The great majority of critics agree that the direct and natural sense must be adopted: "to reveal his son in me," that is to say, "within me,"
"in my spirit."(3) Others maintain that [------] must be
{501}
rendered "through me,"(1) giving [------] the sense of [------]; but in that case the following context would be quite unnecessary.
Hilgenfeld(2) thinks that the meaning is "in his person;" and Ruckert(3) and a few others read "to me." The liberties taken by interpreters of the New Testament with the preposition [------], too frequently from preconceived dogmatic reasons, are remarkable. The importance of this pa.s.sage chiefly lies in the question whether the revelation here referred to is the same as the appearance to him of Jesus of the Corinthian letter. Some critics incline to the view that it is so,(4) whilst others consider that Paul does not thus speak of his vision, but rather of the doctrine concerning Jesus which formed his Gospel, and which Paul claimed to have received, not from man, but by revelation from G.o.d.(5) Upon this point we have only a few remarks to make. If it be understood that Paul refers to the appearance to him of Jesus, it is clear that he represents it in these words as a subjective vision, within his own consciousness. If, on the other hand, he do not refer to the appearance, then the pa.s.sage loses all distinct reference to that occurrence. We do not intend to lay any further stress upon the expression than this, and it is fair to add that we do not think there is any special reference to the apparition of Jesus in the
{502}
pa.s.sage, but simply an allusion to his conversion to Christianity, which the Apostle considered a revelation in his mind of the true character and work of the Christ which had previously been so completely misunderstood by him. We may as well say at once that we desire to take the argument in its broadest form, without wasting time by showing that Paul himself uses language which seems to indicate that he recognised the appearance of Jesus to have been merely subjective. The only other pa.s.sage which we need now mention is the account which Paul gives, 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff, of his being caught up to the third heaven. A few critics consider that this may be the occasion on which Jesus appeared to him, to which he refers in the pa.s.sage of the former letter which we are considering,(1) but the great majority are opposed to the supposition. In any case there is no evidence that the occasions are identical, and we therefore are not ent.i.tled to a.s.sume that they are so.
It will have been observed that we have hitherto confined our attention wholly to the undoubted writings of Paul. Were there no other reason than the simple fact that we are examining the evidence of Paul himself, and have, therefore, to do with that evidence alone, we should be thoroughly justified in this course. It is difficult to clear the mind of statements regarding Paul and his conversion which are made in the Acts of the Apostles, but it is absolutely essential that we should understand clearly what Paul himself tells us and what he does not, for the present totally excluding Acts. What then does Paul himself tell us of the circ.u.mstances under which he saw Jesus?
{503}
Absolutely nothing. The whole of his evidence for the Resurrection consists in the bare statement that he did see Jesus. Now can the fact that any man merely affirms, without even stating the circ.u.mstances, that a person once dead and buried has risen from the dead and been seen by him, be seriously considered satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle? Is it possible for any one of sober mind, acquainted with the nature of the proposition, on the one hand, and with the innumerable possibilities of error, on the other, to regard such an affirmation even as evidence of much importance in such a matter? We venture to say that, in such a case, an affirmation of this nature, even made by a man of high character and ability, would possess little weight. If the person making it, although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself the subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he had a const.i.tutional tendency to nervous excitement and ecstatic trance, his evidence would have no weight at all. We shall presently have to speak of this more in detail in connection with Paul. Such an allegation even supported by the fullest information and most circ.u.mstantial statement could not establish the reality of the miracle; without them, it has no claim to belief. What is the value of a person"s testimony who simply makes an affirmation of some important matter, unaccompanied by particulars, and the truth of which cannot be subjected to the test of even the slightest cross-examination? It is worth nothing. It would not be received at all in a Court of Justice. If we knew the whole of the circ.u.mstances of the apparition to Paul, from which he inferred that he had seen the risen Jesus, the natural explanation of the supposed miracle might be
{504}
easy. There were no other witnesses of it. This is clear; for, had there been, Paul must have mentioned them as he mentioned the five hundred.
We have only the report of a man who states that he had seen.Jesus, unconfirmed by any witnesses. Under no circ.u.mstances could isolated evidence like this be ol much value. Facts and inferences are alike uncorroborated, but on the other hand are contradicted by universal experience.
When we a.n.a.lyse the evidence, it is reduced to this: Paul believed that he had seen Jesus. This belief const.i.tutes the whole evidence of Paul himself for the Resurrection. It is usual to argue that the powerful effect which this belief produced upon Paul"s life and teaching renders this belief of extraordinary force as evidence. This we are not prepared to admit. If the a.s.sertion that Jesus appeared to him had not been believed by Paul, it would not have secured a moment"s attention. That this belief affected his life was the inevitable consequence of such belief. Paul eminently combined works with faith in his own life. When he believed Jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself with sneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted his followers.
When he came to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he was not more inactive, but became the irrepressible Apostle of the Gentiles. He acted upon his convictions in both cases; but his mere persecution of Christianity no more proved Jesus to be an impostor than his mere preaching of Christianity proved Jesus to be the Messiah. It only proved that he believed so. He was as earnest in the one case as in the other.
We repeat, therefore, that the evidence of Paul for the Resurrection amounts to
{505}
nothing more than the unfeigned belief that Jesus had been seen by him.
We shall presently further examine the value of this belief as evidence for so astounding a miracle.
We must not form exaggerated conceptions of the effect upon Paul of the appearance to him of Jesus. That his convictions and views of Christianity were based upon the reality of the Resurrection is undeniable, and that they received powerful confirmation and impulse through his vision of Jesus is also not to be doubted, but let us clear our minds of representations derived from other sources and clearly understand what Paul himself does and does not say of this vision, and for this purpose we must confine ourselves to the undoubted writings of the Apostle. Does Paul himself ascribe his conversion to Christianity to the fact of his having seen Jesus? Most certainly not. That is a notion derived solely from the statements in Acts. The sudden and miraculous conversion of Paul is a product of the same pen which produced the story of the sudden conversion of the thief on the cross, an episode equally unknown to other writers. Paul neither savs when nor where he saw Jesus.
The revelation of G.o.d"s Son in him not being an allusion to this vision of Jesus, but merely a reference to the light which dawned upon Paul"s mind as to the character and mission of Jesus, there is no ground whatever, from the writings of the Apostle himself, to connect the appearance of Jesus with the conversion of Paul. The statement in the Epistle to the Galatians simply amounts to this: When it pleased him who elected him from his mother"s womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal to his mind the truth concerning his Son, that he might preach
{506}
him among the Gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before him, but immediately went away to Arabia, and after that returned again to Damascus. It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here refers to his change of views--to his conversion--but as little can it be doubted that he does not ascribe that conversion to the appearance to him of Jesus spoken of in the Corinthian letter.
Let any reader who honestly desires to ascertain the exact position of the case ask himself the simple question whether, supposing the Acts of the Apostles never to have existed, it is possible to deduce from this, or any other statement of Paul, that he actually ascribes his conversion to the fact that Jesus appeared to him in a supernatural manner. He may possibly in some degree base his apostolic claims upon that appearance, although it may be doubted how far he does even this; if he did so, it would only prove the reality of his belief, but not the reality of the vision; but there is no evidence whatever in the writings of Paul that he connected his conversion with the appearance of Jesus. All that we can legitimately infer seems to be that, before his adoption of Christianity, he had persecuted the Church;(1) and further it may be gathered from the pa.s.sage in the Galatian letter, that at the time when this change occurred he. was at Damascus. At least he says that from Arabia he "returned again to Damascus," which seems to imply that he first went from that city to Arabia. When we consider the expressions in the two letters, it becomes apparent that Paul does not set forth any instantaneous conversion of the
{507}
character related elsewhere. To the Galatians he describes his election from his mother"s womb and call by the grace of G.o.d as antecedent to the revelation of his Son in him: "When he who separated me from my mother"s womb and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles," &c. And if the reading "through me" be adopted, the sense we are pointing out becomes still more apparent. In the Corinthian letter again, the expressions should be remarked: v. 8. "And last of all he was seen by me also, as the one born out of due time. 9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of G.o.d: 10. but by the grace of G.o.d I am what I am: and his grace which was (bestowed) upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of G.o.d with me. 11. Whether, therefore, it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."(1) Peter sees Jesus first, Paul sees him last; and as the thought uppermost in his mind in writing this epistle was the parties in the Corinthian Church, and the opposition to himself and denial even of his apostleship, the mention of his having seen Jesus immediately leads him to speak of his apostolic claims. "Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he had just before exclaimed, and proceeded to defend himself against his opponents: here again he reverts to the same
508}{
subject, with proud humility calling himself, on the one hand, "the least of the Apostles," but, on the other, a.s.serting that he had "laboured more than they all." He is led to contrast his past life with his present; the time when he persecuted the Church with that in which he built it up. There is, however, no allusion to any miraculous conversion when he says: "by the grace of G.o.d I am what I am." He may consider his having seen the Lord and become a witness of his resurrection one part of his qualification for the Apostolate, but a.s.suredly he does not represent this as the means of his conversion.
We shall not pause to discuss at length how far being a witness for the resurrection really was made a necessary qualification for the apostolic office. The pa.s.sages, Luke xxiv. 48, Acts i. 22, ii. 32, upon which the theory mainly rests, are not evidence of the fact which can for a moment be accepted. It is obvious that the Twelve were apostles from having been chosen disciples of the Master from the commencement of his active career, and not from any fortuitous circ.u.mstance at its close. If Paul says: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he continues: "Are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle unto others, yet I am at least to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. My defence to them that examine me is this."(1) There can be no doubt that the claims of Paul to the Apostolate were, during his life, constantly denied, and his authority rejected. As we have elsewhere pointed out, there is no evidence that his apostleship was ever recognised by the elder Apostles, nor that his claim was ever submitted to them. Even in the
{509}
second century, the Clementine Homilies deny him the honour, and make light of his visions and revelations. All the evidence we possess shows that Paul"s vision of Jesus did not secure for him much consideration in his own time, a circ.u.mstance which certainly does not tend to establish its reality.
What weight can we, then, attach to the representation in the Acts of the Apostles of the conversion of Paul? Our examination of that work has sufficiently shown that none of its statements can be received as historical. Where we have been able to compare them with the epistles of Paul, they have not been in agreement. Nothing could be more obvious than the contradiction between the narrative of Paul"s conduct after his conversion, according to Acts, and the account which Paul gives in the Galatian letter. We need not repeat the demonstration here. Where we possess the means of comparison, we discover the inaccuracy of Acts. Why should we suppose that which we cannot compare more accurate? So far as our argument is concerned, it matters very little whether we exclude the narrative of the conversion of Acts or not. We point out, however, that there is no confirmation whatever in the writings of Paul of the representation of his conversion by means of a vision of Jesus, which, upon all considerations, may much more reasonably be a.s.signed to a somewhat later period. If we ventured to conjecture, we should say that the author of Acts has expanded the scattered sayings of Paul into this narrative, making the miraculous conversion by a personal interposition of Jesus, which he therefore relates no less than three times, counterbalance the disadvantage of his not having followed Jesus in the
{510}
flesh.(1) It is curious that he has introduced the bare statement into the third Synoptic, that Jesus "was seen by Simon" [------],(2) which none of the other evangelists mentions, but which he may have found, without farther particulars, [------], in the Epistle whence he derived, perhaps, materials for the other story. In no case can the narrative in Acts be received as evidence of the slightest value; but in order not to pa.s.s over even such statements in silence, we shall very briefly examine it.
The narrative is repeated thrice: in the first instance (ix. 1 ff.) as a historical account of the transaction; next (xxii. 4 if.) introduced into a speech supposed to be delivered by Paul to the Jews when taken prisoner in consequence of their uproar on finding him in the Temple purifying himself with the four men who had a vow,--a position which cannot historically be reconciled with the character and views of Paul; and, thirdly, again put into the mouth of the Apostle (xxvi. 9 ff.) when he pleads his cause before King Agrippa. Paul is represented in the headlong career of persecuting the Church, and going with letters from the high priest empowering him to bring Christian men and women bound unto Jerusalem. "And as he journeyed, it came to pa.s.s that he drew nigh to Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of the heaven, and he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying unto him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."(3) In the second account, there is so far
{511}
no very wide discrepancy, but there, as in the third, the time is said to be about noon. There is a very considerable difference in the third account, however, more especially in the report of what is said by the voice: xxvi. 13. "At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and those journeying with me; 14. And when we all fell to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against p.r.i.c.ks. 15.
And I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16. But rise and stand upon thy feet; for I was seen by thee for this purpose, to choose thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou sawest, and of the things in which I will appear unto thee; 17. delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee; 18. to open their eyes, that they may turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto G.o.d, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."(1)
{512}
It will be admitted that this address is widely different from that reported in the two earlier accounts. Apologists argue that, in this third narrative, Paul has simply transferred from Ananias to Jesus the message delivered to him by the former, according to the second account.
Let us first see what Ananias is there represented as saying. Acts xxii.
14: "And he said: The G.o.d of our fathers chose thee, to know his will and to see the Righteous One"(1) 15. for thou shalt be a witness to him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." (2) Now Paul clearly professes in the speech which he is represented as delivering before Agrippa to state what the voice said to him: "And he said," "and I said," "and he said," distinctly convey the meaning that the report is to be what actually was said. If the sense of what Ananias said to him is embodied in part of the address ascribed to the voice, it is strangely altered and put into the first person; but, beyond this, there is much added which neither appears in the speech of Ananias nor anywhere else in any of the narratives. If we further compare the instructions given to Ananias in the vision of the first narrative with his words in the second and those ascribed to the voice in the third, we shall see that these again differ very materially. Acts ix. 15. "But the Lord said unto him: Go; for this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel: 16. For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name"s sake."(3)
1 It will be remembered that this epithet occurs in Acts iii. 14, vii. 52, and nowhere else in the New Testament.
{513}
What must we think of a writer who deals so freely with his materials, and takes such liberties even with so serious a matter as this heavenly vision and the words of the glorified Jesus?
In the third account, Jesus is represented as saying: "It is hard for thee to kick against p.r.i.c.ks."(1) This is a well-known proverbial saying, frequently used by cla.s.sical Greek and Latin authors,(2) and not altogether strange to Hebrew. It is a singularly anthropomorphic representation to put such a saying into the mouth of the divine apparition, and it a.s.sists in betraying the mundane origin of the whole scene. Another point deserving consideration is, that Paul is not told what he is to do by the voice of Jesus, but is desired to go into the city to be there instructed by Ananias. This is clearly opposed to Paul"s own repeated a.s.severations. "For neither did I receive it from man nor was taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,"(3) is his statement. The details of the incident itself, moreover, are differently stated in the various accounts and cannot be reconciled.
According to the first account, the companions of Paul "stood speechless" (ix. 7); in the third, they "all fell to the earth" (xxvi.
14). The explanation, that they first fell to the ground and then rose up, fails
{514}
satisfactorily to harmonise the two statements; as does likewise the suggestion that the first expression is simply an idiomatic mole of saying that they were speechless, independent of position. Then again, in the first account, it is said that the men stood speechless, "hearing the voice [------] but seeing no one."" In the second we are told: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light; but they heard not the voice [------] of him speaking to me."(2) No two statements could be more contradictory. The attempt to reconcile them by explaining the verb [------] in the one place "to hear" and in the other "to understand"
is inadmissible, because wholly arbitrary. It is quite obvious that the word is used in the same sense in both pa.s.sages, the difference being merely the negative. In the third account, the voice is described as speaking "in the Hebrew tongue,"(3) which was probably the native tongue of the companions of Paul from Jerusalem. If they heard the voice speaking Hebrew, they must have understood it The effort to make the vision clearly objective, and, at the same time, to confine it to Paul, leads to these complications. The voice is heard, though the speaker is not seen, by the men, in the one story, whilst the light is seen, and the voice not heard, in the other, and yet it speaks in Hebrew according to the third, and even makes use of cla.s.sical proverbs, and uses language wondrously similar to that of the author of Acts.
We may remark here that Paul"s Gospel was certainly not revealed to him upon this occasion; and, therefore, the expressions in his epistles upon this subject must be referred to other revelations. There is, however,
{515}
another curious point to be observed. Paul is not described as having actually seen Jesus in the vision. According to the first two accounts, a light shines round about him and he falls to the ground and hears a voice; when he rises he is blind.(1) If in the third account, he sees the light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining round about him and his companions,(2) they equally see it, according to the second account.(3) The blindness, therefore, is miraculous and symbolic, for the men are not blinded by the light.(4) It is singular that Paul nowhere refers to this blindness in his letters. It cannot be doubted that the writer"s purpose is to symbolise the very change from darkness to light, in the case of Paul, which, after Old Testament prophecies, is referred to in the words ascribed, in the third account,(5) to the voice. Paul, thus, only sees the light which surrounds the glorified Jesus, but not his own person, and the identification proceeds only from the statement: "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." It is true that the expression is strangely put into the mouth of Jesus, in the third account: "for I was seen by thee [------] for this purpose," &c,(6) but the narrative excludes the actual sight of the speaker, and it is scarcely possible to read the words just quoted, and their context, without being struck by their incongruity. We need not indicate the sources of this representation of light shrouding the heavenly vision, so common in the Old Testament. Before proceeding to the rest of the account, we may point out in pa.s.sing the similarity of the details of this scene to the vision of Daniel x. 7-9.
{516}
Returning, however, to the first narrative, we are told that, about the same time as this miracle was occurring to Paul, a supernatural communication was being made to Ananias in Damascus: ix. 10. "And to him said the Lord in a vision: Ananias. And he said, Behold I am here, Lord. 11. And the Lord said unto him: Rise and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus; for, behold he prayeth; 12. and he saw a man named Ananias who came in and put his hand on him that he might receive sight. 13. But Ananias answered, Lord, I heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he did to thy saints in Jerusalem: 14. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15. But the Lord said, Go, &c. (quoted above). 17. And Ananias went away, and entered into the house; and having put his hands on him said: Brother Saul, the Lord hath sent me, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way by which thou earnest, that thou mightest receive sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales; and he received sight, rose up, and was baptized, and having taken food was strengthened." We have already had occasion to point out, in connection with the parallelism kept up in Acts between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostle of the Circ.u.mcision, that a similar double vision is narrated by the author as occurring to Peter and Cornelius. Some further vision is referred to in v. 12; for in no form of the narrative of Paul"s vision on the way to Damascus is he represented as seeing a man named Ananias coming to him for the purpose described. Many questions are