The \"other\nJesus\" of the opponents existed, rather, merely in their own\ninordinate claims. They had no other Jesus, no other Spirit, and\nno other gospel to offer. They asserted, indeed, that the teaching\nof Paul was insufficient; they asserted that they had fuller\ninformation about Jesus, about the Spirit, and about the gospel.\nThey said, \"Paul has not made the full truth known to you.\" Yet\nthey had really nothing new to offer. Paul had really given to the\nCorinthians the whole Jesus, the whole Spirit, and the whole gospel.\n\nAs a matter of fact, however, this interpretation is unsatisfactory.\nIt is obliged to supply a link to connect verse 4 with verse\n5--namely, the thought, \"Bear with me.\" That thought is here\nentirely unexpressed; verse 1, where it is expressed, is too far\nback to be in view. Thus if the pronoun \"him\" is supplied with the\nverb at the end of verse 4, there is no clear connection with verse\n5; the \"for\" of verse 5 is very obscure. If, however, the pronoun\n\"me,\" not \"him,\" is supplied with the verb at the end of verse\n4, all is plain. Since the pronoun does not appear at all in the\nGreek, the translator is free to supply it as the context demands;\nand the context apparently demands the pronoun \"me.\" The meaning of\nthe passage is then as follows: \"Bear with me in my 'boasting.' My\nboasting is undertaken to prevent you from being deceived. For if\nthe one who comes to you seeks to commend himself by claiming fuller\nknowledge of Jesus, the Spirit, or the gospel, then you do well to\nbear with me in my boasting, you do well to listen to my defense.\nFor I am not afraid of the comparison with the opponent. It is not\ntrue that I have concealed from you anything about Jesus, about the\nSpirit, or about the gospel; on the contrary I have made everything\nknown to you.\"\n\nThe exegetical question is somewhat complicated by a question of\nthe text in verse 4. Manuscript evidence is rather evenly divided\nbetween the present tense of the verb at the end of the verse and\nthe imperfect tense.[75] Unquestionably the imperfect tense is the\nmore difficult reading; it is favored therefore by the well-known\nprinciple of textual criticism that the more difficult reading is to\nbe preferred to the easier. If the imperfect be read, it may perhaps\nbe explained as the imperfect tense in the apodosis of a condition\ncontrary to fact; there would then be a transition from one form\nof condition to another. Paul would then say: \"If he who comes is\npreaching another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel--if such\nwere the case you would do well to bear with my defense of my own\npreaching.\" If indeed the pronoun \"him\" be supplied at the end of\nverse 4, as is usually done, the imperfect might be taken simply as\nreferring to past time, and the meaning would be: \"If he who comes\nis preaching another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel--when\nthat took place ye were bearing with the newcomer only too well.\"\nBut even so the imperfect is extremely harsh, and on the whole it is\nmore probable that it has crept in by a copyist's error--perhaps in\nconformity to the same imperfect in verse 1, where the imperfect is\nused to express a wish.\n\n  [75] Between \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (or \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5).\n\nWhat has caused the vast majority of commentators to supply \"him\"\nrather than \"me\" at the end of verse 4 is apparently the parallel\nwith 2 Cor. xi. 19, 20, where Paul certainly expresses the thought,\n\"Bear with me, for you bear with my arrogant opponents only too\nwell.\" The parallel does indeed constitute the strongest argument\nin favor of the ordinary view of verse 4 which supplies the pronoun\n\"him,\" and regards the adverb \"well\" as sarcastic--\"only too\nwell.\" But the argument is not decisive. The connection with verse\n5 really fixes the pronoun which is to be supplied at the end of\nthe preceding verse. Paul is defending himself against the charge,\nimplied in verse 6, that he had not made the full truth known. The\nopponents had claimed to have further information about Jesus, the\nSpirit, and the gospel. \"But,\" says Paul, \"if that is their claim,\nye do well to listen to my defense. For I have made Jesus and the\nSpirit and the gospel just as fully known to you as they have.\" The\nthought is perfectly clear if only the pronoun \"me\" be supplied at\nthe end of verse 4.\n\nIf, however, exegetical tradition be followed, and the pronoun \"him\"\nbe supplied, the essential implications of the passage are not\nreally different. In no case is anything said about a conception\nof Jesus really differing from that of Paul. One interpretation,\nindeed, definitely excludes such an implication. The passage may\nmean, \"If the one who comes to you preaches another Jesus--in that\ncase you would do well to bear with him. But as a matter of fact\nthere is only one Jesus. Therefore you will do well to be content\nwith me. For I have made Jesus fully known to you.\" According\nto this interpretation, which has much to be said in its favor,\nPaul refutes the opponents and their arrogant claims of bringing\nsomething superior to Paul's message, by a reference to the obvious\nfact that there is only one Jesus. \"If they had another Jesus,\"\nPaul says, \"then they might claim to bring you something that I did\nnot bring. But since, unfortunately for them, there is of course\nonly one Jesus, and since I made that Jesus fully known to you, they\ncannot maintain any superiority.\" This interpretation is probably to\nbe preferred among all those which supply the pronoun \"him\" rather\nthan \"me\" at the end of verse 4.\n\nAt any rate, whichever interpretation be adopted, Paul would surely\nhave expressed himself very differently if the opponents had\npresented an account of Jesus radically contradictory to his own. In\nthat case he could hardly have appealed merely to the completeness\nof his presentation. Instead, he would have had to establish the\ntruth of his presentation. As it is, the \"other Jesus\" of the\nJudaizers existed only in their own inordinate claims. They really\nhad no other Jesus to offer; Paul had made the whole Jesus known.\nThe passage contains no hint, therefore, of a primitive conception\nof Jesus differing from the lofty conception proclaimed by Paul.\n\nThus the Pauline Epistles contain not the slightest trace of any\nconflict with regard to the person of Christ. About other things\nthere was debate, but about this point Paul appears to have been in\nharmony with all Palestinian Christians. Even the Judaizers seem\nto have had no objection to the heavenly Christ of Paul. But if\nthe Judaizers, who were Paul's bitter opponents, had no objection\nto Paul's view of Christ, it could only have been because the\noriginal apostles on this point gave them not even that slight\ncolor of support which may have been found with regard to the way\nof salvation in the apostles' observance of the Law. The fact is of\nenormous importance. The heavenly Christ of Paul was also the Christ\nof those who had walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nLet it not be said that this conclusion involves an undue employment\nof the argument from silence; let it not be said that although the\noriginal apostles did not share Paul's conception of the heavenly\nChrist, Paul did not find it necessary to enter into the debate in\nhis Epistles. For on this matter Paul could not possibly have kept\nsilent. He was not in the habit of keeping silent when the essential\nthings of his gospel were called in question--the anathemas which he\npronounced against the Judaizers in Galatia and the sharp rebuke\nwhich he administered to the chief of the apostles at Antioch are\nsufficient proof of his fearlessness. But what can possibly be\nregarded as essential to his gospel if it was not his doctrine of\nChrist as divine Redeemer? That doctrine was the very warp and woof\nof his being; without it he was less than nothing. Yet the historian\nis asked to believe that Paul submitted tamely, without a word of\nprotest, to the presentation of a purely human Jesus. The thing is\nunthinkable. Paul would not have submitted to the preaching of such\na Jesus if the preachers had all been angels from heaven.\n\nWhat is really most significant in the Pauline Epistles therefore,\nis the complete absence of any defense of the Pauline doctrine\nof Christ, the complete absence, indeed, of any systematic\npresentation of that doctrine. The Pauline view of Christ is\neverywhere presupposed, but nowhere defended. The phenomenon is very\nstrange if the modern naturalistic account of Jesus be correct.\nAccording to that account, the historical Jesus, a great and good\nman, came after His death to be regarded as a divine Redeemer; one\nconception of Jesus gave place to a very different conception. Yet\nthe surprising thing is that the mighty transition has left not\nthe slightest trace in the primary sources of information. The\nchief witness to the transcendent conception of Jesus as divine\nRedeemer is quite unconscious of introducing anything new; indeed he\nexpressly calls attention to the harmony of his proclamation with\nthat of the intimate friends of Jesus. There is only one possible\nconclusion--the heavenly Christ of Paul was also the Christ of\nthose who had lived with Jesus of Nazareth. They had seen Jesus\nsubject to all the petty limitations of human life; they had seen\nHim hungry and thirsty and weary; they had toiled with Him over the\nhills of Galilee; yet they gave the right hand of fellowship to one\nwho regarded Him as the divine Redeemer seated on the throne of all\nbeing, and they were quite unconscious of any conflict between their\nview and his.\n\nThus Paul was not regarded as an innovator with respect to Jesus\nby Jesus' intimate friends. He was not regarded as an innovator\neven with regard to those elements in his message--such as freedom\nfrom the Law--about which no definite guidance was to be found in\nthe teaching or example of Jesus. Still less was he regarded as\nan innovator in his account of Jesus' person. With regard to that\nmatter even the Judaizers did not venture to disagree.\n\nBut if Paul regarded himself, and was regarded by the original\napostles, as a true disciple of Jesus, how did he obtain the\nnecessary knowledge of Jesus' life? Was his knowledge limited to\nintuition or remote hearsay; or had he opportunities for authentic\ninformation?\n\nThat question has really been answered by the outline of Paul's\nlife in Chapters II and III. It has been shown that even before his\nconversion, in Palestine, Paul must have become acquainted with the\nfacts about Jesus' life and death. The facts were common property;\neven indifference could not have made a man completely ignorant of\nthem. But far from being indifferent, Paul was deeply interested\nin Jesus, since he was an active persecutor of Jesus' disciples.\nAfter the conversion, Paul was undoubtedly baptized, and undoubtedly\ncame into some contact with Christians in Damascus. The presumption\nis strongly in favor of the presence there of some who had known\nJesus in the days of His flesh; the independence of which Paul is\nspeaking in Galatians is independence over against the Jerusalem\napostles, not over against humble disciples in Damascus, and it\ndoes not relate to information about details. Three years after\nthe conversion Paul visited Peter at Jerusalem, and also met James\nthe brother of Jesus. It is quite inconceivable that the three men\navoided the subject of Jesus' words and deeds. The fifteen days\nspent with Peter at Jerusalem brought Paul into contact with the\nmost intimate possible source of information about Jesus.\n\nAccording to the Book of Acts, Paul came into contact with Barnabas\nat the time of his first Jerusalem visit. Whatever may be thought\nof this detail, the later association of Barnabas with Paul, at\nAntioch and on the first missionary journey, is generally or\nuniversally recognized as historical. It is confirmed by the\nassociation of the two men at the time of the conference with the\nJerusalem pillars (Gal. ii. 1). Thus Paul spent several years in\nthe most intimate association with Barnabas. Who then was Barnabas?\nAccording to Acts iv. 36, 37, he was a man of Cyprus by descent,\nbut he was also a member of the primitive Jerusalem Church. The\nkind of information contained in this passage represents just that\nelement in the early chapters of Acts which is being generally\naccepted by recent criticism. With regard to the community of\ngoods in the early Jerusalem Church, it is sometimes supposed\nthat the author of Acts has erred in generalizing and exalting to\nthe position of a principle what was really done in many cases by\ngenerous individuals. But in order that there might be unhistorical\ngeneralization, there must have been something to generalize.\nDetails, therefore, like the generous act of Barnabas in selling a\nfield and devoting the proceeds to the needs of the brethren, are\nthought to constitute the solid tradition with which the author\nof Acts is operating. Objections in plenty may be raised against\nthis treatment of the narrative as a whole, but certainly the\nconcreteness of the little detached note about Barnabas makes a\nspecially favorable impression. It will probably be admitted to-day\nby the majority of scholars that Barnabas really had a place in the\nprimitive Jerusalem Church. But if so, his close connection with\nPaul is of the utmost importance. How could Paul possibly have been\nfor years intimately associated with Barnabas in the proclamation of\nthe gospel without becoming acquainted with the facts about Jesus?\nIs it to be supposed that Barnabas, who had lived at Jerusalem,\nproclaimed Jesus as Saviour without telling in detail what sort of\nperson Jesus had been, and what He had said and done? Or is it to be\nsupposed that Paul closed his ears to what his brother missionary\nsaid?\n\nAt the beginning of the first missionary journey, Barnabas and Paul\nwere accompanied by John Mark, and Mark appears again in the company\nof Paul, as one of Paul's trusted helpers, in Col. iv. 10 and\nPhilem. 24. This John Mark certainly came from the Jerusalem Church;\nfor the house of his mother is mentioned as a meeting-place for the\nJerusalem disciples in the incomparably vivid account in Acts xii.\n1-17 of the escape of Peter from prison. Whatever may be thought\nof the Book of Acts as a whole, the twelfth chapter is recognized\nas embodying primitive tradition. Even Wellhausen was somewhat\nimpressed with the lifelike detail of this narrative; the chapter,\nWellhausen admitted, contains elements of high historical value.[76]\nCertainly, then, the mother of John Mark and presumably Mark\nhimself were members of the primitive Jerusalem Church. Tradition,\nmoreover, as preserved by Papias of Hierapolis, connects Mark\nwith Peter and represents the Second Gospel (attributed to Mark)\nas based upon Peter's preaching.[77] The connection of Mark with\nPeter is confirmed by 1 Peter v. 13. In general, recent criticism\nis favorably disposed toward the Papian tradition about the Second\nGospel; that tradition is often admitted to have some basis in\nfact. Of course the words of Papias about Mark's connection with\nPeter naturally refer, at least in part, to a time later than the\nformative period of Paul's life. But no doubt the later relationship\nwas at least prepared for in the early days when Mark and Peter\nwere together in Jerusalem.[78] John Mark, therefore, constitutes\nan important link, not only between Paul and the Jerusalem Church,\nbut also between Paul and one of the most intimate friends of Jesus.\nPaul would have been able to learn the facts about Jesus' life from\nMark if he had not learned them elsewhere.\n\n  [76] Wellhausen, _Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte_, 1914,\n  pp. 22f.\n\n  [77] In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ iii, 39, 15.\n\n  [78] B. W. Bacon (_Jesus and Paul_, 1921, pp. 15f.) believes that\n  the connection between Peter and Mark is probably to be placed only\n  in the early years, principally before the first association of Mark\n  with Paul. This view, which is insufficiently grounded, involves a\n  rejection of the common view, attested, for example, by 1 Peter v.\n  13, according to which Mark was also with Peter at a later time.\n\nThe conference between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, described in\nGal. ii. 1-10, whether or no it was identical with the Apostolic\nCouncil of Acts xv. 1-29, would naturally bring an enrichment in\nPaul's knowledge of Jesus' earthly ministry. It is hardly to be\nsupposed that at the conference any more than at the first visit\nof Paul to Jerusalem the subject of the words and deeds of Jesus\nwas carefully avoided. Such avoidance would have been possible only\nif the Jerusalem Church itself had been indifferent to its own\nreminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. But that the Jerusalem\nChurch was not indifferent to its own reminiscences is proved by the\npreservation (evidently at Jerusalem) of the tradition contained in\nthe Gospels. The existence of the Gospels shows that the memory of\nJesus' words and deeds was carefully treasured up in the Jerusalem\nChurch from the earliest times. Paul could hardly have come into\ncontact with such a church without obtaining information about\nJesus. He could not have failed to obtain information even if he\nhad been anxious to avoid it. But as a matter of fact he was not\nanxious to avoid it; his apostolic independence, as will be observed\nbelow, does not really presuppose any such absurd attitude on his\npart.\n\nOn the third missionary journey Paul was accompanied by Silas (the\n\"Silvanus\" of the Pauline Epistles). According to the Book of Acts,\nSilas, like Barnabas and Mark, came originally from the Jerusalem\nChurch, though his connection with Jerusalem is not traced so far\nback. He is said to have been one of the two men who accompanied\nthe Apostolic Decree from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts xv. 27). This\nassertion of course will not escape unchallenged. It shares no\ndoubt to some extent the criticism which has been directed against\nthe Decree itself. But the tendency in recent years is to find a\nlarger and larger historical basis for the concrete assertions of\nthe author of Acts. So the mention of Judas and Silas as coming\nfrom Jerusalem creates a favorable impression. It cannot be ruled\nout merely because it stands only in Acts, or merely because it is\nconnected with the Decree. Even the Decree, it will be remembered,\nis now often admitted to be a Decree of the Jerusalem Church or to\nrepresent the substance of such a decree, even by those scholars who\nsuppose that Acts is wrong in representing Paul as being present\nwhen the Decree was passed. The tradition which lies back of Acts\nxv, therefore, cannot lightly be rejected. There is certainly some\nevidence, therefore, for connecting Silas with the Jerusalem Church.\nOf course, if the narrative in Acts be accepted as it stands, as\nit is being accepted more and more generally to-day, then the\nconnection of Silas with the Jerusalem Church is firmly established.\nThat connection is not without its importance. It shows that even\nwhen engaged in his specifically Gentile work, Paul had not shut\nhimself off from the sources of information about Jesus.\n\nThe mention of Andronicus and Junias in Rom. xvi. 7 is not\nwithout interest. According to the most natural interpretation\nof the verse, Andronicus and Junias are declared to have been in\nChrist before Paul was in Christ. They were, therefore, primitive\ndisciples. Certain other details are more obscure. Does Paul mean\nthat Andronicus and Junias were themselves \"apostles,\" the word\n\"apostle\" being used here in a broad sense? In that case, the verse\nmay be translated, \"Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and\nfellow-prisoners, who are noteworthy among the apostles who were\nbefore me in Christ.\" Or is it merely said that Andronicus and\nJunias were regarded highly by the apostles, had a good reputation\namong them? In that case, the relative pronoun is no doubt to be\ntaken with the words \"Andronicus and Junias\" rather than with the\nword \"apostles\"; and two details are mentioned: (1) that Andronicus\nand Junias had a good reputation among the apostles, and (2) that\nthey were converted earlier than Paul. Also the meaning of the word\ntranslated \"kinsmen\" is doubtful. The word may mean merely \"members\nof the same race,\" that is, \"Jews\"; or it may mean \"members of the\nsame family,\" that is, \"relatives.\" Still another interpretation is\nfavored by B\u00f6hlig, who thinks that the word designates Andronicus\nand Junias as members of the Jewish colony at Tarsus, the boyhood\nhome of Paul.[79] But however the interesting exegetical problems\nmay be solved, it seems evident that Andronicus and Junias had\nbecome Christians earlier than Paul, and that they were therefore\nrepresentatives of primitive Christianity. The presence of such men\nin the Church at Rome--or in the Church at Ephesus, if the common\nseparation of Rom. xvi. from the rest of Romans (on insufficient\ngrounds) be adopted--is interesting. It exemplifies the kind\nof personal connection that was undoubtedly maintained between\nprimitive Christianity and the Gentile churches. Even far away in\nthe Gentile world Paul was not altogether removed from contact with\nthose who had been Christians before him. Wherever and however\nAndronicus and Junias had become disciples, whether in Jerusalem or\nelsewhere, whether by the instrumentality of Jesus Himself or by\nthe instrumentality of His apostles, in any case they had become\ndisciples in the very earliest days of the Church's life. It is\nhardly to be supposed that they were ignorant of the facts about\nJesus, and in all probability there were other such persons, even in\nPauline churches.\n\n  [79] B\u00f6hlig, _Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos_, 1913, pp. 140-142.\n\nBut it is not necessary to lay stress upon Andronicus and Junias,\nwhen Peter and James and Barnabas and Mark all came into close\ncontact with Paul. Paul had abundant opportunity for acquainting\nhimself with the words and deeds of Jesus.\n\nThree important facts have thus far been established; (1) Paul\nregarded himself as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, (2) he was\nso regarded by the intimate friends of Jesus, (3) he had abundant\nsources of information about Jesus' life. The natural conclusion is\nthat Paul was a true disciple of the real Jesus.\n\nThis conclusion is thought to be overthrown by two considerations.\nIn the first place, it is said, Paul himself attests his own\nindifference to historical information about Jesus; and in the\nsecond place, such indifference is confirmed by the paucity of\nreferences in the Epistles to Jesus' words and deeds. These two\nconsiderations lead into the heart of the problem, and must be\nexamined with some care.\n\nThe indifference of Paul toward historical information about Jesus\nis thought to be attested chiefly by 2 Cor. v. 16 and by the Epistle\nto the Galatians. In 2 Cor. v. 16 Paul says, \"Even if we have known\nChrist according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more.\" What\ncan these words mean, it is asked, except that ordinary information\nabout Jesus, dealing with the details of His earthly life, the kind\nof information that one man can obtain of another by sight and\nhearing, has become valueless for the Christian? The Christian, Paul\nsays, is interested not at all in what eyewitnesses may say or in\nwhat he himself may remember about the earthly life of Jesus; he is\ninterested only in the direct contact which he has at present with\nthe risen Lord.\n\nThis interpretation ignores the fact that the assertion in 2 Cor.\nv. 16 about the knowledge of Christ is only an application of the\ngeneral assertion at the beginning of the verse about the knowledge\nof persons in general. \"So that,\" says Paul, \"we from now on know\nno one after the flesh.\" Paul says, therefore, not only that he\ndoes not know Christ after the flesh, but also that he does not\nknow any man after the flesh, and the two assertions must obviously\nbe interpreted in the same way. Therefore the interpretation which\nhas been proposed for the knowledge of Christ, if it is to commend\nitself, must also be applied to the knowledge of every man.\n\nBut when it is so applied it results in absurdity. It would make\nPaul indifferent not only to ordinary information about Jesus,\nbut also to ordinary information about men in general. But as a\nmatter of fact Paul was not indifferent to ordinary information\nabout men in general. On the contrary, he was exceedingly careful\nabout getting information just as accurate as could possibly\nbe secured. Was Paul a visionary, with his head always in the\nclouds, indifferent to the concrete problems of individual men,\nindifferent to what men had to tell him about their various earthly\nrelationships, indifferent to their bodily needs? The First Epistle\nto the Corinthians is a magnificent refutation of such a caricature.\nThat Epistle represents Paul as a pastor of souls, unsurpassed in\nhis insight into the practical problems of his converts, unsurpassed\nin the tact with which he applied great principles to special\ncircumstances. But the same characteristics appear everywhere in\nPaul. Everywhere Paul is the true friend, the true patriot, and the\ntrue man; everywhere he exhibits that careful attention to detail,\nthat careful recognition of special relationships, which is lacking\nin genuinely mystical piety. Some pastors are accustomed to say the\nsame thing no matter what questions are laid before them; they can\nonly enunciate general principles without applying them to special\nproblems; they are incapable of special friendships and incapable\nof analyzing actual situations. It is not so in the case of Paul.\nIn the Pauline Epistles special problems are solved in the light of\neternal principles; but the special problems as well as the eternal\nprinciples are subjected to the most careful examination. Paul was\nnot indifferent to ordinary knowledge of his fellow-men.\n\nThus when Paul says that he knows no man after the flesh he does\nnot mean that he ignored the ordinary knowledge which comes through\nsight and hearing. But if that kind of knowledge is not excluded\nfrom the relations between Paul and men in general, it is also\nnot excluded from the relations between Paul and Christ; for the\nlatter part of the verse is evidently placed in parallel with the\nformer part. It is evidently the same kind of knowledge which is\nexcluded in both cases. Paul does not mean, therefore, that he was\nindifferent to ordinary sources of information about Christ.\n\nWhat he does mean is that he regarded those ordinary sources of\ninformation not as an end in themselves, but as a means to an end.\nThe natural man according to Paul does not understand the true\nsignificance of the words and deeds of his fellow-men; he does\nnot use them to attest spiritual facts. The man who is in Christ,\non the contrary, even when he uses ordinary means of information,\nis acquiring knowledge of spiritual relationships, relationships\nwhich exist in the new world. So it is also with the knowledge of\nChrist. The natural man may acquire a certain knowledge of Christ;\nhe may learn what Christ said and did and what were the worldly\ncircumstances of His life. But such knowledge is a knowledge\naccording to the flesh; it does not attain to the true significance\neven of those facts which are learned. The man who is in Christ,\non the other hand, may operate partly with the same materials; but\neven when he is operating with the same materials, even when he is\nobtaining by sight or by hearsay knowledge of the words and deeds\nof Jesus, these facts now are invested with a higher significance.\nThe natural man detects only the outward appearance of the words\nand deeds of Jesus; the man who is in Christ makes them attest\nfacts that have significance in the new world. No doubt the higher\nknowledge of Christ of which Paul is speaking is not limited to this\nspiritual use of ordinary sources of information; no doubt there is\nalso a direct intercourse between the believer and the risen Lord.\nBut the spiritual use of the ordinary sources of information is\ncertainly not excluded. Paul does not mean that he was indifferent\nto what Jesus said and did.\n\nThus 2 Cor. v. 16, rightly interpreted, does not attest any\nindifference on the part of Paul toward the information about Jesus\nwhich came to him through contact with Jesus' disciples. Such\nindifference, however, is also thought to be attested by the Epistle\nto the Galatians. In Gal. i, ii, Paul emphasizes his complete\nindependence over against the original disciples. He received his\ngospel, he says, not by the instrumentality of men, but by direct\nrevelation from the risen Christ. Even after the revelation he felt\nno need of instruction from those who had been apostles before him.\nIt was three years before he saw any of them, and then he was with\nPeter only fifteen days. Even when he did finally have a conference\nwith the original apostles, he received nothing from them; they\nrecognized that God had already entrusted him with his gospel and\nthat they had nothing to add. What can this passage mean, it is\nasked, except that Paul was indifferent to tradition, and derived\nhis knowledge of Christ entirely from revelation?\n\nIn answer, it is sufficient to point to 1 Cor. xv. 1-11. Was Paul\nindifferent to tradition? In 1 Cor. xv. 3 he himself attests the\ncontrary; he places tradition--something that he had received--at\nthe very foundation of his missionary preaching. \"For I delivered\nunto you among the first things,\" he says, \"that which I also\nreceived.\" The word \"received\" here certainly designates information\nobtained by ordinary word of mouth, not direct revelation from the\nrisen Christ; and the content of what was \"received\" fixes the\nsource of the information pretty definitely in the fifteen days\nwhich Paul spent with Peter at Jerusalem. It is almost universally\nadmitted that 1 Cor. xv. 3ff. contains the tradition of the\nJerusalem Church with regard to the death and resurrection of Jesus.\n\nThe comparison with 1 Cor. xv. 1-11 thus exhibits the danger of\ninterpreting the Epistle to the Galatians in one-sided fashion. If\nGalatians stood by itself, the reader might suppose that at least\nthe resurrection of Christ, the central fact of Paul's gospel, was\nfounded, in Paul's preaching, upon Paul's own testimony alone. In\nGalatians Paul says that his gospel was not derived from men. But\nhis gospel was grounded upon the resurrection of Christ. Surely,\nit might be said, therefore, he based at least the resurrection\nnot at all upon the testimony of others but upon the revelation\nwhich came to him from Christ. Is it possible to conceive of the\nauthor of Galatians as appealing for the foundation of his gospel\nto the testimony of Peter and the twelve and other brethren in\nthe primitive Church--to the testimony of exactly those men whose\nmediatorship he is excluding in Galatians? Yet as a matter of fact,\nthat is exactly what Paul did. That he did so is attested not by the\nBook of Acts or by any source upon which doubt might be cast, but\nby one of the accepted epistles. The Epistle to the Galatians must\nalways be interpreted in the light of 1 Cor. xv. 1-11.\n\nWhat then does Paul mean in Galatians when he says that he received\nhis gospel directly from Christ? The answer is perfectly plain. He\ndoes not mean that when he drew near to Damascus on that memorable\nday he knew none of the facts about Jesus; he does not mean that\nafter that day his knowledge of the facts was not enriched by\nintercourse with Jesus' friends. What Jesus really gave him near\nDamascus was not so much the facts as a new interpretation of the\nfacts. He had known some of the facts before, but they had filled\nhim with hatred. The Galilean prophet had cast despite upon the Law;\nHe had broken down the prerogatives of Israel; it was blasphemous,\nmoreover, to proclaim a crucified malefactor as the Lord's Anointed.\nPaul had known the facts before; he had known them only too well.\nNow, however, he obtained a new interpretation of the facts; he\nobtained that new interpretation not by human intermediation, not by\nreflection upon the testimony of the disciples, not by the example\nof the holy martyrs, but by revelation from Jesus Himself. Jesus\nHimself appeared to him. He might have appeared in anger, to destroy\nhim for his unspeakable sin. Instead, He appeared in love, to call\nhim into fellowship and into glorious service, to commission him as\napostle of the One whose Church he had laid waste. That is what Paul\nmeans when he says that he received his gospel directly from the\nrisen Christ.\n\nThe truth is, it never occurred to Paul to regard the bare facts\nabout Jesus as constituting a \"gospel\"; it never even occurred\nto Paul to reflect upon all the sources of information about the\nfacts. To us the sources of information about Jesus are limited:\ntherefore they are searched out and numbered and weighed. But to\nPaul the sources of information were so numerous that they could\nnot be catalogued. It never occurred to him to regard with supreme\ngratitude the particular source from which he derived any particular\nbit of information about Jesus any more than we regard with special\ngratitude the newspaper from which we derive our knowledge of\ncurrent events. If one newspaper had not printed the news, others\nwould have done so; the sources of information are so numerous\nthat we do not reflect upon them. So it was in the case of Paul's\ninformation about Jesus. Bare detailed information about the words\nand deeds of Jesus did not in Paul's mind constitute a \"gospel\";\nthey constituted only the materials upon which the gospel was based.\nWhen he says, therefore, that he did not receive his gospel from\nmen he does not mean that he received no information from Peter or\nBarnabas or Mark or James or the five hundred brethren who had seen\nthe risen Lord. What he does mean is that he himself was convinced\nof the decisive fact--the fact of the resurrection--not by the\ntestimony of these men, but by the divine interposition on the road\nto Damascus, and that none of these men told him how he himself was\nto be saved or what he was to say to the Gentiles about the way of\nsalvation. Materials for the proof of his gospel might come to him\nfrom ordinary sources of information, but his gospel itself was\ngiven to him directly by Christ.\n\nThus Paul does not directly attest any indifference on his\npart toward tradition about the life of Jesus. But is not such\nindifference revealed by the extreme paucity of references in the\nPauline Epistles to what Jesus said and did?\n\nIn answer to this question it must be admitted that direct citations\nin the Pauline Epistles of words of Jesus, and direct references to\nthe details of Jesus' life, are surprisingly few. In 1 Cor. vii. 10,\nPaul appeals to a command of the Lord about divorce, and carefully\ndistinguishes such commands from what he himself is saying to the\nCorinthians (verses 12, 25). In 1 Cor. ix. 14, he calls attention\nto an ordinance of the Lord to the effect that they that proclaim\nthe gospel should live of the gospel. In these passages it cannot\nbe doubted that the commands of \"the Lord\" are commands that Jesus\ngave during His earthly ministry; they are certainly not commands\ngiven to Paul by the risen Christ. For the words which Paul himself\nwrote to his churches, by virtue of his apostolic authority,\nthemselves constituted commands of the Lord in the broad sense, in\nthat the authority of the Lord was behind them (1 Cor. xiv. 37);\nhere, therefore, when such apostolic commands are distinguished from\ncommands of the Lord, the commands of the Lord must be taken in a\nnarrower sense. They can only be commands given by Jesus during His\nearthly ministry.[80]\n\n  [80] Compare Knowling, _The Witness of the Epistles_, 1892, pp. 319f.\n\nThese passages show that Paul was in the habit of distinguishing\nwhat Jesus said on earth to His disciples from what the risen Lord\nsaid to him directly by revelation. They show, moreover, that Paul\nwas in possession of a fund of information about the words of\nJesus. It may be a question why he did not draw upon the fund more\nfrequently; but at any rate, the fund was there.\n\nIn 1 Thess. iv. 15, the assurance that those who are alive at\nthe Parousia shall not precede those that have died is grounded\nin a word of the Lord (\"For this we say to you in a word of the\nLord\").[81] Here again the \"word of the Lord\" is probably to be\nregarded as a word which Jesus spoke while He was on earth, rather\nthan as a revelation made by the risen Lord directly to Paul. If\nthis interpretation be correct, then this passage contains another\nincidental reference to a fund of information about the words of\nJesus.\n\n  [81] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe7\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nMost important of all, however, is the report of the institution of\nthe Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. xi. 23ff. The report is introduced by\nthe words, \"For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered\nunto you.\" What does Paul mean by the expression \"received from the\nLord\"? Does he mean that the information was given him directly by\nthe risen Christ, or that he received it by ordinary word of mouth\nfrom the eyewitnesses? The former interpretation has been favored\nin the first place by some who occupy a strictly supernaturalistic\npoint of view, to whom therefore it does not seem strange that the\nrisen Christ should give to His apostle even detailed information\nabout past events; it has also been favored by some who start from\nnaturalistic presuppositions, and, regarding Paul as a mystic and a\nvisionary, seek to separate him as far as possible from historical\ntradition about Jesus. But from either of these two points of view\nthe interpretation is unsatisfactory. Why should the risen Christ\ngive to His apostle detailed information which could be obtained\nperfectly well by ordinary inquiry from the eyewitnesses? Such\nrevelation would be unlike the other miracles of the Bible. God\ndoes not rend the heaven to reveal what can be learned just as\nwell by ordinary word of mouth. But this interpretation is equally\nunsatisfactory from the naturalistic point of view. Did Paul really\nsuppose the risen Christ to have given him all this detailed\ninformation about the night of the betrayal and the rest? How could\nsuch a visionary experience be explained? The only possible answer,\non naturalistic presuppositions, would be that the vision merely\nmade use of materials which were already in Paul's mind; Paul\nalready had information from the eyewitnesses about the Supper, but\nafter he had forgotten whence he had received the information it\nwelled up again from his subconscious life in the form of a vision.\nThis explanation involves a psychological absurdity. The area of\nPaul's consciousness was not so limited as it is represented in\nmodern reconstructions as being. If Paul received information from\nthe eyewitnesses about what Jesus said and did on the night of the\nbetrayal, we can be sure that he remembered the information and\nremembered where he had got it. It was not necessary for him to\nreceive it all over again in a vision.\n\nThere are therefore serious _a priori_ objections against finding\nin the words \"received from the Lord\" in 1 Cor. xi. 23 a reference\nto direct revelation. But this interpretation is not really favored\nby the words as they stand. The word \"from,\" in the clause \"I\nreceived from the Lord,\" is not the only word used for \"from\" after\nthe word \"received\"; this word seems to indicate not the immediate\nbut the ultimate source of what is received.[82] Furthermore, the\nword \"received\"[83] in 1 Cor. xv. 3 certainly refers to ordinary\ninformation obtained from eyewitnesses; it is natural therefore to\nfind a similar usage of the word in 1 Cor. xi. 23. It is natural to\ninterpret one passage after the analogy of the other. In 1 Cor. xv.\n3ff. Paul is certainly appealing to ordinary tradition; probably,\ntherefore, he is also doing so in 1 Cor. xi. 23ff. The report of\nthe institution of the Lord's Supper is thus to be added to those\npassages which contain definite citations of the words of Jesus.\n\n  [82] \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc is here used, not \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac.\n\n  [83] \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis report also belongs with those passages in the Epistles which\nattest knowledge of the details of Jesus' life. It is sometimes said\nthat Paul is interested only in two facts about Jesus, the death\nand the resurrection. Yet in 1 Cor. xi. 23 he refers even to such a\ndetail as the betrayal, and fixes the time of its occurrence--\"the\nnight in which He was betrayed.\" Other details about the life of\nJesus may be gleaned from the Epistles. Jesus, according to Paul,\nwas a Jew, He was descended from David, He was subject to the Mosaic\nLaw, He had brothers, of whom one is named, He carried on a ministry\nfor the Jews (Rom. xv. 8). With regard to the crucifixion and\nresurrection, moreover, Paul was interested not merely in the bare\nfacts themselves; he was also interested in the details connected\nwith them. Thus in 1 Cor. xv. 4 he mentions the burial of Jesus as\nhaving formed a part of his fundamental missionary preaching; and he\nalso gives in the same connection an extended list of appearances\nof the risen Christ. It is possible that when Paul writes to the\nGalatians that Jesus Christ crucified had been pictured or placarded\nbefore their eyes (Gal. iii. 1), he is referring, not merely to\nthe forcibleness with which the one fact of Christ's death was\nproclaimed in Galatia, but also to the vividness with which the\nstory was told in detail. So vivid was the story of the crucifixion\nas Paul told it in Galatia that it was as though the Galatians had\nbefore their eyes a great picture of Jesus on the cross.\n\nMoreover, the references of Paul to Jesus' life concern not merely\ndetails; some of them also attest warm appreciation of Jesus'\ncharacter. The character of Jesus is indeed, according to Paul,\nexhibited primarily by the great central act of love by which He\ncame to earth to die for the salvation of men. In Phil. ii. 5ff.,\nthe unselfishness of Christ, which is held up for imitation by\nthe Philippian Christians, is found no doubt primarily in the\nincarnation and in the Cross; in Gal. ii. 20, the love of Christ,\nupon which the faith and the gratitude of believers are based, is\nfound in the one great fact of Christ's death (\"who loved me and\ngave himself for me\"). But there are also passages in the Epistles\nwhich show that Paul was impressed with the character of Jesus not\nonly as it was manifested by the incarnation and by the atoning\ndeath, but also as it appeared in the daily life of Jesus throughout\nHis earthly ministry. The plainest of such passages, perhaps, are 2\nCor. x. 1 and Rom. xv. 2, 3. When Paul speaks of the meekness and\ngentleness of Christ, he refers evidently to the impression which\nJesus made upon His contemporaries; and when he says that Christ\n\"pleased not himself\" but bore reproaches patiently, he is evidently\nthinking not only of the gracious acts of incarnation and atonement\nbut also of the conduct of Jesus from day to day. In 2 Cor. viii. 9\n(\"though He was rich yet for your sakes He became poor\"), although\nthe reference may be primarily to the poverty of any human life\nas compared with the glories of the pre\u00ebxistent Christ, yet the\npeculiar choice of words is probably due to the details of Jesus'\nlife of hardship; Paul would hardly have spoken in this way if Jesus\nwhile He was on earth had lived in the magnificence of an earthly\nkingdom. Even in Phil. ii. 7, though the \"form of a servant\" refers\nprimarily to human existence as distinguished from the glories of\nheaven, yet there seems to be also an impression of the special\nhumility and poverty of Jesus' earthly life; and the Cross is put\nas the climax of an obedience which appeared also in Jesus' life\nas a whole (verse 8). Back of these passages there lies warm\nappreciation of Jesus' character as it appeared in the days of His\nflesh. Imitation of Christ (1 Thess. i. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 1) had its\ndue place in the life and teaching of Paul, and that imitation was\nfounded not only upon one act, but upon many acts, of the Lord. When\nPaul speaks of his own life of constant self-sacrifice, in which\nhe seeks not his own comfort but the salvation of others, as being\nled in imitation of Christ (1 Cor. x. 32-xi. 1), he has before his\nmind the lineaments of just that Jesus who is known to us in the\nGospels--that Jesus who had not where to lay His head, who went\nabout doing good, and who preached the gospel to the poor.\n\nThus the paucity of references in the Pauline Epistles to the\nteaching and example of Jesus has sometimes been exaggerated. The\nEpistles attest considerable knowledge of the details of Jesus'\nlife, and warm appreciation of His character.\n\nUndoubtedly, moreover, Paul knew far more about Jesus than he has\nseen fit, in the Epistles, to tell. It must always be remembered\nthat the Epistles do not contain the missionary preaching of Paul;\nthey are addressed to Christians, in whose case much of the primary\ninstruction had already been given. Some things are omitted from the\nEpistles, therefore, not because they were unimportant, but on the\ncontrary just because they were fundamental; instruction about them\nhad to be given at the very beginning and except for special reasons\ndid not need to be repeated. Except for certain misunderstandings\nwhich had arisen at Corinth, for example, Paul would never have\nset forth in his Epistles the testimony by which the fact of the\nresurrection of Jesus was established; yet that testimony, he says,\nwas fundamental in his missionary preaching. If it were not for the\nerrorists at Corinth we should never have had the all-important\npassage about the appearances of the risen Christ. It is appalling\nto reflect what far-reaching conclusions would in that case have\nbeen drawn by modern scholars from the silence of Paul. So it is\nalso with the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in\n1 Cor. xi. 23ff. That account is inserted in the Epistles only\nbecause of certain abuses which had happened to arise at Corinth.\nElsewhere Paul says absolutely nothing about the institution of\nthe Supper; indeed, in the Epistles other than 1 Corinthians he\nsays nothing about the Supper at all. Yet the Lord's Supper was\nundoubtedly celebrated everywhere in the Pauline churches, and no\ndoubt was grounded everywhere in an account of its institution.\nThus the resurrection appearances and the institution of the Lord's\nSupper, despite the fact that they were absolutely fundamental in\nPaul's teaching, appear each only once in the Epistles. May there\nnot then have been other things just as prominent in Paul's teaching\nwhich are not mentioned at all? These two things are mentioned only\nbecause of the misunderstandings that had arisen with regard to\nthem. Certain other things just as important may be omitted from\nthe Epistles only because in their case no misunderstandings had\nhappened to arise. It must always be remembered that the Epistles of\nPaul are addressed to special needs of the churches. It cannot be\nargued, therefore, that what is not mentioned in the Epistles was\nnot known to the apostle at all.\n\nThus the incidental character of Paul's references to the life and\nteaching of Jesus shows clearly that Paul knew far more than he has\nseen fit in the Epistles to tell. The references make the impression\nof being detached bits taken from a larger whole. When, for example,\nPaul says that the institution of the Lord's Supper took place on\nthe night in which Jesus was betrayed, he presupposes on the part\nof his readers an account of the betrayal, and hence an account of\nthe traitor and of his position among the apostles. So it is in\nother cases where Paul refers to the life and teaching of Jesus. The\nreferences can be explained only as presupposing a larger fund of\ninformation about the words and deeds of Jesus. Unquestionably Paul\nincluded in his fundamental teaching an account of what Jesus said\nand did.\n\nIndeed, if he had not done so, he would have involved himself in\nabsurdity. As J. Weiss has pointed out with admirable acuteness, a\nmissionary preaching which demanded faith in Jesus without telling\nwhat sort of person Jesus was would have been preposterous.[84]\nThe hearers of Paul were asked to stake their salvation upon the\nredeeming work of Jesus. But who was this Jesus? The question could\nscarcely be avoided. Other redeemers, in the pagan religion of the\ntime, were protected from such questions; they were protected by the\nmists of antiquity; investigations about them were obviously out\nof place. But Paul had given up the advantages of such vagueness.\nThe redeemer whom he proclaimed was one of his own contemporaries,\na Jew who had lived but a few years before and had died the death\nof a criminal. Investigation of this Jesus was perfectly possible;\nHis brothers, even, were still alive. Who was He then? Did He suffer\njustly on the cross? Or was He the Righteous One? Such questions\ncould hardly be avoided. And as a matter of fact they were not\navoided. The incidental references in the Epistles, scanty though\nthey are, are sufficient to show that an account of the words and\ndeeds of Jesus formed an important part of the teaching of Paul.\n\n  [84] J. Weiss, _Das \u00e4lteste Evangelium_, 1903, pp. 33-39.\n\nThe presumption is, therefore, that Paul was a true disciple of\nJesus. He regarded himself as a disciple; he was so regarded by\nhis contemporaries; he made use of Jesus' teaching and example.\nBut is this presumption justified? Was it the real Jesus whom Paul\nfollowed? The question can be answered only by a comparison of what\nis known about Paul with what is known about Jesus.\n\nBut at the very beginning of the comparison, a fundamental\ndifficulty arises. How may Jesus be known? Paul is known, through\nhis own letters. But how about Jesus? The sources of information\nabout Jesus are the four Gospels. But are the Gospels trustworthy?\n\nIf they are trustworthy, then it will probably be admitted that\nPaul was a true disciple of Jesus. For the Gospels, taken as a\nwhole, present a Jesus like in essentials to that divine Lord who\nwas sum and substance of the life of Paul. The Jesus of the Gospels\nis no mere prophet, no mere inspired teacher of righteousness,\nno mere revealer or interpreter of God. He is, on the contrary,\na supernatural person; a heavenly Redeemer come to earth for the\nsalvation of men. So much is usually being admitted to-day. Whatever\nmay have been the real facts about Jesus, the Gospels present a\nsupernatural Jesus. This representation is contained not merely\nin one of the Gospels; it is contained in all of them. The day is\npast when the divine Christ of John could be confronted with a\nhuman Christ of Mark. On the contrary, Mark and John, it is now\nmaintained, differ only in degree; Mark as well as John, even\nthough it should be supposed that he does so less clearly and less\nconsistently, presents a Jesus similar in important respects to the\ndivine Redeemer of the Epistles of Paul.[85]\n\n  [85] See, for example, J. Weiss, _Das Urchristentum_, 1914-1917, pp.\n  540, 547, 548.\n\nThus if Paul be compared with the Jesus of the Gospels, there is\nfull agreement between the two. The Jesus of all the Gospels is a\nsupernatural person; the Jesus of all the Gospels is a Redeemer.\n\"The Son of Man,\" according to the shortest and if modern criticism\nbe accepted the earliest of the Gospels, \"came not to be ministered\nunto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many\" (Mk.\nx. 45). But it is not necessary to depend upon details. The very\nchoice of material in the Gospels points to the same conclusion; the\nGospels like the Epistles of Paul are more interested in the death\nof Jesus than in the details of His life. And for the same reason.\nThe Gospels, like the Epistles of Paul, are interested in the death\nof Jesus because it was a ransom from sin.\n\nBut this similarity of the Jesus of the Gospels to the Christ of\nthe Pauline Epistles has led sometimes, not to the recognition\nof Paul as a disciple of Jesus, but to the hypothesis that the\nGospels are dependent upon Paul. If the Gospels are introducing into\ntheir picture of Jesus elements derived not from the real Jesus\nbut from the mythical Christ of the Epistles, then of course they\nwill display similarity to the Epistles; but such similarity will\nscarcely be very significant. In comparing the Epistles with the\nGospels, the historian will then be comparing not Paul with Jesus,\nbut Paul with Paul.\n\nIf, therefore, Paul is to be compared with Jesus, it is said, those\nelements which are derived from Paul must first be separated from\nthe Gospels. Even after this separation has been accomplished,\nhowever, there remains in the Gospel picture of Jesus a certain\namount of similarity to the Pauline Christ; it is generally admitted\nthat the process by which Jesus was raised to the position of a\nheavenly being was begun before the appearance of Paul and was\ncontinued in some quarters in more or less independence of him. Thus\nif Paul is to be compared with the real Jesus, as distinguished\nfrom the Christ of Christian faith, the historian, it is said, must\nfirst separate from the Gospel picture not merely those details\nwhich were derived distinctly from Paul, but also the whole of\nthe supernatural element.[86] Mere literary criticism will not\naccomplish the task; for even the earliest sources which can be\ndistinguished in the Gospels seem to lift Jesus above the level\nof ordinary humanity and present Him not merely as an example for\nfaith but also as the object of faith.[87] Even in the earliest\nsources, therefore, the historian must distinguish genuine tradition\nfrom dogmatic accretions; he must separate the natural from the\nsupernatural, the believable from the unbelievable; he must seek\nto remove from the genuine figure of the Galilean prophet the\ntawdry ornamentation which has been hung about him by na\u00efve and\nunintelligent admirers.\n\n  [86] For what follows, see, in addition to the paper mentioned at\n  the beginning of the chapter, \"History and Faith,\" in _Princeton\n  Theological Review_, xiii, 1915, pp. 337-351.\n\n  [87] See Denney, _Jesus and the Gospel_, 1909.\n\nThus the Jesus who is to be compared with Paul, according to the\nmodern naturalistic theory, is not the Jesus of the Gospels; he is\na Jesus who can be rediscovered only through a critical process\nwithin the Gospels. And that critical process is very difficult. It\nis certainly no easy matter to separate natural and supernatural\nin the Gospel picture of Jesus, for the two are inextricably\nintertwined. In pulling up the tares, the historian is in danger of\npulling up the wheat as well; in the removal of the supernatural\nelements from the story of Jesus, the whole of the story is in\ndanger of being destroyed. Certain radical spirits are not afraid\nof the consequence; since the Jesus of the Gospels, they say, is a\nsupernatural person, He is not a real person; no such person as this\nJesus ever lived on earth. Such radicalism, of course, is absurd.\nThe Jesus of the Gospels is certainly not the product of invention\nor of myth; He is rooted too deep in historical conditions; He\ntowers too high above those who by any possibility could have\nproduced Him. But the radical denials of the historicity of Jesus\nare not without interest. They have at least called attention to\nthe arbitrariness with which the separation of historical from\nunhistorical has been carried on in the production of the \"liberal\nJesus.\"\n\nBut suppose the separation has been completed; suppose the\nhistorical Jesus has been discovered beneath the gaudy colors which\nhad almost hopelessly defaced His portrait. Even then the troubles\nof the historian are not at an end. For this historical Jesus, this\nhuman Jesus of modern liberalism, is a monstrosity; there is a\ncontradiction at the very center of His being. The contradiction is\nproduced by His Messianic consciousness. The human Jesus of modern\nliberalism, the pure and humble teacher of righteousness, the one\nwho kept His own person out of His message and merely asked men to\nhave faith in God like His faith--this Jesus of modern liberalism\nthought that He was to come with the clouds of heaven and be the\ninstrument in judging the earth! If Jesus was pure and unselfish\nand of healthy mind, how could He have applied to Himself the\ntremendous conception of the transcendent Messiah? By some the\nproblem is avoided. Some, like Wrede, deny that Jesus ever presented\nHimself as the Messiah; others, like Bousset, are at least moving\nin the same direction. But such radicalism cannot be carried out.\nThe Messianic element in the consciousness of Jesus is rooted too\ndeep in the sources ever to be removed by any critical process. It\nis established also by the subsequent development. If Jesus never\nthought Himself to be the Messiah and never presented Himself as\nsuch, how did His disciples come to regard Him as the Messiah after\nHis death? Why did they not simply say, \"Despite His death, the\nKingdom of God is coming?\" Why did they say rather, \"Despite His\ndeath, He is the Messiah?\"[88] They could only have done so if Jesus\nhad already presented Himself to them as Messiah when He had been\nwith them on earth.\n\n  [88] J. Weiss, \"Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums,\" in\n  _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, xvi, 1913, p. 456.\n\nIn recent criticism, such radicalism as that which has just been\ndiscussed is usually avoided. The presence of the Messianic\nelement in the consciousness of Jesus cannot altogether be denied.\nSometimes, indeed, that element is even made the determining\nfactor in all of Jesus' teaching. So it is with the hypothesis of\n\"consistent eschatology\" of A. Schweitzer and others.[89] According\nto that hypothesis Jesus expected the Kingdom of God to come in\na catastrophic way in the very year in which he was carrying on\nHis ministry in Galilee, and all His teaching was intended to be\na preparation for the great catastrophe. Even the ethic of Jesus,\ntherefore, is thought to have been constructed in view of the\napproaching end of the world, and is thus regarded as unsuitable\nfor a permanent world order. This hypothesis not only accepts the\nMessianic consciousness of Jesus, but in one direction at least it\neven exaggerates the implications of that consciousness.\n\n  [89] A. Schweitzer, _Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung_, 1913, pp.\n  390-443.\n\nUsually, however, this extreme also is avoided, and the historian\npursues, rather, a policy of palliation. Jesus did come to regard\nHimself as the Messiah, it is said, but He did so only late in\nHis ministry and almost against His will. When He found that the\npeople were devoted to sin, and that He alone was fighting God's\nbattle, He came to regard Himself as God's chosen instrument in the\nestablishment of the Kingdom. Thus He had a tremendous consciousness\nof a mission. But the only category in which He could express that\nconsciousness of a mission was the category of Messiahship. In one\nform, indeed, that category was unsuitable; Jesus would have nothing\nto do with the political aspirations associated with the expected\nking of David's line. But the expectation of the Messiah existed\nalso in another form; the Messiah was sometimes regarded, not as\na king of David's line, but as the heavenly Son of Man alluded to\nin Daniel and more fully described in the Similitudes of Enoch.\nThis transcendent form of Messiahship, therefore, was the form\nwhich Jesus used. But the form, it is maintained, is a matter of\nindifference to us, and it was not really essential to Jesus; what\nwas really essential was Jesus' consciousness of nearness to God.\n\nSuch palliative measures will not really solve the problem. The\nproblem is a moral and psychological problem. How could a pure and\nholy prophet of righteousness, one whose humility and sanity have\nmade an indelible impression upon all subsequent generations--how\ncould such a one lapse so far from the sobriety and sanity of His\nteaching as to regard Himself as the heavenly Son of Man who was to\nbe the instrument in judging the world? The difficulty is felt by\nall thoughtful students who proceed upon naturalistic principles.\nThere is to such students, as Heitm\u00fcller says, something almost\nuncanny about Jesus.[90] And the difficulty is not removed by\nputting the genesis of the Messianic consciousness late in Jesus'\nlife. Whether late or early, Jesus did regard Himself as the\nMessiah, did regard Himself as the one who was to come with the\nclouds of heaven. There lies the problem. How could Jesus, with His\nhumility and sobriety and strength, ever have lapsed so far from the\npath of sanity as to assume the central place in the Kingdom of God?\n\n  [90] Heitm\u00fcller, _Jesus_, 1913, p. 71.\n\nHere, again, radical minds have drawn the logical conclusions. The\nMessianic consciousness, they say, is an example of megalomania;\nJesus, they say, was insane. Such is said to be the diagnosis of\ncertain alienists. And the diagnosis need cause no alarm. Very\nlikely it is correct. But the Jesus who is being investigated by the\nalienists is not the Jesus of the New Testament. The liberal Jesus,\nif he ever existed, may have been insane. But that is not the Jesus\nwhom the Christian loves. The alienists are investigating a man who\nthought he was divine and was not divine; about one who thought He\nwas divine and was divine they have obviously nothing to say.\n\nTwo difficulties, therefore, face the reconstruction of the liberal\nJesus. In the first place, it is difficult to separate the natural\nfrom the supernatural in the Gospel picture of Jesus; and in the\nsecond place, after the separation has been accomplished, the human\nJesus who is left is found to be a monstrosity, with a contradiction\nat the very center of His being. Such a Jesus, it may fairly be\nmaintained, could never have existed on earth.\n\nBut suppose He did exist, suppose the psychological impossibilities\nof His character be ignored. Even then the difficulties of the\nhistorian are not overcome. Another question remains. How did this\nhuman Jesus ever come to give place to the superhuman Jesus of the\nNew Testament? The transition evidently occurred at a very early\ntime. It is complete in the Epistles of Paul. And within Paul's\nexperience it was certainly no late development; on the contrary\nit was evidently complete at the very beginning of his Christian\nlife; the Jesus in whom he trusted at the time of his conversion was\ncertainly the heavenly Christ of the Epistles. But the conversion\noccurred only a very few years, at the most, after the crucifixion\nof Jesus. Moreover, there is in the Pauline Epistles not the\nslightest trace of a conflict between the heavenly Christ of Paul\nand any \"other Jesus\" of the primitive Jerusalem Church; apparently\nthe Christ of Paul was also the Christ of those who had walked and\ntalked with Jesus of Nazareth. Such is the evidence of the Epistles.\nIt is confirmed by the Gospels. Like Paul, the Gospels present no\nmere teacher of righteousness, but a heavenly Redeemer. Yet the\nGospels make the impression of being independent of Paul. Everywhere\nthe Jesus that they present is most strikingly similar to the\nChrist of Paul; but nowhere--not even where Jesus is made to teach\nthe redemptive significance of His death (Mk. x. 45)--is there the\nslightest evidence of literary dependence upon the Epistles. Thus\nthe liberal Jesus, if he ever existed, has disappeared from the\npages of history; all the sources agree in presenting a heavenly\nChrist. How shall such agreement be explained?\n\nIt might conceivably be explained by the appearances of the risen\nChrist. If, at the very beginning of the Church's life, Jesus\nappeared to His disciples, after His death, alive and in heavenly\nglory, it is conceivable that that experience might have originated\nthe lofty New Testament conception of Jesus' person. But what in\nturn caused that experience itself? On naturalistic principles\nthe appearances of the risen Christ can be explained only by an\nimpression which the disciples already had of the majesty of Jesus'\nperson. If they had listened to lofty claims of Jesus like those\nwhich are recorded in the Gospels, if they had witnessed miracles\nlike the walking on the water or the feeding of the five thousand,\nthen, conceivably, though not probably, they might have come to\nbelieve that so great a person could not be holden of death, and\nthis belief might have been sufficient, without further miracle, to\ninduce the pathological experiences in which they thought they saw\nHim alive after His passion. But if the miraculous be removed from\nthe life of Jesus, a double portion of the miraculous must be heaped\nup upon the appearances. The smaller be the Jesus whom the disciples\nhad known in Galilee, the more unaccountable becomes the experience\nwhich caused them to believe in His resurrection. By one path or\nanother, therefore, the historian of Christian origins is pushed off\nfrom the safe ground of the phenomenal world toward the abyss of\nsupernaturalism. To account for the faith of the early Church, the\nsupernatural must be found either in the life of Jesus on earth, or\nelse in the appearances of the risen Christ. But if the supernatural\nis found in one place, there is no objection to finding it in both\nplaces. And in both places it is found by the whole New Testament.\n\nThree difficulties, therefore, beset the reconstruction of the\n\"liberal Jesus.\" In the first place, it is difficult to disengage\nHis picture from the miraculous elements which have defaced it in\nthe Gospels; in the second place, when the supposed historical Jesus\nhas been reconstructed, there is a moral contradiction at the center\nof His being, caused by His lofty claims; in the third place, it\nis hard to see how, in the thinking of the early disciples, the\npurely human Jesus gave place without the slightest struggle to\nthe heavenly Christ of the Pauline Epistles and of the whole New\nTestament.\n\nBut suppose all the difficulties have been removed. Suppose a human\nJesus has been reconstructed. What is the result of comparing that\nhuman Jesus with Paul? At first sight there seems to be nothing but\ncontradiction. But closer examination discloses points of agreement.\nThe agreement between Jesus and Paul extends even to those elements\nin the Gospel account of Jesus which are accepted by modern\nnaturalistic criticism.\n\nIn the first place, Jesus and Paul present the same view of the\nKingdom of God. The term \"kingdom of God\" is not very frequent in\nthe Epistles; but it is used as though familiar to the readers, and\nwhen it does occur, it has the same meaning as in the teaching of\nJesus. The similarity appears, in the first place, in a negative\nfeature--both in Jesus and in Paul, the idea of the Kingdom is\ndivorced from all political and materialistic associations. That\nfact may seem to us to be a matter of course. But in the Judaism of\nthe first century it was far from being a matter of course. On the\ncontrary, it meant nothing less than a revolution in thought and in\nlife. How did Paul, the patriot and the Pharisee, come to separate\nthe thought of the Kingdom from political associations? How did he\ncome to do so even if he had come to think that the Messiah had\nalready appeared? How did he come to do so unless he was influenced\nin some way by the teaching of Jesus? But the similarity is not\nmerely negative. In positive aspects also, the Kingdom of God in\nPaul is similar to that which appears in the teaching of Jesus. Both\nin Jesus and in Paul, the implications of entrance are ethical. \"Or\nknow ye not,\" says Paul, \"that the unrighteous shall not inherit the\nkingdom of God\" (1 Cor. vi. 9). Then follows, after these words,\nas in Gal. v. 19-21, a long list of sins which exclude a man from\nparticipation in the Kingdom. Paul is here continuing faithfully\nthe teaching of Him who said, \"Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven\nis at hand.\" Finally both in Jesus and in Paul the Kingdom appears\npartly as present and partly as future. In the above passages\nfrom Galatians and 1 Corinthians, for example, and in 1 Cor. xv.\n50, it is future; whereas in such passages as Rom. xiv. 17 (\"for\nthe kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness\nand peace and joy in the Holy Spirit\"), the present aspect is\nrather in view. The same two aspects of the Kingdom appear also in\nthe teaching of Jesus; all attempts at making Jesus' conception\nthoroughly eschatological have failed. Both in Jesus and in Paul,\ntherefore, the Kingdom of God is both transcendent and ethical.\nBoth in Jesus and in Paul, finally, the coming of the Kingdom means\njoy as well as judgment. When Paul says that the Kingdom of God is\n\"righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,\" he is like\nJesus not merely in word but in the whole spirit of the message;\nJesus also proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom as a \"gospel.\"\n\nIn the second place, Paul is like Jesus in his doctrine of the\nfatherhood of God. That doctrine, it will probably be admitted, was\ncharacteristic of Jesus; indeed the tendency in certain quarters\nis to regard it as the very sum and substance of all that Jesus\nsaid. Certainly no parallel to Jesus' presentation of God as Father\nhas been found in extra-Christian literature. The term \"father\" is\nindeed applied to God here and there in the Old Testament. But in\nthe Old Testament it is usually in relation to the people of Israel\nthat God is thought of as Father rather than in relation to the\nindividual. Even in the Old Testament, it is true, the conception of\nthe fatherhood of God is not without importance. The consciousness\nof belonging to God's chosen people and thus being under God's\nfatherly care was immensely valuable for the life of the individual\nIsraelite; it was no mere product of an unsatisfying state religion\nlike the religions of Greece or Rome. There was preparation in\nOld Testament revelation, here as elsewhere, for the coming of\nthe Messiah. In Jewish literature outside of the Old Testament,\nmoreover, and in rabbinical sources, the conception of God as Father\nis not altogether absent.[91] But it appears comparatively seldom,\nand it lacks altogether the true content of Jesus' teaching. Despite\nall previous uses of the word \"father\" as applied to God, Jesus\nwas ushering in a new era when He taught His disciples to say, \"Our\nFather which art in heaven.\"\n\n  [91] Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums_, 2te Aufl., 1906, pp.\n  432-434.\n\nThis conception of the fatherhood of God appears in Paul in just\nthe same way as in Jesus. In Paul as well as in Jesus it is not\nsomething to be turned to occasionally; on the contrary it is one of\nthe constituent elements of the religious life. It is no wonder that\nthe words, \"God our Father,\" appear regularly at the beginnings of\nthe Epistles. The fatherhood of God in Paul is not something to be\nargued about or defended; it is altogether a matter of course. But\nit has not lost, through repetition, one whit of its freshness. The\nname \"Father\" applied to God in Paul is more than a bare title; it\nis the welling up of the depths of the soul. \"Abba, Father\" on the\nlips of Paul's converts was exactly the same, not only in form but\nalso in deepest import, as the word which Jesus first taught His\ndisciples when they said to Him, \"Lord, teach us to pray.\"\n\nBut the fatherhood of God in Paul is like the teaching of Jesus\nin even more definite ways than in the fervor of the religious\nlife which it evokes. It is also like Jesus' teaching in being the\npossession, not of the world, but of the household of faith. If,\nindeed, the fatherhood of God in Jesus' teaching were like the\nfatherhood of God in modern liberalism--a relationship which God\nsustains toward men as men--then it would be as far removed as\npossible from the teaching of Paul. But as a matter of fact, both\nPaul and Jesus reserved the term Father for the relation in which\nGod stands to the disciples of Jesus. One passage, indeed (Matt. v.\n45; Luke vi. 35), has been quoted as making God the Father of all\nmen. But only by a strange misinterpretation. It is strange how in\nthe day of our boasted grammatico-historical exegesis, so egregious\nan error can be allowed to live. The prejudices of the reader have\ntriumphed here over all exegetical principles; a vague modernism has\nbeen attributed to the sternest, as well as most merciful, Prophet\nwho ever walked upon earth. When Jesus says, \"Love your enemies, and\npray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father\nwho is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the\ngood, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust,\" He certainly\ndoes not mean that God is the Father of all men both evil and good.\nGod cares for all, but He is not said to be the Father of all. On\nthe contrary, it may almost be said that the very point of the\npassage is that God cares for all although He is not the Father of\nall. That it is which makes Him the example for those who are to do\ngood not merely to friends or brothers but also to enemies.\n\nThis interpretation does not mean that God does not stand toward all\nmen in a relation analogous to that of a father to his children;\nit does not mean that He does not love all or care for all. But\nit does mean that however close may be the relationship which\nGod sustains to all men, the lofty term Father is reserved for a\nrelationship which is far more intimate still. Jesus extends to all\nmen those common blessings which the modern preacher sums up in\nthe term \"fatherhood of God\"; but He extends to His own disciples\nnot only those blessings but infinitely more. It is not the men\nof the world--not the \"publicans,\" not the \"Gentiles\"--who can\nsay, according to the teaching of Jesus, \"Our Father which art in\nHeaven.\" Rather it is the little group of Jesus' disciples--which\nlittle group, however, all without exception are freely invited to\njoin.\n\nSo it is exactly also in the teaching of Paul. God stands, according\nto Paul, in a vital relation to all men. He is the author of the\nbeing of all; He cares for all; He has planted His law in the hearts\nof all. He stands thus in a relation toward all which is analogous\nto that of father to child. The Book of Acts is quite in accord with\nthe Epistles when it makes Paul say of all men, \"For we are also His\noffspring.\" But in Paul just as in Jesus the lofty term \"Father\"\nis reserved for a more intimate relationship. Paul accepts all the\ntruth of natural religion; all the truth that reappears in the vague\nliberalism of modern times. But he adds to it the truth of the\ngospel. Those are truly sons of God, he says, who have been received\nby adoption into God's household, and in whose hearts God's Spirit\ncries, \"Abba, Father.\"\n\nThere was nothing narrow about such a gospel; for the door of the\nhousehold of faith was opened wide to all. Jesus had died in order\nto open that door, and the apostle went up and down the world,\nenduring peril upon peril in order to bring men in. There was need\nfor such service, because of sin. Neither in Jesus nor in Paul\nis sin covered up, nor the necessity of a great transformation\nconcealed. Jesus came not to reveal to men that they were already\nchildren of God, but to make them God's children by His redeeming\nwork.\n\nIn the third place, Paul is like Jesus in presenting a doctrine\nof grace. Of course he is like the Jesus of the Gospels; for the\nJesus of the Gospels declared that the Son of Man came to give His\nlife a ransom for many. But He is even like the Jesus of modern\nreconstruction. Even the liberal Jesus taught a doctrine of grace.\nHe taught, it for example, in the parables of the laborers in the\nvineyard and of the servant coming in from the field. In those two\nparables Jesus expressed His opposition to a religion of works,\na religion which can open an account with God and seek to obtain\nsalvation by merit.[92] Salvation, according to Jesus, is a matter\nof God's free grace; it is something which God gives to whom He\nwill. The same great doctrine really runs all through the teaching\nof Jesus; it is the root of His opposition to the scribes and\nPharisees; it determines the confidence with which He taught His\ndisciples to draw near to God. But it is the same doctrine, exactly,\nwhich appears in Paul. The Paul who combated the legalists in\nGalatia, like the Jesus who combated the scribes and Pharisees, was\ncontending for a God of grace.\n\n  [92] Compare W. Morgan, _The Religion and Theology of Paul_, 1917,\n  p. 155: \"The essential import of Paul's doctrine [of justification\n  by faith] is all contained in the two parables of the Pharisee and\n  the publican and the servant coming in from the field.\"\n\nLet it not be objected that Jesus maintained also the expectation\nof a judgment. For in this particular also He was followed by\nPaul. Paul also, despite his doctrine of grace, expected that\nthe Christians would stand before the judgment-seat. And it may\nbe remembered in passing that both in Jesus and in Paul the\njudgment-seat is a judgment-seat of Christ.\n\nIn the fourth place, the ethical teaching of Paul is strikingly\nsimilar to that of Jesus. It is necessary only to point to the\nconception of love as the fulfilling of the law, and to the\nsubstitution for external rules of the great principles of justice\nand of mercy. These things may seem to us to be matters of course.\nBut they were not matters of course in the Jewish environment of\nPaul. Similarity in this field between Jesus and Paul can hardly\nbe a matter of chance. Many resemblances have been pointed out in\ndetail between the ethical teaching of Jesus and that of Paul.\nBut the most important is the one which is most obvious, and which\njust for that reason has sometimes escaped notice. Paul and Jesus,\nin their ethical teaching, are similar because of the details of\nwhat they say; but they are still more similar because of what they\ndo not say. And they are similar in what they do not say despite\nthe opposition of their countrymen. Many parallels for words of\nJesus may have been found in rabbinical sources. But so much more,\nalas, is also found there. That oppressive plus of triviality\nand formalism places an impassable gulf between Jesus and the\nJewish teachers. But Paul belongs with Jesus, on the same side of\nthe gulf. In his ethic there is no formalism, no triviality, no\ncasuistry--there is naught but \"love, joy, peace, longsuffering,\nkindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control.\" What has\nbecome of all the rest? Was it removed by the genius of Paul? It is\nstrange that two such men of genius should have arisen independently\nand at the same time. Or was the terrible plus of Pharisaic\nformalism and triviality burned away from Paul when the light shone\naround him on the way to Damascus and he fell at the feet of the\ngreat Teacher?\n\nPoints of contact between Jesus and Paul have just been pointed out\nin detail, and the list of resemblances could be greatly increased.\nThe likeness of Paul to Jesus extends even to those features which\nappear in the Jesus of modern liberalism. What is more impressive,\nhowever, than all similarity in detail is the similarity in the\ntwo persons taken each as a whole. The Gospels are more than a\ncollection of sayings and anecdotes; the Pauline Epistles are more\nthan a collection of reasoned discussions. In the Gospels, a person\nis revealed, and another person in the Epistles. And the two persons\nbelong together. It is impossible to establish that fact fully by\ndetailed argument any more than it is possible to explain exactly\nwhy any two persons are friends to-day. But the fact is plain to any\nsympathetic reader. The writer of the Pauline Epistles would have\nbeen at home in the company of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nWhat then was the true relation between Paul and Jesus? It has been\nshown that Paul regarded himself as a disciple of Jesus, that he\nwas so regarded by those who had been Jesus' friends, that he had\nabundant opportunity for acquainting himself with Jesus' words and\ndeeds, that he does refer to them occasionally, that he could have\ndone so oftener if he had desired, that the imitation of Jesus found\na place in his life, and that his likeness to Jesus extends even\nto those elements in Jesus' life and teaching which are accepted\nby modern naturalistic criticism as authentic. At this point the\nproblem is left by the great mass of recent investigators. Wrede is\nthought to be refuted already; the investigator triumphantly writes\nhis Q. E. D., and passes on to something else.\n\nBut in reality the problem has not even been touched. It has been\nshown that the influence of Jesus upon Paul was somewhat greater\nthan Wrede supposed. But that does not make Paul a disciple of\nJesus. The true relationships of a man are determined not by\nthings that lie on the periphery of his life, but by what is\ncentral[93]--central both in his own estimation and in his influence\nupon subsequent generations. And what was central in Paul was\ncertainly not the imitation of Jesus. At that point, Wrede was\nentirely correct; he has never really been silenced by the chorus\nof protest with which his startling little book was received. It is\nfutile, therefore, to point to the influence of Jesus upon Paul in\ndetail. Such a method may be useful in correcting exaggerations, but\nit does not touch the real question. The plain fact remains that if\nimitation of Jesus had been central in the life of Paul, as it is\ncentral, for example, in modern liberalism, then the Epistles would\nbe full of the words and deeds of Jesus. It is insufficient to point\nto the occasional character of the Epistles. No doubt the Epistles\nare addressed to special needs; no doubt Paul knew far more about\nJesus than in the Epistles he has found occasion to tell. But there\nare passages in the Epistles where the current of Paul's religious\nlife runs full and free, where even after the lapse of centuries,\neven through the dull medium of the printed page, it sweeps the\nheart of the sympathetic reader on with it in a mighty flood. And\nthose passages are not concerned with the details of Jesus' earthly\nlife. They are, rather, the great theological passages of the\nEpistles--the second chapter of Galatians, the fifth chapter of 2\nCorinthians, and the eighth chapter of Romans. In these chapters,\nreligion and theology are blended in a union which no critical\nanalysis can ever possibly dissolve; these passages reveal the very\ncenter of Paul's life.\n\n  [93] Wrede, _Paulus_, 1904, p. 93 (English Translation, _Paul_,\n  1907, p. 161).\n\nThe details of Jesus' earthly ministry no doubt had an important\nplace in the thinking of Paul. But they were important, not as an\nend in themselves, but as a means to an end. They revealed the\ncharacter of Jesus; they showed why He was worthy to be trusted.\nBut they did not show what He had done for Paul. The story of Jesus\nrevealed what Jesus had done for others: He had healed the sick; He\nhad given sight to the blind; He had raised the dead. But for Paul\nHe had done something far greater than all these things--for Paul He\nhad died.\n\nThe religion of Paul, in other words, is a religion of redemption.\nJesus, according to Paul, came to earth not to say something, but\nto do something; He was primarily not a teacher, but a Redeemer.\nHe came, not to teach men how to live, but to give them a new life\nthrough His atoning death. He was, indeed, also a teacher, and Paul\nattended to His teaching. But His teaching was all in vain unless\nit led to the final acceptance of His redemptive work. Not the\ndetails of Jesus' life, therefore, but the redemptive acts of death\nand resurrection are at the center of the religion of Paul. The\nteaching and example of Jesus, according to Paul, are valuable only\nas a means to an end, valuable in order that through a revelation\nof Jesus' character saving faith may be induced, and valuable\nthereafter in order that the saving work may be brought to its\nfruition in holy living. But all that Jesus said and did was for the\npurpose of the Cross. \"He loved me,\" says Paul, \"and gave Himself\nfor me.\" There is the heart and core of the religion of Paul.\n\nJesus, according to Paul, therefore, was not a teacher, but a\nRedeemer. But was Paul right? Was Jesus really a Redeemer, or was\nHe only a teacher? If He was only a teacher, then Paul was no\ntrue follower of His. For in that case, Paul has missed the true\nimport of Jesus' life. Compared with that one central error, small\nimportance is to be attributed to the influence which Jesus may have\nexerted upon Paul here and there. Wrede, therefore, was exactly\nright in his formulation of the question. Paul regarded Jesus as\na Redeemer. If Jesus was not a Redeemer, then Paul was no true\nfollower of Jesus, but the founder of a new religion. The liberal\ntheologians have tried to avoid the issue. They have pointed out\nexaggerations; they have traced the influence of Jesus upon Paul\nin detail; they have distinguished religion from theology, and\nabandoning the theology of Paul they have sought to derive his\nreligion from Jesus of Nazareth. It is all very learned and very\neloquent. But it is also entirely futile. Despite the numerous\nmonographs on \"Jesus and Paul,\" Wrede was entirely correct. He was\ncorrect, that is, not in his conclusions, but in his statement of\nthe question. He was correct in his central contention--Paul was no\ntrue disciple of the \"liberal Jesus.\" If Jesus was what the liberal\ntheologians represent Him as being--a teacher of righteousness, a\nreligious genius, a guide on the way to God--then not Jesus but\nPaul was the true founder of historic Christianity. For historic\nChristianity, like the religion of Paul, is a religion of redemption.\n\nCertainly the separation of religion from theology in Paul must be\nabandoned. Was it a mere theory when Paul said of Jesus Christ,\n\"He loved me and gave Himself for me\"? Was it merely theological\nspeculation when he said, \"One died for all, therefore all died;\nand he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto\nthemselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again\"?\nWas it mere theology when he said, \"Far be it from me to glory save\nin the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ\"? Was this mere theological\nspeculation? Surely not. Surely it was religion--warm, living\nreligion. If this was not true religion, then where can religion\never be found? But the passages just quoted are not passages which\ndeal with the details of Jesus' life; they are not passages which\ndeal with general principles of love and grace, and fatherliness and\nbrotherliness. On the contrary, they deal with just the thing most\ndistasteful to the modern liberal Church; they deal with the atoning\ndeath of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which He took our sins upon Him\nand bare them in His own body on the tree. The matter is perfectly\nplain. Religion in Paul does not exist apart from theology, and\ntheology does not exist apart from religion. Christianity, according\nto Paul, is both a life and a doctrine--but logically the doctrine\ncomes first. The life is the expression of the doctrine and not\nvice versa. Theology, as it appears in Paul, is not a product of\nChristian experience, but a setting forth of those facts by which\nChristian experience has been produced. If, then, the theology of\nPaul was derived from extra-Christian sources, his religion must be\nabandoned also. The whole of Paulinism is based upon the redemptive\nwork of Jesus Christ.\n\nThus Paul was a true follower of Jesus if Jesus was a divine\nRedeemer, come from heaven to die for the sins of men; he was\nnot a true follower of Jesus if Jesus was a mere revealer of\nthe fatherhood of God. Paulinism was not based upon a Galilean\nprophet. It was based either upon the Son of God who came to earth\nfor men's salvation and still holds communion with those who\ntrust Him, or else it was based upon a colossal error. But if the\nlatter alternative be adopted, the error was not only colossal,\nbut also unaccountable. It is made more unaccountable by all that\nhas been said above, all that the liberal theologians have helped\nto establish, about the nearness of Paul to Jesus. If Paul really\nstood so near to Jesus, if he really came under Jesus' influence,\nif he really was intimate with Jesus' friends, how could he have\nmisinterpreted so completely the significance of Jesus' person; how\ncould he have substituted for the teacher of righteousness who had\nreally lived in Palestine the heavenly Redeemer of the Epistles?\nNo satisfactory answer has yet been given. In the relation between\nJesus and Paul the historian discovers a problem which forces him\non toward a Copernican revolution in all his thinking, which leads\nhim to ground his own salvation and the hope of this world no longer\nin millions of acts of sinful men or in the gradual progress of\ncivilization, but simply and solely in one redemptive act of the\nLord of Glory.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE JEWISH ENVIRONMENT\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE JEWISH ENVIRONMENT\n\n\nOf the three ways in which, upon naturalistic principles, the\ngenesis of the religion of Paul has been explained, one has been\nexamined, and has been found wanting. Paulinism, it has been shown,\nwas not based upon the Jesus of modern liberalism. If Jesus was\nsimply a teacher of righteousness, a revealer of God, then the\nreligion of Paul was not derived from Him. For the religion of Paul\nwas a religion of redemption.\n\nBut if the religion of Paul was not derived from the Jesus of modern\nliberalism, whence was it derived? It may, of course, have been\nderived from the divine Redeemer; the Jesus whom Paul presupposes\nmay have been the Jesus who actually lived in Palestine. But that\nexplanation involves the intrusion of the supernatural into the\ncourse of history; it is therefore rejected by \"the modern mind.\"\nOther explanations, therefore, are being sought. These other\nexplanations are alike in that they derive the religion of Paul from\nsources independent of Jesus of Nazareth. Two such explanations have\nbeen proposed. According to one, the religion of Paul was derived\nfrom contemporary Judaism; according to the other, it was derived\nfrom the paganism of the Greco-Roman world. The present chapter will\ndeal with the former of these two explanations--with the explanation\nwhich derives the religion of Paul from contemporary Judaism.\n\nThis explanation is connected especially with the names of Wrede[94]\nand Br\u00fcckner.[95] It has, however, seldom been maintained in any\nexclusive way, but enters into combination with other hypotheses.\nIndeed, in itself it is obviously insufficient; it will hardly\nexplain the idea of redemption in the religion of Paul. But it is\nthought to explain, if not the idea of redemption, at least the\nconception of the Redeemer's person, and from the conception of\nthe Redeemer's person the idea of redemption might in some way be\nderived. The hypothesis of Wrede and Br\u00fcckner, in other words, seeks\nto explain not so much the soteriology as the Christology of Paul;\nit derives from the pre-Christian Jewish conception of the Messiah\nthe Pauline conception of the heavenly Christ. In particular, it\nseeks to explain the matter-of-course way in which in the Epistles\nthe Pauline Christ is everywhere presupposed but nowhere defended.\nApparently Paul was not aware that his Christology might provoke\ndissent. This attitude is very difficult to explain on the basis of\nthe ordinary liberal reconstruction; it is difficult to explain if\nthe Pauline Christology was derived by a process of development from\nthe historical Jesus. For if it had been so derived, its newness\nand revolutionary character would naturally have appeared. As a\nmatter of fact, however, Paul does not regard it as anything new; he\ntreats his doctrine of Christ as though it were firmly established\nand required no defense. How shall this confident attitude of the\napostle be explained? It is to be explained, Wrede says, by the\ntheology of contemporary Judaism. Paul was so confident that his\nconception of Christ could not be regarded as an innovation because\nas a matter of fact it was not an innovation; it was nothing but the\npre-Christian Jewish notion of the Messiah. The Pauline conception\nof Christ was thus firmly fixed in the mind of Paul and in the minds\nof many of his contemporaries long before the event on the road to\nDamascus; all that happened at that time was the identification\nof the Christ whom Paul had believed in all along with Jesus of\nNazareth, and that identification, because of the meagerness of\nPaul's knowledge of Jesus, did not really bring any fundamental\nchange in the Christology itself. After the conversion as well as\nbefore it, the Christ of Paul was simply the Christ of the Jewish\napocalypses.\n\n  [94] See p. 26, footnote 2.\n\n  [95] See p. 27, footnote 1.\n\nIn order that this hypothesis may be examined, it will be advisable\nto begin with a brief general survey of the Jewish environment of\nPaul. The survey will necessarily be of the most cursory character,\nand it will not be based upon original research. But it may serve\nto clear the way for the real question at issue. Fortunately the\nground has been covered rather thoroughly by recent investigators.\nIn dependence upon Sch\u00fcrer and Charles and others, even a layman may\nhope to arrive at the most obvious facts. And it is only the most\nobvious facts which need now be considered.\n\nThree topics only will be discussed, and they only in the most\ncursory way. These three topics are (1) the divisions within\nJudaism, (2) the Law, (3) the Messiah.\n\nThe most obvious division within the Judaism of Paul's day is\nthe division between the Judaism of Palestine and that of the\nDispersion. The Jews of Palestine, for the most part, spoke Aramaic;\nthose of the Dispersion spoke Greek. With the difference of language\nwent no doubt in some cases a difference in habits of thought. But\nexaggerations should be avoided. Certainly it is a serious error to\nrepresent the Judaism of the Dispersion as being universally or even\ngenerally a \"liberal\" Judaism, inclined to break down the strict\nrequirements of the Law. The vivid descriptions of the Book of Acts\npoint in the opposite direction. Opposition to the Gentile mission\nof Paul prevailed among the Hellenists of the Dispersion as well\nas among the Hebrews of Palestine. On the whole, although no doubt\nhere and there individuals were inclined to modify the requirements\nimposed upon proselytes, or even were influenced by the thought of\nthe Gentile world, the Jews of the first century must be thought of\nas being a strangely unified people, devoted to the Mosaic Law and\njealous of their God-given prerogatives.\n\nAt any rate, it is a grave error to explain the Gentile mission of\nPaul as springing by natural development from a liberal Judaism of\nthe Dispersion. For even if such a liberal Judaism existed, Paul did\nnot belong to it. He tells us in no uncertain terms that he was a\n\"Hebrew,\" not a Hellenist; inwardly, therefore, despite his birth in\nTarsus, he was a Jew of Palestine. No doubt the impressions received\nfrom the Greek city where he was born were of great importance in\nhis preparation for his life-work; it was no mere chance, but a\ndispensation of God, that the apostle to the Gentiles spent his\nearliest years in a seat of Gentile culture. But it was Jerusalem\nrather than Tarsus which determined Paul's outlook upon life. At\nany rate, however great or however little was the influence of his\nboyhood home, Paul was not a \"liberal\" Jew; for he tells us that he\nwas a Pharisee, more exceedingly zealous than his contemporaries for\nthe traditions of his fathers.\n\nBirth in Tarsus, therefore, did not mean for Paul any adherence\nto a liberal Judaism, as distinguished from the strict Judaism of\nPalestine. According to Montefiore, a popular Jewish writer of\nthe present day, it even meant the exact opposite; the Judaism of\nthe Dispersion, Montefiore believes, was not more liberal, but\nless liberal, than the Judaism of Palestine; it was from Tarsus,\nMontefiore thinks, that Paul derived his gloomy view of sin, and\nhis repellent conception of the wrath of God. Palestinian Judaism\nof the first century, according to Montefiore, was probably like\nthe rabbinical Judaism of 500 A. D., and the rabbinical Judaism\nof 500 A. D., contrary to popular opinion, was a broad-minded\nr\u00e9gime which united devotion to the Law with confidence in the\nforgiveness of God.[96] This curious reversal of the usual opinion\nis of course open to serious objection. How does Montefiore know\nthat the Judaism of the Dispersion was less liberal and held a\ngloomier view of sin than the Judaism of Palestine? The only\npositive evidence seems to be derived from 4 Ezra, which, with the\nother apocalypses, in an entirely unwarranted manner, is apparently\nmade to be a witness to the Judaism of the Dispersion. And were\nthe rabbinical Judaism of 500 A. D. and the Palestinian Judaism of\n50 A. D. really characterized by that sweet reasonableness which\nMontefiore attributes to them? There is at least one testimony to\nthe contrary--the testimony found in the words of Jesus.\n\n  [96] Montefiore, _Judaism and St. Paul_, 1914. Compare Emmet, \"The\n  Fourth Book of Esdras and St. Paul,\" in _Expository Times_, xxvii,\n  1915-1916, pp. 551-556.\n\nDistinct from the question of fact is the question of value.\nBut with regard to that question also, Montefiore's opinion may\nbe criticized. It may well be doubted whether the easy-going\nbelief in the complacency of God, celebrated by Montefiore as\ncharacteristic of Judaism, was, if it ever existed, superior to\nthe gloomy questionings of 4 Ezra. Certainly from the Christian\npoint of view it was not superior. In its shallow view of sin, in\nits unwillingness to face the ultimate problems of sin and death,\nthe Jewish liberalism of Montefiore is exactly like the so-called\nChristian liberalism of the modern Church. And it is as far\nremoved as possible from the Christianity of Paul. At one point,\ntherefore, Montefiore is entirely correct. The gospel of Paul was\nbased not upon a mild view of law, but upon a strict view; not upon\na belief in the complacency of God, but upon the cross of Christ as\na satisfaction of divine justice. Neither before his conversion nor\nafter it was Paul a \"liberal.\"\n\nBesides the obvious division between the Judaism of Palestine\nand that of the Dispersion, other divisions may be detected,\nespecially within Palestinian Judaism. Three principal Jewish sects\nare distinguished by Josephus; the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and\nthe Essenes.[97] Of these, the first two appear also in the New\nTestament. The Essenes were separated from the ordinary life of\nthe people by certain ascetic customs, by the rejection of animal\nsacrifice, and by religious practices which may perhaps be due to\nforeign influence. Apparently the Essenic order did not come into\nany close contact with the early Church. It is very doubtful, for\nexample, whether Lightfoot was correct in finding Essenic influence\nin the errorists combated in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. At\nany rate, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that Paul was\ninfluenced from this source.\n\n  [97] Josephus, _Antiq._ XVIII. i. 2-5.\n\nThe Sadducees were a worldly aristocracy, in possession of the\nlucrative priestly offices and reconciled to Roman rule. Their\nrejection of the doctrine of resurrection is attested not only by\nthe New Testament but also by Josephus. They were as far removed as\npossible from exerting influence upon the youthful Paul.\n\nThe Pharisees represented orthodox Judaism, with its devotion to\nthe Law. Their popularity, and their general, though not universal,\ncontrol of education, made them the real leaders of the people.\nCertainly the future history of the nation was in their hands;\nfor when the Temple was destroyed the Law alone remained, and the\nPharisees were the chief interpreters of the Law. It was this party\nwhich claimed the allegiance of Paul. So he testifies himself. His\ntestimony is often forgotten, or at least the implications of it\nignored. But it is unequivocal. Saul of Tarsus was not a liberal\nJew, but a Pharisee.\n\nThe mention of the Pharisees leads naturally to the second division\nof our sketch of pre-Christian Judaism--namely, the Law. According\nto Baldensperger, the two foci around which Judaism moved were the\nLaw and the Messianic hope.[98] These two foci will here be touched\nupon very briefly in order.\n\n  [98] Baldensperger, _Die Messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des\n  Judentums_, 3te Aufl., 1903, pp. 88, 89.\n\nUnquestionably post-exilic Judaism was devoted to the Law. The\nLaw was found in the Old Testament, especially in the books of\nMoses. But around the written Law had grown up a great mass of\noral interpretations which really amounted to elaborate additions.\nBy this \"tradition of the elders\" the life of the devout Jew was\nregulated in its minutest particulars. Morality thus became a\nmatter of external rules, and religion became a credit-and-debit\nrelationship into which a man entered with God. Modern Jews are\nsometimes inclined to contradict such assertions, but the evidence\nfound both in rabbinical sources and in the New Testament is too\nstrong. Exaggerations certainly should be avoided; there are\ncertainly many noble utterances to be found among the sayings\nof the Jewish teachers; it is not to be supposed that formalism\nwas unrelieved by any manifestations whatever of the goodness of\nthe heart. Nevertheless, the Jewish writings themselves, along\nwith flashes of true insight, contain a great mass of fruitless\ncasuistry; and the New Testament confirms the impression thus\nproduced. In some quarters, indeed, it is customary to discredit the\ntestimony of Jesus, reported in the Gospels, as being the testimony\nof an opponent. But why was Jesus an opponent? Surely it was because\nof something blameworthy in the life of those whom He denounced.\nIn the sphere of moral values, the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth\nis worth having; when He denounces the formalism and hypocrisy of\nthe scribes, it is very difficult for any student of the history of\nmorals not to be impressed. Certainly the denunciation of Jesus was\nnot indiscriminate. He \"loved\" the rich young ruler, and said to the\nlawyer, \"Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.\" Thus the Gospels\nin their choice of the words of Jesus which they record have not\nbeen prejudiced by any hatred of the Jews; they have faithfuly set\ndown various elements in Jesus' judgment of His contemporaries. But\nthe picture which they give of Jewish legalism cannot be put out\nof the world; it seems clear that the religion of the Pharisees at\nthe time of Paul was burdened with all the defects of a religion of\nmerit as distinguished from a religion of grace.\n\nThe legalism of the Pharisees might indeed seem to possess one\nadvantage as a preparation for the gospel of Paul; it might seem\nlikely to produce the consciousness of sin and so the longing for\na Saviour. If the Law was so very strict as the Pharisees said it\nwas, if its commands entered so deep into every department of life,\nif the penalty which it imposed upon disobedience was nothing less\nthan loss of the favor of a righteous God, would not the man who\nwas placed under such a r\u00e9gime come to recognize the imperfection\nof his obedience to the countless commands and so be oppressed by a\nsense of guilt? Paul said that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring\nthe Jews to Christ, and by that he meant that the Law produced the\nconsciousness of sin. But if the Law was a schoolmaster, was its\nstern lesson heeded? Was it a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to\nChrist only in its essential character, or was it actually being\nused in that beneficent way by the Jews of the age of Paul?\n\nThe answer to these questions, so far as it can be obtained, is on\nthe whole disappointing. The Judaism of the Pauline period does\nnot seem to have been characterized by a profound sense of sin.\nAnd the reason is not far to seek. The legalism of the Pharisees,\nwith its regulation of the minute details of life, was not really\nmaking the Law too hard to keep; it was really making it too easy.\nJesus said to His disciples, \"Except your righteousness shall\nexceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall\nin no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.\" The truth is, it is\neasier to cleanse the outside of the cup than it is to cleanse the\nheart. If the Pharisees had recognized that the Law demands not\nonly the observance of external rules but also and primarily mercy\nand justice and love for God and men, they would not have been so\nreadily satisfied with the measure of their obedience, and the Law\nwould then have fulfilled its great function of being a schoolmaster\nto bring them to Christ. A low view of law leads to legalism in\nreligion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.\n\nHere and there, indeed, voices are to be heard in the Judaism of\nthe New Testament period which attest a real sense of sin. The\nFourth Book of Ezra,[99] in particular, struggles seriously with the\ngeneral reign of evil in the lives of men, and can find no solution\nof the terrible problem. \"Many have been created, but few shall be\nsaved!\" (4 Ezra viii. 3). \"Or who is there that has not transgressed\nthy covenant?\" (vii. 46). Alas for the \"evil heart\" (vii. 48)! In\na very interesting manner 4 Ezra connects the miserable condition\nof humanity with the fall of Adam; the fall was not Adam's alone\nbut his descendants' (vii. 118). At this point, it is interesting\nto compare 2 Baruch,[100] which occupies a somewhat different\nposition; \"each of us,\" declares 2 Baruch, \"has been the Adam of\nhis own soul.\" And in general, 2 Baruch takes a less pessimistic\nview of human evil, and (according to Charles' estimate, which may\nbe correct) is more self-complacent about the Law. But the profound\nsense of guilt in 4 Ezra might conceivably be a step on the way to\nsaving faith in Christ. \"O Lord above us, if thou wouldst ... give\nunto us the seed of a new heart!\" (4 Ezra viii. 6). This prayer was\ngloriously answered in the gospel of Paul.[101]\n\n  [99] See Box, in Charles, _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the\n  Old Testament_, 1913, ii, pp. 542-624; Sch\u00fcrer, _Geschichte des\n  j\u00fcdischen Volkes_, 3te und 4te Aufl., iii, 1909, pp. 315-335\n  (English Translation, _A History of the Jewish People_, Division\n  II, vol. iii, 1886, pp. 93-104). The work of Charles has been used\n  freely, without special acknowledgment, for the citations from the\n  Jewish apocalypses.\n\n  [100] See Charles, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 470-526; Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._,\n  iii, pp. 305-315 (English Translation, Division II, vol. iii, pp.\n  83-93).\n\n  [101] Compare Box, in Charles, _op. cit._, p. 593. See also Emmet,\n  _loc. cit._\n\nIt must be remembered, however, that 4 Ezra was completed long after\nthe Pauline period; its attitude to the problem of evil certainly\ncannot be attributed with any confidence to Saul of Tarsus,\nthe pupil of Gamaliel. It is significant that when, after the\nconversion, Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of\nman, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament.\nAt this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later\ndevelopments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.\nOn the whole, therefore, especially in the light of what was said\nabove, it cannot be supposed that Saul the Pharisee held a spiritual\nview of law, or was possessed of a true conviction of sin. Paul was\nconvicted of his sin only when the Lord Jesus said to him, \"I am\nJesus whom thou persecutest.\"\n\nThe other focus about which pre-Christian Judaism, according to\nBaldensperger, revolved was the Messianic hope. This hope had its\nroots in the Old Testament. A complete introduction to the subject\nwould of course deal first with the Old Testament background. Here,\nhowever, the background will have to be dismissed with a word.\n\nAccording to the ordinary \"critical\" view, the doctrine of an\nindividual Messiah, and especially that of a transcendent Messiah,\narose late in the history of Israel. At first, it is maintained,\nthere was the expectation of a blessed line of Davidic kings; then\nthe expectation of a line of kings gave way in some quarters to\nthe expectation of an individual king; then the expectation of an\nearthly king gave way in some quarters to the expectation of a\nheavenly being like the \"Son of Man\" who is described in 1 Enoch.\nThis theory, however, has been called in question in recent years,\nfor example by Gressmann.[102] According to Gressmann, the doctrine\nof an individual transcendent Saviour is of hoar antiquity, and\nantedates by far the expectation of a blessed line of Davidic\nkings and that of an individual earthy king. Gressmann is not, of\ncourse, returning to the traditional view of the Old Testament. On\nthe contrary, he believes that the ancient doctrine of a heavenly\nSaviour is of extra-Israelitish origin and represents a widespread\nmyth. But in the details of exegesis, the radicalism of Gressmann,\nas is also the case with many forms of radicalism in connection with\nthe New Testament, involves a curious return to the traditional\nview. Many passages of the Old Testament, formerly removed from the\nlist of Messianic passages by the dominant school of exegesis, or\nelse regarded as late interpolations, are restored by Gressmann to\ntheir original significance. Thus the suffering servant of Jehovah\nof Is. liii (a passage which the dominant school of exegesis has\ninterpreted in a collective sense, as referring to the nation of\nIsrael or to the righteous part of the nation) is regarded by\nGressmann as being an individual (mythical) figure to whose death\nand resurrection is attributed saving significance.\n\n  [102] _Der Ursprung der israelitisch-j\u00fcdischen Eschatologie_, 1905.\n\nThe supernaturalistic view of the Old Testament[103] agrees with\nGressmann in his individualistic interpretation of such passages\nas Is. liii, but differs from him in that it attributes objective\nvalidity to the representation thus obtained. According to the\nsupernaturalistic view, Israel was from the beginning the people of\nthe Promise. The Promise at first was not fully defined in the minds\nof all the people. But even at the beginning there were glorious\nrevelations, and the revelations became plainer and plainer as\ntime went on. The various elements in the Promise were not indeed\nkept carefully distinct, and their logical connections were not\nrevealed. But even long before the Exile there was not only a\npromise of blessing to David's line, with occasional mention of\nan individual king, but also a promise of a Redeemer and King who\nshould far exceed the limits of humanity. Thus God had sustained His\npeople through the centuries with a blessed hope, which was finally\nfulfilled, in all its aspects, by the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n  [103] See Beecher, _The Prophets and the Promise_, 1905.\n\nDiscussion of these various views would exceed the limits of the\npresent investigation. All that can here be done is to present\nbriefly the Messianic expectations of the later period, in which\nPaul lived.\n\nBut were those expectations widely prevalent? Was the doctrine of\na coming Messiah firmly established among the Jews of the time of\nPaul? The answer to these questions might seem to be perfectly\nplain. The common impression is that the Judaism of the first\ncentury was devoted to nothing if not to the hope of a king who was\nto deliver God's people from the oppression of her enemies. This\nimpression is derived from the New Testament. Somewhat different is\nthe impression which might be derived from the Jewish sources if\nthey were taken alone. The expectation of a Messiah hardly appears\nat all in the Apocrypha, and even in the Pseudepigrapha it appears\nby no means in all of the books. Even when the thought of the future\nage is most prominent, that age does not by any means appear in\ninevitable connection with a personal Messiah. On the contrary, God\nHimself, not His instrument the Messiah, is often represented as\nushering in the new era when Israel should be blessed.\n\nDespite this difference between the New Testament and the Jewish\nliterature, it is generally recognized that the testimony of the\nNew Testament must be essentially correct. The picture which is\ngiven in the Gospels of the intensity of the Messianic hope among\nthe Jews must be founded upon fact even if Jesus Himself did not\nclaim to be the Messiah. Indeed, it is just in that latter case\nthat the testimony in some respects would become strongest of all.\nFor if Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah, the attribution of\nMessiahship to Him by His disciples could be explained only by the\nintensity of their own Messianic expectations. As a matter of fact,\nhowever, Jesus did claim to be the Messiah; the elimination of His\nMessianic consciousness has not won the assent of any large body\nof historians. He did claim to be the Messiah, and He died because\nthe Jews regarded Him as a false claimant. But His opponents, no\nless than His disciples, were expecting a \"King of the Jews.\" The\nNew Testament throughout, no matter what view may be held as to the\nhistoricity of the individual narratives, is quite inexplicable\nunless the Jews both in Palestine and in the Dispersion had a\ndoctrine of \"the Christ.\"\n\nThis New Testament representation is confirmed here and there by\nother writers. Even Philo,[104] as Br\u00fcckner remarks, pays his\ntribute, though in an isolated passage, to the common Messianic\ndoctrine.[105] Josephus,[106] also, despite his effort to avoid\noffending his Roman readers, is obliged to mention the Messianic\nhope as one cause of the great war, and can only make the reference\nharmless by finding the Messiah in the Emperor Vespasian![107] On\nthe whole, the fact may be regarded as certain that in the first\ncentury after Christ the expectation of the Messiah was firmly\nestablished among the Jews. The silence of great sections of the\nApocrypha may then be explained partly by the date of some of the\nbooks. It may well be that there was a period, especially during the\nMaccabean uprising, when because of the better present condition of\nthe nation the Messianic hope was less in the forefront of interest,\nand that afterwards, under the humiliation of Roman rule, the\nthoughts of the people turned anew to the expected Deliverer. But\nhowever that may be, it is altogether probable that the expectation\nof a Messiah was everywhere cherished in the Judaism of the time of\nPaul.\n\n  [104] _De praem et poen._ 16 (ed. Cohn, 1902, iv, p. 357).\n\n  [105] Br\u00fcckner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie_,\n  1903, pp. 102f.\n\n  [106] _Bell. Jud._ VI. v. 4.\n\n  [107] Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._, ii, 1907, p. 604 (English Translation,\n  Division II, vol. ii, 1885, p. 149).\n\nIf then the hope of a Messiah was prevalent in the Judaism of the\nfirst century, what was the nature of that hope? Two forms of\nMessianic expectation have ordinarily been distinguished. In the\nfirst place, it is said, there was an expectation of an earthly king\nof David's line, and in the second place, there was the notion of a\nheavenly being already existing in heaven. The former of these two\nlines of expectation is usually thought to represent the popular\nview, held by the masses of the people; and the latter is regarded\nas an esoteric doctrine held by a limited circle from which the\napocalypses have sprung.\n\nAt this point, Br\u00fcckner is somewhat in opposition to the ordinary\nopinion; he denies altogether the presence in first-century Judaism\nof any distinctive doctrine of a purely human Messiah.[108] The\nMessiah, he says, appears in all the sources distinctly as a\nsupernatural figure. Even in the Psalms of Solomon, he insists,\nwhere the Messiah is represented as a king reigning upon earth, He\nis nevertheless no ordinary king, for He destroys His enemies not by\nthe weapons of war but \"by the breath of His mouth.\" In the Gospels,\nmoreover, although the people are represented as looking for a king\nwho should break the Roman rule, yet they demand of this king works\nof superhuman power.\n\n  [108] Br\u00fcckner, _op. cit._, pp. 104-112.\n\nUndoubtedly there is a measure of truth in this contention of\nBr\u00fcckner. It may perhaps be admitted that the Messiah of Jewish\nexpectation was always something more than an ordinary king; it\nmay perhaps be admitted that He was endowed with supernatural\nattributes. Nevertheless, the view of Br\u00fcckner is exaggerated. There\nis still to be maintained the distinction between the heavenly\nbeing of 1 Enoch and the Davidic king. The latter might perhaps be\nregarded as possessed of miraculous powers, but still He was in\nthe essentials of His person an earthly monarch. He was to be born\nlike other men; He was to rule over an earthly kingdom; He was to\nconquer earthly armies; presumably He was to die. It is significant\nthat John the Baptist, despite the fact that he had as yet wrought\nno miracles, was apparently thought by some to be the Messiah (Lk.\niii. 15; John i. 19-27). Even if this representation of the Gospels\nof Luke and of John should be regarded as quite unhistorical, still\nit does show that the writers of these two Gospels, neither of\nwhom was by any means ignorant of Jewish conditions, regard it as\nno incongruity that some should have supposed such a man as John\nto be the Messiah. The Messiah, therefore, could not have been\nregarded always as being like the heavenly Son of Man of 1 Enoch.\nBut it is unnecessary to appeal to details. The whole New Testament,\nwhatever view may be taken of the historicity of its narratives in\ndetail, attests the prevalence in the first century of a Messianic\nexpectation according to which the Messiah was to be an earthly king\nof David's line.\n\nThis view of Messiahship becomes explicit in Justin Martyr's\nDialogue with Trypho, which was written at about the middle of\nthe second century. In this book, the Jewish opponent of Justin\nrepresents the Messiah as a \"mere man.\"[109] No doubt this evidence\ncannot be used directly for the earlier period in which Paul\nlived. There does seem to have been a reaction in later Jewish\nexpectations against that transcendent view of Messiahship which had\nbeen adopted by the Christian Church. Thus the apocalypses passed\nout of use among the Jews, and, in some cases at least, have been\npreserved only by the Church, and only because of their congruity\nwith Christian views. It is possible, therefore, that when Trypho\nin the middle of the second century represents the Messiah as a\n\"mere man,\" he is attesting a development in the Jewish doctrine\nwhich was subsequent to the time of Paul. But even in that case his\ntestimony is not altogether without value. Even if Trypho's doctrine\nof a merely human Messiah be a later development, it was probably\nnot without some roots in the past. If the Jews of the first century\npossessed both the doctrine of an earthly king and that of a\nheavenly \"Son of Man,\" it is possible to see how the latter doctrine\nmight have been removed and the former left in sole possession of\nthe field; but if in the first century the transcendent doctrine\nalone prevailed, it is unlikely that a totally different view could\nhave been produced so quickly to take its place.[110]\n\n  [109] \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  [110] Indeed Br\u00fcckner himself (_op. cit._, p. 110) admits that\n  there were two lines of thought about the Messiah in pre-Christian\n  Judaism. But he denies that the two were separated, and insists that\n  the transcendent conception had transformed the conception of an\n  earthly king.\n\nThus it must be insisted against Br\u00fcckner that in the first\ncentury the transcendent conception of Messiahship attested by the\napocalypses was not the only conception that prevailed. Despite its\ndominance in the apocalypses, it was probably not the doctrine of\nthe masses of the people. Probably the ordinary view of the matter\nis essentially correct; probably the Jews of the first century were\neagerly awaiting an earthly king of David's line who should deliver\nthem from Roman rule.\n\nIf, however, the transcendent conception of Messiahship which\nis found in the apocalypses was not the only conception held by\npre-Christian Judaism, it is none the less of special interest, and\nwill repay examination. It is found most fully set forth in the\n\"Similitudes\" of 1 Enoch,[111] but appears also in 4 Ezra and in 2\nBaruch.\n\n  [111] All parts of 1 Enoch are now usually thought to be of\n  pre-Christian origin. The Similitudes (chaps. xxxvii-lxxi) are\n  usually dated in the first century before Christ. See Charles,\n  _op. cit._, ii, pp. 163-281; Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._, iii, pp. 268-290\n  (English Translation, Division II, vol. iii, pp. 54-73).\n\nIn the Similitudes, the heavenly being, who is to appear at the end\nof the age and be the instrument of God in judgment, is usually\ncalled the Elect One, Mine Elect One, the Son of Man, or that Son\nof Man. He is also called the Righteous One, and twice he is called\nMessiah or Anointed One (xlviii. 10; lii. 4). This latter title\nwould seem to connect him with the expected king of David's line,\nwho was the Anointed One or the Messiah. Lake and Jackson, however,\nwould deny all connection. The heavenly Son of Man, they maintain,\nwas never in pre-Christian Judaism identified with the expected\nking of David's line--that is, with the \"Messiah\" in the technical\nsense--so that it is a mistake to speak of \"Messianic\" passages in\nthe Book of Enoch.[112] But after all, the heavenly figure of 1\nEnoch is represented as fulfilling much the same functions as those\nwhich are attributed in the Psalms of Solomon, for example, to the\nMessiah. It would be difficult to conceive of the same writer as\nexpecting two deliverers--one the Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon,\nand the other the Son of Man of 1 Enoch. On the whole, therefore,\nit is correct, despite the protest of Lake and Jackson, to speak of\nthe passages in 1 Enoch as Messianic, and of the Son of Man as the\n\"Messiah.\" In 4 Ezra xii. 32, moreover, the transcendent being, who\nis set forth under the figure of the lion, is distinctly identified\nwith the Messiah \"who shall spring from the seed of David.\" Of\ncourse, the late date of 4 Ezra may be insisted upon, and it may be\nmaintained that the Davidic descent of the Messiah in 4 Ezra is a\nmere traditional detail, without organic connection with the rest\nof the picture. But it is significant that the writer did feel it\nnecessary to retain the detail. His doing so proves at least that\nthe heavenly being of the apocalypses was not always thought of as\ndistinct from the promised king of David's line. All that can be\ngranted to Lake and Jackson is that the future Deliverer was thought\nof in pre-Christian Judaism in widely diverse ways, and that there\nwas often no effort to bring the different representations into\nharmony. But it is correct to speak of all the representations as\n\"Messianic.\" For the coming Deliverer in all cases (despite the\nvariety of the expectations) was intended to satisfy at least the\nsame religious needs.\n\n  [112] Lake and Jackson, _The Beginnings of Christianity_, Part I,\n  vol. i, 1920, pp. 373f.\n\nThe title \"Son of Man,\" which is used frequently in the Similitudes,\nhas given rise to a great deal of discussion, especially because of\nits employment in the Gospels as a self-designation of Jesus. It\nhas been maintained by some scholars that \"Son of Man\" never could\nhave been a Messianic title, since the phrase in Aramaic idiom\nmeans simply \"man.\" Thus the Greek phrase, \"the Son of Man,\" in the\nGospels would merely be an over-literal translation of an Aramaic\nphrase which meant simply \"the man,\" and the use of \"Son of Man\" as\na title would not extend back of the time when the tradition about\nthe words of Jesus passed over into Greek. But in recent years this\nextreme position has for the most part been abandoned. In the first\nplace, it is by no means clear that the Aramaic phrase from which\nthe phrase \"the Son of Man\" in the Gospels is derived was simply the\nordinary phrase meaning simply \"the man.\" Opposed to this view is\nto be put, for example, the weighty opinion of Dalman.[113] In the\nsecond place, it has been shown that the linguistic question is not\nso important as was formerly supposed. For even if \"the son of man\"\nin Aramaic meant simply \"the man,\" it might still be a title. The\ncommonest noun may sometimes become a title, and a title of highly\nspecialized significance. For example, the word \"day\" is a very\ncommon word, but \"The Day\" in certain connections, like the German,\n\"Der Tag,\" altogether without the help of any adjectives, comes\nto designate one particular day. So \"the Man\" or \"that Man\" could\nbecome a very lofty title, especially if it refers to some definite\nscene in which He who is the \"Man\" _par excellence_ is described.\n\n  [113] Dalman, _Die Worte Jesu_, i, 1898, pp. 191-197 (English\n  Translation, _The Words of Jesus_, i, 1902, pp. 234-241); Bousset,\n  _Kyrios Christos_, 1913, pp. 13, 14.\n\nIn the Similitudes, such is actually the case; the phrase \"Son of\nMan,\" whatever be its exact meaning, plainly refers to the \"one like\nunto a son of man\" who in Daniel vii. 13 appears in the presence\nof \"the Ancient of Days.\" This reference is made perfectly plain\nat the first mention of the Son of Man (1 Enoch xlvi. 1, 2), where\nthe same scene is evidently described as the scene of Dan. vii. 13.\nThe \"Son of Man\" is not introduced abruptly, but is first described\nas a \"being whose countenance had the appearance of a man,\" and is\nthen referred to in the Similitudes not only as \"the Son of Man,\"\nbut also as \"that Son of Man.\" Charles and others suppose, indeed,\nthat the Ethiopic word translated \"that\" is merely a somewhat false\nrepresentation, in the Ethiopic translation, of the Greek definite\narticle, so that the Greek form of the book from which the extant\nEthiopic was taken had everywhere \"the Son of Man,\" and nowhere\n\"that Son of Man.\" The question is perhaps not of very great\nimportance. In any case, the phrase \"son of man\" derives its special\nsignificance from the reference to the scene of Dan. vii. 13. Not\nany ordinary \"man\" or \"son of man\" is meant, but the mysterious\nfigure who came with the clouds of heaven and was brought near to\nthe Ancient of Days.\n\nThe Son of Man, or the Elect One, in the Similitudes, appears\nclothed with the loftiest attributes. He existed before the creation\nof the world (xlviii. 3, 6). When he finally appears, it is to sit\nin glory upon the throne of God (li. 3, etc.), and judge not only\nthe inhabitants of earth but also the fallen angels (lv. 4). For the\npurposes of judgment he is endued with righteousness and wisdom. He\nis concerned, moreover, not only with the judgment but also with\nthe execution of the judgment; he causes \"the sinners to pass away\nand be destroyed from off the face of the earth\" (lxix. 27). For\nthe righteous, on the other hand, the judgment results in blessing\nand in communion with the Son of Man. \"And the righteous and elect\nshall be saved in that day, and they shall never thenceforward see\nthe face of the sinners and the unrighteous. And the Lord of Spirits\nwill abide over them, and with that Son of Man shall they eat and\nlie down and rise up for ever and ever\" (lxii. 13, 14).\n\nThe entire representation in the Similitudes is supernatural; the\nSon of Man is a heavenly figure who appears suddenly in the full\nblaze of his glory. Yet the connection with earth is not altogether\nbroken off. It is upon a glorified earth that the righteous are\nto dwell. Indeed, despite the cosmic extent of the drama, the\nprerogatives of Israel are preserved; the Gentile rulers are no\ndoubt referred to in \"the Kings and the Mighty\" who are to suffer\npunishment because of their former oppression of \"the elect.\" On the\nother hand, mere connection with Israel is not the only ground for a\nman's acceptance by the Son of Man; the judgment will be based upon\na real understanding of the secrets of individual lives.\n\nIn 4 Ezra vii. 26-31, the rule of the Messiah is represented as\ndistinctly temporary. The Messiah will rejoice the living for four\nhundred years; then, together with all human beings, he will die;\nthen after the world has returned to primeval silence for seven\ndays, the new age, with the final resurrection, will be ushered\nin. It may be doubted whether this representation harmonizes with\nwhat is said elsewhere in 4 Ezra about the Messiah, indeed whether\neven in this passage the representation is thoroughly consistent.\nBox, for example, thinks that there are contradictions here, which\nare to be explained by the composite nature of the book and by the\nwork of a redactor. But at any rate the result, in the completed\nbook, is clear. The Messiah is to die, like all the men who are upon\nthe earth, and is not connected with the new age. This death of\nthe Messiah is as far as possible from possessing any significance\nfor the salvation of men. Certainly it is not brought into any\nconnection with the problem of sin, which, as has been observed\nabove, engages the special attention of the writer of 4 Ezra. \"It\nis important to observe how the Jewish faith knew of a Saviour for\nexternal ills, but not for sin and condemnation; and how the Christ\nis able only to create a brief earthly joy, which passes away with\nthe destruction of the world.\"[114]\n\n  [114] Volz, _J\u00fcdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba_, 1903, pp.\n  202f.\n\nIn the \"Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,\"[115] although Br\u00fcckner\nis no doubt right in saying that the Messiah here as well as in 1\nEnoch is a supernatural figure, the connection of the Messiah with\nthe tribe of Levi introduces the reader into a somewhat different\ncircle of ideas. The difference becomes more marked in the \"Psalms\nof Solomon,\"[116] where the Messiah is a king of David's line. It is\nno doubt true that even here the Messiah is no ordinary human being;\nhe destroys his enemies, not by the weapons of warfare and not by\nthe help of Israelitish armies, but by the breath of his mouth. Yet\nthe local, earthly character of the Messiah's reign--what may even\nbe called, perhaps, its political character--is more clearly marked\nthan in the apocalypses. Also there is stronger emphasis upon the\nethical qualities of the Messianic king; the righteousness of his\npeople is celebrated in lofty terms, which, however, do not exclude\na strong element of Jewish and Pharisaic particularism.\n\n  [115] See Charles, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 282-367; Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._,\n  iii, pp. 339-356 (English Translation, Division II, vol. iii, pp.\n  114-124).\n\n  [116] See Gray, in Charles, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 625-652; Sch\u00fcrer,\n  _op. cit._, iii, pp. 205-212 (English Translation, Division II, vol.\n  iii, pp. 17-23).\n\nNo complete exposition of the Jewish belief about the Messiah has\nhere been attempted. But enough has perhaps been said to indicate\nat least some features of the Messianic expectation in the period\njust preceding the time of Paul. Evidently, in certain circles\nat least, the Messianic hope was transcendent, individualistic,\nand universalistic. The scene of Messiah's kingdom was not always\nthought of merely as the earthly Jerusalem; at least the drama\nby which that kingdom is ushered in was thought of as taking\nplace either in heaven or upon an earth which has been totally\ntransformed. With this transcendent representation went naturally\na tendency towards individualism. Not merely nations were to be\njudged, but also the secrets of the individual life; and individuals\nwere to have a part in the final blessing or the final woe. Of\ncourse, for those who should die before the end of the age, this\nparticipation in the final blessedness or the final woe would be\npossible only by a resurrection. And the doctrine of resurrection,\nespecially for the righteous, is in the apocalypses clearly\nmarked. In 2 Baruch, indeed, there is an interesting discussion\nof the relation between the resurrection state and the present\ncondition of man; the righteous will first rise in their old\nbodies, but afterwards will be transformed (2 Baruch xlix-li).\nFinally, the apocalypses exhibit a tendency toward universalism.\nThe coming of the Messianic kingdom is regarded as an event of\ncosmic significance. The Gentiles are even sometimes said to share\nin the blessing. But they are to share in the blessing only by\nsubordination to the people of God.\n\nDespite the importance of the later period, it is interesting to\nobserve that all the essential features of later Jewish eschatology\nhave their roots in the canonical books of the Old Testament. In\nthe first place, the transcendence of the later representation has\nan Old Testament basis. In Isaiah ix and xi the Messiah appears\nclearly as a supernatural figure, and in Isaiah lxv. 17 there is a\nprophecy of new heavens and a new earth. The heavenly \"Son of Man\"\nis derived from Dan. vii. 13, and the individualistic interpretation\nof that passage, which makes the Son of Man, despite verse 18,\nsomething more than a mere collective symbol for the people of\nIsrael, is to-day in certain quarters coming to its rights. Not\nonly in the Psalms of Solomon, but also in the apocalypses, the Old\nTestament language is used again and again to describe the heavenly\nMessiah. There is, in the second place, an Old Testament basis for\nthe individualism of the later representation. The doctrine of\nresurrection, with its consequences for an individualistic hope,\nappears in Daniel. And, finally, the universalism of the apocalypses\ndoes not transcend that of the great Old Testament prophets. In the\nprophets also, the nations are to come under the judgment of God and\nare to share in some sort in the blessings of Israel.\n\nIf, therefore, the apostle Paul before his conversion believed in a\nheavenly Messiah, supernatural in origin and in function, he was not\nreally unfaithful to the Old Testament.\n\nBut was his pre-Christian notion of the Messiah really the source\nof the Christology of the Epistles? Such is the contention of Wrede\nand Br\u00fcckner. Wrede and Br\u00fcckner believe that the lofty Christology\nof Paul, inexplicable if it was derived from the man Jesus, may be\naccounted for if it was merely the pre-Christian conception of the\nMessiah brought into loose connection with the prophet of Nazareth.\nThis hypothesis must now be examined.\n\nAt the beginning of the investigation, it may be questioned whether\nPaul before his conversion held the apocalyptic view of the Messiah.\nIt might, indeed, even be questioned whether he was particularly\ninterested in the Messianic hope at all. If Baldensperger is correct\nin saying that the Messianic dogma was in some sort a substitute\nfor the Law, and the Law a substitute for the Messianic dogma,\nso that finally rabbinical interest in the Law tended to dampen\ninterest in the Messiah,[117] then the pre-Christian life of Paul\nwas presumably not dominated by Messianic expectations. For Paul\nhimself, as Baldensperger observes,[118] does not, in speaking of\nhis pre-Christian life, reckon himself with the Messianists. He\nreckons himself, rather, with those who were zealous for the Law.\nSuch considerations are interesting. But their importance should\nnot be exaggerated. It must be remembered that according to the\ntestimony of the whole New Testament the doctrine of the Messiah was\nfirmly established in the Judaism of Paul's day. It is hardly likely\nthat Paul the Pharisee dissented from the orthodox belief. In all\nprobability, therefore, Paul before his conversion did hold some\ndoctrine of the Messiah.\n\n  [117] Baldensperger, _Die Messianisch-apocalyptischen Hoffnungen des\n  Judentums_, 3te Aufl., 1903, pp. 88, 207f., 216f.\n\n  [118] Baldensperger, _op. cit._, pp. 216f.\n\nIt is not so certain, however, that the pre-conversion doctrine\nof Paul presented a transcendent Messiah like the heavenly Son of\nMan of the apocalypses. Certainly there is in the Pauline Epistles\nno evidence whatever of literary dependence upon the apocalyptic\ndescriptions of the Messiah. The characteristic titles of the\nMessiah which appear in the Similitudes of Enoch, for example, are\nconspicuously absent from Paul. Paul never uses the title \"Son of\nMan\" or \"Elect One\" or \"Righteous One\" in speaking of Christ. And\nin the apocalypses, on the other hand, the Pauline terminology is\nalmost equally unknown. The apocalypses, at least 1 Enoch, use the\ntitle \"Messiah\" only very seldom, and the characteristic Pauline\ntitle, \"Lord,\" never at all. It is evident, therefore, that the\nPauline Christology was not derived from the particular apocalypses\nthat are still extant. All that can possibly be maintained is that\nit was derived from apocalypses which have been lost, or from an\napocalyptic oral tradition. But dependence upon lost sources, direct\ncomparison not being possible, is always very difficult to establish.\n\nThus the terminology of the Epistles and of the apocalypses is\nrather unfavorable to the view which attributes to the youthful\nPaul the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah. No literary relation\ncan be established between the Epistles and the extant apocalypses.\nBut will general considerations serve to supply the lack of direct\nevidence of dependence? On the whole, the reverse is the case.\nGeneral considerations as to the pre-Christian opinions of Paul\npoint rather to a less transcendent and more political conception\nthan the conception which is found in the apocalypses. No doubt the\nMessiah whom Paul was expecting possessed supernatural attributes;\nit seems to have been generally expected in New Testament times that\nthe Messiah would work miracles. But the supernatural attributes of\nthe Messiah would not necessarily involve a conception like that\nwhich is presented in the Similitudes of Enoch. Possibly it is\nrather to the Psalms of Solomon that the historian should turn. The\nPsalms of Solomon were a typical product of Pharisaism in its nobler\naspects. Their conception of the Messiah, therefore, may well have\nbeen that of the pupil of Gamaliel. And the Messiah of the Psalms\nof Solomon, though possessed of supernatural power and wisdom, is\nthought of primarily as a king of David's line, and there is no\nthought of his pre\u00ebxistence. He is very different from the Son of\nMan of 1 Enoch.\n\nIt is, therefore, not perfectly clear that Paul before the\nconversion believed in a heavenly, pre\u00ebxistent Messiah like the\nMessiah of the apocalypses. There is some reason for supposing that\nthe apocalyptic Messiah was the Messiah, not of the masses of the\npeople and not of the orthodox teachers, but of a somewhat limited\ncircle. Did Paul belong to that limited circle? The question cannot\nbe answered with any certainty.\n\nThe importance of such queries must not, indeed, be exaggerated. It\nis not being maintained here that Paul before his conversion did not\nbelieve in the Messiah of the apocalypses; all that is maintained\nis that it is not certain that he did. Possibly the diffusion of\napocalyptic ideas in pre-Christian Judaism was much wider than is\nsometimes supposed; possibly the youthful Paul did come under the\ninfluence of such ideas. But Wrede and Br\u00fcckner are going too far\nif they assert that Paul must necessarily have come under such\ninfluences. The truth is that the pre-Christian life of Paul is\nshrouded in the profoundest obscurity. Almost the only definite\npiece of information is what Paul himself tells us--that he was\nzealous for the Law. He says nothing about his conception of the\nMessiah. The utmost caution is therefore in place. Br\u00fcckner is going\nmuch further than the sources will warrant when he makes Paul before\nhis conversion a devotee of the apocalyptic Messiah, and bases upon\nthis hypothesis an elaborate theory as to the genesis of the Pauline\nChristology.\n\nBut even if Paul before his conversion was a devotee of the\napocalyptic Messiah, the genesis of the Pauline Christology has not\nyet been explained. For the apocalyptic Messiah is different in\nimportant respects from the Christ of the Epistles.\n\nIn the first place, there is in the apocalypses no doctrine of\nan activity of the Messiah in creation, like that which appears\nin 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16. The Messiah of the apocalypses is\npre\u00ebxistent, but He is not thought of as being associated with God\nin the creation of the world. This difference may seem to be only\na difference in detail; but it is a difference in detail which\nconcerns just that part of the Pauline Christology which would seem\nto be most similar to the apocalyptic doctrine. It is the Pauline\nconception of the pre\u00ebxistent Christ, as distinguished from the\nincarnate or the risen Christ, which Wrede and Br\u00fcckner find it\neasiest to connect with the apocalypses. But even in the pre\u00ebxistent\nperiod the Christ of Paul is different from the apocalyptic Messiah,\nbecause the Christ of Paul, unlike the apocalyptic Messiah, has an\nactive part in the creation of the world.\n\nIn the second place, there is in the apocalypses no trace of the\nwarm, personal relation which exists between the believer and the\nPauline Christ.[119] The Messiah of the apocalypses is hidden in\nheaven. He is revealed only as a great mystery, and only to favored\nmen such as Enoch. Even after the judgment, although the righteous\nare to be in company with Him, there is no such account of His\nperson as would make conceivable a living, personal relationship\nwith Him. The heavenly Messiah of the apocalypses is a lifeless\nfigure, clothed in unapproachable light. The risen Christ of Paul,\non the other hand, is a person whom a man can love; indeed He is a\nperson whom as a matter of fact Paul did love. Whence was derived\nthe concrete, personal character of the Christ of Paul? It was\ncertainly not derived from the Messiah of the apocalypses. Whence\nthen was it derived?\n\n  [119] Compare especially Olschewski, _Die Wurzeln der paulinischen\n  Christologie_, 1909.\n\nThe natural answer would be that it was derived from Jesus of\nNazareth. The fact that the risen Christ of Paul is not merely a\nheavenly figure but a person whom a man can love is most naturally\nexplained by supposing that Paul attributed to the Messiah all the\nconcrete traits of the striking personality of Jesus of Nazareth.\nBut this supposition is excluded by Wrede's hypothesis. Indeed,\nWrede supposes, if Paul had come into such close contact with the\nhistorical Jesus as to have in his mind a full account of Jesus'\nwords and deeds, he could not easily have attached to Him the\nsupernatural attributes of the heavenly Son of Man; only a man who\nstood remote from the real Jesus could have regarded Jesus as the\ninstrument in creation and the final judge of all the world. Thus\nthe hypothesis of Wrede and Br\u00fcckner faces a quandary. In order to\nexplain the supernatural attributes of the Pauline Christ, Paul has\nto be placed near to the apocalypses and far from the historical\nJesus; whereas in order to explain the warm, personal relation\nbetween Paul and his Christ, Paul would have to be placed near to\nthe historical Jesus and far from the apocalypses.\n\nThis quandary could be avoided only by deriving the warm, personal\nrelation between Paul and his Christ from something other than the\ncharacter of the historical Jesus. Wrede and Br\u00fcckner might seek to\nderive it from the one fact of the crucifixion. All that Paul really\nderived from the historical Jesus, according to Wrede and Br\u00fcckner,\nwas the fact that the Messiah had come to earth and died. But that\none fact, it might be maintained, was sufficient to produce the\nfervent Christ-religion of Paul. For Paul interpreted the death of\nthe Messiah as a death suffered for the sins of others. Such a death\ninvolved self-sacrifice; it must have been an act of love. Hence the\nbeneficiaries were grateful; hence the warm, personal relationship\nof Paul to the one who had loved him and given Himself for him.[120]\n\n  [120] Compare Br\u00fcckner, _Die Entstehung der paulinischen\n  Christologie_, 1903, p. 237.\n\nBut how did the death of Jesus ever come to be interpreted by Paul\nas a vicarious death of the Messiah? The natural answer would be\nthat it was because of something that Jesus had said or because of\nan impression derived from His character. That answer is excluded\nby Wrede's hypothesis. How then did Paul come to regard the death\nof Jesus as a vicarious death of the Messiah? It could only have\nbeen because Paul already had a doctrine of the vicarious death of\nthe Messiah before his conversion. But nothing is more unlikely.\nThere is in late pre-Christian Jewish literature not a trace of\nsuch a doctrine.[121] The Messiah in 4 Ezra is represented, indeed,\nas dying, but His death is of benefit to no one. He dies, along\nwith all the inhabitants of earth, simply in order to make way\nfor the new world.[122] In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho,\nthe Jew Trypho is represented as admitting that the Messiah was\nto suffer. But the suffering is not represented as vicarious. And\nsince the Dialogue was written in the middle of the second century\nafter Christ, the isolated testimony of Trypho cannot be used as\na witness to first-century conditions. It is perfectly possible,\nas Sch\u00fcrer suggested, that certain Jews of the second century were\nonly led to concede the suffering of the Messiah in the light of\nthe Scriptural arguments advanced by the Christians. The rabbinical\nevidence as to sufferings of the Messiah is also too late to be used\nin reconstructing the pre-Christian environment of Paul. And of\nreal evidence from the period just before Paul's day there is none.\nIn 4 Maccabees vi. 28, 29, indeed (less clearly in xvii. 21, 22),\nthe blood of the righteous is represented as bringing purification\nfor the people. The dying martyr Eleazar is represented as\npraying:[123] \"Be merciful unto thy people, and let our punishment\nbe a satisfaction in their behalf. Make my blood their purification,\nand take my soul to ransom their souls.\" This passage, however, is\nentirely isolated. There is no evidence whatever that the vicarious\nsuffering of the righteous was anything like an established doctrine\nin the Judaism of Paul's day, and in particular there is no evidence\nthat in pre-Christian Judaism the idea of vicarious suffering was\napplied to the Messiah. Undoubtedly Isaiah liii might have formed a\nbasis for such an application; it may even seem surprising that that\nglorious passage was not more influential. But as a matter of fact,\nJudaism was moving in a very different direction; the later doctrine\nof the Messiah had absolutely no place for a vicarious death or for\nvicarious suffering. All the sources are here in agreement. Neither\nin the apocalypses nor in what is presupposed in the New Testament\nabout Jewish belief is there any trace of a vicarious death of the\nMessiah. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that such an idea was\nextremely repulsive to the Jewish mind. The Cross was unto the Jews\na stumbling-block.[124]\n\n  [121] See Sch\u00fcrer, _op. cit._, ii, pp. 648-651 (English Translation,\n  Division II, vol. ii, pp. 184-187).\n\n  [122] It will be remembered, moreover, that 4 Ezra, at least in its\n  completed form, dates from long after the time of Paul.\n\n  [123] Townshend, in Charles, _op. cit._, ii, p. 674.\n\n  [124] B. W. Bacon (_Jesus and Paul_, 1921, pp. 45-49) seeks to\n  bridge the gulf between Jesus and Paul by supposing that Jesus\n  himself, somewhat like the Maccabean hero, finally attained, after\n  the failure of His original program and at the very close of His\n  life, the conception that His approaching death was to be in some\n  sort an expiation for His people. But the idea of expiation which\n  Bacon attributes to Jesus is no doubt very different from the\n  Pauline doctrine of the Cross of Christ. The gulf between Jesus and\n  Paul is therefore not really bridged. Moreover, it cannot be said\n  that Bacon's hypothesis of successive stages in the experience of\n  Jesus, culminating in the idea of expiation attained at the last\n  supper, has really helped at all to solve the problem presented to\n  every historian who proceeds upon naturalistic presuppositions by\n  Jesus' lofty claims. At least, however, this latest investigator\n  of the problem of \"Jesus and Paul\" has betrayed a salutary\n  consciousness of the fact that the Pauline conception of Jesus'\n  redemptive work is inexplicable unless it find some justification\n  in the mind of Jesus Himself. Only, the justification which Bacon\n  himself has found--particularly his account of the way in which the\n  idea of expiation is supposed to have arisen in Jesus' mind--is\n  entirely inadequate.\n\nThus the warm, personal relation of love and gratitude which Paul\nsustains to the risen Christ is entirely unexplained by anything in\nhis Jewish environment. It is not explained by the Jewish doctrine\nof the Messiah; it is not explained by reflection upon the vicarious\ndeath of the Messiah. For the Messiah in Jewish expectation was\nnot to suffer a vicarious death. Such a relation of love and\ngratitude could be sustained only toward a living person. It could\nbe sustained toward Jesus of Nazareth, if Jesus continued to live\nin glory, but it could not be sustained toward the Messiah of the\napocalypses.\n\nThe third difference between the Pauline Christ and the Messiah\nof the apocalypses concerns the very center of the Pauline\nconception--there is in the apocalypses no doctrine of the divinity\nof the Messiah. In Paul, the divinity of Christ is presupposed on\nevery page. The word \"divinity\" is indeed often being abused; in\nmodern pantheizing liberalism, it means absolutely nothing. But the\ndivinity of Christ in the Pauline Epistles is to be understood in\nthe highest possible sense. The Pauline doctrine of the divinity of\nChrist is not dependent upon individual passages; it does not depend\nupon the question whether in Rom. ix. 5 Paul applies the term \"God\"\nto Christ. Certainly he does so by any natural interpretation of his\nwords. But what is far more important is that the term \"Lord\" in\nthe Pauline Epistles, the characteristic Pauline name of Christ, is\nevery whit as much a designation of deity as is the term \"God.\"[125]\nEverywhere in the Epistles, moreover, the attitude of Paul toward\nChrist is not merely the attitude of man to man, or scholar to\nmaster; it is the attitude of man toward God.\n\n  [125] See Warfield, \"'God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,'\" in\n  _Princeton Theological Review_, xv, 1917, pp. 1-20.\n\nSuch an attitude is absent from the apocalyptic representation of\nthe Messiah. For example, the way in which God and Christ are linked\ntogether regularly at the beginnings of the Pauline Epistles--God\nour father and the Lord Jesus Christ[126]--this can find no real\nparallel in 1 Enoch. The isolated passages (1 Enoch xlix. 10; lxx.\n1) where in 1 Enoch the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man or the\nElect One are linked together by the word \"and,\" do not begin to\napproach the height of the Pauline conception. It is not surprising\nand not particularly significant that the wicked are designated in\none passage as those who have \"denied the Lord of Spirits and His\nanointed\" (1 Enoch xlix. 10). Such an expression would be natural\neven if the Anointed One were, for example, merely an earthly king\nof David's line. What is characteristic of Paul, on the other hand,\nis that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are not merely\nunited by the conjunction \"and\" in isolated passages--that might\nhappen even if they belonged to different spheres of being--but\nare united regularly and as a matter of course, and are just as\nregularly separated from all other beings except the Holy Spirit.\nMoreover, God and Christ, in Paul, have attributed to them the same\nfunctions. Grace and peace, for example, come equally from both.\nSuch a representation would be quite incongruous in 1 Enoch. Equally\nincongruous in 1 Enoch would be the Pauline separation of the Christ\nfrom ordinary humanity and from angels. The author of 1 Enoch could\nhardly have said, \"Not from men nor through a man but through the\nElect One and the Lord of Spirits,\" as Paul says, \"Not from men\nnor through a man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who\nraised him from the dead\" (Gal. i. 1). On the other hand, the way in\nwhich 1 Enoch includes the Elect One in the middle of a long list of\nbeings who praise the Lord of Spirits (1 Enoch lxi. 10, 11) would be\nabsolutely inconceivable in Paul.\n\n  [126] Warfield, _loc. cit._\n\nThis stupendous difference is established not by isolated passages,\nbut by every page of the Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Christ is\nexalted to an infinite height above the Messiah of the apocalypses.\nHow did He reach this height? Was it because He was identified with\nJesus of Nazareth? But that identification, if Jesus of Nazareth\nwere a mere man, would have dragged Him down rather than lifted\nHim up. There lies the unsolved problem. Even if Paul before his\nconversion believed in the heavenly Messiah of the apocalypses,\nhe had to exalt that Messiah far beyond all that had ever been\nattributed to Him in the boldest visions of the Jewish seers, before\nhe could produce the Christ of the Epistles. Yet the only new thing\nthat had entered Paul's life was identification of the Messiah with\nJesus. Why did that identification lift the Messiah to the throne of\nGod? Who was this Jesus, who by His identification with the Messiah,\nlifted the Messiah even far above men's wildest dreams?\n\nThus the Messianic doctrine of the apocalypses is an insufficient\nbasis for the Pauline Christology. Its insufficiency is admitted by\nHans Windisch.[127] But Windisch seeks to supply what is lacking\nin the apocalyptic Messiah by appealing to the Jewish doctrine of\n\"Wisdom.\" The apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah, Windisch admits,\nwill not explain the origin of the Pauline Christology; for example,\nit will not explain Paul's doctrine of the activity of Christ in\ncreation. But \"Wisdom\" is thought to supply the lack.\n\n  [127] \"Die g\u00f6ttliche Weisheit der Juden und die paulinische\n  Christologie,\" in _Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici\n  dargebracht_, 1914, pp. 220-234.\n\nIn Prov. viii, \"wisdom\" is celebrated in lofty terms, and is said\nto have existed before the creation of the world. \"Wisdom\" is here\nboldly personified in a poetic way. But she is not regarded as a\nreal person separate from God. In later books, however, notably\nin the Alexandrian \"Wisdom of Solomon,\" the personification is\ndeveloped until it seems to involve actual personality. Wisdom seems\nto be regarded as an \"hypostasis,\" a figure in some sort distinct\nfrom God. This hypostasis, Windisch believes, was identified by Paul\nwith Christ, and the result was the Pauline Christology.\n\nThe figure of Wisdom, Windisch believes, will supply two elements\nin the Pauline Christ-religion which are lacking in the Messiah\nof the apocalypses. In the first place, it will account for the\nPauline notion that Christ was active in creation, since Wisdom in\nJewish belief is repeatedly represented as the assessor or even the\ninstrument of the Creator. In the second place, it will account for\nthe intimate relation between Paul and his Christ, since Wisdom is\nrepresented in the \"Wisdom of Solomon\" as entering into the wise\nman, and the wise man seems to be represented in Proverbs viii and\nin Ecclesiasticus as the mouthpiece of Wisdom.[128]\n\n  [128] Windisch, _op. cit._, p. 226.\n\nBut when was the identification of the Messiah with Wisdom\naccomplished? Was it accomplished by Paul himself after his\nconversion? Or was it received by Paul from pre-Christian Jewish\ndoctrine? If it was accomplished by Paul himself after his\nconversion, then absolutely no progress has been made toward the\nexplanation of the Pauline Christology. How did Paul come to\nidentify Jesus of Nazareth with the divine figure of Wisdom? It\ncould only have been because Jesus was such a person as to make the\nidentification natural. But that supposition is of course excluded\nby the naturalistic principles with which Windisch is operating.\nThe identification of Jesus with Wisdom at or after the conversion\nis, therefore, absolutely inexplicable; in substituting Wisdom for\nthe apocalyptic Messiah as the basis of the Pauline Christology,\nWindisch has destroyed whatever measure of plausibility the theory\nof Wrede and Br\u00fcckner possessed. For it is really essential to\nWrede's theory that Paul before his conversion had not only believed\nin the existence of a heavenly being like the Son of Man of 1 Enoch,\nbut had also expected that heavenly being to appear. Since he had\nexpected the heavenly being to appear, it might seem to be not so\nabsolutely inexplicable that he came to think that that being had\nactually appeared in the person of Jesus. But no one expected Wisdom\nto appear, in any more definite way than by the entrance which she\nhad already accomplished into the hearts of wise men. The thought\nof an incarnation or a parousia of Wisdom is absolutely foreign to\nJewish thought. What possible reason was there, then, for Paul to\nthink that Wisdom actually had appeared and would finally appear\nagain in the person of Jesus?\n\nThus the theory of Windisch can be maintained only if the\nidentification of Wisdom with the Messiah was accomplished not by\nPaul after the conversion but by pre-Christian Judaism. If Paul's\npre-Christian doctrine of the Messiah already contained vital\nelements drawn from the doctrine of Wisdom, then and then only\nmight it be held that the Pauline Christ, with His activity in\ncreation and His spiritual indwelling in the believer, was merely\nthe pre-Christian Messiah. But was the pre-Christian Messiah ever\nidentified with the hypostasis Wisdom? Upon an affirmative answer\nto this question depends the whole structure of Windisch's theory.\nBut Windisch passes the question over rather lightly. He tries,\nindeed, to establish certain coincidences between the doctrine of\nthe Messiah in 1 Enoch and in the Septuagint translation of Micah v.\n2 and Ps. cx. 3 on the one hand, and the descriptions of Wisdom on\nthe other; but the coincidences apparently amount to nothing except\nthe ascription of pre\u00ebxistence to both figures. But the fundamental\ntrouble is that Windisch has an entirely inadequate conception of\nwhat really needs to be proved. What Windisch really needs to do\nis to ascribe to the pre-Christian doctrine of the Messiah two\nelements--activity in creation and spiritual indwelling--which in\nthe extant sources are found not at all in the descriptions of the\nMessiah but only in the descriptions of Wisdom. Even if he succeeded\nin establishing verbal dependence of the descriptions of the Messiah\nupon the descriptions of Wisdom, that would not really prove his\npoint at all. Such verbal dependence as a matter of fact has not\nbeen established, but if it were established it would be without\nsignificance. It would be far more completely devoid of significance\nthan is the similarity between the descriptions of the heavenly\nMessiah as judge and the descriptions of God as judge. This latter\nsimilarity may be significant, when taken in connection with other\nevidence, as being a true anticipation of the Christian doctrine\nof the deity of Christ, but in itself it will hardly be held (at\nleast it will hardly be held by Windisch) to establish the complete\npersonal identity, in Jewish thinking, of the Messiah and God, so\nthat everything that is said about God in pre-Christian Jewish\nsources can henceforth be applied to the Messiah. Why then should\nsimilarity in language between the descriptions of the Wisdom of God\nas pre\u00ebxistent and the descriptions of the Messiah as pre\u00ebxistent\n(even if that similarity existed) establish such identity between\nthe Messiah and Wisdom that what is attributed to Wisdom (notably\nspiritual indwelling) can henceforth be attributed to the Messiah?\nThere is really no evidence whatever for supposing that the Messiah\nwas conceived of in pre-Christian Judaism either as being active in\ncreation or as dwelling in the hearts of men. Indeed, with regard\nto the latter point, there is decisive evidence of the contrary.\nThe figure of the Messiah in the apocalypses is as incongruous as\nanything can possibly be with the idea of spiritual indwelling.\nWisdom is conceived of as dwelling in the hearts of men only because\nWisdom in Jewish literature is not really or completely a concrete\nperson, but is also an abstract quality. The Messiah is a concrete\nperson and hence is not thought of as indwelling. It was something\nabsolutely without precedent, therefore, when Paul regarded his\nChrist--who is nothing if not a person, and a person who may be\nloved--as dwelling in the heart of the believer.\n\nObjection will no doubt be raised against this treatment of the\nidea of personality. Wisdom, we have argued, was never in Jewish\nliterature regarded consistently as a person distinct from God;\nwhereas the Messiah was always regarded as a person. Against this\nargument it will be objected that the ancient world possessed no\nidea of personality at all, so that the difference between Wisdom\nand the Messiah disappears. But what is meant by the objection? If\nit is meant only that the ancient world possessed no definition of\npersonality, the point may perhaps be conceded. But it is quite\nirrelevant. If, on the other hand, what is meant is that the\nancients had no way of distinguishing between a person and a mere\nquality, no way of feeling the difference even if the difference\ncould not be put into words, then an emphatic denial is in place.\nWithout such a power of practical, if not theoretical, distinction,\nno mental or moral life at all, to say nothing of the highly\ndeveloped life of the Hellenistic age, would have been possible. It\nis highly important, therefore, to observe that Wisdom in Jewish\nliterature hardly becomes regarded as a person in any consistent\nway. Undoubtedly the hypostasizing has gone to considerable lengths,\nbut it is always possible for the writers to hark back to the\noriginal sense of the word \"wisdom\"--to play at least upon the\noriginal meaning. Wisdom seems to be treated not merely as a person\nbut also as an attribute of God.\n\nThus Windisch is entirely unjustified when he uses passages which\nrepresent the Messiah as possessing \"wisdom\" to prove that the\nMessiah was regarded as identical with Wisdom. A striking example\nof this mistake is found in the treatment of 1 Enoch xlix. 3, where\nit is said that in the Elect One \"dwells the spirit of wisdom, and\nthe spirit which gives insight, and the spirit of understanding\nand of might and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in\nrighteousness.\" A still more striking example is found in the use\nof 1 Cor. i. 24, 30, where Christ crucified is called the power of\nGod and the wisdom of God, and is said to have become to believers\nwisdom and justification and sanctification and redemption. Windisch\nactually uses these passages as evidence for the application to the\napocalyptic Messiah and to the Pauline Christ of the attributes of\nthe hypostasis Wisdom. Could anything be more utterly unwarranted?\nThe inclusion of \"wisdom\" in a considerable list of what the Son\nof Man possesses or of what Christ means to the believer, far\nfrom proving that 1 Enoch or Paul identified the Messiah with the\nhypostasized Wisdom, rather proves, if proof be necessary, that they\ndid not make the identification. It is a very different thing to say\nthat Christ possesses wisdom (along with other qualities) or brings\nwisdom to the believer (along with other gifts) from saying that\nChrist is so identical with the hypostasis Wisdom of the \"wisdom\nliterature\" that what is there said about Wisdom is to be attributed\nto Him. Windisch himself observes, very significantly, that Paul\ncould not actually designate Christ as \"Wisdom\" because the word\nwisdom is of feminine gender in Greek. The difference of gender is\nhere the symbol of a profound difference in essential character. The\nfigure of Wisdom in Jewish literature, with its curious vacillation\nbetween personality and abstraction, is absolutely incongruous with\nthe warm, living, concrete, personal figure of the Pauline Christ.\nThe two belong to totally different circles of ideas. No wonder that\neven Bousset (as Windisch complains) has not ventured to bring them\ninto connection. The Pauline Christology was certainly not based\nupon the pre-Christian doctrine of Wisdom.\n\nThus the first great objection to Wrede's derivation of the Pauline\nChristology is that it is simply insufficient. The Messiah of the\nJewish apocalypses is not great enough to have been the basis of\nthe Pauline Christ. If before the conversion Paul had believed in\nthe apocalyptic Messiah, then when he was converted he lifted his\nconception to far greater heights than it had before attained. But\nwhat caused him to do so? Apparently he ought to have done exactly\nthe reverse. If Jesus was a mere man, then the identification of the\nMessiah with Him ought to have pushed the conception of the Messiah\ndown instead of lifting it up. As Baldensperger significantly\nremarks, the Jewish apocalyptists faced less difficulty in\npresenting a transcendent Messiah than did their successors, the\nexponents of a metaphysical Christology in the Christian Church,\nsince the Jewish apocalyptists could give free course to their\nfancy, whereas the Christians were hampered by the recollections\nof the earthly Jesus.[129] This observation, on the basis of\nBaldensperger's naturalistic presuppositions, is entirely correct.\nBut the strange thing is that the recollections of Jesus, far\nfrom hampering the Christians in their ascription of supernatural\nattributes to the Messiah, actually had just the opposite effect.\nPaul furnishes a striking example. Before he identified the Messiah\nwith Jesus, he did not really think of the Messiah as divine--not\neven if he believed in the transcendent Messiah of 1 Enoch. But\nafter he identified the Messiah with Jesus, he said \"not by man but\nby Christ.\" Why was it that identification with Jesus, instead of\nbringing the apocalyptic Messiah down to earth, lifted Him rather\nto the throne of God? Was it, after all, because of something in\nJesus? If it was, then the eternal Son of God walked upon earth, and\nsuffered for the sins of men. If it was not, then the fundamental\nhistorical problem of Christianity is still entirely unsolved.\n\n  [129] Baldensperger, _op. cit._, p. 126.\n\nBut another objection faces the solution proposed by Wrede and\nBr\u00fcckner. Suppose the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah were\nreally adequate to the strain which is placed upon it. Suppose\nit really represented the Messiah as active in creation and as\nindwelling in the hearts of the faithful and as exalted to the\nthrone of God. These suppositions are entirely without warrant\nin the facts; they transcend by far even the claims of Wrede and\nBr\u00fcckner themselves. But suppose they were correct. Even then the\ngenesis of Paul's religion would not be explained. Suppose the\nPauline doctrine of the Messiah really was complete in his mind\nbefore he was converted. Even then, another problem remains. How\ndid he come to identify his exalted Messiah with a Jew who had\nlived but a few years before and had died a shameful death? The\nthing might be explained if Jesus was what He is represented in\nall of the extant sources as being--a supernatural person whose\nglory shone out plain even through the veil of flesh. It might be\nexplained if Paul before his conversion really believed that the\nheavenly Christ was to come to earth before His final parousia and\ndie an accursed death. But the former alternative is excluded by the\nnaturalistic presuppositions of the modern man. And the latter is\nexcluded by an overwhelming weight of evidence as to pre-Christian\nJudaism and the pre-Christian life of Paul. How then did Paul come\nto identify his heavenly Messiah with Jesus of Nazareth? It could\nonly have been through the strange experience which he had near\nDamascus. But what, in turn, caused that experience? No answer, on\nthe basis of naturalistic presuppositions, has yet been given. In\nremoving the supernatural from the earthly life of Jesus, modern\nnaturalism has precluded the only possible naturalistic explanation\nof the conversion of Paul. If Jesus had given evidence of being\nthe heavenly Son of Man, then Paul might conceivably, though\nstill not probably, have become convinced against his will, and\nmight, conceivably though still not probably, have experienced an\nhallucination in which he thought he saw Jesus living in glory. But\nif Jesus was a mere man, the identification of Him with the heavenly\napocalyptic Messiah becomes inconceivable, and the experience\nthrough which that identification took place is left absolutely\nuncaused. Thus the hypothesis of Wrede and Br\u00fcckner defeats itself.\nIn arguing that Paul's pre-conversion conception of the Messiah was\nnot a conception of a mere earthly being or the like, but that of a\ntranscendent being, Wrede and Br\u00fcckner are really digging the grave\nof their own theory. For the more exalted was the Messiah in whom\nPaul believed before his conversion, the more inexplicable becomes\nthe identification of that Messiah with a crucified malefactor.\n\nBut still another objection remains. Suppose the Pauline Christ\nwere simply the Messiah of the Jewish apocalypses; suppose Paul\nknew so little about the historical Jesus that he could even\nidentify the exalted Messiah with Him. Even then another fact\nrequires explanation. How did Paul come to be so strikingly similar\nto the historical Jesus both in teaching and in character? Wrede\nwas audacious enough to explain the similarity as due to a common\ndependence upon Judaism.[130] But at this point few have followed\nhim. For the striking fact is that Paul agrees with Jesus in just\nthose matters to which Judaism was most signally opposed. It would\nbe more plausible to say that Paul agrees with Jesus because\nboth of them abandoned contemporary Judaism and returned to the\nOld Testament prophets. But even that explanation would be quite\ninadequate. The similarity between Jesus and Paul goes far beyond\nwhat both hold in common with the Prophets and the Psalms. And why\ndid two men return to the Prophets and Psalms at just the same time\nand in just the same way? The similarity between Jesus and Paul\nmight then be regarded as due to mere chance. Paul, it might be\nsupposed, developed the ideal of Christian love from the death of\nthe Messiah, which he interpreted as an act of self-sacrifice.[131]\nThis ideal of love happened to be just the same as that which\nJesus of Nazareth exemplified in a life of service--to which\nlife of service, however, Paul was completely indifferent. Such,\nessentially, is what the hypothesis of Wrede really amounts to.\nThe hypothesis is really absurd. But its absurdity is instructive.\nIt is an absurdity to which the naturalistic account of the origin\nof Christianity is driven by an inexorable logic. Paul, it must be\nsupposed, could not have regarded Jesus as a divine being if he had\nreally known Jesus. The similarity of his life and teaching to\nthat of Jesus cannot, therefore, be due to knowledge of Jesus. It\nmust therefore be due to chance. In other words, it is dangerous,\non naturalistic principles, to bring Paul into contact with Jesus.\nFor if he is brought into contact with Jesus, his witness to Jesus\nwill have to be heard. And when his witness is heard, the elaborate\nmodern reconstructions of the \"liberal Jesus\" fall to the ground.\nFor according to Paul, Jesus was no mere Galilean prophet, but the\nLord of Glory.\n\n  [130] Wrede, _Paulus_, 1904, pp. 90, 91 (English Translation,\n  _Paul_, 1907, pp. 157, 158).\n\n  [131] See Br\u00fcckner, _op. cit._, p. 237.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE HELLENISTIC AGE\n\n\nIt has been shown in the last chapter that the religion of Paul was\nnot derived from the pre-Christian Jewish doctrine of the Messiah.\nIf, therefore, the derivation of Paulinism from the historical Jesus\nis still to be abandoned, recourse must be had to the pagan world.\nAnd as a matter of fact, it is in the pagan world that the genesis\nof Paulinism is to-day more and more frequently being sought. The\nfollowing chapters will deal with that hypothesis which makes the\nreligion of Paul essentially a product of the syncretistic pagan\nreligion of the Hellenistic age.\n\nThis hypothesis is not only held in many different forms, but also\nenters into combination with the view which has been considered in\nthe last chapter. For example, M. Br\u00fcckner, who regards the Pauline\nChristology as being simply the Jewish conception of the Messiah,\nmodified by the episode of the Messiah's humiliation, is by no means\nhostile to the hypothesis of pagan influence. On the contrary, he\nbrings the Jewish conception of the Messiah upon which the Pauline\nChristology is thought to be based, itself into connection with the\nwidespread pagan myth of a dying and rising saviour-god.[132] Thus\nBr\u00fcckner is at one with the modern school of comparative religion\nin deriving Paul's religion from paganism; only he derives it\nfrom paganism not directly but through the medium of the Jewish\nconception of the Messiah. On the other hand, most of those who\nfind direct and not merely mediate pagan influence at the heart of\nthe religion of Paul are also willing to admit that some important\ninfluences came through pre-Christian Judaism--notably, through the\nMessianic expectations of the apocalypses. The division between the\nsubject of the present chapter and that of the preceding chapter is\ntherefore difficult to carry out. Nevertheless, that division will\nbe found convenient. It will be well to consider separately the\nhypothesis (now in the very forefront of interest) which derives\nPaulinism, not from the historical Jesus, and not from pre-Christian\nJudaism, but from the pagan religion of the Greco-Roman world.\n\n  [132] Br\u00fcckner, _Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland_, 1908.\n\nHere, as in the last chapter, the discussion may begin with a brief\nreview of that type of religion from which Paulinism is thought\nto have been derived. The review will again have to be of a most\ncursory character, and will make free use of recent researches.[133]\nThose researches are becoming more and more extensive in recent\nyears. The Hellenistic age is no longer regarded as a period of\nhopeless decadence, but is commanding a larger and larger share of\nattention from philologians and from students of the history of\nreligion. The sources, however, so far as the sphere of popular\nreligion is concerned, are rather meager. Complete unanimity of\nopinion, therefore, even regarding fundamental matters, has by no\nmeans been attained.\n\n  [133] For example, Rohde, _Psyche_, 2 Bde, 3te Aufl., 1903; Farnell,\n  _Cults of the Greek States_, vol. iii, 1907; Wendland, _Die\n  hellenistisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur_, 2te u. 3te Aufl., 1912; Anrich, _Das\n  antike Mysterienwesen_, 1894; Cumont, _Les religions orientales dans\n  le paganisme romain_, 2i\u00e8me \u00e9d., 1909 (English Translation, _The\n  Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_, 1911).\n\nAt the time of Paul, the civilized world was unified, politically,\nunder the Roman Empire. The native religion of Rome, however, was\nnot an important factor in the life of the Empire--certainly not in\nthe East. That religion had been closely bound up with the life of\nthe Roman city-state. It had been concerned largely with a system of\nauguries and religious ceremonies intended to guide the fortunes of\nthe city and insure the favor of the gods. But there had been little\nattempt to enter into any sort of personal contact with the gods or\neven to produce any highly differentiated account of their nature.\nThe native religion of Rome, on the whole, seems to have been rather\na cold, unsatisfying affair. It aroused the emotions of the people\nonly because it was an expression of stern and sturdy patriotism.\nAnd it tended to lose its influence when the horizon of the people\nwas broadened by contact with the outside world.\n\nThe most important change was wrought by contact with Greece. When\nRome began to extend her conquests into the East, the eastern\ncountries, to a very considerable extent, had already been\nHellenized, by the conquests of Alexander and by the Greek kingdoms\ninto which his short-lived empire had been divided. Thus the Roman\nconquerors came into contact with Greek civilization, not only in\nthe Greek colonies in Sicily and southern Italy, not only in Greece\nproper and on the \u00c6gean coast of Asia Minor, but also to some extent\neverywhere in the eastern world. No attempt was made to root out\nthe Greek influences. On the contrary, the conquerors to a very\nconsiderable extent were conquered by those whom they had conquered;\nRome submitted herself, in the spiritual sphere, to the dominance of\nGreece.\n\nThe Greek influence extended into the sphere of religion. At a very\nearly time, the ancient Roman gods were identified with the Greek\ngods who possessed roughly analogous functions--Jupiter became Zeus,\nfor example, and Venus became Aphrodite. This identification brought\nan important enrichment into Roman religion. The cold and lifeless\nfigures of the Roman pantheon began to take on the grace and beauty\nand the clearly defined personal character which had been given to\ntheir Greek counterparts by Homer and Hesiod and the dramatists\nand Phidias and Praxiteles. Thus it is not to the ancient official\nreligion of Rome but to the rich pantheon of Homer that the student\nmust turn in order to find the spiritual ancestry of the religion of\nthe Hellenistic world.\n\nEven before the time of Homer, Greek religion had undergone\ndevelopment. Modern scholarship, at least, is no longer inclined\nto find in Homer the artless simplicity of a primitive age. On the\ncontrary, the Homeric poems, it is now supposed, were the product\nof a highly developed, aristocratic society, which must be thought\nof as standing at the apex of a social order. Thus it is not to be\nsupposed that the religion of Homer was the only Hellenic religion\nof Homer's day. On the contrary, even in the Homeric poems, it is\nsaid, there appear here and there remnants of a popular primitive\nreligion--human sacrifice and the like--and many of the rough,\nprimitive conceptions which crop out in Greek life in the later\ncenturies were really present long before the Homeric age, and had\nbeen preserved beneath the surface in the depths of a non-literary\npopular religion. However much of truth there may be in these\ncontentions, it is at any rate clear that the Homeric poems exerted\nan enormous influence upon subsequent generations. Even if they\nwere the product of a limited circle, even if they never succeeded\nin eradicating the primitive conceptions, at least they did gain\nenormous prestige and did become the most important single factor in\nmolding the religion of the golden age of Greece.\n\nAs determined by the Homeric poems, the religion of Greece was a\nhighly developed polytheism of a thoroughly anthropomorphic kind.\nThe Greek gods were simply men and women, with human passions and\nhuman sins--more powerful, indeed, but not more righteous than\nthose who worshiped them. Such a religion was stimulating to the\nhighest art. Anthropomorphism gave free course to the imagination\nof poets and sculptors. There is nothing lifeless about the gods\nof Greece; whether portrayed by the chisel of sculptors or the pen\nof poets, they are warm, living, breathing, human figures. But\nhowever stimulating to the sense of beauty, the anthropomorphic\nreligion of Greece was singularly unsatisfying in the moral sphere.\nIf the gods were no better than men, the worship of them was not\nnecessarily ennobling. No doubt there was a certain moral quality\nin the very act of worship. For worship was not always conceived\nof as mere prudent propitiation of dangerous tyrants. Sometimes it\nwas conceived of as a duty, like the pious reverence which a child\nshould exhibit toward his parent. In the case of filial piety, as\nin the case of piety toward the gods, the duty of reverence is\nindependent of the moral quality of the revered object. But in\nboth cases the very act of reverence may possess a certain moral\nvalue. This admission, however, does not change the essential fact.\nIt remains true that the anthropomorphic character of the gods of\nGreece, just because it stimulated the fancy of poets by attributing\nhuman passions to the gods and so provided the materials of dramatic\nart, at the same time prevented religion from lifting society above\nthe prevailing standards. The moral standards of snowy Olympus,\nunfortunately, were not higher than those of the Athenian market\nplace.\n\nIn another way also, the polytheistic religion of Greece was\nunsatisfying. It provided little hope of personal communion\nbetween the gods and men. Religion, in Greece scarcely less than\nin ancient Rome, was an affair of the state. A man was born into\nhis religion. An Athenian citizen, as such, was a worshiper of the\nAthenian gods. There was little place for individual choice or\nfor individual devotion. Moreover, there was little place for the\nmystical element in religion. The gods of Greece were in some sort,\nindeed, companionable figures; they were similar to men; men could\nunderstand the motives of their actions. But there was no way in\nwhich companionship with them could find expression. There was a\ntime, indeed, when the gods had come down to earth to help the great\nheroes who were their favorites or their sons. But such favors were\nnot given to ordinary mortals. The gods might be revered, but direct\nand individual contact with them was for the most part not to be\nattained.\n\nThese limitations, however, were not universal; and for purposes\nof the present investigation the exceptions are far more important\nthan the rule. It is not true that the religion of Greece, even\nprevious to the golden age, was entirely devoid of enthusiasm or\nindividualism or mystic contact with the gods. The polytheism of\nHomer, the polytheism of the Olympic pantheon, despite its wide\nprevalence was not the only form of Greek religion. Along with the\nworship of the Olympic gods there went also religious practices of a\nvery different kind. There was a place even in Greece for mystical\nreligion.\n\nThis mystical or enthusiastic element in the religion of Greece is\nconnected especially with the worship of Dionysus. Dionysus was not\noriginally a Greek god. He came from Thrace and is very closely\nrelated to the Phrygian Sabazius. But, at an early time, his worship\nwas widely adopted in the Greek world. No doubt it was not adopted\nentirely without modification; no doubt it was shorn of some of\nthose features which were most repulsive to the Greek genius. But\nenough remained in order to affect very powerfully the character of\nGreek religion.\n\nThe worship of Dionysus supplied, to some extent at least, just\nthose elements which were lacking in the religion of the Greek\ncity-state. In the first place, there was direct contact with the\ngod. The worshipers of Dionysus sought to attain contact with the\ngod partly by a divine frenzy, which was induced by wild music and\ndancing, and partly by the crass method of eating the raw flesh\nof the sacred animal, the bull. No doubt these savage practices\nwere often modified when they were introduced into Greece. It has\nbeen thought, for example, that the frenzied dances and nightly\nexcursions to the wilds of the mountains, which originally had\nbeen carried on in true self-forgetfulness, became in Greece rather\nparts of an established cult. But on the whole, the influence of\nDionysus-worship must be regarded as very great. An element of true\nmysticism or enthusiasm was introduced into the Greek world.\n\nIn the second place, the worship of Dionysus stimulated interest in\na future life. The Homeric poems had represented the existence of\nthe soul after death--at least the soul of an ordinary mortal--as\nbeing a mere shadow-existence which could not be called life at\nall. It is indeed questionable whether at this point Homer truly\nrepresented the original Hellenic belief, or the popular belief\neven of the time when the poems were written. Modern scholars have\ndetected in the Iliad and the Odyssey here and there remnants\nof a more positive doctrine of a future life. But at any rate,\nthe worship of Dionysus brought such positive beliefs--if they\nexisted in Greece before--more to the surface. Thracian religion,\napparently, had concerned itself to a very considerable extent with\nthe future condition of the soul; the introduction of the Thracian\nDionysus, therefore, stimulated a similar interest in Greece.\n\nFinally, the worship of Dionysus tended to separate religion from\nthe state and make it partly at least an affair of the individual\nman. Such individualism is connected of course with the enthusiastic\ncharacter of the worship; a state religion as such is not likely to\nbe enthusiastic. The whole body of citizens cannot be possessed of\na divine frenzy, and if not, then those who have the experience are\nlikely to separate themselves to some extent from their countrymen.\nIt is not surprising, therefore, that the worshipers of Dionysus,\nhere and there, were inclined to unite themselves in sects or\nbrotherhoods.\n\nThe most important of these brotherhoods were connected with the\nname of Orpheus, the mythical musician and seer. The origin of\nthe Orphic sects is indeed very obscure. Apparently, however,\nthey sprang up or became influential in the sixth century before\nChrist, and were connected in some way with Dionysus. They seem to\nhave represented a reform of Dionysiac practice. At any rate, they\ncontinued that interest in the future life which the worship of\nDionysus had already cultivated. Orphism is especially important\nbecause it taught men to expect in the future life not only rewards\nbut also punishments. The soul after death, according to Orphic\ndoctrine, was subject to an indefinite succession of reincarnations,\nnot only in the bodies of men, but also in those of animals.\nThese reincarnations were regarded as an evil, because the body\nwas thought of as a prison-house of the soul. At last, however,\nthe righteous soul attains purification, and, escaping from the\nsuccession of births, enters into a blessed existence.\n\nRelated in some way to the Orphic sects were the brotherhoods that\nowned Pythagoras as their master. But the relation between the two\nmovements is not perfectly plain.\n\nAt any rate, both Orphism and Pythagoreanism stand apart from\nthe official cults of the Greek states. Even within those cults,\nhowever, there were not wanting some elements which satisfied more\nfully than the ordinary worship of the Olympic gods the longing of\nindividual men for contact with the higher powers and for a blessed\nimmortality. Such elements were found in the \"mysteries,\" of which\nfar the most important were the mysteries of Eleusis.[134] The\nEleusinian Mysteries originated in the worship of Demeter that was\ncarried on at Eleusis, a town in Attica some fifteen miles from\nAthens. When Eleusis was conquered by Athens, the Eleusinian cult of\nDemeter, far from suffering eclipse, was adopted by the conquerors\nand so attained unparalleled influence. Characteristic of the cult\nas so developed was the secrecy of its central rites; the Eleusinian\ncult of Demeter became (if it was not one already) a mystery-cult,\nwhose secrets were divulged only to the initiates. The terms of\nadmission, however, were very broad. All persons of Greek race, even\nslaves--except those persons who were stained with bloodguiltiness\nor the like--could be admitted. As so constituted, the Eleusinian\nMysteries were active for some ten centuries; they continued until\nthe very end of pagan antiquity.\n\n  [134] On the Eleusinian Mysteries and the cult of Demeter and\n  Kore-Persephone, see especially Farnell, _op. cit._, iii, pp.\n  29-279.\n\nInitiation into the mysteries took place ordinarily in three stages;\nthe candidate was first initiated into the \"lesser mysteries\" at\nAgr\u00e6 near Athens in the spring; then into a first stage of the\n\"great mysteries\" at Eleusis in the following autumn; then a year\nlater his initiation was completed at Eleusis by the reception of\nthe mystic vision. The mysteries of Eleusis were prepared for by a\nsuccession of acts about which some information has been preserved.\nThese acts were extended over a period of days. First the sacred\nobjects were brought from Eleusis to Athens. Then the candidates\nfor initiation, who had purified themselves by abstinence from\ncertain kinds of food and from sexual intercourse, were called\nupon to assemble. Then, at the cry, \"To the sea, O myst\u00e6!\" the\ncandidates went to the sea-coast, where they made sacrifice of a\npig, and purified themselves by washing in the sea water. Then came\nthe solemn procession from Athens to Eleusis, interrupted by ribald\njests at the passage of the river Cephissus. The initiation itself\ntook place in the \"telesterion.\" What happened there is obscure;\nantiquity has well observed the secrecy which was essential to\nthe mysteries. Certainly, however, the ceremony was accompanied,\nor rather, perhaps, preceded, by the drinking of the \"kykeon,\" a\nmixture composed of water and barley-meal and other ingredients.\nThe significance of this act is not really known. It would be very\nrash, for example, to assert that the partaking of the kykeon\nwas sacramental, or was thought of as imparting a new nature to\nthe recipients. Apparently the kykeon did not have a part in the\nmysteries themselves, for if it had, it could hardly have been\nspoken of so openly by pagan writers. The mysteries seem to have\nconsisted in some sort of sacred drama, representing the search of\nDemeter for her daughter Persephone who had been carried off to the\nlower world, and in the exhibition of sacred emblems or of images\nof the gods. Hippolytus scornfully says that the supreme object of\nmystic awe was a cut corn-stalk.[135] His testimony is variously\nestimated. But it is quite possible that he has here given us\ngenuine information. Since Demeter was the goddess of the fertility\nof the soil, the corn-stalk was not ill fitted to be her sacred\nemblem.\n\n  [135] Hippolytus, _Ref. omn. haer._, V. viii. 39 (ed. Wendland,\n  1916).\n\nIt has been supposed that the cult of Demeter at Eleusis was\noriginally an agrarian cult, intended to celebrate or to induce the\nfertility of the soil. But the chief significance of the mysteries\nwas found in another sphere. In the mysteries, the cult goddesses,\nDemeter and Persephone, were thought of chiefly as goddesses of the\nnether world, the abode of the dead; and the mysteries were valued\nchiefly as providing a guarantee of a blessed immortality. How the\nguarantee was given is quite obscure. But the fact is well attested.\nThose who had been initiated into the mysteries were able to expect\na better lot in the future life than the lot of the generality of\nmen.\n\nThe mysteries at Eleusis were not the only mysteries which were\npractised in the golden age of Greece. There were not only offshoots\nof the Eleusinian mysteries in various places, but also independent\nmysteries like those of the Kabeiri on the island of Samothrace.\nBut the mysteries at Eleusis were undoubtedly the most important,\nand the others are even less fully known. The moral value of the\nmysteries, including those at Eleusis, should not be exaggerated.\nSlight allusions in pagan writers seem to point here and there to a\npurifying moral effect wrought by initiation. But the indications\nare not very clear. Certainly the secrets of Eleusis did not consist\nin any body of teaching, either religious or ethical. The effect was\nproduced, not upon the intellect, but upon the emotions and upon the\nimagination.\n\nThus the religion of the golden age of Greece was an anthropomorphic\npolytheism, closely connected with the life of the city-state, but\nrelieved here and there by practices intended to provide more direct\ncontact with the divine or bestow special blessing upon individuals.\n\nThe religion of Greece was finally undermined by at least three\nagencies.\n\nIn the first place, philosophy tended to destroy belief in the\ngods. The philosophic criticism of the existing religion was partly\ntheoretical and partly ethical. The theoretical criticism arose\nespecially through the search for a unifying principle operative\nin the universe. If the manifold phenomena of the universe were\nall reduced to a single cause, the gods might indeed still be\nthought of as existing, but their importance was gone. There was\nthus a tendency either toward monotheism or else toward some sort\nof materialistic monism. But the objections which philosophy\nraised against the existing polytheism were ethical as well as\ntheoretical. The Homeric myths were rightly felt to be immoral; the\nimitation of the Homeric gods would result in moral degradation.\nThus if the myths were still to be retained they could not be\ninterpreted literally, but had to be given some kind of allegorical\ninterpretation.\n\nThis opposition of philosophy to the existing religion was often\nnot explicit, and it did not concern religious practice. Even those\nphilosophers whose theory left no room for the existence or at\nleast the importance of the gods, continued to engage loyally in\nthe established cults. But although the superstructure of religion\nremained, the foundation, to some extent at least, was undermined.\n\nIn the second place, since religion in ancient Greece had been\nclosely connected with the city-states, the destruction of the\nstates brought important changes in religion. The Greek states lost\ntheir independence through the conquests of Philip of Macedon and\nAlexander the Great. Those conquests meant, indeed, a wide extension\nof Greek culture throughout the eastern world. But the religion of\nAlexander's empire and of the kingdoms into which it was divided\nafter his death was widely different from the religion of Athens in\nher glory. Cosmopolitanism brought mighty changes in religion, as in\nthe political sphere.\n\nIn the third place, the influence of the eastern religions made\nitself more and more strongly felt. That influence was never indeed\ndominant in the life of Greece proper so completely as it was in\nsome other parts of the world. But in general it was very important.\nWhen the Olympic gods lost their place in the minds and hearts of\nmen, other gods were ready to take their place.\n\nBefore any account can be given of the eastern religions taken\nseparately, and of their progress toward the west, it may be well to\nmention certain general characteristics of the period which followed\nthe conquests of Alexander. That period, which extended several\ncenturies into the Christian era, is usually called the Hellenistic\nage, to distinguish it from the Hellenic period which had gone\nbefore.\n\nThe Hellenistic age was characterized, in the first place, by\ncosmopolitanism. Natural and racial barriers to an astonishing\nextent were broken down; the world, at least the educated world\nof the cities, was united by the bonds of a common language, and\nfinally by a common political control. The common language was the\nKoin\u00e9, the modified form of the Attic dialect of Greek, which became\nthe vehicle of a world-civilization. The common political control\nwas that of the Roman Empire. On account of the union of these two\nfactors, inter-communication between various nations and races\nwas safe and easy; the nations were united both in trade and in\nintellectual activity.\n\nWith the cosmopolitanism thus produced there went naturally a new\nindividualism, which extended into the religious sphere. Under\nthe city-state of ancient Greece the individual was subordinated\nto the life of the community. But in the world-empire the control\nof the state, just because it was broader, was at the same time\nlooser. Patriotism no longer engrossed the thoughts of men. It was\nimpossible for a subject of a great empire to identify himself with\nthe life of the empire so completely as the free Athenian citizen of\nthe age of Pericles had identified himself with the glories of his\nnative city. Thus the satisfactions which in that earlier period had\nbeen sought in the life of the state, including the state-religion,\nwere in the Hellenistic age sought rather in individual religious\npractice.\n\nThe ancient religions of the city-state did indeed find a successor\nwhich was adapted to the changed condition. That successor was\nthe worship of the Emperors. The worship of the Emperors was more\nthan a mere form of flattery. It expressed a general gratitude\nfor the reign of peace which was introduced by Augustus, and it\nhad its roots, not only in Greek religion, but also, and far more\nfundamentally, in the religions of the East. The worship of the\nrulers was firmly established in the kingdoms into which Alexander's\nempire was divided, and from there it was transmitted very naturally\nto the new and greater empire of Rome. Very naturally it became a\ndangerous enemy of the Christian Church; for the refusal of the\nChristians to worship the Emperor seemed inexplicable to an age of\npolytheism, and gave rise to the charge of political disloyalty.\nAt first, however, and so during the period of Paul's missionary\njourneys, the Church shared more or less in the special privileges\nwhich were granted to the Jews. Christianity at first seemed to be\na variety of Judaism, and Judaism in Roman practice was a _religio\nlicita_.\n\nBut the worship of the Emperors, important as it was, was not\npractised in any exclusive way; it did not at all exclude the\nworship of other gods. It remains true, therefore, that in the\nHellenistic age, far more than under the ancient Greek city-state,\nthere was room for individual choice in religious practice.\n\nIt is not surprising that such an age was an age of religious\npropaganda. Since religion was no longer an affair of the nation\nas such, but addressed itself to men as men, free scope was offered\nfor the extension to the whole world of religions which originally\nhad been national in character. The golden age of such religious\npropaganda, it is true, did not begin until the second century; and\nthat fact is of very great importance in dealing with certain modern\ntheories of dependence so far as Pauline Christianity is concerned.\nNevertheless the cosmopolitanizing of national religions had begun\nto some extent in an early period and was rendered natural by the\nentire character of the Hellenistic age. Even before the fall of the\nGreek city-state, little communities of the worshipers of eastern\ngods had established themselves here and there in Greece; and in\nother parts of the world the barriers against religious propaganda\nwere even less effective. In the Hellenistic age such barriers were\nalmost everywhere broken down. When any religion ceased to be an\naffair of the nation, when it could no longer count on the devotion\nof the citizens or subjects as such, it was obliged, if it desired\nto subsist, to seek its devotees through an appeal to the free\nchoice of individuals.\n\nThis religious propaganda, however, was not carried on in any\nexclusive way; the adoption of one god did not mean the abandonment\nof another. On the contrary, the Hellenistic age was the age of\nsyncretism _par excellence_. Gods of different nations, originally\nquite distinct, were identified almost as a matter of course. One\nexample of such identification has already been noted; at an early\ntime the gods of Rome were identified with those of Greece. But\nin the later portion of the Hellenistic age the process went on\nin more wholesale fashion. And it was sometimes justified by the\nfar-reaching theory that the gods of different nations were merely\ndifferent names of one great divinity. This theory received classic\nexpression in the words of the goddess Isis which are contained in\nthe \"Metamorphoses\" of Apuleius: \"For the Phrygians that are the\nfirst of all men call me the Mother of the gods at Pessinus; the\nAthenians, which are sprung from their own soil, Cecropian Minerva;\nthe Cyprians, which are girt about by the sea, Paphian Venus; the\nCretans which bear arrows, Dictynnian Diana; the Sicilians, which\nspeak three tongues, infernal Proserpine; the Eleusians their\nancient goddess Ceres; some Juno, other Bellona, other Hecate,\nother Rhamnusia, and principally both sort of the Ethiopians which\ndwell in the Orient and are enlightened by the morning rays of the\nsun, and the Egyptians, which are excellent in all kind of ancient\ndoctrine, and by their proper ceremonies accustom to worship me, do\ncall me by my true name, Queen Isis.\"[136]\n\n  [136] Apuleius, _Metam._ xi. 5, Addington's translation revised by\n  Gaselee, in Apuleius, _The Golden Ass_, in the _The Loeb Classical\n  Library_, p. 547.\n\nBut what is perhaps the most important feature of the religion of\nthe Hellenistic age has not yet been mentioned. It is found in\nthe widespread desire for redemption. In the golden age of Greece\nmen had been satisfied with the world. Who could engage in gloomy\nquestionings, who could face the underlying problem of evil, when\nit was possible to listen with keen appreciation to an ode of\nPindar or to a tragedy of \u00c6schylus? The Greek tragic poets, it is\ntrue, present in terrible fashion the sterner facts of life. But\nthe glorious beauty of the presentation itself produces a kind of\nsatisfaction. In the age of Pericles, life was rich and full; for\nthe Athenian citizen it was a joy to live. The thought of another\nworld was not needed; this world was large and rich enough. Joyous\ndevelopment of existing human faculties was, in the golden age of\nGreece, the chief end of man.\n\nBut the glorious achievements of the Greek genius were followed by\nlamentable failure. There was failure in political life. Despite the\npolitical genius of Athenian statesmen, Athens soon lay prostrate,\nfirst before her sister states and then before the Macedonian\nconqueror. There was failure in intellectual life. The glorious\nachievements of Athenian art were followed by a period of decline.\nPoets and sculptors had to find their inspiration in imitation of\nthe past. Human nature, once so proud, was obliged to confess its\ninadequacy; the Hellenistic age was characterized by what Gilbert\nMurray, borrowing a phrase of J. B. Bury, calls a \"failure of\nnerve.\"[137]\n\n  [137] Gilbert Murray, _Four Stages of Greek Religion_, 1912, pp. 8,\n  103-154. Compare, however, Rohde (_op. cit._, ii, pp. 298-300), who\n  calls attention to an opposite aspect of the Hellenistic age.\n\nThis failure of nerve found expression, in the religious sphere,\nin the longing for redemption. The world was found not to be so\nhappy a place as had been supposed, and human nature was obliged\nto seek help from outside. Thus arose the desire for \"salvation.\"\nThe characteristic gods of the Hellenistic age are in some sort\nsaviour-gods--gods who could give help in the miseries of life.\nAsclepius finally became more important than Zeus. Dissatisfied\nwith the world of sense, men turned their thoughts to another world;\ndissatisfied with the achievements of human nature, they sought\ncommunion with higher powers.\n\nOpinions may differ as to the value of this development. To the\nhumanist of all ages, it will seem to be a calamity. From the\nglories of Pindar to the morbid practices of the Hellenistic\nmysteries, how great a fall! But there is another way of regarding\nthe change. Possibly the achievements of ancient Greece, glorious as\nthey were, had been built upon an insecure foundation. Scrutiny of\nthe foundation was no doubt painful, and it dulled the enthusiasm\nof the architects. But perhaps it was necessary and certainly it\nwas inevitable. Perhaps also it might become a step toward some\nhigher humanism. The Greek joy of living was founded upon a certain\nruthlessness toward human misery, a certain indifference toward\nmoral problems. Such a joy could not be permanent. But how would\nit be if the underlying problem could be faced, instead of being\nignored? How would it be if human nature could be founded upon some\nsecure rock, in order that then the architect might start to build\nonce more, and build, this time, with a conscience void of offense?\nSuch is the Christian ideal, the ideal of a loftier humanism--a\nhumanism as rich and as joyful as the humanism of Greece, but a\nhumanism founded upon the grace of God.\n\nBut however \"the failure of nerve\" which appears in the Hellenistic\nage be appreciated by the student of the philosophy of history,\nthe fact at least cannot be ignored. The Hellenistic age was\ncharacterized by a widespread longing for redemption--a widespread\nlonging for an escape from the present world of sense to some higher\nand better country. Such longing was not satisfied by the ancient\nreligion of Greece. It caused men, therefore, to become seekers\nafter new gods.\n\nBut what was the attitude of philosophy? Philosophy had contributed\nto the decline of the ancient gods. Had it been equally successful\non the positive side? Had it been able to fill the void which its\nquestionings had produced. The answer on the whole must be rendered\nin the negative. On the whole, it must be said that Greek philosophy\nwas unsuccessful in its efforts to solve the riddle of the universe.\nThe effort which it made was indeed imposing. Plato in particular\nendeavored to satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul; he\nattempted to provide an escape from the world of sense to the\nhigher world of ideas. But the way of escape was open at best only\nto the few philosophical souls; the generality of men were left\nhopeless and helpless in the shadow-existence of the cave. And even\nthe philosophers were not long satisfied with the Platonic solution.\nThe philosophy of the Hellenistic age was either openly skeptical or\nmaterialistic, as is the case, for example, with Epicureanism, or\nat any rate it abandoned the great theoretical questions and busied\nitself chiefly with practical affairs. Epicureans and Stoics and\nCynics were all interested chiefly, not in ontology or epistemology,\nbut in ethics. At this point the first century was like the\ntwentieth. The distrust of theory, the depreciation of theology,\nthe exclusive interest in social and practical questions--these\ntendencies appear now as they appeared in the Hellenistic age. And\nnow as well as then they are marks of intellectual decadence.\n\nBut if the philosophy of the Hellenistic age offered no satisfactory\nsolution of the riddle of the universe and no satisfaction for the\ndeepest longings of the soul, it presented, on the other hand, no\neffective opposition to the religious current of the time. It had\nhelped bring about that downfall of the Olympic gods, that sad\nneglect of Zeus and his altars which is described by Lucian in his\nwonderfully modern satires. But it was not able to check the rising\npower of the eastern religions. Indeed it entered into a curious\nalliance with the invaders. As early as the first century before\nChrist, Posidonius seems to have introduced an element of oriental\nmysticism into the philosophy of the Stoics, and in the succeeding\ncenturies the process went on apace. The climax was reached, at the\nclose of pagan antiquity, in that curious mixture of philosophy and\ncharlatanism which is found in the neo-Platonic writers.\n\nThe philosophy of the Hellenistic age, with its intense interest in\nquestions of conduct, constitutes, indeed, an important chapter in\nthe history of the human race, and can point to certain noteworthy\nachievements. The Stoics, for example, enunciated the great\nprinciple of human brotherhood; they made use of the cosmopolitanism\nand individualism of the Hellenistic age in order to arouse a new\ninterest in man as man. Even the slaves, who in the theory of an\nAristotle had been treated as chattels, began to be looked upon here\nand there as members of a great human family. Men of every race and\nof every social grade came to be the object of a true humanitarian\ninterest.\n\nBut the humanitarian efforts of Stoicism, though proceeding from an\nexalted theory of the worth of man as man, proved to be powerless.\nThe dynamic somehow was lacking. Despite the teaching of Seneca\nand Marcus Aurelius, despite the beginnings of true humanitarian\neffort here and there, the later Empire with its cruel gladiatorial\nshows and its heartless social system was sinking into the slough\nof savagery. What Stoicism was unable to do, Christianity to some\nextent at least accomplished. The ideal of Christianity was not\nthe mere ideal of a human brotherhood. Pure humanitarianism, the\nnotion of \"the brotherhood of man,\" as that phrase is usually\nunderstood, is Stoic rather than Christian. Christianity did make\nits appeal to all men; it won many of its first adherents from\nthe depths of slavery. It did inculcate charity toward all men\nwhether Christians or not. And it enunciated with an unheard-of\nseriousness the doctrine that all classes of men, wise and unwise,\nbond and free, are of equal worth. But the equality was not found\nin the common possession of human nature. It was found, instead,\nin a common connection with Jesus Christ. \"There can be neither\nJew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be\nno male and female\"--so far the words of Paul can find analogies\n(faint analogies, it is true) in the Stoic writers. But the Pauline\ngrounding of the unity here enunciated is the very antithesis of\nall mere humanitarianism both ancient and modern--\"For ye are all\none person,\" says Paul, \"in Christ Jesus.\" Christianity did not\nreveal the fact that all men were brothers. Indeed it revealed the\ncontrary. But it offered to make all men brothers by bringing them\ninto saving connection with Christ.\n\nThe above sketch of the characteristics of the Hellenistic age has\nbeen quite inadequate. And even a fuller presentation could hardly\ndo justice to the complexity of the life of that time. But perhaps\nsome common misconceptions have been corrected. The pagan world at\nthe time when Paul set sail from Seleucia on his first missionary\njourney was not altogether without religion. Even the ancient\npolytheism was by no means altogether dead. It was rather a day of\nreligious unrest. The old faiths had been shaken, but they were\nmaking room for the new. The Orontes, to use the figure of Juvenal,\nwas soon to empty into the Tiber. The flow of eastern superstition\nand eastern mystical religion was soon to spread over the whole\nworld.\n\nBut what were the eastern religions which in the second century\nafter Christ, if not before, entered upon their triumphal march\ntoward the west?[138] They were of diverse origin and diverse\ncharacter. But one feature was common to a number of the most\nimportant of them. Those eastern religions which became most\ninfluential in the later Roman Empire were mystery religions--that\nis, they had connected with them secret rites which were thought\nto afford special blessing to the initiates. The mysteries did not\nindeed constitute the whole of the worship of the eastern gods. Side\nby side with the mysteries were to be found public cults to which\nevery one was admitted. But the mysteries are of special interest,\nbecause it was they which satisfied most fully the longing of the\nHellenistic age for redemption, for \"salvation,\" for the attainment\nof a higher nature.\n\n  [138] The sketch which follows is indebted especially to Cumont,\n  _Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain_, 2i\u00e8me \u00e9d., 1909\n  (English translation, _The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_,\n  1911).\n\nIt will be well, therefore, to single out for special mention the\nchief of the mystery religions--those eastern religions which\nalthough they were by no means altogether secret did have mysteries\nconnected with them.\n\nThe first of these religions to be introduced into Rome was\nthe religion of the Phrygian Cybele, the \"Great Mother of the\nGods.\"[139] In 204 B.C., in the dark days of the Carthaginian\ninvasion, the black meteoric stone of Pessinus was brought, by\ncommand of an oracle, to Rome. With the sacred stone came the cult.\nBut Rome was not yet ready for the barbaric worship of the Phrygian\ngoddess. For several hundred years the cult of Cybele was kept\ncarefully isolated from the life of the Roman people. The foreign\nrites were supported by the authority of the state, but they were\nconducted altogether by a foreign priesthood; no Roman citizen\nwas allowed to participate in them. It was not until the reign of\nClaudius (41-54 A.D.) that the barrier was finally broken down.\n\n  [139] For the religion of Cybele and Attis, see Showerman, _The\n  Great Mother of the Gods_, 1901; Hepding, _Attis_, 1903.\n\nThe myth of Cybele is narrated in various forms. According to the\nmost characteristic form, the youthful Attis, beloved by Cybele,\nis struck with madness by the jealous goddess, deprives himself\nof his virility, dies through his own mad act, and is mourned by\nthe goddess. The myth contains no account of a resurrection; all\nthat Cybele is able to obtain is that the body of Attis should be\npreserved, that his hair should continue to grow, and that his\nlittle finger should move.\n\nThe cult was more stable than the myth. No doubt, indeed, even the\ncult experienced important changes in the course of the centuries.\nAt the beginning, according to Hepding and Cumont, Cybele was\na goddess of the mountain wilds, whose worship was similar in\nimportant respects to that of Dionysus. With Cybele Attis was\nassociated at an early time. The Phrygian worship of Cybele and\nAttis was always of a wild, orgiastic character, and the frenzy\nof the worshipers culminated even in the act of self-mutilation.\nThus the eunuch-priests of Cybele, the \"Galli,\" became a well-known\nfeature of the life of the Empire. But the Phrygian cult of Cybele\nand Attis cannot be reconstructed by any means in detail; extensive\ninformation has been preserved only about the worship as it was\ncarried on at Rome. And even with regard to the Roman cult, the\nsources of information are to a very considerable extent late. It\nis not certain, therefore, that the great spring festival of Attis,\nas it was celebrated in the last period of the Roman Empire, was an\nunmodified reproduction of the original Phrygian rites.\n\nThe Roman festival was conducted as follows:[140] On March 15, there\nwas a preliminary festival. On March 22, the sacred pine-tree was\nfelled and carried in solemn procession by the \"Dendrophori\" into\nthe temple of Cybele. The pine-tree appears in the myth as the tree\nunder which Attis committed his act of self-mutilation. In the cult,\nthe felling of the tree is thought by modern scholars to represent\nthe death of the god. Hence the mourning of the worshipers was\nconnected with the tree. March 24 was called the \"day of blood\";\non this day the mourning for the dead Attis reached its climax.\nThe Galli chastised themselves with scourges and cut themselves\nwith knives--all to the wild music of the drums and cymbals which\nwere connected especially with the worship of the Phrygian Mother.\nOn this day also, according to Hepding's conjecture, the new\nGalli dedicated themselves to the service of the goddess by the\nact of self-mutilation. Finally, the resurrection or epiphany of\nthe god Attis was celebrated. This took place perhaps during the\nnight between March 24 and March 25. But Hepding admits that the\ntime is not directly attested. It is also only conjecture when a\nfamous passage of Firmicus Maternus (fourth century after Christ)\nis applied to the worship of Attis and to this part of it.[141] But\nthe conjecture may well be correct. Firmicus Maternus[142] describes\na festival in which the figure of a god rests upon a bier and is\nlamented, and then a light is brought in and the priest exclaims,\n\"Be of good courage, ye initiates, since the god is saved; for\nto us there shall be salvation out of troubles.\"[143] Apparently\nthe resurrection of the god is here regarded as the cause of the\nsalvation of the worshipers; the worshipers share in the fortunes\nof the god. At any rate, March 25 in the Roman Attis festival was\nthe \"Hilaria,\" a day of rejoicing. On this day, the resurrection of\nthe god was celebrated. March 26 was a day of rest; and finally,\non March 27, there was a solemn washing of the sacred images and\nemblems.\n\n  [140] See Hepding, _op. cit._, pp. 147-176.\n\n  [141] Loisy (_Les myst\u00e8res pa\u00efens et le myst\u00e8re chr\u00e9tien_, 1910, p.\n  104) prefers to attach the passage to Osiris rather than to Attis.\n\n  [142] See Hepding, _op. cit._, pp. 166, 167.\n\n  [143] Firmicus Maternus, _De error, prof. rel._, xxii (ed. Ziegler,\n  1907):\n\n      \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe7 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\nAs thus described, the worship of Cybele and Attis was, for the\nmost part at least, public. But there were also mysteries connected\nwith the same two gods. These mysteries apparently were practised\nin the East before the cult was brought to Rome. But the eastern\nform of their celebration is quite obscure, and even about the\nRoman form very little is known. Connected with the mysteries was\nsome sort of sacred meal.[144] Firmicus Maternus has preserved the\nformula: \"I have eaten from the drum; I have drunk from the cymbal;\nI have become an initiate of Attis.\"[145] And Clement of Alexandria\n(about 200 A. D.) also connected a similar formula with the\nPhrygian mysteries: \"I ate from the drum; I drank from the cymbal;\nI carried the 'kernos'; I stole into the bridal chamber.\"[146]\nThe significance of this ritual eating and drinking is not clear.\nCertainly it would be rash to find in it the notion of new birth or\nsacramental union with the divine nature. Hepding suggests that it\nmeant rather the entrance of the initiate into the circle of the\ntable-companions of the god.\n\n  [144] See Hepding, _op. cit._, pp. 184-190.\n\n  [145] Firmicus Maternus, _op. cit._, xviii: \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u1f70\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1,\n  \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1,\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n  [146] Clem. Al., _Protrepticus_, ii. 15 (ed. St\u00e4hlin, 1905): \u1f10\u03ba\n  \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f15\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u2027 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f15\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u2027 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd.\n\nThe actual initiation is even more obscure in the Attis mysteries\nthan it is in those of Eleusis; Hepding admits that his\nreconstruction of the details of the mysteries is based largely on\nconjecture. Possibly in the formula quoted above from Clement of\nAlexandria, the words, \"I stole into the bridal chamber,\" indicate\nthat there was some sort of representation of a sacred marriage;\nbut other interpretations of the Greek words are possible. Hepding\nsuggests that the candidate entered into the grotto, descended into\na ditch within the grotto, listened to lamentations for the dead\ngod, received a blood-bath, then saw a wonderful light, and heard\nthe joyful words quoted above: \"Be of good courage, ye initiates,\nsince the god is saved; for to us shall there be salvation out of\ntroubles,\" and finally that the candidate arose out of the ditch as\na new man (\"reborn for eternity\") or rather as a being identified\nwith the god.[147]\n\n  [147] Hepding, _op. cit._, pp. 196ff.\n\nAccording to this reconstruction, the initiation represented the\ndeath and the new birth of the candidate. But the reconstruction is\nexceedingly doubtful, and some of the most important features of\nit are attested in connection with the Attis mysteries if at all\nonly in very late sources. Hepding is particularly careful to admit\nthat there is no direct documentary evidence for connecting the\nblood-bath with the March festival.\n\nThis blood-bath, which is called the taurobolium, requires special\nattention. The one who received it descended into a pit over\nwhich a lattice-work was placed. A bull was slaughtered above the\nlattice-work, and the blood was allowed to run through into the pit,\nwhere the recipient let it saturate his clothing and even enter\nhis nose and mouth and ears. The result was that the recipient was\n\"reborn forever,\" or else reborn for a period of twenty years,\nafter which the rite had to be repeated. The taurobolium is thought\nto have signified a death to the old life and a new birth into a\nhigher, divine existence. But it is not perfectly clear that it had\nthat significance in the East and in the early period. According to\nHepding, the taurobolium was in the early period a mere sacrifice,\nand the first man who is said to have received it in the sense just\ndescribed was the Emperor Heliogabalus (third century after Christ).\nOther scholars refuse to accept Hepding's distinction between an\nearlier and a later form of the rite. But the matter is at least\nobscure, and it would be exceedingly rash to attribute pre-Christian\norigin to the developed taurobolium as it appears in fourth-century\nsources. Indeed, there seems to be no mention of any kind of\ntaurobolium whatever before the second century,[148] and Hepding may\nbe correct in suggesting that possibly the fourth-century practice\nwas influenced by the Christian doctrine of the blood of Christ.[149]\n\n  [148] Showerman, _op. cit._, p. 280.\n\n  [149] Hepding, _op. cit._, p. 200, Anm. 7.\n\nNo less important than the religion of Cybele and Attis was the\nGreco-Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris. Isis and Osiris are both\nancient Egyptian gods, whose worship, in modified form, was carried\nover first into the Greek kingdom of the Ptolemies, and thence into\nthe remotest bounds of the Roman Empire. The myth which concerns\nthese gods is reported at length in Plutarch's treatise, \"Concerning\nIsis and Osiris.\" Briefly it is as follows: Osiris, the brother\nand husband of Isis, after ruling in a beneficent manner over the\nEgyptians, is plotted against by his brother Typhon. Finally Typhon\nmakes a chest and promises to give it to any one who exactly fits\nit. Osiris enters the chest, which is then closed by Typhon and\nthrown into the Nile. After a search, Isis finds the chest at Byblos\non the coast of Ph\u0153nicia, and brings it back to Egypt. But Typhon\nsucceeds in getting possession of the body of Osiris and cuts it up\ninto fourteen parts, which are scattered through Egypt. Isis goes\nabout collecting the parts. Osiris becomes king of the nether world,\nand helps his son Horus to gain a victory over Typhon.\n\nThe worship of Isis and Osiris was prominent in ancient Egyptian\nreligion long before the entrance of Greek influence. Osiris was\nregarded as the ruler over the dead, and as such was naturally very\nimportant in a religion in which supreme attention was given to a\nfuture life. But with the establishment of the Ptolemaic kingdom at\nabout 300 B. C., there was an important modification of the worship.\nA new god, Serapis, was introduced, and was closely identified with\nOsiris. The origin of the name Serapis has been the subject of much\ndiscussion and is still obscure. But one motive for the introduction\nof the new divinity (or of the new name for an old divinity) is\nperfectly plain. Ptolemy I desired to unify the Egyptian and the\nGreek elements in his kingdom by providing a cult which would be\nacceptable to both and at the same time intensely loyal to the\ncrown. The result was the Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapis (Osiris)\nand Isis. Here is to be found, then, the remarkable phenomenon of\na religion deliberately established for political reasons, which,\ndespite its artificial origin, became enormously successful. Of\ncourse, the success was obtained only by a skillful use of existing\nbeliefs, which had been hallowed in Egyptian usage from time\nimmemorial, and by a skillful clothing of those beliefs in forms\nacceptable to the Greek element in the population.\n\nThe religion of Isis and Serapis was, as Cumont observes, entirely\ndevoid of any established system of theology or any very lofty\nethics. It was effective rather on account of its gorgeous ritual,\nwhich was handed down from generation to generation with meticulous\naccuracy, and on account of the assurance which it gave of a blessed\nimmortality, the worshipers being conceived of as sharing in the\nresuscitation which Osiris had obtained. The worship was at first\nrepulsive to Roman ideals of gravity, but effected an official\nentrance into the city in the reign of Caligula (37-41 A. D.).\nIn the second and third centuries it was extended over the whole\nEmpire. In alliance with the religion of Mithras it became finally\nperhaps the most serious rival of Christianity.\n\nThe cult was partly public and partly private. Prominent in the\npublic worship were the solemn opening of the temple of Isis in\nthe morning and the solemn closing in the afternoon. Elaborate\ncare was taken of the images of the gods--the gods being regarded\nas dependent upon human ministrations. Besides the rites that were\nconducted daily, there were special festivals like the spring\nfestival of the \"ship of Isis\" which is brilliantly described by\nApuleius.\n\nBut it is the mysteries which arouse the greatest interest,\nespecially because of the precious source of information about\nthem which is found in the eleventh book of the Metamorphoses of\nApuleius (second century after Christ). In this book, although the\nsecrets of the mysteries themselves are of course not revealed,\nApuleius has given a more complete and orderly account of the\nevents connected with an initiation than is to be found anywhere\nelse in ancient literature. The hero Lucius is represented first\nas waiting for a summons from the goddess Isis, which comes with\nmiraculous coincidence independently to him and to the priest who\nis to officiate in his initiation. Then Lucius is taken into the\ntemple and made acquainted with certain mysterious books, and also\nwashes his body at the nearest baths. This washing has as little\nas possible the appearance of a sacrament; evidently it was not\nintended to produce \"regeneration\" or anything of the sort.[150] The\npurpose of it seems to have been cleanliness, which was naturally\nregarded as a preparation for the holy rite that was to follow.\nThere follows a ten days' period of fasting, after which the day of\ninitiation arrives. Lucius is taken into the most secret place of\nthe temple. Of what happens there he speaks with the utmost reserve.\nHe says, however: \"I came to the limits of death, and having trod\nthe threshold of Proserpine and been borne through all the elements\nI returned; at midnight I saw the sun shining with a bright light; I\ncame into the presence of the upper and nether gods and adored them\nnear at hand.\"[151] It is often supposed that these words indicate\nsome sort of mysterious drama or vision, which marked the death\nof the initiate, his passage through the elements, and his rising\nto a new life. But certainly the matter is very obscure. The next\nmorning Lucius is clothed with gorgeous robes, and is presented to\nthe gaze of the multitude. Apparently he is regarded as partaking\nof the divine nature. Two other initiations of Lucius are narrated,\none of them being an initiation into the mysteries of Osiris, as\nthe first had been into the mysteries of Isis. But little is added\nby the account of these later experiences, and it has even been\nsuggested that the multiplication of the initiations was due to the\nself-interest of the priests rather than to any real advantage for\nthe initiate.\n\n  [150] But compare Kennedy, _St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions_,\n  1913, p. 229.\n\n  [151] Apuleius, _Metam._, xi. 23 (ed. Van der Vliet, 1897, p. 270):\n  \"Accessi confinium mortis et calcato Proserpinae limine per omnia\n  vectus elementa remeavi; nocte media vidi solem candido coruscantem\n  lumine; deos inferos et deos superos accessi coram et adoravi de\n  proxumo.\"\n\nSimilar in important respects to the Egyptian Osiris was the Adonis\nof Ph\u0153nicia, who may therefore be mentioned in the present\nconnection, even though little is known about mysteries connected\nwith his worship. According to the well-known myth, the youth\nAdonis, beloved by Aphrodite, was killed by a wild boar, and then\nbemoaned by the goddess. The cult of Adonis was found in various\nplaces, notably at Byblos in Ph\u0153nicia, where the death and\nresurrection of the god were celebrated. With regard to this double\nfestival, Lucian says in his treatise \"On the Syrian Goddess\": \"They\n[the inhabitants of Byblos] assert that the legend about Adonis\nand the wild boar is true, and that the facts occurred in their\ncountry, and in memory of this calamity they beat their breasts\nand wail every year, and perform their secret ritual amid signs of\nmourning through the whole countryside. When they have finished\ntheir mourning and wailing, they sacrifice in the first place to\nAdonis, as to one who has departed this life: after this they allege\nthat he is alive again, and exhibit his effigy to the sky.\"[152] The\nwailing for Adonis at Byblos is similar to what is narrated about\nthe worship of the Babylonian god Tammuz. Even the Old Testament\nmentions in a noteworthy passage \"the women weeping for Tammuz\"\n(Ezek. viii. 14). But the Tammuz-worship does not seem to have\ncontained any celebration of a resurrection.\n\n  [152] Lucian, _De dea syria_, 6, translation of Garstang (_The\n  Syrian Goddess_, 1913, pp. 45f.).\n\nAttis, Osiris, and Adonis are alike in that all of them are\napparently represented as dying and coming to life again. They\nare regarded by Br\u00fcckner[153] and many other modern scholars\nas representing the widespread notion of a \"dying and rising\nsaviour-god.\" But it is perhaps worthy of note that the\n\"resurrection\" of these gods is very different from what is meant\nby that word in Christian belief. The myth of Attis, for example,\ncontains no mention of a resurrection; though apparently the cult,\nin which mourning is followed by gladness, did presuppose some such\nnotion. In the myth of Osiris, also, there is nothing that could\nbe called resurrection; after his passion the god becomes ruler,\nnot over the living, but over the dead. In Lucian's description\nof the worship of Adonis at Byblos, there is perhaps as clear an\naccount as is to be found anywhere of the celebration of the dying\nand resuscitation of a god, but even in this account there is not\nstrictly speaking a resurrection. A tendency is found in certain\nrecent writers to exaggerate enormously the prevalence and the\nclarity of the pagan ideas about a dying and rising god.\n\n  [153] _Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland_, 1908.\n\nAccording to a common opinion, Attis, Osiris, and Adonis are\nvegetation-gods; their dying and resuscitation represent, then,\nthe annual withering and revival of vegetation. This hypothesis\nhas attained general, though not universal, acceptance. Certainly\nthe facts are very complex. At any rate, the celebration of the\nprinciple of fecundity in nature was not of a purely agrarian\ncharacter, but found expression also in the gross symbols and\nimmoral practices which appear in connection with the gods just\nmentioned at various points in the ancient world.\n\nThe most important of the religions which have just been examined\nhad their rise in Asia Minor and in Egypt. No less important, at\nleast in the last period of pagan antiquity, was the religious\ninfluence of Syria. The Syrian gods, called \"Baals\" (\"Lords\"), were\nnot, according to Cumont, distinguished from one another by any\nclearly defined characteristics. Every locality had its own Baal\nand a female divinity as the Baal's consort, but the attributes of\nthese local gods were of the vaguest character. The female divinity\nAtargatis, whose temple at Hierapolis is described by Lucian, and\nthe male divinity Hadad, of Heliopolis, are among the best-known of\nthe Syrian gods. The Syrian worship was characterized by especially\nimmoral and revolting features, but seems to have become ennobled by\nthe introduction of the Babylonian worship of the heavenly bodies,\nand thus contributed to the formation of the solar monotheism which\nwas the final form assumed by the pagan religion of the Empire\nbefore the triumph of Christianity.\n\nIn point of intrinsic worth, the Persian mystery religion of Mithras\nis easily superior to any of the religions which have thus far been\nmentioned, but it is of less importance than some of the others\nfor the purposes of the present investigation, since it became\ninfluential in the Roman Empire only after the time of Paul. Great\nstress has indeed been laid upon the fact that Plutarch attests\nthe practice of Mithraic mysteries by the pirates whom Pompey\nconquered in the middle of the first century before Christ, and\nsays furthermore that the Mithraic rites begun by the pirates were\ncontinued until the writer's own day.[154] The pirates practised\ntheir rites at Olympus, which is on the southern coast of Asia\nMinor. But the Olympus which is meant is in Lycia, some three\nhundred miles from Tarsus. It is a mistake, therefore, to bring\nthe Mithraic mysteries of the pirates into any close geographical\nconnection with the boyhood home of Paul. Against the hypothesis of\nany dependence of Paul upon the mysteries of Mithras is to be placed\nthe authority of Cumont, the chief investigator in this field, who\nsays: \"It is impossible to suppose that at that time [the time of\nPaul] there was an imitation of the Mithraic mysteries, which then\nhad not yet attained any importance.\"[155] Attempts have often been\nmade to explain away this judgment of Cumont, but without success.\nThe progress of Mithraism in the Empire seems to have been due to\ndefinite political causes which were operative only after Paul's day.\n\n  [154] Plutarch, _Vita Pompei_, 24.\n\n  [155] Cumont, _op. cit._, p. xvi (English Translation, p. xx).\n\nThe Persian religion, from which Mithraism was descended, was\nsuperior to the others which have just been considered in its marked\nethical character. It presented the doctrine of a mighty conflict\nbetween light and darkness, between good and evil. And Mithraism\nitself regarded religion under the figure of a warfare. It appealed\nespecially to the soldiers, and only men (not women) were admitted\nto its mysteries. There were seven grades of initiation, each with\nits special name. The highest grade was that of \"father.\" The\nMithras cult was always celebrated underground, in chambers of very\nlimited extent. There was a sacred meal, consisting of bread and\nwater, which Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century,\nregards as having been instituted through demoniac imitation of the\nChristian Eucharist.[156] This religion of Mithras finally became,\nwith the religion of Isis, the most serious rival of Christianity.\nBut at the time of Paul it was without importance, and could not\nhave exerted any influence upon the apostle.\n\n  [156] Justin Martyr, _Apol._ 66.\n\nBut the religion of the Hellenistic age was not limited to the\nindividual cults which have just been considered, and it is not\nchiefly to the individual cults that recourse is had by those modern\nscholars who would derive Paulinism from pagan sources. Mention has\nalready been made of the syncretism of the age; various religions\nwere mingled in a limitless variety of combinations. And there was\nalso a mingling of religion with philosophy. It is in the manifold\nproducts of this union between Greek philosophy and oriental\nreligion that the genesis of Paulinism is now often being sought.\nNot oriental religion in its original state, but oriental religion\nalready to some extent Hellenized, is thought to have produced the\ncharacteristic features of the religion of Paul.\n\nThe hypothesis is faced by one obvious difficulty. The difficulty\nappears in the late date of most of the sources of information. In\norder to reconstruct that Hellenized oriental mysticism from which\nthe religion of Paul is to be derived, the investigator is obliged\nto appeal to sources which are long subsequent to Paul's day. For\nexample, in reproducing the spiritual atmosphere in which Paul is\nsupposed to have lived, no testimony is more often evoked than the\nwords of Firmicus Maternus, \"Be of good courage, ye initiates,\nsince the god is saved; for to us there shall be salvation out of\ntroubles.\"[157] Here, it is thought, is to be found that connection\nbetween the resurrection of the god and the salvation of the\nbelievers which appears in the Pauline idea of dying and rising\nwith Christ. But the trouble is that Firmicus Maternus lived in\nthe fourth century after Christ, three hundred years later than\nPaul. With what right can an utterance of his be used in the\nreconstruction of pre-Christian paganism? What would be thought, by\nthe same scholars who quote Firmicus Maternus so confidently as a\nwitness to first-century paganism, of a historian who should quote\na fourth-century Christian writer as a witness to first-century\nChristianity?\n\n  [157] See above, p. 229, with footnote 3.\n\nThis objection has been met by the modern school of comparative\nreligion somewhat as follows. In the first place, it is said,\nthe post-Christian pagan usage which at any time may be under\ninvestigation is plainly not influenced by Christianity. But, in\nthe second place, it is too similar to Christian usage for the\nsimilarity to be explained by mere coincidence. Therefore, in\nthe third place, since it is not dependent upon Christian usage,\nChristian usage must be dependent upon it, and therefore despite its\nlate attestation it must have existed in pre-Christian times.\n\nA little reflection will reveal the precarious character of this\nreasoning. Every step is uncertain. In the first place, it is often\nby no means clear that the pagan usage has not been influenced by\nChristianity. The Church did not long remain obscure; even early\nin the second century, according to the testimony of Pliny, it was\ncausing the heathen temples to be deserted. What is more likely than\nthat in an age of syncretism the adherents of pagan religion should\nborrow weapons from so successful a rival? It must be remembered\nthat the paganism of the Hellenistic age had elevated syncretism\nto a system; it had absolutely no objection of principle against\nreceiving elements from every source. In the Christian Church, on\nthe other hand, there was a strong objection to such procedure;\nChristianity from the beginning was like Judaism in being exclusive.\nIt regarded with the utmost abhorrence anything that was tainted\nby a pagan origin. This abhorrence, at least in the early period,\nmore than overbalanced the fact that the Christians for the most\npart had formerly been pagans, so that it might be thought natural\nfor them to retain something of pagan belief. Conversion involved a\npassionate renunciation of former beliefs. Such, at any rate, was\nclearly the kind of conversion that was required by Paul.\n\nIn the second place, the similarity between the pagan and the\nChristian usages is often enormously exaggerated; sometimes\na superficial similarity of language masks the most profound\ndifferences of underlying meaning. Illustrations will be given in\nthe latter part of the present chapter.\n\nThus the conclusion is, to say the least, precarious. It is by no\nmeans so easy as is sometimes supposed to prove that a pagan usage\nattested only long after the time of Paul is really the source\nof Pauline teaching. And it will not help to say that although\nthere is no direct dependence one way or the other yet the pagan\nand the Pauline teaching have a common source. For to say that a\nusage has a pagan source several centuries earlier than the time\nat which the usage is first attested is really to assume the point\nthat is to be proved. We are not here dealing with a question of\nliterary dependence, where the unity of the books which are being\ncompared is assumed. In such a question the independence of the two\nwriters may be proved by the general comparison of the books; it\nmay be shown, in other words, that if one author had used the other\nauthor's work at all he would have had to use it a great deal more\nthan as a matter of fact the similarity would indicate. In such\ncases, striking verbal similarity in one place may prove that both\nbooks were dependent upon a common source. But if a pagan usage\nof the fourth century is similar to a Christian usage, the fact\nthat in general the paganism of the fourth century is independent\nof Christianity does not disprove dependence of paganism upon\nChristianity at this one point.\n\nIt is not surprising, therefore, that the reasoning just outlined is\nusually supplemented by a further consideration. It is maintained,\nnamely, that the mystic piety of paganism forms to some extent\na unit; it was not a mere fortuitous collection of beliefs and\npractices, but was like an enveloping spiritual atmosphere of which,\ndespite variations of humidity and temperature, the fundamental\ncomposition was everywhere the same. If, therefore, the presence\nof this atmosphere of mystical piety can be established here and\nthere in sources of actually pre-Christian date, the investigator\nhas a right to determine the nature of the atmosphere in detail by\ndrawing upon later sources. In other words, the mystical religion\nof the Hellenistic age is reconstructed in detail by the use of\npost-Christian sources, and then (the essential unity of the\nphenomenon being assumed) the early date of this oriental mystical\nreligion is established by the scanty references in pre-Christian\ntimes. It is admitted, perhaps, that the elements of oriental\nmysticism actually found in pre-Christian sources would not be\nsufficient to prove dependence of Paul upon that type of religion;\nbut the elements found in later sources are thought to be so closely\nallied to those which happen to have early attestation that they\ntoo must be supposed to have been present in the early period,\nand since they are similar to Paulinism they must have exerted a\nformative influence upon Paul's religion. To put the matter briefly,\nthe nature of Hellenized oriental religion is established by\npost-Pauline sources; whereas the early origin of that religion is\nestablished by the scanty pre-Christian references.\n\nThis procedure constitutes a curious reversal of the procedure which\nis applied by the very same scholars to Christianity. Christianity\nis supposed to have undergone kaleidoscopic changes in the course\nof a few years or even months, changes involving a transformation\nof its inmost nature; yet pagan religion is apparently thought to\nhave remained from age to age the same. When Paul, only a few years\nafter the origin of the Church, says that he \"received\" certain\nfundamental elements in his religion, the intimate connection of\nthose elements with the rest of the Pauline system is not allowed\nto establish the early origin of the whole; yet the paganism of\nthe third and fourth centuries is thought to have constituted\nsuch a unity that the presence of certain elements of it in the\npre-Christian period is regarded as permitting the whole system to\nbe transplanted bodily to that early time.\n\nOf course, the hypothesis which is now being examined is held\nin many forms, and is being advocated with varying degrees of\ncaution. Some of its advocates might defend themselves against the\ncharge of transplanting post-Christian paganism bodily into the\npre-Christian period. They might point to special evidence with\nregard to many details. Such evidence would have to be examined\nin any complete investigation. But the objection just raised,\ndespite possible answers to it in detail, is not without validity.\nIt remains true, despite all reservations, that adherents of the\n\"comparative-religion school\" are entirely too impatient with\nregard to questions of priority. They are indeed very severe upon\nthose who raise such questions. They do not like having the flow\nof their thought checked by so homely a thing as a date. But\ndates sometimes have their importance. For example, the phrase,\n\"reborn for eternity,\" occurs in connection with the blood-bath\nof the taurobolium. How significant, it might be said, is this\nconnection of regeneration with the shedding of blood! How useful\nas establishing the pagan origin of the Christian idea! From the\nconfident way in which the phrase \"reborn for eternity\" is quoted\nin discussions of the origin of Christianity, one would think that\nits pre-Christian origin were established beyond peradventure. It\nmay come as a shock, therefore, to readers of recent discussions to\nbe told that as a matter of fact the phrase does not appear until\nthe fourth century, when Christianity was taking its place as the\nestablished religion of the Roman world. If there is any dependence,\nit is certainly dependence of the taurobolium upon Christianity, and\nnot of Christianity upon the taurobolium.\n\nThe same lordly disregard of dates runs all through the modern\ntreatment of the history of religion in the New Testament period.\nIt is particularly unfortunate in popular expositions. When the\nlay reader is overwhelmed by an imposing array of citations from\nApuleius and from Lucian, to say nothing of Firmicus Maternus and\nfourth-century inscriptions, and when these late citations are\nconfidently treated by men of undoubted learning as witnesses to\npre-Christian religion, and when the procedure is rendered more\nplausible by occasional references to pre-Christian writers which\nif looked up would be found to prove nothing at all, and when there\nis a careful avoidance of anything like temporal arrangement of the\nmaterial, but citations derived from all countries and all ages\nare brought together for the reconstruction of the environment\nof Paul--under such treatment the lay reader often receives the\nimpression that something very important is being proved. The\nimpression would be corrected by the mere introduction of a few\ndates, especially in view of the fact that oriental religion\nundoubtedly entered upon a remarkable expansion shortly after the\nclose of the New Testament period, so that conditions prevailing\nafter that expansion are by no means necessarily to be regarded as\nhaving existed before the expansion took place.\n\nThis criticism is here intended to be taken only in a provisional\nway. The justice of it can be tested only by a detailed examination\nof the hypothesis against which the criticism is directed.\n\nHow, then, is the pre-Christian mystical religion of the Hellenistic\nworld to be reconstructed? What sources are to be used? Some of\nthe sources have already been touched upon in the review of the\nindividual oriental cults. And incidentally the unsatisfactory\ncharacter of some of these sources has already appeared. But it is\nnow necessary to examine other sources which are not so definitely\nconnected with any clearly defined cult.\n\nIncreasing attention has been paid in recent years to the complex\nof writings which goes under the name of Hermes Trismegistus.\nThese Hermetic writings embrace not only a corpus of some fourteen\ntractates which has been preserved in continuous Greek manuscript\nform, but also fragments contained in the works of Stob\u00e6us and other\nwriters, and finally the \"Asclepius\" attributed to Apuleius. It is\nnot usually maintained that the Hermetic literature was completed\nbefore about 300 A.D.; no one claims anything like pre-Christian\norigin for the whole. The individual elements of the literature--for\nexample, the individual tractates of the Hermetic corpus--are\nusually regarded as having been produced at various times; but no\none of them is generally thought to have been written before the\nbeginning of the Christian era. With regard to the most important\ntractate, the \"Poimandres,\" which stands at the beginning of the\ncorpus, opinions differ somewhat. J. Kroll, for example, the author\nof the leading monograph on the Hermetic writings, regards the\nPoimandres as the latest of the tractates in the corpus, and as\nhaving appeared not before the time of Numenius (second half of the\nsecond century);[158] whereas Zielinski regards it as the earliest\nwriting of the corpus.[159] By an ingenious argument, Reitzenstein\nattempts to prove that the Christian \"Shepherd of Hermes\" (middle\nof the second century) is dependent upon an original form of the\n\"Poimandres.\"[160] But his argument has not obtained any general\nconsent. It is impossible to push the material of the Poimandres\nback into the first century--certainly impossible by any treatment\nof literary relationships.\n\n  [158] J. Kroll, _Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos_, 1914, in\n  _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters_, xii.\n  2-4, pp. 388, 389.\n\n  [159] Zielinski, \"Hermes und die Hermetik,\" in _Archiv f\u00fcr\n  Religionswissenschaft_, viii, 1905, p. 323.\n\n  [160] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, 1904, pp. 10-13.\n\nWith regard to the origin of the ideas in the Hermetic writings,\nthere is considerable difference of opinion. Reitzenstein allows\na large place to Egyptian and Persian elements; other scholars\nemphasize rather the influence of Greek philosophy, which of course\nis in turn thought to have been modified by its contact with\noriental religion. J. Kroll,[161] W. Kroll,[162] Reitzenstein,[163]\nand others deny emphatically the presence of any considerable\nChristian influence in Hermes; but at this point Heinrici, after\nparticularly careful researches, differs from the customary\nview.[164] Windisch is enough impressed by Heinrici's arguments\nto confess that Christian literature may have influenced the\npresent form of the Hermetic writings here and there, but insists\nthat the Christian influence upon Hermes is altogether trifling\ncompared to the influence upon primitive Christianity of the type\nof religion of which Hermes is an example.[165] The true state of\nthe case, according to Windisch, is probably that Christianity first\nreceived from oriental religion the fundamental ideas, and then\ngave back to oriental religion as represented by Hermes certain\nforms of expression in which those ideas had been clothed. At the\nsame time Windisch urges careful attention to Heinrici's argument\nfor Christian influence upon Hermes for three reasons: (1) all\nHermetic writings are later than the New Testament period, (2) the\nHermetic writings are admittedly influenced by Judaism, (3) at\nleast the latest stratum in the Hermetic writings has admittedly\npassed through the Christian sphere. These admissions, coming\nfrom one who is very friendly to the modern method of comparative\nreligion, are significant. When even Windisch admits that the form\nof expression with regard to the new birth in the Poimandres may\npossibly be influenced by the Gospel tradition, and that the author\nof the fourth Hermetic tractate, for example, was somewhat familiar\nwith New Testament writings or Christian ideas and \"assimilated\nChristian terminology to his gnosis,\" and that the term \"faith\" has\npossibly come into Hermes (iv and ix) from Christian tradition--in\nthe light of these admissions it may appear how very precarious is\nthe employment of Hermes Trismegistus as a witness to pre-Christian\npaganism.\n\n  [161] _Op. cit._\n\n  [162] Article \"Hermes Trismegistos,\" in Pauly-Wissowa,\n  _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft_, xv, 1912,\n  pp. 791-823.\n\n  [163] _Op. cit._\n\n  [164] Heinrici, _Die Hermes-Mystik und das Neue Testament_, 1918.\n\n  [165] Windisch, \"Urchristentum und Hermesmystik,\" in _Theologisch\n  Tijdschrift_, lii, 1918, pp. 186-240.\n\nOpinions differ, moreover, as to the importance of the Hermetic type\nof thought in the life of the ancient world. Reitzenstein exalts its\nimportance; he believes that back of the Hermetic writings there\nlies a living religion, and that this Hermetic type of religion\nwas characteristic of the Hellenistic age. At this point Cumont\nand others are in sharp disagreement; Cumont believes that in the\nWest Hermetism had nothing more than a literary existence and did\nnot produce a Hermetic sect, and that in general Reitzenstein has\ngreatly exaggerated the Hermetic influence.[166] With regard to this\ncontroversy, it can at least be said that Reitzenstein has failed to\nprove his point.\n\n  [166] Cumont, _op. cit._, pp. 340, 341 (English Translation, pp.\n  233, 234, note 41).\n\nDetailed exposition of the Hermetic writings will here be\nimpossible. A number of recent investigators have covered the field\nwith some thoroughness. Unfortunately a complete modern critical\nedition of the Hermetic corpus is still lacking; the student is\nobliged to have recourse to the edition of Parthey (1854),[167]\nwhich is not complete and does not quite measure up to modern\nstandards. Reitzenstein has included in his \"Poimandres\" (1904) a\ncritical edition of Tractates I, XIII, XVI, XVII, XVIII. There has\nbeen no collection, in the original languages, of all the Hermetic\nwritings (including those outside of the corpus), though M\u00e9nard has\nprovided a French translation,[168] and Mead an English translation\nwith elaborate introduction and notes.[169] The work of Mead, which\nis published by the Theosophical Publishing Society, is not usually\nregarded as quite satisfactory. But the translation at least will be\nfound exceedingly useful. The systematic exposition of the thought\nof the Hermetic writings by J. Kroll is clear and instructive;[170]\nand Heinrici, who differs from Kroll in treating the individual\nwritings separately, has also made a valuable contribution to the\nsubject.[171]\n\n  [167] Parthey, _Hermetis Trismegisti Poemander_, 1854.\n\n  [168] M\u00e9nard, _Herm\u00e8s Trism\u00e9giste_, 1910.\n\n  [169] Mead, _Thrice-Greatest Hermes_, three volumes, 1906.\n\n  [170] _Op. cit._ Cf. the review by Bousset, in _G\u00f6ttingische\n  gelehrte Anzeigen_, clxxvi, 1914, pp. 697-755.\n\n  [171] _Op. cit._\n\nIn the Hermetic tractates I and XIII, upon which Reitzenstein\nlays the chief emphasis, there is presented a notion of the\ntransformation of the one who receives divine revelation. The\ntransformation, as in the Hermetic writings generally, is for the\nmost part independent of ceremonies or sacraments. An experience\nwhich in the mysteries is connected with an initiation involving an\nappeal to the senses here seems to have been spiritualized under the\ninfluence of philosophy; regeneration comes not through a mystic\ndrama or the like but through an inner experience. Such at least\nis a common modern interpretation of the genesis of the Hermetic\ndoctrine. At any rate, it seems to be impossible to reduce that\ndoctrine to anything like a consistent logical scheme. Reitzenstein\nhas tried to bring order out of chaos by distinguishing in the first\ntractate two originally distinct views as to the origin of the world\nand of man, but his analysis has not won general acceptance. It\nmust probably be admitted, however, that the Hermetic literature\nhas received elements from various sources and has not succeeded in\ncombining them in any consistent way.\n\nThe student who will first read Tractates I and XIII for himself\nwill probably be surprised when he is told (for example by\nReitzenstein) that here is to be found the spiritual atmosphere from\nwhich Paulinism came. For there could be no sharper contrast than\nthat between the fantastic speculations of the Poimandres and the\nhistorical gospel of Paul. Both the Poimandres and Paul have some\nnotion of a transformation that a man experiences through a divine\nrevelation. But the transformation, according to Paul, comes through\nan account of what had happened but a few years before. Nothing\ncould possibly be more utterly foreign to Hermes. On the other\nhand, the result of the transformation in Hermes is deification.\n\"This,\" says Hermes (Tractate I, 26), \"is the good end to those\nwho have received knowledge, to be deified.\"[172] Paul could never\nhave used such language. For, according to Paul, the relation\nbetween the believer and the Christ who has transformed him is a\npersonal relation of love. The \"Christ-mysticism\" of Paul is never\npantheistic. It is indeed supernatural; it is not produced by any\nmere influence brought to bear upon the old life. But the result,\nfar from being apotheosis, is personal communion of a man with his\nGod.\n\n  [172] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u0398\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nIn connection with Hermes Trismegistus may be mentioned the\nso-called Oracula Chaldaica, which apparently sprang from the same\ngeneral type of thought.[173] These Oracula Chaldaica, according\nto W. Kroll, constitute a document of heathen gnosis, which was\nproduced about 200 A.D. Although Kroll believes that there is here\nno Christian influence, and that Jewish influence touches not the\ncenter but only the circumference, yet for the reasons already\nnoticed it would be precarious to use a document of 200 A.D. in\nreconstructing pre-Pauline paganism.\n\n  [173] See W. Kroll, _De Oraculis Chaldaicis_, 1894; \"Die\n  chald\u00e4ischen Orakel,\" in _Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie_, l,\n  1895, pp. 636-639.\n\nA very important source of information about the Greco-oriental\nreligion of the Hellenistic age is found by scholars like Dieterich\nand Reitzenstein in the so-called \"magical\" papyri. Among the many\ninteresting papyrus documents which have recently been discovered\nin Egypt are some that contain formulas intended to be used in\nincantations. At first sight these formulas look like hopeless\nnonsense; it may perhaps even be said that they are intended to\nbe nonsense. That is, the effect is sought, not from any logical\nunderstanding of the formulas either on the part of those who use\nthem or on the part of the higher powers upon whom they are to be\nused, but simply and solely from the mechanical effect of certain\ncombinations of sounds. Thus the magical papyri include not only\ndivine names in foreign languages (the ancient and original name\nof a god being regarded as exerting a coercive effect upon that\ngod), but also many meaningless rows of letters which do not form\nwords at all. But according to Dieterich and Reitzenstein and\nothers, these papyri, nonsensical as they are in their completed\nform, often embody materials which belong not to magic but to\nreligion; in particular, they make use, for a magical purpose,\nof what was originally intended to be used in a living religious\ncult. Indeed the distinction between magic and religion is often\ndifficult to draw. In religion there is an element of interest,\non the part of the worshiper, in the higher powers as such, some\nidea of propitiating them, of winning their favor; whereas in\nmagic the higher powers are made use of as though they were mere\nmachines through the use of incantations and spells. But when this\ndistinction is applied to the ancient mystery religions, sometimes\nthese religions seem to be little more than magic, so external\nand mechanical is the way in which the initiation is supposed to\nwork. It is not surprising, therefore, if the composers of magical\nformulas turned especially, in seeking their materials, to the\nmystery cults; for they were drawn in that direction by a certain\naffinity both of purpose and of method. At any rate, whatever may\nbe the explanation, the existing magical papyri, according to\nDieterich and others, do contain important elements derived from the\noriental religious cults; it is only necessary, Dieterich maintains,\nto subtract the obviously later elements--the nonsensical rows\nof letters and the like--in order to obtain important sources of\ninformation about the religious life of the Hellenistic age.\n\nThis method has been applied by Dieterich especially to a Paris\nmagical papyrus, with the result that the underlying religious\ndocument is found to be nothing less than a liturgy of the\nreligion of Mithras.[174] Dieterich's conclusions have not escaped\nunchallenged; the connection of the document with Mithraism has been\ndenied, for example, by Cumont.[175] Of course, even if the document\nbe not really a \"Mithras liturgy,\" it may still be of great value\nin the reconstruction of Hellenistic gnosis. With regard to date,\nhowever, it is not any more favorably placed than the documents\nwhich have just been considered. The papyrus manuscript in which the\n\"liturgy\" is contained was written at the beginning of the fourth\ncentury after Christ; and the composition of the \"liturgy\" itself\ncannot be fixed definitely at any very much earlier date.[176]\nDieterich supposes that the beginning was made in the second\ncentury, and that there were successive additions afterward. At any\nrate, then, not only the papyrus manuscript, but also the liturgy\nwhich it is thought to contain, was produced long after the time\nof Paul. Like the Hermetic writings, moreover, Dieterich's Mithras\nliturgy presents a conception of union with divinity which is really\naltogether unlike the Pauline gospel.\n\n  [174] Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie_, 2te Aufl., 1910.\n\n  [175] _Op. cit._, p. 379 (English Translation, pp. 260f.).\n\n  [176] Dieterich, _op. cit._, pp. 43f.\n\nBut information about pre-Christian paganism is being sought not\nonly in ostensibly pagan sources; it is also being sought in the\nGnosticism which appears in connection with the Christian Church.\nGnosticism used to be regarded as a \"heresy,\" a perversion of\nChristian belief. Now, on the contrary, it is being regarded as\nessentially non-Christian, as a manifestation of Greco-oriental\nreligion which was brought into only very loose connection with\nChristianity; the great Gnostic systems of the second century, it\nis said, when they are stripped of a few comparatively unimportant\nChristian elements are found to represent not a development from\nChristianity but rather the spiritual atmosphere from which\nChristianity itself sprang.\n\nIf this view of the case be correct, it is at least significant\nthat pagan teachers of the second century (the Gnostics) should have\nbeen so ready to adopt Christian elements and so anxious to give\ntheir systems a Christian appearance. Why should a similar procedure\nbe denied in the case, for example, of Hermes Trismegistus? If\nsecond-century paganism, without at all modifying its essential\ncharacter, could sometimes actually adopt the name of Christ, why\nshould it be thought incredible that the compiler of the Hermetic\nliterature, who did not go quite so far, should yet have permitted\nChristian elements to creep into his syncretistic work? Why should\nsimilarity of language between Hermes and Paul, supposing that it\nexists, be regarded as proving dependence of Paul upon a type of\npaganism like that of Hermes, rather than dependence of Hermes upon\nPaul?\n\nBut the use of Gnosticism as a witness to pre-Christian paganism\nis faced with obvious difficulties. Gnosticism has admittedly\nbeen influenced by Christianity. Who can say, then, exactly how\nfar the Christian influence extends? Who can say that any element\nin Gnosticism, found also in the New Testament, but not clearly\ncontained in pagan sources, is derived from paganism rather than\nfrom Christianity? Yet it is just exactly such procedure which is\nadvocated by Reitzenstein and others.\n\nThe dangers of the procedure may be exhibited by an example. In\nHermes Trismegistus the spirit is regarded as the garment of the\nsoul.[177] This doctrine is the exact reverse of Pauline teaching,\nsince it makes the soul appear higher than the spirit, whereas in\nPaul the Spirit, in the believer, is exalted far above the soul.\nIn Hermes the spirit appears as a material substratum of the soul;\nin Paul the Spirit represents the divine power. There could be no\nsharper contradiction. And the matter is absolutely central in\nReitzenstein's hypothesis, for it is just the Pauline doctrine of\nthe Spirit which he is seeking to derive from pagan religion. The\ndifficulty for Reitzenstein, then, is that in Hermes the spirit\nappears as the garment of the soul, whereas in the interests of\nhis theory the soul ought to appear rather as the garment of the\nspirit. But Reitzenstein avoids the difficulty by appealing to\nGnosticism. The Hermetic doctrine, he says, is nothing but the\nnecessary philosophic reversal of the Gnostic doctrine that the\nsoul is the garment of the spirit.[178] Thus Gnosticism is here made\nto be a witness to pre-Christian pagan belief, in direct defiance\nof pagan sources. Is it not more probable that the difference\nbetween Gnosticism on the one hand and pagan gnosis as represented\nby Hermes on the other, is due to the influence upon the former\nof the Christian doctrine? It is interesting to observe that J.\nKroll, from whom the above illustration is obtained, insists against\nReitzenstein that the Gnostic doctrine, as over against the doctrine\nof Hermes, is here clearly secondary.[179] At any rate, then, the\nreconstruction of a pre-Christian pagan doctrine of the soul as the\ngarment of the spirit is a matter of pure conjecture.\n\n  [177] _Corp. Herm._ x. 13.\n\n  [178] Reitzenstein, _Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen_, 2te Aufl.,\n  1920, p. 183.\n\n  [179] J. Kroll, _op. cit._, pp. 286-289, especially p. 288, Anm. 1.\n\nSimilar difficulties appear everywhere. It is certainly very\nhazardous to use Gnosticism, a post-Pauline phenomenon appealing\nto Paul as one of its chief sources, as a witness to pre-Pauline\npaganism. Certainly such use of Gnosticism should be carefully\nlimited to those matters where there is some confirmatory pagan\ntestimony. But such confirmatory testimony, in the decisive cases,\nis significantly absent.\n\nThe use of Gnosticism as a source of information about pre-Christian\npaganism might be less precarious if the separation of the pagan\nand Christian elements could be carried out by means of literary\ncriticism. Such a method is employed by Reitzenstein in connection\nwith an interesting passage in Hippolytus. In attacking the\nGnostic sect of the Naassenes, Hippolytus says that the sect has\nbeen dependent upon the pagan mysteries, and in proof he quotes\na Naassene writing. This quotation, as it now exists in the work\nof Hippolytus, is, according to Reitzenstein, \"a pagan text with\nGnostic-Christian scholia (or in a Gnostic-Christian revision),\nwhich has been taken over by an opponent who did not understand\nthis state of the case, and so, in this form, has been used by\nHippolytus.\"[180] Reitzenstein seeks to reproduce the pagan\ndocument.[181]\n\n  [180] Reitzenstein, _Poimandres_, p. 82.\n\n  [181] _Op. cit._, pp. 83-98.\n\nUnquestionably the passage is interesting, and unquestionably it\ncontains important information about the pagan mysteries. But it\ndoes not help to establish influence of the mysteries upon Paul.\nIt must be observed that what is now being maintained against\nReitzenstein is not that the Gnostics who appear in the polemic\nof the anti-heretical, ecclesiastical writers of the close of the\nsecond century and the beginning of the third were not influenced\nby pre-Christian paganism, or even that they did not derive the\nfundamentals of their type of religion from pre-Christian paganism.\nAll that is being maintained is that it is very precarious to use\nthe Gnostic systems in reconstructing pre-Christian paganism in\ndetail--especially where the Gnostic systems differ from admittedly\npagan sources and agree with Paul. In reconstructing the origin of\nPaulinism it is precarious to employ the testimony of those who\nlived after Paul and actually quoted Paul.\n\nAll the sources of information about Greco-oriental religion which\nhave thus far been discussed belong to a time subsequent to Paul.\nIf the type of religion which they attest is to be pushed back\ninto the pre-Christian period, it can be done only by an appeal\nto earlier sources. Such earlier sources are sometimes found in\npassages like Livy's description of the Bacchanalian rites of\nthe second century before Christ in Italy, and in writers such\nas Posidonius and Philo. But the presence of Bacchanalian rites\nin Italy in the second century before Christ is not particularly\nsignificant, and the details of those rites do not include the\nfeatures which in the later sources are thought to invite comparison\nwith Paul. Posidonius, the Stoic philosopher of the first century\nbefore Christ, seems to have been a man of very great influence;\nand no doubt he did introduce oriental elements into the Stoic\nphilosophy. But his works, for the most part, have been lost,\nand so far as they have been reconstructed by the use of writers\nwho were dependent upon him, they do not seem to contain those\nelements which might be regarded as explaining the genesis of\nPaulinism. With regard to Philo, who was an older contemporary\nof Paul, the investigator finds himself in a much more favorable\nposition, since voluminous works of the Alexandrian philosopher\nhave been preserved. There is a tendency in recent investigation\nto make Philo an important witness to Greco-oriental religion as\nit found expression in the mysteries.[182] But the bearing of\nthe evidence does not seem to be absolutely unequivocal. At any\nrate, the relation between Paul and Philo has been the subject of\ninvestigation for many years, and it cannot be said that the results\nhave accomplished anything toward explaining the genesis of Paul's\nreligion. Direct dependence of Paul upon Philo, it is admitted, has\nnot been proved, and even dependence of both upon the same type of\nthought is highly problematical. The state of the evidence is not\nessentially altered by designating as the type of thought upon which\nboth are supposed to have been dependent the Greco-oriental religion\nof the mysteries. The real question is whether the testimony of\nPhilo establishes as of pre-Christian origin that type of mystical\npiety from which Paulinism is being derived--the type of religion\nwhich is attested, for example, by Firmicus Maternus or by the\nfourth-century inscriptions that deal with the taurobolium, or by\nHermes Trismegistus, or by Dieterich's \"Mithras liturgy,\" or by the\npagan elements which are supposed to lie back of second-century\nGnosticism. And so far as can be judged on the basis of the evidence\nwhich is actually being adduced by the comparative-religion school,\nthe question must be answered in the negative. Even the living\nconnection of Philo with the mysteries of his own day does not\nseem to be definitely established. And if it were established, the\nfurther question would remain as to whether the mystery religions\nof Philo's day contained just those elements which in the mystery\nreligions of the post-Pauline period are supposed to show similarity\nto Paul. If the mystical piety which is attested by Philo is\nsufficient to be regarded as the basis of Paulinism, why should the\ninvestigator appeal to Firmicus Maternus? And if he does appeal to\nFirmicus Maternus, with what right can he assume that the elements\nwhich he thus finds existed in the days of Philo and of Paul?\n\n  [182] Helbig, review of \"Philo von Alexandrien: Werke, in deut.\n  Uebersetzg. hrsg. v. Prof. Dr. Leop. Cohn. 3. Tl.,\" in _Theologische\n  Literaturzeitung_, xlv, 1920, column 30: \"Here one perceives with\n  all requisite clearness that Philo did not merely imitate the\n  language of the mystery religions, but had been himself a \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nREDEMPTION IN PAGAN RELIGION AND IN PAUL\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nREDEMPTION IN PAGAN RELIGION AND IN PAUL\n\n\nIt has been observed thus far that in comparing Paul with\nHellenistic pagan religion, the question of priority cannot be\nruled out so easily as is sometimes supposed. Another preliminary\nquestion, moreover, remains. Through what channels did the supposed\ninfluence of the mystery religions enter into the life of Paul?\nThe question is somewhat perplexing. In view of the outline of\nPaul's life which was set forth in Chapters II and III, it would\nseem difficult to find a place for the entrance of pagan religious\nthought.\n\nOne suggestion is that pagan thought came to Paul only through the\nmedium of Judaism. That suggestion would explain the consciousness\nthat Paul attests of having been, before his conversion, a devout\nJew. If pagan religion had already entered into the warp and woof\nof Judaism, and if the throes of the process of assimilation had\nalready been forgotten before the time of Paul, then Paul might\nregard himself as a devout Jew, hostile to all pagan influence, and\nyet be profoundly influenced by the paganism which had already found\nan entrance into the Jewish stronghold.\n\nBut the trouble is that with regard to those matters which are\nthought to be necessary for the explanation of Paul's religion there\nis no evidence that paganism had entered into the common life of\nthe Jews. It has been shown in Chapter V that the Judaism of the\nfirst century, as it can be reconstructed by the use of the extant\nsources, is insufficient to account for the origin of Paulinism.\nThat fact is admitted by those scholars who are having recourse to\nthe hypothesis of pagan influence. Therefore, if the pagan influence\ncame to Paul through the medium of Judaism, the historian must first\nposit the existence of a Judaism into which the necessary pagan\nelements had entered. There is no evidence for the existence of\nsuch a Judaism; in fact the extant Jewish sources point clearly\nin an opposite direction. It is exceedingly difficult, therefore,\nto suppose, in defiance of the Jewish sources, and in the mere\ninterests of a theory as to the genesis of Paulinism, that the\nPharisaic Judaism from which Paul sprang was imbued with a mystical\npiety like that of the mystery religions or of Hermes Trismegistus.\nIn fact, in view of the known character of Pharisaic Judaism, the\nhypothesis is nothing short of monstrous.\n\nTherefore, if Paul was influenced by the pagan mystery religions\nit could not have been simply in virtue of his connection with\nfirst-century Judaism; it must have been due to some special\ninfluences which were brought to bear upon him. Where could these\ninfluences have been exerted? One suggestion is that they were\nexerted in Tarsus, his boyhood home. Stress is thus laid upon the\nfact that Paul was born not in Palestine but in the Dispersion. As\nhe grew up in Tarsus, it is said, he could not help observing the\npaganism that surrounded him. At this point, some historians, on\nentirely insufficient evidence, are inclined to be specific; they\nare tempted, for example, to speak of mysteries of Mithras as being\npractised in or near Tarsus in Paul's early years. The hypothesis\nis only weakened by such incautious advocacy; it is much better to\npoint merely to the undoubted fact that Tarsus was a pagan city and\nwas presumably affected by the existing currents of pagan life.\nBut if Paul grew up in a pagan environment, was he influenced by\nit? An affirmative answer would seem to run counter to his own\ntestimony. Although Paul was born in Tarsus, he belonged inwardly\nto Palestine; he and his parents before him were not \"Hellenists\"\nbut \"Hebrews.\" Moreover, he was a Pharisee, more exceedingly zealous\nthan his contemporaries for his paternal traditions. The evidence\nhas been examined in a previous chapter. Certainly then, Paul was\nnot a \"liberal\" Jew; far from being inclined to break down the wall\nof partition between Jews and Gentiles he was especially zealous\nfor the Law. It is very difficult to conceive of such a man--with\nhis excessive zeal for the Mosaic Law, with his intense hatred of\npaganism, with his intense consciousness of the all-sufficiency of\nJewish privileges--as being susceptible to the pagan influences that\nsurrounded his orthodox home.\n\nThe hypothesis must, therefore, at least be modified to the extent\nthat the pagan influence exerted at Tarsus be regarded as merely\nunconscious. Paul did not deliberately accept the pagan religion of\nTarsus, it might be said, but at least he became acquainted with it,\nand his acquaintance with it became fruitful after he entered upon\nhis Gentile mission. According to this hypothesis, the attitude of\nPaul toward pagan religion was in the early days in Tarsus merely\nnegative, but became more favorable (whether or no Paul himself\nwas conscious of the real source of the pagan ideas) because of\nsubsequent events. But what were the events which induced in Paul a\nmore favorable attitude toward ideas which were really pagan? When\ndid he overcome his life-long antagonism to everything connected\nwith the worship of false gods? Such a change of attitude is\ncertainly not attested by the Epistles.\n\nIt will probably be admitted that if pagan influence entered into\nthe heart of Paul's religious life it could only have done so by\nsome more subtle way than by the mere retention in Paul's mind of\nwhat he had seen at Tarsus. The way which finds special favor among\nrecent historians is discovered in the pre-Pauline Christianity of\ncities like Damascus and Antioch. When Paul was converted, it is\nsaid, he was converted not to the Christianity of Jerusalem, but to\nthe Christianity of Damascus and Antioch. But the Christianity of\nDamascus and Antioch, it is supposed, had already received pagan\nelements; hence the very fact of Paul's conversion broke down his\nJewish prejudices and permitted the influx of pagan ideas. Of course\nPaul did not know that they were pagan ideas; he supposed that\nthey were merely Christian; but pagan they were, nevertheless. The\nHellenistic Jews who founded the churches at Damascus and Antioch,\nunlike the original apostles at Jerusalem, were liberal Jews,\nsusceptible to pagan influence and desirous of attributing to Jesus\nall that the pagans attributed to their own cult-gods. Thus Jesus\nbecame a cult-god like the cult-gods of the pagan religions, and\nChristianity became similar, in important respects, to the pagan\ncults.\n\nThis hypothesis has been advocated brilliantly by Heitm\u00fcller and\nBousset.[183] But what evidence can be adduced in favor of it? How\nmay the Christianity of Damascus and Antioch, which is supposed\nto have been influenced by pagan religion, be reconstructed? Even\nHeitm\u00fcller and Bousset admit that the reconstruction is very\ndifficult. The only unquestioned source of information about the\npre-Pauline Christianity which is the subject of investigation is to\nbe found in the Pauline Epistles themselves. But if the material is\nfound in the Pauline Epistles, how can the historian be sure that it\nis not the product of Paul's own thinking? How can the specifically\nPauline element in the Epistles be separated from the element which\nis supposed to have been derived from pre-Pauline Hellenistic\nChristianity?\n\n  [183] See especially Heitm\u00fcller, \"Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus,\" in\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiii, 1912,\n  pp. 320-337; \"Jesus und Paulus,\" in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie und\n  Kirche_, xxv, 1915, pp. 156-179; Bousset, _Jesus der Herr_, 1916,\n  pp. 30-37.\n\nThe process of separation, it must be admitted, is difficult. But,\naccording to Bousset and Heitm\u00fcller, it is not impossible. There are\npassages in the Epistles where Paul evidently assumes that certain\nthings are known already to his readers. In churches where Paul\nhimself had not already had the opportunity of teaching, notably\nat Rome, those elements assumed as already known must have been\nderived, it is said, from teachers other than Paul; they must have\nformed part of the pre-Pauline fund of Hellenistic Christianity.\n\nBut in order to reconstruct this pre-Pauline Hellenistic\nChristianity, it is not sufficient to separate what Paul had\nreceived from what he himself produced. Another process of\nseparation remains; and this second process is vastly more difficult\nthan the first. In order to reconstruct the Hellenistic Christianity\nof Antioch, upon which Paulinism is thought to be based, it is\nnecessary not only to separate what Paul received from what he\nproduced, but also to separate what he received from Antioch from\nwhat he received from Jerusalem. It is in connection with this\nlatter process that the hypothesis of Heitm\u00fcller and Bousset\nbreaks down. Unquestionably some elements in the Epistles can be\nestablished as having been received by Paul from those who had been\nChristians before him. One notable example is found in 1 Cor. xv.\n1-7. In that all-important passage Paul distinctly says that he\nhad \"received\" his account of the death, burial, and resurrection\nof Jesus. But how does Bousset know that he received it from the\nChurch at Antioch or the Church at Damascus rather than from the\nChurch at Jerusalem? Paul had been in intimate contact with Peter\nin Jerusalem; Peter is prominent in 1 Cor. xv. 1-7. What reason is\nthere, then, for deserting the common view, regarded almost as an\naxiom of criticism, to the effect that 1 Cor. xv. 1-7 represents the\ntradition of the Jerusalem Church which Paul received from Peter?\n\nMoreover, what right have Bousset and Heitm\u00fcller to use the Epistle\nto the Romans in reconstructing the Christianity of Antioch? Even\nif in that Epistle the elements of specifically Pauline teaching\ncan be separated from those things which Paul regards as already\nmatter of course in the Roman Church, what reason is there to assume\nthat the pre-Pauline Christianity of Rome was the same as the\npre-Pauline Christianity of Antioch and Damascus? Information about\nthe pre-Pauline Christianity of Antioch and Damascus is, to say the\nleast, scanty and uncertain. And it is that Christianity only--the\nChristianity with which Paul came into contact soon after his\nconversion--and not the Christianity of Rome, which can be of use in\nexplaining the origin of Paul's religion.\n\nFinally, what reason is there for supposing that the Christianity\nof Damascus and Antioch was different in essentials from the\nChristianity of Jerusalem? An important step, it is said, was taken\nwhen the gospel was transplanted from its native Palestinian soil\nto the Greek-speaking world--the most momentous step in the whole\nhistory of Christianity, the most heavily fraught with changes. But\nit must be remembered that the primitive Jerusalem Church itself\nwas bilingual; it contained a large Greek-speaking element. The\ntransplanting of the gospel to Antioch was accomplished not by any\nordinary Jews of the Dispersion, but by those Jews of the Dispersion\nwho had lived at Jerusalem and had received their instruction from\nthe intimate friends of Jesus. Is it likely that such men would\nso soon forget the impressions that they had received, and would\ntransform Christianity from a simple acceptance of Jesus as Messiah\nwith eager longing for His return into a cult that emulated the\npagan cults of the surrounding world by worship of Jesus as Lord?\nThe transition, if it occurred at all, occurred with astonishing\nrapidity. Paul was converted only two or three years after the\ncrucifixion of Jesus. If, therefore, the paganizing Hellenistic\nChristianity of Damascus and Antioch was to be the spiritual soil\nin which Paul's religion was nurtured, it must have been formed in\nthe very early days. The pagan influences could hardly have begun\nto enter after the conversion of Paul.[184] For then Paul would have\nbeen conscious of their entrance, and all the advantages of the\nhypothesis would disappear--the hypothesis would then be excluded\nby the self-testimony of Paul. But the formation of a paganizing\nChristianity at Antioch and Damascus, in the very early days and by\nthe instrumentality of men who had come under the instruction of\nthe intimate friends of Jesus, and despite the constant intercourse\nbetween Jerusalem and the cities in question, is very difficult to\nconceive. At any rate, the separation between what Paul received\nfrom Antioch and Damascus and what he received from Jerusalem is\nquite impossible. Heitm\u00fcller and Bousset have not really helped\nmatters by trying to place an additional link in the chain between\nPaul and Jesus. The Hellenistic Christianity of Antioch, supposed to\nbe distinct from the Christianity of Jerusalem, is to say the least\na very shadowy thing.\n\n  [184] But compare Bousset, _op. cit._, p. 32.\n\nBut Bousset and Heitm\u00fcller probably will not maintain that all the\npagan influences which entered the life of Paul entered through the\ngateway of pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity. On the contrary,\nit will probably be said that Paul lived all his life in the midst\nof a pagan religious atmosphere, which affected him directly as\nwell as through the community at Antioch. But how was this direct\npagan influence exerted? Some suppose that it was exerted through\nthe reading of pagan religious literature; others suppose that it\ncame merely through conversation with \"the man in the street.\" Paul\ndesired to become all things to all men (we are reminded), in order\nthat by all means he might save some (1 Cor. ix. 22). But what was\nmore necessary for winning the Gentiles than familiarity with their\nhabits of thought and life? Therefore, it is said, Paul must have\nmade some study of paganism in order to put his proclamation of the\ngospel in a form which would appeal to the pagans whom he sought to\nwin.\n\nA certain element of truth underlies this contention. It should\nnot be supposed that Paul was ignorant of the pagan life that\nsurrounded him. He uses figures of speech derived from the athletic\ngames; here and there in his Epistles he makes reference to the\nformer religious practices of his converts. It is not unnatural\nthat he should occasionally have sought common ground with those\nto whom he preached, in accordance with the example contained in\nthe seventeenth chapter of Acts. But on the whole, the picture of\nPaul making a study of paganism in preparation for his life-work is\ntoo modern to be convincing. It may seem natural to those modern\nmissionaries who no longer regard Christianity as a positive\nreligion, who no longer insist upon any sharp break on the part\nof the converts with their ancestral ways of thinking, who are\nperfectly content to derive help from all quarters and are far more\ninterested in improving political and social conditions in the\nland for which they labor than they are in securing assent to any\nspecific Christian message. The Christianity of such missionaries\nmight consistently be hospitable to foreign influence; such\nmissionaries might assign the central place in their preparation\nto the investigation of the religious life of mission lands. But\nthe Christianity of Paul was entirely different. Paul was convinced\nof the exclusiveness and the all-sufficiency of his own message.\nThe message had been revealed to him directly by the Lord. It\nwas supported by the testimony of those who had been intimate\nwith Jesus; it was supported by the Old Testament Scriptures. But\nthroughout it was the product of revelation. To the Jews it was a\nstumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishness. But to those who were\nsaved it was the power of God and the wisdom of God. \"Where is the\nwise,\" says Paul, \"where is the scribe, where is the disputer of\nthis world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?\" It\nis a little difficult to suppose that the man who wrote these words\nwas willing to modify the divine foolishness of his message in order\nto make it conform to the religion of pagan hearers.\n\nTwo reservations, therefore, are necessary before the investigator\ncan enter upon an actual comparison of the Pauline Epistles with\nHermes Trismegistus and other similar sources. In the first place,\nit has not been proved that the type of religion attested by these\nsources existed at all in the time of Paul;[185] and in the second\nplace, it is difficult to see how any pagan influence could have\nentered into Paul's life. But if despite these difficulties the\ncomparison be instituted, it will show, as a matter of fact, not\nagreement, but a most striking divergence both of language and of\nspirit.\n\n  [185] See Chapter VI.\n\nThe investigation may be divided into three parts, although\nthe three parts will be found to overlap at many points. Three\nfundamental elements in Paul's religion have been derived from\nGreco-oriental syncretism: first, the complex of ideas connected\nwith the obtaining of salvation; second, the sacraments; third, the\nChristology and the work of Christ in redemption.[186]\n\n  [186] For what follows, compare especially Kennedy, _St. Paul and\n  the Mystery-Religions_, [1913]; Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche\n  Erkl\u00e4rung des Neuen Testaments_, 1909 (English Translation,\n  _Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources_, 1912), _Der\n  Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das \u00e4lteste Christentum_, 1913.\n  These writers deny for the most part any influence of the mystery\n  religions upon the center of Paul's religion. For a thoroughgoing\n  presentation of the other side of the controversy, see, in addition\n  to the works of Bousset and Reitzenstein, Loisy, _Les myst\u00e8res\n  pa\u00efens et le myst\u00e8re chr\u00e9tien_, 1919.\n\nThe first of the three divisions just enumerated is connected\nespecially with the name of R. Reitzenstein.[187] Reitzenstein lays\ngreat stress upon the lexical method of study; it may be proved, he\nbelieves, that Paul used terms which were derived from Hellenistic\nmystical religion, and with the terms went the ideas. The ideas, he\nadmits, were not taken over without modification, but even after the\nPauline modifications are subtracted, enough is thought to remain\nin order to show that the mystery religions exerted an important\ninfluence upon Paul.\n\n  [187] _Poimandres_, 1904; _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_,\n  2te Aufl., 1920; \"Religionsgeschichte und Eschatologie,\" in\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiii, 1912,\n  pp. 1-28.\n\nThus Reitzenstein attempts to exhibit in the Pauline Epistles a\ntechnical vocabulary derived from the Hellenized mystery religions.\nThis supposed technical vocabulary embraces especially the terms\nconnected with \"knowledge\"[188] and \"Spirit.\"[189]\n\n  [188] \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  [189] \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nIn the mystical religion of Paul's day, Reitzenstein says, \"gnosis\"\n(knowledge) did not mean knowledge acquired by processes of\ninvestigation or reasoning, but the knowledge that came by immediate\nrevelation from a god. Such immediate revelation was given, in the\nmystery cults, by the mystic vision which formed a part of the\nexperience of initiation; in the philosophizing derivatives of the\nmystery cults, like the type of piety which is attested in Hermes\nTrismegistus, the revelation could be divorced from any external\nacts and connected with the mere reading of a book. But in any case,\n\"gnosis\" was not regarded as an achievement of the intellect; it was\nan experience granted by divine favor. The man who had received such\nfavor was exalted far above ordinary humanity; indeed he was already\ndeified.\n\nThis conception of gnosis, Reitzenstein believes, is the conception\nwhich is found in the Pauline Epistles; gnosis according to Paul was\na gift of God, an experience produced by the divine Spirit. In the\ncase of Paul, Reitzenstein continues, the experience was produced\nthrough a vision of the risen Christ. That vision had changed the\nvery nature of Paul. It is true, Paul avoids the term \"deification\";\nhe does not say, in accordance with Hellenistic usage, that he had\nceased to be a man and had become God. This limitation was required\nby his Jewish habits of thought. But he does say that through his\nvision he was illumined and received \"glory.\" Thus, although the\nterm deification is avoided, the idea is present. As one who has\nreceived gnosis, Paul regards himself as being beyond the reach of\nhuman judgments, and is not interested in tradition that came from\nother Christians. In short, according to Reitzenstein, Paul was a\ntrue \"gnostic.\"\n\nBut this conclusion is reached only by doing violence to the plain\nmeaning of the Epistles. \"Gnosis\" in the early Church (including\nPaul), as Von Harnack well observes,[190] is not a technical term;\nit is no more a technical term than is, for example, \"wisdom.\" In\n1 Cor. xii. 8 it appears, not by itself, but along with many other\nspiritual gifts of widely diverse nature. Gnosis, therefore, does\nnot stand in that position of prominence which it ought to occupy\nif Reitzenstein's theory were correct. It is, indeed, according to\nPaul, important; and it is a direct gift from God. But what reason\nis there to have recourse to Hellenistic mystery religions in order\nto explain either its importance or its nature? Another explanation\nis found much nearer at hand--namely, in the Old Testament. The\npossibility of Old Testament influence in Paul does not have to be\nestablished by any elaborate arguments, and is not opposed by his\nown testimony. On the contrary, he appeals to the Old Testament\nagain and again in his Epistles. And the Old Testament contains\nall the elements of his conception of the knowledge of God. Even\nthe Greek noun \"gnosis\" occurs in the Septuagint (though with\ncomparative infrequency); but what is far more important is that\nthe idea is expressed countless times by the verb. Let it not be\nsaid that the Septuagint is a Hellenistic book, and that therefore\nif the Septuagint idea of the knowledge of God affords the basis\nfor Pauline teaching that does not disprove the influence of the\nHellenistic mystery religions. For in its rendering of the passages\ndealing with the knowledge of God, whatever may be said of other\nmatters, the Septuagint is transmitting faithfully the meaning of\nthe Hebrew text. Knowledge of God in the Hebrew Old Testament is\nsomething far more than a mere intellectual achievement. It is the\ngift of God, and it involves the entire emotional nature.\n\n  [190] Von Harnack, \"Die Terminologie der Wiedergeburt und verwandter\n  Erlebnisse in der \u00e4ltesten Kirche,\" in _Texte und Untersuchungen zur\n  Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur_, xlii, 1918, pp. 128f.,\n  Anm. 1.\n\nBut may it not be objected that the Pauline conception transcends\nthat of the Old Testament in that in Paul the knowledge of God\nproduces a transformation of human nature--the virtual deification\nof man? This question must be answered in the negative. Undoubtedly\nthe Pauline conception does transcend that of the Old Testament,\nbut not in the way which is here supposed. The intimate relation\nbetween the believer and the risen Christ, according to Paul, goes\nfar beyond anything that was possible under the old dispensation.\nIt involves a fuller, richer, more intimate knowledge. But the\nexperience in which Paul saw the risen Christ near Damascus was not\nan end in itself, as it would have been in the milieu of the mystery\nreligions; it was rather a means to an end.[191] It was the divinely\nappointed means by which Paul was convinced of an historical fact,\nthe resurrection of Jesus, and was led to appropriate the benefits\nof that fact. Thus, as Oepke[192] has well observed, Paul does not\nexpect his converts all to see Christ, or even to have experiences\nlike that which is described in 2 Cor. xii. 2-4. It is sufficient\nfor them to receive the historical account of Christ's redeeming\nwork, through the testimony of Paul and of the other witnesses. That\naccount, transmitted by ordinary word of mouth, is a sufficient\nbasis for faith; and through faith comes the new life. At this\npoint is discovered an enormous difference between Paul and the\nmystery religions. In the mystery religions everything led up to\nthe mystic vision; without that mystic vision there was no escape\nfrom the miseries of the old life. But according to Paul, the mighty\nchange was produced by the acceptance of a simple story, an account\nof what had happened only a few years before, when Jesus died and\nrose again. From the acceptance of that story there proceeds a new\nknowledge, a gnosis. But this higher gnosis in Paul is not the means\nof salvation, as it is in the mystery religions; it is only one\nof the effects of salvation. This difference is no mere matter of\ndetail. On the contrary, it involves a contrast between two entirely\ndifferent worlds of thought and life.\n\n  [191] Oepke, _Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus_, 1920, p. 53.\n\n  [192] _Loc. cit._\n\nThe message of Paul, then, was a \"gospel,\" a piece of news about\nsomething that had happened. As has well been observed,[193] the\ncharacteristic New Testament words are the words that deal with\n\"gospel,\" \"teaching,\" and the transmission of an historical message.\nPaul was not a \"gnostic,\" but a witness; salvation, according to his\nteaching, came not through a mystic vision, but through the hearing\nof faith.[194]\n\n  [193] Heinrici, _Die Hermes-Mystik und das Neue Testament_, 1918,\n  pp. 178-180.\n\n  [194] Compare Oepke, _op. cit._, pp. 40ff.\n\nThus, so far as the idea of \"knowledge\" is concerned, Reitzenstein\nhas not been successful in showing any dependence of Paul upon the\nmystery religions. But how is it with regard to the doctrine of the\n\"Spirit\"?\n\nIn 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, the \"spiritual man\" is contrasted with the\n\"psychic man.\" The spiritual man is the man who has the Spirit of\nGod; the psychic man is the man who has only a human soul. It is not\nreally correct to say that the spiritual man, according to Paul,\nis a man not who has the Spirit but who is the Spirit. Paul avoids\nsuch an expression for the same reason that prevents his speaking of\nthe \"deification\" of the Christian. Everywhere in Paul the personal\ndistinction between the believer and the Christ who dwells in him is\ncarefully preserved. His \"mysticism\" (if the word may be used thus\nloosely) is never pantheistic. Here already is to be found a most\nvital difference between Paul and Hermes Trismegistus.\n\nBut this observation constitutes a digression. It is necessary\nto return to 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. The spiritual man, according to\nthat passage, is the man who has the Spirit of God; the psychic\nman is the man who has only a human soul. Reitzenstein apparently\ninsists that the \"only\" in this sentence should be left out. The\npsychic man, according to Paul, he says, has a soul; the spiritual\nman has no \"soul\" but has the divine Spirit instead. But such a\nrepresentation is not really Pauline.[195] Paul clearly teaches\nthat the human soul continues to exist even after the divine\nSpirit has entered in. \"The Spirit himself,\" he says, \"beareth\nwitness with our spirit, that we are children of God\" (Rom. viii.\n16). Here \"our spirit\" clearly means \"our soul,\" and is expressly\ndistinguished from the divine Spirit. At every point, then, the\nattempt to find a pantheistic mysticism in Paul breaks down before\nthe intensely personal character of his religion. The relation of\nPaul to the risen Christ, intimate as it is, mediated as it is by\nthe all-pervasive Spirit, is a relation of one person to another.\n\n  [195] See especially Vos, \"The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline\n  Conception of the Spirit,\" in _Biblical and Theological Studies by\n  the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary_, 1912,\n  pp. 248-250.\n\nBut it is still necessary to return to the Pauline contrast between\nthe \"spiritual man\" and the \"psychic man.\" Reitzenstein lays great\nstress upon that contrast. He regards it as lying at the heart of\nPaul's religion, and he thinks that he can explain it from the\nHellenistic mystery religions. Apparently the method of Reitzenstein\ncan be tested at this point if it can be tested at all. If it does\nnot succeed in explaining the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit, upon\nwhich the chief stress is laid, probably it will explain nothing at\nall.\n\nAt first sight the material adduced by Reitzenstein is impressive.\nIt is impressive by its very bulk. The reader is led by the learned\ninvestigator into many new and entrancing fields. Surely after so\nlong a journey the traveler must arrive at last at his desired\ngoal. But somehow the goal is never reached. All of Reitzenstein's\nmaterial, strange to say, seems to prove the exact opposite of what\nReitzenstein desires.\n\nReitzenstein desires apparently to explain the Pauline use of the\nadjectives \"psychic\" and \"spiritual\"[196] in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15;\napparently he is quite sure that the usage finds its sufficient\nbasis in Hermes Trismegistus and related sources. But the plain\nfact--almost buried though it is under the mass of irrelevant\nmaterial--is that the adjective \"psychic\" and the adjective\n\"spiritual\" occur each only once in the sources which are examined,\nand that they never occur, as in 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, in contrast\nwith each other.[197] What is even far more disconcerting, however,\nis that the noun \"spirit\"[198] is not used (certainly not used\nordinarily) in contrast with \"soul,\"[199] as Paul uses it. Certainly\nit is not so used ordinarily in the Hermetic writings. On the\ncontrary, in Hermes the spirit appears, in certain passages, not as\nsomething that is higher than the soul, but as something that is\nlower. Apparently the common Greek materialistic use of \"pneuma\" to\nindicate \"breath\" or \"wind\" or the like is here followed. At any\nrate, the terminology is as remote as could be imagined from that of\nPaul. There is absolutely no basis for the Pauline contrast between\nthe human soul and the divine Spirit.[200]\n\n  [196] \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  [197] On the occurrence of \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 at the beginning of Dieterich's\n  \"Mithras Liturgy\" (line 24), see Bousset, _Kyrios Christos_, 1913,\n  p. 141, Anm. 1. On the occurrence of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, see Reitzenstein,\n  _Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen_, 2te Aufl., 1920, p. 162.\n  Compare Bousset, _Jesus der Herr_, 1916, pp. 80f.\n\n  [198] \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n  [199] \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae.\n\n  [200] For this whole subject, see especially the comprehensive\n  monograph of Burton (_Spirit, Soul, and Flesh_, [1918]), with the\n  summary on pp. 205-207.\n\nIt might be supposed that this fact would weaken Reitzenstein's\ndevotion to his theory. But such is not the case. If, says\nReitzenstein, \"Spirit\" in Hermes Trismegistus does not indicate\nsomething higher than \"soul,\" that is because the original popular\nterminology has here suffered philosophical revision. The popular\nterm \"spirit\" has been made to give place to the more philosophical\nterm \"mind.\"[201] Where Hermes says \"mind,\" therefore, it is only\nnecessary to restore the term \"spirit,\" and an admirable basis is\ndiscovered for the Pauline terminology. But how does Reitzenstein\nknow that the popular, unphilosophical term in the mystery religions\nwas \"spirit,\" rather than \"mind\" or the like? The extant pagan\nsources do not clearly attest the term \"spirit\" in the sense which\nis here required. Apparently then the only reason for positing the\nexistence of such a term in pagan mystery religion is that it must\nhave existed in pagan mystery religion if the Pauline use of it is\nto be explained. It looks, therefore, as though the learned argument\nof Reitzenstein had been moving all the time in a circle. After\npursuing a roundabout course through many centuries and many races\nof men, after acquiring boundless treasures of curious information,\nafter impressing the whole world with the learning thus acquired,\nthe explorer arrives at last at the exact point where he started,\nand no richer than when he first set out! The Pauline terminology\ncannot be explained except as coming from the mystery religions;\ntherefore, says Reitzenstein in effect, it must have had a place\nin the mystery religions even though the extant sources provide no\nsufficient evidence of the fact.[202]\n\n  [201] \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2\n\n  [202] See Burton, _op. cit._, p. 206: \"For the Pauline exaltation of\n  \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 over \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae there is no observed previous parallel. It marks an\n  advance on Philo, for which there is no precedent in non-Jewish\n  Greek, and only partial and imperfect parallels in the magical\n  papyri. It is the reverse of Hermetic usage.\"\n\nBut is there not some way out of the vicious circle? Is there not\nsome witness to the terminology which is required? The investigator\nturns naturally to Philo. Philo is thought to be dependent upon\nthe mysteries; perhaps he will attest the required mystical use\nof the term \"spirit.\" But, alas, Philo apparently deserts his\nfriends. Except where he is influenced by the Old Testament use\nof the word \"spirit,\" he seems to prefer other terminology.[203]\nHis terminology, then, like that of Hermes must be thought to have\nsuffered philosophical reversal. And still the required mystery\nterminology eludes the eye of the investigator.\n\n  [203] See Bousset, _Kyrios Christos_, pp. 138, 140, 141 (Anm. 2).\n\nOf course there is one place where the terms \"Spirit\" and\n\"spiritual\" are exalted above the terms \"psyche\" and \"psychic,\"\nin quite the manner that is desired. That place is found in the\nChristian Gnosticism of the second century. But the Gnostics of the\nsecond century are plainly dependent upon Paul; they vie with the\nCatholic Church in their appeal to the Pauline Epistles. The origin\nof their use of the terms \"psychic\" and \"spiritual\" is therefore\nonly too plain. At least it might seem to be plain. But Reitzenstein\nrejects the common view.[204] According to Reitzenstein, the\nGnostics have derived their usage not from Paul but from the\npre-Pauline mystery religions; and the Gnostic usage of \"Spirit\" as\nhigher than \"soul\" is the source of the Hermetic usage of \"soul\" as\nhigher than \"spirit,\" which, Reitzenstein believes, has been derived\nfrom it by philosophical revision. But the argument is beyond\nthe reach even of J. Kroll, who cannot be accused of theological\ninterest. As has already been observed, Kroll insists that the\nGnostic usage is here secondary.[205]\n\n  [204] Also Bousset, _op. cit._, pp. 140f. According to Bousset, it\n  is unlikely that \"the few and difficult terminological explanations\n  of Paul ... should have exerted such extensive influence upon the\n  most diverse Gnostic systems.\" But is the teaching of Paul about the\n  Spirit as higher than the soul really obscure? Does it not appear\n  plainly all through the Epistles?\n\n  [205] See above, p. 249, with footnote 2.\n\nOne argument remains. The trouble, from Reitzenstein's point of\nview, is that when the Hermetic writings ought, in the interests of\nthe theory, to say \"Spirit\" they actually say \"mind.\" It becomes\nnecessary, therefore, to prove that \"mind\" means the same thing as\n\"spirit.\" A proof is found by Reitzenstein in Paul himself, in I\nCor. ii. 15, 16. \"But the spiritual man,\" says Paul, \"examines all\nthings, but he himself is examined by none. For 'who hath known the\nmind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him?' But we have the\nmind of Christ.\" Here, says Reitzenstein,[206] the possession of\nthe \"mind\" of Christ makes a man a \"spiritual\" man, that is, a man\nwho has the \"Spirit.\" Hence \"mind\" is the same thing as \"spirit.\"\nHence--such, at least, would seem to be the only inference from the\npassage in I Corinthians which would really establish Reitzenstein's\ntheory--when Hermes Trismegistus says \"mind,\" it is legitimate to\nsubstitute \"spirit\" in order thus to find the basis for the ordinary\nPauline terminology.\n\n  [206] _Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen_, 2te Aufl., 1920, pp.\n  189f.\n\nBut it is by no means clear that \"mind\" in I Cor. ii. 16b is the\nsame as \"spirit.\" If a man has the Spirit of Christ, he also has\nthe mind of Christ; the Spirit gives him an understanding of the\nthoughts of Christ. Conversely, the possession of the mind of\nChrist is a proof that the man has the Spirit of Christ; it is only\nthe Spirit who could have given him his understanding of Christ's\nthoughts. But it does not follow by any means that the term \"mind\"\nmeans the same thing as the term \"spirit.\" Moreover, the passage is\nentirely isolated; and the choice of the unusual word \"mind\" may be\ndue to the form of the Septuagint passage which Paul is citing.\n\nAt any rate, the plain fact is that the terminology in Hermes\nTrismegistus and related sources is strikingly different from that\nof Paul. Reitzenstein finds himself in the peculiar position of\nproving that Paul is dependent upon pagan sources by the fact that\nthe Pauline terminology does not occur in the pagan sources. It will\nnot do for him to say that the terminology is of little importance\nand that the ideas of Paul, if not the terminology, are derived from\nthe pagan mysteries. For it is just Reitzenstein who insists upon\nthe importance of words as the vehicle of ideas. His fundamental\nargument is that Paul used the terminology of the mystery religions,\nand with the terminology received also the ideas. It is therefore\nimportant to observe that Reitzenstein's lexical parallel utterly\nbreaks down.\n\nBut if the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit was not derived from\nthe pagan mystery religions, whence was it derived? The answer\nis perfectly plain. It was derived ultimately from the Old\nTestament.[207] Unquestionably, indeed, it goes far beyond the\nOld Testament, and the enrichment of its content may conceivably\nbe explained in various ways. The Gospels and Acts explain the\nenrichment as due partly to the teaching of Jesus Himself and to\nthe coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This explanation\nwill be rejected for the most part by naturalistic criticism. Paul\nexplains the enrichment as due partly to the experience which he\nhad of the presence of Christ. This explanation is regarded as no\nexplanation at all by the school of comparative religion. But it is\nnot necessary in the present connection to discuss these matters.\nAll that needs to be observed now is that the basis for the Pauline\ndoctrine of the Spirit is found in the Old Testament.\n\n  [207] Bousset (_op. cit._, p. 141, Anm. 2) admits that the\n  terminology of Paul, especially his use of the term \"Spirit\" instead\n  of \"mind\" and his use of the terms in the contrast between \"Spirit\"\n  and \"flesh\" may possibly be due partly to the Old Testament, but\n  insists that such terminological influence does not touch the\n  fundamentals of the thought. Such admissions are important, despite\n  the way in which Bousset qualifies them.\n\nIn the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is represented as distinct\nfrom man and higher than man; there is no question in the Old\nTestament of a usage by which the Spirit is degraded, as in Hermes\nTrismegistus, below the soul. In the Old Testament, moreover, the\nSpirit is regarded as bestowing supernatural gifts such as prophecy\nand producing supernatural experiences--exactly as in Paul. But the\nfruit of the Spirit according to the Old Testament is something more\nthan prophecy or any momentary experience; it is also a permanent\npossession of the soul. \"Take not thy holy Spirit from me,\" says\nthe Psalmist. (Ps. li. 11.) Let the student first examine the\nlabored arguments of Reitzenstein, let him examine the few faint\napproaches to the Pauline terminology which have been gleaned from\npagan sources, mostly late and of uncertain origin, let him observe\nthat just where Greek usage approaches Paul most closely in form (as\nin the \"divine Spirit\" of Menander),[208] it is most diametrically\nopposed in content, let him reflect that the influence of pagan\nusage is contrary to Paul's own consciousness. And then let him turn\nto the Old Testament! Let him remember that the Pauline use of the\nOld Testament is no matter of conjecture, but is attested everywhere\nin the Epistles. And let him examine the Old Testament usage in\ndetail. The Pauline terminology--\"the Holy Spirit,\" the \"Spirit\nof God\"--so signally lacking in early pagan sources,[209] appears\nhere in all its richness; and with the terminology go the depths of\nlife. In turning from Hermes to the Hebrew Scriptures, the student\nhas turned away from Stoic pantheism, away from the polytheism of\nthe mystery religions, away from the fantastic speculations of a\ndecadent philosophy, to the presence of the personal God. And, in\ndoing so, he has found the origin of the religion of Paul.\n\n  [208] See Burton, _op. cit._, pp. 114-116.\n\n  [209] Burton, _op. cit._, pp. 173-175, 187f.\n\nThus the lexical argument of Reitzenstein breaks down at the\ndecisive points. It would indeed be rash to assert that Paul\nnever uses a term derived from the pagan mysteries. For example,\nin Phil. iv. 12 he uses the verb that means \"to be initiated.\"\n\"In everything and in all things I have been initiated,\" he says,\n\"both to be filled and to suffer hunger, both to abound and to be\nin want.\" But this example shows clearly how little importance is\nsometimes to be attributed to the ultimate derivation of a word.\nThe word \"initiate\" is here used in a purely figurative way. It is\ndoubtful whether there is the slightest thought of its original\nsignificance. The word has been worn down by repeated use almost as\nmuch as, for example, the word which means \"supply\" in Gal. iii.\n5. Etymologically that word means \"to be the leader of a chorus.\"\nIt referred originally to the Athenian custom by which a wealthy\ncitizen undertook to defray the cost of the chorus at one of the\ndramatic festivals. But later it was used to designate any act of\nbountiful supplying. And when it was used by Paul, its origin was\nentirely forgotten. It would be ridiculous to make Paul say that\nin bestowing the Spirit upon the Galatian Christians God acted\nas the leader of a chorus. It is not essentially different with\nthe verb meaning \"to be initiated\" in Philippians. In both cases,\nan institution of ancient Hellenic life--in the former case, the\nreligious festivals, in the latter case, the mysteries--has given\nrise to the use of a word, which found its way into the Greek\nworld-language of the Hellenistic age, and continued to be used even\nwhere there was no thought of its ultimate origin.\n\nThis example is instructive because the context in the Philippians\npassage is plainly free from all mystical associations. Plainly,\ntherefore, the use of a word derived from the mysteries does not\nnecessarily indicate any agreement with the mystical point of view.\nIndeed, it may perhaps indicate the exact opposite. If the idea\n\"to initiate\" had associations connected with the center of Paul's\nreligious life, it is perhaps doubtful whether Paul could have used\nthe word in so purely figurative a way, just as he would not have\nused the word meaning \"to be the leader of a chorus\" in referring to\nGod's bestowal of the Spirit, if he had had the slightest thought of\nthe Athenian festivals.\n\nIf, then, it should appear that Paul uses a vocabulary derived from\nthe mysteries, the fact would not necessarily be of any significance\nwhatever in determining the origin of his religion. Every missionary\nis obliged to take the words which have been used in the religion\nfrom which converts are to be won in order to express the new ideas.\nTranslators of the Bible in the modern mission fields are obliged\nto proceed in this way. Yet the procedure does not necessarily\ninvolve any modification of Christian ideas. The old words are given\nloftier meanings in order to become the vehicle of Christian truth;\nthe original meanings provide merely a starting-point for the new\nteaching. Conceivably, the apostle Paul might have proceeded in this\nway; conceivably he might have used words connected with the mystery\nreligions in order to proclaim the gospel of Christ.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the evidence for such an employment of a\nmystery terminology in the Pauline Epistles is very slight. In\n1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, Paul uses the terms \"mystery\" and \"perfect\" or\n\"full-grown.\"[210] The former word was sometimes used to designate\nthe \"mysteries\" in the technical, religious sense. But it is also\nused in Greek in a very much more general way. And certainly as it\nis used in Paul it is very remote from the technical meaning. The\nChristian \"mystery\" according to Paul is not something that is to\nbe kept secret on principle, like the mysteries of Eleusis, but it\nis something which, though it was formerly hidden in the counsels\nof God, is now to be made known to all. Some, it is true, may never\nbe able to receive it. But that which is necessary in order that\nit may be received is not \"gnosis\" or an initiation. It is rather\nacceptance of a message and the holy life that follows. \"If you\nwould know the deep things of God,\" Paul says to the Corinthians,\n\"then stop your quarreling.\" We find ourselves here in a circle of\nideas quite different from that of the mystery religions. As for\nthe word \"teleios,\" it seems not to have been discovered in pagan\nsources in the sense of \"initiated,\" which is sometimes attributed\nto it in 1 Corinthians. Apparently it means simply \"full-grown\";\nPaul contrasts the full-grown man with the babes in Christ.\n\n  [210] \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nOn the whole, it seems improbable that the converts of Paul, in\nany great numbers, had lived in the atmosphere of the mystery\nreligions.[211] At any rate, Paul certainly does not use the\ntechnical vocabulary of the mysteries. That fact has been amply\ndemonstrated by Von Harnack in the illuminating study which he has\ndevoted to the \"terminology of the new birth.\"[212] The earliest\ngenuine technical term in the vocabulary of the early Church, Von\nHarnack believes, is \"illumination,\" as Justin Martyr uses it to\ndesignate baptism. Certainly in the earlier period, there is not the\nslightest evidence of any such fixity in the use of terms as would\nhave appeared if the New Testament writers had adopted a technical\nvocabulary.\n\n  [211] Oepke, _Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus_, 1920, p. 26.\n\n  [212] Von Harnack, \"Die Terminologie der Wiedergeburt und verwandter\n  Erlebnisse in der \u00e4ltesten Kirche,\" in _Texte und Untersuchungen zur\n  Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur_, xlii, 1918, pp. 97-143.\n  See especially pp. 139-143.\n\nTherefore, if the dependence of Paul upon the mystery religions\nis to be demonstrated, the lexical method of Reitzenstein must\nbe abandoned. The terminology of Paul is not derived from the\nterminology of the mysteries. But possibly, it may be said, although\nthere is no clear dependence in the terminology, the fundamental\nideas of Paul may still be shown to have come from the surrounding\npaganism. It is in this more cautious form that the hypothesis\nis maintained by Bousset: at least Bousset is less inclined than\nReitzenstein to lay stress upon verbal coincidences.[213] The entire\noutlook of Paul, Bousset believes, regardless of the way in which\nthat outlook is expressed, was derived from the mystical piety of\nthe Hellenistic age; it was from his pagan environment that Paul\nderived the pessimistic estimate of human nature which is at the\nbasis of his teaching.\n\n  [213] But compare _Jesus der Herr_, 1916, pp. 80-85.\n\nAt this point it may be admitted very freely that Paul was convinced\nof the insufficiency of human nature, and that that conviction\nwas also prevalent in the paganism of the Hellenistic age. The\nHellenistic age, like Paul, recognized the need of redemption;\nsalvation, it was believed, could not be attained by unaided human\nresources, but was a gift of higher powers. But this similarity is\nquite insufficient to establish any relationship of dependence.\nBoth Paulinism and the Hellenistic mystery religions were religions\nof redemption. But there have been many religions of redemption,\nin many ages and among many peoples, which have been entirely\nindependent of one another. It will probably not be maintained,\nfor example, that early Buddhism stood in any fundamental causal\nrelation to the piety of the Hellenistic age. Yet early Buddhism was\na religion of redemption.\n\nNo attempt indeed should be made to underestimate the community\nof interest which binds all redemptive religions together and\nseparates them sharply from all others. Common recognition of the\nfundamental evil of the world is a far closer bond of union than\nagreement about the details of conduct. Gautama under the tree of\nknowledge in India, seeking in ascetic meditation for freedom from\nthe misery of existence, was inwardly far nearer to the apostle\nPaul than is many a modern liberal preacher who loves to read the\nsixth chapter of Ephesians in Church. But such community of interest\ndoes not indicate any relation of dependence. It might do so if the\nsense of human inadequacy were an abnormal thing. In that case,\nthe appearance of a pessimistic view of human nature would require\nexplanation. But if human nature is really hopeless and helpless in\nan evil world, then the independent recognition of the fact by many\nmen of many minds is no longer cause for wonder.\n\nHistorical judgments at this point, then, are apt to be influenced\nby the presuppositions of the investigator. To Bousset the whole\nnotion of redemption is distasteful. It seems to him to be an\nabnormal, an unhealthy thing. To explain its emergence, therefore,\nin the course of human history he is prone to look for special\ncauses. So he explains the Pauline doctrine of the radical evil\nof human nature as being due to the piety of a decadent age. But\nif this world is really an evil world, as Paul says it is, then\nrecognition of the fact will appear spontaneously at many points.\nFor a time, in an age of high achievements like the age of Pericles,\nthe fundamental problem of life may be forgotten. But the problem is\nalways there and will force itself ever anew into the consciousness\nof men.\n\nAt any rate, whether desirable or not, the longing for redemption\nis a fundamental fact of history, and may be shown to have emerged\nindependently at many points. The character of Paulinism as a\nredemptive religion, the Pauline doctrine of human depravity, is\ntherefore insufficient to establish dependence of Paul upon the\nmystery religions of the Hellenistic age. Dependence could be\nestablished only by similarity in the form in which the doctrine\nof depravity appears. But as a matter of fact such similarity is\nstrikingly absent. The Pauline use of the term \"flesh\" to denote\nthat in which evil resides can apparently find no real parallel\nwhatever in pagan usage. And the divergence appears not only in\nterminology but also in thought. At first sight there might seem\nto be a parallel between the Pauline doctrine of the flesh and the\nGreek doctrine of the evil of matter, which appears in the Orphic\nsects, then in Plato and in his successors. But the parallel breaks\ndown upon closer examination. According to Plato, the body is evil\nbecause it is material; it is the prison-house of the soul. Nothing\ncould really be more remote from the thought of Paul. According to\nPaul, the connection of soul and body is entirely normal, and the\nsoul apart from the body is in a condition of nakedness. It is true,\nthe body will be changed at the resurrection or at the coming of\nChrist; it will be made more adequate for the Kingdom of God. But\nat any rate, there is in Paul no doctrine of the inherent evil of\nmatter. The real starting-point of the Pauline doctrine of the flesh\nis to be found in the Old Testament, in the passages where \"flesh\"\ndenotes human nature in its frailty. Certainly the Pauline teaching\nis far more highly developed than the teaching of the Old Testament.\nBut the Old Testament provides the starting-point. The \"flesh\" in\nPaul, when it is used in its developed, ethical sense, does not mean\nthe material nature of man; it includes rather all that man receives\nby ordinary generation. The contrast between \"flesh\" and \"Spirit\"\ntherefore is not the contrast between matter and spirit; it is a\ncontrast between human nature, of which sin has taken possession,\nand the Spirit of God.\n\nCertainly, at any rate, whatever solution may be found for the\nintricate problem of the Pauline use of the term \"flesh,\" the\nPauline pessimism with regard to human nature is totally different\nfrom the dualistic pessimism of the Hellenistic age. It is different\nbecause it does not make evil reside in matter as such. But it is\ndifferent also in a far more fundamental way. It is different in\nits ethical character. The Hellenistic age was conscious of the\nneed of salvation; and salvation, it was recognized, must come from\noutside of man. But this consciousness of need was not always,\nand not clearly, connected with questions of right and wrong. The\nHellenistic age was conscious of inadequacy, of slavery to fate, of\nthe futility of human life as it is actually lived upon the earth.\nHere and there, no doubt, there was also a recognition of existing\nmoral evil, and a longing for a better life. But such longings\nwere almost submerged amidst longings of a non-ethical kind. The\nmysteries were cherished for the most part not because they offered\ngoodness but because they offered happiness.\n\nIn Paul, on the other hand, the consciousness of human inadequacy\nis essentially a consciousness of sin. And redemption is desired\nbecause it satisfies the hunger and thirst after righteousness. At\nthis point the contrast with the Hellenistic mystery religions is\nprofound. The religion of Paul is like the mystery religions in that\nit is a religion of redemption. But there the similarity ceases.\nThere is certainly no such similarity in the conception of that\nfrom which men are to be redeemed as would raise any presumption\nof dependence in the presentation of the means of redemption. And\nit is dependence in the presentation of the means of redemption\nwhich alone would serve to explain the origin of the religion of\nPaul. It is unwarranted to argue that because Paul agrees with the\nmystery religions in a longing for redemption therefore he must have\nderived from the mystery religions his method of satisfying the\nlonging--namely his conception of the redemptive work of the Lord\nJesus Christ. For even in the longing for redemption--to say nothing\nof the way of satisfying the longing--Paul was totally different\nfrom the mysteries. The longing which was aroused in the devotees\nof the mysteries was a longing for a happier immortality, a freedom\nfrom the pressure of fate; the longing which Paul sought to arouse\nin those for whom he labored was a longing for righteousness and for\nacceptance by the righteous God.\n\nThis difference is intimately connected with a highly significant\nfact--the presence in Paul of a \"forensic\" view of salvation.\nSalvation, according to Paul, is not only salvation from the\npower of sin; it is also salvation from the guilt of sin. Not\nonly regeneration is needed, if a man is to be saved, but also\njustification. At this point, there is apparently in the mystery\nreligions no parallel worthy of the name. At least there is none\nif Reitzenstein's attempt to exhibit a parallel[214] is at all\nadequate; for Reitzenstein has succeeded only in setting in clearer\nlight the enormous difference at this point between Paul and his\npagan environment. The word \"justify\" appears, indeed, in the\nHermetic corpus (xiii. 9), but as Reitzenstein himself observes,\nit means not \"declare righteous\" but \"make righteous.\" A parallel\nwith Paul can be set up, therefore, only if \"justify\" in Paul also\nmeans \"make righteous.\" Reitzenstein actually finds such a meaning\nin Rom. vi. 7, and in Rom. viii. 30. But the expedient is desperate\nin the extreme. It will probably be unnecessary to review again the\nabsolutely overwhelming evidence by which the word \"justify\" in the\nPauline Epistles is shown to mean not \"make righteous\" but \"declare\nrighteous.\" Without the slightest question Paul did maintain a\nforensic view of salvation. The believer, according to Paul, is in\nhimself guilty in the sight of God. But he is given a sentence of\nacquittal, he is \"justified,\" because Christ has borne on the cross\nthe curse of the Law which rightly rested upon those whom Christ\ndied to save.\n\n  [214] Reitzenstein, _Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen_, 2te\n  Aufl., pp. 112-116.\n\nThe presence of this forensic element in the teaching of Paul is\nuniversally or generally recognized; and it is usually admitted\nto be not Greek but Jewish. But there is a tendency among recent\nscholars to minimize its importance. According to Wrede, the\nforensic conception of salvation, the complex of ideas centering\naround justification apart from the works of the Law, was merely a\nweapon forged by Paul in the exigencies of controversy.[215] Against\nthe Judaizing contention for the continued validity of the Law Paul\ndeveloped the doctrine that the penalty imposed by the Law upon sin\nwas borne by Christ, so that for the believer the bondage of the Law\nis over. But, Wrede believes, this whole conception was of minor\nimportance in Paul's own life; it was merely necessary in order\nthat he might refute the Judaizers and so continue his free Gentile\nmission. A somewhat similar view is advocated by Bousset; Bousset\nbelieves, at least, that the forensic conception of salvation\noccupies a subordinate place in the thought and life of Paul.\n\n  [215] \"Kampfeslehre.\" See Wrede, _Paulus_, 1904, pp. 72ff. (English\n  Translation, _Paul_, 1907, pp. 122ff.).\n\nBut there could be no greater mistake. The doctrine of justification\nby faith alone apart from the works of the Law appears indeed in\nthe Epistle to the Galatians as a weapon against the Judaizers. But\nwhy was Paul opposed to the Judaizers in the first place? Certainly\nit was not merely because the Judaizing demand that Gentile\nChristians should be circumcised and keep the Law would interfere\nin a practical way with the Gentile mission. Paul was not like some\nmodern leaders of the Church, who are interested in mere bigness;\nhe was not interested in the extension of the Church if such\nextension involved the sacrifice of principle. Nothing could be more\nutterly unhistorical than the representation of Paul as a practical\nmissionary, developing the doctrine of justification by faith in\norder to get rid of a doctrine of the Law which would be a hindrance\nin the way of his Gentile mission. Such a representation reverses\nthe real state of the case. The real reason why Paul was devoted to\nthe doctrine of justification by faith was not that it made possible\nthe Gentile mission, but rather that it was true. Paul was not\ndevoted to the doctrine of justification by faith because of the\nGentile mission; he was devoted to the Gentile mission because of\nthe doctrine of justification by faith. And he was opposed to the\nJudaizers, not merely because they constituted a hindrance in the\nway of the Gentile work, but because they made the cross of Christ\nof none effect. \"If righteousness is through the law, then Christ\ndied in vain\" (Gal. ii. 21). These words are at the very heart of\nPaul's life; for they involve the Pauline doctrine of the grace of\nGod.\n\nThere could be no greater error, therefore, than that of\nrepresenting the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith as\na mere afterthought, as a mere weapon in controversy. Paul was\ninterested in salvation from the guilt of sin no whit less than in\nsalvation from the power of sin, in justification no whit less than\nin the \"new creation.\" Indeed, it is a great mistake to separate\nthe two sides of his message. There lies the root error of the\ncustomary modern formula for explaining the origin of the Pauline\ntheology. According to that formula, the forensic element in Paul's\ndoctrine of salvation, which centers in justification, was derived\nfrom Judaism, and the vital or essential element which centers in\nthe new creation was derived from paganism. In reality, the two\nelements are inextricably intertwined. The sense of guilt was always\ncentral in the longing for salvation which Paul desired to induce in\nhis hearers, and imparted to that longing an ethical quality which\nwas totally lacking in the mystery religions. And salvation in the\nPauline churches consisted not merely in the assurance of a blessed\nimmortality, not merely in the assurance of a present freedom from\nthe bondage of fate, not merely even in the possession of a new\npower of holy living, but also, and everywhere, in the consciousness\nthat the guilt of sin had been removed by the cross of Christ.\n\nThere is no affinity, therefore, between the Pauline doctrine of\nsalvation and that which is found in the mystery religions. The\nterminology is strikingly different, and the difference is even\ngreater in the underlying ideas. Paulinism is like the mystery\nreligions in being a religion of redemption, but within the great\ncategory of redemptive religions there could be no greater contrast.\n\nThis conclusion might be overthrown if certain recent contentions\nshould prove to be correct with regard to the second of the\nelements in Paulinism which are being derived from pagan religion.\nThis second element is found in the Pauline doctrine of the\nsacraments. In the teaching of Paul about baptism and the Lord's\nSupper, we are told, there is clearly to be observed the influence\nof the mystery religions.\n\nThis contention depends partly upon the supposed nature of these\nparticular sacraments and partly upon the mere fact of the presence\nof sacraments in the religion of Paul.\n\nWith regard to the nature of these particular sacraments there\nmight seem at first sight to be a parallel with the mystery\nreligions. The mysteries usually had connected with them ablutions\nof one kind or another and some sort of partaking of sacred food.\nBut it is singularly difficult to determine the meaning of these\npractices. The various ablutions which preceded the celebration\nof the mysteries may have been often nothing more than symbols of\ncleansing; and such symbolism is so natural that it might appear\nindependently at many places. It appears, for example, highly\ndeveloped among the Jews; and in the baptism of John the Baptist\nit assumes a form far more closely akin to Christian baptism than\nin the washings which were connected with the pagan mysteries.\nThe evidence for a sacramental significance of the ablutions in\nthe mysteries, despite confident assertions on the part of some\nmodern writers, is really very slight. Most interesting, perhaps,\nof all the passages which have been cited is that which appears\nin Pap. Par. 47, a papyrus letter written in the second century\nbefore Christ.[216] This passage may be translated as follows:\n\"For you are untruthful about all things and the gods who are with\nyou likewise, because they have cast you into great matter and we\nare not able to die, and if you see that we are going to be saved,\nthen let us be baptized.\" It is possible to understand the death\nthat is referred to as the mystical death which would be attained\nin the mysteries, and to connect the baptism with that death and\nwith the consequent salvation. There would thus be a parallel,\nexternal at least, with the sixth chapter of Romans, where Paul\nconnects baptism with the death and resurrection of Christ. But\nthe papyrus passage is hopelessly obscure, and is capable of very\ndifferent interpretations. Moulton and Milligan, for example, take\nthe verb \"to be baptized,\" in a purely figurative sense, as meaning\nsimply \"to be overwhelmed with calamities.\"[217] According to this\ninterpretation the reference to the mysteries disappears altogether.\nAt any rate, the passage, if it does refer to the mysteries, is\naltogether isolated. And in view of its extreme obscurity it should\nnot be made the basis of far-reaching conclusions. What is now being\nmaintained is not that the washings which were connected with the\nmysteries were never sacramental. It is incautious to make such\nsweeping negative assertions. But so far as the pre-Pauline period\nis concerned, the evidence which has been adduced is, to say the\nleast, exceedingly scanty. It has by no means been proved that in\nthe pre-Pauline mysteries, \"baptism\" was connected closely with the\nnew birth.[218]\n\n  [216] See Reitzenstein, _op. cit._, 2te Aufl., pp. 85f. The passage\n  in the papyrus reads as follows (_Notices et extraits des manuscrits\n  de la biblioth\u00e8que imp\u00e9riale_, xviii, 1865, p. 315): \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f54\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u1f05\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. The letter is also\n  contained in Witkowski, _Epistulae privatae graecae_, 1906,\n  pp. 63-66.\n\n  [217] Moulton and Milligan, _The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_,\n  s. v. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, Part ii, [1915], p. 102. Similarly Sethe, \"Sarapis,\"\n  in _Abhandlungen der k\u00f6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu\n  G\u00f6ttingen_, philologisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge, xiv, Nro.\n  5, 1913, p. 51.\n\n  [218] Tertullian, _de bapt_. 5 (ed. Reifferscheid et Wissowa, 1890),\n  it must be admitted, connects baptism in heathen religion with\n  regeneration, and mentions the part which sacramental washings had\n  in the mysteries of Isis and of Mithras, and in Eleusinian rites.\n  Despite the post-Pauline date of this testimony, the passage is\n  certainly interesting. Compare Kennedy, _op. cit._, p. 229.\n\nWith regard to the partaking of sacred food, the evidence is in some\nrespects more abundant. Even in the mysteries of Eleusis, a special\nsignificance seems to have been attributed to the drinking of the\n\"kykeon\"; and the initiates into the Phrygian mysteries are reported\nby Clement of Alexandria (similarly Firmicus Maternus) to have\nused a formula including the words, \"I ate from the drum, I drank\nfrom the cymbal.\" So far as the form of the act is concerned, the\nsimilarity to the Christian Eucharist is here certainly not great;\nthere was eating and drinking in both cases, but everything else,\nso far as can be seen, was different. In the mysteries of Mithras\nthe similarity of form seems to have been greater; the initiates\npartook of bread and of a cup in a way which Justin Martyr regarded\nas a demoniac imitation of the Christian sacrament. According to\nCumont, moreover, the Mithraic practice was clearly sacramental;\nthe initiates expected from their sacred banquet a supernatural\neffect.[219] But it will be remembered that considerations of date\nrender an influence of Mithras upon Paul exceedingly improbable. And\nthe significance of the eating and drinking in connection with other\nmysteries is obscure. Apparently these acts did not form a part of\nthe mysteries proper, but were only a preparation for them.\n\n  [219] Cumont, _Textes et monuments figur\u00e9s relatifs aux myst\u00e8res de\n  Mithra_, i, 1899, p. 321. See Heitm\u00fcller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei\n  Paulus_, 1903, p. 46, Anm. 3.\n\nIn a very savage form of religion there appears the notion that men\ncould partake of the divine nature by actually eating the god. For\nexample, in the worship of Dionysus, the worshipers in the height of\nreligious frenzy tore in pieces the sacred bull and devoured the raw\nflesh. Here the bull apparently represented the god himself. This\nsavage practice stands in external parallel with certain passages in\nthe New Testament, not only with the references in John vi to the\neating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ, but also\n(though less clearly) with the Pauline teaching about the Lord's\nSupper. In 1 Cor. x. 16 Paul speaks of the \"cup of blessing\" as\nbeing communion of the blood of Christ, and of the bread as being\ncommunion of the body of Christ. Have we not here a sublimated form\nof the pagan notion of eating the god? The supposition might seem\nto be strengthened by the parallel which Paul draws a few verses\nfurther on between the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, and\nbetween the table of the Lord and the table of demons (verse 21),\nthe demons, it is said, being regarded by Paul as identical with the\nheathen gods.\n\nBut the trouble is that the savage notion of eating the god does\nnot seem to have survived in the Hellenistic mystery religions.\nAt this point, therefore, the student of comparative religion is\nfaced with a difficulty exactly opposite to that which appears in\nmost of the parallels which have been set up between the teaching\nof Paul and pagan religion. In most cases the difficulty is that\nthe pagan parallels are too late; here, on the contrary, they are\ntoo early. If Paul is dependent upon the pagan notion of eating the\ngod, he must have deserted the religious practice which prevailed in\nhis own day in order to have recourse to a savage custom which had\nlong since been abandoned. The suggestion does not seem to be very\nnatural. It is generally admitted that even where Christianity is\ndependent upon Hellenistic religion it represents a spiritualizing\nmodification of the pagan practice. But at this point it would have\nto be supposed that the Christian modification proceeded in exactly\nthe opposite direction; far from marking a greater spiritualization\nof pagan practice, it meant a return to a savage stage of religion\nwhich even paganism had abandoned.\n\nEfforts are sometimes made to overcome this objection. \"We observe\nin the history of religion,\" says Heitm\u00fcller, \"that tendencies\nconnected with low stages of religious development, which in\nthe higher stages were quiescent or extinct, suddenly spring\nup again--of course in a modified form adapted to the changed\ncircumstances.\"[220] Such general observations, even if they are\nbased upon fact, will hardly serve to render the present hypothesis\nany more plausible. Dependence of the Pauline teaching about the\nLord's Supper upon the savage notion of eating the god, when even\npaganism had come to abandon that notion, will always seem very\nunnatural.\n\n  [220] Heitm\u00fcller, _Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus_, 1903, p. 47.\n\nCertainly the hypothesis is not supported by the parallel which Paul\ndraws in 1 Cor. x. 21 between the table of the Lord and the table\nof demons. Paul does not say that the heathen had fellowship with\ntheir gods by partaking of them in a meal; the fellowship with those\ngods (verse 20) could be conceived of in other ways. For example,\nthe cult god may have been conceived of in the sacrificial meals as\nthe host at a feast. In point of fact, such an idea was no doubt\nwidely prevalent. It is attributed to the Phrygian mysteries, for\nexample, by Hepding, who supposes that the eating from the drum and\ndrinking from the cymbal meant the entrance of the initiate into the\ncircle formed by the table-companions of the god.[221] At any rate,\nthe savage notion of eating the god is not clearly attested for the\nHellenistic period, and certainly dependence of Paul upon such a\nnotion is unlikely in the extreme.\n\n  [221] Hepding, _Attis_, 1903, pp. 186f.\n\nNo close parallel, then, can be established between the Christian\nsacraments and the practices of the pagan cults. But the very fact\nthat the Pauline churches had sacraments at all--irrespective of\nthe form of the particular sacraments--may conceivably be made a\nground for connecting Paulinism with the Hellenistic religions.\nThe argument depends upon one particular view of the Pauline\nsacraments; it depends upon the view that baptism and the Lord's\nSupper were conceived of as conveying blessing not in virtue of the\ndisposition of soul with which they were administered or received\nbut in virtue of the sacramental acts themselves. In other words\n(to use traditional language), the argument depends upon the view\nthat the Pauline sacraments conveyed their blessing not _ex opere\noperantis_ but _ex opere operato_. In the Pauline churches, it is\nargued, the beginning of the new life and the communion with the\ncult god were connected with certain ceremonial acts. So it was also\nin the mystery religions. Therefore Paulinism is to be understood in\nconnection with the mysteries.\n\nBut the interpretation of the Pauline Epistles upon which this\nhypothesis is based is fraught with serious difficulty. Did Paul\nreally conceive of the sacraments as conveying their blessing _ex\nopere operato_? The general character of the Epistles certainly\npoints in an opposite direction. An unprejudiced reader of the\nEpistles as a whole certainly receives the impression that the\nwriter laid extraordinarily little stress upon forms and ceremonies.\nSalvation according to Paul was dependent solely upon faith, the\nsimple acceptance of the offer contained in the message of the\nCross. Any connection of such a religion with external forms seems\neven to be excluded expressly by the Epistle to the Galatians. A\ndispensation of forms and ceremonies, according to that Epistle,\nbelongs to the period of childish bondage from which Christ has set\nmen free.\n\nYet such a writer, it is maintained, actually taught that the mere\nact of baptism conveyed the blessing of a new life and the mere\npartaking of food and drink conveyed the blessing of communion\nwith the risen Christ. The supposition seems at first sight to be\npreposterous. If it is to be established, it can only be on the\nbasis of the clearest kind of evidence.\n\nThe evidence, it should be noted at the start, is at any rate\ndecidedly limited in extent. It is only in the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians that Paul mentions the Lord's Supper at all, and it is\nonly in Rom. vi and Col. ii. 12 that baptism is connected with the\ndeath and resurrection which the believer is said to have shared\nwith Christ. The limited extent of the evidence may in itself be\nsignificant. If Paul held the high sacramentarian view of baptism\nand the Lord's Supper, it seems a little strange that he should\nhave laid so little stress upon the sacraments. High sacramentarians\nof all ages have preserved a very different proportion. It seems\nstill more strange, perhaps, that Paul should have said that\nChrist sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor. i.\n17). On the _ex opere operato_ view of baptism, baptism was the\nhighest possible function. Could an apostle who held that view\nhave attributed relatively so little importance to it? In order to\nappreciate how much less importance is attributed in the Epistles\nto baptism and the Lord's Supper than to certain other elements in\nPaul's teaching, it is only necessary to compare the references to\nthe sacraments with the references to faith. The fact is perfectly\nplain. When Paul speaks, in the large, about the way of salvation,\nit never seems to occur to him to mention the sacraments; what he\ndoes think of is the message of the gospel and the simple acceptance\nof it through faith.\n\nThese facts are sometimes admitted even by those who attribute a\nhigh sacramentarian view of the sacraments to Paul; Paulinism when\ntaken as a whole, it is admitted, is certainly not a sacramentarian\nreligion. What has happened, then, it is supposed, is that Paul\nhas retained in the doctrine of the sacraments an element derived\nfrom a lower type of religion, an unassimilated remnant of the type\nof religion which is represented by the mystery cults. Thus the\nPauline doctrine of the sacraments is thought to introduce a glaring\ncontradiction into the thought and life of Paul.\n\nCan such a glaring contradiction be attributed to Paul? It could\nprobably be attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. But can it be\nattributed to Paul? The writer of the Pauline Epistles was no mere\ncompiler, receiving unassimilated materials from many sources. He\nwas a person of highly marked characteristics. And he was a person\nof commanding intellect. Could such a writer have introduced a\nglaring contradiction into the very center of his teaching? Could a\nwriter who in the great mass of his writing is triumphantly and even\npolemically anti-sacramentarian have maintained all along a crassly\nsacramentarian view of the way in which religious blessing was to be\nobtained?\n\nAn affirmative answer to these questions could be rendered only on\nthe basis of positive evidence of the most unequivocal kind. And\nsuch positive evidence is not forthcoming. The most that can by any\npossibility be said for the strictly sacramentarian interpretation\nof Rom. vi is that it is possible. It might conceivably be adopted\nif Rom. vi stood alone. But as a matter of fact Rom. vi does\nnot stand alone; it stands in the midst of a considerable body\nof Pauline Epistles. And it must be interpreted in the light of\nwhat Paul says elsewhere. If Rom. vi stood absolutely alone, Paul\nmight conceivably be thought to mean that the act of baptism in\nitself involves a dying with Christ and a rising with Him to a new\nlife. But the whole character of the Pauline Epistles absolutely\nprecludes such an interpretation. And another interpretation does\nfull justice to the words as they stand. That interpretation is the\nobvious one which makes the act of baptism an outward sign of an\ninner experience. \"We were buried with him,\" says Paul, \"through\nbaptism unto death.\" These words are pressed by the modern school of\ncomparative religion very much as Luther at the Marburg Conference\npressed the Latin words of institution of the Lord's Supper. Luther\nwrote on the table, \"This is my body\" (\"hoc est corpus meum\"), and\nwould not hear of anything but the most literal interpretation of\nthe words. So the modern school of comparative religion presses the\nwords \"through baptism\" in Rom. vi. 4. \"We were buried with him\nthrough baptism,\" says Paul. Therefore, it is said, since it was\nthrough baptism, it was not through faith, or through any inner\ndisposition of the soul; therefore the sacramentarian interpretation\nis correct. But if Luther's over-literalness, fraught with such\ndisastrous consequences for the Church, is deserted by most\nadvocates of the grammatico-historical method of exegesis, should an\nequally bald literalness be insisted upon in connection with Rom.\nvi. 4?\n\nInterpreted in connection with the whole trend of the Epistles, the\nsixth chapter of Romans contains an appeal to the outward sign of\nan inner experience. It is perfectly natural that Paul should here\nappeal to the outward sign rather than to the inner experience.\nPaul desires to strengthen in his readers the conviction that the\nlife which they are leading as Christians is a new life in which\nsin can have no place. Unquestionably he might have appealed to\nthe faith which had been the means by which the new life had been\nbegun. But faith is not something that can be seen. Baptism, on the\nother hand, was a plain and obvious fact. To use a modern term, it\n\"visualized\" faith. And it is just the visualizing of faith that\nPaul here desires. When the Roman Christians were baptized, they\nwere convinced that the act meant a dying with Christ and a rising\nwith Him; it meant the beginning of their Christian life. It was a\nsolemn and a definite act. It was something that could be seen as\nwell as felt. Conceivably, indeed, the act in itself might have been\nunaccompanied by faith. But in the early Church such cases were no\ndoubt extremely rare. They could therefore be left out of account\nby Paul. Paul assumes--and no doubt he is correct--that, whatever\nmight conceivably have been the case, as a matter of fact when any\none of the Roman Christians was baptized he died and rose again\nwith Christ. But Paul does not say that the dying and rising again\nwas produced by the external act otherwise than as that act was an\nexpression of faith. Here, however, it is to the external act that\nhe appeals, because it is the external act which can be seen and can\nbe realized. It can only be because the newness of the Christian\nlife is not realized that Christians can think of it as permitting a\ncontinuance in sin. What enables it to be realized is that which can\nactually be seen, namely, the external and obvious fact of baptism.\nIn other words, baptism is here made to discharge in typical fashion\nits divinely appointed function as an external sign of an inner\nexperience, and an external sign which is made the vehicle of\nspecial blessing.\n\nA similar interpretation may be applied to all the references to\nthe sacraments which occur in the Pauline Epistles. What sometimes\nproduces the impression of an _ex opere operato_ conception of the\nsacraments is that Paul does not take into account the possibility\nthat the sacraments might be unaccompanied by faith. So in Gal.\niii. 27 he says, \"All ye who were baptized into Christ did put on\nChrist.\" These words if taken alone might mean that every man,\nwhatever the condition of his soul, who went through the external\nform of baptism had put on Christ. But of course as a matter of\nfact Paul means nothing of the kind. What he does mean is that the\nbaptism of the Galatians, since that baptism was accompanied by\nfaith (Gal. iii. 2), meant in that concrete case the putting on of\nChrist. Here again there is an appeal, in the presence of those who\nwere in danger of forgetting spiritual facts, to the external sign\nwhich no one could forget.\n\nThis interpretation cannot be invalidated by the passages which\nhave been appealed to as supporting a crassly _ex opere operato_\nconception of the sacraments. In 1 Cor. xi. 30, for example, Paul\nsays that because of an unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper many\nof the Corinthians were ill and many had died. But these words need\nnot necessarily mean that the bread and wine, because of a dangerous\nmagical virtue that was in them, had inflicted harm upon those who\nhad not used them aright. They may mean at least equally well that\nthe physical ills of the Corinthians were a chastisement which had\nbeen inflicted by God. As for 1 Cor. xv. 29 (baptism in behalf of\nthe dead), it can be said at least that that verse is isolated and\nexceedingly obscure, and that it is bad historical method to allow\nwhat is obscure to color the interpretation of what is plain. Many\ninterpretations of the verse have been proposed. And it is by no\nmeans clear that Paul lent his own support to the custom to which\nreference is here made.\n\nThus it cannot be maintained that Paulinism was like the pagan\nmysteries even in the general sense that both Paulinism and\nthe mysteries connected salvation with external acts. The acts\nthemselves were different; and the meaning of the acts was still\nmore diverse. An element of truth does indeed underlie the\nsacramentarian interpretation of Paul. The element of truth consists\nin the protest which is here raised against the interpretation which\nhas sometimes been favored by \"liberal\" scholars. According to\nthis liberal interpretation, when Paul speaks of dying and rising\nwith Christ he is referring to a purely ethical fact; when he says\nthat he has died to the Law, he means that he has made a radical\nbreak with an external, legalistic type of religion; when he says\nthat it is no longer he that lives but Christ that lives in him,\nhe means that he has made Christ his supreme guide and example;\nwhen he says that through the Cross of Christ he has been crucified\nto the world, he means that the Cross has led him to renounce all\nworldliness of purpose. Such interpretation is exceedingly common.\nBut it is radically false. It is false because it does away with\nthe supernaturalism of Paul's teaching. There could be no greater\nmistake than that of making salvation according to Paul an affair\nof the human will. On the contrary, the very essence of Pauline\nteaching is supernaturlism. Salvation, according to Paul, is based\nupon a supernatural act of God--the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\nAnd equally supernatural is the application of salvation to the\nindividual. The new creation which stands at the beginning of the\nChristian life is according to Paul just as little a product of\nnatural forces, and just as little a product of the human will, as\nthe first creation was. The modern school of comparative religion is\nentirely correct in insisting upon the thoroughgoing supernaturalism\nof the Pauline gospel. Paulinism is a redemptive religion in the\nmost thoroughgoing sense of the word; it finds salvation, not in a\ndecision of the human will, but in an act of God.\n\nBut the error comes in confusing supernaturalism with\nsacramentalism. Paul's conception of salvation is supernatural,\nbut it is not external. It is indeed just as supernatural as if it\nwere external. The beginning of a man's Christian life, according\nto Paul, is just as little a product of his own moral forces, just\nas little a product of any mere moral influence brought to bear\nupon him, as it would be if it were produced by the water into\nwhich he was dipped or the bread and wine of which he partakes.\nConceivably God might have chosen to use such means. If He had done\nso, His action would have been not one whit more supernatural than\nit actually is. But as a matter of fact, He has chosen, in His\nmysterious wisdom, to use the means of faith. Such is the teaching\nof Paul. It is highly distasteful to the modern liberal Church. But\neven if it is to be rejected it should at least be recognized as\nPauline.\n\nThus the interpretation of the sacraments which is proposed by\nthe modern school of comparative religion--and indeed the whole\nmodern radical treatment of Paulinism as a thoroughgoing religion\nof redemption--marks a reaction against the modernizing exegesis\nwhich was practised by the liberal school. But the reaction has at\nany rate gone too far. It cannot be said that the newer exegesis is\nany more objective than the liberal exegesis which it endeavors to\nreplace. The liberal scholars were concerned to keep Paul as near\nas possible to their modern naturalistic principles, in order to\ncontinue to use him for the edification of the Church; the radical\nscholars of the school of comparative religion are concerned\nto keep him as far away as possible from modern naturalistic\nprinciples in order to bring him into connection with the crass\nexternalism of the mystery religions. Neither group has attained\nthe whole truth. The Pauline conception of salvation is just as\nspiritual as it is thought to be by the liberal scholars; but on the\nother hand, it is just as supernatural as it is represented as being\nby Reitzenstein and Bousset.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE LORDSHIP OF JESUS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE LORDSHIP OF JESUS\n\n\nTwo of the contentions of the modern school of comparative religion\nhave so far been examined. It has been shown that neither the group\nof Pauline conceptions which centers around the new birth (or, as\nPaul calls it, the new creation) nor the Pauline teaching about the\nsacraments was derived from the mystery religions. The third element\nof Paulinism which is thought to have come from pagan religion is\nfound in the Pauline conception of Christ and of the work of Christ\nin redemption. This contention is connected especially with the\nname of Bousset[222], who is, however, supported in essentials by\na considerable number of contemporary scholars. The hypothesis of\nBousset is intimately connected with those hypotheses which have\nalready been examined. A complete treatment of it at this point\nwould therefore involve repetition. But it may here be set forth at\nleast in a somewhat systematic, though still in a merely summary,\nway.\n\n  [222] _Kyrios Christos_, 1913; _Jesus der Herr_, 1916.\n\nAccording to Bousset, the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem\nregarded Jesus chiefly as the Son of Man--the mysterious person,\nmentioned in the Jewish apocalypses, who was finally to come with\nthe clouds of heaven and be the instrument in ushering in the\nKingdom of God. Bousset is doubtful whether or no the title Son of\nMan was ever assumed by Jesus Himself, and regards the settlement\nof this question as lying beyond the scope of his book. But the\ntendency of the book is decidedly toward a radical denial of the\nMessianic consciousness of Jesus. And at this point the cautious\ninvestigator, even if his presuppositions are the same as Bousset's\nown, may well be inclined to take alarm. The method which is here\npursued seems to be leading logically to the elimination from\nthe pages of history of the whole Gospel picture of Jesus, or\nrather to the use of that picture in the reconstruction not of the\nhistorical Jesus, but only of the belief of the Christian community.\nOf course Bousset does not push matters to such lengths; he is\nby no means inclined to follow W. B. Smith and Drews in denying\nthe historicity of Jesus. But the reader of the first part of the\n\"Kyrios Christos\" has an uneasy feeling that if any of the Gospel\npicture still escapes the keen edge of Bousset's criticism, it is\nonly by accident. Many of those incidents in the Gospel narrative,\nmany of those elements in the Gospel teaching, which have been\nconsidered most characteristic of the historical Jesus have here\nbeen removed. There seems to be no particular reason why the rest\nshould remain; for the elements that remain are quite similar to the\nelements that have been made to go. No mark of authenticity seems to\nbe proof against the skepticism of this latest historian. Bousset\nthus illustrates the difficulty of separating the natural from the\nsupernatural in the Gospel picture of Jesus. When the process of\nseparation begins, it is difficult to bring it to a halt; the wheat\nis in danger of being rooted up with the tares. Bousset has dealt a\nsevere blow to the prestige of the liberal reconstruction of Jesus.\nBy the recent developments in his thinking he has shown by his own\nexample that the liberal reconstruction is in a state of unstable\nequilibrium. It is always in danger of giving way to radical denial\neither of the historicity of Jesus or of the historicity of the\nMessianic consciousness. Such radicalism is faced by insuperable\ndifficulties. Perhaps, then, there is something wrong with the\ncritical method from which the radicalism always tends to result.\n\nBut it is necessary now to examine a little more closely the belief\nof the primitive Jerusalem Church. That belief, Bousset maintains,\ndid not involve any conception of Jesus as \"Lord.\" The title \"Lord,\"\nhe says, was not applied to Jesus on Palestinian ground, and Jesus\nwas not regarded by the early Jerusalem Church as the object of\nfaith. The piety of the primitive Church was thus exclusively\neschatological; Jesus was expected to return in glory from heaven,\nbut meanwhile He was regarded as separated from His disciples. He\nwas the heavenly \"Son of Man,\" to come with the clouds of heaven,\nnot the \"Lord\" now present in the Church.\n\nThese momentous assertions, which lie at the very basis of Bousset's\nhypothesis, are summed up in the elimination from Jerusalem\nChristianity of the title \"Lord\" as applied to Jesus. This\nelimination of the title \"Lord\" of course involves a rejection of\nthe testimony of Acts. The Book of Acts contains the only extant\nnarrative of the early progress of Jerusalem Christianity. And so\nfar as the designations of Christ are concerned, the early chapters\nof the book have usually been thought to produce an impression\nof special antiquity and authenticity. These chapters apply the\ntitle \"Lord\" to Jesus; the words in Acts ii. 36, \"God has made\nhim both Lord and Christ,\" have often been regarded as especially\nsignificant. But to Bousset, in view of his opinion about the Book\nof Acts as a whole, the elimination of this testimony causes no\ndifficulty.\n\nBut how does Bousset know that the primitive Jerusalem Church did\nnot apply the term \"Lord\" to Jesus? The principal argument is\nderived from an examination of the Synoptic Gospels. The title\n\"Lord,\" as applied to Jesus, Bousset believes, appears only \"on the\nmargin\" (as it were) of the Gospel tradition; it does not appear as\none of the primitive elements in the tradition. But since it does\nnot appear firmly fixed in the Gospel tradition, it could not have\nformed a part of Christian belief in the community where the Gospel\ntradition was formed. The community where the Gospel tradition was\nformed was the Jerusalem Church. Therefore the title Lord as applied\nto Jesus did not form part of the belief of the Jerusalem Church.\nSuch, in bare outline, is the argument of Bousset.\n\nAn examination of that argument in detail would far transcend the\nlimits of the present discussion.[223] But certain obvious remarks\ncan be made.\n\n  [223] See Vos, \"The Kyrios Christos Controversy,\" in _The Princeton\n  Theological Review_, xv, 1917, pp. 21-89. See also the review of\n  Bousset's \"Kyrios Christos\" by the same author, _ibid._, xii, 1914,\n  pp. 636-645.\n\nIn the first place, it is not perfectly clear that the title\nLord appears only in secondary elements of the Gospel tradition.\nCertainly it must be granted to Bousset that the instances where the\nword \"Lord\" appears in the vocative case do not necessarily involve\nany recognition of the lofty title \"Lord\" as belonging to Jesus;\nfor the word could be used in direct address in the presence of any\nperson to whom respect was to be paid. Nevertheless, in some of the\npassages the word does seem to be more than a mere reverential form\nof address. Bousset himself admits that such is the case at least\nin Matt. vii. 21, \"Not every one who says unto me Lord, Lord, shall\nenter into the kingdom of heaven,\" and his opinion that this passage\nis secondary as compared with Lk. vi. 46 is insufficiently grounded.\nThe cases in the Gospels where the title is used absolutely are not\nvery numerous, and they occur chiefly in the Gospel of Luke. But\nthe estimate of them as secondary depends of course upon certain\ncritical conclusions about the relationships of the Synoptic\nGospels. And it is doubtful whether Bousset has quite succeeded\nin refuting the argument which can be derived from Mk. xii. 35-37\n(and parallels), the passage about David's son and David's Lord.\nBousset himself uses this passage as an important testimony to the\nbelief of the early Jerusalem Church, though he does not regard it\nas representing a genuine saying of Jesus. Yet here Jesus is made\nto call attention to the fact that David called the Messiah \"Lord.\"\nIf this passage represents the belief about Jesus of the primitive\nJerusalem Church, what stronger testimony could there be to the use\nin that church of the title \"Lord\" as applied to Jesus? Bousset\navoids the difficulty by calling attention to the fact that the\nOld Testament passage (Ps. cx. 1) is here quoted not according to\nthe original but according to the Septuagint translation. In the\noriginal Hebrew, says Bousset, there was a distinction between the\nword \"Lord\" as applied to God and the word \"Lord\" as applied to the\nother person who is referred to; the Hebrew has, \"Jahwe said to my\nLord (adoni).\" Thus that second person, according to the Hebrew,\ncan be regarded as a human individual, and all that is meant by the\nterm \"Lord\" as used of him by David is that he stood higher than\nDavid. Bousset seems to think that this explanation destroys the\nvalue of the passage as a witness to the use in the Jerusalem Church\nof the religious term \"Lord\" as applied to Jesus. But such is by no\nmeans the case. For if the Messiah (Jesus) was higher than David, so\nthat David could call Him Lord, then Jesus must have occupied some\nvery lofty position. If David could call Him Lord, would the title\nbe refused to Him by humble members of the Jerusalem Church? On\nBousset's interpretation the passage may not directly attest the use\nof the title by the Jerusalem Church, but it does seem to presuppose\nit. It may also be questioned whether Bousset has succeeded in\ngetting rid of Mk. xi. 3, as a witness to the title Lord as applied\nto Jesus in the Jerusalem Church.\n\nBut does the infrequency of the use of the title \"Lord\" in the\nGospels necessarily indicate that that title was not prevalent\nin the primitive Jerusalem Church? It must be remembered that\nthe title \"Christ,\" which was of course applied to Jesus by the\nJerusalem Church, is also very infrequent in the Gospels. Why should\nthe infrequency in the Gospel use of one title be regarded as an\nargument against the use of that title in the Jerusalem Church, when\nin the case of the other title no such argument can possibly be set\nup? Bousset is ready with his answer. But the answer is entirely\ninadequate. The title \"Christ,\" Bousset says, was an eschatological\ntitle; it referred to a dignity which in the belief of the Jerusalem\nChurch Jesus was not to attain until His coming in glory. Therefore\nit could not readily be applied to Jesus in the accounts of His\nearthly ministry. Hence in the case of that title there was a\nspecial obstacle which hindered the intrusion of the title into the\nGospel tradition. But in the case of the title \"Lord,\" there was\nno such obstacle; therefore the non-intrusion of that title into\nthe Gospel tradition requires a special explanation; and the only\npossible explanation is that the title was not used in the Jerusalem\nChurch.\n\nIt would be difficult to crowd into brief compass so many highly\ndebatable assertions as are crowded together in this argument.\nWas the title \"Christ\" a purely eschatological title? It is not\na purely eschatological title in Paul. It is not really a purely\neschatological title anywhere in the New Testament. At any rate,\nBousset is here adopting a conception of the Messiahship of Jesus\nwhich is at best problematical and is rejected by men of the most\nwidely divergent points of view. And did the title \"Lord\" designate\nJesus especially as the present Lord of the Church, rather than as\nthe one who was finally to usher in the Kingdom? Was Jesus in the\nbelief of the early Church the \"coming\" Christ any more than He was\nthe \"coming\" Lord; and was He the present Lord any more than He was\nthe present Christ? These questions cannot be answered with absolute\ncertainty. At any rate, even if Bousset can point to a larger\nproportion of eschatological interest in the one title than that\nwhich appears in the other, yet such a distinction is relative only.\nAnd it still remains true that if the infrequency of the title\n\"Christ\" in the Gospels does not indicate the non-existence of that\ntitle in the Jerusalem Church, the infrequency of the title \"Lord\"\nin the Gospels is not any more significant.\n\nWith regard to the title \"Son of Man,\" Bousset makes a remark\nsomewhat similar to that which he makes about the title \"Christ.\"\nThe title \"Son of Man,\" he says, was eschatological; therefore it\ncould not be introduced into the narrative part of the Gospels.\nBut it will always remain one of the paradoxes of Bousset's theory\nthat according to Bousset the title \"Son of Man,\" which (except in\nActs vii. 56) appears in the tradition only in the words of Jesus,\nand never as the title used when men spoke about Jesus, should be\nsupposed to have been the characteristic title used in speaking\nabout Jesus in the Jerusalem Church. If the belief of the Jerusalem\nChurch about Jesus was so exclusively a Son-of-Man dogma, as Bousset\nsupposes it was, and if that church was so little concerned with\nhistorical fact, it seems somewhat strange that the title, \"Son of\nMan,\" has not been allowed, despite its eschatological character, to\nintrude into the Gospel narrative. Another hypothesis will always\nsuggest itself--the hypothesis that Jesus really used the title,\n\"Son of Man,\" in a somewhat mysterious way, in speaking about\nHimself, and that the memory of the fact that it was His own special\ndesignation of Himself has been preserved in the curious limitation\nof the use of the title in the New Testament. In that case, in view\nof the accuracy thus established with regard to one title, the\ntestimony of the Gospels with regard to the other title, \"Lord,\"\ncannot lightly be rejected.\n\nBut the evidence for the use of the title \"Lord\" in the primitive\nJerusalem Church is not contained merely in the Gospels. Other\nevidence appears in the Pauline Epistles.\n\nThe most obvious fact is that Paul himself uses the term as the\ncharacteristic title of Jesus. And it is equally evident that he did\nnot invent this usage. Evidently it was a continuation of a usage\nwhich prevailed before he began his work. So much is fully admitted\nby Bousset. But whence did Paul derive the usage? Or rather,\nsupposing that he began his own use of the title at the moment of\nthe conversion, in accordance with the representation in Acts (\"Who\nart thou, Lord?\"), whence did he derive his assumption that the\ntitle was already in use? The most obvious view is that he assumed\nthe title to be already known because it was in use in the early\nJerusalem Church. The matter-of-course way in which Paul applies\nthe title \"Lord\" to Jesus has always, until recently, been taken as\nindicating that the title had been prevalent from the very beginning\nof the Church's life.\n\nBut at this point appears one of the most important features of\nBousset's theory. Paul derived the title \"Lord,\" Bousset believes,\nfrom those who had been Christians before him; but he derived it,\nnot from the Jerusalem Church, but from the Christian communities in\nsuch cities as Antioch, Tarsus, and perhaps Damascus. It is in these\ncommunities, therefore, that the genesis of the title \"Lord,\" as\napplied to Jesus, is to be placed.\n\nAttention has already been called to the difficulties which\nbeset this interposition of an extra link between Paul and the\nJerusalem Church. It has been shown that what Paul \"received\" he\nreceived not from the churches at Antioch and Tarsus but from\nthe original disciples at Jerusalem. But in addition to the\ngeneral considerations which connect the whole of Paulinism with\nthe Jerusalem tradition about Jesus, there are certain special\nindications of a Jerusalem origin of the title \"Lord.\"\n\nOne such indication may be found, perhaps, in Gal. i. 19. When, in\nconnection with a visit to Jerusalem which occurred three years\nafter the conversion, Paul speaks of \"James the brother of the\nLord,\" the natural inference is that \"the brother of the Lord\" was\na designation which was applied to James in Jerusalem; and if so,\nthen the title \"Lord\" was current in the Jerusalem Church.[224] Of\ncourse, the inference is not absolutely certain; Paul might have\ndesignated James as \"the brother of the Lord\" because that was the\ndesignation of James in the Galatian Churches and the designation\nwhich Paul himself commonly used, even if it was not current in\nJerusalem. But the natural impression which the passage will\nalways make upon an unsophisticated reader is that Paul is using a\nterminology which was already fixed among James' associates at the\ntime and place to which the narrative refers. It should be observed\nthat in speaking of Peter, Paul actually uses the Aramaic form and\nnot the Greek form of the name. The indications are that with\nregard to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church Paul is accustomed\ngenerally to follow the Jerusalem usage. And the evidence of such a\npassage as Gal. i. 18, 19, where Jerusalem conditions are mentioned,\nis doubly strong. The use in this passage of the title \"brother of\nthe Lord\" would indeed not be absolutely decisive if it stood alone.\nBut taken in connection with the other evidence, it does point\nstrongly to the prevalence in the early Jerusalem Church of the\ntitle \"Lord\" as applied to Jesus.\n\n  [224] Knowling, _The Witness of the Epistles_, 1892, p. 15.\n\nMore stress is usually laid upon the occurrence of \"Maranatha\" in 1\nCor. xvi. 22. \"Maranatha\" is Aramaic, and it means \"Our Lord, come!\"\nWhy was the Aramaic word \"Our Lord\" included, as a designation\nof Jesus, in a Greek letter? The natural supposition is that it\nhad been hallowed by its use in the Aramaic-speaking church at\nJerusalem. Accordingly it pushes the use of the title \"Lord\" back\nto the primitive Christian community; the title cannot, therefore,\nbe regarded as a product of the Hellenistic churches in Antioch and\nTarsus.\n\nThis argument has been met in various ways. According to B\u00f6hlig,\nthe passage does attest the application of the Aramaic title \"Lord\"\nto Jesus, but that application, B\u00f6hlig believes, was made not in\nPalestine but in Syria, not in Jerusalem but in Antioch. Syria,\nindeed, with Cilicia, was, B\u00f6hlig insists, the special home of the\ndesignation \"Lord\" as applied to the gods; the word \"Baal,\" the\ncommon Semitic title of the Syrian gods, means \"Lord.\" And B\u00f6hlig\nalso points to the appearance of the title Mar along with Baal as a\ntitle of divinity.[225]\n\n  [225] See B\u00f6hlig, \"Zum Begriff Kyrios bei Paulus,\" in _Zeitschrift\n  f\u00fcr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiv, 1913, pp. 23-37.\n\nBut why was the Semitic title retained in a Greek letter? In answer\nto this question the bilingual condition of Syria may be appealed\nto. But what particular sanctity could be attached to the Semitic\nusage of Syria; why should Paul follow that usage in writing to a\nchurch that was situated, not in the East, but in Greece proper? If,\non the other hand, the title \"Mar\" had been hallowed by the use of\nthe original disciples of Jesus, then the retention of the original\nword without translation is perfectly natural.\n\nBousset now proposes another hypothesis.[226] The phrase\n\"Maranatha,\" he says, probably had nothing to do with Jesus; it\nconstitutes merely a formula of cursing like the \"anathema\" which\nimmediately precedes in 1 Cor. xvi. 22; the Maran (or Marana) refers\nnot to Jesus, but to God; the formula means, \"Our Lord (God) shall\ncome and judge.\" But Bousset adduces no real evidence in support of\nhis explanation. No such formula of cursing seems to have been found\nin Semitic sources. And why should Paul introduce such a Semitic\ncurse in writing to Corinth? The latest hypothesis of Bousset is\ncertainly a desperate expedient.\n\n  [226] Bousset, _Jesus der Herr_, 1916, pp. 22f. Compare _Kyrios\n  Christos_, 1913, p. 103.\n\n\"Marana\" in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, therefore, certainly refers to Jesus,\nand the strong presumption is that it was derived from Palestine.\nThe passage constitutes a real testimony to the use of the title\n\"Lord\" as a designation of Jesus in the Palestinian Church.\n\nPossibly, moreover, this passage may also serve to fix the original\nAramaic form of the title. Bousset and certain other scholars have\nbeen inclined to detect a linguistic difficulty in the way of\nattributing the title \"Lord\" to the Aramaic-speaking Church. The\nabsolute \"Mara,\" it is said, does not seem to have been current\nin Aramaic; only \"Mari\" (\"my Lord\") and \"Maran\" (\"our Lord\") seem\nto have been commonly used. But it is just in the absolute form,\n\"the Lord,\" that the title appears most frequently in the Greek\nNew Testament. Therefore, it is concluded, this New Testament\nGreek usage cannot go back to the usage of the Aramaic-speaking\nChurch. It will perhaps be unnecessary to enter upon the linguistic\nside of this argument. Various possibilities might be suggested\nfor examination to the students of Aramaic--among others, the\npossibility that \"Mari,\" \"Maran,\" had come to be used absolutely,\nlike \"Rabbi,\" \"Rabban,\" the original meaning of the possessive\nsuffix having been obscured.[227] But in general it can probably\nbe said that if persons of Aramaic speech had desired to designate\nJesus, absolutely, as \"Lord\" or \"the Lord,\" the language was\npresumably not so poor but that the essential idea could have been\nexpressed. And it is the essential idea, not the word, which is\nreally important. The important thing is that the attitude toward\nJesus which is expressed by the Greek word \"Kyrios,\" was, unless all\nindications fail, also the attitude of the Jerusalem Church.\n\n  [227] Compare Bousset, _Kyrios Christos_, 1913, p. 99, Anm. 3.\n\nBut may not the Greek title itself have originated in Jerusalem?\nThis possibility has been neglected in recent discussions of the\nsubject. But it is worthy of the most careful consideration. It\nshould be remembered that Palestine in the first century after\nChrist was a bilingual country.[228] No doubt Aramaic was in\ncommon use among the great body of the people, and no doubt it\nwas the language of Jesus' teaching. But Greek was also in use,\nand it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that even\nJesus spoke Greek when occasion demanded. At any rate, the early\nJerusalem Church included a large body of Greek-speaking persons;\nthe \"Hellenists\" are mentioned in Acts vi. 1 in a way to which\nhigh historical importance is usually attributed. It is altogether\nprobable, therefore, that the terminology current in the Jerusalem\nChurch from the very beginning, or almost from the very beginning,\nwas Greek as well as Aramaic. From this Greek-speaking part of the\nChurch the original apostles could hardly have held themselves\naloof. Total ignorance of Greek on the part of Galileans is\nimprobable in view of what is known in general about linguistic\nconditions in Palestine; and in the capital, with its foreign\nconnections, and its hosts of Hellenists, the opportunity for\nthe use of Greek would be enormously increased. It is altogether\nimprobable, therefore, that the Greek terminology of the Hellenists\nresident in Jerusalem was formed without the approval of the\noriginal disciples of Jesus. When the apostle Paul, therefore,\nassumes everywhere that the term \"Lord\" as applied to Jesus was no\npeculiarity of his own, but was familiar to all his readers, the\nphenomenon can be best explained if not only the sense of the title,\nbut also its Greek form, was due to the mother Church. In other\nwords, the transition from Aramaic to Greek, as the language of the\ndisciples of Jesus, did not occur at Antioch or Tarsus, as Bousset\nseems to think. In all probability it occurred at Jerusalem, and\noccurred under the supervision of the immediate friends of Jesus. It\ncould not possibly, therefore, have involved a transformation of the\noriginal faith.\n\n  [228] Zahn, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, 3te Aufl., i, 1906,\n  pp. 21-32, 39-47 (English Translation, _Introduction to the New\n  Testament_, 2nd Ed., 1917, i, pp. 34-46, 57-67).\n\nBut the linguistic considerations just adduced are only\nsupplementary. Even if the use of Greek in Jerusalem was less\nimportant than has here been suggested, the state of the case is\nnot essentially altered. Every attempt at separating the religion of\nPaul sharply from the religion of the Jerusalem Church has resulted\nin failure. Whatever may have been the linguistic facts, the divine\nLord of the Epistles was also the Lord of those who had been\nintimate friends of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nBousset of course rejects this conclusion. But he does so on\ninsufficient grounds. His theory, it may well be maintained, has\nalready broken down at the most decisive point. It is not really\npossible to interpose the Christianity of Antioch and Tarsus between\nthe Jerusalem Church and Paul; it is not really possible to suppose\nthat that Christianity of Antioch was essentially different from the\nJerusalem Christianity which had given it birth; in particular it is\nnot possible to deny the use of the title \"Lord,\" and the religious\nattitude toward Jesus which the title represents, to the original\nfriends of Jesus. Examination of the further elements of Bousset's\ntheory, therefore, can be undertaken only under protest. But such\nexamination is important. For it will confirm the unfavorable\nimpression which has already been received.\n\nIf, as Bousset says, the title \"Lord,\" as a designation of Jesus,\noriginated not at Jerusalem but at Antioch, in what way did it\noriginate? It originated, Bousset believes, in the meetings of\nthe Church, and it originated in dependence upon the surrounding\npagan cults. At Jerusalem, according to Bousset, the piety of\nthe disciples was purely eschatological; Jesus was awaited with\neagerness, He was to come in glory, but meanwhile He was absent.\nThere was no thought of communion with Him. At Antioch, however,\na different attitude began to be assumed. As the little community\nof disciples was united for comfort and prayer and the reception\nof the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit, it came to be felt that Jesus\nwas actually present; the wonderful experiences of the meetings\ncame to be attributed to Him. But if He was actually present in the\nmeetings of the Church, a new title was required to express what\nHe meant to those who belonged to Him. And one title lay ready to\nhand. It was the title \"Lord.\" That title was used by the pagans\nto designate their own false gods. Surely no lower title could be\nused by the Christians to designate their Jesus. The title \"Lord,\"\nmoreover, was especially a cult-title; it was used to designate\nthose gods who presided especially over the worship, over the\n\"cult,\" of the pagan religions. But it was just in the \"cult,\" in\nthe meetings of the Church, that the new attitude toward Jesus had\narisen. The experience of Jesus' presence, therefore, and the title\nwhich would give expression to it, were naturally joined together.\nIn the rapture of a meeting of the group of worshipers, in the midst\nof wonderful ecstatic experiences, some member of the Church at\nAntioch or Tarsus, or perhaps many members simultaneously, uttered\nthe momentous words, \"Lord Jesus.\"\n\nThus occurred, according to the theory of Bousset, the most\nmomentous event in the history of Christianity, one of the most\nmomentous events in the whole religious history of the race.\nChristianity ceased to be merely faith in God like the faith which\nJesus had; it became faith in Jesus. Jesus was now no longer merely\nan example for faith; He had become the object of faith. The prophet\nof Nazareth had become an object of worship; the Messiah had given\nway to the \"Lord.\" Jesus had taken a place which before had been\nassigned only to God.\n\nThis estimate of the event of course depends upon Bousset's\ncritical conclusions about the New Testament literature. And those\nconclusions are open to serious objections. The objections have\nalready been considered so far as the title \"Lord\" is concerned;\nthat title cannot really be denied to the original disciples of\nJesus. Equally serious are the objections against what Bousset says\nabout \"faith in Jesus.\" A consideration of these objections lies\nbeyond the scope of the present discussion. The ground has been\ncovered in masterly fashion by James Denney, who has shown that\neven in the earliest strata of the Gospel literature, as they are\ndistinguished by modern criticism of sources, Jesus appears not\nmerely as an example for faith but as the object of faith--indeed,\nthat Jesus actually so presented Himself.[229] Christianity was\nnever a mere imitation of the faith which Jesus reposed in God. But\nit is now necessary to return to the examination of the Antioch\nChurch.\n\n  [229] Denney, _Jesus and the Gospel_, 1908.\n\nThe title \"Lord,\" as applied to Jesus, Bousset believes, originated\nin the meetings of the Antioch disciples--in what may be called,\nfor want of a better term, the \"public worship\" of the Church.\nThis assertion constitutes an important step in Bousset's\nreconstruction. But the evidence adduced in support of it is\ninsufficient. The passages cited from the Pauline Epistles show,\nindeed, that great importance was attributed to the meetings of the\nChurch; they show perhaps that the custom of holding such meetings\nprevailed from the very beginning. But they do not show that the\nwhole of the Church's devotion to Christ and the whole of Paul's\nreligion were derived, by way of development, from the cult. It is\nnot necessary to suppose either that the individual relation to\nChrist was derived from the cult, or that the cult was derived from\nthe individual relation. There is also a third possibility--that\nindividual piety and the cult were both practised from the\nvery beginning side by side. At any rate, Bousset has vastly\nunderestimated the importance of the conversion as determining the\ncharacter of Paul's religious life. The Damascus experience lay\nat the very foundation of all of Paul's thinking and all of his\nactions. Yet that experience had nothing to do with the cult.\n\nBut even if, in accordance with Bousset's reconstruction, the title\n\"Lord\" was applied to Jesus under the influence of the ecstatic\nconditions that prevailed in the meetings of the Church, the origin\nof the title is not yet explained. How did the Christians at Antioch\ncome to think that their ecstatic experiences were due to the fact\nthat Jesus was presiding over their meetings? And if they did come\nto think so, why did they choose just the title \"Lord\" in order to\nexpress the dignity that they desired to attribute to Him?\n\nAt this point, Bousset has recourse to a comparison with the\nsurrounding paganism. The term \"Lord,\" he says, was common in the\nHellenistic age as a title of the cult-gods of the various forms of\nworship. And the material which Bousset has collected in proof of\nthis assertion is entirely convincing. Not only in the worship of\nthe Emperors and other rulers, but also in the Hellenized religions\nof the East, the title \"Lord\" was well known as a designation of\ndivinity. Indeed, Paul himself refers plainly to the currency\nof the title. \"For though there be,\" he says, \"that are called\ngods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and\nlords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are\nall things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through\nwhom are all things, and we through him\" (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6). In\nthis passage, the \"lords many\" are of course heathen gods, and it\nis clearly implied that the term \"lord\" was the title which was\ngiven them by their own worshipers. Bousset is entirely correct,\ntherefore, when he says that the title \"Lord,\" at Antioch, at\nTarsus, and everywhere in the Greco-Roman world, was clearly a title\nof divinity. Indeed, it may be added, the word \"lord\" was no whit\ninferior in dignity to the term \"god.\"[230] When the early Christian\nmissionaries, therefore, called Jesus \"Lord,\" it was perfectly\nplain to their pagan hearers everywhere that they meant to ascribe\ndivinity to Him and desired to worship Him.\n\n  [230] Warfield, \"'God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,'\" in\n  _The Princeton Theological Review_, xv, 1917, p. 18.\n\nThus the currency of the title in pagan religion was of great\nimportance for the early Christian mission. But that does not\nnecessarily mean that the title was applied to Jesus in the first\nplace because of the pagan usage, or that the ascription of divine\ndignity to Jesus was first ventured upon because the Christians\ndesired to place the one whom they revered in a position at least\nequal to that of the pagan cult-gods. It is these assertions\nwhich have not been proved. Indeed, they are improbable in the\nextreme. They are rendered improbable, for example, by the sturdy\nmonotheism of the Christian communities. That monotheism was not at\nall impaired by the honor which was paid to Jesus; the Christian\ncommunities were just as intolerant of other gods as had been the\nancient Hebrew prophets. This intolerance and exclusiveness of\nthe early Church constitutes a stupendous difference between the\nChristian \"Jesus-cult\" and the cults of the other \"Lords.\" The pagan\ncults were entirely tolerant; worship of one Lord did not mean the\nrelinquishment of another. But to the Christians there was one Lord\nand one only. It is very difficult to see how in an atmosphere of\nsuch monotheism the influence of the pagan cults could have been\nallowed to intrude. Any thought of the analogy which an application\nof the title \"Lord\" to Jesus would set up between the meetings of\nthe Church at Antioch and the worship of the heathen gods would\nhave hindered, rather than have actually caused, the use of the\ntitle. Evidently the title, and especially the divine dignity of\nJesus which the title expressed, were quite independent of the pagan\nusage.\n\nCertainly the mere fact that the Christians used a title which was\nalso used in the pagan cults does not establish any dependence upon\npaganism. For the title \"Lord\"[231] was almost as well established\nas a designation of divinity as was the term \"God.\"[232] Whatever\nhad been the origin of the religious use of the word, that use had\nbecome a part of the Greek language. A missionary who desired to\nproclaim the one true God was obliged, if he spoke in Greek, to use\nthe term \"God,\" which of course had been used in pagan religion. So\nif he desired to designate Jesus as God, by some word which at the\nsame time would distinguish Him from God the Father, he was obliged\nto use the word \"Lord,\" though that word also had been used in\npaganism. Neither in the one case nor in the other did the use of a\nGreek word involve the slightest influence of the conceptions which\nhad been attached to the word in a polytheistic religion.\n\n  [231] \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\n  [232] \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n\nBut there was a far stronger reason for the application of the\nGreek term \"Lord\" to Jesus than that which was found in its general\ncurrency among Greek-speaking peoples. The religious use of the\nterm was not limited to the pagan cults, but appears also, and if\nanything even more firmly established, in the Greek Old Testament.\nThe word \"Lord\" is used by the Septuagint to translate the \"Jahwe\"\nof the Hebrew text. It would be quite irrelevant to discuss the\nreasons which governed the translators in their choice of this\nparticular word. No doubt some word for \"Lord\" was required by the\nassociations which had already clustered around the Hebrew word. And\nvarious reasons may be suggested for the choice of \"kyrios\" rather\nthan some other Greek word meaning \"lord.\"[233] Possibly the root\nmeaning of \"kyrios\" better expressed the idea which was intended;\nperhaps, also, a religious meaning had already been attached to\n\"kyrios,\" which the other words did not possess. At any rate,\nwhatever may have been the reason, \"kyrios\" was the word which was\nchosen. And the fact is of capital importance. For it was among the\nreaders of the Septuagint that Christianity first made its way.\nThe Septuagint was the Bible of the Jewish synagogues, and in the\nsynagogues the reading of it was heard not only by Jews but also\nby hosts of Gentiles, the \"God-fearers\" of the Book of Acts. It was\nwith the \"God-fearers\" that the Gentile mission began. And even\nwhere there were Gentile converts who had not passed at all through\nthe school of the synagogue--in the very earliest period perhaps\nsuch converts were few--even then the Septuagint was at once used\nin their instruction. Thus when the Christian missionaries used the\nword \"Lord\" of Jesus, their hearers knew at once what they meant.\nThey knew at once that Jesus occupied a place which is occupied only\nby God. For the word \"Lord\" is used countless times in the Greek\nscriptures as the holiest name of the covenant God of Israel, and\nthese passages were applied freely to Jesus.\n\n  [233] As, for example, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nThis Septuagint use of the term \"Lord,\" with the application of the\nSeptuagint passages to Jesus, which appears as a matter of course in\nthe Epistles of Paul, was of vastly more importance for the early\nChristian mission than the use of the term in the pagan cults. And\nit sheds vastly more light upon the original significance of the\nterm as applied to Jesus. But the pagan usage is interesting, and\nthe exhibition of it by Bousset and others should be thankfully\nreceived. An important fact has been established more and more\nfirmly by modern research--the fact that the Greek word \"kyrios\"\nin the first century of our era was, wherever the Greek language\nextended, distinctly a designation of divinity. The common usage of\nthe word indeed persisted; the word still expressed the relation\nwhich a master sustained toward his slaves. But the word had come to\nbe a characteristically religious term, and it is in the religious\nsense, especially as fixed by the Septuagint, that it appears in the\nNew Testament.\n\nThus it is not in accordance with New Testament usage when Jesus\nis called, by certain persons in the modern Church, \"the Master,\"\nrather than \"the Lord.\" Sometimes, perhaps, this usage is adopted\nin conscious protest against the New Testament conception of the\ndeity of Christ; Jesus is spoken of as \"the Master,\" in very much\nthe way in which the leader of a school of artists is spoken of as\n\"the Master\" by his followers. Or else the word means merely the one\nwhose commands are to be obeyed. But sometimes the modern fashion is\nadopted by devout men and women with the notion that the English\nword \"Lord\" has been worn down and that the use of the word \"Master\"\nis a closer approach to the meaning of the Greek Testament. This\nnotion is false. In translating the New Testament designation of\nJesus, one should not desire to get back to the original meaning\nof the word \"kyrios.\" For the Greek word had already undergone a\ndevelopment, and as applied to Jesus in the New Testament it was\nclearly a religious term. It had exactly the religious associations\nwhich are now possessed by our English word \"Lord.\" And for very\nmuch the same reason. The religious associations of the English word\n\"Lord\" are due to Bible usage; and the religious associations of\nthe New Testament word \"kyrios\" were also due to Bible usage--the\nusage of the Septuagint. The Christian, then, should remember that\n\"a little learning is a dangerous thing.\" The uniform substitution\nof \"the Master\" for \"the Lord\" in speaking of Jesus has only a false\nappearance of freshness and originality. In reality it sometimes\nmeans a departure from the spirit of the New Testament usage.\n\nAccordingly, Bousset has performed a service in setting in clear\nrelief the religious meaning of the word \"Lord.\" But he has not\nsucceeded in explaining the application of that word to Jesus.\n\nFurther difficulties, moreover, beset Bousset's theory. The term\n\"Lord\" as applied to Jesus, and the religious attitude toward Jesus\nexpressed by the term, arose, according to Bousset, in the meetings\nof such communities as the one at Antioch, and under the influence\nof pagan conceptions. But of course Bousset's explanation of the\norigin of Paulinism has not yet been completely set forth. Paulinism\nis something far more than an ecstatic worship of a cult-god; the\npersonal relation to Christ dominates every department of the\napostle's life.\n\nBousset recognizes this fact. The religion of Paul, he admits, is\nsomething far more than the religion which was expressed in the\nmeetings of the Antioch Church. But he supposes that the other\nelements of Paul's religion, far-reaching as they are, had at least\ntheir starting-point in the cult. Here is to be found one of the\nleast plausible elements in the whole construction. Bousset has\nunderestimated the individualistic character of Paul's religion. At\nleast he has not succeeded in showing that the Pauline life \"in\nChrist\" or \"in the Lord\" was produced by development from ecstatic\nexperiences in the meetings of the Antioch Church.\n\nBut if the individualistic religion of Paul was developed from the\n\"cult,\" how was it developed? How shall the introduction of the new\nelements be explained? Bousset has attacked this problem with great\nearnestness. And he tries to show that the religion of Paul as it\nappears in the Epistles was developed from the cult religion of\nAntioch by the identification of \"the Lord\" with \"the Spirit,\" and\nby the generalizing and ethicizing of the conception of the Spirit's\nactivity.\n\nThe Pauline doctrine of the Spirit, Bousset believes, was derived\nfrom the pagan mystical religion of the Hellenistic age. Quite\naside from the matter of terminology--though the contentions of\nReitzenstein are thought by Bousset to be essentially correct--the\nfundamental pessimistic dualism of Paul was based, according to\nBousset, upon that widespread type of thought and life which appears\nin the mystery religions and in the Hermetic writings. According to\nthis pessimistic way of thinking, salvation could never be attained\nby human nature, even with divine aid, but only by an entirely\nnew beginning, produced by the substitution of the divine nature\nfor the old man. By the apostle Paul, Bousset continues, this\nsupernaturalism, this conception of the dominance of divine power\nin the new life, was extended far beyond the limits of the cult\nor of visionary experiences; the Spirit was made to be the ruling\nprinciple of the Christian's life; not only prophecy, tongues,\nhealing, and the like, were now regarded as the fruit of the Spirit,\nbut also love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,\nfaithfulness, meekness, self-control. But this Pauline extension\nof the Spirit's activity, Bousset insists, did not involve the\nslightest weakening of the supernaturalism which was characteristic\nof the original conception; the Spirit that produced love, joy,\npeace, had just as little to do with the human spirit as the Spirit\nthat caused men to speak with tongues. And the supernaturalism which\nhere appears in glorified form was derived, Bousset concludes, from\nthe mystical pagan religion of the Hellenistic age.\n\nThis contention has already been discussed, and the weakness of it\nhas been pointed out. The Pauline doctrine of the Spirit was not\nderived from contemporary paganism. But the exposition of Bousset's\ntheory has not yet been finished. The Spirit whose activities were\nextended by Paul into the innermost recesses of the Christian's\nlife was identified, Bousset says, with \"the Lord\" (2 Cor. iii.\n17). This identification exerted an important influence upon both\nthe elements that were brought together; it exerted an important\ninfluence upon the conception both of \"the Lord\" and of \"the\nSpirit.\" If \"the Lord\" was identified, or brought into very close\nrelation, with the Spirit, and if the Spirit's activity extended\ninto the whole of life, then \"the Lord\" could no longer be for\nPaul merely the cult-god who was present in the meetings of the\nChurch. On the contrary, He would have to be present everywhere\nwhere the Spirit was present--that is, He would have to be that in\nwhich the Christian lived and moved and had his being. Thus Paul\ncould form the astonishing phrase \"in Christ\" or \"in the Lord,\"\nfor which Bousset admits that no analogy is to be found in pagan\nreligion. On the other hand, the conception of the Spirit, Bousset\nbelieves, was necessarily modified by its connection with \"the\nLord.\" By the identification with an actual person who had lived\nbut a few years before, \"the Spirit\" was given a personal quality\nwhich otherwise it did not possess. Or, to put the same thing in\nother words, the Pauline phrase \"in the Lord\" is not exactly the\nsame in meaning as the phrase \"in the Spirit\"; for it possesses\na peculiar personal character. \"This remarkable mingling of\nabstraction and personality,\" says Bousset, \"this connection of a\nreligious principle with a person who had walked here on the earth\nand had here suffered death, is a phenomenon of peculiar power and\noriginality.\"\n\nAt this point, Bousset is in danger of being untrue to the\nfundamental principles of his reconstruction; he is in danger of\nbringing the religion of Paul into connection with the concrete\nperson of Jesus. But he detects the danger and avoids it. It must\nnot be supposed, he says, that Paul had any very clear impression\nof the characteristics of the historical Jesus. For if he had had\nsuch an impression, he never could have connected Jesus with an\nabstraction like the Spirit. All that he was interested in, then,\nwas the fact that Jesus had lived and especially that He had died.\n\nYet these bare facts are thought to have been sufficient to impart\nto Paul's notion of the Spirit-Lord that peculiar personal quality\nwhich arouses the admiration of Bousset! The truth is, Bousset finds\nhimself at this point face to face with the difficulty which besets\nevery naturalistic explanation of the genesis of Paul's religion.\nThe trouble is that a close connection of Paul with the historical\nJesus is imperatively required by the historian in order to impart\nto Paul's relation to Christ that warm, personal quality which\nshines out from every page of the Epistles; whereas, on the other\nhand, a wide separation of Paul from the historical Jesus is just\nas imperatively required in order that Paul might not be hampered\nby historical tradition in raising Jesus to divine dignity and in\nbringing Him into connection with the Spirit of God.\n\nModern criticism has wavered between the two requirements; it\ntries to preserve the rights of each. Bousset is more impressed by\nthe second requirement; Wernle, his opponent, is more impressed\nby the former.[234] But both are equally wrong. There is really\nonly one way out of the difficulty. It is an old way and a radical\nway. But the world of scholarship may come back to it in the end.\nThe fundamental difficulty in explaining the origin of Paulinism\nwill never disappear by being ignored; it will never yield to\ncompromises of any kind. It will disappear only when Jesus is\nrecognized as being really what Paul presupposes Him to be and what\nall the Gospels represent Him as being--the eternal Son of God,\ncome to earth for the redemption of man, now seated once more on\nthe throne of His glory, and working in the hearts of His disciples\nthrough His Spirit, as only God can work. Such a solution was never\nso unpopular as it is to-day. Acceptance of it will involve a\nCopernican revolution in many departments of human thought and life.\nBut refusal of such acceptance has left an historical problem which\nso far has not been solved.\n\n  [234] Wernle, \"Jesus and Paulus. Antithesen zu Boussets Kyrios\n  Christos,\" in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Theologie und Kirche_, xxv, 1915, pp.\n  1-92.\n\nAt one point, Bousset admits, the religion of Paul was based upon\nan historical fact. It was based upon the death of Jesus. But the\nPauline interpretation of the death of Jesus was derived, Bousset\nbelieves, in important particulars from contemporary pagan religion;\nthe Pauline notion of dying and rising with Christ was formed under\nthe influence of the widespread pagan conception of the dying and\nrising god. This assertion has become quite common among recent\nscholars; material in support of it has been collected in convenient\nform by M. Br\u00fcckner.[235] But as a matter of fact, the evidence in\nsupport of the assertion is of the feeblest kind.\n\n  [235] _Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland_, 1908.\n\nThe review of Hellenistic religion which was attempted in Chapter\nVI revealed, indeed, the fact that certain gods, especially Attis,\nAdonis, and Osiris, were represented first as dying and then as\nbeing resuscitated. The similarity of these figures to one another\nmay perhaps be explained by the hypothesis that all of them\nwere originally vegetation gods, whose death and resuscitation\nrepresented the withering of vegetation in the autumn and its\nrenewal in the spring. At first sight, the parallel between these\ngods and Jesus may seem striking. Jesus also was represented as\ndying and as coming back to life again. But what is the significance\nof the parallel? Can it mean that the entire New Testament story\nof the death and resurrection of Jesus was derived from these\nvegetation myths? Such has been the conclusion of certain modern\nscholars. But of course this conclusion is absurd, and it is not\nfavored by Bousset. The essential historicity of the crucifixion\nof Jesus under Pontius Pilate and of the rise of the belief in His\nresurrection among His intimate friends stands too firm to be shaken\nby any theory of dependence upon pagan myth. Thus the argument drawn\nfrom the parallel between the New Testament story and the pagan myth\nof the dying and rising god proves too much. If it proves anything,\nit proves that the New Testament story of the resurrection was\nderived from the pagan myth. But such a view has not been held by\nany serious historians. Therefore it will have to be admitted that\nthe parallel between the belief that Adonis and Osiris and Attis\ndied and rose again, and the belief that Jesus died and rose again\nwas not produced by dependence of one story upon the other. It will\nhave to be recognized, therefore, that a parallel does not always\nmean a relationship of dependence. And if it does not do so at one\npoint, perhaps it does not do so at others.\n\nBut Bousset will insist that although the New Testament story of the\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus was not originally produced by the\npagan myth, yet the influence of the pagan conception made itself\nfelt in the interpretation which Paul placed upon the story. Paul\nbelieved that the Christian shared the fate of Christ--died with\nChrist and rose with Christ. But a similar conception appears in\nthe pagan religions. The classical expression of this idea appears\nin the oft-quoted words reported by Firmicus Maternus, \"Be of good\ncourage, ye initiates, since the god is saved; for to us there shall\nbe salvation out of troubles.\"\n\nBut it must be remembered that the testimony of Firmicus Maternus\nis very late, and that the evidence for the prevalence of the\nconception in the early period is somewhat scanty. The confident\nassertions of recent writers with regard to these matters are\nnothing short of astonishing. Lay readers are likely to receive the\nimpression that the investigator can reconstruct the conception of\na dying and rising god, and of the share which the worshipers have\nin the death and resurrection, on the basis of some vast store of\ninformation in the extant sources. As a matter of fact, nothing of\nthe sort is the case. The extant information about the conception in\nquestion is scanty in the extreme, and for the most part dates from\nlong after the time of Paul.\n\nIt would be going too far, indeed, to assert that the conception of\nthe dying and rising god, with its religious significance, was not\nin existence before the Pauline period. An ancient Egyptian text,\nfor example, has been quoted by Erman, which makes the welfare of\nthe worshiper depend upon that of Osiris: \"Even as Osiris lives,\nhe also shall live.\"[236] Very likely some such conceptions were\nconnected also with the mourning and subsequent rejoicing for Attis\nand Adonis. But if the conception was existent in the pre-Pauline\nperiod, it by no means follows that it was common. Certainly its\nprevalence has been enormously exaggerated in recent years. Against\nsuch exaggerations, J. Weiss--who surely cannot be accused of\nany lack of sympathy with the methods of comparative religion as\napplied to the New Testament--has pertinently called attention to\n1 Cor. i. 23. Christ crucified, Paul says, was \"to the Gentiles\nfoolishness.\"[237] That does not look as though the Gentiles among\nwhom Paul labored were very familiar with the notion of a dying\ngod. If the contentions of Br\u00fcckner were correct, if the conception\nof the dying god were as common in Paul's day as Br\u00fcckner supposes,\nthe Cross would not have been \"to the Gentiles foolishness\"; on\nthe contrary, it would have seemed to the Gentiles to be the most\nnatural thing in the world.\n\n  [236] Erman, \"A Handbook of Egyptian Religion\" (published in the\n  original German edition as a handbook, by the _Generalverwaltung_ of\n  the Berlin Imperial Museum), 1907, p. 95.\n\n  [237] J. Weiss, \"Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums,\" in\n  _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, xvi, 1913, p, 490.\n\nBut even if the early prevalence of the conception of a dying and\nrising god, with its religious significance, were better established\nthan it is, the dependence of Paul upon that conception would by no\nmeans be proved. For the Pauline conception is totally different.\nOne difference, of course, is perfectly obvious and is indeed\ngenerally recognized--the Pauline Christ is represented as dying\nvoluntarily, and dying for the sake of men. He \"loved me,\" says\nPaul, \"and gave himself for me.\" There is absolutely nothing like\nthat conception in the case of the pagan religions. Osiris, Adonis,\nand Attis were overtaken by their fate; Jesus gave His life freely\naway. The difference is stupendous; it involves the very heart\nof the religion of Paul. How was the difference caused? Whence\nwas derived the Pauline conception of the grace of Christ? Was it\nderived from Jesus Himself? Was it derived from the knowledge which\nPaul had of the character of Jesus? The supposition might seem to be\nnatural. But unfortunately, from the point of view of Bousset, it\nmust be rejected. For if Paul had had any knowledge of Jesus' real\ncharacter, how could he ever have supposed that Jesus, a mere man,\nwas the heavenly Lord?\n\nAnother difference is even more fundamental. The death and\nresurrection of the pagan gods was a matter of the cult; the death\nand resurrection of the Pauline Christ was a fact of history. It has\nbeen observed in the review of Hellenistic religion that the cults\nin the pagan religions were much more firmly fixed than the myths;\nin the opinion of modern scholars, the myths were derived from the\ncults rather than vice versa. So in the case of the \"dying and\nrising gods,\" one is struck above all things with the totally fluid\ncharacter of the myths. The story of Attis, for example, is told\nin many divergent forms, and there does not seem to have been the\nslightest interest among the Attis worshipers for the establishment\nof any authentic account of the death and resurrection of the god.\nParticularly the \"resurrection\" of the god appears in the myths\nof Attis, Adonis, and Osiris scarcely at all. The real death and\nresurrection occurred only in the cult. Every year in March, the\nAttis-worshipers at Rome first saw the god lying dead as he was\nrepresented by the fir-tree, and then rejoiced in his resurrection.\nThe death and resurrection were hardly conceived of as events which\nhad happened once for all long ago. They were rather thought of as\nhappening at every celebration of the festival.\n\nThe Pauline treatment of the death and resurrection of Christ is\nentirely different. By Bousset, indeed, the difference is partly\nobscured; Bousset tries to show that the Pauline conception of the\ndying and rising of the believer with Christ was derived from the\ncelebration of the sacraments. But there could be no more radical\nerror. What is plainest of all in the Epistles is the historical\ncharacter of the Pauline message. The religion of Paul was rooted\nin an event, and the sacraments were one way of setting forth the\nsignificance of the event. The event was the redemptive work of\nChrist in His death and resurrection.\n\nHere lies the profoundest of all differences between Paul and\ncontemporary religion. Paulinism was not a philosophy; it was not a\nset of directions for escape from the misery of the world; it was\nnot an account of what had always been true. On the contrary, it\nwas an account of something that had happened. The thing that had\nhappened, moreover, was not hidden in the dim and distant past.\nThe account of it was not evolved as a justification for existing\nreligious forms. On the contrary, the death and resurrection of\nJesus, upon which Paul's gospel was based, had happened only a\nfew years before. And the facts could be established by adequate\ntestimony; the eyewitnesses could be questioned, and Paul appeals\nto the eyewitnesses in detail. The single passage, 1 Cor. xv. 1-8,\nis sufficient to place a stupendous gulf between the Pauline Christ\nand the pagan saviour-gods. But the character of Paulinism does not\ndepend upon one passage. Everywhere in the Epistles Paul stakes\nall his life upon the truth of what he says about the death and\nresurrection of Jesus. The gospel which Paul preached was an account\nof something that had happened. If the account was true, the origin\nof Paulinism is explained; if it was not true, the Church is based\nupon an inexplicable error.\n\nThis latter alternative has been examined in the preceding\ndiscussion. If Jesus was not the divine Redeemer that Paul says\nHe was, how did the Pauline religion of redemption arise? Three\ngreat hypotheses have been examined and have been found wanting.\nPaulinism, it has been shown, was not based upon the Jesus of\nmodern naturalism; if Jesus was only what He is represented by\nmodern naturalistic historians as being, then what is really\ndistinctive of Paul was not derived from Jesus. The establishment\nof that fact has been a notable achievement of Wrede and Bousset.\nBut if what is essential in Paulinism was not derived from Jesus,\nwhence was it derived? It was not derived, as Wrede believed,\nfrom the pre-Christian apocalyptic notions of the Messiah; for\nthe apocalyptic Messiah was not an object of worship, and not a\nliving person to be loved. It was not derived from pagan religion,\nin accordance with the brilliant hypothesis of Bousset; for pagan\ninfluence is excluded by the self-testimony of Paul, and the pagan\nparallels utterly break down. But even if the parallels were ten\ntimes closer than they are, the heart of the problem would not even\nhave been touched. The heart of the problem is found in the Pauline\nrelation to Christ. That relation cannot be described by mere\nenumeration of details; it cannot be reduced to lower terms; it is\nan absolutely simple and indivisible thing. The relation of Paul to\nChrist is a relation of love; and love exists only between persons.\nIt is not a group of ideas that is to be explained, if Paulinism is\nto be accounted for, but the love of Paul for his Saviour. And that\nlove is rooted, not in what Christ had said, but in what Christ had\ndone. He \"loved me and gave Himself for me.\" There lies the basis of\nthe religion of Paul; there lies the basis of all of Christianity.\nThat basis is confirmed by the account of Jesus which is given in\nthe Gospels, and given, indeed, in all the sources. It is opposed\nonly by modern reconstructions. And those reconstructions are all\nbreaking down. The religion of Paul was not founded upon a complex\nof ideas derived from Judaism or from paganism. It was founded upon\nthe historical Jesus. But the historical Jesus upon whom it was\nfounded was not the Jesus of modern reconstruction, but the Jesus of\nthe whole New Testament and of Christian faith; not a teacher who\nsurvived only in the memory of His disciples, but the Saviour who\nafter His redeeming work was done still lived and could still be\nloved.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\nI NAMES AND SUBJECTS\n\n\n  Acts, Book of, 32-40\n    should be allowed to help in interpreting the Pauline\n          Epistles, 125\n\n  Adonis, 314f.\n    religion of, 234f.\n\n  Adoptionist Christology, not found in Pauline Epistles, 118\n\n  Agabus, 33f., 78\n\n  Agr\u00e6, mysteries of, 217\n\n  Alexander the Great, 220\n\n  Alexandria, Church at, 16\n\n  Ananias (in Acts), 71\n\n  Ananias (in Josephus), 12\n\n  Andronicus and Junias, 140f.\n\n  Anrich, 212\n\n  Antioch, 29f., 77ff., 122ff;\n    Apostolic Decree addressed to, 94ff.;\n    Peter at, 97-106;\n    Church at, 16\n\n  Antioch, pre-Pauline Christianity of:\n    not channel by which pagan religion influenced Paul, 257ff.;\n    how investigated, 257-259;\n    not essentially different from that of Jerusalem, 259f.;\n    did it originate application of term \"Lord\" to Jesus, 299, 303-307\n\n  Apocalypses, Jewish, not used by Paul, 192f.\n\n  Apocrypha, Old Testament, 182f.\n\n  Apollo's, 109\n\n  Apostles, the original:\n    attitude toward Paul at the Apostolic Council, 86f.;\n    relation with Paul, 120-137;\n    observed Mosaic Law, 126-128;\n    were inwardly free from Law, 127f.;\n    agreed with Paul about the person of Christ, 135-137;\n    contact with Paul, 139\n\n  Apostolic Council, the, 39, 80-100\n\n  Apostolic Decree, the, 87-98, 110;\n    was accompanied by Judas and Silas, 140\n\n  Apostolic Fathers, the, 6\n\n  Apuleius, 222f., 233f., 241\n\n  Arabia, Paul's journey to, 71-74\n\n  Aretas, 74\n\n  \"Asclepius,\" the, 242\n\n  Atargatis, 235\n\n  Athenodorus, 45\n\n  Athletic games, use of figures regarding the, by Paul, 260\n\n  Attis, 314-316;\n    religion of, 227-231;\n    mysteries of, 283\n\n\n  Baals, the Syrian, 235\n\n  Bacchanalian rites in Italy, 250\n\n  Bacon, B. W., 91, 139, 181, 197\n\n  Baldensperger, 178, 192, 204\n\n  Baptism, in pagan religion, 280f.\n\n  Baptism for the dead, 288\n\n  Barnabas, 16, 78ff., 83f., 99;\n    was carried away with Peter at Antioch, 102;\n    dispute with Paul, 105-107;\n    relations with Paul, 106f.;\n    was member of Jerusalem Church, 137f.;\n    contact with Paul, 137f.\n\n  Barnabas, Epistle of, 18\n\n  Baruch, Second Book of, 180, 191\n\n  Baur, F. C, 6, 31, 37, 85, 105, 107, 119ff., 124f., 128f.\n\n  Beecher, 182\n\n  Bengel, 103\n\n  Beyschlag, 60, 63, 65\n\n  Bible, introduction of the, into Indo-European civilization, 20\n\n  Blass, 90\n\n  B\u00f6hlig, 45, 141, 300\n\n  Bousset, W., 28-30, 47, 49, 52, 67, 72, 78, 156, 161, 172-199,\n        204-207, 244, 257-262, 267f., 270, 274, 278, 293-317\n\n  Br\u00fcckner, 27, 185, 191, 194ff., 205f., 211, 234, 313, 315\n\n  Buddhism, early, 274\n\n  Burton, E. D., 267f., 271\n\n  Byblos, 231, 234f.\n\n  Charles, 180, 186, 188, 190\n\n  \"Christ,\" the term, 297f.\n\n  Christianity, origin of:\n    importance of the question, 3f.;\n    two ways of investigating, 4f.;\n    testimony of Paul to, 4f.\n\n  Christianity, monotheism of, 306\n\n  \"Christians,\" first application of the name, 78\n\n  Christology, the Pauline:\n    not derived from pre-Christian Jewish doctrine of the Messiah,\n          173-207;\n    not derived from pre-Christian Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, 199-204;\n    not derived from pagan religion, 293-317\n\n  Christ-party, the, at Corinth, 120\n\n  Circumcision, 17\n\n  Clemen, 262\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, 230, 281\n\n  Clement of Rome, 105\n\n  Coloss\u00e6, errorists in, 129f.\n\n  Colossians, Epistle to the, 31, 104\n\n  Corinthian Church, parties in the, 107-109\n\n  Corinthians, Epistles to the, 31\n\n  Cornelius, 16, 19, 83\n\n  Cross of Christ, the, 19, 63f.\n\n  Cult, Bousset's exaggeration of the importance of the, 303ff.\n\n  Cumont, 212, 227ff., 232, 236, 243f., 247, 281f.\n\n  Cybele, religion of, 8, 227-231\n\n  Cybele and Attis, mysteries of, 229-231\n\n  Cynics, the, 225\n\n\n  Dalman, 187\n\n  Damascus, 71ff., 76;\n    preaching of Paul at, 72f.;\n    escape of Paul from, 74\n\n  Damascus, pre-Pauline Christianity of:\n    how investigated, 257-259;\n    not channel by which pagan religion influenced Paul, 257ff.;\n    not essentially different from that of Jerusalem, 259f.;\n    did it originate application of the term \"Lord\" to Jesus, 299\n\n  Date, question of, with reference to pagan ideas and practices,\n        237-41\n\n  Death of Christ, the, was voluntary, 315\n\n  Death and resurrection of Jesus:\n    historicity of, 312f.;\n    not derived from the cult, 315f.\n\n  Death and resurrection of pagan gods, the myths concerning, thought\n        to have been derived from the cults, 315f.\n\n  Deification: in pagan religion, 245, 263;\n    not found in Paul, 263-265\n\n  Demeter, 217f.\n\n  Denney, James, 155, 304\n\n  Dieterich, 246f., 251\n\n  Dionysus, 215f.;\n    religion of, 282f.\n\n  Dispersion, Judaism of the:\n    was it \"liberal,\" 175-177;\n    did not produce Gentile mission of Paul, 175ff.\n\n  Drews, 294\n\n  Dualism of Hellenistic age, different from Paulinism, 276\n\n  Dying and rising god, the, 211, 234f., 237, 312-316\n\n\n  Ebionites, the, 125f.\n\n  Ecclesiasticus, 200\n\n  Eleusis, mysteries of, 217-219, 281\n\n  Emmet, 81, 176, 180\n\n  Emperors, worship of the, 221\n\n  Enoch, First Book of, 181, 184, 186-189, 193, 198f., 203\n\n  Epicureans, the, 225\n\n  Ephesians, Epistle to the, 31, 104\n\n  Erman, 314\n\n  Eschatology, consistent, 156f.\n\n  Essenes, 177\n\n  Ethics, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul, 164f.\n\n  Eusebius, 139\n\n  Ezra, Fourth Book of, 176, 180, 187, 189f., 196\n\n\n  Faith in Jesus, did not originate at Antioch, 303ff.\n\n  \"Famine visit,\" historicity of the, 84-86\n\n  Farnell, 212, 217\n\n  Fatherhood of God, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul,\n        161-164\n\n  Firmicus Maternus, 229, 237, 241, 251, 281, 314\n\n  \"Flesh,\" Pauline use of the term: without parallel in pagan usage,\n        275f.;\n    based on Old Testament, 276\n\n  Future life, interest in the, stimulated by worship of Dionysus and\n        by Orphism, 216f.\n\n\n  Galatians, Epistle to the:\n    genuineness, 31;\n    addressees, 81;\n    date, 81ff.;\n    must be interpreted in the light of I Cor. xv. 1-11, 144f.\n\n  Gamaliel, 47, 52\n\n  Gautama, 274\n\n  Gentile Christianity:\n    in what sense founded by Paul, 7-21;\n    in what sense founded by Jesus, 13-15;\n    part in the founding of, taken by missionaries other than Paul,\n          15f.\n\n  Gentiles, reception of, according to the Old Testament, 17\n\n  Gischala, 44\n\n  Gnosis, 262-265:\n    idea of, in Paul, 263-265;\n    not a technical term in Paul, 263\n\n  Gnosticism, 247-251, 268f.:\n    pagan basis of, 247;\n    can it be used as a witness to pre-Christian paganism, 247-250;\n    Christian elements in, 249f.;\n    use in, of terms \"Spirit\" and \"spiritual\" due to dependence on\n          the New Testament, 268f.\n\n  \"God,\" the term, 306f.\n\n  Golden Rule, negative form of the, 88f.\n\n  Gospel, the Pauline, was a matter of history, 264f.\n\n  Gospels, the:\n    contain an account of Jesus like that presupposed in the Pauline\n          Epistles, 153f.;\n    were they influenced by Paul, 154f., 159\n\n  Grace, doctrine of, both in Jesus and in Paul, 164\n\n  Grace of God according to Paul, 279\n\n  Greece, religion of:\n    influenced Rome, 212f.;\n    moral defects of, 214;\n    was anthropomorphic polytheism, 214f.;\n    was connected with the state, 214f.;\n    mystical elements in, 215ff.;\n    was undermined by philosophy, by the fall of the city-state, and\n          by the influence of the eastern religions, 219f.\n\n  Greek language:\n    in Palestine, 53, 302;\n    Paul's use of, 44, 46, 53\n\n  Gressmann, 181\n\n\n  Hadad, 235\n\n  Harnack, A. von, 6f., 26, 33-36, 98, 119, 263, 273\n\n  \"Hebrew,\" meaning of the word, 46\n\n  Heinrici, 265\n\n  Heitm\u00fcller, 47, 49, 52, 76-78, 157, 243f., 257-261, 265, 282f.\n\n  Helbig, 46\n\n  \"Hellenist,\" meaning of the word, 46\n\n  Hellenistic age, the:\n    cosmopolitanism in, 220;\n    individualism in, 221;\n    religious propaganda in, 221f.;\n    syncretism in, 222f.;\n    longing for redemption in, 223f.\n\n  Hellenists, the, 302\n\n  Hepding, 227-231, 283\n\n  Hermas, Shepherd of, 242\n\n  Hermes Trismegistus, 242-245, 248f., 261f., 265-267, 285:\n    was it influenced by Christianity, 242f., 247f.;\n    importance of, 243f.;\n    places soul higher than spirit, 248f.;\n    terminology different from Paul's, 265-270\n\n  Hermetic Corpus, 242-245, 277\n\n  Herod Agrippa I, death of, 79\n\n  Hilgenfeld, 90\n\n  Hippolytus, 218, 249f.\n\n  Holstein, 63-65, 76\n\n  Holtzmann, H. J., 22\n\n  Homer, 213f.\n\n\n  \"Illumination,\" the term, 273\n\n  Initiated, to be, use of the verb by Paul, 271f.\n\n  Iren\u00e6us, 89\n\n  Isis, religion of, 8f.\n\n  Isis, mysteries of, 232ff.,\n    had sacramental washings according to Tertullian, 281\n\n  Isis and Osiris, religion of, 231-234\n\n  Izates of Adiabene, 12\n\n\n  James, 94, 98:\n    contact of with Paul, 75, 109-113, 137;\n    men who came from, 101;\n    attitude of, toward Paul, 111f.;\n    attitude of Paul toward, 120ff.;\n    called \"the brother of the Lord,\" 299f.\n\n  Jerome, 44\n\n  Jerusalem Church, the, 293-303:\n    attitude of, toward the Law, 19;\n    relief of the poor of, 99f., 104, 112f.;\n    new principle of the life of, 127;\n    community of goods in, 138;\n    contact of, with Paul, 139;\n    treasured tradition about Jesus, 139;\n    direct influence of, upon Paul, 258f.;\n    use of the term \"Lord\" by, 294-303\n\n  Jesus Christ:\n    historicity of, 5;\n    in what sense founder of the Gentile mission, 13-15;\n    Pauline conception of, 22;\n    deification of, according to modern liberalism, 22-24;\n    Messiahship of, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25;\n    consciousness of sonship, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25;\n    importance of, in the liberal explanation of the origin of\n          Paulinism, 25;\n    Messiahship of, according to Bousset, 29;\n    Lordship of, according to Bousset, 29f.;\n    divinity of, disputed by no one in the Apostolic Age, 129-137;\n    knowledge of, according to Paul, 142-144;\n    words of, in Pauline Epistles, 147-149;\n    details of the life of, known to Paul, 149f.;\n    character of, appreciated by Paul, 150f.;\n    comparison of, with Paul, 153-169;\n    presented Himself as Messiah, 155-158;\n    personal affinity of, with Paul, 165;\n    regarded by Paul as a Redeemer, not as a mere teacher, 167-169\n\n  Jesus Christ, the liberal account of:\n    attested by none of the sources, 155;\n    involves psychological contradiction, 155-158;\n    cannot explain the origin of the belief in the divine Redeemer,\n          158f.\n\n  John, 98, went to Ephesus, 128\n\n  Jones, Maurice, 81\n\n  Josephus, 79, 177, 183\n\n  Jud\u00e6a, Churches of, 50-52, 75f.\n\n  Judaism:\n    missionary activity of, 9-11;\n    prepared for Pauline mission, 10f.;\n    did not produce Christian universalism, 11-13;\n    had no doctrine of the vicarious death of the Messiah, 65, 196ff.;\n    divisions within, 175-177;\n    did not serve as medium for pagan influence upon Paul, 255f.\n\n  Judaism, rabbinical, 176\n\n  Judas, 140\n\n  Judaizers, the, 19, 86, 98, 121, 125f., 128, 131, 135, 278:\n    activity of, subsided during the third missionary journey, 104,\n          107;\n    did not dispute Paul's doctrine of the person of Christ, 129-137\n\n  Judgment, teaching about, both in Jesus and in Paul, 164\n\n  Justification, Pauline idea of:\n    can find no analogy in Hermes Trismegistus, 277;\n    importance of, in Paul's thinking, 277-279;\n    not produced merely as weapon against the Judaizers, 278f.;\n    intimately connected with the doctrine of the new creation, 279\n\n  Justin Martyr, 185, 196, 236, 273, 281\n\n  Juvenal, 227\n\n\n  Kabeiri, the, 219\n\n  Kennedy, H. A. A., 118, 233, 262, 281\n\n  Kingdom of God, same teaching about, in Jesus and in Paul, 160f.\n\n  Knowling, 104, 109, 147, 299\n\n  Koin\u00e9, the, 220\n\n  Krenkel, 44f., 59\n\n  Kroll, J., 242, 244, 249, 269\n\n  Kroll, W., 242, 245\n\n  Kykeon, the, 218, 281\n\n\n  Laborers in the vineyard, parable of the, 164\n\n  Lake, Kirsopp, 12f., 81f., 89, 98\n\n  Lake and Jackson, 186\n\n  Law, the ceremonial, attitude of Jesus toward, 14f.\n\n  Law, the Mosaic:\n    function of, according to Paul, 18;\n    attitude of the early Jerusalem Church toward, 19;\n    observance of, by Jewish Christians, 92f., 101f.;\n    Jewish Christians zealous for, 110;\n    added to, by the Jews, 178;\n    Paul's early zeal for, 256\n\n  Legalism, Jewish, 178-181\n\n  Lexical method of determining questions of dependence, 262\n\n  Liberalism, was not the method of Paul in founding Gentile\n        Christianity, 17\n\n  Liberal Judaism, was not the atmosphere of Paul's boyhood home, 47,\n        256\n\n  Lietzmann, 127\n\n  Lightfoot, J. B., 47, 119\n\n  Lipsius, 72\n\n  Livy, 250\n\n  Loisy, 47, 76, 229, 262\n\n  Lord, the, connected by Paul with the Spirit, 311ff.\n\n  \"Lord,\" the term:\n    applied by Paul to the Jesus who was on earth, 117f.;\n    use of, in primitive Jerusalem Church, 294-303;\n    occurrence of, in the Gospels, 295-298;\n    the Aramaic basis of, 301;\n    received Greek form in Jerusalem, 301f.;\n    not for the first time applied to Jesus at Antioch, 303ff.;\n    use of, in pagan religion, 305f.;\n    use of, in the Septuagint, 307f.\n\n  Lord's Supper, the:\n    account of institution of, 148f., 151f.;\n    was thought by Justin Martyr to be imitated in religion of\n        Mithras, 236;\n    comparison of, with pagan rites, 281-283;\n    not dependent upon pagan notion of eating the god, 282f.\n\n  Lucian, 225, 234f., 241\n\n  Luke, 36f.\n\n  Lycaonia, Apostolic Decree extended into, 94\n\n\n  Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 196\n\n  Magic: affinity of, for the mysteries, 246;\n    difference of, from religion, 246\n\n  Magical papyri, the, 246f.\n\n  \"Mar,\" the term, 300f.\n\n  Maranatha, 300f.\n\n  Marcion, 18\n\n  Marcus Aurelius, 226\n\n  Mark, John, 105, 106, 107;\n    relations of, with Paul and with Peter, 138f.\n\n  Marriage, the sacred, 230\n\n  \"Master,\" the term, applied to Jesus, 308\n\n  Mead, 244\n\n  Meals, sacred, in the mystery religions, 281-283\n\n  Menander, 271\n\n  M\u00e9nard, 244\n\n  Messiah, the:\n    doctrines of, in Old Testament, 181f.;\n    doctrine of, in Judaism, 182ff.;\n    Old Testament basis for later doctrine of, 191;\n    pre-Christian doctrine of, exalted by identification with\n        Jesus, 204\n\n  Messiah, the apocalyptic:\n    was different from the Pauline Christ, 194-199;\n    had no part in creation, 194;\n    had no intimate relation to the believer, 194-197;\n    was not divine, 197-199;\n    what could have led to his identification with Jesus, 205f.\n\n  \"Mind,\" the term, in Hermes Trismegistus, 267f., not produced by\n        philosophical modification of the term \"Spirit\"\n\n  Mind, not the same thing as Spirit in I Cor. ii. 15, 16, 269\n\n  Miracles:\n    objection drawn from accounts of, against Lucan authorship of\n          Acts, 33-37;\n    cannot be separated from the Gospel account of Jesus, 154f.\n\n  Mithras, mysteries of, 236, 256:\n    had sacramental washings according to Tertullian, 281;\n    bread and cup in, 281f.\n\n  Mithras, religion of, 8f., 235-237\n\n  Mithras-liturgy, the so-called, 247, 251, 267\n\n  Mnason, 112\n\n  Mommsen, 46f.\n\n  Montefiore, 176f.\n\n  Morgan, W., 118, 164\n\n  Moulton and Milligan, 281\n\n  Murray, Gilbert, 223\n\n  \"Mystery,\" the term, in Paul, 272f.\n\n  Mystery religions, the, 227ff.:\n    did not produce Gentile Christianity, 8f.;\n    were tolerant of other faiths, 9;\n    information about, in a Naassene writing, 249f.;\n    technical vocabulary of, 262ff.;\n    idea of gnosis in, 262-265;\n    not the source of Paul's doctrine of the Spirit, 270;\n    probably had not dominated many converts of Paul, 273;\n    produced no strong consciousness of sin, 276;\n    did not produce the Pauline teaching about the sacraments, 279-290\n\n  Mysticism, pagan, 239ff.\n\n\n  Naassenes, sect of the, 249f.\n\n  Neutral text, the, 87ff.\n\n\n  Oepke, 264f., 273\n\n  Old Catholic Church, 6, 119f.:\n    founded on unity between Peter and Paul, 104f.\n\n  Olschewski, 194\n\n  Oracula Chaldaica, the, 245f.\n\n  Orphism, 216f.\n\n  Osiris, 229, 231ff., 314f.\n\n\n  Pagan religion:\n    through what channels could it have influenced Paul, 255-261;\n    did it influence Paul directly, 260f.\n\n  Papias, 139\n\n  Parthey, 244.\n\n  Particularism, in the Old Testament, 17\n\n  Pastoral Epistles, the, 31f.\n\n  Paul:\n    testimony of, as to origin of Christianity, 4f.;\n    influence of, 6-21;\n    geographical extent of the labors of, 16f.;\n    importance of the theology of, in foundation of Gentile mission,\n          17-20;\n    in what ways a witness about the origin of Christianity, 21;\n    the genius of, not incompatible with the truth of his witnessing,\n          21;\n    monotheism of, 23;\n    sources of information about, 31-40;\n    birth of, at Tarsus, 43f.;\n    Roman citizenship of, 45f.;\n    Pharisaism of, 46f.;\n    was not a liberal Jew, 47, 175ff.;\n    was in Jerusalem before conversion, 47-53;\n    rabbinical training of, 52f.;\n    did he see Jesus before the conversion, 54-57;\n    knew about Jesus before the conversion, 57f., 66f.;\n    conversion of, 58-68, 145-147, 205, 305;\n    malady of, 58f.;\n    did he have the consciousness of sin before his conversion, 64-66;\n    the conversion of, involved meeting with a person, 67f.;\n    baptism of, 71;\n    at Damascus, 71ff.;\n    went to Arabia, 71-74;\n    escaped from Damascus, 74;\n    rebuked Peter, 97, 102;\n    division of labor with Peter, 99f.;\n    first visit of, to Jerusalem, 74-77;\n    in Syria and Cilicia, 77;\n    at Antioch, 78;\n    famine visit of, to Jerusalem, 78ff.;\n    agreed with Peter in principle, 102, 123f.;\n    relations of, with Peter, 102-105, 137;\n    dispute of, with Barnabas, 105-107;\n    relations of, with Barnabas, 106f., 137f.;\n    relations of, with James, 109-113;\n    participation of, in a Jewish vow, 110f.;\n    has been regarded by the Church as a disciple of Jesus, 117;\n    regarded himself as a disciple of Jesus, 117f.;\n    was regarded as a disciple of Jesus by Jesus' friends, 118-137;\n    attitude of, toward Peter, 120ff.;\n    attitude of, toward James, 120ff.;\n    rebuked Peter, 122-124;\n    had abundant sources of information about Jesus, 137-142;\n    relations of, with Mark, 138f.;\n    contact of, with the original apostles and with the Jerusalem\n          Church, 139;\n    contact of, with Silas, 140;\n    the gospel of, in what sense did he receive it directly from\n          Christ, 145-147;\n    meaning of the conversion of, for him, 145-147;\n    shows knowledge of words of Jesus, 147-149;\n    shows knowledge of details of Jesus' life, 149f.;\n    shows appreciation of Jesus' character, 150f.;\n    knew more about Jesus than he has told in the Epistles, 151-153;\n    comparison of, with Jesus, 153-169;\n    personal affinity of, with Jesus, 165;\n    was not a disciple of \"the liberal Jesus,\" 166-169;\n    his pre-conversion belief about the Messiah, 192-194;\n    was not dependent upon the Jewish apocalypses, 192f.;\n    personal relation of, to Christ, was not derived from mere\n          reflection on the death of the Messiah, 194-197;\n    similarity of, to Jesus, not explained by common dependence on\n          Judaism, 206;\n    the gospel of, was a matter of history, 264f.;\n    how far did he use a terminology derived from the mysteries,\n          271-273\n\n  Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of, 31f.\n\n  Paulinism:\n    required exclusive devotion, 9;\n    was a religion of redemption, 22, 167-169;\n    doctrine of the person of Christ in, was not disputed even by\n          Judaizers, 129-137;\n    was supernaturalistic, 288f.;\n    was not external, 289f.;\n    was individualistic, 309ff.;\n    was not developed from the cult, 309ff.;\n    was personal, 311f., 317;\n    was historical, 316\n\n  Paulinism, the origin of:\n    four ways of explaining, 24ff.;\n    supernaturalistic explanation of, 24;\n    liberal explanation of, 24-26;\n    radical explanations of, 26ff.;\n    found in pre-Christian Judaism by Wrede and Br\u00fcckner, 27f.;\n    found in paganism by Bousset, 30;\n    not really explained by development from the liberal Jesus,\n          117-169;\n    not really explained by Judaism, 173-207;\n    not really explained by paganism, 211-317\n\n  Persephone, 218\n\n  Personality, idea of, 202f.\n\n  Peter:\n    received Cornelius, 16;\n    with Paul in Jerusalem, 75-77;\n    at Antioch, 97-106;\n    rebuked by Paul, 97, 102, 122-124;\n    division of labor with Paul, 99f.;\n    relations of, with Paul, 102-105;\n    attitude of Paul toward, 120ff.;\n    agreed with Paul in principle, 123f.;\n    not in harmony with Ebionism, 125f.;\n    went to Rome, 127f.;\n    contact with Paul, 137;\n    relations of, with Mark, 139\n\n  Pharisaism, not influenced by pagan religion, 255f.\n\n  Pharisees, the, 177\n\n  Philemon, Epistle to, 31\n\n  Philippians, Epistle to the, 31, 104\n\n  Philo, 183, 250f.:\n    use of term \"Spirit\" by, due to Old Testament, 268\n\n  Philosophy:\n    undermined the religion of Greece, 219;\n    practical interest of, in the Hellenistic age, 224ff.\n\n  Plato, 224f., 275\n\n  Plooij, 81\n\n  Plutarch, 231, 236\n\n  Poimandres, the, 242-245\n\n  Posidonius, 225, 250\n\n  Princeton Biblical Studies, 7, 17, 37, 117\n\n  _Princeton Theological Review_, 37, 78, 155\n\n  Psalms of Solomon, 190, 193\n\n  Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 182\n\n  Ptolemy 1, 231\n\n  Pythagoreanism, 217\n\n\n  Ramsay, 45, 56, 81\n\n  Rationalizing, revived by Torrey and others, 34\n\n  Redemption:\n    Paulinism a religion of, 22, 167-169;\n    was desired in the Hellenistic age, 223f.;\n    value of, 224;\n    in pagan religion and in Paul, 255-279;\n    idea of, in Hellenistic age, 274ff.;\n    idea of, not an abnormal thing, 275;\n    Pauline conception of, was not derived from pagan cults, 274ff.;\n    Pauline idea of, involves salvation from sin, 276f.\n\n  Regeneration:\n    in pagan religion, 230, 233, 240f., 244f.;\n    associated, in Paul, with justification, 279\n\n  Reitzenstein, R., 242-244, 246, 248ff., 274, 277, 262-280\n\n  Religion and theology:\n    union of, according to Wrede, 27;\n    separation of, according to the liberal hypothesis, 25f.;\n    not to be separated in Paul, 166ff.\n\n  Revelation, Book of, 120\n\n  Ritschl, A., 6, 38f., 119f., 125\n\n  Ritschlian theology, the, 23\n\n  Rohde, 212, 223\n\n  Romans, Epistle to the:\n    genuineness of, 31;\n    date of, 81f.;\n    can it be used in the reconstruction of the pre-Pauline\n          Christianity of Damascus and Antioch, 259\n\n  Rome, Church at, 16\n\n  Rome, the native religion of, 212f.\n\n\n  Sabazius, 215\n\n  Sacraments, the Pauline:\n    were not derived from the mystery religions, 279-290;\n    did not convey blessing _ex opere operato_, 283-288;\n    were outward signs of an inner experience, 286f.\n\n  Sadducees, the, 177\n\n  Samothrace, the mysteries of, 219\n\n  Sch\u00fcrer, 23, 65, 79, 156, 180, 183, 186, 190, 196\n\n  Seneca, 226\n\n  Septuagint, importance of the, 307f.\n\n  Serapis, religion of, 232ff.\n\n  Servant coming in from the field, parable of the, 164\n\n  Sethe, 281\n\n  Showerman, 227, 231\n\n  Sieffert, 72\n\n  Silas, 16:\n    contact of, with Paul, 140;\n    was member of the Jerusalem Church, 140\n\n  Sin, consciousness of: in Judaism, 178-181;\n    in Paul, 276f.\n\n  Smith, W. B., 294\n\n  Solomon, Psalms of, 184\n\n  Son of Man, the:\n    in I Enoch, 181, 186ff.;\n    origin and meaning of the title, 187ff.;\n    idea of, dominated the early Jerusalem Church, according to\n          Bousset, 293f., 298\n\n  Soul:\n    placed higher than spirit in Hermes Trismegistus and lower than\n          Spirit in Paul, 248f., 267f.;\n    conception of the, in Paul, 266ff.\n\n  Spirit:\n    placed lower than soul in Hermes Trismegistus and (when the word\n          designates the Spirit of God) higher than soul in Paul,\n          248f., 267f.;\n    no evidence of popular pagan use of the term analogous to Pauline\n          usage, 267-270;\n    Greek materialistic use of the term, 267;\n    use of the term in Philo shows influence of the Old Testament, 268;\n    use of the term in Gnosticism due to dependence on New Testament,\n          268f.;\n    use of the term in Menander, 270\n\n  Spirit, Pauline conception of the, 265-271:\n    different from that in mystery religions, 265, 270;\n    does not make the divine Spirit take the place of the human soul,\n          266;\n    has roots in the Old Testament, 270f.;\n    brings enrichment of Old Testament teaching, 270;\n    not derived from paganism, 310;\n    Bousset's view of, 310ff.\n\n  \"Spiritual man:\"\n    contrast with \"psychic man,\" 265-270;\n    the term not in accord with the terminology of Hermes\n          Trismegistus, 266ff.\n\n  Stephen, 16, 19, 66\n\n  Stob\u00e6us, 242\n\n  Stoics, the:\n    humanitarian achievements of, 225f.;\n    humanitarian ideal of, differed from Christian ideal, 225f.\n\n  Strauss, 34\n\n  Supernaturalism in Paul's religion, 288f.\n\n  Syncretism, 222f., 237ff., 262\n\n  Syria:\n    religion of, 77;\n    use of the term \"Lord\" in, 300\n\n  Syria and Cilicia, 77:\n    the Apostolic Decree addressed to, 94ff.\n\n\n  Tammuz, 234\n\n  Tarsus, 43f., 77:\n    did not bring pagan influences effectively to bear upon Paul,\n          256f.;\n    Christianity of, did it originate application of the term \"Lord\"\n          to Jesus, 299\n\n  Taurobolium, 230f., 240f., 251\n\n  \"Teleios,\" the term, in Paul, 272f.\n\n  Terminology, not necessarily important as establishing dependence in\n        ideas, 272\n\n  Terminology of the mysteries, the technical, does not appear in the\n        New Testament, 273\n\n  Tertullian, 281\n\n  Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 190\n\n  Thessalonians, Epistles to the, 31, 82\n\n  Thrace, religion of, 215f.\n\n  Titus, 83\n\n  Torrey, C. C., 34\n\n  Townshend, 196\n\n  Tradition, Paul not indifferent toward, 142-153\n\n  Trypho, Dialogue with, 185, 196\n\n  T\u00fcbingen School, the, 31, 37, 99, 108f., 110\n\n\n  Vegetation gods, 235\n\n  Vespasian, 183\n\n  Volz, 190\n\n  Vos, Geerhardus, 266, 295\n\n\n  Warfield, B. B., 198, 306\n\n  Weber, 81\n\n  Weiss, B., 72\n\n  Weiss, J., 40, 56, 85, 107, 125, 152, 154, 156, 314\n\n  Wellhausen, 52, 138\n\n  Wendland, 212\n\n  Wendt, 94f.\n\n  Wernle, 312\n\n  Westcott and Hort, 89\n\n  Western text, the, 88ff.\n\n  Wicked husbandmen, parable of, 15\n\n  Windisch, H., 199-204, 243\n\n  Wisdom, in Pauline Epistles, not identified with Christ, 203f.\n\n  Wisdom, in pre-Christian Judaism:\n    will not account for the Pauline Christology, 199-204;\n    is active in creation, 200;\n    enters into the wise men, 200;\n    is not expected to appear at a definite time, 200f.;\n    is not identified with the Messiah, 201-204;\n    is not fully personal, 202f.\n\n  Wisdom of Solomon, 200\n\n  Witkowski, 280\n\n  Wrede, W., 26-28, 67, 156, 166, 172-199, 204-207, 278, 317\n\n\n  Zahn, Th., 44, 53, 72, 90, 119, 302\n\n  Zeller, E., 37\n\n  Zielinski, 242\n\n\n\nII BIBLICAL PASSAGES\n\n\n\n\n  OLD TESTAMENT\n\n  Psalms--\n    li. 11, 270f.\n    cx. 1, 296\n    cx. 3 (lxx), 201\n\n  Proverbs--\n    viii, 199f.\n\n  Isaiah--\n    ix, 191\n    xi, 191\n    liii, 63, 65, 181\n    lxv. 17, 191\n\n  Ezekiel--\n    viii. 14, 234\n\n  Daniel--\n    vii. 13, 188, 191\n    vii. 18, 191\n\n  Micah--\n    v. 2 (lxx), 201\n\n\n  NEW TESTAMENT\n\n  Matthew--\n    v. 45, 162\n    vii. 21, 296\n    xxi. 41, 15\n    xxviii. 19, 20, 14\n\n  Mark--\n    iii. 7, 8, 51\n    vii. 15, 15\n    x. 45, 154, 159\n    xi. 3, 297\n    xii. 35-37, 296\n\n  Luke--\n    iii. 15, 184\n    vi. 35, 162\n    vi. 46, 296\n\n  John--\n    i. 19-27, 184\n    vi, 282\n\n  Acts--\n    ii. 36, 295\n    iv. 36, 37, 137f.\n    vi. 1, 46, 302\n    vii. 56, 298\n    vii. 58-viii. 1, 47\n    ix. 1, 47\n    ix. 10-19, 71\n    ix. 19, 72\n    ix. 22, 72\n    ix. 23, 72\n    ix. 26-30, 73, 74-76\n    ix. 27, 75\n    ix. 28, 51\n    x. 41, 35\n    xi. 19-30, 79\n    xi. 26, 78\n    xi. 30, 78ff.\n    xii, 78\n    xii. 1-17, 138\n    xii. 25, 78ff.\n    xiii-xiv, 97\n    xv, 39, 140\n    xv. 1-29, 80-100, 139\n    xv. 19, 20, 87\n    xv. 21, 92\n    xv. 23, 94\n    xv. 27, 140\n    xv. 28, 29, 87-98\n    xvi. 4, 94\n    xxi. 17, 109, 112\n    xxi. 20-26, 11Of.\n    xxi. 20-22, 113\n    xxi. 20, 110\n    xxi. 25, 87, 91\n    xxi. 26, 110\n    xxii. 3, 47\n    xxii. 12-16, 71\n    xxii. 17-21, 49, 74\n    xxiii. 6, 46f.\n    xxiii. 16-22, 49\n    xxiv. 17, 112\n    xxvi. 14, 60-62\n\n  Romans--\n    i. 7, 82\n    vi, 284, 286f.\n    vi. 4, 286\n    vi. 7, 277\n    vii, 63ff.\n    vi. 7-25, 65f.\n    viii. 16, 266\n    viii. 30, 277\n    ix. 5, 198\n    xiv, 93\n    xiv. 17, 161\n    xv. 2, 3, 150\n    xv. 8, 149\n    xv. 31, 112f.\n    xvi, 141\n    xvi. 7, 140f.\n\n  1 Corinthians--\n    i-iv, 108\n    i. 12, 107f., 109, 120\n    i. 17, 285\n    i. 23, 314f.\n    i. 24, 203\n    i. 30, 203\n    ii. 6, 7, 272f.\n    ii. 8, 117f.\n    ii. 14, 15, 265-267\n    ii. 15, 16, 269\n    iii. 21, 22, 109\n    iii. 22, 104\n    vi. 9, 160\n    vii. 10, 147\n    vii. 12, 147\n    vii. 25, 147\n    viii, 93\n    viii. 5, 6, 305f.\n    viii. 6, 194\n    ix. 5, 104\n    ix. 6, 106\n    ix. 14, 147\n    ix. 19-22, 92f., 110\n    ix. 20, 111\n    ix. 22, 260\n    x. 16, 282\n    x. 20, 283\n    x. 21, 282f.\n    x. 32-xi. 1, 151\n    xi. 1, 150\n    xi. 23ff., 148f., 151f.\n    xi. 23, 149\n    xi. 30, 288\n    xii. 8, 263\n    xiii, 66\n    xiv. 37, 147\n    xv. 1-11, 104, 124f., 144f.\n    xv. 1-8, 316\n    xv. 1-7, 258f.\n    xv. 3-8, 35\n    xv. 3-7, 76\n    xv. 3, 144f., 149\n    xv. 4, 149\n    xv. 5, 77, 104\n    xv. 11, 77, 104, 109\n    xv. 29, 288\n    xv. 50, 161\n    xvi. 22, 300f.\n\n  2 Corinthians--\n    iii. 1, 108\n    iii. 17, 311\n    v. 16, 54-56, 130f., 142-144\n    viii. 9, 150\n    x-xiii, 107, 109, 131f.\n    x. 1, 150\n    xi. 4-6, 131-135\n    xi. 5, 108f., 133\n    xi. 13, 109\n    xi. 19, 20, 134\n    xi. 22, 46\n    xi. 25, 45\n    xii. 1-8, 59f.\n    xii. 2-4, 264\n    xii. 11, 108f.\n\n  Galatians--\n    i-ii, 144-147\n    i. 1, 199\n    i. 14, 47\n    i. 16, 17, 74\n    i. 16, 71\n    i. 17, 50\n    i. 18, 19, 74-76, 84, 300\n    i. 18, 79\n    i. 19, 75, 299f.\n    i. 22, 50-52, 75\n    i. 23, 52\n    ii. 1-10, 78-100, 104, 121f., 139\n    ii. 1, 84, 137\n    ii. 2, 120ff.\n    ii. 6, 87, 95, 120ff.\n    ii. 9, 100, 104, 120ff.\n    ii. 10, 99f.\n    ii. 11-21, 87, 93, 100-106, 122-124\n    ii. 11-13, 97\n    ii. 14-21, 123f.\n    ii. 19, 103\n    ii. 20, 150\n    ii. 21, 279\n    iii. 1, 149f.\n    iii. 2, 287\n    iii. 5, 271f.\n    iii. 27, 287\n    iv. 14, 59f.\n    v. 19-21, 160\n    vi. 3, 121\n\n  Philippians--\n    ii. 5ff., 150\n    ii. 10, 11, 118\n    iii. 2ff., 104\n    iii. 5, 46, 47\n    iv. 12, 271f.\n\n  Colossians--\n    i. 16, 194\n    ii. 12, 284\n    iv. 10, 11, 107\n    iv. 10, 105f., 138\n\n  1 Thessalonians--\n    i. 6, 151\n    iv. 15, 147f.\n\n  1 Timothy--\n    i. 13, 61\n\n  2 Timothy--\n    iv. 11, 106\n\n  Philemon--\n    24, 105, 107, 138\n\n  1 Peter--\n    v. 13, 105, 139\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been\nretained except in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.\n\nPage 24: \"customary and then use it in distinction\"-- The\ntranscriber has replaced \"than\" with \"then\".\n\nPage 307: In footnote 233 the transcriber has replaced the scrambled\nGreek letters \"ot\u00easdesp\" with \"despot\u00eas\".","title":"The Origin of Paul's Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":124796}